Send Fighter Jets To The Ukraine.

[KissMy]

That's not much of an admission. Many countries often experience recessions. No doubt he also blamed their recession on the U.S. And I heard what I think was his top diplomat at some event where he said that the Ukraine attacked Russia. Lots of the people in the audience openly laughed at him.

Putin ally Belarus Lukashenko has now turned against Russia.

 

[KissMy]

 

[dimensional]

But if they used one thousand of nukes - there are pretty good chances to left the situation scot-free (and, may be, even get Alaska and California). Anyway, there is a price of victory and there is the price of defeat. Right now the Russians believe that the price of potential defeat is much more terrible than the price of victory.

A thousand nukes? Are you hallucinating. Just using one nuke would probably unleash them all. Also, even though over the years there have been many nuke tests done, I have heard that it would only take 7 nukes going off all at once to plunge the world into a nuclear winter. Also, if the Russians think that being defeated in the Ukraine would be worse than the whole world being destroyed, they sure as hell aren't playing with a full deck.

 

[dimensional]

Putin ally Belarus Lukashenko has now turned against Russia.

Haven't heard about that on the news.

 

[KissMy]

Haven't heard about that on the news.

You are uninformed.

Reuters

March 31 (Reuters) - Russia said on Friday that a ceasefire in Ukraine would not enable it to achieve the goals of its "special military operation" at the moment.

The Kremlin was reacting after Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko - Russia's closest ally - called for an immediate ceasefire, without preconditions, and for both Moscow and Kyiv to start negotiations on a lasting peace settlement.

 

[Silver Cat]

A thousand nukes? Are you hallucinating. Just using one nuke would probably unleash them all.

One thousand nukes would probably destroy almost all American nukes (may be, except for few Ohio's, may be not). And then the POTUS will face the choice:
a) retaliate, kill less than one million of Russians, and then, their third (counter-value) strike will probably destroy the USA (and 90% of its population).
b) surrender on more or less acceptable terms.

Also, even though over the years there have been many nuke tests done, I have heard that it would only take 7 nukes going off all at once to plunge the world into a nuclear winter.

It's totally wrong. The whole theory of "Nuclear winter" is a pseudo-scietific nonsense, and even in this theory it demands burning cities, not forests. Anyway, even three years without summer is pretty acceptable price of victory for the Russians.

Also, if the Russians think that being defeated in the Ukraine would be worse than the whole world being destroyed, they sure as hell aren't playing with a full deck.

They do not care about the "whole world" at all. They do care about Russia and Russians. And to lose one million of Russians (in the realistic scenario of the victory in a nuclear war) is, from their point of view, much better than allow Nazies to kill all Russians (in the pessimistic scenario of defeat in the conventional war).
You see, Ukraine is not "Russian Vietnam/Afghanistan". It is not even "Russian Cuba" or "Russian Mexico". It's much more close to "Russian Canada" or even "Russian Confederation". It is an existencial conflict for them and, therefore, the price of victory does not matter.

 

[Silver Cat]

Putin ally Belarus Lukashenko has now turned against Russia.

Actually, they are playing "good cop/bad cop".

 

[dimensional]

You are uninformed.

Reuters

I guess I am uninformed on that because they never mentioned it in the news. But there's no reason to be nasty about it.

 

[dimensional]

One thousand nukes would probably destroy almost all American nukes (may be, except for few Ohio's, may be not). And then the POTUS will face the choice:
a) retaliate, kill less than one million of Russians, and then, their third (counter-value) strike will probably destroy the USA (and 90% of its population).
b) surrender on more or less acceptable terms.



It's totally wrong. The whole theory of "Nuclear winter" is a pseudo-scietific nonsense, and even in this theory it demands burning cities, not forests. Anyway, even three years without summer is pretty acceptable price of victory for the Russians.



They do not care about the "whole world" at all. They do care about Russia and Russians. And to lose one million of Russians (in the realistic scenario of the victory in a nuclear war) is, from their point of view, much better than allow Nazies to kill all Russians (in the pessimistic scenario of defeat in the conventional war).
You see, Ukraine is not "Russian Vietnam/Afghanistan". It is not even "Russian Cuba" or "Russian Mexico". It's much more close to "Russian Canada" or even "Russian Confederation". It is an existencial conflict for them and, therefore, the price of victory does not matter.

1. Any nukes fired at American nukes would cause us to launch them before they are destroyed. That is why they call it the MAD doctrine. Because it would be Mutually ASSURED Destruction. And then, they couldn't destroy the submarines. And there are enough nukes on just one of them to completely wipe out Russia.

2. Look it up for yourself.

3. Rendered unrealistic by reply 1.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. Any nukes fired at American nukes would cause us to launch them before they are destroyed. That is why they call it the MAD doctrine. Because it would be Mutually ASSURED Destruction. And then, they couldn't destroy the submarines. And there are enough nukes on just one of them to completely wipe out Russia.

1. No. There are too many possible ways to avoid or prevent "Launch under attack" (especially with all those holes in SBIRS-HEO system and Biden-in-the-loop vulnerability) . That's why US Government don't rely on it. Read GDP, please.

One Ohio has twenty Trident-II missiles, few of them with one W76-2 5kt warhead each, and 18 with, say, 3 W76-1 90kt warhead each.
It means 54 90 kt warheads and 2 5 kt ones.
It means, that you can't attack Moscow at all (its ABD can intercept 200 incoming warheads), you can attack few less important and, therefore, lesser defended cities (like Vladivostok or Saratov) with their population partially evacuated and partially sheltered.

And it means, that your relation strike definitely won't "wipe out Russia" and even won't make their "aggression against Ukraine (or against the USA, for that matter) " unprofitable.

2. Look it up for yourself.

3. Rendered unrealistic by reply 1.

Under what circumstances the USA can leave Alaska or Texas? More or less same are circumstances in which Russia can leave Crimea and Novorossia.

 

[KissMy]

Russia's Oil & Gas Revenue Dropped 45%!!!

 

[dimensional]

1. No. There are too many possible ways to avoid or prevent "Launch under attack" (especially with all those holes in SBIRS-HEO system and Biden-in-the-loop vulnerability) . That's why US Government don't rely on it. Read GDP, please.
View attachment 773973

One Ohio has twenty Trident-II missiles, few of them with one W76-2 5kt warhead each, and 18 with, say, 3 W76-1 90kt warhead each.
It means 54 90 kt warheads and 2 5 kt ones.
It means, that you can't attack Moscow at all (its ABD can intercept 200 incoming warheads), you can attack few less important and, therefore, lesser defended cities (like Vladivostok or Saratov) with their population partially evacuated and partially sheltered.

And it means, that your relation strike definitely won't "wipe out Russia" and even won't make their "aggression against Ukraine (or against the USA, for that matter) " unprofitable.

Under what circumstances the USA can leave Alaska or Texas? More or less same are circumstances in which Russia can leave Crimea and Novorossia.

I'm sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military have had meetings with the president. As the leader of the U.S., of our military detects incoming ICBM's, the U.S. MUST launch it's missiles as a response. That would mean the military contacting the president about what is about to happen and cause him to press the button on the "nuclear football" that is always near him. That is "hair trigger" enough. Also, no anti ballistic missile system is fool proof.. And we could send as many to Moscow as it would take to wipe it or anyplace else in Russia out Keep in mind that the U.S. has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth 10 time over. Next, Alaska and Texas are recognized parts of the U.S. The Ukraine has always been its own country. Not part of Russia.

 

[KissMy]

 

[Silver Cat]

I'm sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. military have had meetings with the president. As the leader of the U.S., of our military detects incoming ICBM's, the U.S. MUST launch it's missiles as a response.

The Launch Under Attack procedure takes (in best) 7 minutes between NORAD report and pressing the launch buttons of Minutemen, plus 90 second between the button is pressed and missiles actually left the silos.

That would mean the military contacting the president about what is about to happen and cause him to press the button on the "nuclear football" that is always near him. That is "hair trigger" enough.

If the Russians launch their missiles from Northern Pole, then, their flight time at supressed ballistic trajectory is less than 7 minutes. If they launch missiles when SBIRS-HEO don't see them (and there are only two active SBIRS-HEO satellites) NORAD will detect incoming warheads only five-three minutes before first hit. If communications were successfully degraded by the Russian hackers and saboters - there will be less than four minutes between their first and their last hit.
Therefore the decision should be done long before Russian launch.

Also, no anti ballistic missile system is fool proof.. And we could send as many to Moscow as it would take to wipe it or anyplace else in Russia out

Not after successful Russian counter-force attack. Anyway, Napoleon burned down Moscow and lost the war, Toktamysh burned down Moscow and lost the war, False Dmitriy burned down Moscow and lost the war. Same way if Biden focus his retaliation plans on burning down Moscow - he will lose the war, too.

Keep in mind that the U.S. has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth 10 time over.

No. Even in the Mad Butcher scenario (out of blue attack of all US nuclear forces against sleeping Russian cities) the USA can kill hardly more that 30% of Russians. And this scenario is totally unrealistic.

Next, Alaska and Texas are recognized parts of the U.S. The Ukraine has always been its own country. Not part of Russia.

Actually, the territory of the modern Ukraine was a part of Russia for much more longer time, than Alaska and Texas were parts of the USA. Anyway, it's more about possibility of the first strike. Russian missiles in Texas or American missiles in Kharkov region - are not a gun, pointed into your head. It's a barrel of a gun in your mouth. Allowing your adversary to do it it - is just a form of a suicide. Nuclear war between the USA and the USSR was much more better option for the USA than allow the Russians keep those missiles on Cuba. Nuclear war between Russia and the USA is much more better option for Russia than allow the USA and NATO put their forces (first of all, of course, nuclear forces, but conventional, too) in Ukraine.

 

[dimensional]

The Launch Under Attack procedure takes (in best) 7 minutes between NORAD report and pressing the launch buttons of Minutemen, plus 90 second between the button is pressed and missiles actually left the silos.


If the Russians launch their missiles from Northern Pole, then, their flight time at supressed ballistic trajectory is less than 7 minutes. If they launch missiles when SBIRS-HEO don't see them (and there are only two active SBIRS-HEO satellites) NORAD will detect incoming warheads only five-three minutes before first hit. If communications were successfully degraded by the Russian hackers and saboters - there will be less than four minutes between their first and their last hit.
Therefore the decision should be done long before Russian launch.


Not after successful Russian counter-force attack. Anyway, Napoleon burned down Moscow and lost the war, Toktamysh burned down Moscow and lost the war, False Dmitriy burned down Moscow and lost the war. Same way if Biden focus his retaliation plans on burning down Moscow - he will lose the war, too.


No. Even in the Mad Butcher scenario (out of blue attack of all US nuclear forces against sleeping Russian cities) the USA can kill hardly more that 30% of Russians. And this scenario is totally unrealistic.


Actually, the territory of the modern Ukraine was a part of Russia for much more longer time, than Alaska and Texas were parts of the USA. Anyway, it's more about possibility of the first strike. Russian missiles in Texas or American missiles in Kharkov region - are not a gun, pointed into your head. It's a barrel of a gun in your mouth. Allowing your adversary to do it it - is just a form of a suicide. Nuclear war between the USA and the USSR was much more better option for the USA than allow the Russians keep those missiles on Cuba. Nuclear war between Russia and the USA is much more better option for Russia than allow the USA and NATO put their forces (first of all, of course, nuclear forces, but conventional, too) in Ukraine.

1. How did my thread go from sending fighter jets to the Ukraine end up with this bullshit. First, we have the DEW line of radars in northern Canada and Alaska. They would give us plenty of warning by themselves. We also have satellites that are on the lookout for launched missiles.

2. We have far more than enough ballistic missile submarines carrying MIRV ICBM's to blow the living shit out of Russia. Even in the extremely unlikely event that they could somehow destroy our ground based ICBM's, they could kiss their asses goodbye.

3. What do you not get about the U.S. having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And Russia is nowhere near the whole world. You can bet your ass that every single Russian would be either instantly dead or be will on their way to being dead soon.

4. The Ukraine is the Ukraine. Not Russia. It has always been that way. Russia under the communists were made up of various nations. When the old Soviet Union broke up, those nations regained their status of nationhood. Now the Russians might like to think that the Ukraine is part of Russia, but it isn't. Just like China might like to think that Tibet is part of China. But it isn't.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. How did my thread go from sending fighter jets to the Ukraine end up with this bullshit. First, we have the DEW line of radars in northern Canada and Alaska. They would give us plenty of warning by themselves. We also have satellites that are on the lookout for launched missiles.

1. a) There are only two active SBIRS-HEO satellites to watch the Polar region, and it is not enough - there are plenty of time to launch missiles when they don't see it. b) DEW radars will see warheads incoming at depressed ballistic trajectory five minutes before the first hit. It's not enough even without Russian sabotage.

2. We have far more than enough ballistic missile submarines carrying MIRV ICBM's to blow the living shit out of Russia. Even in the extremely unlikely event that they could somehow destroy our ground based ICBM's, they could kiss their asses goodbye.

Normally they bear 18 Trident-II missiles with 3 W76-1 90kt warhead each. 54 warheads is a serious thing, but it's not enough to overhelm Moscow's ABD or cause really unacceptable losses in other Russian regions, especially if the Russians are well-prepared.

3. What do you not get about the U.S. having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And Russia is nowhere near the whole world. You can bet your ass that every single Russian would be either instantly dead or be will on their way to being dead soon.

3. Empty declarations. When the things are calculated, not just declared, the situation becomes much more nuanced than that.

4. The Ukraine is the Ukraine. Not Russia. It has always been that way. Russia under the communists were made up of various nations. When the old Soviet Union broke up, those nations regained their status of nationhood. Now the Russians might like to think that the Ukraine is part of Russia, but it isn't. Just like China might like to think that Tibet is part of China. But it isn't.

Actually, Kiev became a part of Russia more than thousand years ago. Prince Oleg captured it in 882.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. How did my thread go from sending fighter jets to the Ukraine end up with this bullshit. First, we have the DEW line of radars in northern Canada and Alaska. They would give us plenty of warning by themselves. We also have satellites that are on the lookout for launched missiles.

1. a) There are only two active SBIRS-HEO satellites to watch the Polar region, and it is not enough - there are plenty of time to launch missiles when they don't see it. b) DEW radars will see warheads incoming at depressed ballistic trajectory five minutes before the first hit. It's not enough even without Russian sabotage.

2. We have far more than enough ballistic missile submarines carrying MIRV ICBM's to blow the living shit out of Russia. Even in the extremely unlikely event that they could somehow destroy our ground based ICBM's, they could kiss their asses goodbye.

Normally they bear 18 Trident-II missiles with 3 W76-1 90kt warhead each. 54 warheads is a serious thing, but it's not enough to overhelm Moscow's ABD or cause really unacceptable losses in other Russian regions, especially if the Russians are well-prepared.

3. What do you not get about the U.S. having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 10 times over. And Russia is nowhere near the whole world. You can bet your ass that every single Russian would be either instantly dead or be will on their way to being dead soon.

3. Empty declarations. When the things are calculated, not just declared, the situation becomes much more nuanced than that.

4. The Ukraine is the Ukraine. Not Russia. It has always been that way. Russia under the communists were made up of various nations. When the old Soviet Union broke up, those nations regained their status of nationhood. Now the Russians might like to think that the Ukraine is part of Russia, but it isn't. Just like China might like to think that Tibet is part of China. But it isn't.

Actually, Kiev became a part of Russia more than thousand years ago.

 

[dimensional]

1. a) There are only two active SBIRS-HEO satellites to watch the Polar region, and it is not enough - there are plenty of time to launch missiles when they don't see it. b) DEW radars will see warheads incoming at depressed ballistic trajectory five minutes before the first hit. It's not enough even without Russian sabotage.



Normally they bear 18 Trident-II missiles with 3 W76-1 90kt warhead each. 54 warheads is a serious thing, but it's not enough to overhelm Moscow's ABD or cause really unacceptable losses in other Russian regions, especially if the Russians are well-prepared.


3. Empty declarations. When the things are calculated, not just declared, the situation becomes much more nuanced than that.



Actually, Kiev became a part of Russia more than thousand years ago. Prince Oleg captured it in 882.

1. From what I have been able to find out, the U.S. would have 15 to 20 minutes advanced warning of ICBM's heading from Russia to the U.S. Of course, missiles fired from ballistic missile submarines would probably give us less time.

2. Any Russian anti ballistic missile system is bullshit. It might knock out some warheads. But not all of them. You may remember president Reagan and his "Star Wars" ABM system. It didn't work. We are still vulnerable to incoming warheads. If we are, you can bet your ass that the Russians are. Also, these days there doesn't even need to be a nuclear detonation on the ground to cause widespread havoc in the U.S. A nuclear bomb going off 100 miles above the East Coast would wipe out almost all of the electronics along the entire East Coast. Cars wouldn't run. There would be no television, radio, telephone, computers, cell phones or electricity. Water probably would stop being pumped. If another nuke was detonated above the Mid West and West coast, we would basically be plunged back into the stone age.

3. Was number 2 nuanced enough for you?

4. Look at any map. You can clearly see Russia. The Ukraine isn't part of it. If it was, it wouldn't be there.

 

[Silver Cat]

1. From what I have been able to find out, the U.S. would have 15 to 20 minutes advanced warning of ICBM's heading from Russia to the U.S.

Yes, if the Russians do nothing to degrage US C3I capabilities.

Of course, missiles fired from ballistic missile submarines would probably give us less time.

Yes. Much less. Say, from five minutes to zero.

2. Any Russian anti ballistic missile system is bullshit. It might knock out some warheads. But not all of them. You may remember president Reagan and his "Star Wars" ABM system. It didn't work. We are still vulnerable to incoming warheads. If we are, you can bet your ass that the Russians are. Also, these days there doesn't even need to be a nuclear detonation on the ground to cause widespread havoc in the U.S. A nuclear bomb going off 100 miles above the East Coast would wipe out almost all of the electronics along the entire East Coast. Cars wouldn't run. There would be no television, radio, telephone, computers, cell phones or electricity. Water probably would stop being pumped. If another nuke was detonated above the Mid West and West coast, we would basically be plunged back into the stone age.

The Russians don't need absolute defense. It's simply impossible. All they need, is the defense that will decrease America's retaliation potential to "acceptable" levels (say, forty-sixty killed civilians).
And EMP could not be a "doomsday factor". All important electronic is well defended.

3. Was number 2 nuanced enough for you?

Yes.

4. Look at any map. You can clearly see Russia. The Ukraine isn't part of it. If it was, it wouldn't be there.

 

[dimensional]

Yes, if the Russians do nothing to degrage US C3I capabilities.


Yes. Much less. Say, from five minutes to zero.


The Russians don't need absolute defense. It's simply impossible. All they need, is the defense that will decrease America's retaliation potential to "acceptable" levels (say, forty-sixty killed civilians).
And EMP could not be a "doomsday factor". All important electronic is well defended.


Yes.

1. The Russians can't do anything against radar. The best they could do is shoot up a number of dummy warheads that would make taking them all out difficult.

2. Once NORAD found out that say Washington DC had been nuked by a missile fired from a submarine, they would unleash the dogs of war. It would be hard to say how many times after that Moscow would be directly nuked.

3. I don't know what in the hell you're getting at with "Russia's defense" decreasing the U.S. retaliation potential. It would make no difference. Also, do you live in some sort of dream world or something? If we did an all out nuclear attack on Russia, we would kill most Russians immediately. The rest would soon die. As well as the rest of most of the life on Earth as well. Next, Sure, some of the most important computers and things are guarded against an EMP. Like warships. Being encased in metal makes an excellent Faraday Cage. But as I said, most of the public's electronics would be fried.

4. The Ukraine isn't part of Russia. Though the alphabet they use is similar to the one that Russia uses, they even have their own language. And after the Holodomor, most of them probably want to be separate from Russia even more.