Nobody "wins" a nuclear war. And only the mentally ill or delusional even think that is possible.
Of course it mostly depends on the definition of the term "victory". The situation "we are staying, they are not" is quite acceptable (if the only alternative is total elimination). And, say, situation, in which Russia+China+DPRK lose less than 10% of population (and continue their existence as independent states and build new world order), and the USA, UK and France lose more than 90% of their population and cease existence as states - is pretty possible result of a nuclear exchange.
But for some reason, some people imagine it is amazingly simple to destroy the nuclear weapons of the US.
It's not simple at all. But it doesn't mean that it is impossible.
They apparently have no comprehension of the vast area that even our land based missiles are scattered around. There are over 400 of them, scattered around vast areas of five different states.
Even if every single Minuteman II crew was struck dead in an instant so not a single missile was launched, hitting each silo with a nuke leaves less than 100 Russian nukes for other targets. Which then have to not only strike all the B-1 and B-2 bases are located at, but the Naval bases as well.
Actually, Russia has more than 5 thousand nukes, more than 1500 of them strategic and deployed. And there are only two bases of bombers and two bases of SSBNs. Two plus two equals four. Plus few more warheads on other military strategic targets, which can be hit without significant collateral losses among American civilians. Counter-force strike. Something like shooting in the hand with a pistol. And then, when you are already unable to kill more than ten million of Russians - we suggest you peace on mutually acceptable, but Russia-prefered terms. (Like you leave Eurasia and Africa, return as Alaska and California, but continue your existence as an independent and nuclear state and even keep your seat in UN SC). If you retaliate - we'll destroy seven US cities for every damaged Russian city. With your poor FEMA you'll suffer much more than the Russians (who, among other things, had already evacuated their state-essensial personel).
And somehow find all the ships at sea.
Not necessary. Right now you have on the hard duty in Atlantic only two SSBNs - USS Wyoming and USS Maryland. Both with not full payload. We need to hunt and eliminate only one of them to totally rule out the possibility of the destruction of Moscow. The ABD system can guarantee (more or less) protection of Moscow from single SSBN's salvo. The attempt to overwhelm ABD of Moscow region by salvo of two SSBNs is also gambling, but with better chances for Moscow.
So, after first Russian strike you have a choice -
1) No retaliation, accept Russian peace, lose Alaska and California (and kill no Russians), but save America (as an independent state).
2) Try to kill some Russians (no more than one million of them) but to lose America and 90% of Americans. (Russians will take Alaska and California anyway, but the rest of the former USA will be divided between Canada and Mexico with 90% of pre-war US population killed).
And if tensions are rising to the point that seems like something that might happen, the US would respond by scattering a lot of their assets to even more bases.
No. When it comes to this point, the USA still have a choice - to roll back (if they believe that the Russian preparations are real), or to do nothing (if they believe that the Russians are bluffing). If America try to scatter nuclear assets - Russia will escalate even faster and attack them first before they really had scattered. If you wanna play Texas Red - play it, no problem.
That means even more targets, and even more ships at sea.
No. If you believe in reality of the Russians threats - you just f#ck off and do few steps back. Nothing in Ukraine and/or Europe is really vital for the USA.
Oh, and one must not forget there is then NATO. France has around 290 nukes, the UK has around 225.
Forgot them. One target (HMNB Clyde) in the UK, few in France. Each country has only one submarine with some thirty RV's in the sea at any given moment. Highly unlikely they're going to commit collective suicide just to demonstrate their undying fidelity to the USA (especially if the USA already defeated).
And as a member of NATO, a nuclear strike on one nation is considered to be a nuclear strike on all nations. That is still over 500 nukes that can be launched at Russia.
No. One British SSBN, one French SSBN, few dosens of B61 gravity bombs that they couldn't even deliver to the frontlines.
Where are they going to get the nukes to take them all out as well?
I see no problem. The USA has, say, 500 nuclear force targets. The whole Europe has lesser than twenty (and only three of them are really important).
Of course, in their mentally ill minds, they honestly seem to think that the UK and France will not respond.
In the situation when the retaliation means a certain suicide, the USA are already defeated and Russia suggest pretty good terms of peace, like, say, participation in the humanitarian occupation of the former USA (and its recolonization)? Of course they will respond. And do you know what exactly they will respond on the Russian suggestion? It's not even a stick and a carrot. New England and Louisiana are nice and delicious cakes, and the thousands of Russian nukes are much better than any stick.
