The consequences of a European nuclear strike on Russia are described

Baron

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2008
13,912
6,546
370
Brooklyn, NYC
Indeed Nigeria with snow is the Moscow horde.
It looks like Europa ceases to exist within few minutes.

Translation from Russian.

The Chinese edition of Baijiahao described the scenario of a nuclear strike by the EU countries against Russia. The publication notes that the most combat-ready countries in Europe are the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the first two countries have nuclear weapons. They have no chance to stand alone against Russia. Experts considered what could happen if they stand together against Russia.
The most powerful British missile is the American-made Trident with a range of 12,000 kilometers. Britain does not currently have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, and the available technology is maintained by visiting U.S. specialists. In 2016, Britain experienced a colossal fiasco in its attempt to build its own strategic nuclear weapons. "The missile went off course and flew toward the U.S. coast, which frightened the United States," Chinese analysts wrote. It is noted that Britain has 215 missiles.
France has the M51 missile, which is considered a more advanced missile than the Trident. It has a range of 13,000 kilometers. It can be launched from submarines. However, it is not clear what is the current state of the French nuclear arsenal. It is stressed that the French have 290 missiles. Together with the British it is about 500.

But this is nothing compared with Russian 6,000 ballistic missiles, analysts say. Russia dominates, and it is capable of an intense nuclear strike against Europe. The latter would be lucky if they were not wiped off the face of the earth. They won't get a chance to retaliate.

"If Britain, France and Germany unite to fight Russia, it would be like hitting an egg against a rock," the paper concludes.


 
For instance, as result of an escalation.
1. most wars are not total--they are contained...scenarios of using nukes are ridiculous...possible, but ridiculous and very, very '''rare'''/not likely
2. nuking is not escalation- it's the finale of a total war ......escalation is what LBJ did in Vietnam
3. you did not give a reason for the nuking-- such as Germany, France AND Britain are being overrun,by HORDES of the communist beasts. = RAPING and pillaging [ hahahahahahh ] etc
 
Even "limited nuclear strike", say, one thousand of nukes will be enough to finish the very existence of the UK as a military power.
...wrong--because the scenario starts with TOTAL WAR ....you've got FOUR major countries involved..that's not limited at all
 
...wrong--because the scenario starts with TOTAL WAR ....you've got FOUR major countries involved..that's not limited at all
Technically, all scenarios are "limited", at least because no one has an "unlimited" nuclear arsenal. And yes, in a case of Russian first counter-force strike, "total" (survived after the Russian attack) doesn't mean "too much". Say, four Ohios for the USA and one Vanguard for the UK with some old, unreliable and inaccurate (without GPS-sats) Trident missiles. What is even more important, there will be some kind of "postattack blackmail" - "We just destroyed 90% of your nuclear forces. You can't win the war. Yes, you lost roughly 5 millions of civilians, but if you try some stupid thing (like retaliation strike, which can't kill more than 1 million of Russian civilians and won't change the result of the war) - all of you are literally dead. Surrender now, and save what can be saved. "
 
Technically, all scenarios are "limited", at least because no one has an "unlimited" nuclear arsenal. And yes, in a case of Russian first counter-force strike, "total" (survived after the Russian attack) doesn't mean "too much". Say, four Ohios for the USA and one Vanguard for the UK with some old, unreliable and inaccurate (without GPS-sats) Trident missiles. What is even more important, there will be some kind of "postattack blackmail" - "We just destroyed 90% of your nuclear forces. You can't win the war. Yes, you lost roughly 5 millions of civilians, but if you try some stupid thing (like retaliation strike, which can't kill more than 1 million of Russian civilians and won't change the result of the war) - all of you are literally dead. Surrender now, and save what can be saved. "
most '''what if'''' scenarios are RIDICULOUS...I see it all the time in the WW2Forum
.....wrong--there is a difference between limited war and total war
wars involving countries with nukes but nukes not used/contained:
Arab-Isreali wars-67, 73, etc
Pakistan-India -
Russia-Afghanistan
US- and MANY countries -many wars
Britain-Argentina
every war except WW2.....

the Iran-Iraq war was total
 
most '''what if'''' scenarios are RIDICULOUS...I see it all the time in the WW2Forum
.....wrong--there is a difference between limited war and total war
wars involving countries with nukes but nukes not used/contained:
Arab-Isreali wars-67, 73, etc
Pakistan-India -
Russia-Afghanistan
US- and MANY countries -many wars
Britain-Argentina
every war except WW2.....

the Iran-Iraq war was total
Russian doctrine determine "incidents", "peace time military operations" and three types of war:
1) Local wars - between two (or more) countries, on the land of one or both of them, limited goals, conventional weapon.
2) Regional wars - more than two countries of one region (f.e. Europe), battles are on the land, water and air, goals are important, conventional and nuclear weapon;
3) Large-scale wars - countries from more than one region (f.e. Europe and North America) - they use everything.
 
Russian doctrine determine "incidents", "peace time military operations" and three types of war:
1) Local wars - between two (or more) countries, on the land of one or both of them, limited goals, conventional weapon.
2) Regional wars - more than two countries of one region (f.e. Europe), battles are on the land, water and air, goals are important, conventional and nuclear weapon;
3) Large-scale wars - countries from more than one region (f.e. Europe and North America) - they use everything.
blah blah blah..
one more time, why are they going to use nukes?
 
blah blah blah..
one more time, why are they going to use nukes?
They aren't going. For the Russians it is the only thing with wich they are on a pair with the US. That fact causes the feeling of a great significance of them.
 
blah blah blah..
one more time, why are they going to use nukes?
There are many possible ways for it. Human stupidity is boundless. For example, the Brits may decide to "press Russia" and send another destroyer in Crymean waters. The Russians sink her. HMG, instead of begging for mercy, try to improve their defense readiness conditions (and their negotiation position) and send to sea two, still remaining at the HMNB Clyde, Vanguards. The Russians decide, that one Vanguard is the lesser evil, than three, and nuke HMNB Clyde, and then suggest peaceful negotiations - "Stop it, while it's possible! "
 
They aren't going. For the Russians it is the only thing with wich they are on a pair with the US. That fact causes the feeling of a great significance of them.
As far as I know, it's not just their ego. They really believe that the nukes (and readiness to use them) is the only thing, protecting them from the fate of Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc...
 
Why do you feel that?

They already achieved the Credible First Strike Capability.

They didn't have that in the 1960s?
They were pretty close to it at the fall of 1962.
The Credible First Strike Capability isn't just about technical possibility to deliver your bombs and warheads to hostile cities. It's more about decreasing hostile nuclear arsenal to the "acceptable" level by your counterforce attack.
 

Forum List

Back
Top