The consequences of a European nuclear strike on Russia are described

[Silver Cat]

this what we have to do to moscow horde

Managing Russia’s dissolution

Rising social, ethnic, economic and regional pressures indicate that Russia is heading toward fragmentation.

thehill.com

"Low fuel prices"? Are you kidding? Talking about Russia-China block: we can't seriously damage Russia economically - only to push her towards China, and we can't seriously treat China military - only to push her towards Russia.
There are no cheap and simple solutions for this problem. We have to find sophisticated (and expensive) ones to survive.

 

[Litwin]

"Low fuel prices"? Are you kidding? Talking about Russia-China block: we can't seriously damage Russia economically - only to push her towards China, and we can't seriously treat China military - only to push her towards Russia.
There are no cheap and simple solutions for this problem. We have to find sophisticated (and expensive) ones to survive.

Talking about Russia-China block of your wet dreams Ivan )))



LOL, are you ready to give back stolen from the hans lands ? like UK, France, Japan did ?

 

[Silver Cat]

Talking about Russia-China block of your wet dreams Ivan )))

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[harmonica]

Yes. Sometimes there are "central wars" between Great Powers, sometimes there are "peripheral wars" between Great and Minor Powers (without direct conflict between Great Powers). Sure, there can be more "peripheral wars" in future, but the possibility of a non-nuclear minor conflict doesn't mean impossibility of a nuclear major conflict. As well, as existence of summer does not mean impossibility of winter. In some situations one side may decide that it is much safer to her to start a Central War, or escalate a Peripheral War, than allow enemy to continue his extremely provocative actions.

Let's talk about Cubans Missile Crisis. Why it occurred? The Russians decided, that American combination of unprotected IRBMs in Europe and long-range bombers (on unprotected bases) in the USA is an existantional treat for them, that Americans are pretty close to achieve possibility to destroy all their nuclear bases by a first counter-force strike. They decided that in this situation "good war" is better than a "bad peace" (because this "bad peace" surely will be finished by a "bad war"). There were less than forty SAC bases in the USA and sixty SS-4 and SS-5 should have been enough to destroy all of them. According their plan Soviet Forces should have achieve full readiness in March of 1963.
When the US intelligence realized, that the Russians are creating such a possibility, they also decided, that the war (limited or even all-out) now will be better choice, than allow Russians to keep their locked and cocked gun pointed straight at their heads. Later sides found a mutually acceptable solution - "arms control". The Russians withdrawed their missiles from Cuba, the USA withdrawed their missiles from Europe. Both sides "informally signed" the Mutual Homicide Pact with their civilians as hostages.
There are three basic types of "gaps":
1) Development gap - one side invented something, that another side didn't.
2) Inventory gap - one side have bought something that another side didn't.
3) Operational gap - one side can use their weapon in the way that another side can't.

And it is operational gap, that really kills.

..you said ''there are many possible ways''' --history says that's wrong as we've had MANY wars started for MANY reasons and no nukes used
--plain and simple, even with the Cuban Crisis = no nukes

 

[Litwin]

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I like this way, the next your czar will be chosen in by red hans ) you are a small satellite (like P-stan) of China

 

[Silver Cat]

..you said ''there are many possible ways''' --history says that's wrong as we've had MANY wars started for MANY reasons and no nukes used
--plain and simple, even with the Cuban Crisis = no nukes

History says that there are wars between Great Powers - Central or Total wars, and there are wars between Great Powers and Minor Powers - Peripheral or Limited wars. In the previous Total war nukes were used. Actually, nukes were used in all Central Wars of the nuclear age. I don't see any reason why the next Central War shouldn't be nuclear, too.

 

[harmonica]

History says that there are wars between Great Powers - Central or Total wars, and there are wars between Great Powers and Minor Powers - Peripheral or Limited wars. In the previous Total war nukes were used. Actually, nukes were used in all Central Wars of the nuclear age. I don't see any reason why the next Central War shouldn't be nuclear, too.

sure......nukes were used--HAHAHHAHAHHAAHAH

 

[Silver Cat]

sure......nukes were used--HAHAHHAHAHHAAHAH

Sorry. We were used to FUBAR entire cities in WW2, and the nukes had been used for this purpose twice. Is that better?
Same way, both sides are going to destroy cities and to use nukes in WW3.

 

[harmonica]

Sorry. We were used to FUBAR entire cities in WW2, and the nukes had been used for this purpose twice. Is that better?
Same way, both sides are going to destroy cities and to use nukes in WW3.

1. ONE war [ out of HUNDREDS ] ....you are denying the undeniable
2. it wasn't even a nuke war = only one country used them, and at the very end

 

[Silver Cat]

1. ONE war [ out of HUNDREDS ] ....you are denying the undeniable
2. it wasn't even a nuke war = only one country used them, and at the very end

1. Your "hundreds of wars" weren't Central Wars. All of them were mere peripheral conflicts.
2. Yes. The USA used nukes against Japan - and Japan has surrendered. Who said, that, say, the UK won't surrender after Russian nuclear strike at HMNB Clyde and Biden's refusal to commit suicide in all-out nuclear war?

 

[harmonica]

1. Your "hundreds of wars" weren't Central Wars. All of them were mere peripheral conflicts.
2. Yes. The USA used nukes against Japan - and Japan has surrendered. Who said, that, say, the UK won't surrender after Russian nuclear strike at HMNB Clyde and Biden's refusal to commit suicide in all-out nuclear war?

1 most wars are contained
2. the war in Europe was over...at the end, the US used 2 atomic bombs....the bombs were a very VERY tiny part of the war....like a speck of sand compared to the Earth
3. every war since then = no nukes --since 1945, no nukes--even the Cuban crisis--which is WRONGLY promoted as the world being on the brink of nuclear war--no it wasn't

 

[Silver Cat]

1 most wars are contained
2. the war in Europe was over...at the end, the US used 2 atomic bombs....the bombs were a very VERY tiny part of the war....like a speck of sand compared to the Earth
3. every war since then = no nukes --since 1945, no nukes--even the Cuban crisis--which is WRONGLY promoted as the world being on the brink of nuclear war--no it wasn't

1. Most wars are contained because "deterrence", and deterrence depends on balance of power. No balance of power, means no deterrence. And there are Central Wars few times in century as the result of deterrence fail.
2. But FUBARing cities (both German and Japan) wasn't that tiny. It was important part of the war.
3. Why do you think so?

 

[harmonica]

1. Most wars are contained because "deterrence", and deterrence depends on balance of power. No balance of power, means no deterrence. And there are Central Wars few times in century as the result of deterrence fail.
2. But FUBARing cities (both German and Japan) wasn't that tiny. It was important part of the war.
3. Why do you think so?

again, every war no nukes except WW2--and that was at the very END of the war

 

[Silver Cat]

again, every war no nukes except WW2--and that was at the very END of the war

Any ideas why?
And don't forget - there were no significant wars since 1945.

 

[Silver Cat]

America Cannot Take On China And Russia Simultaneously

In a previous article, “Russia and China are Already Winning the Nuclear Arms Race,” I discussed the dangers to U.S. national security from the breathtaking advances by China and Russia in expanding the size of their nuclear arsenals to a level far in excess of the size of the current U.S...

nationalinterest.org

 

[justoffal]

What's the state of the Russian arsenal?

Positively massive.... It's 16 times greater than all of Europe's combined arsenal.
The mention or notion of any nuclear strike against Russia is complete Insanity.

 

[justoffal]

at least 30 year old , outdated ussr ´s crap

Don't fool yourself. The latest generation of Russian strike missiles is far and away the best on the planet. The icbms may be old and rickety but the tactical nuke arsenal that they have is unfathomable.

God forbid even one of the old rockets gets through...the Russians have massive megatonnage built into single charges.

Even if they intercept the rocket over Europe and it explodes several miles higher than it was supposed to it will poison the area to death.

Russia has also developed fully autonomous robot submarines that can carry anywhere from 10 to 50 megaton charges. Do you understand the implications of that?

No.... Stop talking like that it is completely insane.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Don't fool yourself. The latest generation of Russian strike missiles is far and away the best on the planet. The icbms may be old and rickety but the tactical nuke arsenal that they have is unfathomable.

God forbid even one of the old rockets gets through...the Russians have massive megatonnage built into single charges.

Even if they intercept the rocket over Europe and it explodes several miles higher than it was supposed to it will poison the area to death.

Russia has also developed fully autonomous robot submarines that can carry anywhere from 10 to 50 megaton charges. Do you understand the implications of that?

No.... Stop talking like that it is completely insane.

Jo

If a single robot submarine made it to the shores of California undetected and detonated in a port at 50 megatons this would be the immediate scenario:.

1.) Within 5 to 8 minutes after the blast a mushroom cloud nearly 30 miles high would be scraping the stratosphere.
2.) The immediate shoreline area would be obliterated for about 20 square miles.
3.) Given the prevailing winds on that area the massive radioactive cloud would begin to tip over towards the continent and parse itself into the wind currents quickly reaching the several surrounding states.
4.) All the agricultural produce in any of those States would be immediately rendered inedible.
5.) The secondary EMP fallout would disrupt power grids for several hundred miles in every direction.
6.) 36 to 72 hours after the blast hundreds of thousands of people would begin to fall ill with radiation sickness the horrors of which can be well described by reading through the detailed aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
7.) Bear in mind that Russia has a small fleet of these things ready to go. Once let loose they need no direction and no supervision... One of them can lie on the sea bottom for months and wait quietly before making its way to it's destination. Putin and Russia could be long gone and history and dozens of these things can be left behind to operate the two to three years afterwards.

Now please just stop.

Jo

That's just one blast....

 

[Ringo]

"Blinkin hopes that Russia will choose the path of diplomacy, not confrontation" (c) The Voice of America

Is the "path of diplomacy" in the understanding of the United States economic sanctions, military bases around the perimeter and the regular expulsion of diplomats? As well as feeding internal extremists and financing traitors?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Blinkin hopes that Russia will choose the path of diplomacy, not confrontation" (c) The Voice of America

Is the "path of diplomacy" in the understanding of the United States economic sanctions, military bases around the perimeter and the regular expulsion of diplomats? As well as feeding internal extremists and financing traitors?

Military bases around the perimeter of Russia? That's outrageous!!!

What did Russia ever do to her neighbors?