The Secret Soviet Marxist Plan to Crush European civilization in 7 Days

[Silver Cat]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:




Or this new one:

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just how many years have YOU spent protecting YOUR country.

Better ask him what was his country.

Probably lower Slobovia who's best strategic weapon is a Long Ranged Sling Shot armed with Rocks.

"Slobbovia". "Make Slobbovia Upper again", you know. Some people call this land Pindostan.
But I don't use personal arguments about a fictional military service. I discuss nothing but an actual American policy and researches, like this (it is not that I agree with their environmentalistic ideas):

Nuclear war could be devastating for the US, even if no one shoots back

The US could only safely use a fraction of its nuclear stockpile without harming Americans through an environmental event called ‘nuclear autumn.’

theconversation.com

Can you call yourself "sane" if you don't want to accept the reality?

The Author isn't saying "Go for it". He's trying to supply a reason for everyone to do a drastic reduction in their Nuclear stockpiles which isn't a bad idea if everyone else does the same. That's a sane approach. You idea that we are 10 seconds away from midnight and a Nutcase has his finger on the button is just that, insane.

"Sanity" means "to be adequate to reality". And reality is simple - we are going to war with untested weapon. It is no good.
We have to test nuclear weapon before actually use it against our enemies.
And live nuclear tests could resume in months.

Live nuclear testing could resume in âmonthsâ if needed, official says

The Trump administration has reportedly had conversations about resuming live nuclear testing.

www.defensenews.com

Unless they changed the laws of Physics, those weapons will work. Yah, know, your Orange Buddy is pushing to resume nuclear testing but that falls under the category of "Unstable". It just reinforces the word "Insanity". Right now, the only tester of Nuclear Weapons is North Korea. And it's kept to a dull roar. The last thing the world needs is the major powers to crank it back up again. Ol' Mother Earth can only take so much before she throws a big hissy fit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:
View attachment 341906

View attachment 341907

View attachment 341908

View attachment 341909


View attachment 341910

Or this new one:

View attachment 341911

And when things just heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a casualty. There are consequences to action.

 

[Silver Cat]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:
View attachment 341906

View attachment 341907

View attachment 341908

View attachment 341909


View attachment 341910

Or this new one:

View attachment 341911

And when things just heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a casualty. There are consequences to action.

No. When things really heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a bomber.
------------------
“It’s all about capacity,” Hinote explained. “You’ve got to create enough capacity so that a long-range punch is really a punch. What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the joint force needs is always more and more. And so this is why we think that there is a real possibility here for using cargo platforms to be able to increase the capacity of fires.”
--------------------

US Air Force looks to up-gun its airlift planes

Two demonstrations of a new "palletized munitions" concept have shown promise, an Air Force general said.

www.defensenews.com

Air Force Unveils First Test Of Arsenal Plane Concept And New CLEAVER Munition

The Air Force is now actively pursuing a stand-off strike capability for its cargo aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Daryl Hunt]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:
View attachment 341906

View attachment 341907

View attachment 341908

View attachment 341909


View attachment 341910

Or this new one:

View attachment 341911

And when things just heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a casualty. There are consequences to action.

No. When things really heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a bomber.
------------------
“It’s all about capacity,” Hinote explained. “You’ve got to create enough capacity so that a long-range punch is really a punch. What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the joint force needs is always more and more. And so this is why we think that there is a real possibility here for using cargo platforms to be able to increase the capacity of fires.”
--------------------

US Air Force looks to up-gun its airlift planes

Two demonstrations of a new "palletized munitions" concept have shown promise, an Air Force general said.

www.defensenews.com

Air Force Unveils First Test Of Arsenal Plane Concept And New CLEAVER Munition

The Air Force is now actively pursuing a stand-off strike capability for its cargo aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

And again, you are defining "Insanity".

 

[Silver Cat]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:
View attachment 341906

View attachment 341907

View attachment 341908

View attachment 341909


View attachment 341910

Or this new one:

View attachment 341911

And when things just heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a casualty. There are consequences to action.

No. When things really heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a bomber.
------------------
“It’s all about capacity,” Hinote explained. “You’ve got to create enough capacity so that a long-range punch is really a punch. What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the joint force needs is always more and more. And so this is why we think that there is a real possibility here for using cargo platforms to be able to increase the capacity of fires.”
--------------------

US Air Force looks to up-gun its airlift planes

Two demonstrations of a new "palletized munitions" concept have shown promise, an Air Force general said.

www.defensenews.com

Air Force Unveils First Test Of Arsenal Plane Concept And New CLEAVER Munition

The Air Force is now actively pursuing a stand-off strike capability for its cargo aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

And again, you are defining "Insanity".

"There are no healthy people, there are only under-examined ones."

 

[Mushroom]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:

Great, one way suicide missions. Under cover of a civilian airliner.

And in case you were not aware, we retired the last of our Tomahawk BGM-109A nuclear missiles about a decade ago. The only ones we have now are conventional missiles.

And with ICBM missiles, there is really not much need for "more delivery systems". Our conventional bomber fleets have largely been converted to conventional use, but we will maintain enough for the use in a limited strike.

And the biggest threat for a nuclear war is not the US, Russia, or China. None of those nations is threatening their neighbors or others with nuclear destruction. Even India and Pakistan are pretty calm in that area. No, the biggest threat by far is the rogue nations, like North Korea and Iran.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:

Great, one way suicide missions. Under cover of a civilian airliner.

And how many KAL flights will be lost that way?

 

[Mushroom]

No. When things really heat up, every civilian airliner becomes a bomber.

Nope. Only if you know nothing about the military do you think something like that.

Is like saying every large cargo aircraft can launch nuclear missiles.

 

[Mushroom]

And how many KAL flights will be lost that way?

Maybe 007?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And how many KAL flights will be lost that way?

Maybe 007?

I think we both overreached the "Insane" one's capability on that one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:

Great, one way suicide missions. Under cover of a civilian airliner.

And in case you were not aware, we retired the last of our Tomahawk BGM-109A nuclear missiles about a decade ago. The only ones we have now are conventional missiles.

And with ICBM missiles, there is really not much need for "more delivery systems". Our conventional bomber fleets have largely been converted to conventional use, but we will maintain enough for the use in a limited strike.

And the biggest threat for a nuclear war is not the US, Russia, or China. None of those nations is threatening their neighbors or others with nuclear destruction. Even India and Pakistan are pretty calm in that area. No, the biggest threat by far is the rogue nations, like North Korea and Iran.

Besides, converting something like a 747 to a bomber, you would still stick out on the Radar like a sore thumb no matter how much sneaky stuff you pack in it. The 747 wouldn't be able to get within the 1500 minimum range to launch before it was blown out of the sky. And then every Civilian Liner would have to be either grounded or get demolished in the air. There is a reason that all countries have specific looking bombers that don't look anything like a civilian airliner.

 

[Mushroom]

I think we both overreached the "Insane" one's capability on that one.

Well, I for one will remember that incident for the rest of my life.

I was in a hotel at the time, literally the night before I left for boot camp when KAL 007 was shot down. Some of us were having a few last beers before getting on the bus the next day when somebody came into the room and told us the news. Instant pucker factor time.

The Soviets shot down a civilian airliner? With a US Congressman on board? We were all half convinced we would not finish our training, we might be at war before we got through.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think we both overreached the "Insane" one's capability on that one.

Well, I for one will remember that incident for the rest of my life.

I will too. I looked that the very RC-135s sitting on the Tarmac that Russia thought it was bagging.

 

[Denizen]

The purported plan was overkill. The cheapest means of achieving that objective was to support Dopey Donald Trump's election.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think we both overreached the "Insane" one's capability on that one.

Well, I for one will remember that incident for the rest of my life.

I will too. I looked that the very RC-135s sitting on the Tarmac that Russia thought it was bagging.

Long story on that one. But it wasn't launched out of Kadena like the Normal RCs were. It was launched out of Elmendorf and landed with cooked engines after every flight.

 

[Mushroom]

Besides, converting something like a 747 to a bomber, you would still stick out on the Radar like a sore thumb no matter how much sneaky stuff you pack in it. The 747 wouldn't be able to get within the 1500 minimum range to launch before it was blown out of the sky. And then every Civilian Liner would have to be either grounded or get demolished in the air. There is a reason that all countries have specific looking bombers that don't look anything like a civilian airliner.

Most people have no idea how much we can tell from a RADAR signature.

We can analyze the RADAR return on an aircraft, and tell a hell of a lot about it. Not only altitude and speed, but also size. And watch it for a while and we can then tell things to narrow it down even more, like climb and descent rate, turn radius, and the like. And most civilian aircraft stick out like sore thumbs, because they have never made an attempt to lower their RADAR cross-section (in fact, most work purposefully to keep them large).

Use a 747 for a bomber? Hell, might as well just rebuild the B-52 again. Most estimates for this aircraft modernized run at around $125 million per aircraft, less than 1/3 the cost of a 747. And a hell of a lot more survivable. And less likely to be viewed as a war crime in the use of it.

Yes, and for those that do not know, disguising a military combat flight as a civilian aircraft is a war crime. There was a hell of a lot of grief given to the Soviets when they entered Afghanistan, because they had their initial transports follow right behind official Aeroflot passenger aircraft. But if they had not done that but replaced those flights, odds are they would have been facing war crime trials after it all ended.

 

[Silver Cat]

BTW, to make a really strong nuclear strike we need more delivery systems. Cheap, fast and hidden (or disgusted as civilian units).
Something like this old project:

Great, one way suicide missions. Under cover of a civilian airliner.

And in case you were not aware, we retired the last of our Tomahawk BGM-109A nuclear missiles about a decade ago. The only ones we have now are conventional missiles.

And with ICBM missiles, there is really not much need for "more delivery systems". Our conventional bomber fleets have largely been converted to conventional use, but we will maintain enough for the use in a limited strike.

And the biggest threat for a nuclear war is not the US, Russia, or China. None of those nations is threatening their neighbors or others with nuclear destruction.

Are you sure?
Do you like Russian songs? For example "The medal for capturing Washington"?

Or " The missiles are flying away slowly"?

Or "Good Buy, America"?

Or " On the Nuclear Submarine"?

Or " We'll FUBAR Chicago"

Etc...
If you think, that Russia isn't treathing other with nuclear destruction - you know nothing about Russia.

 

[Silver Cat]

Yes, and for those that do not know, disguising a military combat flight as a civilian aircraft is a war crime.

Yes, but only it is a "military plane". If we use it as UAV - it's not a crime. Only humans and human-controlled vechicles must identify themselves. Bullets, mines, shells, missiles, UAVs, other ordnances can be hidden or diguised. Why not?

 

[Silver Cat]

The Russians produce and sell systems, that can convert any cargo ship in a sort of erzatz-cruiser, so we may produce (and may be sell) systems that will convert corgo-planes in a sort of erzatz-bombers. Why not?