What about them' nukes??

you can only train so far. and sorry for my spelling in earlier posts.. i know it was spelled wrong.. (as are words in all my posts hahha) but i just didnt have time to look up the spelling..

and i still stand by what i said earlier.

if russia were to catch america off-gaurd (as terrorists did in 9/11) america would be totally devistated. by no means am im on the russians side.. im just playing devils advocate .

I think the chance of a nuclear exchange between Russia and US is close to nill. Of course Russia could seriously damage the US with its weapons but not without reaping serious consequences. Even if Russia somehow managed to destroy every bomber and silo, they would still have 4-6 Ohio SSBN subs to contend with. They can each carry up to 24 Trident C4 and D5 ICBMs with up to (according to Jane's) 8 MIRVS a peice. Sure they could launch on the US as long as they don't mind vaporizing Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhnij Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk etc etc etc....

The US early warning and command and control infrastructure is much more capable than Russia's. If they were serious about trying it, their best chance for success was decades ago. Their military has really fallen apart lately. Don't forget a first strike against the US would get UK and France involved as well - Vanguard SSBNs and whatever the French equivalent is.

I don't think you are realistic in your assessment.

im not stating that an upcoming attack is a reality. i am simply stating the devestation that would occour if it did happen

Ivan, you are simply discussing devastation but suggesting that the U.S. would be beaten. You state that you will stand by this regardless of what is said, and trust me, there are people at this board who have working experience with what you are blindly ranting about. Trust me, don't worry about it.

BTW, it was also stated that Russia could blow the world up 10 times over. Let me point out a couple of things in regard to that.
First, much of the Cold War hysteria about nuclear warfare was junk science created by pacifists. The world would not be "blown up", there would be no nuclear winter, etc. The fallout would not decimate the population, either. Nuclear warfare is very survivable, all that is needed is a little information and a cool head.

Another thing, while both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had an aweful lot of nuclear warheads, only a fraction of them were ready for launch. When numbers are tossed around, most people have no clue what those numbers mean. How many of them do you suppose were in storage, how many of them were in maintenance? And, how many of them do you think were not going to explode for one technical reason or another? I think you'd be surprised if you knew the answers to those questions.

if a nuclear attack was launched, america would be devistated... what country wouldnt be.

Originally posted by ivanglam
if a nuclear attack was launched, america would be devistated... what country wouldnt be.

Define "nuclear attack". Do you mean a full scale nuclear war or a single ICBM or SLBM?

A full out nuclear attack. Not a measly single warhead.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Look, Ivan, Satan is not a new system, and neither is the concept of MIRV, and no, only two of those systems would not take down the U.S. or even halt its ability to defend itself.

Yep.

Missiles with multiple warheads aren't new and last I heard was in regards to some having as many as ten warheads in one missile.

if russia launched right now - the usa couldn`t respond with its bombers/ silo`s in time the bases would get destroyed before the bombers launched / the missiles were shot off - all that would be left would be subs.

Are you kidding? I'd strongly suggest looking into:
1. the time it takes for an ICBM from Russia to reach it's target
2. the time it takes from detection, to launch a counterstrike, it's minutes if it has to be....

or vice-versa.

This is the REASON MAD works...because even if one does an all out first strike, the birds would be in the air before the nest was destroyed. About the only advantage the first strike aggressor would have, is less enemy bombers would be airborne... The silos, ships, and subs though, would all be able to fire before being destroyed.

Most think that maybe humans will hesitate to flip the switch. Well, something you should know about this. They do drills all the time. Most of the time, they don't know whether it's a drill or not (until they wake up the next morning and realize they're still there, and everything's ok). They likely won't even know the real thing from a drill (because they won't be told), and they'll do just what they've been trained to do, day in and day out.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Gazrok]

i guess you don`t know the system that is in place for launching of any nuclear weapon - just fliping a switch is the last act in a very long chain - the overall responce from detection to actual authorisation for release takes more than 30 minutes from a stand down situation , although it is under 30 minutes from an alert situation

Originally posted by Harlequin

i guess you don`t know the system that is in place for launching of any nuclear weapon - just fliping a switch is the last act in a very long chain - the overall responce from detection to actual authorisation for release takes more than 30 minutes from a stand down situation , although it is under 30 minutes from an alert situation

And you know this how? (I know it is more than flipping a switch - or turning some keys, but how do you know exactly how long it takes?)

well the flight time of SSBM from a boomer parked off the east coast , to washington is around 8 minutes - thats barely enough time to even register on grid let alone getting a responce and might not even register if its a low slinger and doesn`t go high , until it hits.

The US has satellites whos sole purpose is to detect ballistic missile launches. There is no realistic way you could launch for a sneak attack on the US or its allies without them knowing. When the trajectory is plotted by these same satellites, and they figure out its coming they'll launch their missiles at where ever the inbounds are from.

This is unrelated, but what are "points" for?

[edit on 5-1-2005 by replicators]

click the yellow tab that says 'membercenter" and then click "AST STORE" , you can get add ons to AST there with the points.

Most think that maybe humans will hesitate to flip the switch. Well, something you should know about this. They do drills all the time. Most of the time, they don't know whether it's a drill or not (until they wake up the next morning and realize they're still there, and everything's ok). They likely won't even know the real thing from a drill (because they won't be told), and they'll do just what they've been trained to do, day in and day out.

Thats damn scarey all by itself Gazrock!

First, much of the Cold War hysteria about nuclear warfare was junk science created by pacifists. The world would not be "blown up", there would be no nuclear winter, etc. The fallout would not decimate the population, either. Nuclear warfare is very survivable, all that is needed is a little information and a cool head.

I must say I find the above statement as hard to beleive as Ivanglams !
Are you kidding Thomas? No nuclear (new clear) winter? Fallout would not decimate populations of survivors? even over time? I think your statement above is very broad and vague, please offer explaination?, share "a little information"? (dont make me get da blowtorch ) Have you read this page Thomas? Please scroll down to "Multiple simultaneuos nuclear detonations: A storm, not a cloud" This dosent directly mention nuke winter and fallout but gives you a good idea of destruction likely today. If anything its underated imho.

www.nukefix.org...





[edit on 043131p://36014 by instar]

you wouldnt be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against the us. 911 worked because the us wernt expecting a few passenger jets to stray off course. you can bet that all nuke launch sites are closely monitored and all the us missiles are ready to go as soon as these are detected as a threat.

lets hope this never happens

Sorry it took so long to pop back into the thread.

I know its hard to believe - you've been conditioned to believe what you believe.

No, there will be no nuclear winter, that is an extreme concept that does not take into consideration certain variables while over emphasising others. Maybe I should say there is less than .001% chance of a nuclear winter than to say there is no chance at all, but it is the same to me.

As far as as nuclear fallout, yes, there will be deaths, but once again, not the far-out numbers you have been led to believe. The radioactivity won't be at dangerous levels for long, and it is easy to protect yourself from readiation from fallout - don't breathe it in and don't let it settle on your clothing for hours at a time.

The initial heat, blast and radiation is the worst of the bomb. When the bomb is a surface blast (a Russian strike would be air bursts so as to destroy the most structures) you'll get alpha and beta radiation mixed with debris to form fallout, but the dust and water will be dilluted in no time. The one radiation you'll not be able to protect yourself from unless you have a blast shelter is gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is not particulate but energy and travels for hundreds or even thousands of meters in the air, depending on conditions.

Radiation will either scramble the DNA in cells, causing it to not know what to do (raising the likelihood of it just growing wildly, which is cancer), or outright kill the cell. During the initial blast, the unprotected body receives a huge dose of gamma passing through the body, killing many cells. The body is unable to disdpose of the dead material fast enough and the person dies from septic shock. Yummy, huh?

Nope, nuclear war is not a walk in the park when you look at it from the realistic point of view and leave out the hysterical hype, but it is survivable. That's the reason for the hype - they don't want you to think it is survivable.

I understand your general nous, but it is "general". How many nukes launched, ground or airburst, how much water, food pollution, how extensive the damage in general to major cities and populated areas? All those variables must be taken into account , along with how much gamma rads you cop etc etc , which cant be done untill its over, so its a bit much to say "you'll survive". I guess it depends where you are! Not many of us have the survival skills to make it in the middle of nowhere imo, we're too soft, conditioned to "go to the store for food" life. depending on the extend of a full on international nuke war, the tradewinds will carry radition too, no? I cant see any party involved, NOT launching every single nuke avail, with that in mind its difficult NOT to imagine "end of the world" scenarios.
exactly what would it take to create a "nuclear winter" anyway? any links?

Not too sure Id WANT TO survive!


[edit on 063131p://07016 by instar]

to the person who asked `how do i know this`

my present station is in the uk , although i usually am based at home

look guys, it doesnt matter if the usa has 3000 nukes as opposed to 4000 of russias, you dont even need 1000 to decimate a country. you need ten tops. take out 10 major cities of the other country..and its over. but look, if russia did launch against the US, N.O.R.A.D among other radar systems would detect them, and our missiles would be airborne, not to mention the B-2s and the subs. they all couldnt be taken out, no matter how many nukes russia launched...and theyd just be killing themselves anyway. becuase besides the U.S and allies massive retaliation...lets say for a second the US doesnt... or cant. (not possible but hypothetical), the amount of radiation from the strike on north america would eventually reach russia and wipe them out also. and the world economy would be gone, so it would never, ever happen.... and it does take 30 or so min for the ICBMs to reach the targets so we def have enough time...