Russian TV lists U.S. military facilities Moscow would target in nuclear strike

McClellan closed as an AFB in 2001.

It is used occasionally by the Coast Guard for refueling, and by the Department of Forestry during wildfire season (which nowadays is virtually all year).

Hardly seems a target worthy of a nuke, especially a newfangled “hypersonic” nuke.

Maybe Russia needs to update their targeting priorities?

Recalculating.

Recalculating.....

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

thats from a MX test and we no longer feild them, the closest thing we have now is the trident missile and they are limited in MIRV payload.

the pershing II had a MARV, that is where the warhead can move outside of a ballistic path,



the top path is the warhead and the bottom is just the booster. as far as intercepting MIRV's that's what our MDF is for, we can intercept them but only a limited number.

ETA:

in alaska we have allot of out GBI(ground based interceptors)



we also have the standard missile family to hit incoming targets and the THAAD missiles




and than there is the patriot and joint us israel iron dome system



if there was a small launch we could defend against it, but if russia attacked there is nothing to really be done other than kiss your butt goodby as both sides destroy eachother

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If people understood the sheer speed those things go come down they'd quickly change their mind about thinking they can defend against them. Not in the numbers Russia could muster.

You're only catching them going up, hence Russia's love of Americans and their missile defences for... Ahem... Middle Eastern nations. They've got too many missiles.

They're not the game changer as you said and anyways 20 nukes detonated at sea level on the west or east coast would devastate the US. Nuclear weapons are disgustingly nasty at ground level and apparently it isn't all that hard to use a conventional nuclear warhead to deny an area to enemies... Or any life for that matter.

And yes, to those asking if Russia would allow targets to be known? Of course they would... Why not? There's no practical defence against 1000's of warheads and duds being hurtled at you at 1000's of mph. It's not the first or second strike that's scary anyways.

It's the waves that top brass Russians wouldn't even be privvy to that's scary.

I suspect Russia and the US will happily nuke their own territories, there's multiple reasons to suspect this.

a reply to: CeeWhizzle

We really need some type of World governing organization , Not like the UN but something that can be strong enough to stop a Nuclear war between 2 country's ,

It's not fair to the World or other Country's If 2 big boys went at it country's not even involved would be destroyed on made inhabitable .

Pretty normal for the Russians. They are always revealing some military system or plan to the media every few weeks. Most of the time, it's pie-in-the-sky hyperbolic nonsense. They've been doing this since the days of Khrushchev. It's best to ignore them. Their press releases have as much value as Jimmy Kimmel's political opinion.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: CeeWhizzle

We really need some type of World governing organization , Not like the UN but something that can be strong enough to stop a Nuclear war between 2 country's ,

It's not fair to the World or other Country's If 2 big boys went at it country's not even involved would be destroyed on made inhabitable .

Yeah the U.N isn't going to be much help once the oil is dried up and overpopulation has damaged the atmosphere beyond repair. Current trends can't continue and I don't think the smartest minds can prevent the worst from happening.


Anybody want to form a NWO and broadcast from a secret facility at Antarctica?

NATO 2nd strike capability is based on SSBNs and Northrop B-2 bombers. The SSBNs are Ohio,Vanguard and Triomphant classes.

The delusion of NATO stands in the fact that a Russian first strike will target land objectives ... what if a first strike is specifically aimed at all of NATO's 2nd strike capabiity using a revolutionary anti-sub weapon ?

Imagine an SS-N-16 capable of hypersonic speeds on top of latest generation intercontinental missile (prompt global strike), delivering "smart depth charges" in a coordinated fashion ...

We're not in the 70s when submarines could reliably stay hidden just by submerging, that should be clear by now.

Such capability will be deployed by Russia any time now ... due to the fact , that this is the only way to guarantee the security of Russian space and under-sea research, exploration and economic activities !

e.g. the Baikal fly-back rocket booster ...