This Presidential Directive should cause some concern in a possible nuclear attack?

a reply to: ADVISOR

The SLCM-N cancellation isn't surprising. I figured that would happen long before now. The Navy has a terrible track record with modernization programs. They also cancelled Snakehead, which wasn't surprising. Both were looking at going well over budget, and the time to get them stood up would be longer than planned.

Someone enlighten me here. I am trying to figure out why NATO is even necessary. Given that Russia, to my knowledge, has never, ever invaded another nation throughout history, other than during WW2, where Germany was the actual aggressor even then, why is NATO even necessary?
The way I see it, NATO, not Russia, is the aggressor since WW2.

Happy happy happy. Everyone is happy.

a reply to: Antisocialist

Well clearly you missed Russia's illegal seizure and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine on March 18, 2014.

As well as the attempted annexation of Georgia in 2008. I would advise using some due diligence and actually doing your homework. You'd find more.

Russia has been making moves towards reconsolidation of USSR since early 2000s.

Just because the media isn't covering it, doesn't mean it's not happening or has happened.

In fact, todays news media are political lapdogs who only pursue the agenda, while pushing blatantly obvious propaganda. I trust no one.

Verify everything, especially the MSM.

a reply to: Nirishman

Nukes are bad for the infrastructure. weapons of mass media destruction are just as genocidal and requires no structural repair.

a reply to: Nirishman

I did read the PDD. It does say that the US will not rely on LOW guidance, however, it also says that the US will retain the ability to respond to any attack appropriately. That does not preclude the concept of Launch On Warning, but implies that we will not rely solely on that guidance for deciding when, if, or how much response is required to any given threat. In other words, the US is not bound to LOW guidance only, but we can respond according to LOW if we choose to.

I saw nothing that indicated the US would let an inbound nuclear missile land on US soil.

The people pushing for NATO entering the conflict have no clue the devastation that will be unleashed. Do you really want to provoke a nuclear war? Do you want to see millions of people, family, friends incinerated in a nuclear fire? Even if you think Putin is bluffing(which he is not) why would you poke the bear. The left and all the NPC support ting this war sicken me.

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

If Russia wants to pursue that path, then ok, lets go. No one holds the US and NATO at gunpoint. That is the point of NATO.

We have watched as the people of Ukraine have been wiped out over a personal matter.
Putin did this, and we let him.

No more.

The only thing a bully understands is another bigger bully, and NATO can be that if pushed.

No one should turn a blind eye to this and YES, we all understand what is at stake.
Are we throwing the human race away to stop a bully?
Yep, if that is what needs to be done to end tyranny in the world.

I grew up with this threat, and now it is here...



It is looking us in the eye...
And I stare back with anger in my heart..

Lets do this and be done. either Russia backs down or we all die.

This is what it will come to, and this is what has been warned against for years..

It is here.

The places mostly protected in the USA are the military complexes and Washington DC. We have concentrated our defense weapons to guard these places the most. We as citizens are considered expendible is what I feel. If we were to take out the majority of Russian missles, I would bet all our big cities would still be shot. They would also want to take out our nuclear power plants and the first thing they would do is create an emp to overload them, those power plants will probably have problems if that occurs with all the electronic circuitry in them. Russia does not have all the advanced gadgets we have, it is hard for us to hack their stuff, yet our government went kind of nuts with technology connecting everything.

We should be concerned, but I am not going to fear a nuclear war...we all have to die sooner or later and I would much prefer to be nuked than have radiation poisoning slowly take me out from a nuke that was shot down in our area that was headed to DC. Canada also has to worry about that.

a reply to: rickymouse

Actually, most of the missiles capable of taking out an ICBM are in California and Alaska.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Not sure I'm completely comfortable with such world-shattering capability vested solely in the hands of single frontline commander, regardless of rank. But, to be honest, I know little to nothing concerning launch protocols in that scenario. It's quite possible that certain steps still exist to prevent one individual from retaliating with complete autonomy.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Nirishman

I did read the PDD. It does say that the US will not rely on LOW guidance, however, it also says that the US will retain the ability to respond to any attack appropriately. That does not preclude the concept of Launch On Warning, but implies that we will not rely solely on that guidance for deciding when, if, or how much response is required to any given threat. In other words, the US is not bound to LOW guidance only, but we can respond according to LOW if we choose to.

I saw nothing that indicated the US would let an inbound nuclear missile land on US soil.

Good read. LOW 'was' about an imminent strategic launch (the fueling process beginning on an ICBM). When the NORKs were going crazy, it also applied to them even rolling a rocket out to their launchpads.

Most folks have no idea. There is a lot of strategic thinking that went into planning a nuclear exchange. Big difference between an exchange and all-out nuclear war.

In all-out nuclear war, all members of the Nuclear Club are going to have a very bad day. The projected effects of a single strategic weapons launch (an ICBM or SLBM) warrant response. This response is designed to preclude any potential invasion of The Americas by a foreign power. There is no need for further discussion of this as a subject.

A limited nuclear exchange is quite probable. If Putin decides he's taking on NATO, it's unlikely he'd send a nuke in the direction of the UK or France. Any other country in Europe is potentially screwed. Except Poland. Poland is definitely effed.

originally posted by: Darkblade71
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

If Russia wants to pursue that path, then ok, lets go. No one holds the US and NATO at gunpoint. That is the point of NATO.

We have watched as the people of Ukraine have been wiped out over a personal matter.
Putin did this, and we let him.

No more.

The only thing a bully understands is another bigger bully, and NATO can be that if pushed.

No one should turn a blind eye to this and YES, we all understand what is at stake.
Are we throwing the human race away to stop a bully?
Yep, if that is what needs to be done to end tyranny in the world.

I grew up with this threat, and now it is here...

It is looking us in the eye...
And I stare back with anger in my heart..

Lets do this and be done. either Russia backs down or we all die.

This is what it will come to, and this is what has been warned against for years..

It is here.

It's SO more complex than that

So WE are gonna subject the rest of the world's innocent population to death and destruction because two countries and peoples are fighting as they have for centuries for 50 plus days? Respectfully FTS.

Hell the last 50 or so days have shown me Russia isn't the threat they pretended to be, Russia can't project their military efficiently in Ukraine, Im not sure they want to expose their incompetence anymore than they already have.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

Actually, most of the missiles capable of taking out an ICBM are in California and Alaska.

So, the first missiles fired from Russia with hyper-sonic ability will target California and Alaska then. The new missile systems the USA bought to replace the older ones couldn't even hit their target a couple of years ago when they tested them...yet our government ordered a lot more. Did you hear about those test results when they came out, it was in a discussion here at the time.

In a major nuclear war...there is no winner...not even the wild animals are spared. Even the fish will suffer as there will be radioactive material flowing into the lakes and Oceans.

originally posted by: rickymouse
In a major nuclear war...there is no winner...not even the wild animals are spared. Even the fish will suffer as there will be radioactive material flowing into the lakes and Oceans.

Fuku was a bad radioactive release. Chernobyl too. Me, my dad and my daughter lost thyroid function within 6 months of Chernobyl. I don't know what Fuku may be responsible for.

I can tell you that the military's not real worried about a nuclear exchange. If strategic weapons are used, the devastation's gonna be on humans. Not gonna be a lot of radiation unless that's an intent.

Also (ref your post previous to the one I'm replying to), ICBMs are hypersonic weapons by their very nature. And, if memory serves, even the Trident II (an SLBM) flies at about mach 25.

I have said a number of times that I think the US is really just trying to bleed Russia dry of their military capabilities using Ukraine as the conduit to do so. Russia in the past had 30,000 tanks, today about 5,000 or less war ready as tanks are very expensive to upkeep. We see it also in their troop size and experience that they typically do not do careers and tend to be mainly forced conscripts from the poorer areas of Russia, as those with money can buy their kids out of it. That military service is nothing more than harsh slave labor and even worst for many, and that is why it is very important to buy yourself out.

We could basically take this above and apply it across all areas of their military and even with what they see as cutting edge it is very limited in numbers. This is where they can not win with us as we dump more equipment into Ukraine then they can over come. It really seems Ukraine might have the upper edge when talking just soldiers too as they can conscript 100,000s to defend their home country over Putin trying to do the same in a war many are not only unprepared for but most likely really do not want to do as they may see it as a death sentence for themselves. (We need to remember Ukraine is a population of 44 million, not a small country to say the least)

So when we hear, if true, Ukraine blows up 1000 tanks that is not a small deal in we are talking 20% or more of what they can field today. This will be a war of attrition that Russia can not win, we do not need to have boots on the ground just equip Ukraine soldiers with never ending good teach weapons and that will bury Russia in a undesirable situation that really has no good outlook for them.

Their one out in all this is to take the east and south and then come to the table and say we are done and will keep what we have right now. I do not think Ukraine will accept that, but who knows if that is what ends the conflict.

a reply to: rickymouse

Except their hypersonic missiles are launched from ships and planes. Both of which are killable with conventional systems. And they don't have perfect accuracy, so they'd need massive amounts of them to take out all the silos for the GBI systems. If they use ICBMs, the GBI system is designed to kill them, and they can salvo fire missiles against them.

I'm well aware of the test results. I used to help quick turn the aircraft used to track tests, and talked to a lot of the guys monitoring the tests. I even have a video of one somewhere. It's a lot more complex than just "they couldn't hit their target". That's a very complex system, with a lot of fail points. Test failures have been everything from the SBX communications failing, to a valve failure.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

Except their hypersonic missiles are launched from ships and planes. Both of which are killable with conventional systems. And they don't have perfect accuracy, so they'd need massive amounts of them to take out all the silos for the GBI systems. If they use ICBMs, the GBI system is designed to kill them, and they can salvo fire missiles against them.

I'm well aware of the test results. I used to help quick turn the aircraft used to track tests, and talked to a lot of the guys monitoring the tests. I even have a video of one somewhere. It's a lot more complex than just "they couldn't hit their target". That's a very complex system, with a lot of fail points. Test failures have been everything from the SBX communications failing, to a valve failure.

BTW what is their inventory number of these missiles, and I have heard over and over they have a pretty high failure rate.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It was running around 50% at one point, but that included tests with no intercept planned, and SBX issues. It’s running about 45% failure rate. The last three intercept tests were successful. The last non-intercept test failed when one of the four new thrusters failed during a close pass test.

I’m 2018, there were 44 missiles in place.