Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Share

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:02 pm

    Which Russian cities are most important for Russia to defend?

    I was looking the the huge Russia territory ,but it seemed that even though the territory was huge
    there was something very wrong from a defense strategy.., and that is that it seems that Russia focus their most important places
    in just 2 cities.. Moscow and Saint Petersburg.  So in case the unthinkable happens and sometime in the future
    there is a major war , that all that any enemy nation needs to do to destroy Russian economy and destroy the most important shipbuilding and military industry is attack only those 2 cities with nuclear weapons or chemical weapons . is that correct?
     Or Russia is a lot more than Moscow and Saint Petersburg. and can survive as a major power and their defense industry survive
    even without those 2 cities?

    It seems to me that the best strategy in defense that Russia can make is move their capital and or at least their military major buildings and defense industries and ship buildings much farther to the east. for security reasons. Since it was told most of the east of Russia is empty lands.

    Any comments?

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:11 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Which Russian cities are most important for Russia to defend?

    I was looking the the huge Russia territory ,but it seemed that even though the territory was huge
    there was something very wrong from a defense strategy.., and that is that it seems that Russia focus their most important places
    in just 2 cities.. Moscow and Saint Petersburg.  So in case the unthinkable happens and sometime in the future
    there is a major war , that all that any enemy nation needs to do to destroy Russian economy and destroy the most important shipbuilding and military industry is attack only those 2 cities with nuclear weapons or chemical weapons . is that correct?
     Or Russia is a lot more than Moscow and Saint Petersburg. and can survive as a major power and their defense industry survive
    even without those 2 cities?

    It seems to me that the best strategy in defense that Russia can make is move their capital and or at least their military major buildings and defense industries and ship buildings much farther to the east. for security reasons. Since it was told most of the east of Russia is empty lands.

    Any comments?
    Every inch of Russian territory, airspace, waters and maritime economic zones.

    And Russia has the military power to defend all of it.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  TR1 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:44 pm

    The big military cities/ports are generally located close to SAM garrisons and VVS airfields.Not Moscow level, but regions like Kamchatka and Vladivostock or kaliningrad have quite a bit of defensive priority.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:32 pm

    there is a major war , that all that any enemy nation needs to do to destroy Russian economy and destroy the most important shipbuilding and military industry is attack only those 2 cities with nuclear weapons or chemical weapons . is that correct?
    An attack on Moscow and St Petersberg would be catastrophic for Russia... but then an attack on Los Angeles and New York would be just as devastating for the US if not more so in terms of numbers killed.

    And don't say the US is better prepared... Katrina showed it really isn't... it simply didn't have enough heavy lift helo capacity even though it refused outside offers of help...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:17 pm

    I would like to share something which you might never have heard . I got it from Quora ( the website where people jerk random questions just to know their answers or to get any lead .) I have discussed it earlier on Zerohedge and they discredited his answer . I would like to know what you all think .

    He is Dan Holliday an murican . ( profile : http://www.quora.com/Dan-Holliday )

    Q.1) How many ICBM's could the US stop from reaching the US?

        A.) That information is completely classified for VERY good reasons.  But suffice it to say the answer is likely two things:

      1.) Sufficient to make the Russians uneasy.
      2.) Insufficient to neutralize MAD (mutually assured destruction).


    Beyond that, you will NEVER get a great answer outside of the very highest echelons of the US defense establishment.  The prime reason is this, let's just say the US could effectively intercept 1,000 nuclear missiles before they reach the mainland.  This completely destabilizes the MAD arrangement and gives legitimacy to the Russian anger at the missile shield.  There's an implicit agreement by our strategic defense systems that essentially states, "We can hurt each other sufficiently, so there's no reason to engage in an arms race to the point of bankrupting both of our nations and plunging the earth into a 7 year night."

    The Russians have good cause to be annoyed by this system.  They aren't "factually right" or "morally right" at all.  They are simply correct in their fear that they'll be rendered impotent against an American nuclear attack; that the unspoken arrangement of mutual annihilation would then be gone; yet another sign that Mother Russia is in decline.  If the US could neutralize 1,000 Russian ICBM's, the fact is, an entire Russian nuclear assault is gone and the US has single, first strike capacity against the Motherland.

    That's because of a few well known facts on the ground:

     1.)  Nuclear weapons have incredibly high dud-rates.  This is why multiple MIRV's are targeted at cities.
      2.) The Russian stockpile is the oldest of any major power and the dud-rate increases precipitously.  We can conclude that somewhere between 30-50% will be duds.  This means that the Russians need to double up on every target.
       3.) Russian nuclear "boomers" are trailed by American, French and British hunter subs.  The Russians keep one or two boomers out at any time.  They cannot escape the NATO boomers.  Their subs would not launch all missiles before the NATO attack subs destroyed them.
       4.) The Russian fleet is rusting and decaying.
       5. )The Russian air-force has next to ZERO chance of getting their bombers or fast attack aircraft to the Homeland (bypassing Canadian and American missiles and fighters).
       This means that the Russian attack on the US is reliant upon it's ICBM's which are MORE than sufficient to do the job, regardless of how aging it is.  

    —With just 500 launch vehicles (which is the full maximum extent of Russian launch capacity) with 8 MIRV's each (which is conservative), the Russians could land 4,000 nuclear warheads on the USA.  Even if only 1,500 of them make their target, that's enough to end the nation forever and certainly enough to make the US rethink any nuclear attack EVEN if the American attack would result in a more thorough destruction of Russia (say, 3,500 American nukes vs. 1,500 Russian nukes -- dead is dead).  

    But, if the US possesses a very reliable intercept capacity, and can launch 1,000 of them at the ICBM's before the MIRVs separate, they could potentially knock out a sizable portion of the fleet.  Accounting for the dud-rate and other factors, if 75% of the remaining Russian ICBM's were prevented from destroying their targets (375 nukes make it), then the US has essentially neutralized the Russian attack, while having freedom to use its incredibly advanced submarine fleet and ICBM's to annihilate Russia totally while ensuring that SOMETHING of America survives (375 Russian nukes destroy the US, but something of the nation survives; 3,500 American nukes ensure complete Russian annihilation).

    This arrangement cannot be tolerated by Russia EVEN while we all know that 375 Russian nukes are plenty to scare any American politician into never striking Russia.  The PARITY of destruction is what buys Russian security, not "kind of destroyed".   A missile defense shield -- if really good - wipes out the entire cornerstone of countering the American threat.  The US isn't a ravaging corsair intent on plunging humanity into nuclear winter -- such an attack would harm the USA even if the Russian nukes failed to reach their target -- but it doesn't give the Russians comfort.

    So, the US cannot allow reliable figures to be released on how successful its intercepts are.  Such information would surely prompt the Russians to double-down on their nuclear deterrence and we'd be in a WMD race again.

     dunno




    Q.2) Who would win in a war between Russia and the US?

        A.)  With nukes?  Nobody, of course.

    The Russian nuclear forces are dependent upon her ICBM's.  Her boomer subs and air force wouldn't get much launched (her bombers wouldn't make it to American airspace and her max of two deployed nuke boomers are trailed at all times by at least one American and one other NATO attack sub -- they'd never make it to launch depth).  But that doesn't matter.  Even if only the two modern MIRV equipped ICBMs work (the very advanced, RS-24 Yars; and the reasonably advanced RT-2UTTKh Topol-M), that would be a total of about 125 ICBM's.  (trust that the aging RT-2pms, UR-100Ns and R-36 still have some bite).

    All things considered, that means that the minimal (stress on the "minimal") strike would look something like this:

      1.) There are approximately 40-50 RS ICBMs. Each has between 4-8 warheads, with between 100-300kt explosive blast each warhead.  Assume the average -- 6 MIRVs at 150kt blast each (7x Nagasaki), would mean 270 strikes.
       2.) There are approximately 80 RT-2UTTKh ICBMs.  Each has only one warhead, but at a devastating 800kt. (40x Nagasaki), total of 80 strikes.

    The total number of warhead blasts in the US would be no less than 350 nuclear strikes (that's NO LESS than, but highly likely much higher when older warheads are added in).  Even if only 350 nuclear strikes occurred, and only 100 highly important targets were selected (doubling or trippling up on important locations), easily the top 80 largest cities (every major metro area) + the 20 most important military targets were struck, the US would be wiped off the face of the map.  The entire nation would end.  Most people would be dead in six months due to disease and starvation.   If ONLY the Russians struck (with no retaliation from the US), humanity might survive such an attack.
    ===Total yield: 3,500 times Nagasaki (this excludes many other older nukes that, if they worked appropriately, would push this number way beyond 10,000 times Nagasaki).

    The American strike would be more thorough both for Russia and possibly for humanity.  The US's nuclear triad (ICBMs, Air Force and Navy) would have more successful launches due to the larger nature of the American forces and the more modern equipment.   The Ballistic Missile Submarines (boomers) would do the trick, 14 total with nukes, seven deployed at any given time.  They're beyond deadly.  Their nuclear payloads capable of being launched in under 30 minutes.

      1.) Each Ohio Class boomer has 24 Trident II SLBM that are MIRV'ed with between 6-8 W76 110kt nuclear warhead (5.5 times Nagasaki).  Even if we went with the average (7 warheads), that's 1,176 nuclear strikes from the Ohio Class nuclear payload.
       2.) The US also operates 450 Minuteman III ICBMs that are MIRV'ed with 3 nuclear warheads (in the process if not concluded, the downgrade to 1 MIRV each).  The exact type of warhead is classified, but the warheads are either the W78 or W87, with no less than 300kt of explosive yield (15x Nagasaki).  That's a total maximum of 1,350 nuclear warheads, minimum of 450.

    The total number of blasts would be insane, no less than 2,526.  We haven't even counted any Air Force method, presuming that the Russians could/would destroy them in flight.  Nevertheless, even if strikes were doubled and/or tripled up on cities, it would mean that no less than 1,000 locations would be wiped out by more than one (some with three or four) nuclear blasts.  The destruction would be absolute.
    ===Total yield: no less than 30,000 times Nagasaki  unshaven





    WEIGH IN !  attack

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:07 pm

    Well, for one, this person completely neglects Russias Delta subs and Borei not to mention ships/subs supporting the subs. They have failed to shadow various Russian subs and who knows how many are actually on patrol. If incase of a major war, guarantee more subs would be on active duty. As well, those subs missiles can be launched within Russian waters too. So the fool who wrote that is dead wrong. Second of all, Russias nuclear arminent is much newer. Topol, Topol M, Yars, Sineva, Bulava, etc are all much newer than Trident and Minuteman III.

    As well, ABM systems will be saturated by guided munitions. Guaranteed Russia would use Anti Radiation missiles to strike abm sites. ABM systems proved useful against old scud style systems but nothing newer or capable.

    If wiki numbers are correct, Russia has 3 Delta III in service, 6 delta IV in service and 3 Borei in service. Borei has 16 Bulava missiles with around 6 warheads each. That is 96 warheads total per boat, so that is 3 of them which totals to 288 warheads. Ill get to delta series.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:31 pm

    Delta III and IV use Sineva missiles which carry 4 warheads. Total of 16 missiles per boat. That is 64 warheads per boat and total to 576 warheads.

    The boats do not have to be off the coast of US to launch their weapons. As well, they will be escorted.

    Bombers, if equiped with Kh-101,102 and 555 (or even older KH-55) do not have to be in US airspace to launch their nukes. What the writer also fails in is that Russia doesnt use dumb nukes as far as I am aware and bombers like Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160 are cruise missile bombers, not bomb trucks. They carry specific number of long range cruise missiles and can launch them in salvo. KH-55 has roughly upwards to 3K KM and KH-101 and up roughly same or higher range.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs on Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:58 pm

    sepheronx wrote:Delta III and IV use Sineva missiles which carry 4 warheads. Total of 16 missiles per boat. That is 64 warheads per boat and total to 576 warheads.

    The boats do not have to be off the coast of US to launch their weapons. As well, they will be escorted.

    Bombers, if equiped with Kh-101,102 and 555 (or even older KH-55) do not have to be in US airspace to launch their nukes. What the writer also fails in is that Russia doesnt use dumb nukes as far as I am aware and bombers like Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160 are cruise missile bombers, not bomb trucks. They carry specific number of long range cruise missiles and can launch them in salvo. KH-55 has roughly upwards to 3K KM and KH-101 and up roughly same or higher range.

    You are right, the nuclear warheads are now maneuverable and not simply lumps flying on predictable ballistic trajectories. This
    is why the Russian government has been saying for years that it can defeat the ABM shield. Of course, in the real world no
    technology achieves perfect advantage. So the ABM shield is still a strategic threat to Russia. And Russia is developing its
    own based on the S-500. They should install the the Moscow ABM system in other key locations as well. There is no treaty
    preventing them from doing so.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:05 pm

    I knew his reply was way too ignorant . He even blocked me because i was bursting his bubble .



    GarryB shed some light on it !


    Last edited by max steel on Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:21 pm

    kvs wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Delta III and IV use Sineva missiles which carry 4 warheads. Total of 16 missiles per boat. That is 64 warheads per boat and total to 576 warheads.

    The boats do not have to be off the coast of US to launch their weapons. As well, they will be escorted.

    Bombers, if equiped with Kh-101,102 and 555 (or even older KH-55) do not have to be in US airspace to launch their nukes. What the writer also fails in is that Russia doesnt use dumb nukes as far as I am aware and bombers like Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160 are cruise missile bombers, not bomb trucks. They carry specific number of long range cruise missiles and can launch them in salvo. KH-55 has roughly upwards to 3K KM and KH-101 and up roughly same or higher range.

    You are right, the nuclear warheads are now maneuverable and not simply lumps flying on predictable ballistic trajectories.   This
    is why the Russian government has been saying for years that it can defeat the ABM shield.   Of course, in the real world no
    technology achieves perfect advantage.   So the ABM shield is still a strategic threat to Russia.   And Russia is developing its
    own based on the S-500.   They should install the the Moscow ABM system in other key locations as well.  There is no treaty
    preventing them from doing so.

    The warheads dont have to manouver to outdo abm systems as PAC-3 and THAAD dont hit the warheads (I may be wrong on this) but at the missiles itself. And their accuracy isnt 100%.  I am not sure if all warheads are manouverable. I know Bulava, topol M and Yars warheads are, but im not sure of Sineva. As well, ABM sites are targeted by Iskander (at closer ranges) as Iskander flies at a quasi balistic trajectory.

    Sineva has been replaced by Layner as well, which is a much newer slbm and has 12 warheads each.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:35 pm

    Dunno if this site is accurate but: Russian strategic nuclear forces
    Current status

    In January 2015 Russia was estimated to have 499 strategic launchers and about 1900 nuclear warheads. In its September 2014 New START data exchange Russia reported 528 deployed launchers with 1643 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.

    The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 305 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 1166 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 60 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 49 RS-24 missiles.

    [Strategic Rocket Forces...]
    The Russian strategic fleet includes 8 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 128 missiles with 512 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles. (Two Project 955 submarines are expected to join the Pacific Fleet in 2015.)
    [Strategic fleet...]
    The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missile and gravity bombs.
    [Strategic aviation...]
    As of February 2015, Russia had a network of early-warning radars and no operational early-warning satellites.
    [Early warning and defense...]
    [February 11, 2015] [#]

    They left out some important info though:
    Tu-22M is capable of carrying nuclear warheads both on Kh-22 and Kh-16. There are over 50 Tu-22's in service for airforce (not mentioning of Navy) and Kh-22 has 600km range. I don't know if Tu-22M3M has anything newer but still. Also, they mentioned 8 active submarines but if you go to their section on submarines of SSBN nature they say 11. Probably it is 12. There are 3 active Delta III's, 6 Delta IV and 3 Borei with a possible 1 Typhoon class converted to use Bulava's, but I will opt this one out.

    I am not sure much about the ICBM's in active service. Topol, Topol M and UR-100 are only single warhead nuclear missiles but Yars carries multiple (4) warheads. Soon there will be rail mobile launched ICBM's, more Borei's (to replace Delta 3's and Delta 4's that are going to be out of service (Delta 4's are staying much longer and going through overhauls, so it will be roughly 6 Delta4's and 8 Borei's total after time). Replacement of UR-100 and Topols with YARS and the eventual avangard to replace the SS-18.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:11 pm

    lol it's reliable . sepheronx I was the first guy here who shared that website with fellow forum members .



    Want to hear what all others exeperts think .

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:37 pm

    max steel wrote: lol it's reliable . sepheronx I was the  first  guy here who shared that website with fellow forum members .



    Want to hear what all others exeperts think .

    Actual experts or wannabe experts? The numbers are from START treaty and is monitored by multiple people. Russia has been testing a lot of YARS and Bulava and Liner because these will be the backbones of Russias ICBM and SLBM forces. People have all theories but easily discredit. Not long ago there has been surprise showups of Russian subs that were not tracked. To say they would instantly be sunk is a joke. They would definately be escorted by oscar class subs and Yasen (when it arrives) in farther from territory waters or by improved kilo and others, as well as surface ships, in their own territorial waters.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:55 pm

    No disrespect for you mate . I acknowledge your valuable answer .welcome But I want to know what GarryB has to say after reading this . START-3 isn't coming any near in coming years .

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:12 pm

    max steel wrote:No disrespect for you mate . I acknowledge your valuable answer .welcome   But I want to know what GarryB has to say after reading this . START-3 isn't coming any near in coming years .

    Oh, that is what you meant. I thought you asked if I wanted to know what other experts were saying.

    None of us here are experts. No one online community are experts. Only ones are the military officials, crew operating the machines, President/Prime Ministers and these START treaty folk. The rest of us are simply going by what are officialy said and putting 2+2 together. The website I linked has discrepencies between its own pages, as well as fails to mention additional systems in operation that carry nukes or can (Tu-22) while saying all Delta III's are retired when 3 of them are still operating with 1 being a test boat for something.

    type055
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 103
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2014-09-03

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  type055 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:59 pm

    in my opinion, it was alaska , selling alaska is dumbest decision by russia emperor , American dig out huge amount of gas, gold,natural gas in Alaska. and Alaska give U.S. advantage to defend Russia and China's intercontinental missile. if Alaska were in russia, russia will have larger power in north pole and get rid fo U.S.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:40 pm

    sepheronx wrote:Dunno if this site is accurate but: Russian strategic nuclear forces
    Current status

    In January 2015 Russia was estimated to have 499 strategic launchers and about 1900 nuclear warheads. In its September 2014 New START data exchange Russia reported 528 deployed launchers with 1643 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.

    The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 305 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 1166 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 60 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 49 RS-24 missiles.

    [Strategic Rocket Forces...]
    The Russian strategic fleet includes 8 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 128 missiles with 512 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles. (Two Project 955 submarines are expected to join the Pacific Fleet in 2015.)
    [Strategic fleet...]
    The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missile and gravity bombs.
    [Strategic aviation...]
    As of February 2015, Russia had a network of early-warning radars and no operational early-warning satellites.
    [Early warning and defense...]
    [February 11, 2015] [#]

    They left out some important info though:
    Tu-22M is capable of carrying nuclear warheads both on Kh-22 and Kh-16.  There are over 50 Tu-22's in service for airforce (not mentioning of Navy) and Kh-22 has 600km range.  I don't know if Tu-22M3M has anything newer but still.  Also, they mentioned 8 active submarines but if you go to their section on submarines of SSBN nature they say 11.  Probably it is 12.  There are 3 active Delta III's, 6 Delta IV and 3 Borei with a possible 1 Typhoon class converted to use Bulava's, but I will opt this one out.

    I am not sure much about the ICBM's in active service.  Topol, Topol M and UR-100 are only single warhead nuclear missiles but Yars carries multiple (4) warheads.  Soon there will be rail mobile launched ICBM's, more Borei's (to replace Delta 3's and Delta 4's that are going to be out of service (Delta 4's are staying much longer and going through overhauls, so it will be roughly 6 Delta4's and 8 Borei's total after time).  Replacement of UR-100 and Topols with YARS and the eventual avangard to replace the SS-18.

    Ironically you left out quite a bit on the the modernization of the Tu-22M3, like some serious new firepower coming in the next few years. Here's a post from 'Austin' from the official Tu-22M3 thread:

    Austin wrote:Note Kh-32 Range has almost double of Kh-22 variant and flies higher at 42 Km Altitude.

    Range of Kh-32 is around 800 Km

    For Tu-22M3M three new weapons are under development.

    Kh-32M  ( modernised variant of Kh-32 )
    Kh-SD ( Subsonic Stealthy 2000 km range missile )
    Kh-MT ( Supersonic Ramjet 1000 km Range missile )


    http://www.russiadefence.net/t820p60-tu-22m3-news#58122

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:59 pm

    I am a bit behind in the times regarding types of cruise missiles and upgrades to Russian aircrafts. Tu-22M3M with these new cruise missiles will be detremental to Russias security against US. Long range systems like these is what is keeping Russia safe for the time being.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:19 pm

    There's an implicit agreement by our strategic defense systems that essentially states, "We can hurt each other sufficiently, so there's no reason to engage in an arms race to the point of bankrupting both of our nations and plunging the earth into a 7 year night."

    Wrong. The whole premise of MAD is that each has the assured capability of completely destroying the other.

    START to the current treaty allowed each side to go from 6,000 warheads each to between 1,200 and 1,500 warheads each. Still plenty, but if the US continues developing its ABM shields Russia will likely decide that 1,200 warheads is not enough and go back to 6,000 warheads.

    With high capacity MARV warhead buses that would be rather easier than it used to be.

    They are simply correct in their fear that they'll be rendered impotent against an American nuclear attack; that the unspoken arrangement of mutual annihilation would then be gone; yet another sign that Mother Russia is in decline.

    Decline? Look in a mirror buddy... when there are other commercial centres establish themselves and the US isn't the economic centre of the world they wont be able to just print more money to solve their problems.... if any country is in decline it is the US.

    The US developing ABM shields is reducing the concept of MAD to the point where one side might actually think they can fight and win a nuclear war. Whether they actually can or not is irrelevant because when they think they can win then they wont be afraid of finding out... this makes nuclear war actually very likely... which is what Russia and all sane sensible human being fear... when MAD fails you have war.

    The easiest way to avoid this is simply to no sign anything after the Moscow Treaty expires and just build lots and lots of nuclear armed missiles... some 10 ton 20,000km range cruise missiles could be made cheaply in enormous numbers and deployed in their tens of thousands all over Russia and start buildign less appealing weapons like a nuclear jet engine powered supersonic cruise missile that blows irradiated air out the jet exhaust and can fly at mach 3 at low altitude and fly for years all over the US irradiating the entire country... ABM systems are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles... not low flying fast cruise missiles...

    If the US could neutralize 1,000 Russian ICBM's, the fact is, an entire Russian nuclear assault is gone and the US has single, first strike capacity against the Motherland.

    And if wishes were books you'd have about ten libraries of congress in this article...

    That's because of a few well known facts on the ground:

    1.) Nuclear weapons have incredibly high dud-rates. This is why multiple MIRV's are targeted at cities.

    Moron. Nuclear weapons have incredibly low dud rates... have you ever in your life read about a nuclear weapon test where there was no explosion?

    Cities are large area targets and so hitting them with one big powerful warhead is not actually that efficient... for the same reason you get better destructive coverage with a cluster bomb than much bigger standard bomb. A MIRV can hit multiple cities on its flight path with warheads released from the main weapon bus as it passes the target area. Most large area targets like cities will be targeted by multiple warheads from different weapons to ensure they are effectively destroyed.

    2.) The Russian stockpile is the oldest of any major power and the dud-rate increases precipitously. We can conclude that somewhere between 30-50% will be duds. This means that the Russians need to double up on every target.

    Moron... The Russian stockpile is the NEWEST and includes hypersonic glide vehicles intended specifically to evade ABM systems.

    The Russians have been replacing their old soviet missiles with ukrainian parts to create all Russian weapons so their missiles and warheads are actually rather newer than the US missiles, which are also used against targets exactly the same way and are also very reliable.

    3.) Russian nuclear "boomers" are trailed by American, French and British hunter subs. The Russians keep one or two boomers out at any time. They cannot escape the NATO boomers. Their subs would not launch all missiles before the NATO attack subs destroyed them.

    So western SSNs trail the two Russian SSBNs at sea AND the ones in port too? How does that work?

    they cannot escape the NATO boomers? Moron. A boomer is an SSBN that carries sub launched ballistic missiles.... NATO boomers would do everything they can to be no where near any Russian vessel of any kind.

    Most modern Russian SSBNs can volley launch all their missiles very rapidly... most western SSNs would have to penetrate Russian ports to get at those Russian SSBNs by which time those SLBMs would be on their way.

    4.) The Russian fleet is rusting and decaying.

    Even in the 1990s the Russian SSBNs were fully capable of launching on command... now more than ever before.

    5. )The Russian air-force has next to ZERO chance of getting their bombers or fast attack aircraft to the Homeland (bypassing Canadian and American missiles and fighters).

    the Russian bombers will take 8 hours to fly over the pole to launch positions above Canada where their 5,000km range cruise missiles will take another 6-10 hours to get to their targets.

    5 minutes into their flight the SLBMs will have hit and devastated much of North America... 25 minutes later another 600 odd detonations over Canada and North America and I don't think any interceptors or radars will be operational 7 and 1/2 hours later when the Bears launch their missiles or 10 hours later when 600 odd new nuclear detonations light up north america again...

    This means that the Russian attack on the US is reliant upon it's ICBM's which are MORE than sufficient to do the job, regardless of how aging it is.

    Regardless of how aging it is... it is 20 years younger than the youngest US ICBM system in service today...

    —With just 500 launch vehicles (which is the full maximum extent of Russian launch capacity) with 8 MIRV's each (which is conservative), the Russians could land 4,000 nuclear warheads on the USA. Even if only 1,500 of them make their target, that's enough to end the nation forever and certainly enough to make the US rethink any nuclear attack EVEN if the American attack would result in a more thorough destruction of Russia (say, 3,500 American nukes vs. 1,500 Russian nukes -- dead is dead).

    Current treaty obligations limit both sides to 1,200-1,500 warheads each... that includes all strategic weapons like ICBMs, SLBMs, and cruise missiles.

    The US population is more concentrated in fewer places which means it would be easier to wipe out with fewer weapons.

    But, if the US possesses a very reliable intercept capacity, and can launch 1,000 of them at the ICBM's before the MIRVs separate, they could potentially knock out a sizable portion of the fleet. Accounting for the dud-rate and other factors, if 75% of the remaining Russian ICBM's were prevented from destroying their targets (375 nukes make it), then the US has essentially neutralized the Russian attack, while having freedom to use its incredibly advanced submarine fleet and ICBM's to annihilate Russia totally while ensuring that SOMETHING of America survives (375 Russian nukes destroy the US, but something of the nation survives; 3,500 American nukes ensure complete Russian annihilation).

    The US doesn't even have a bare bones defence capability... the current ABM system hasn't even proved as capable as the currently operational system around Moscow that has been in place and tested every year for the last half century or so.

    With 50 interceptors the concept of shooting down 1,000 missiles is absurd. When the US announces it will build 1,000 ABM interceptors the Russians will simply start building missiles... probably 10s of thousands.

    BTW with the ABM treaty no longer in effect the S-500 will be able to intercept ICBM warheads AND SLBM warheads, but the Russians are building them in numbers to the point where it is most likely them that will be shooting down BMs. Shooting down 1,000 ballistic missiles is absurd because there arent 1,000 ICBMs anywhere.

    So, the US cannot allow reliable figures to be released on how successful its intercepts are. Such information would surely prompt the Russians to double-down on their nuclear deterrence and we'd be in a WMD race again.

    There are plenty of spies within the US and the Russians have space tracking capability of their own... they can watch themselves and they know US ABM systems are crap.

    The problem is that over time and with lots of money they wont remain crap and problems will be solved and eventually these systems will be a problem.

    The American strike would be more thorough both for Russia and possibly for humanity.

    More of the American warheads would be shot down.

    The US's nuclear triad (ICBMs, Air Force and Navy) would have more successful launches due to the larger nature of the American forces and the more modern equipment.

    US B-52s are original build from the 1960s.... Russian Tu-95s were built in the 1980s and 1990s... US Minuteman missiles are ancient, Russian missiles are Russian... ie post 1991 build. etc etc etc

    Ballistic Missile Submarines (boomers) would do the trick, 14 total with nukes, seven deployed at any given time. They're beyond deadly. Their nuclear payloads capable of being launched in under 30 minutes.

    Actually more like less than 15 minutes, but their lower flight speed means even S-400 should be able to engage many of them which greatly reduces their ability and performance.

    1.) Each Ohio Class boomer has 24 Trident II SLBM that are MIRV'ed with between 6-8 W76 110kt nuclear warhead (5.5 times Nagasaki). Even if we went with the average (7 warheads), that's 1,176 nuclear strikes from the Ohio Class nuclear payload.

    Yeah buddy the cold war is over... the Ohios with 24 missiles each armed with 7 warheads... which was their standard load means 24 x 7 which is a mere 168 warheads per boat which is of course pathetic compared with Akula that can carry 20 missiles with 10 warheads per missile as standard, which is obviously 200 warheads per boat.

    Of course if you want to live in the past that is OK but with the Moscow Treaty in place limiting both sides to 1,200-1,500 warheads each that means each triad has between 400 and 500 warheads each...

    2.) The US also operates 450 Minuteman III ICBMs that are MIRV'ed with 3 nuclear warheads (in the process if not concluded, the downgrade to 1 MIRV each). The exact type of warhead is classified, but the warheads are either the W78 or W87, with no less than 300kt of explosive yield (15x Nagasaki). That's a total maximum of 1,350 nuclear warheads, minimum of 450.

    The total number of blasts would be insane, no less than 2,526. We haven't even counted any Air Force method, presuming that the Russians could/would destroy them in flight. Nevertheless, even if strikes were doubled and/or tripled up on cities, it would mean that no less than 1,000 locations would be wiped out by more than one (some with three or four) nuclear blasts. The destruction would be absolute.
    ===Total yield: no less than 30,000 times Nagasaki

    Hilarious... both sides have 1,200 to 1,500 warheads and the greater accuracy of the older US warheads meant they tended to use smaller yield warheads so the 30,000 Nagasakis is just BS... the US yields will be rather lower than the Russian ones.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  max steel on Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:57 pm

    Thanks for your insightful comment .



    Few points :-

    1) Tu-95 was built in 1960s just like B-52 . they both will retire in 2040 . But Russian Tu-160 bomber the latest one came to service in 1987 .

    " The Russian stockpile is the NEWEST and includes hypersonic glide vehicles intended specifically to evade ABM systems. "

    2) Does Russia posses hypersonic weapon ? I guess Russia with India is busy in making Brahmos-2 hypersonic missile and they've already prepared fuel for it . Yanks and Chinese are looking for glide hypersonic vehicles .


    3) All of US 10-warhead MX missiles have been retired from service. Minutemen were designed as single warthead missiles, then upgraded to triple warheads and now, I believe, have been reconfigured back as single warhead units.


    " S-500 will be able to intercept ICBM warheads AND SLBM warheads, but the Russians are building them in numbers to the point where it is most likely them that will be shooting down BMs. Shooting down 1,000 ballistic missiles is absurd because there arent 1,000 ICBMs anywhere. "


    4) S-500 will be shooting BMs mean ? if they can shoot icbm and slbm so what's the issue ? You mean russia's 1643 and yank's 1642 ( currently deployed ) nukes are not all ICBMs ?



    5) It is estimated that Russia has more spies inside the United States today than it did at any point during the Cold War .


    " The problem is that over time and with lots of money they wont remain crap and problems will be solved and eventually these systems will be a problem. "

    6) Yup i agree and that's why Russia is hellbent in getting those shields removed from Europe and they are concerned with its proximity (kaliningrad ) .

    7) Well if US didn't behave then its better for Russia to withdraw from INF and START treaty .


    Cool ABM treaty is no more valid to Russians as yankees left unilaterally isn't it ?

    9) Russia is almost two generations ahead in missile technology .

    10) don't you think if US doesn't back down then Russia must engage in some sort of military alliance with CSTO + BRICS + EAU ?


    11) Russia must put its nukes back in Cuba and Nicaragua this time if us deploys missile shield in europe .



    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:43 pm

    Actually the current Tu-95's in service are relatively new air-frames, built within the last 10-20 years.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:34 am

    1) Tu-95 was built in 1960s just like B-52 . they both will retire in 2040 . But Russian Tu-160 bomber the latest one came to service in 1987 .

    The Tu-95 was designed and built originally in the late 50s early 60s but the current in service aircraft are based on the improved Tu-142 design and were all built in the 1980s and 1990s.

    The B-52s are all original build aircraft from the 1960-70s era most are older than their crews.

    2) Does Russia posses hypersonic weapon ? I guess Russia with India is busy in making Brahmos-2 hypersonic missile and they've already prepared fuel for it . Yanks and Chinese are looking for glide hypersonic vehicles .

    ICBM re-entry vehicles are all hypersonic Rolling Eyes Pretty obvious when you read the stats... SS-18 has a 16,000km range and can get to the US from Russia in 30 minutes... that is 32,000km/h or about mach 28. (It is about 8.8km/s... which is still not fast enough to leave earths orbit... ie 11km/s is needed for that).

    3) All of US 10-warhead MX missiles have been retired from service. Minutemen were designed as single warthead missiles, then upgraded to triple warheads and now, I believe, have been reconfigured back as single warhead units.

    START II banned the use of MIRVs on both sides.

    4) S-500 will be shooting BMs mean ? if they can shoot icbm and slbm so what's the issue ? You mean russia's 1643 and yank's 1642 ( currently deployed ) nukes are not all ICBMs ?

    1643 and 1642 are total nukes... including ICBMs, SLBMs, and cruise missiles and air delivered bombs.

    there will be between 400 and 500 of each, so say 500 SLBMs and 500 ICBMs and 500 cruise missiles or bombs delivered by bombers... no 1,000 ICBMs.

    7) Well if US didn't behave then its better for Russia to withdraw from INF and START treaty .

    Controls and limits on weapons is a good thing as it includes verification clauses. End the treaties and lose access to check what they are doing... in absence of real information assume the worst... which gets expensive in terms of weapon procurement.

    ABM systems are expensive... I rather doubt the Russians want to build thousands of systems... just to stop the uS acting like wankers.


    Cool ABM treaty is no more valid to Russians as yankees left unilaterally isn't it ?

    If the ABM treaty was still in effect they would not be allowed to develop the S-500 which seems to be pretty much a mobile Moscow ABM system with standardised missiles able to be used on standard naval SAM launch systems it seems.

    10) don't you think if US doesn't back down then Russia must engage in some sort of military alliance with CSTO + BRICS + EAU ?

    No. Military alliances created WWI and didn't really stop WWII either...

    11) Russia must put its nukes back in Cuba and Nicaragua this time if us deploys missile shield in europe .

    No. But the current Moscow Treaty wont be replaced with anything and when it expires in 2021 I rather suspect they will start production of some heavy ICBMs... they are developing large rockets for space exploration so large ICBMs would be fairly simple... a rocket that launches thousands of warheads into orbit set to deorbit over the US would be a very potent weapon... especially when it comes over the south pole towards the US...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:39 am

    START 2 is defunct. Otherwise the MIRVed Yars would be a problem Wink .

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:39 am

    GarryB wrote:
    ICBM re-entry vehicles are all hypersonic  Rolling Eyes  Pretty obvious when you read the stats... SS-18 has a 16,000km range and can get to the US from Russia in 30 minutes... that is 32,000km/h or about mach 28. (It is about 8.8km/s... which is still not fast enough to leave earths orbit... ie 11km/s is needed for that).

    What you said is incorrect and is one of those internet myths like the "stealthy" or the "supercruising" F-22 or the "well-armored" Abrams.

    Let me set the record straight.

    Your calculations indicate the average speed of the ICBM is hypersonic, not the speed of the re-entry vehicle (RV).

    One might ask if the speed of the RV at the ground level shouldn't be the highest achieved by the ICBM". The answer is, of course, negative.

    On the moon the speed of the "RV" at the lunar surface would be the highest of the whole trajectory, but on the moon they don't call a "RV" a re-entry vehicle for a reason.

    The answer is all related to the interaction of a low-technology RV (i.e. a "non Russian" RV) with the atmosphere. There have been low-technology ICBM RVs that have had final speeds of well under 500 km/h, like those of the Atlas "ICBM".

    One might ask how-come is it that the final speed of the RV of a fast ICBM is slower than the final speed of the RV of, let's say, a slower SRBM. That's right, the final speed of a low-technology RV of a fast ICBM can be slower than the final speed of the RV of a slower SRBM.

    The answer is all related to "nonlinearities" and low-technology of the RV.

    Let me explain by first asking a question. What would happen, if you construct, and fire on the top of an ICBM, a "very low-drag" RV that utilizes a "low-technology" heat-shield? The answer is that the RV will evaporate/burn before reaching its desired target.

    That is why they intentionally make the low-technology RVs draggy, so draggy that it can start slowing down at the very thin atmosphere, at the very high altitude. The fact that the ICBM is fast means that the RV has to decelerate a lot. Now, all of this high drag becomes a big liability at the thick atmosphere of "lower" altitudes, even slowing the "low-technology" RV to subsonic speeds.

    What do the Russians do? Last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

    However, this time I'll list some of the technologies the Russians use to achieve hypersonic RV speeds.

    These technologies include, scarmjets, "hyper-technology" thermal shielding, variable geometry RVs, ...

    There are other reasons that are behind them using these technologies; the reason is not just to achieve high RV speeds. Again, last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

    The reason is related to the extremely high yield-to-mass ratio of Russian warheads. That's right ... But that's a subject for another time.

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  RTN on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:49 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    What do the Russians do? Last time I offered to answer this, about "a year" ago, one of the forum clowns asked me not to.

    So let me get this straight. A "forum clown" asked you not to answer & you obliged..???? And that makes you ....???

    And what exactly was your answer then..?? Zip, zero.

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:However, this time I'll list some of the technologies the Russians use to achieve hypersonic RV speeds.

    Give me the name of a US MaRV that is NOT hypersonic? Maneuvering MaRVs on US ICBMs are all hypersonic. What has not been achieved by any country till date, is sustained hypersonic flight throughout the flight duration. And that includes Russia as well.

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:These technologies include, scarmjets, "hyper-technology" thermal shielding, variable geometry RVs, ...

    And what makes you think that the US is not using these technologies? Once the MaRV attains sufficient speed in the atmosphere it performs a pull up maneuver to enter the glide path segment.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a090151.pdf


    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The reason is related to the extremely high yield-to-mass ratio of Russian warheads. That's right ... But that's a subject for another time.

    Naturally, yield-to-mass ratio of nuclear warheads is always higher than that of conventional warheads.

    Improving yield-to-weight ratios was a high order of business in the postwar nuclear program for both the US & USSR. Thermonuclear fusion ups the ante quite a bit. Lithium-deuteride (LiD), the most common and usable fusion fuel, yields 50 kilotons for every kilogram that undergoes fusion — so fusion is nearly 3 times more energetic per weight than fission. So the more fusion you add to a weapon, the better the yield-to-weight ratio, excepting for the fact that all fusion weapons require a fission primary and usually also have very heavy tampers.

    According to KGB data, W76 has the weight of 91.7 kg (of which 61.5 kg was the nuclear charge, 22.7 kg – reentry vehicle body, and 6.7 kg – electronics).

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/how_many_warheads.shtml

    RV body adds significant weight. But in the end, it doesn’t change the picture too much.

    The high energy yield of the Mark-41, our highest-yield bomb, was about 90% fission. The high yield-to-weight ratio was due to the very efficient use of fusion neutrons to cause fission in the tertiary stage, which, in addition to being unusually large, was held together by radiation implosion driven by the secondary stage. The tertiary stage of a three-stage bomb could approach 100% consumption of its fission and fusion fuel, but the result was a multi-megaton explosion that was too large to be of any practical use.

    What kind of a dunce judges the yield-to-weight ratio by the warhead itself ? Seems there is not just one "forum clown".

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:08 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:08 pm