Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

Arrow wrote:If they want to attack with Cirkon missiles, the Russian submarine must be very close to the CONUS. Which is very risky. It is not better to do it with SLBM from a longer distance and safe.

Where is the escalation control in that? SLBMs or ICBMs being launched means full blown nuclear war. Tsirkons can be perfectly differentiated by the flight profile and can be armed conventionally, so there is room for getting the situation back under control and more importantly, allows Russia to close an important gap that US could use in their advantage to harm the country.

Arrow wrote:The US will not know whether Cirkons flying to their command centers will be armed with conventional or nuclear weapons. They may interpret this as the start of a decapitation blow and respond by ICBM and SLBM.

Such attacks would not come out of the blue but in retaliation for some provocation against Russia, so it would be easy to understand the logic behind them. Of course, the idea of them being in place is to cool things down and avoid the escalation from being initiated.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:MINUTES.

You could kill the VIP, President etc but missiles would still fly.

America isn't stupid and has prepared for these types of things. All missiles have their targets pre-determined already for example.

It is also literally impossible to destroy all of our nukes in an attack.

Nonsense!! First they would have to figure out what happened. Was it a terror attack or Russian attack. They know with 100% certainty if they launch, thousands of warheads are coming the other way. Who's missile was it? Was it a non state actor? You don't decide to end your nation in minutes.

The only thing for certain is, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

Arrow wrote:The US will not know whether Cirkons flying to their command centers will be armed with conventional or nuclear weapons. They may interpret this as the start of a decapitation blow and respond by ICBM and SLBM.

They will have no idea what kind of missile it is or who fired it. Which is why some of these weapons put us in extemely dangerous times. There is back channel comms. In the past when the US has contemplated cutting Russia of SWIFT, they were told, that is an act of war. And they backed down.

LMFS wrote:...Where is the escalation control in that? SLBMs or ICBMs being launched means full blown nuclear war. Tsirkons can be perfectly differentiated by the flight profile and can be armed conventionally, so there is room for getting the situation back under control and more importantly, allows Russia to close an important gap that US could use in their advantage to harm the country.

Are you serious?

This sounds like something Vann7 would shit out

Put a missile, any missile, in US mainland and you have canned sunshine coming your way in massive quantities

USA aren't Soviets who were scared shitless of nuclear war, they take this seriously

PapaDragon wrote:

LMFS wrote:...Where is the escalation control in that? SLBMs or ICBMs being launched means full blown nuclear war. Tsirkons can be perfectly differentiated by the flight profile and can be armed conventionally, so there is room for getting the situation back under control and more importantly, allows Russia to close an important gap that US could use in their advantage to harm the country.

Are you serious?

This sounds like something Vann7 would shit out

Put a missile, any missile, in US mainland and you have canned sunshine coming your way in massive quantities

USA aren't Soviets who were scared shitless of nuclear war, they take this seriously

If they take it seriously then they will be scared shitless. Russia has as much canned sunshine as the USA, and the USA has a HELL of a lot more to lose then Russia which is much larger and less urbanized. Also Russians can deal with a HELL of a lot more hardship then Americans...although fat Americans will take longer to starve to death. lol

mnztr wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:MINUTES.

You could kill the VIP, President etc but missiles would still fly.

America isn't stupid and has prepared for these types of things. All missiles have their targets pre-determined already for example.

It is also literally impossible to destroy all of our nukes in an attack.

Nonsense!! First they would have to figure out what happened. Was it a terror attack or Russian attack. They know with 100% certainty if they launch, thousands of warheads are coming the other way. Who's missile was it? Was it a non state actor? You don't decide to end your nation in minutes.

The only thing for certain is, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

Laws nope they would know right away the launches themselves would be detected, dude you seriously do not have a clue about what your speaking.

You think we would care if it was some state actor or not? if nukes come at us it doesn't matter who fired them, missiles will be fired back in minutes.

Sorry but your very mistaken or really think the US are idiots who haven't prepared for this type of situation for decades

Ameritards do not expect a wave of Russian warheads to come their way. They think that they have a monopoly on human intelligence
and will neutralize Russia before it can strike back.

This makes Ameritards extremely dangerous. Dangerous enough to retaliate full force just to make sure.

kvs wrote:Ameritards do not expect a wave of Russian warheads to come their way.   They think that they have a monopoly on human intelligence
and will neutralize Russia before it can strike back.

This makes Ameritards extremely dangerous.   Dangerous enough to retaliate full force just to make sure.

Classic idiotic remark, very stupid and fueled by nothing but emotions.

We are quite aware if the Russians decide to fire everything they have at us we can't stop it but russia knows if they do that we will do the same and both countries cease to exist.

PapaDragon wrote:Are you serious?

This sounds like something Vann7 would shit out

Put a missile, any missile, in US mainland and you have canned sunshine coming your way in massive quantities

USA aren't Soviets who were scared shitless of nuclear war, they take this seriously

Of course I am serious about the need of any country to develop their means for escalation control, this is obvious and essentially the reason behind trillions of rubles spent on conventional Russian armed forces, why do you think they bother, if they can solve everything with nukes? You people need to stop creating your own parallel military doctrine while the people in the responsibility are being explicit about how things work:

“This is a hypersonic missile called Tsirkon. It will have the speed of mach 9, it has a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and can hit navy or land targets.”

“The U.S. once sought global domination through its missiles program. They should abandon illusions, we will always respond with a reciprocal response,”

Delivering his annual address to the Federal Assembly, Putin said that "there are a lot of those in the ruling class of the United States, who are obsessed with the idea of their exclusiveness and superiority over the rest of the world."

"This is certainly their right to think this way. But can they make the calculations? Undoubtedly they can," Putin said. "So let them calculate the range and speed of our advanced weapon systems."

"This is the only thing we ask to do - make the calculations first before passing decisions that may pose additional serious threats to our country and will certainly entail Russia’s counter-measures," Putin said.

The US has developed a false sense of invulnerability that inevitably affects their risk calculations and makes them aggressive and reckless, the idea that some other guys can deliver a "prompt global strike" on them is an important element in re-socialising them. If they want nuclear war, there will be one, but it does not hurt to have intermediate stages between "slight provocation" and "end of the world".

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
We are quite aware if the Russians decide to fire everything they have at us we can't stop it but russia knows if they do that we will do the same and both countries cease to exist.

The important question is who is "we"? I see a bunch of deranged narcissists in command in the US, who are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting finally rid of Russia, genuinely think they can win the nuclear war and that therefore have spent the last 20 years (at least) trying to reach nuclear supremacy, idiots who are ditching arms treaties left and right, creating new low yield warheads, talking about giving nukes to their allies and breaching NPT and essentially creating the situation where a nuclear war is not only possible but in fact likely. If you are so "aware", you know Russia has no fucking interest in attacking the US, because they and China are winning the peace. So don't come again with that fake and tired argument of the symmetric Russian threat which has never existed, it is nonsense and here you are among people that are acutely aware of how and why, so please stop insulting our intelligence...

LMFS you are acting like a child, I never started this topic others did, if you are going to act out because I said "If nukes start flying both the USA and Russia go bye bye" that's really not my problem your feelings are hurt, that is the fact if one country attacks the other with nukes both countries die in a nuclear war.

There is no way to avoid this, that is the point of my remark.

"Russia has no interest n attacking the US"

I never said they did if you can READ. Don't put words in my mouth, next time act like an adult, and don't go on some emotional fueled rant made up of nothing but assumptions.

LMFS wrote:Of course I am serious about the need of any country to develop their means for escalation control...

You do not do escalation control by hitting enemy mainland, that's the end stage

You do escalation control by nuking European meat shields

You start with nobodies like Romania or Poland, you move on to medium level like Germany or Italy and you finalize with UK or France (they either eat couple of nukes and live or try to retaliate and cease to exist)

USA is end stage

That's how you control escalation

LMFS wrote:...conventional Russian armed forces, why do you think they bother, if they can solve everything with nukes?...

Because conventional military is for slapping countries other than USA

It's not complicated

LMFS wrote:“This is a hypersonic missile called Tsirkon. It will have the speed of mach 9, it has a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and can hit navy or land targets.”...

Redut missile can hit land targets too, doesn't mean it will be doing it in regular use

Zircon will​ only be used on US ships (Cold War rule: nukes don't leave craters in the ocean)

That's another way to control escalation

It will definitely not be used on US mainland, that's the end stage of escalation

SeigSoloyvov wrote:LMFS you are acting like a child, I never started this topic others did, if you are going to act out because I said "If nukes start flying both the USA and Russia go bye bye" that's really not my problem your feelings are hurt, that is the fact if one country attacks the other with nukes both countries die in a nuclear war.

There is no way to avoid this, that is the point of my remark.

"Russia has no interest n attacking the US"

I never said they did if you can READ. Don't put words in my mouth, next time act like an adult, and don't go on some emotional fueled rant made up of nothing but assumptions.

Everybody knows how nuclear retaliation work and I have not read ANYONE here rooting for Russia to do an unprovoked decapitating attack on the US. It is Russia that tried to reason with US to keep MAD in place, and it was US who rejected it and went for ABM systems and nuclear supremacy. That is why the comment about Russia being nuked in retaliation is superfluous and annoying. If every discussion with you ends with some "and you too!" from your part, then it is not me who is behaving like a child.

PapaDragon wrote:You do not do escalation control by hitting enemy mainland, that's the end stage

You do escalation control by nuking European meat shields

You start with nobodies like Romania or Poland, you move on to medium level like Germany or Italy and you finalize with UK or France (they either eat couple of nukes and live or try to retaliate and cease to exist)

USA is end stage

That's how you control escalation

You don't start the escalation with nukes, first of all. And if things get really nasty, US does not give a flying fuck if Russia turns all the Eastern Chihuahuas into charcoal, as far as they can go on with their comfortable lives on the other side of the pond. That is not going to stop them, to fight Russian till the last European has been their plan literally since ever. That is why Putin said very clearly that if INF missiles deployed in Europe are used against Russia, then the command centers behind the order in US would be attacked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-warns-new-weapons-will-target-us-if-missiles-are-deployed-in-europe/2019/02/20/62d0456e-3468-11e9-8375-e3dcf6b68558_story.html

To bring an example from the daily life, you don't stop a bully exhausting yourself with all his minions, you kick the bastard himself in the balls from minute one and end the fight there. The kick in the balls in the example is Tsirkon, it is not complicated either.

EDIT: to complement the previous post:

“Russia will be forced to create and deploy types of weapons which can be used not only in respect of those territories from which the direct threat to us originates, but also in respect of those territories where the centers of decision-making are located,” he said.

“These weapons, by their tactical and technical specifications, including their flight time to the command centers I’m talking about, will fully correspond to the threats that will be directed against Russia.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa-missiles-idUSKCN1Q918U

That is, Russia will have weapons that will strike US as fast and immediately as the missiles that US is going to place close to Russia. The bottom line is that US wants to place a gun against Russia's head, for which there will be no time to react, in order to blackmail their leadership, so Russia will do the same. Now calculate what weapon can replicate the flight time of missiles placed in Eastern Europe targeting Moscow or Saint Petersburg, and you will see the only one is Tsirkon, when carried by submarines close to the US coast. And you don't need any arm twisting of vassal countries for that, just some groups of sailors ready to serve their country.

LMFS wrote:You don't start the escalation with nukes, first of all...

Yes you do, that's what those Chihuahuas are for

LMFS wrote:...And if things get really nasty, US does not give a flying fuck if Russia turns all the Eastern Chihuahuas into charcoal, as far as they can go on with their comfortable lives on the other side of the pond....

Which is precisely why they get nuked

It's about sending a message to the top dog

Words and tiny bombs don't cut it

LMFS wrote:Putin said very clearly that if INF missiles deployed in Europe are used against Russia, then the command centers behind the order in US would be attacked...

If by INF missiles you mean nukes then it's MAD scenario and obviously US will be attacked

If by INF missiles you mean conventional ones then you nuke Chihuahuas to send a message and control the escalation, you don't target US mainland with anything because that leads to immediate nuclear retaliation by USA and needless MAD scenario

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

mnztr wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:MINUTES.

You could kill the VIP, President etc but missiles would still fly.

America isn't stupid and has prepared for these types of things. All missiles have their targets pre-determined already for example.

It is also literally impossible to destroy all of our nukes in an attack.

Nonsense!! First they would have to figure out what happened. Was it a terror attack or Russian attack. They know with 100% certainty if they launch, thousands of warheads are coming the other way. Who's missile was it? Was it a non state actor? You don't decide to end your nation in minutes.

The only thing for certain is, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

Laws nope they would know right away the launches themselves would be detected, dude you seriously do not have a clue about what your speaking.

You think we would care if it was some state actor or not? if nukes come at us it doesn't matter who fired them, missiles will be fired back in minutes.

Sorry but your very mistaken or really think the US are idiots who haven't prepared for this type of situation for decades

Sure they will track the missile on radar, but who fired it? China, Russia? Iran? Venezuela? Is it a missile? Is it a plane, its going faster then anything they have seen, is it a UFO? A metorite? If a bunch of terrorists can fly planes into buildings I think your belief in US preparedness does not meet reality. The US is prepared to attack, never to defend. They believe attack if the best form of defence. What specific technoloigies can they use to detect and identify a hypersonic missile in minutes?

PapaDragon wrote:

You do not do escalation control by hitting enemy mainland, that's the end stage

You do escalation control by nuking European meat shields

You start with nobodies like Romania or Poland, you move on to medium level like Germany or Italy and you finalize with UK or France (they either eat couple of nukes and live or try to retaliate and cease to exist)

USA is end stage

That's how you control escalation

Only an idiot would do it that way. If you nuke Poland or Romania you have nuked US bases and facilities, so that is the same thing. For things to get that heated the Russia would have to believe the US is planning a first strike (heck they talk about it all the time anyway) and if the Russian leadership is convinced of this, then you would try the decapitation strike. Maybe fire 10-20 Triskons from serveral Yassen class on US homeland, any base in Europe they feel has nukes or ABMs will be taken out with Iskander, US sattelites will be hit limited ICBM strike to incapacitate the US bases. Then offer truce or end of world.

mnztr wrote:...if you nuke Poland or Romania you have nuked US bases and facilities, so that is the same thing...

No it's not the same thing

Poland and Romania (or whatever) are NOT the USA

Unless you actually think that the whole Article 5 shtick applies to nuclear war?
(that's some funny stuff, nobody is trading Boston for Bukurest especially today)

Russia has room for balanced nuclear escalation thanks to Euros, USA doesn't and can only go instant MAD by hitting Russia directly

First strike = counter strike launched at the same time. So the Russian leadership does not need to believe anything and
take any particular stance. Since the dawn of early warning radar systems the plan has been for launch on warning.

The peculiar delusion in the USA that it can launch a first strike without a Russian counter strike must have some sort
of basis even if it is terminal delusion. The US clearly has a program to neutralize the ability of Russia to launch a
counter strike. The drivel about stealthy B-2's bombing Russian silos is intellectually insulting pap for the MSM consumer
sheep.

Staging a coup in Russia is simply not possible. No amount of funding for clowns like Navalny will achieve this. Idiot
Americans may think that Russians are discontent with "Putin's regime" so most soldiers will defect to support some
rent-a-crowd putsch. But idiots can believe all sorts of nonsense.

No technology that the USA has can disable Russia's command and control and its ability to launch its ICBMs. This
includes sneaking in some agents near Russian bases inside Russia and triggering sci-fi devices. There is something
called physics, which most Americans do not have the education to understand, and the "primitive" equipment in
Russian bases cannot be hacked by NATzO genius hackers.

This leaves only one trick by the self-anointed exceptional ones. That is to use bioweapons. America thinks it can
release and engineered virus in Russia to basically wipe it out without any effort and then will launch a "first strike"
to mop up the survivors. This is the lunacy that Russia is facing from the exceptionally criminally insane Americans.

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:...if you nuke Poland or Romania you have nuked US bases and facilities, so that is the same thing...

No it's not the same thing

Poland and Romania (or whatever) are NOT the USA

Unless you actually think that the whole Article 5 shtick applies to nuclear war?
(that's some funny stuff, nobody is trading Boston for Bukurest especially today)

Russia has room for balanced nuclear escalation thanks to Euros, USA doesn't and can only go instant MAD by hitting Russia directly

So Nuclear War is not an attack now? lol? And it will be thousands of American troops dying in a NATO country so yeah it is the same thing. You think Russia is going to count on the USA being measured and rational? The British and the French as well? NATO has 3 nuclear powers so you think Russia is gonna expect 3 out of 3 to be calm and rational when tactical nuclear weapons are flattening cities in Romania and Poland ...?

PapaDragon wrote:
If by INF missiles you mean nukes then it's MAD scenario and obviously US will be attacked

If by INF missiles you mean conventional ones then you nuke Chihuahuas to send a message and control the escalation, you don't target US mainland with anything because that leads to immediate nuclear retaliation by USA and needless MAD scenario

US does not deploy INF missiles in Europe for a MAD scenario, they already have that capability with their current nuclear triad. They do it as a intermediate escalation step that can be used as blackmail against Russia. And to avoid this blackmail, Russia has said very clearly that they don't give a shit about where the missiles are placed, they will hit back at US proper. It is not necessarily a full nuclear attack what we talk about, but maybe the attack to determined places with a certain intensity that prevents Russia from a nuclear retaliation or at least creates doubts among the leadership, and allows to get advantages in a conventional conflict, normally with the involvement of US Eastern poodles. So to say, Ukraine does something stupid, Russia reacts and then US performs a limited and "surgical" strike against Donbass / Peace troops abroad / Southern MD bases from Eastern Europe after creating a huge outrage in the world media about "Russian crimes". This is the whole point for US, to get advantages from exploiting gaps in the whole range escalation capabilities of Russia, from informational/cyber/reputational to conventional / substrategic / strategic. But their bluff has already been called out, people in Russian political and military leadership are no idiots.

mnztr wrote:...So Nuclear War is not an attack now? lol? And it will be thousands of American troops dying in a NATO country so yeah it is the same thing. You think Russia is going to count on the USA being measured and rational? The British and the French as well? NATO has 3 nuclear powers so you think Russia is gonna expect 3 out of 3 to be calm and rational when tactical nuclear weapons are flattening cities in Romania and Poland ...?

It's not attack on USA mainland

Some US losses are perfectly acceptable outside USA but as long as they stay outside of large local settlements it should not be problematic in any way especially considering the bigger picture

Oh, and it will be strategic nuclear weapons flattening cities in Poland and Romania, those are bottom tier targets

UK and France will have to stay measured and rational because it's not them getting nuked, should they refuse to back down they will eat several nukes at which point they will back off or be exterminated permanently if they try to retaliate

This gives Russia safety buffer and comfortable space and time frame for strategic maneuvering versus USA because even after everything US proper is still in one piece and has option to also comfortably deescalate and negotiate

Why would Russia need to attack USA in the first place? Its not like Russians would be like "Hey we got this hypersonic 9 mach missile now, what should we do with it, hmm lets see now............hey guess what...lets attack Washington with it, US will never be able to see them coming"

Some events (or rather many events) would have happened leading up to a direct military confrontation between USA and Russia. The nature and severity of those events would determine who attacks first, attacks with which missile, and attacks where.

owais.usmani wrote:Why would Russia need to attack USA in the first place? Its not like Russians would be like "Hey we got this hypersonic 9 mach missile now, what should we do with it, hmm lets see now............hey guess what...lets attack Washington with it, US will never be able to see them coming"

Some events (or rather many events) would have happened leading up to a direct military confrontation between USA and Russia. The nature and severity of those events would determine who attacks first, attacks with which missile, and attacks where.

If US interferes in Russia's waters, then yes, Russia can indeed sink or capture their vessels without repercussions