Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Share

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:21 pm

    max steel wrote:Don't you think the same scenario US can also create with their B-52 on russia ? They have B-52 bombers based in Germany . I got your point but it's slightly weak isn't it as Russia has to strike first for gaining that advantage and Russia's nuclear policy is againt first strike .

    Russia will change its policy withing a minute.. They are not going to wait a hundreds of Minutemans 2.. are in coalition course with moscow to retaliate.. IF Moscow receive hard solid proof ,the Americans are preparing for a nuclear strike..withing days .. by leaks and insiders they have inside the US government. (or should have). and
    if they reconfirm that with Satellite images and by several other sources.. then the Russian Government will not
    sit down and wait the American attack start.. Ideally Russia will have a routine of many bombers every week flying near US coast.. on "Training" so when the right time comes ,and they see war is inevitable ,that they will be able
    to do the first strike.. or have at very least the bombers in position to attack first. Attacking first can give a massive
    huge advantage of the one that hit first.. if for example Russia shut down US satellites NAvigarion and military the most important ones ,before a nuclear war start. Without satellites guidance. .the possibility to hit with any aceptable
    error your targets is zero.. Ie.. a missile launched towards moscow.. could land in the baltics states..

    So probably the first casualty in war , before any nuclear strike will be Satellites in space and Phones communications , and internet. Here is an interesting Report of How Russia is preparing anti nuclear bunkers for Civilians in Moscow and other parts of Russia..

    here is the discussion of the report..



    here is the full report..
    http://www.infowars.com/russia-has-constructed-massive-underground-shelters-in-anticipation-of-nuclear-war/






    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:29 am

    Interesting report..
    Specially for the people who were thinking that Russia thousands nuclear weapons
    were "enough deterrence" to prevent a nuclear war with United States.. shows how US
    military advisors simulated a nuclear war and considered acceptable the losing of many millions
    of american lives if in the end they win.  


    Could America Win a Nuclear War Against Russia?

    During the Cold War the US was ready to sacrifice 40 million Americans to destroy Russia.



    Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn. In their books‚ Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (Kissinger) and On Thermonuclear War (Kahn), they advocated a more ‘active’ nuclear strategy in order to more effectively defend the national interests of the United States. They argued that a new military strategy and doctrine should be based on assertions that:

    -Nuclear war is possible.

    -A nuclear war can and should be won, although a new definition of the level of ‘acceptable losses’ is needed. For Kahn even 40 million dead Americans would have been ‘acceptable losses’. (At that time the U.S. had a population of 200 million.)

    -A nuclear first strike capability would enable a disarming surprise attack, thus limiting the retaliation possibilities of the adversary.

    -Limited nuclear war should be part of military strategy (this last point wasn’t really new, since, during the Taiwan Strait crisis, Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons as ‘bullets’ to destroy Chinese army bases).

    Chills ran down my spine while reading the sober explanations of Kissinger and Kahn about the different scenarios of nuclear war and the tables, listing the numbers of the immediate dead, the mid-term dead, the dead from long-term sufferings, the injured, the contaminated, the survivors, the radiation effects and other devastating consequences of a nuclear war, are still engraved in my memory. The suggestion by Kahn to feed the elderly with contaminated food, for their life expectancy would not exceed the time it would take them to die as a consequence of contaminated food, took my notion of cynicism to a new level.


    http://russia-insider.com/en/could-america-win-nuclear-war-against-russia/5651

    Wondering what will "conspiracy" skeptic-tards will say about this.. that 2 of the major US
    advisors have nuclear war books advocating for being genocide of up a hundreds of million of american lives in times of peace ,all for what? for allowing US complete global domination? Military advisors that many Neocons warmongers support.   If US is not evil power that ever existed in the planet.. no idea what else could be.. It can't be possible to be more evil than that.

    Not fantasy ,but reality.. the serious concerns of Russia with US militarization and expansion to their borders and deploying missile launchers there ,that could be used offensively for a first nuclear massive strike against Russia.. There are Neocon warmongers in US in power, that will not mind losing so many millions of americans if they can neutralize Russia. After this nuclear strikes of thousands of missiles what very likely follow is a surprise invasion of a militarized
    border.. from NATO countries to completely take control of Russia..,taking advantage of the chaos of the nation and destroyed military bases.

    I have seen reports that that Russia is aware of this and also have studied about
    the possibility of invasion to US west coast with China and take the war directly to their homeland and cut US access to the pacific sea ,completely destroying their economy and disbanding their nation.

    In any case for any first strike on Russia.. can only be done after a united EU front against Russia. This is where Ukraine comes to the western help.. to provoke Russia to first invade them , and later destroy Russia world image with the help of their propaganda media and their False flag attacks on civilians , (as it was Mh-17 .."Putin's missile") and later blamed on Russia ,will be the order of the day.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5367
    Points : 5610
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:13 am

    They indeed do consider a theatre and ICBM tactical nuke exchange. In the late 70's a concept for US and NATO drill has been made based on using around 300 tactical nukes on

    european soil after luring Soviet troops on german soil by attacking GDR and forcing Soviet Union to defend GDR from NATO by rolling on german soil. This concept was actually used in

    exercises of early-mid 80's and even germans participated in this "battle royal" excersices where germans forces were meatshield bait to comprimise Soviet military capability and to

    shrink its army size in a very short time to have military the upper hand afterwards. The most discussed and likely concept among think tanks is not the MAD and actual destruction in

    case of NATO vs Russia war but a limited theatre used tactical nukes while not risking a full blown mutual desctruction and this concepts are the reason why in eastern Europe the

    americans build ABM shields to comprimise russias capability in such a warfare. Like any person with even barely realistic view could imagine neither side wants to launch its entire

    nuclear arsenal first because that would doom every country on earth, so the likelyness of nuclear arsenal use is limited to theatre based and tactical nukes. Since ABM shields can

    handle the limited amounts that are used in such scenarios they are basing exactly this as their basis for further warmongering and planning with direct military confrontation with

    russia on european soil and that is actually very dangerous to russia, because they need to rely on MAD otherwise they need to deploy nukes and ABM shields over canada, greenland

    and iceland to assure the same scenario for the US and to assure MAD.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:40 am

    Pull from INF ithe moment they place . Russia can build hundreds of misssiles maneouvring missiles in the cost of a single usa abm shield . Keep them deployed .

    Cant Russia place its S-400/500/2500/300 models in Cuba or any island nation in pacific to shoot down usa nukes earlier .?

    the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. Fact .
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5367
    Points : 5610
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:14 am

    max steel wrote:Pull from INF ithe moment they place . Russia can build hundreds of misssiles maneouvring missiles in the cost of a single usa abm shield . Keep them deployed .

    Cant Russia place its S-400/500/2500/300 models in Cuba or any island nation in pacific to shoot down usa nukes earlier .?

    the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. Fact .

    Not in Cuba, if it wants to shoot down ICBM's they have to be on the trajectory of US nukes meaning they fly mainly over the northpole and close to greenland and iceland, best would be canada.
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10002
    Points : 10492
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:49 am

    US Will Not Survive a Nuclear War Against Russia - Jean-Paul Baquiast

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150417/1021016791.html#ixzz3XZPXOHpx
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:54 am

    Canada is usa sook puppet .

    What about North Pole ? Will it help if we make an island like stuff to deploy those batteries .
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7263
    Points : 7563
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:43 am

    placing S-400 and S-500's in arctic area at arctic bases. 40N6 and the upcoming 77N6-N should be enough to deal with any such threats. Maybe some Tor's or Pantsirs to deal with PGM's.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:48 pm

    max steel wrote:Canada is usa sook puppet .

    What about North Pole ? Will it help if we make an island like stuff to deploy those batteries .

    As much i believe Russia have the best system of defense on the world..
    I don't think Russia have a chance with their S-400 or S-500s or any other system based
    on projectiles ,to stop a rain of Ballistic Missiles from space.. you could intercept a few of them..
    but not many at same.. time.. specially because ICBMs today have from 8 to 12 warheads..

    So to stop the attack of a single Ohio submarine.. with 24 trident missiles each one with 12 warheads and with many dozens decoys each missiles at least.. we are speaking about
    24x12x12 = 3,456 interceptions that will be required to do for just 1 ohio attack ,in the case that all the missiles launched at same time and the decoys are identical on radars to the original ICBM missile.

    All say , they way i look at this .. is that unless you do an early course or mid course interception ,(before an ICBM eject its warhead with decoys) the probabilities to stop
    such attack is zero.  Is almost impossible to defeat such attack, using hit to kill air defenses defenses.   The same is true for Americans..  in my opinion , Neither Russia ,neither USA have
    the capability to defend against a multi warhead ICBM on its final phase..  Unless you use a nuclear warhead ,but this nuclear attack could serve as a firewall to blind your own radars of any following attack from close distance.. will pass through the fire and hit its target..  

    From this point of view.. US have a major advantage than Russia ,because they have
    mid course interceptors and they can move their defenses very close to Russian borders..
    either with Europe ABM shield or in the east using its Navy aegis.. destroyers..

    So this explain Russia Bomber patrols near US coast.. to have a better position of firing a missile avoiding US navy defenses. This also explain why US is concerned about cruise missiles
    with nuclear bomb capabilities..  SM-3 defenses are useless against cruise missiles flying low..
    and they can penetrate US airspace close enough to their last target.

    This is why Russia needs militarization of space.. and develop S-400s and S-500s that work from space.. that will allow Russia to intercept missiles not only mid course but also early course too.. it will be a huge blow to US offensive capabilities.. Effectively early course interception
    is significantly easier and even a lazer gun mounted of a satellite or a simple Barrel Bomb with TNT deployed near the flight path of the missile ,will take care of it.

    Apparently Russia is moving in that direction with their new national space station.

    Putin Declares Russia Will Build Its Own Space Station by 2023
    http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-says-russia-will-build-its-own-space-station-2023/5768

    Instead of building so many useless surface warships ,that will NOT defend Russia in a nuclear
    attack ,and maintain Soviets destroyers and Cruisers that cost a lot its operation ,Russia better take that money for a kick ass space defense station.. using a lazer gun or something like pantsirs gatlin gun in space to counter any ICBM and destroy its engines.. Nuclear weapons warheads to counter ICBM are not really needed. for mid course or earlier interception.. before warheads separates from the missile.

    All said Moscow defenses will be next to useless no matter which system they invent..
    a saturation attack will be impossible to stop at the final trajectory..   If the S-500
    can intercept ballistic misisles at any altitude.. then deploying them at the borders of Russia
    should be the key ..and try to do mid course interception. But for real peace of mind they need many satellites with anti ICBM capabiltities.. or several small space stations with rail guns or lazers will be nice. it will allow to shut down any ICBM as soon is climbing into space,where it cannot deploy its warheads or decoys.. and will be a major game changer..

    Cruise missiles flying low can be a pain.. but they are much more easier to intercept with a network of defenses. than an ICBM on its final trajectory.. as Russia try to do.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:33 pm

    Russia also has mid-course interceptors with them . Militarization of Space is not allowed under the treaty unless russia backs out like usa did with abm treaty . Usa has aegis destroyer near japan though . I KNOW NO ONE CAN STOP HUNDREDS OF NUKES TOGETHER LET ALONE THOUSAND .

    If cruise missile can be intercepted with network of defenses then why russia rely on cruise missiles to neutralize usa abm shields in europe .

    How russia will destroy aegis in its east btw?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16001
    Points : 16656
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Interesting report..

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:58 pm

    Trident missiles have 7 warheads for a total of 168 actual warheads... it carried less than the 200 warheads of the Akula class (20 x 10).

    BTW Trident is a conventional missile in the sense that it has a warhead bus that carries its warheads and releases them as it passes over targets so if you have a ship sailing in the area of the north pole and a trident warhead bus flys over you can hit it with one shot if you get it early enough in its trajectory... decoys and all.


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:35 pm



    Russia mayor vulnerability will be ,its navigational satellites , Glonass.
    NATO can destroy all of them in a surprise attack and Russia will be unable to hit
    their intended targets in the world if Glonas destroyed.

    This means that not only Russia needs to developed advanced nukes.
    but they also need ways to either quickly replace Glonass if defeated
    by launching new satellites in less than an hour , or creating a new way to
    guide their missiles.

    because Russia policy with nukes is only , not the first to use them..
    This means that NATO will have a HUGE advantage in case they become
    crazy and wants to start a war in a preventive full nuclear strike.
    So is very likely that in major nuclear war , US not only will hit first
    but that will cause the major damages to Russia. Russia can retaliate
    but those strikes will not hit the most important targets , the military ones.

    This could be solved if Russia created a major militarization of space ,
    with weapons in space in secret. and a space station w interceptors, to intercept NATO
    ballistic missiles and or provide early warning.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16001
    Points : 16656
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:12 am

    With modern ring laser gyro navigation systems most Russian ICBMs will have a less than 200m CEP over a 30 minute flight time.

    I rather doubt they would even use GLONASS for accuracy in the first place.

    Not using them first means there is no point to target silos or other hard targets.

    Some Soviet ICBMs used stellar inertial navigation systems that use the position of stars to fix their position accurately in flight so again unless US ABM systems can shoot down stars the Russian missiles should be able to hit their targets with enough accuracy to be devastating.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5374
    Points : 5419
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:12 am

    Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4374
    Points : 4482
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:57 am

    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 366
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:57 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 366
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:39 pm

    Actualy I live not that far from a primary strategical nuclear target ,and the blast can destroy completly my house if the warhead miss the target by 1 km.

    So I hope that they using precise guidance : )
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5374
    Points : 5419
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:50 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.


    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16001
    Points : 16656
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:36 pm

    Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Well said.

    The stupid misguided fixation with accuracy by the US is contagious and debilitating.

    The US wants accuracy because it wants first strike weapons to take out enemy military capacity in a preemptive first strike.

    Russia needs the power to destroy the enemy... as mentioned 200m CEP is plenty for this mission.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.

    Accuracy does not help in dealing with deep bunkers... especially hidden ones... you can see entrances and vents on satellite images but the actual location of underground bases is totally secret and largely invulnerable to all but the heaviest of warheads.

    Even a trench dug into the ground where a train can roll down into it and be protected by dirt on three sides will protect the train from a very powerful and very close blast... nuclear or otherwise.

    The Siberian rail line could be fitted with side rails that lead off at 90 degrees from the track that drop down 20 metres and have three high dirt mounds on either side and behind... anything but a direct hit and a train in that revetment would be totally safe... put hundreds or thousands along every track in Russia and those nuke trains... given 5 minutes warning could all take cover in the nearest siding and be totally safe from nuclear attack. The US wont know which siding will be used and there will be thousands so no chance of hitting them all or even a small fraction of them... they would not even need a roof... just an open shallow hole.

    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    Might use them to hit capital ships and carriers in port if they happen to be there at the time of the attack I suppose... but being a mobile target again high accuracy wont help much...

    exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.

    Even if it does not penetrate you still get a lot of trapped people... and not much to come out to when you can get out.

    What the Russian ICBMs and SLBMs and cruise missiles don't kill... red neck americans with their guns will finish off... they gotta eat too yah know... Smile


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3346
    Points : 3466
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:19 pm



    Who do the first preventive full strike nuclear attack ,and take the other side by Surprise ,
    will be able to destroy its most important infrastructure ,military bases and economic
    zones first.

    So unless Russia change its policy of not striking first , it will be in a serious disadvantage to
    stop US military. If you just target cities ,it will not stop the military power of any nation .
    But if you strike major economic zones , major military bases and bunkers. then you can
    retreat that destroy the capabilities of that nation to continue fighting.

    For example , lets Say a madman takes control of US policy , and orders a full all or nothing
    strike on Russia , regardless of millions casualties that could happen in both sides. That is a
    massive strike of couple of thousands missiles at ST peterburg ,Moscow ,and all major Russian naval bases and submarines and warships.

    That will not necessarily defeat the Russia army ,but will significantly neutralize Russia
    capabilities to strike US or NATO ,and the best they could do is just target without precision
    Europe and US ,targeting cities. Taking into account that US most important military bases
    are near civilian zones in Europe in nations Russia will like to have close relations like Germany and Italy. they also have bases in Canada and Norway etc. Then Russia will be at risk of losing
    territory like Kalingrad if lose all its navy in a surprise attack. If Russia factories are nuked ,then neither Russia will have capability to produce tanks or rockets. if Russia space program nuked same. So in a nuclear war , US will have a huge advantage because their policy justify
    a first nuclear strike. and it cant destroy in such strike 90% of Russia offensive capabilities and only limit to defense , that is ,to only limit is fighting capability only to fight back ground invasions. If that is the case ,then it will be a victory since US will remain largely untouched a dozens military bases nuked , and cities too ,but it will not stop US navy or airforce or army
    if Russia allows US to carefully plan a full scale nuclear strike on Russia first.

    If Russia is the one that does a full decapitation ,full scale ,all or nothing nuclear strike . then it will be the other way. Russia can strike US major military and naval bases , strike air craft carriers , US military industry ,and shot down the most important NATO satellites.

    Means that if you have a well organized full scale attack either by US or RUssia starting it,,on top 50 or top 100 targets . that happens all of them at same time ,to keep the element of surprise. then in theory it should be possible to defeat a nation capability to fight outside of
    its borders. Which essentially makes that nation the winner. For at least managing to retreat that country 20 years back in time if not 30. Is for nothing that NATO trains for an invasion
    on Russia ,after they being nuked. This is why US store tanks in Norway. right next to Russian borders in a major fortress inside caves. Because in the ultimate case of a nuclear war , they
    will use nukes to clear first and later invade Russia.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 366
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:37 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Lets be real here, while accuracy is and was an issue for many other systems Soviets/Russians fielded, as it was... inadequate to say at least. Why would anyone in Gods name care about accuracy of an ICBM? Why does it matter if it explodes over this building, or bulding across the street, such accuracy is simply not required for this type of warload.

    While 200m is significant miss for tactical warhead, for an ICBM it really isnt.

    Agreed.

    I always found the whole discussion hilarious.

    Not only ICBM silos can be primary target, but C&C bunkers, SSBNs moored to pliers , capital ships and so on.


    Chance that someone would use an ICBM aganist moving capital ship are...basically zero.

    When its about stationary command and control bunkers etc, sure, however even those are not going to care much if it exploded on top of them or 200m to the left, effect i am afraid will be the same, alot of dead people.
    You using the ICBMs against the home port of the SSBNs and other capital ships.

    Half - three quoter of the SSBNs at the home port next to the pier at any given moment.

    So, if you won't hit it then in 24hours that will launch from the port the missiles as well .
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16001
    Points : 16656
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:10 am

    Vann... to mount a surprise attack you need to be able to surprise your enemy.

    When your military is riddled with honest people who entered the service thinking the US were the good guys are not going to take kindly to backstabbing murder of the whole world.

    Even without warning from spies satellites will give plenty of warning of an attack... B-2 bases are not monitored for nothing... sea based sensor arrays are not there for nothing... enormous radars the size of very large buildings are not sprouting up all over the Russian territory for nothing.

    The fact is that the US couldn't surprise Russia with an effective surprise attack even if it wanted to... those naked targets are protected by a fairly large air force and lots of batteries of some of the best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc.


    _________________
    “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

    Arrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 140
    Points : 140
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:58 am

    best SAMs on the planet and covered in the strongest IADS the world has ever known and it is getting stronger by the day... shortly the S-500 will be added and S-350 and Verba etc etc. wrote:

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2844
    Points : 2973
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:35 pm

    Arrow wrote:

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Best SAM? USA has  very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI

    How do you know? Really, how do you have any clue about US ABM missiles and how "superior" they are to Russian
    missiles? You just swallow all the masturbatory yap about innate superiority of the US and its pals in everything technical.
    Just because. Russians are a collection of mud hut dwellers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E2%80%93235_anti-ballistic_missile_system

    Oops, zero content.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

    Mach 15, yep Russians could never design a missile that does Mach 15.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16001
    Points : 16656
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:40 am

    So Russia has strongest IADS in the world? In Russia only a few place has a strong IADS . Moscow, Petersburg, Crimea , Kaliningrad.

    Which country has a better IADS?

    The Russians have the VKKO, a dedicated force to defend Russian Airspace.

    It is not 100%... there is no point in protecting empty tundra, but then the southern borders of the US are a sieve to drug planes...

    Best SAM? USA has very good SAM system and better than Russia ABM system SM-3, GBI

    SM-3 is unlikely to be used against anything but ballistic missiles and is therefore an ABM system rather than a real SAM.

    S-400 in comparison is a real SAM that would be used against a variety of targets at a variety of ranges.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 25, 2017 6:45 pm