Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

miketheterrible wrote:

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

US ships won't be entering Russian territorial waters without attacking Russian mainland / military bases first. They would be just giving Russia some nice target practice and gain nothing in return.

And attacking Russian mainland bases means those ships would not have a home left to return to, so it becomes irrelevant whether they interfere in Russia's waters or not.

Russia and USA going head on in any capacity anywhere means only one thing.....MAD. They both know it very well, regardless of who is there in Whitehouse and Kremlin.

owais.usmani wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

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

US ships won't be entering Russian territorial waters without attacking Russian mainland / military bases first. They would be just giving Russia some nice target practice and gain nothing in return.

And attacking Russian mainland bases means those ships would not have a home left to return to, so it becomes irrelevant whether they interfere in Russia's waters or not.

Russia and USA going head on in any capacity anywhere means only one thing.....MAD. They both know it very well, regardless of who is there in Whitehouse and Kremlin.

US already did. In the arctic and near Kurils. Russia just threatened to RAM them, and the US fled.

What I am saying, if the US entered territorial waters again, and got sunk or their boats taken over (like what Iran did), US cant do anything.

They could complain. And cry a lot.

US already did. In the arctic and near Kurils. Russia just threatened to RAM them, and the US fled.

In that case I am surprised they did not get rammed with a sea skimming missile.

if the US entered territorial waters again, and got sunk or their boats taken over (like what Iran did), US cant do anything.

If this happens, they can at least do one thing: slap a badge on their chests saying "most retarded military planners of the world"  

Btw my responses were targeted towards the notion of Russia doing a surprise attack on US mainland with Zirkon, just because Zirkon flies at Mach 9 and cannot be detected and stopped. That would probably not be happening, even in a MAD scenario.

Putin has already stated that if an attack comes from the Ukraine or the Baltic States or Poland via US bases in those places... ie planned and coordinated from the Pentagon in the US that the attacking forces will be engaged but the HQs in Brussels and the US that enabled the attack and agitation would also be targeted.

There is no point taking only pawns in a game of chess, the ultimate goal is to take the king and end the game, but in this sense if the US is using forces in Europe to attack Russia or Russian territory... ie Kaliningrad or Crimea or anywhere else then Russia will respond by attacking all components of the attack... including the troops on the ground and the brains behind it.

The point is that it will not be a case where the US or EU can send in cannon fodder and suffer no return fire like they do in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Libya and Korea and Vietnam etc etc etc.

I get the sense that American deciders think that a nuclear war is like yet another coalition of the billing colonial marines
adventure in the 3rd world. There is no way that any informed leader would conclude that Poland, Romania and whatnot
are some sort of bulwark against Russia. And that Russia would be nullified with a local confrontation with these meat
puppets. It does not matter if Ameritard generals know this, their bosses apparently don't.

In the last decades american generals turned more and more into politicians. I doubt that most of them are any better then their civilian "commanders".

Even quite small ships have radar and optical sensors and also weapons and act as data collecting nodes for the network while at the same time offering weapons systems at their specific locations that can be used to increase the defence.

In times of tension recalling most ships back to port for Russia would be the equivalent of rolling a few armies worth of air defence material and equipment towards a city... it would massively increase the air defence and missile defence protection of the region...

Ironically the only IADS in the west would be on their ships....