Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+23
SeigSoloyvov
mnztr
GarryB
kvs
miketheterrible
max steel
jhelb
Benya
Mindstorm
PapaDragon
Singular_Transform
Arrow
Austin
George1
Werewolf
Mike E
Stealthflanker
magnumcromagnon
type055
sepheronx
TR1
flamming_python
Vann7
27 posters

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10663
    Points : 10810
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs Wed May 10, 2017 2:28 am

    max steel wrote:
    jhelb wrote:
    The lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces has increased drastically because of the advent of the new "Super Fuse" incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warhead . Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Many Russian targets are not hardened to 10,000 pounds per square inch blast over pressure.

    http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

    This should be a matter of huge concern for the Kremlin & immediate efforts must be made to neutralise this US threat.


    Ah! I read this puffpiece 2 months back , you can look for my comment there. If the probability of one SS-18 silo destroying by W-76 warhead is equal to 0.86 due to the "super-fuze", then the probability of destroying this silo by using two warheads will be 0.98. Basing on this fact the authors claim that 272 W-76s on SLBMs are sufficient to eliminate all the Russian ICBMs in silos. But the theory of probabilities dramatically changes this estimate towards increasing of the number of warheads needed.

    Indeed, assume the number of remaining SS-18 is equal to 50 (in fact a bit less). Then the probability of destroying all these 50 silos by using pairs of attacking W-76 warheads is equal to 0,98^50 = 0.36 ! Although the war readiness of these SS-18 is highly questionable, only one such ICBM that has survived, taken off and successfully deployed all the 10 warheads would become a catastrophe for the USA. PS:- SS-18 will be replaced by newly built Sarmat in 2018/19.

    The problem of the ICBMs eliminating by a first strike is not as simple as the authors think.

    "Since these radars cannot see over the horizon " . After I read phrase above in bulletin I stopped reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

    As per fuses and all that crap--obviously nuclear technologies improve and will continue to improve and so will their accuracy, high as it is today. But there is a reason why Russia more and more begins to rely on non-nuclear (conventional) containment and deterrent.

    First strike masturbators are congenital idiots. Where do they get their ludicrous assumption that Russian silo ICBMs will not be launched shortly
    after Russia detects a first strike? No, Russian silo ICBMs do not need to be fueled up from empty since hydrazine can stay in tanks for years. And
    with all the anti-Russian war mongering going on in NATO right now, what makes these fucktards think that Russia will not have its silo ICBMs fueled up
    and waiting?

    The only chance that a first strike has of taking out any Russian ICBM is if there is a massive sabotage of the command and control system
    that occurs at the right moment. Aside from a coup in the Kremlin, this is as likely as swarms of pigs flying through the icy wastes of Hell.

    PS. I know about Americans wanking themselves senseless thinking that their "stealthy" B-2 and cruise missiles will not be detected until they
    have done their jobs. But seriously, this is patent grade A delusion.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6138
    Points : 6114
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible Wed May 10, 2017 6:07 am

    Silo based ICBM's are becoming a thing in the past anyway for Russia with the growth of mobile ICBM's and soon to be railroad based. They also seem to forget that once they (nuclear forces) lose contact with Moscow or command center due to a nuke going off, they will launch theirs.

    Then again, I suppose many morons even on this website forgot Russia has SLBM's and mobile ICBM's with even building the railroad ICBM system. Not surprising. We seem to accumulate a lot of morons on this forum who have no capabilities of reading comprehension.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6138
    Points : 6114
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  miketheterrible Thu May 11, 2017 9:14 pm

    https://southfront.org/making-sense-of-the-super-fuse-scare/

    And here is a good long explanation to what I was saying.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB Fri May 12, 2017 12:10 pm

    Actually the Soviets and Russians have ICBMs fitted with communications systems so even if Moscow is destroyed in a sneak attack the communications rocket will be launched and give launch commands to the Strategic rocket forces so the silos will be empty before any western missile reaches it.

    More importantly the super fusing to destroy silos is a contradiction in terms... like a fuse on an aircraft bomb trying to hit an underground silo... air bursts are pointless... only a direct hit with a penetrating fuse would work and you don't need a super fuse for that... that is just stupid.

    A nuclear warhead is a chain of reactions that need to operate perfectly to create a full power detonation of the main charge... smacking the warhead into the ground at more than 4 km per second will pulverise any contents and make them ineffective mush.

    Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system.

    S-500 will be able to hit warheads flying past going for other targets too.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 975
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  jhelb Sun May 14, 2017 1:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system..

    That would have to be an endo atmospheric intercept, which is not safe. If it is not an exo atmospheric intercept you are dead.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10663
    Points : 10810
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs Sun May 14, 2017 3:24 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Any S-400 system nearby should be able to intercept ground hitting ICBM warheads because the atmosphere will slow the warheads down to less than the 4.8km/s flight speed limit of the S-400 system..

    That would have to be an endo atmospheric intercept, which is not safe. If it is not an exo atmospheric intercept you are dead.

    Not safe in what sense? Stopping a nuke warhead detonation over its intended target is 100% success. Contamination is unavoidable. But mechanical
    disruption of a nuclear warhead will produce contamination that is vastly more localized than any nuclear detonation and Russia can clean it
    up.

    As far as the success rate, there is no difference between end and exo atmospheric cases. In fact, maneuverability makes the exo targeting
    harder (assuming America will use it). A nuclear warhead after it is released from the bus is on a purely ballistic trajectory and easier to intercept.
    Of course, if the warhead is a maneuverable glider it is hard to intercept.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB Mon May 15, 2017 12:25 pm

    Targeting silos means only ground burst nukes will be effective... hitting them anywhere above the ground... even 2km above the ground will greatly reduce their effect on missiles in silos to the point where the silos are undamaged and can be reloaded for round two...

    Intercepting the incoming missiles inside or outside the atmosphere is not really important.

    The silos are free because they have already been built and offer very good protection from almost anything except a direct hit... which can be defeated with a TOR battery...

    Anything that does not hit the ground and explode is a win... there is no farmland anywhere near... these silos are in the middle of nowhere.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16617
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  George1 Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:43 pm

    US nuclear targeting category priorities in the USSR, 1972. Kind of fascinating/horrifying that urban/industrial is #1 priority even if Soviet nukes have not yet been launched at the US (e.g. if the US is launching a "preventative"/first-strike nuclear attack).

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 DuJ0qpNXQAEv-FI

    https://t.co/5WHpc91ybN
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11456
    Points : 11526
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:45 am

    George1 wrote:US nuclear targeting category priorities in the USSR, 1972. Kind of fascinating/horrifying that urban/industrial is #1 priority even if Soviet nukes have not yet been launched at the US (e.g. if the US is launching a "preventative"/first-strike nuclear attack).

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJ0qpNXQAEv-FI.jpg:large

    https://t.co/5WHpc91ybN


    Well obviously.

    You really think that anything other than population would be a target in nuclear war?
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16617
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  George1 Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    George1 wrote:US nuclear targeting category priorities in the USSR, 1972. Kind of fascinating/horrifying that urban/industrial is #1 priority even if Soviet nukes have not yet been launched at the US (e.g. if the US is launching a "preventative"/first-strike nuclear attack).

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJ0qpNXQAEv-FI.jpg:large

    https://t.co/5WHpc91ybN


    Well obviously.

    You really think that anything other than population would be a target in nuclear war?

    its not my comment. It is the comment of the page i took the info

    https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1072549754536673280
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:01 am

    First strike masturbators are congenital idiots. Where do they get their ludicrous assumption that Russian silo ICBMs will not be launched shortly
    after Russia detects a first strike? No, Russian silo ICBMs do not need to be fueled up from empty since hydrazine can stay in tanks for years. And
    with all the anti-Russian war mongering going on in NATO right now, what makes these fucktards think that Russia will not have its silo ICBMs fueled up
    and waiting?

    But it is a perfectly natural result of them being Kool aide fed from birth... America is the best and no one else even comes close... all american weapons are perfect and superior to anyone elses, so with an ABM defence it makes sense that the US could cut the head off the snake with a stealthy first strike that takes out Moscow and all the Soviet leaders (it is still the cold war isn't it?) and so those stupid Russians wont act without orders so NATO forces can attack and destroy all of the Russian nuclear weapons systems and then Russia having been disarmed will have to negotiate an unconditional surrender and hand over all its natural resources to America. America will then have an economic boom and prosperity like the 1950s with all this cheap energy and raw materials and those Russian slaves will get the first taste of American democracy they ever had...

    And they they wake up and their sheets are wet.

    The problem with this is that the Russians aren't stupid and not every westerner is a fucking psycho, so if there was such an attack being planned then a person with some common sense and knowledge of Russian systems and capabilities who knew this plan would never work in a million years would try to sabotage it and stop the west from trying it in the first place.

    Having those B-2s all shot down over the arctic would be a start to stopping the plan... and nuking the ABM bases in Eastern Europe using nuclear armed Kinzhals would be a suitable response that would stop the plan dead in its tracks because with Moscow working as usual and the ABM system damaged, even the dumbest idiot in the US knows the full might of the Russian strategic forces would obliterate the US and the west... they wanted to wipe out much of it... confuse some more of it to not launch, and hope that any dribs and drabs that do get launched can be intercepted with the ABM systems they are setting up all over the place...
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11456
    Points : 11526
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:44 am

    George1 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    George1 wrote:US nuclear targeting category priorities in the USSR, 1972. Kind of fascinating/horrifying that urban/industrial is #1 priority even if Soviet nukes have not yet been launched at the US (e.g. if the US is launching a "preventative"/first-strike nuclear attack).

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuJ0qpNXQAEv-FI.jpg:large

    https://t.co/5WHpc91ybN


    Well obviously.

    You really think that anything other than population would be a target in nuclear war?

    its not my comment. It is the comment of the page i took the info

    https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1072549754536673280

    I know

    I mean "you" as in whoever reads
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Part of the US ABM defence

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:30 am

    Part of the US ABM defence plan is to use AEGIS class cruisers off each US coast together with the ABM system in Alaska to manage sea based interceptor missiles to defend the mainland.

    In such a situation having a few subs there with long range anti ship missiles and also land attack capacity would be rather useful to hit land based ABM systems and also take out the AEGIS class ships off the US coast. A few HQs could also be targeted... and all this could be happening before Russian ICBMs are even launched... detection of US ICBM launch could trigger an immediate attack on ABM systems in the US on land and at sea, as well as the Pentagon and the Whitehouse using missiles moving at mach 9.

    I would suspect that its WWIII purpose that all its missiles would be nuclear armed as a matter of course... there would be little point in using conventional warheads in such a conflict... except for a few conventional torpedoes to take on targets at close range...

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30628
    Points : 31158
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:38 am

    Such calculations are not good. 9M speed is the maximum speed. During one of the last tests, the missile traveled 450 km in 4.5 minutes. Average speed is around 5M

    Average flight speed is unknown... it is essentially jet powered and could be flown at a range of different speeds at different altitudes... the results of flight tests are little indication of the actual performance of the missile... for all we know this 450km test might have been with the missile flying at low altitude...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1252
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  mnztr Sat Jan 09, 2021 3:36 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11456
    Points : 11526
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:18 am

    mnztr wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.

    You can't do decapitation strike on USA

    They aren't Soviet pussies, they got redundancy for this and aren't afraid to use it

    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4973
    Points : 5055
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  flamming_python Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:25 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.

    You can't do decapitation strike on USA

    They aren't Soviet pussies, they got redundancy for this and aren't afraid to use it


    But the threat of this capability alone is valuable.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11456
    Points : 11526
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:07 am

    flamming_python wrote:...But the threat of this capability alone is valuable.

    Threat of what capability? To accomplish nothing?

    They may blow up some irelevant part of DC but nuclear retaliation is still inevitably coming


    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1252
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  mnztr Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:01 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.

    You can't do decapitation strike on USA

    They aren't Soviet pussies, they got redundancy for this and aren't afraid to use it


    A mob of white trash threw the govt into chaos, what do you think a thermonuclear warhead will do? Idea of a decapitation strike is to buy time. Once this is done main strike occurs that takes out all comm links and military commands/bases. Iskander takes out all ABM sites.

    magnumcromagnon likes this post

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2606
    Points : 2592
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:02 am

    mnztr wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.

    You could destroy all of DC and that wouldn't stop a return strike, this is common facts.

    Russia and the US both can fire nukes at each other no matter what you hit
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10663
    Points : 10810
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  kvs Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:02 am

    A definition of decapitation strike would be useful. Bombing Congress is pointless as would be bombing the Kremlin.

    Hit enough critical infrastructure and the economy will collapse with an ensuing famine and Mad Max chaos. The idea
    that some local politicians in the USA will save the day is retarded.

    People have this inane idea that modern physical society (economy and technology) is robust. It is actually fragile
    and close to a house of cards. Nobody is going to go back to the farm and grow their own food. No food supply
    is possible without diesel and consumers cannot reach their mega-supermarkets without gasoline. The USA does
    not have that many fuel refineries and fuel storage tanks to survive a few well placed hits.

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1252
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  mnztr Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:02 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Why do you think it can´t carry a nuclear warhead?

    It can

    But there are better platforms for that


    Depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a decaptiation first strike, DC is nice and close to the ocean. With less then a 5 min flight time, it is impossible to defend against.

    You could destroy all of DC and that wouldn't stop a return strike, this is common facts.

    Russia and the US both  can fire nukes at each other no matter what you hit


    In itself for sure, but it would buy time to hit all the targets that would be the counterstrike, yes we all know that MAD is pretty solid, but with all the political leadership dead, how long will it take to figure out whats going on and launch the counterstrike?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2606
    Points : 2592
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:45 am

    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.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3890
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  LMFS Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:41 am

    The idea is to have a tool to help with the escalation control. The US with all the missiles they want to install in Europe and Asia, plus those in USN units and the provocations by proxies, pursue having tools to harm Russia but still stay short of unleashing a full blown nuclear retaliatory attack. Russia will answer with such missiles as Tsirkon, that can provide fast answer to any stupidity, directly at high value CONUS targets. It is for sure than US sociopaths in charge will be more careful when their lives are the ones at stake that when some East European or Asian vassals are. It means simply the end of creating wars abroad and watching them joyfully on TV for the spoilt US ruling classes.

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 971
    Points : 969
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Arrow Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:54 am

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA: - Page 4 Empty Re: Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:52 pm