Russia can destroy U.S. in under a hour. - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Russia can destroy U.S. in under a hour. (Page 3 of 7)

Posted: 11/15/2011 2:32:59 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They could probably do a lot of damage to us with their remaining nuclear delivery systems that actually function, but our systems are in far better
condition, far more reliable, and our fleets aren't rotting away for lack of funding, crews, or missions.
]

How the fuck can you possibly know what condition their military systems are in?

by reading?

Indeed.

Posted: 11/15/2011 2:33:24 PM EDT

[#2]

Peter Sellers? I don't get it.

Quoted:

http://socal.umwblogs.org/files/2010/10/Dr-Strangelove1.jpg

Speed

Posted: 11/15/2011 2:37:03 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Peter Sellers? I don't get it.

Quoted:

http://socal.umwblogs.org/files/2010/10/Dr-Strangelove1.jpg

Speed

Dr Strangelove? the movie? you don't really get it? the doomsday device? world ends? mine shaft gap?

Posted: 11/15/2011 2:41:28 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well given the fact that they have enough ICBM's to kill the world 100 times over, and enough chemical/bio weapons to kill the world 1000 times over I'd say that's pretty accurate.

The US also has the same capability of rendering asia uninhabitable for the next hundred million years, and probably destroy the rest of the world in the process.

Which bio weapons are you talking about?

There were rumblings that the Sov's had ICBM's fuzed with bio warheads(Smallpox IIRC) that were designated as second strike weapons to hit areas that hadn't totally been destroyed.

These were meant to kill survivors and emergency personnel to keep recovery efforts from ever getting off the ground.

sounds extremely far fetched, almost ridiculous.

ICBM delivered bio weapons are far-fetched. However, their bio weapons program was real. They didn't keep stockpiles, but had huge facilities to ramp up production in a time of crisis.

as a medical graduate I just don't see what the fear about small pox is about. it may kill a whole bunch of people but it's impossible to control after deploying. any nation which isn't hellbent on their own Samson's plan wouldn't even think about re-introducing such a thing to the worldwide population. since it would be a massive pain to re-eradicate after winning the war.

I don't fear them releasing it on purpose.

Here in the US, we have a government agency that looks after workplace safety, they're called OSHA. Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration.

There is no word for OSHA in Russian.

Posted: 11/15/2011 2:55:35 PM EDT

[#5]

this may be a dumb question, but why do we even abide by these stupid treaties? because a couple of dumbass senators deemed it so? the russians dont follow the treaties, why should we?

fuck, i am 100% for the development of new nukes and testing(yes, i said TESTING) by the USA. fuck russia and fuck china.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:06:17 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

this may be a dumb question, but why do we even abide by these stupid treaties? because a couple of dumbass senators deemed it so? the russians dont follow the treaties, why should we?

fuck, i am 100% for the development of new nukes and testing(yes, i said TESTING) by the USA. fuck russia and fuck china.

well, you put it so eloquently bluntly but yeah, I don't see the point in treaties like START, SALT etc.

But then again I'm of the camp that to ensure peace, one must build bigger and bigger and bigger bombs.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:10:13 PM EDT

[#7]

The Executive decision to launch a retaliatory strike against a Russion sneak-attack would be "delayed" by our worthless shit-bag President, so yes the Russians could wipe out out in less than 1 hour.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:36:48 PM EDT

[#8]

Could Russia destroy the US in an hour?

Yes, depending on definitions and semantics.

Russia could destroy the US as a functional superpower in an hour - even if they are only able to successfully launch half their most modern ICBMs SSBMs and portable ICBMs and if we somehow intercept half of those successful launches that still leaves enough to wipe out most major population centers and kill/disable at least a third? of the US population plus the majority of the non-military infrastructure. End result is a country covered in destroyed cities that will struggle for years to rebuild the basic necessities of civilized life. Kind of like Katrina or a major earthquake on a national scale, rural areas cope but are on their own for a while, urban areas are devastated.

Does that leave us incapable of doing unto them much more than they did to us? nope, we would still have been able to retaliate on a massive scale.

Is it a realistic scenario given the current global political situation? nope.

At the end of the day though this is just Pooty-Poot being Pooty-Poot.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:42:00 PM EDT

[#9]

Yeah, you just keep puffin on that crack pipe Putin.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:48:29 PM EDT

[#10]

Don't fear Mootin.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:48:40 PM EDT

[#11]

But but but we have Star Wars!

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:52:14 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

anybody remember War Games?

I wore that movie out as an 8 year old

I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

&

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:53:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M.A.D.

This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways.

Not with the coward we have now as president.

His door, most assuredly, swings both ways.

Posted: 11/15/2011 3:56:19 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

Technology doesn't necessarily win wars- it's the will to be the greater tyrant that does.

Putin has the balls to do exactly what he says, Obama does not.

Posted: 11/15/2011 4:40:17 PM EDT

[#15]

Contrary to the ASSumptions by some of my friends here, the Russians do have a robust and effective ICBM force. Yes, they pretty much let the rest of their military go to hell, but not their Strategic Rocket Forces. Their SS-18s, SS-19s, SS-25s and SS-27s are very capable systems and they have a lot of them...more than enough to utterly destroy any nation or other actor that really threatens the Rodina. Some of their missiles only carry one large RV, much like our Minuteman III. Some carry many more RVs. All are capable of carrying other stuff to screw with any defense system.

I think this one scares me the most. It is the biggest missile they have and carries the most load. Perfect name too: SATAN...to unleash Hell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29

They also have a couple of operational SLBM subs and are readying more with a new weapon, the Bulava.

Posted: 11/15/2011 4:41:42 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

Level of technology is pretty much irrelevant past a certain point when it comes to nuclear forces. Even serviceability (as long as it is >0%) is irrelevant past a certain point. Their ballistic missiles are advanced enough and enough of them are theoretically serviceable that they are still the greatest threat on Earth to our nation's continued existence.

As for the technology of our nuclear forces, our ICBM force is actually less advanced than their's...

No it isn't. You just don't know anything about our forces and that's the way it will remain.

Posted: 11/15/2011 4:51:27 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Yes, it would take 33 Minutes from the time an ICBM is launched from Russian soil to strike continental America.

Our Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield is not yet fully functional and cannot handle the mass attack that Russia could launch. You can thank Obama for that.

You are partly correct. Even though Obongo cut the Ground Missile Defense system way back, there is no way we could ever dig enough silos and fill them with enough interceptors to counter a massed ICBM attack. The cost is beyond even our capability to spend money. Plus...there are huge technical issues to overcome. As good as we are the offensive ICBM systems always have an edge. They can carry all sorts of "stuff" designed to confuse any BMD system from the early warning radars to the interceptor and just about everything in between. So...as we design and field ever more capable systems, the offensive engineers on the other side (Usually former ICBM designers!

) find ways to fuck with the defense? Sort of like a football game huh? Don't get me wrong...our BMD systems are damn good...but nothing is perfect and no system could stop a large attack. Even one getting through would be a catastrophe.

Besides, you really don't need a large attack to do the damage. Just detonate three very large nuclear warheads about 400 miles over the United States spaced evenly from west to east and let nature take its course. That is it...NO other weapons would be necessary for the enemy to destroy the United States.

Posted: 11/15/2011 4:56:37 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

Not sure how true that is for us in the canned sunshine department

Posted: 11/15/2011 4:59:51 PM EDT

[#19]

In order to have a counterstrike we have to have someone at this end who is willing to push a button.......right?

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:18:16 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Missiles- how do they work?

Exactly.

A button has to be pushed and then something happens.

You think a lot of Soviet missiles would even launch? Maybe like a fleet of 1984 Yugos at best.

I don't think anyone is willing to take the chance just to find out.

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:19:41 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

In order to have a counterstrike we have to have someone at this end who is willing to push a button.......right?

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_11/Reviewing_Nuclear_Guidance_Putting_Obama_Words_Into_Action

Relevant.

The old policies regarding nuclear exchange are still in place until this process is completed. At least that seems to be the implication.

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:20:57 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Russia seems to have had a working orbital EMP weapon active since the 1960s. IIRC it is now non-nuclear, so they could use it to knock out or electric grid and military C3 without crossing the nuclear threshold.

That means we would be powerless (no pun intended) to respond short of blindly launching all our ballistic missile submarine warheads.

That is in direct opposition of our stated policy of retaliation only, with no first strike.

And the continental military and US cities would be toast.

Yes, a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System with a few EMP weapons takes less than 1 hour over the south pole and NORAD would be looking north. Already in orbit, one orbital EMP weapon burst could be followed up by an ICBM launch against military targets and/or our cities.

I think blackmail and power trips are what the Russians like best. Let them rape the "Near Abroad", or else.

Now we are cutting the military to save entitlements.

Brilliant!

The Russians control the "near abroad". Now, they want the "near abroad" they had in 1980 (warsaw pact), and Alaska, if not more.

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:29:35 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

untill Ron gets ahold of them

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:31:21 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M.A.D.

This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways.

That would depend on who our QB is with the football.

right now it aint looking to hot

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:32:59 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M.A.D.

This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways.

That would depend on who our QB is with the football.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would venture a guess that US nukes would still fly, regardless of President Obama's decision to not retaliate against a Russian nuke attack.

nope

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:40:38 PM EDT

[#26]

I'll say it

BRING BACK S.A.C.!!!

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:43:25 PM EDT

[#27]

I Just Googled......... " Russian Porn "

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:45:48 PM EDT

[#28]

I know there are 150+ little rockets of sunshine within a few hours drive of me right now.

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:49:53 PM EDT

[#29]

Really?

They forget we still have a considerable SSBN fleet thaty is active and very much capable of dropping mushroom on Moscow on short notice... We might not have the same capability with manned bombers and ICBMs as we did in the 70s and 80s, but our boomers are still very capable...

Meanwhile, in the Black Sea...

Thye have three active Delta Class ballistic Submarines (70s technology); 1 active Typhoon Class ballistic submarine (80s technology) and have only one (1) Borei Class ballistic submarine (90s technology) that is undergoing sea trials and armed.

Please...

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:51:37 PM EDT

[#30]

come at me bro...

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:52:58 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
come at me bro...

Posted: 11/15/2011 5:55:06 PM EDT

[#32]

This has been the case for about 40 years.

You must have missed the memo.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:03:42 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting.

Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize.

His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less."

WTF, really, since when.

What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores.

Link

Not meaning this in an insulting way, but how old are you? We didn't have the worlds longest staring contest with the russian bear for no reason afterall.

Mid 20's.

I understand that part of it, i just thought between our newer tech and anti missle systems that those older ICBM's wouldn't be that effective.

You have no excuse to be that ignorant. The Russians have hundreds of ICBM's. This information is widely available and you no longer have to drive to the thing called the library to find out. Also, we have a very limited defense system that can only handle a few launches from a rogue state such as North Korea, not hundreds of launches. How many cities do you think we would have to lose before we become a third world country?

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, San Diego, San Antonio, Phoenix, Memphis, Nashville, Austin, Portland, Denver, Baltimore.

That's less than 20 cities. What would this country be with them and their people gone in an hour?

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:10:40 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Well given the fact that they have enough ICBM's to kill the world 100 times over, and enough chemical/bio weapons to kill the world 1000 times over I'd say that's pretty accurate.

The US also has the same capability of rendering asia uninhabitable for the next hundred million years, and probably destroy the rest of the world in the process.

Which bio weapons are you talking about?

There were rumblings that the Sov's had ICBM's fuzed with bio warheads(Smallpox IIRC) that were designated as second strike weapons to hit areas that hadn't totally been destroyed.

These were meant to kill survivors and emergency personnel to keep recovery efforts from ever getting off the ground.

At the height of the cold war they/we could not have killed the world and now we would barely even scratch it...

We have already set off ~2000 and amazingly the world is still here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

It would be a bad day to be in one of the big ten cities or near the big ten military bases though.

Russia would cease to exist in any shape or form for the next 1000 years other than as the worlds largest nature preserve mostly devoid of people.

The Chinese could send less than half their people over and it would have more Chinese in it than the Russians ever had.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:15:11 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Well given the fact that they have enough ICBM's to kill the world 100 times over, and enough chemical/bio weapons to kill the world 1000 times over I'd say that's pretty accurate.

The US also has the same capability of rendering asia uninhabitable for the next hundred million years, and probably destroy the rest of the world in the process.

Which bio weapons are you talking about?

There were rumblings that the Sov's had ICBM's fuzed with bio warheads(Smallpox IIRC) that were designated as second strike weapons to hit areas that hadn't totally been destroyed.

These were meant to kill survivors and emergency personnel to keep recovery efforts from ever getting off the ground.

sounds extremely far fetched, almost ridiculous.

ICBM delivered bio weapons are far-fetched. However, their bio weapons program was real. They didn't keep stockpiles, but had huge facilities to ramp up production in a time of crisis.

as a medical graduate I just don't see what the fear about small pox is about. it may kill a whole bunch of people but it's impossible to control after deploying. any nation which isn't hellbent on their own Samson's plan wouldn't even think about re-introducing such a thing to the worldwide population. since it would be a massive pain to re-eradicate after winning the war.

Small pox only lives in people. That's the way it was wiped out. By vaccination in areas of high occurence and isolation of victims until the contagious period was over, small pox was killed in the natural world. So presumably, the only way for small pox to get from the United States to Russia after a nuclear war, would be by infected American tourists and that market probably wouldn't recover for several decades.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:21:26 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Thye have three active Delta Class ballistic Submarines (70s technology); 1 active Typhoon Class ballistic submarine (80s technology) and have only one (1) Borei Class ballistic submarine (90s technology) that is undergoing sea trials and armed.

Please...

...aaaaand 369 ICBMs capable of carrying up to 1247 nuclear warheads which range up to 20 MT in yield.

But yeah, fuck those pussies, they can't do shiznit.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:24:31 PM EDT

[#37]

it would go like this

End of ze world

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:26:03 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Since most of their SSBNs are rotting in port and their country and military is in the shitter. Id say its more like Russia can get fucked because our boats are still ready to put the hurt on thoose assholes at the drop of a hat.

Our tech is 2020 their's is 1990

Most of Russia's Nuclear Deterrent is in the form of ICBMs.

Tell me....which will make you more Dead?
Having a 20 ton bolder dropped 100 feet and landing on your head?
Or getting Zapped by a 10 Megawatt Infrared Laser?

One Method is Old School the other is Modern

The US has a greater percentage of people living in Cities than Russia does.
Also Russia has something of a Civil Defense (what does the US have?)

In either case...both sides LOSE and the Cockroaches Win

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:27:35 PM EDT

[#39]

You may need the MS paint for yourself.

Quoted:

I was only responding to the 'hell, they are still using liquid propellant'. That's why my entire fucking post was about solid and liquid propelled missiles. I guess I need to be more fucking clear in the future, I'll start now.

Let's go over the sequence of events:
1. You state that Russian ICBMs are more advanced than ours.
2. In response, Forest states theirs may be newer construction, but that their tech is still not up to par. He says that the Russians still use liquid propellant missiles.
3. You say that liquid propellant isn't all that bad, you cite the R-36 as an example.
4. I say that I would trust Forest's opinion over yours. Given what Forest does for a living, if he says that their tech is still not up to par and is not enamored with liquid propellant then I'll trust his judgment on the matter.
5. You counter by dismissing Forest's profession and then citing that the R-36 has the greatest throw weight ever for an ICBM. You failed to ask why it needed to be.
6. I mention that throw weight isn't everything.
7. You say that throw weight is what was needed. Missing, again, in that is why it is needed.
8. Forest points out what is implied. It had a huge throw weight because it needed it because its accuracy is substandard compared to US designs. Consider the Peacekeeper missile also could throw ten MIRV about the same distance as the R-36, but its MIRVs had a lower yield. The reason, of course, is our missile was more accurate.
9. You throw this little hissy fit because the evidence doesn't support your original thesis that Russian missiles are more advanced than ours.

Bottom line, the Russians achieved with brute force what they could not achieve with other means. It doesn't mean that they were more advanced, nor does it mean they are currently more advanced. It means they sought a Russian solution to a Russian problem.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:29:25 PM EDT

[#40]

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:29:55 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
And they could do it with one missile directed at Fayettville/Bentonville AR,home of WalMart.

Folks of the US will have nowhere else to hang out.

Chaos befalls the land.

Oh shit. I live right between these two towns.

Tell me it isn't going to happen.....

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:30:08 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M.A.D.

This has been true since the 1960s. The door swings both ways.

That would depend on who our QB is with the football.

Worst case: Bolt out of the Blue with a CinC hesitating and does nothing.

There is a huge response gliding silently beneath the waves. They aren't just making fish sticks down there.

well, not an obama supporter but he likes his drones, maybe he'd get a kick out of his rockets.

in reality, my guess is any president refusing to use the football in the face of a nuckear strike would be removed and someone else would proceed to release the hounds..

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:31:45 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

this may be a dumb question, but why do we even abide by these stupid treaties? because a couple of dumbass senators deemed it so? the russians dont follow the treaties, why should we?

fuck, i am 100% for the development of new nukes and testing(yes, i said TESTING) by the USA. fuck russia and fuck china.

well, you put it so eloquently bluntly but yeah, I don't see the point in treaties like START, SALT etc.

But then again I'm of the camp that to ensure peace, one must build bigger and bigger and bigger bombs.

I agree with both of you.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:34:43 PM EDT

[#44]

I wonder, if Russia were to launch all its ICBMs right now, and the US were to launch all its ICBMS right now, and for the sake of argument, presume that they were ALL targeted at isolated spots in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, what percentage of (A) Russian and (B) American missiles would fail to (C) reach its target, (D), even launch successfully, and (E) end up doing damage in its own country of origin?

Of course, there IS no factual data on this, but my belief is that US launches would enjoy a CONSIDERABLY higher success rate in all

categories than Russian launches. A great deal of former Soviet equipment and systems fell into a state of very serious disrepair in

the years following the collapse of the Soviet union and were never restored to full capability, or in many cases, restored at all.

CJ

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:40:29 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
. Ten large warheads on some versions, with a capability to carry even more, versus a maximum of three on the Minuteman III.

Large warheads are needed when you can't hit the broad side of a city...

can the same thing be said for a huge number of warheads on every missile

Yes. Think of it as the shotgun approach - hopefully one will hit close enough to be effective - assuming they are all targeting the same location, and assuming they are reliable enough (you may have to throw multiple physics packages at a target if your the individual reliablity is not up to par).

You don't need liquid fueled rockets to throw a large payload - and using liquid fuel is more complex and requires fueling the missle just before launch (slowing response). The reaons they HAVE to use liquid fuel is they dont have the level of tech we have for solid fueled missles.

BTW You are correct the MM3 only can fit 3 RVs, and only 1 is installed per treaty. Want to guess how many our D5s can carry?

(yes it's a trick question because it depends on the RB type used). The fact is due to treaty neither of us load the missles to full capacity so what they can carry is irrelavant.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:47:22 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Neat, except they were going for what became the largest throw weight ballistic missile ever, in which case liquid propellant was basically a necessity.

No it's not, but it's what THEY needed to do to solve the problem.

Hence, liquid propelled ballistic missiles aren't necessarily technologically inferior.

They are for ICBMs which above all need to be reliable and need to have a quick response - neither of those are high on the liquid fuel missle advantages list.

From the Russian's perspective: Crazy guy in the White House decides to launch a preemptive strike on their missle fields. Ok we're going to us D5s to reduce the response time of the Russians - so now they have maybe 15 minutes to fuel and launch those birds. Whooops you can't even fuel them in that time - all those birds are now lost on the ground. Ivan isn't happy.

If they were solid fueled the D5s would have been hitting empty silos.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:51:54 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
This wasn't really the point of the article, but thought it was inderasting.

Putin is on the list for the Chinese "Confucius" Peace Prize.

His comment at dinner was that " Russia can destroy the U.S. in a half hour or less."

WTF, really, since when.

What dose he mean? Kinetic military strikes, economics, diseased russian whores.

Link

He's talking about the sleeper living in the WH.

Posted: 11/15/2011 6:52:42 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Russia seems to have had a working orbital EMP weapon active since the 1960s. IIRC it is now non-nuclear, so they could use it to knock out or electric grid and military C3 without crossing the nuclear threshold.

That means we would be powerless (no pun intended) to respond short of blindly launching all our ballistic missile submarine warheads.

That is in direct opposition of our stated policy of retaliation only, with no first strike.

And the continental military and US cities would be toast.

Yes, a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System with a few EMP weapons takes less than 1 hour over the south pole and NORAD would be looking north. Already in orbit, one orbital EMP weapon burst could be followed up by an ICBM launch against military targets and/or our cities.

I think blackmail and power trips are what the Russians like best. Let them rape the "Near Abroad", or else.

Now we are cutting the military to save entitlements.

Brilliant!

Submarines laugh at EMP.