Russia in case of a nuclear war with USA:

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/

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150417/1021016791.html#ixzz3XZPXOHpx

Canada is usa sook puppet .

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN Force

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze

Austin wrote:Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN Force

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze

Bollox.

The assumption peddled in the second article is that Russian silo ICBMs would remain in their silos until the US warheads reached them.
I have never seen any detailed justification of this assumption. The time between launch and arrival at the target is over 10 minutes
at the least for ballistic missiles and well over an hour for cruise missiles even if they were to be fired at Russia's borders. The only way
a first strike would work if there was a coup in the Kremlin that had enough time to sabotage the command and control. This is about
as likely as pigs learning to fly through the icy wastes of Hell. Even Boris Yeltsin's bootlick comprador regime could not disable Russia's
nuclear deterrent. Sorry, Uncle Scumbag, your window for action never really opened and is certainly closed now.

The problem with hearing from a lot of sources...

is that many like to use liquid fuelled ICBMs used by the Soviet Union as evidence of their backwardness... obviously solid fuel is superior to anything else... the west invented solid fuel don't you know... in China.

I would add that with an interception capability of targets moving at 4.8km/s most models of S-400 should be able to defend an ICBM silo field from SLBM attack... certainly with S-500 the job would be even easier...

Because Silos need direct hits I would think even TOR could blunt an SLBM attack on a silo...

Nahh, they pulled the number from the air... just the same with the range and flight speed of the missiles.

Most bits of military equipment have design specs they need to perform to to be successful and to enter service.

Target speeds of 4.8km/s is one of those parameters required of the S-400 SAM system.

Why would it not have been tested?

All the information released about the system lists 4.8km/s as the max speed for targets engaged by the system.

That might be a limitation of the missile or the tracking and guidance system. When an S-500 battery is co-located then the S-400 system might be able to engage faster targets with improved radar systems of the S-500 operating with the S-400 battery.

Arrow wrote:

would add that with an interception capability of targets moving at 4.8km/s most models of S-400 should be able to defend wrote:

Russia test S-400 against target moving at 4 km/s speed? There is no information about this.

They using the rockets of the old SAM systems as target drones, so the speed is there.

GarryB wrote:The problem with hearing from a lot of sources...

is that many like to use liquid fuelled ICBMs used by the Soviet Union as evidence of their backwardness... obviously solid fuel is superior to anything else... the west invented solid fuel don't you know... in China.

I guess the premise of a first strike is that it is of sufficient back-stab suddenness that Russian silo ICBMs will not have time to fuel up.
But I am quite sure that this was considered in the ICBM design going back to the 1950s. That is why they don't use LOX as an oxidant
which allows them to be loaded with fuel for a long time. If US nuclear missiles can reach Russian silo targets in 10 minutes then
it does not make sense to have ICBMs which cannot be in a full time state of readiness.

But it is rather certain that any launch from near Russia's borders will be detected and Russian silo ICBMs will be flying almost immediately.
So the 10 minute window is of no particular advantage for the first strike lunatics.

Yes but this speed is about 1-1.5km/s ?

They have plenty of missiles with flight speeds of 4.8km/s and beyond they could use for testing.

When they displayed interceptions in the 1990s at foreign military events they didn't use Honest Johns and MLRS weapons for the interception tests... they used their own equivalents.

They would do the same for S400 tests.

Do you think they use 1.5km/s SAM drones to test the Moscow ABM system every year for the last 30 odd years?

They have plenty of different missiles they can use... look at all the ICBMs they have withdrawn in the last 20 years.

Liquid fuelled rockets can turn off their engines at any time and therefore reach any speed desired for reentry for testing purposes.

So how many ICBM intercept Moscow ABM system during the test for last 10 years ?

Hahahahahaha... yes... they tested them every year or every second year during the cold war but now they don't test them at all. All those upgrades and new radars and new missiles and they have not tested at all in the last 20 years... very logical.

BTW I have never seen a photo of Obama taking a shit... I guess he is not human.

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.

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.