"Poseidon" Nuclear-armed Underwater Drone

They are far from useless as their very existance complicates US defense planning by an order of magnitude, and thereby raises their costs.

The US is agreement-incapable as their antics over the INF has shown (wanting the INF dead so they can deploy missiles in the Western Pacific Rim as part of their attempts at bottling up China, but blaming the treaty demise on the 9M724 short-range GLCMs). Even if Russia were to make compromises and receive similar in return, the US can't be trusted to stick to the deal. Oncer China decides to expand their ICBM/SLBM forces the US will simply pull another swifty and abandon their obligations, and Russian security gains will vanish overnight.

Russia should persist and develop asymettric capabilities and maintain a deterrent force that has as many different prongs and attack modes as possible. US stratetic planners need to get it throught their thick skulls that the US will NEVER prevail in a nuclear conflict and that the cost of attacking Russia is vastly more than any benefit they could possible attain. Russia knows what generosity and complacency will lead to, and they must NEVER allow any future Gorbachev to give away Russias advantages for nothing but a handshake and an invitation to tea on the WH lawn.

In terms of deterrence both are important because they say that even if the west surprises Russia with nukes in Turkey or Georgia or Ukraine and manages to nuke Moscow and their ICBM fields and manages to corner and sink their SSBNs that Russia still have weapons they can deploy to hit targets in the west that will do some serious damage and can be targeted to hit the rich and the powerful in the west the hardest if they so choose...

GarryB wrote:In terms of deterrence both are important because they say that even if the west surprises Russia with nukes in Turkey or Georgia or Ukraine and manages to nuke Moscow and their ICBM fields and manages to corner and sink their SSBNs that Russia still have weapons they can deploy to hit targets in the west that will do some serious damage and can be targeted to hit the rich and the powerful in the west the hardest if they so choose...

It's true that no-one has any defense from Poseidons or Burestvenniks.

But again, the point isn't to nuke the US. It's to talk sense into them. If they see sense, go back to the ABM treaty, prolong START, and get serious about a new INF treaty - then why not cancel these new programs? Russia's existing triad will be unassailable in that case, without the need for any new inventive ways of wiping out human civilization. Really, being as it is already the most surviable and modern nuclear triad in the world; it's already unassailable, not for the forseable future anyway. Hence why the need currently for these weapons should be under question. If not for their development, then for their active deployment.

Of course if they don't see sense it could at worst lead to a new arms race, with them doubling down on GBI and stationing new missiles in Europe. So be it, then the new weapons systems will make sense themselves.

But again, the point isn't to nuke the US. It's to talk sense into them

Sense to them means give me a clear cut advantage and superiority I will be happy with nothing less...

If you could reason with them there would be no need for nuclear weapons...

If they see sense, go back to the ABM treaty, prolong START, and get serious about a new INF treaty - then why not cancel these new programs?

I agree, but it is like Reagan said... we can either trust promises of the Soviets or we can bank on US technology (ie Star Wars and nuclear escalation) and he will bet on US technology every time... not because it makes sense, but because it wins votes and makes Americans feel patriotic... even if it does make them stupid.

The purpose of these new weapons is to make the west realise that despite world wide ship and land based ABM systems and numerical superiority in conventional weapons that it wont benefit from a war with Russia... even a small one.

Now if the west wants to back the fuck up, I am sure Russia would be happy to do the same... but I doubt an American politician would last a day suggesting such a thing is even possible... and any that do will be in Putins pocket...

Russia's existing triad will be unassailable in that case, without the need for any new inventive ways of wiping out human civilization. Really, being as it is already the most surviable and modern nuclear triad in the world; it's already unassailable, not for the forseable future anyway. Hence why the need currently for these weapons is under question.

You know that, and I know that, but the average American believes what the pentagon tells them and we have already heard of plans to take down the S-400 batteries in Kaliningrad and capture that piece of land... I think they couldn't do it even with ten times the forces they have and to do so they would lose most of those forces which simply makes even attempting it rather stupid, but the American and European public just lap that up and think Russia is on the brink of bankruptcy... just like their media tells them every chance they get... there is no talking sense to these people... just scaring them and that is what these new weapons clearly do.

No weapon is perfect and counters or equivalents will be developed, but that is no reason not to have them.

If they don't see sense it would lead to a new arms race. So be it, then the new weapons systems will make sense themselves.

But that is the thing... an expensive new arms race might be just what we need... just looking at the money each side spends every year and what they get from that expenditure I can see that some 4,500km range cruise missiles are probably about the price of a cessna single engined aircraft or possibly less. Very affordable... and you can fit them with conventional warheads for use in real conflicts as they start to age a bit... make 10,000 of them minus warheads, and if tensions go up... these breeder reactors they are developing and putting in to service should allow weapon grade material to be rapidly produced if needed, or conventional warheads could be used against point targets.

Make them compatible with the new UKSK-M launcher and you will have ready to use missiles to load in to your ships as you build them or upgrade older ships...

What I am saying is that these weapons can actually be used, unlike making 50,000 MBTs and have most of them sit in storage and never be used.

You could develop a drone based on these cruise missiles too... or fit their noses with release chocks and fit 5 x 40kg 203mm nuclear artillery rounds that can be dropped on the way to the target... when used as a drone halve the range... so it returns to base and load 25kg or 30kg guided bombs instead of the nukes...

Have them loaded with the nukes so they can be used without warning, and for conventional use replace the nukes with conventional payloads... with a range of 5,000km they could attack targets in Syria from ground launchers in Russia...

The Americans on the other hands will go for mass production of expensive new nukes... Russia wasn't expecting to survive WWIII anyway so that makes no difference at all.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:In terms of deterrence both are important because they say that even if the west surprises Russia with nukes in Turkey or Georgia or Ukraine and manages to nuke Moscow and their ICBM fields and manages to corner and sink their SSBNs that Russia still have weapons they can deploy to hit targets in the west that will do some serious damage and can be targeted to hit the rich and the powerful in the west the hardest if they so choose...

It's true that no-one has any defense from Poseidons or Burestvenniks.

But again, the point isn't to nuke the US. It's to talk sense into them. If they see sense, go back to the ABM treaty, prolong START, and get serious about a new INF treaty - then why not cancel these new programs? Russia's existing triad will be unassailable in that case, without the need for any new inventive ways of wiping out human civilization. Really, being as it is already the most surviable and modern nuclear triad in the world; it's already unassailable, not for the forseable future anyway. Hence why the need currently for these weapons should be under question. If not for their development, then for their active deployment.

Of course if they don't see sense it could at worst lead to a new arms race, with them doubling down on GBI and stationing new missiles in Europe. So be it, then the new weapons systems will make sense themselves.

No, because the US simply cannot be trusted to adhere to signed agreements. Once shown to be a liar and a cheat, that stain doesn't go away.

flamming_python wrote:.....Really, being as it is already the most surviable and modern nuclear triad in the world; it's already unassailable, not for the forseable future anyway......

Russian nuclear triad is not most survivable and definitely not unassailable.

Naval component is dwarfed in numbers by US, UK and French SSNs and there is decent possibility that they might be taken out in well planned strike.

Add to that poor condition of Russian aerial ASW component and you have a massive problem (how far behind are new ASW aircraft?)

Land component is vulnerable because they are in silos. Situation with road mobile is little better but those aren't majority and are not perfect solution.

Aerial component is small and easiest to deal with.

Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike. Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.

And we haven't even got to biggest problem that Russia faces in this scenario: cowardice of Russian leadership and and lack of will to defend their nation.

This was demonstrated throughout the Cold War: Russians were always first to back down under excuse of peace mongering while Americans were never afraid of reaching for the red button. This brought them total victory.

And to add cherry to stupid cake Soviets were so scared of doing what must be done that it resulted in over-investing in useless bloated conventional military instead of relying on existing nuclear triad and using surplus money to improve their pathetic economy.

Only intelligent thing they done was to deploy Perimeter system to automate nuclear response but even that is completely pointless because they are too scared to keep it online other than for testing.



So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.

PapaDragon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:.....Really, being as it is already the most surviable and modern nuclear triad in the world; it's already unassailable, not for the forseable future anyway......

Russian nuclear triad is not most survivable and definitely not unassailable.

First thing's first

The US won't launch a first-strike against Russia unless the temperature really rises up, and by that time Russia would have had time to deploy all assets. No-one in the White House will order a pre-emptive nuclear strike out of the blue, and if they do the Pentagon will stop them.

That assumption is highly unlikely to be flawed. But if it is, the Russia nuclear triad is still at enough readiness to wipe out half of NATO even if it was taken by complete surprise.

Naval component is dwarfed in numbers by US, UK and French SSNs and there is decent possibility that they might be taken out in well planned strike.

So? Russia still has a very respectable amount of nuclear submarines; SSBNs and SSGNs that can launch nuclear payloads. The SSN's are lesser in number, and it also has a lot less ASuW assets than in the Cold War - but then the point is not to first strike America but to ensure a credible deterrent.
Russia has no reason to order a nuclear first strike unless its severely threatened, and by that time everything will be at maximum readiness. Even then it still probably won't go through, and same for the American side.

Add to that poor condition of Russian aerial ASW component and you have a massive problem (how far behind are new ASW aircraft?)

Tu-142s, Il-38s still do the job - and the Il-38s have recently been upgraded to the Il-38N standard.

Land component is vulnerable because they are in silos. Situation with road mobile is little better but those aren't majority and are not perfect solution.

Consider that even one Satan missile carries a payload that dwarfs that of the Minuteman III, and can wipe out an entire state or two. The silos are backed up with defensive systems against warheads, as well as air defense systems against cruise missiles.

The road-mobile ICBMs are also more advanced and are also afforded an air defense umbrella.

Russia is busy upgrading its early warning radar network, this will give it enough time to retaliate against any sort of first-strike.

Aerial component is small and easiest to deal with.

Large numbers of Tu-95Ms and a still credible amount of Tu-160s. Don't see a risk there. What precisely will they use to deal with them if they carry missiles with 3000-5000km ranges, considerably larger ranges than that of NATO equivalents? How many airbases does NATO have that far north? Russia is militarizing its Arctic zone pretty rapidly and adding AD systems there. It has MiG-31s there. It has parity there, all things considered.

Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike. Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

Even 50% of Russia's nukes are enough to total the US completely. Then there are it's tactical nukes, on Kalibr, Iskander missiles, armed on the Tu-22M3s, on the Su-34s if need be.

USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.

Europe would also be devastated without recourse, they especially don't have much of an AD network. How much would Britain and France be up for that?

And we haven't even got to biggest problem that Russia faces in this scenario: cowardice of Russian leadership and and lack of will to defend their nation.

No Russians just know what war is. But if the nukes come flying in then why not give a response? They're dead anyway.

This was demonstrated throughout the Cold War: Russians were always first to back down under excuse of peace mongering while Americans were never afraid of reaching for the red button. This brought them total victory.

You mean over Cuba? The US ended up withdrawing its missiles from Turkey, so it sounds like both sides won. And both sides realized that they're not so enthusiastic for nuclear war after all, paving the way for detente.

Let's be real, if any sort of such scenario ever threatens to occur - the generals on both sides will step in. Just like in Syria 2017, when Mattis managed to talk some sense into Trump.
It would really have to be a shit-show to get to the point of all out thermonuclear war and both sides would be shitting themselves and holding emergency talks before pressing any button. That's actually the point.

And to add cherry to stupid cake Soviets were so scared of doing what must be done that it resulted in over-investing in useless bloated conventional military instead of relying on existing nuclear triad and using surplus money to improve their pathetic economy.

Yes why be paranoid when your European next-door neighbours had just declared Barbarossa and Lebensraum against you a few decades prior. Russia has had different historical experiences. America hadn't, but they learned to respect Russia. That bloated conventional military never had to be used. I call that a success.

Only intelligent thing they done was to deploy Perimeter system to automate nuclear response but even that is completely pointless because they are too scared to keep it online other than for testing.

Putting the world's lives into the hands of a primitive AI probably isn't the smartest thing to do. Maybe you've seen Dr. Strangelove. What I find funny is that just like in the film, the Soviets kept the doomsday device secret in real life too.
And putting it into the hands of a smart AI is probably even worse. Ever seen The Terminator?

It's still functional, has been upgraded a bit I think. They'll switch it on when the world situation threatens to get to DEFCON 1, not before. But really, it serves its role just by existing and being known to potential adversaries.

flamming_python wrote:.......

That's some grade-A sunshine and rainbows delusion here. Yoko Ono on LSD would have been more realistic.

But this here takes the cake:

flamming_python wrote:...Yes why be paranoid when your European next-door neighbours had just declared Barbarossa and Lebensraum against you a few decades prior. ....

That's what nukes are for. But then Russians went full retard and decided to flush all the money they had on redundant good for nothing conventional military

flamming_python wrote:...Russia has had different historical experiences. America hadn't, but they learned to respect Russia.....

No they don't.

Do you even know what 'respect' means?

flamming_python wrote:...That bloated conventional military never had to be used. I call that a success.....

Russians were defeated, humiliated, cut into pieces and left to starve. That's not success, that is abject failure.

They were turned into state version of prostitute who is willing to work for table scraps.

Everything Russia ''accomplished'' during Cold War was for nothing after this defeat. They had to start from zero.

PapaDragon wrote:

So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.  

WTF?.... The Ruskie nuclear triad has questionable purpose or value?

Wow... someone has just gone full nuke-powered turbocharged retard.

Who are you, and what did you do with PD?

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.  

WTF?.... The Ruskie nuclear triad has questionable purpose or value?

Wow... someone has just gone full nuke-powered turbocharged retard.

Who are you, and what did you do with PD?

Tone down the insults please, it's uncalled for

Python is under the impression that Russia can just sit on it's ass and let it's nukes go stagnant and just take Uncle Sam's promise that everything will be fine while US works on ABM and builds SSNs en masse

It will not be fine and nuclear disarmament is a path to Generalplan Ost v2.0

Nukes are only thing that guarantee Russia's safety 100% and there should be no compromises about it ever

Build nukes and never give them up because when you do it's countdown to your extinction

No treaties, no bullshit

That's what nukes are for. But then Russians went full retard and decided to flush all the money they had on redundant good for nothing conventional military

Without a conventional armed force what exactly would Russia do if Georgia got some NATO support when they next attack South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

What would Russia do if Japan decided to take back its northern islands... all of them...

Russia needs a conventional military ability simply because the nuclear solution is suicide... meaning they can't really use it, or can use it only once.

A conventional military on the other hand is vastly more useful and the products they develop and use for their conventional military can be sold world wide to help the economy and technical ability of Russian producers...

They were turned into state version of prostitute who is willing to work for table scraps.

Under Yeltsin I would agree... and the eastern europeans were even worse... they did all sorts of things under that table...

The fact is that Russia is no longer under the table and has moved to its own table, where table manners means there are no scraps thrown on the floor for the dogs... the dogs have bowls and are fed separately like real dog owners do.

Naval component is dwarfed in numbers by US, UK and French SSNs and there is decent possibility that they might be taken out in well planned strike.

Numbers don't really matter... the powerful US Navy is ineffectual in the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the French and British navies less impressive near Russian borders... where they will have to venture if they want to sink SSBNs before they launch.

And BTW well planned? Such a first strike would inevitably lead to a leak by officers who will not like where this is headed... just like Snowden and Manning didn't like the illegal activity of their own military and did something about it, there will be officers in NATO for which a pre-emptive strike on Russian SSBNs will not sit well...

Add to that poor condition of Russian aerial ASW component and you have a massive problem (how far behind are new ASW aircraft?)

The P-8 honestly isn't actually that wonderful, and near Russian naval bases they have sonar arrays that will warn of an enemy approach rather better than any MPA could... not to mention more than a few SSKs lurking around that could easily ruin the day for a NATO sub or ship...

Land component is vulnerable because they are in silos.

Those soviet silos are amongst the strongest structures around designed to withstand nearby impacts of nuclear weapons... and of course they have a broad range if air defence and self defence systems of their own... even just a TOR battery would be enough to keep them totally safe... they could defeat cruise missiles dozens of kms away from the silos themselves so even if they were multi megaton weapons getting shot down would dud them most of the time but even if the impact set them off they would be too far from the silos to have any effect on the weapons inside.

And they have rather better defences than just TOR batteries...

Situation with road mobile is little better but those aren't majority and are not perfect solution.

The Road Mobile ICBMs are completely safe, the Americans have no idea where they will be at any given time... all the restrictions on their basing locations and how often they are allowed to deploy were part of START II, and mean nothing in new START.

Aerial component is small and easiest to deal with.

I love your confidence, but what exactly could any NATO member do to Russian bombers in the middle of Russian territory protected by the Russian air defence network?

Any hint of a problem and they will be airborne... and the airfields in Canada and northern US where interceptors might be launched to meet them will be vapourised by SLBMs and ICBMs in the first 30 minutes of war... not to mention major radar sites and HQs etc etc...

By the time the Russian bombers get to their launch positions to launch their 5,000km range missiles all the air defence nodes within 1,000km of them will be glowing...

Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike.

Unlikely.

Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

The largely unproven US ABM system is hardly going to be effective against a full scale launch of Russian nukes... they would likely struggle with one launch from Iran let alone a full scale attack.

USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.

All US cities would likely be hit... many of them several times.

And we haven't even got to biggest problem that Russia faces in this scenario: cowardice of Russian leadership and and lack of will to defend their nation.

What are you talking about?

And to add cherry to stupid cake Soviets were so scared of doing what must be done that it resulted in over-investing in useless bloated conventional military instead of relying on existing nuclear triad and using surplus money to improve their pathetic economy.

I agree, but would suggest an economic conflict with the west will stunt the growth of any country... look a Cuba or North Korea or Iran... all three countries would be in much better situations if they bent over and took it like a homo, but they have a spine and dignity and so they are poor and isolated from the west.... they know they could sell their people out and live a different life, but for Cubans it would be a life bringing drinks to white foreigners in from the US to enjoy the beaches and the casinos... not owning land... just working for mobsters from the US that own everything because they made the previous owner and offer he couldn't refuse...

Only intelligent thing they done was to deploy Perimeter system to automate nuclear response but even that is completely pointless because they are too scared to keep it online other than for testing.

Who told you that?

So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.

Well the last NATO attack was against Syria, which Russia did not interfere with, and of about 103 missiles fired, 73 were intercepted and the ones they missed hit empty buildings and open ground and were essentially a useless show of fireworks... if that is the threat I think Russia will be in great shape.

You mean over Cuba? The US ended up withdrawing its missiles from Turkey, so it sounds like both sides won. And both sides realized that they're not so enthusiastic for nuclear war after all, paving the way for detente.

The whole reason for deploying nukes to Cuba was in response to US Jupiter missiles in Turkey, so in actual fact it sounds like the Soviets won and the US pretty much backed down and lost.

That's what nukes are for.

When you have nukes and the other side doesn't that would make sense as they would never try to repeat Barbarossa if they thought Russia would nuke them, but when the other side has nukes then using them becomes mutual suicide...

Do you even know what 'respect' means?

In this case it means fear.... you know... like thinking the leader of Russia is some master super criminal that can change election results, hack servers but leave no evidence, invade the Ukraine... but again with no evidence at all...

10 years after Putin started to make life better by removing corrupted parasites, not by nucking Washington. If he was there in 1991 instead of the other asshole they would have had a very good economy in 2000.

Yeah, so western sanctions would have started about 2002 instead of 2014...

Python is under the impression that Russia can just sit on it's ass and let it's nukes go stagnant and just take Uncle Sam's promise that everything will be fine while US works on ABM and builds SSNs en masse

No, FP has rightly said that Russia has developed a lot of new weapon types to deal with new threats like US ABM systems... both in Europe and at sea and so if the US was prepared to give up their ABM system and sign back up to the INF treaty etc then it would be worth it for Russia to give up the weapons it has developed to defeat them.

That is not to say they would just freeze their work on hypersonic manovering platforms and nuclear powered cruise missiles etc etc, but they would be prepared to control them like they do with ICBMs and SLBMs to calm things down... but the US wont agree to this... they want China included which on its own will prevent any progress because China is not interested in that, and besides if China gets included then we need to include Britain and France and Israel then too... which is not going to happen either.

Nukes are only thing that guarantee Russia's safety 100% and there should be no compromises about it ever

Relax, Trump doesn't sign agreements... he just rips them up.

No treaties, no bullshit

No point in treaties with this dickhead, but eventually he will leave office and we can see what replaces him... it might take a decade or a civil war, but eventually someone will get into power and see reason... and is not on the payroll of the US MIC... OK it might take a while, but no treaty is better than a rushed bad one... which would be all they could manage between now and feb 2021...

papadragon wrote:Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike. Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.

Not likely to happen with Russia's new weapons which of course take a lot of countermeasures that the U.S. can't figure out how to deal with.

https://qr.ae/TcFjDh There are no preventive measures the U.S. can take care of Zircon or the Avangard as a good example in this answer link.

Please do not consider that these missiles above are like your average ballistic missiles. There are other weapons into consideration like a missile that carries an EMP emitter with pre-coordinated targets. How can you plan on an intercepting a missile where the majority of your interceptor missiles have to use electronics for guidance an all that keeps getting fried whenever they get close to the missile and just keep on missing it with no other guidance method because those guidance methods are reliant on electronics?

Operation mount hope 3, project azorian, Kholod project, Petr Ufimitsev equation, Adolf Tolkachev’s information leaks that caused significant changes in our aerospace industry, Lockheed Martin funding yakovlev, etc, There were many times the U.S. cannot achieve technological breakthroughs.

Those were the old times if you look at the U.S. today you will see the F-35 project where most of its weapons are from Turkish, Norwegian, Japan doing missile sensors, and British weapon companies, Most of our engineers sound like they come from India and Eastern Europe. Patriots air defenses are horrible according to the Israelis and we have a major company like Raytheon outsourcing the development to Rafael an Israeli company. Army radio equipment made from France, Tank APS from Israel, buying passive sensors from Czech republic, etc

A country without any level of critical thinking wont be able to pose much of a threat in the future. What good is it to be solely reliant on Asian immigrants if your own field of science does not exceed another country's expectation in their respective field of science? Example an immigrant gets sent to the U.S. to pursue in the field of photonics, this country has not made a breakthrough to get photonic radars to operate above the level of conventional radars, this burden now lies on the immigrant. While  a legally born citizen in Russia pursues in the field of photonics gets the know how knowledge of making a photonic radar operate above the level of a conventional radar, He either than now was works as the head director of KRET or RTI to now pursue further studies for example instead of making the radar see through lead walls from 500kms away or using P-band to see archeological findings(this is true reports from their companies BTW) the legally born Russian now wants to use even lower frequencies to be able to detect submarines very deep with airborne photonic radars. And this can be a grave danger to the U.S. who wants to scrap ICBMs and be reliant on SLBMs

PapaDragon wrote:
Tone down the insults please, it's uncalled for

Mate, you just stated that Russias' strategic deterrent (the only thing that stops US warmongers from turning Moscow and other Russian cities into vitrified slag-plains) is of "questionable purpose or value".

You can't make absurd statements like that and not be called out for it.  It's hardly an insult (if I really want to insult someone I'm a master of the craft), merely a reasonable reaction to a deeply nonsensical statement.

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Tone down the insults please, it's uncalled for

Mate, you just stated that Russias' strategic deterrent (the only thing that stops US warmongers from turning Moscow and other Russian cities into vitrified slag-plains) is of "questionable purpose or value".

You can't make absurd statements like that and not be called out for it.  It's hardly an insult (if I really want to insult someone I'm a master of the craft), merely a reasonable reaction to a deeply nonsensical statement.

If you don't have the balls to use what you have then it's of questionable value

Especially if you flat out tell your enemy that you don't have the balls to use it

USA was never afraid to go for the red button at first sign of threat and they won majestic victory

Better dead than red, they had courage, conviction and fate in themselves and would not allow the enemy to win no matter the cost

Meanwhile Russians were acting like some hippie losers and they got slapped down like ones

And now we got here a bright idea to compromise on nuclear deterrent again

Remember Cuban Crisis? Russians and Americans pulled back their missiles but Russians agreed to keep American missiles being pulled back a secret because Americans demanded it

They lost that one and afterwards Americans knew they Russians are scared of them

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Tone down the insults please, it's uncalled for

Mate, you just stated that Russias' strategic deterrent (the only thing that stops US warmongers from turning Moscow and other Russian cities into vitrified slag-plains) is of "questionable purpose or value".

You can't make absurd statements like that and not be called out for it.  It's hardly an insult (if I really want to insult someone I'm a master of the craft), merely a reasonable reaction to a deeply nonsensical statement.

If you don't have the balls to use what you have then it's of questionable value

Especially if you flat out tell your enemy that you don't have the balls to use it

USA was never afraid to go for the red button at first sign of threat and they won majestic victory

Better dead than red, they had courage, conviction and fate in themselves and would not allow the enemy to win no matter the cost

Meanwhile Russians were acting like some hippie losers and they got slapped down like ones

And now we got here a bright idea to compromise on nuclear deterrent again

Remember Cuban Crisis? Russians and Americans pulled back their missiles but Russians agreed to keep American missiles being pulled back a secret because Americans demanded it

They lost that one and afterwards Americans knew they Russians are scared of them

No there isn't any compromise. Putin said that already. Compromise is purely speculated by people here and retired people with no actual info. As said, Russia didn't use nukes because er....there was no need to since they weren't at war. Who would they nuke and why would they nuke?

And as pointed out countless times, those ABM systems are useless and proven so. Even Austin posted official accounts of the failure of their most vaunted ABM system - THAAD.

Anyway, this is pointless to discuss. I'm all for Russia having a strong conventional force. But its nuclear triad is what really protects them. There is no way they can defend against Topol M as we already know it doesn't fly at basic trajectory. Yars is same system but MIRVS. Newer systems are even further ahead in capabilities that are being released now.

They at least are making sure now they are having a proper conventional force for territory protection.

https://ria.ru/20200526/1571983448.html

I don't understand why people are so convinced poseiden is just a torpedo. I have seen some pics which seem to indicate it carries 3 submunitions. Why can these not be Kaliber nuclear cruise missiles? Perhaps Poseidon is just a 3 tube UKSK housed in a hull with small nuclear propulsion. Perhaps the drive system is just an advanced nuclear battery. After all who cares how long doomday takes to arrive.

As I was saying: https://rg.ru/2020/08/09/odnim-mahom-posejdon-mozhet-utopit-neskolko-avianoscev.html

Remember Cuban Crisis? Russians and Americans pulled back their missiles but Russians agreed to keep American missiles being pulled back a secret because Americans demanded it

They lost that one and afterwards Americans knew they Russians are scared of them

Sorry... just noticed this.

PD are you just being a dick or do you not fully understand what happened during the Cuban missile crisis?

First of all it was the Soviets and not the Russians... the leader at the time was Krushchev... the Ukrainian that gifted the Crimea to the Ukraine.

Second up until this point the Soviets were bluffing... they were showing enormous missiles and bombers and things in their parades... so much so there was panic in the US because of the missile gap and the bomber gap... they were afraid because the Soviets were so much better armed than the west was...

So the US decided to move Jupiter missiles which are IRBMs to Turkey to launch across the Black Sea directly at Moscow.... this was incredibly destabilising and so the Soviets had to do something. Having nuclear missiles 10 minutes flight time from Moscow meant in the middle of the night on a public holiday in the Soviet Union when all the important people are on holiday or asleep, the US could launch a nuclear attack on Moscow and destroy all the infrastructure and communications systems and the people authorised to order a retaliation attack... effectively cutting the head off the animal before the animal can defend itself.

There was no where the Soviets could base nukes any where near the Pentagon or the whitehouse, but they could base them in Cuba.

Castro didn't want them, but he had little choice if he wanted support.

The first things they sent were several hundred FROG rockets with 10kt nuclear warheads to defend the beaches in case the US tried a landing to stop the deployment of the missiles... they were in place and operational before the Serbs arrived.

The Serbs... SS-5 IRBMs, where shipped next and it was the bases they were being delivered to that the US detected that alerted them to what was happening, and as usual they over reacted... they could have nukes in Turkey and Europe but the Commies couldn't bring nukes into our backyard and they went apeshit... including demands to land forces and remove the missiles by force... which would have been amusingly fatal considering the defences in place.

When they started talking the Americans were in a position of power because Kennedy had won the election pledging to close the Bomber Gap and the Missile Gap... it wasn't till he won the election and found the bomber gap and missile gap existed but was the reverse of what he thought... the Americans had more missiles and more bombers than the Soviets and were about to start mass production of both to fill the non existent gap.

What did Kennedy do? The hero of the west?

He changed policy... the mass production of new bombers and new missiles was supposed to be about parity and peace and balance, but when he found out they already had the advantage, they changed policy and it became the policy of superiority to the point where a pre-emptive strike could wipe out enough of the enemies nuclear capability to make the war winnable... so he lied to the American people and spend trillions of dollars on weapons they did not need and could not use... which in turn forced the Soviets to do the same to catch up.

Anyway the US was able to force the Soviets to keep quiet about the Jupiter missiles, because most Americans didn't know there were jupiter missiles in Turkey anyway. They also kept quiet about the bomber and missile gap and kept pretending that the Soviets were much better armed and equipped in nuclear strategic weapons than they actually were.

The Soviets didn't care that in the west Kennedy appeared to win.... they got the missiles removed from Turkey so they were happy anyway... US public opinion was not particularly important then or now.

The Soviets were not weak but they did not have a lot of SS-7s or the first ICBM... the SS-6s with them being big expensive missiles... they were still the only ICBMs at the time that worked...

As I was saying

Just a standard torpedo with a nuclear warhead would be able to do that... you don't need a huge Posiedon type weapon to deliver a nuke warhead to a port...

You could just sail to within 100km of the port and fire a 650mm torpedo at 50knts with a 15kt warhead to do the job...

Only if that sub manages to get there & the torpedo has enough range to detonate
at the right distance.

If the first does not make it... the second or third or fourth will... they could just keep launching them all along the enemy coast.... any enemy sub detected outside of 10km can be nuked too...

PapaDragon wrote:


Russian nuclear triad is not most survivable and definitely not unassailable.

Naval component is dwarfed in numbers by US, UK and French SSNs and there is decent possibility that they might be taken out in well planned strike.

Add to that poor condition of Russian aerial ASW component and you have a massive problem (how far behind are new ASW aircraft?)

Land component is vulnerable because they are in silos. Situation with road mobile is little better but those aren't majority and are not perfect solution.

Aerial component is small and easiest to deal with.

Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike. Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.

And we haven't even got to biggest problem that Russia faces in this scenario: cowardice of Russian leadership and and lack of will to defend their nation.

This was demonstrated throughout the Cold War: Russians were always first to back down under excuse of peace mongering while Americans were never afraid of reaching for the red button. This brought them total victory.

And to add cherry to stupid cake Soviets were so scared of doing what must be done that it resulted in over-investing in useless bloated conventional military instead of relying on existing nuclear triad and using surplus money to improve their pathetic economy.

Only intelligent thing they done was to deploy Perimeter system to automate nuclear response but even that is completely pointless because they are too scared to keep it online other than for testing.



So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.  

Wow this is the single most retarded thing I have ever read.

Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike. Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.

Do you honestly believe that the pindostanski token ABM system will save them from even the nuclear arsenal of the DPRK?

Thier systems achieve pathetic results against the most basic of ballistic missiles under ideal conditions and due to the rapid degeneration of thier population and thier pathetic excuse for a schooling system I doubt they will achieve much better results before they are inevitably fried as a result of one final act of defiant stupidity.

Well perhaps thier current systems could achieve a onei n a million chance of stopping a Yars, assuming that the Yars just happens to manouver into an ofcourse ABM.

..they want China included..

The US won the Cold War (in which they lost several times more troops in Korea [where they were afraid to use nukes] & Vietnam than the USSR in Afghanistan) & the former Soviet BM specialists helped China & NK- that's why the writing is on the wall for them now in the W. Pacific. 
I would add that Russian IRBMs in Chukotka can hit not only Alaska, but the entire US W. Coast; there also sea bottom BMs & new BM trains r likely to be fielded soon.
LACMs from SSN/GNs can hit dozens of NPPs' transformers on both US coasts, turning them to another NK at night. Their SSBNs can now launch BMs from under ice- no need to spend time looking for a polynia:
Russia's Icebreaker Rocket Can Punch A Hole Through The ...