Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[UNCjigga]

George R R Martin was onto something…

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/russians-alaska-asylum-avoid-draft-ukraine/index.html

Build that ice wall!!

 

[HomerJS]

Announcement from President Biden. We are in Cuban middle crisis territory

Biden's 'Armageddon' talk edges beyond bounds of US intel

The White House says President Joe Biden’s warnings that the world is at risk of nuclear "Armageddon” were meant to convey that no one should underestimate the extraordinary danger if Russia deploys tactical nuclear weapons in its war against Ukraine.

apnews.com

 

[Muse]

We know their stuff isn't all that great, so maybe it would fall on their own guys?

Saw info that nuking Ukraine could easily cause serious fallout in Russia due to wind patterns.

 

[Muse]

I think nobody actually knows how much Russian's WMDs will actually work, including Putin. Putin clearly did not understand the capabilities of his army. In that position, even if the leadership was predisposed to nuking something, would they risk it?

If they toss a WMD at Ukraine and it malfunctions, it is going to be a deer in the headlights moment for Russia.

Putin complains that the West wants to end Russia. I was never into that but Russia's conduct in 2022 has me wanting just that. Russia has justified sentiment to end itself this year, beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Bitek]

Bitek,

One thing about folks who type wild things: You regret typing them when someone who understands history weighs in.

Are you serious? You think American leadership doesn't understand and isn't serious? Meanwhile you are quibbling?

And learn to use the forums quote or mention tools properly. This isn't an email service.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1576902089481293824

https://twitter.com/x/status/1578188321884459008

 

[dank69]

10% of Russia's arsenal is easily enough to annihilate most of America's major city centers, even taking missile defenses into account.

You do not fuck with strategic nuclear weapons.

But how much of that 10% would be directed at the US vs. Europe? I would think most would be directed at Europe.

 

[RnR_au]

What could possibly go wrong....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1578239213275090944

 

[NTMBK]

But how much of that 10% would be directed at the US vs. Europe? I would think most would be directed at Europe.

Nah. US is the main threat, with the vast majority of NATO nukes, by far the largest military. It would be the primary target for a first strike.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But how much of that 10% would be directed at the US vs. Europe? I would think most would be directed at Europe.

Estimated that Russia has around 1500 armed on launch vehicles at this time. From my understanding, most are MIRV, so you realistically only need one launch per city. Any city that successfully intercepts get spared, but that still leaves the possibility of 75 cities in the US, and 75 in europe, assuming an even split. I'll let you do a search for the 75 most populous cities in each and decide for yourself how bad it would be if they launched.

 

[zinfamous]

Uh oh.

I need @pcgeek11 and/or @Greenman to let me know what we should do about this?

Are they legal asylum seekers or are they illegal immigrants invading our shores who should be forced to wait outside of our borders?

the color test supersedes all, off course!


That being said, these punk-ass bitches should be turned around and pushed back to Rusher, unless they carry with them a bound-and-gagged Putin. In fact, let all Russians know they are free to enter the US if they bring a captured Putin administrator, oligarch, or media propagandist with them. One entry per piece of shit.

 

[zinfamous]

Putin complains that the West wants to end Russia. I was never into that but Russia's conduct in 2022 has me wanting just that. Russia has justified sentiment to end itself this year, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Putin is like every dipshit conservative bastard out there: complain loudly about a thing that absolutely doesn't exist, then just do shit policy and social terrorism and genocide until you make that thing you bitch about a real thing.

 

[Leeea]

Estimated that Russia has around 1500 armed on launch vehicles at this time. From my understanding, most are MIRV, so you realistically only need one launch per city. Any city that successfully intercepts get spared, but that still leaves the possibility of 75 cities in the US, and 75 in europe, assuming an even split. I'll let you do a search for the 75 most populous cities in each and decide for yourself how bad it would be if they launched.

Lets go full insanity.

Wait for Russia to nuke Ukraine, and then launch a 2nd strike designed to take out Russia's WMD capabilities.


NATO no warning strike weapons:
The US has 336 UGM-133 Trident II with 4 warheads each ( as per treaty ), for a total of 1,344 targets.
The UK has 64 UGM-133 Trident II with 14 warheads each, for a total of 896 targets
The French have 64 M51 with 10 war heads each on their Le Triomphant class boats, for 640 targets


All up, NATO could hit 2,880 targets before the Russians knew what hit them. This is ignoring stealth aircraft and cruise launched nukes. So far in this war we have seen the US has had excellent penetration on Russian security. Things like missile silos do not move, subs can be sunk, the real threat is the mobile launchers. Russia C&C would be gone, and anything that looked like a mobile launcher would likely have been hit.


The real question is would Russia have enough capability after a NATO 2nd strike to get past the missile defenses? How many mobile launchers would survive and have the capability of launching?

 

[Muse]

Announcement from President Biden. We are in Cuban missile crisis territory

Biden's 'Armageddon' talk edges beyond bounds of US intel

The White House says President Joe Biden’s warnings that the world is at risk of nuclear "Armageddon” were meant to convey that no one should underestimate the extraordinary danger if Russia deploys tactical nuclear weapons in its war against Ukraine.

apnews.com

I said this maybe a couple months ago. Is Joe reading my posts?

 

[Muse]

Russia wins by instilling fear of its using nukes. It loses by using them. Conclusion: They threaten to use them, they don't use them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lets go full insanity.

Wait for Russia to nuke Ukraine, and then launch a 2nd strike designed to take out Russia's WMD capabilities.


NATO no warning strike weapons:
The US has 336 UGM-133 Trident II with 4 warheads each ( as per treaty ), for a total of 1,344 targets.
The UK has 64 UGM-133 Trident II with 14 warheads each, for a total of 896 targets
The French have 64 M51 with 10 war heads each on their Le Triomphant class boats, for 640 targets


All up, NATO could hit 2,880 targets before the Russians knew what hit them. This is ignoring stealth aircraft and cruise launched nukes. So far in this war we have seen the US has had excellent penetration on Russian security. Things like missile silos do not move, subs can be sunk, the real threat is the mobile launchers. Russia C&C would be gone, and anything that looked like a mobile launcher would likely have been hit.


The real question is would Russia have enough capability after a NATO 2nd strike to get past the missile defenses? How many mobile launchers would survive and have the capability of launching?

You're making a bold assumption that there'll be no launches from Russia between the launch of NATO weaponry and contact. Those things are fast but they aren't FTL or anything.

 

[Mai72]

That is the same misleading information that has been circulating for several days now.
"News" media just keeps playing a game of telephone with the same lousy speculation / source. Debunked then, still debunked now.
In this case, CBS just wants attention. Like all the others before it.

Ah. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Zorba]

Lets go full insanity.

Wait for Russia to nuke Ukraine, and then launch a 2nd strike designed to take out Russia's WMD capabilities.


NATO no warning strike weapons:
The US has 336 UGM-133 Trident II with 4 warheads each ( as per treaty ), for a total of 1,344 targets.
The UK has 64 UGM-133 Trident II with 14 warheads each, for a total of 896 targets
The French have 64 M51 with 10 war heads each on their Le Triomphant class boats, for 640 targets


All up, NATO could hit 2,880 targets before the Russians knew what hit them. This is ignoring stealth aircraft and cruise launched nukes. So far in this war we have seen the US has had excellent penetration on Russian security. Things like missile silos do not move, subs can be sunk, the real threat is the mobile launchers. Russia C&C would be gone, and anything that looked like a mobile launcher would likely have been hit.


The real question is would Russia have enough capability after a NATO 2nd strike to get past the missile defenses? How many mobile launchers would survive and have the capability of launching?

You have heard of Radar right? They would launch their shit before anything hit them. Radar and early warning in general is the unsung hero of MAD.

 

[Leeea]

You're making a bold assumption that there'll be no launches from Russia between the launch of NATO weaponry and contact. Those things are fast but they aren't FTL or anything.

Tridents have a flight time of less then 7 minutes. The first few minutes in the boost phase they are not going to be detected. Early warning systems likely will have less then a minute to react before the first warheads hit them. 2nd line C&C then need to respond to the absence of data. In a system with a history of false alarms.


Then they need to get the orders out to the mobile launchers, which in turn need to prepare the missile, launch it, and get it high enough in the air that the nuclear detonations in the area will not interfere with it.


Russian C&C has demonstrated a response time lag measured in days in Ukraine. They are not suddenly going to have a response time of less then 7 minutes.

 

[Leeea]

You have heard of Radar right? They would launch their shit before anything hit them. Radar and early warning in general is the unsung hero of MAD.

Not talking about ICBMs here. Sub launched missiles only break the atmosphere for long range shots. The shorter shots take less then 7 minutes, and the first few minutes in boost phase will not be seen by radar.

The radar systems will have moments to react, and then the 2nd line c&c will be left asking themselves if this is yet another false alarm. They will have about 3 minutes to decide if to launch, get the orders to launch out, get the crews to prepare the missiles, get the missiles airborne and out of the splash radius.

It is not going to happen.

Russian command so far has demonstrated response times measured in days. The nuclear forces might perform better, but nearly all the launchers will cease to exist before they realize anything is happening. The remaining launchers will be asking themselves what happened, waiting for orders from a command that no longer exists, and if they do launch it will be on their own initiative, uncoordinated, one at a time launches, incapable of overwhelming NATO defenses.


If Russia nukes Ukraine, NATO has the ability to end Russia and survive.

 

[NTMBK]

Not talking about ICBMs here. Sub launched missiles only break the atmosphere for long range shots. The shorter shots take less then 7 minutes, and the first few minutes in boost phase will not be seen by radar.

The radar systems will have moments to react, and then the 2nd line c&c will be left asking themselves if this is yet another false alarm. They will have about 3 minutes to decide if to launch, get the orders to launch out, get the crews to prepare the missiles, get the missiles airborne and out of the splash radius.

It is not going to happen.

Russian command so far has demonstrated response times measured in days. The nuclear forces might perform better, but nearly all the launchers will cease to exist before they realize anything is happening. The remaining launchers will be asking themselves what happened, waiting for orders from a command that no longer exists, and if they do launch it will be on their own initiative, uncoordinated, one at a time launches, incapable of overwhelming NATO defenses.


If Russia nukes Ukraine, NATO has the ability to end Russia and survive.

That's one hell of a gamble. A single unaccounted for Russian missile sub could launch 16 MIRV warheads- and I don't have nearly as much faith in NATO missile defence as you do. Some of those missiles are getting through, and millions are going to die.

 

[Leeea]

A single unaccounted for Russian missile sub could launch 16 MIRV warheads- and I don't have nearly as much faith in NATO missile defence as you do.

The Russian sub fleet is a known quantity. How many were built, how many are at sea, etc.


NATO would know if they have all the subs tailed prior. It would be very logical to sink the Russian submarines in response to a nuclear attack on Ukraine, even if a mass 2nd response strike was not planned. NATO would know if they were able to sink the all of the Russian subs beforehand.


Russian subs are just like NATO subs, they need to surface to send a message. Most of the time they are not in communication with Russian command and control. A Russian sub could be sunk and it might be days or weeks before it missed its scheduled check in.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think if Ukraine hits Moscow with missiles that gives Putin the extra bump he wants to use nukes. Right now Ukraine has the higher moral ground.... killing civilians in Moscow does not help their situation.

What about blowing up bomber jets in an airbase more than halfway to Moscow?

I rather like the idea of recreating Operation Meetinghouse, and an array of 100+ drones could easily achieve such a campaign using napalm or something. But this will do, and is exactly the sort of response I expect is needed to create a deterrence. I for one am glad Ukraine has at least some deep strike capability. It is needed when your opponent mercilessly and continuously launches missiles at civilian houses. It demands a violent response.

Explosions at an air base near Kaluga: a drone destroyed two TU 22M3s that bombed Ukraine

A Ukrainian drone made its way into the rear airfield of the Russians near Kaluga and destroyed two TU 22M3s there . These planes bombed Ukraine from the territory of Belarus and were based at the Shaykivka airfield.

The destruction of two TU 22M3 in the ZSU is called a very important event. "Shaykivka" airfield is a rear air base of the Russian Federation, and is located at a distance of more than 350 km from the borders with Ukraine. Moscow is no more than 300 km away from Kaluga. ​

 

[Leeea]

We all have our priorities in life:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1578322853774393345

 

[Brainonska511]

That's one hell of a gamble. A single unaccounted for Russian missile sub could launch 16 MIRV warheads- and I don't have nearly as much faith in NATO missile defence as you do. Some of those missiles are getting through, and millions are going to die.

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops."

 

[Jaskalas]

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops."

That's one hell of a lowball figure.