Iowa?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why America can't really win a nuclear war with Russia
- Thread starter 74x12
- Start date
the problem with bunkers is that to be useful, everyone has to know where they are located.
The problem with their location being widely known is that the opponent can target them, using bunker-buster warheads
Nuclear bunker buster - Wikipedia
The problem with their location being widely known is that the opponent can target them, using bunker-buster warheads
Nuclear bunker buster - Wikipedia
Even more useless....a bit west of Detroit.
74x12
Well-Known Member
By that reasoning all defense spending is socialism.
The government really only has one primary purpose that is to protect it's citizens so they can live free lives.
74x12
Well-Known Member
This would not work against Russia. Against China or something maybe.
But Russia has nukes on subs all over the ocean. It's just not going to work. Even if you took out everything you knew existed they still would have a few ways of striking back.
74x12
Well-Known Member
The people vaporized are the lucky ones.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not I'm not 100% against socialism. I am for fiscal responsibility. I would love it if we could really afford social programs like in Denmark.
74x12
Well-Known Member
They do have provisions; But I don't think they're planning on sharing.
If you research enough you find out they have underground bases all over America. I think they're ready to continue the government even if Washington D.C. is a glass crater.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Older article but interesting one from Nature...
How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet
How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet
74x12
Well-Known Member
Here is an incredibly large boring machine. These things dig through solid rock. We think that they have better ones than these. These are just commercially available tunneling machines. Evidence is that the US government (and other governments of the world) have more advanced ones they use to make their own underground bases and tunnel systems.
But even these ones could dig out underground bunkers for major cities.
But even these ones could dig out underground bunkers for major cities.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Aaaaahahahaha!!!! You're brilliant!!!!
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I want it to land on my head.
Well, the trick is to pinpoint the subs and take them out right away. It has to be a massive coordinated attack, to take out the subs, missile silos, and bomber bases all at once. We might not be able to take out everything, and we might lose a few cities here and there, but our country could still survive mostly intact. Theoretically, anyway. As I said, it's a huge gamble and probably wouldn't really work.
Sometimes I wonder how many warheads would actually turn out to be duds.
If Russia has 20,000 warheads, and our surprise attack knocks out 90 percent of them, how many warheads do they have left? About 2,000.
If we have a missile defense system that's 90 percent effective, that's still 200 delivered on the US and/or Western Europe...
It is highly unlikely, or so I've heard from some people who worked with such systems (including continuation of government), that we could get anywhere near 90 percent of their nukes even if we got the drop on them, and further that although some claim high effectiveness rates, it is unlikely that any ABM system in practice will be anywhere near 90 percent effective...
If we have a missile defense system that's 90 percent effective, that's still 200 delivered on the US and/or Western Europe...
It is highly unlikely, or so I've heard from some people who worked with such systems (including continuation of government), that we could get anywhere near 90 percent of their nukes even if we got the drop on them, and further that although some claim high effectiveness rates, it is unlikely that any ABM system in practice will be anywhere near 90 percent effective...
74x12
Well-Known Member
Nuclear first strike is within the doctrine of both USA and Russia. The problem is ethics of course. Is it ethical to strike first? Very hard sell to the rest of the world. That is assuming you even care at that point what the rest of the world thinks.
Many people theorize that even if you did completely wipe out Russia they may have sleeper cells within US cities with nukes in place waiting. So I don't know. I'm just throwing everything out there.
I think as an American that it just wouldn't work for us to do ethically. Russia probably could justify it to themselves. This puts America at a slight disadvantage. I think we need to make ourselves as defensively strong as possible.
- Better and more missile defense shield capabilities
- upgraded, better nukes for deterrant factor
- underground bunkers for all major cities with supplies
- harden the grid against EMP attacks
Audie
Veteran Member
I believe it.
Me too. Esp the math and logic
74x12
Well-Known Member
You're right; I don't think the missile shield is 90% effective. It has proven effective in Israel against home made rockets from Gaza but we should be realistic about it's capabilites vs. modern ICBMs. That's why I think we should continue to develop the technology.
- Russia just recently launched a missile that was supposedly faster than anything we have and is by some experts said to be unstoppable by current American technology. They seem to have taken the lead in ICBM technology.
- Russian military doctrine is to overwhelm any defense system with multiple missiles. Also each missile has I think 6 warheads in it that separate in the air before detonation. It's really hard to counter.
- The sheer size the USA; it's a large area to protect.
- Russian submarines can get very close to many US cities. So I'm talking about as little as 1 minute warning before the nukes arrive. Of course in that case not even bunkers would work. But that's still something to think about.
- Russia also has a nuclear torpedo they can launch from submarines. This is able to basically create a radioactive tsunami against coastal cities like NYC. This would likely be very effective.
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
All this thread indicates to me, is that there are too many headcases
in the world.
Fortunately, the world belongs to G-d. Everything belongs to G-d.
Nothing can happen without His permission.
That does not mean that nuclear bombs cannot explode, quite obviously.
..but it DOES mean that they cannot explode without His permission.
G-d knows why He allows some things and not others. Mankind must learn.
Unfortunately, some will not.
in the world.
Fortunately, the world belongs to G-d. Everything belongs to G-d.
Nothing can happen without His permission.
That does not mean that nuclear bombs cannot explode, quite obviously.
..but it DOES mean that they cannot explode without His permission.
G-d knows why He allows some things and not others. Mankind must learn.
Unfortunately, some will not.
Last edited:
about 5 to 10 percent of missiles will fail to ignite or fail during boost. I don't recall warhead failure rates, although a few percent will miss target due to navigation errors and still detonate someplace...