Why America can't really win a nuclear war with Russia

[beenherebeforeagain]

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.

everything you say also applies to our capabilities vs. Russia, too. The exception might be the hypersonic cruise missile you mentioned. The may have tested one, but I am extremely doubtful that it's been deployed in any numbers. Standard cruise missiles from submarines would be quicker and more accurate, I would think. Of course, we know where all the Russian subs are...at least according to my sources...Personally, I'm not 100 percent confident...

 

[74x12]

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.

Right, but I think if you went to war you'd probably still want to wear a helmet and hopefully get your hands on a nice bullet proof vest; even though you may trust in God. Or for another example if you're driving your car you probably still wear a seatbelt even though you know you can only get in a wreck and be killed if God allows it.

My point is that trusting that all things only happen as God wishes is valid; but so is being smart for yourself. Perhaps God planned for us to be smart for ourselves.

Wise counsel comes from God.

The wise king Solomon said God has no pleasure in fools. (Ecc 5:4) Which I take seriously. I know I've made a lot of mistakes in my life and paid for it. Learn the hard way they say.

Also by wise counsel make war and in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. (Prov. 24:6)

So I think preparation is important.

 

[Stevicus]

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

True, there's absolutely nothing ethical about nuclear war. I've even considered the question of whether it's ethical to even fire back after you know the enemy has launched. If you know you're going to die anyway, is it ethical to take as many enemy casualties as you can to the grave with you?

What if we just decided to ride out the attack and not fire back at all?

I agree that we need better missile defense systems and underground bunkers in all cities. But there wouldn't be enough for everyone. Then there's the question of nuclear winter and how long people could actually survive underground.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My point is that trusting that all things only happen as God wishes is valid; but so is being smart for yourself. Perhaps God planned for us to be smart for ourselves..

Hmmm..
That's a tricky one.
Are both US and Russia right to have so many nuclear missiles?
I don't know .. where does it all end?

They say "nuclear deterrent" .. looks more like poker to me.

 

[Kooky]

The reason why America can't win a nuclear war with Russia is because nobody can actually win a nuclear war.

 

[rational experiences]

Man Agreed if I own nuclear bombs my threat is equal to your threat.

Agreed by supposed sane humans.

So everyone says looks like technology and not natural life has won.

Machines.

Stephen Haw the king message.

So humans think. How can I save myself.

The answer get rid of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants have to stop also.

No says man. I need power as a supply for my machines. Why did you make weapons then?

So humans think again. How do I get rid of weapons.

What about using them for power supply electricity for your machines instead.

Man says I have to destroy man's machines that uses power that button pushes the nuclear release.

Answers not answering the problem human chosen.

So could you dismantle bombs and use them as power for technology?

Men said I should have listened to my conscious guidance. No man is God don't ever practice nuclear science again.

As you already owned your own futures human warnings. You ignored your own known human warnings.

You now have inherited the future humans chose instead of the future no nuclear science.

So men now say to man technology does not save lives.

 

[74x12]

Man Agreed if I own nuclear bombs my threat is equal to your threat.

Agreed by supposed sane humans.

So everyone says looks like technology and not natural life has won.

Machines.

Stephen Haw the king message.

So humans think. How can I save myself.

The answer get rid of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants have to stop also.

No says man. I need power as a supply for my machines. Why did you make weapons then?

So humans think again. How do I get rid of weapons.

What about using them for power supply electricity for your machines instead.

Man says I have to destroy man's machines that uses power that button pushes the nuclear release.

Answers not answering the problem human chosen.

So could you dismantle bombs and use them as power for technology?

Men said I should have listened to my conscious guidance. No man is God don't ever practice nuclear science again.

As you already owned your own futures human warnings. You ignored your own known human warnings.

You now have inherited the future humans chose instead of the future no nuclear science.

So men now say to man technology does not save lives.

Well, what happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl are definitely warnings to us all about playing around unwisely with nuclear science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the following poem sums up what I feel about this situation and similar - not that it is likely to happen though and being somewhat overly pessimistic. It was inspired by the First World War, but also looked further into the future perhaps - it was published in 1920:

There Will Come Soft Rains by Sara Teasdale

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum-trees in tremulous light;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

The poem was read as part of a Radio programme in 1977 I think, called August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains, by Ray Bradbury - about the aftermath of a nuclear war. And not so far out with the date.

Found it - just click on the Mp3 option on Downloads to listen to it (24min):

August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains : Ray Bradbury : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[metis]

I want it to land on my head.

But wouldn't that crack the bomb?

 

[Ponder This]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

There is no way for either Russia or America to "win" a nuclear war.

 

[74x12]

There is no way for either Russia or America to "win" a nuclear war.

I wish it was that simple; then no one would ever try it.

As things are now I wouldn't worry. As long as both sides are on high alert I don't expect anything to happen. The only time anyone has a chance of winning nuclear war is to strike at the most unexpected and opportune moment.

 

[Kooky]

As long as both sides are on high alert I don't expect anything to happen.

Both sides being on high alert is precisely the kind of scenario where almost-nuclear-wars tend to happen, such as during the Cuban missile crisis, or the 1983 NATO exercises.

 

[74x12]

Both sides being on high alert is precisely the kind of scenario where almost-nuclear-wars tend to happen, such as during the Cuban missile crisis, or the 1983 NATO exercises.

It is possible. Where both sides just keep escalating the situation. It's just not when I expect it to happen.

 

[Kooky]

It is possible. Where both sides just keep escalating the situation. It's just not when I expect it to happen.

The way I see it - the higher the tension, and the more stressful a situation, the more likely that somebody, anybody, is going to screw something up. Which is why I'm glad that most of NATO isn't keen on escalating any further.

 

[74x12]

The way I see it - the higher the tension, and the more stressful a situation, the more likely that somebody, anybody, is going to screw something up. Which is why I'm glad that most of NATO isn't keen on escalating any further.

I see escalation as bad but for different reasons. I think both sides will likely back down at the last minute from a real nuclear war. Because they know there are no winners in that case. But, I think provocations can be remembered. Bad blood doesn't just go away. I think the worse our relationship with Russia the more likely they are to hold a long term grudge and attempt a surprise attack on the USA and the West when we least expect it. That's my main concern in all this.

 

[rational experiences]

In reality it's too late worrying if science the destroyer has won its attempts to lead us into life's annihilation.

You made a promise many years ago as human brothers to never apply NUclear science ever again.

And allow life on earth to heal and evolve.

You broke that promise based on rich man's greed. Which is the basis of any country overthrow. Resources.

So the Baha'i owned an updated human Jesus warning when the mind brains of men sacrificed again by fallen star the shroud proof occurred.

As the reminder origin science of mans returned earths star fall. As earths moon is the symbol holy space womb had saved earth.

Which not one of you honoured.

So you are all wrong equally everywhere as brothers.

A mutual place to begin equal rights is based on equally being wrong.

Is how balances get returned if you care to let go of the past and begin again.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The only way that I know of to "win" a nuclear war is to launch a completely surprise attack and give the enemy so little warning so as to not be able to launch a counterstrike before they're annihilated. It's a huge gamble, though.

Of course, even if it's successful, it would still lead to a great deal of fallout and global environmental damage so that even the "winner" would be an eventual loser in such a war. It would be a pyrrhic victory, at best, involving mass murder on an unprecedented scale and extensive environmental damage to the global ecosystem.

You would also have to destroy all his ballistic missile submarines before they could launch; hardly likely

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Wouldn't you need a government to organize rescue, recovery, and rebuilding and coordinate resources?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think the worse our relationship with Russia the more likely they are to hold a long term grudge and attempt a surprise attack on the USA and the West when we least expect it. That's my main concern in all this.

Fear G-d .. not Putin and his cronies.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The way I see it - the higher the tension, and the more stressful a situation, the more likely that somebody, anybody, is going to screw something up. Which is why I'm glad that most of NATO isn't keen on escalating any further.

I hope you're spending some time preaching in the comment sections of nbc videos.