The US is dreaming, Russia will initialise MAD before US countermeasures

Question

Stop dreaming our s400 defense systems have twice the range of your systems plus we have more reserve nukes ans our aviation technology combined with Glonass has more precise pointing than ant geometic system the patriot counterpart has. We have 10 to 12 Mervs on every nuke that has a yield at least twice as destructive as the US counterpart. If you want a war just say so because the US will destruct well before Russia will

Answer 1

Your Funny

Answer 2

The Soviets have risen from the dead and will terrorize everyone again.

Answer 3

Whoever shoots first, dies second.

Answer 4

Cats mother got this one right. She is also hot.  

Answer 5

The invasion of Georgia has been long coming - the shield that Bush insists is defensive has caused a lot of warnings from Russia

They tore up the conventional forces treaty - the Americans couldn't care less - arrogance and a push to their door step lead to more and more warnings of military force But the Yanks didn't care

Although Bush and company will claim surprise - their is absolutely no exscuse for it - they should have seen it coming a year or more ago

Now the nuclear war thing - hmm

No one will win it is a complete misunderstanding of the weapons to think one side can win

Usually I find myself explaining this to Americans but you appear to be from somewhere else - but the reality is still the same

If the US got off 100 nukes that all hit their target and Russia didn't get one off the ground at all the US would still die - and the same is true if reversed

The globe is round and even in a "limited" nuclear war the radiation and fall out around the globe would be deadly for all persons on the planet no matter their residence

Look at the spill in Chernobyl - a relatively small incident that was an accident by comparison to a purposeful full out bomb the accident the spill is still impacting people to this day Birth defects early deaths and so forth are common and will be common for many decades yet to come for miles around the site

The US is not in the position to stop Russia Bush would have to borrow the money from Russia's ally and close friend China in order to move a beleaguered army bogged down over worked and stretched to capacity in Iraq

That said if Russia and the US go toe to toe - the world as we know it is over - mankind is over - at least the mankind that has two eyes two legs and one head

There will not be anyone around to argue over who showed a greater degree of strategic planning or who got off more bombs faster or anything else

If you want to talk about a who could win in a conventional war then all is well but a nuclear war is going to be the last war this species fights and it is important that we understand that

Russia and or the US goes nuclear and you can bet that Israel will panic and fire off their nukes at Iran and or another target

India  Pakistan and China will also panic and who knows who they would target

Every one with a nuke will assume that they are a target and they will attempt to take out whoever they believe their enemy is

  

Answer 6

I don't think you get the concept of MAD.  It stands for Mutually Assured Destruction.  It really doesn't matter if you have more nukes.  It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 nukes to every one that your enemy has.  Because we both have enough nukes to end civilization on Earth and possibly human life as well. What piece of land that you wish to conquer is worth the total annihilation of the Human race?

The whole idea of MAD is that no one can possibly win and it's therefore insane to fight. Even if you stopped every nuke we sent it doesn't matter because everyone launches.  Every nuclear armed country.  And even if not a single nuke hits your soil, the damage to the environment is sufficient to end most life on Earth. The dust and debris in the upper atmosphere would radiate the Earth and block most sunlight.  Winter would last for years and no crops would grow, animal and sea life would die poisoning the world further and causing plagues.  

No one wins.  Get it?

MAD.  Best named idea ever thought up.

Answer 7

Let's See a Rant by a Troll, that is also an imbecile. Hmmmmmm why does this not strike me as odd.  

Answer 8

Oh what great high tension negotiators we'd make. Leluuu is trying to calmly talk the guy down, then Armani83 starts mouthing off at him. (I think it would be even funnier if Armani83 wasn't even American, but was trying start a fight between the superpowers, either just for the fun of it, or to give them the finger straight from the little guy.)

In the meantime (just going down the list) TOS(eh?) (Oh, I get it, Obama supporters are Canadian, or soon will be) is saying "bring it", and farther down Dog's Butt, er I mean, titoalbanaples is trying to pick up chicks. Well on the eve of nuclear war, would I suppose, be the time to do that. Diddy makes a valid point.

I agree Nicholesta that he doesn't get the point of MAD. Since America not getting off "countermeasures" would, one would expect, mean that it would not be Mutually Assured Destruction. Of course the point is moot, since it is thought that the U.S. (and most other nations) have a no retaliation until nuclear detonations are confirmed on our, or our allies' soil policy.

Which, by the way, would mean any bombers not in the air, and probably most, if not all, of our silos would be gone before we could retaliate, in the event of a full first strike. That would still leave maybe a handful of ICBMs, what bombers we have in the air, as well as, oh let's see, what am I missing...oh, OUR ENTIRE SUBMARINE FLEET AT SEA. The Russians stopped being able to do anything about that about the middle of the Cold War (if not right from the start). And things certainly haven't gotten any better since. (No the Skval torpedo hasn't changed things, nor will it. You need a submarine that can get it there for it to matter, which you don't have.)

I think it's funny Robert T seems to be saying America wouldn't dare attack Russia, yet at the same time he seems to be describing a first strike by Russia scenario. So, who really is attacking whom?

And I have to write the comparison of the Glonass to the Patriot was inappropriate. Besides American anti-ballistic technology has been well tested in and out of battle (don't laugh, the faults that the Patriot had during First Gulf War have been corrected, which is more than can be said for whatever may or may not be wrong with Glonass, until you shoot it in battle it's Schrodinger's missile, maybe it'll work or maybe it won't, and anti-ballistic technology had never before been put into practice at that time), the Patriot is only our 2nd level ground-based anti-air/anti-ballistic missile, above the Stinger. We also have the THAAD, and the Missile Defense Shield.

Likewise the comparison of your warheads to ours is irrelevant; as, in a fight it to win it fight, the race would not go to the largest destructive yield, but to the most secure and streamlined command and launch control structure, as well as the shortest time to target, both of which we have. Not that I'm altogether sure what we'd be racing for.

On the subject of what would happen in the event of a full scale nuclear war, I think most would be surprised. The Nuclear Winter concept has been largely debunked. Nuclear explosions simply don't put enough material high enough into the upper atmosphere for it to linger and affect the climate. Volcanic winters on the other hand would, but as much as it would surprise you we're actually talking about apples and oranges there.

Modern nuclear weapons also are fine tuned to produce as little residual radioactive material as possible. That means no fallout. And what radiation deaths there'd be, would be from the EMP, people mostly in direct line-of-sight of the explosion, not thousands of miles downwind. Oh and, these nukes are an order of magnitude smaller yield than their Cold War counterparts.

On top of that there's the issue of precision nuclear strikes and target prioritization. Most, if not all, of the nuclear powers have left the targeting of cities and populations on the table, for scare and deterrant value. I don't buy it though. I think a nation's strategic decision makers engaged in nuclear war, regardless if their making the first strike or a retaliatory strike, are going to make putting a stop to the killing of their own people a top priority.

What that means is the strategic offensive power of nations would be the first thing to go. Quite probably all the nukers would nuke each other, and civilization would come out shocked but relatively unscathed. That is it'd be Mutually Assured Destruction for the Strategic Defence apparati of nations, not the nations themselves.

The problem I have with this is we're actually talking about moving into territory where nuclear war is thinkable. We're entering an era where you can win a nuclear war. Now nukes still have a deterrant power mostly because no war planner can be 100% certain they'd win a war having started it, and we're not talking about the sort of war you can adjust your strategy mid-stream.

Still I think people should be more scared of nuclear war than that; not just because of the tremendous loss of life that would result, though that is plenty enough reason. I think our first real nuclear war would degenerate into one of two nightmare scenarios.

Scenario one: Unlimited chronic attritional nuclear warfare. Yeah, that's as bad as it sounds. Basically as dust from the first exchange would settle, and the major nuclear powers would be severely weakened, the gloves would come off. Smaller nuclear powers and would be nuclear powers would start trying to exert and expand their power without the larger powers to keep them in check and provide stability. Larger powers in the meantime would have their own problems as they would be locked in a cycle of violence in a desperate effort to come out on top.

Each side would start popping out nukes as quick as they could put them together. You would get something one might compare to the spontaneous warfare of the First World War. But which I would also liken to the incessant warring of the dark ages.

The fine workmanship of this era would be thrown by wayside. So? you might ask. What that would mean would be nuclear weapons would no longer be so well made to produce a minimum of fallout. They'd get dirtier and dirtier, and our world would die by degrees.

Scenario two: Someone wins. In this scenario either early in a nuclear exchange, or a little farther down the line, someone emerges the clear victor, who none would dare oppose. Noone could really guess who that might be at this time.

Whoever would accomplish that feat would establish a pax imperialis on a newly unified world. Their power would be absolute, with no possible check or balance to it.

Source(s):

Armageddon Project Think Tank

Apocalypse Division

Answer 9

What difference does it make, you launch yours, we launch ours, we all go to h**l.

Answer 10

O RLY?

Answer 11

it doesnt matter. in the far future the aliens are going kill every human alive and take over earth

Answer 12

take it easy

no1 wants ww3 to start, ok?

Answer 13

You know what you loser! your wrong about your homo azz country.  Putin is going to try to make a law, so his lame face could be Russia's permanent leader. You guys have a bettter economy then us but realize Russia is a **** hole. Every picture i see from your country looks like an ice age is about to come. You might Suit Case bomb us and thats about it. But what is looks like you s****s will have to face China, Iran and Syria when it comes down to it. so im not trippin homie. you guys should be worrying about them. what i mean them is CHINA. with there 100 million man march ninjA!!!  WHen its all said and done, with all your killings and gore, thats when Christ will come and save the righteous. So have fun with your SCI-Fi talk cuz imma be a good boy so ill have eternal life =]

Answer 14

WE NEED MOAR NOOKS

Russia is stupid, but not that stupid.

Answer 15

oh, you have the power to declare war for russia?

Answer 16

Go boil your head.

Answer 17

Okay.

Is there a question in there somewhere?

Get a grip, man.

Answer 18

wont do much good when they come tumbling back down on your head!