Putin says Russia beefing up nuclear arsenal

[arkirk]

5) Either side shoot first and completely eliminate the other side,

Actually, #5 was more of an Island Of Dr. No option, just didn't make any sense in the discussion.

then wait for a few days for Nuclear Winter to set in. There is no sense to any of this nuclear threat shit. It only spells death to our civilization.

Well, yeah, that was the whole point.

We need a mature diplomatic regimen

I looked but the store was fresh out of that. The shelves were completely empty.
They did offer to back order it, though.

I don't believe I saw an offer on either side to back order anything but some new missiles.

I really don't know what the people of this world can do with this cantankerous bunch of fucking politicians. Maybe it would be good if they could get their nuts fucking instead of fucking the rest of us up.

Actually 40 new ICBM's ought to do a great job of nuclear winter. Putin could just throw the rest of the stuff away...along with us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They did offer to back order it, though.

I don't believe I saw an offer on either side to back order anything but some new missiles.

Just saying that maturity is something humanity as a whole is still waiting on...

Actually 40 new ICBM's ought to do a great job of nuclear winter.

He's just upgrading the delivery systems. Same nuclear winter risk as ever.

 

[Will Wiley]

It's the usual attempt to blame everything on the US while painting Russia as the harmless good guys victimized by the Americans whilst simultaneously also being the mighty stronk glorious Russian motherland bear.

But it's transparently fake. No one is going to seriously believe that Russia would have so many nuclear weapons and not develop plans on how to use them, not least because plans for various first strike scenarios have been discussed in various public and semi-public forums for decades. Who would believe such nonsense?

Very true they must have thought about it. After all they must be concerned that America will launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them. America has demonstrated in recent history it will launch pre emptive strikes on the basis on documented lies, and America is the only nation to actually drop a nuclear bomb on someone.
Any rational person would wonder whether America was going to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them.
So they would consider their options.

 

[Will Wiley]

It's the usual attempt to blame everything on the US while painting Russia as the harmless good guys victimized by the Americans whilst simultaneously also being the mighty stronk glorious Russian motherland bear.

But it's transparently fake. No one is going to seriously believe that Russia would have so many nuclear weapons and not develop plans on how to use them, not least because plans for various first strike scenarios have been discussed in various public and semi-public forums for decades. Who would believe such nonsense?

Very true they must have thought about it. After all they must be concerned that America will launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them. America has demonstrated in recent history it will launch pre emptive strikes on the basis on documented lies, and America is the only nation to actually drop a nuclear bomb on someone.
Any rational person would wonder whether America was going to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them.
So they would consider their options.
Imagine if you have person in your street who goes around punching people on the basis of lies with little warning? That person is accusing you of something or other.

You'd have to wonder whether that person is going to come and punch you too, wouldn't you?

 

[barbos]

But it's transparently fake. No one is going to seriously believe that Russia would have so many nuclear weapons and not develop plans on how to use them, not least because plans for various first strike scenarios have been discussed in various public and semi-public forums for decades. Who would believe such nonsense?

Very true they must have thought about it. After all they must be concerned that America will launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them.

But NSA says "Preposterous!"

 

[Will Wiley]

Very true they must have thought about it. After all they must be concerned that America will launch a preemptive nuclear strike on them.

But NSA says "Preposterous!"

But in all seriousness what is Russia (or anyone) supposed to think when American politicians wont rule out preemptive nuclear strikes against countries that have done them no harm?
The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes; A Global Pax Americana

Neocon “crazies” endorse tactical nuclear strikes against Iran

One option must be "maybe we better nuke them before they nuke us"

 

[dystopian]

Imagine if you have person in your street who goes around punching people on the basis of lies with little warning? That person is accusing you of something or other.

You'd have to wonder whether that person is going to come and punch you too, wouldn't you?

And now you know why nobody trusts Russia.

 

[Will Wiley]

Imagine if you have person in your street who goes around punching people on the basis of lies with little warning? That person is accusing you of something or other.

You'd have to wonder whether that person is going to come and punch you too, wouldn't you?

And now you know why nobody trusts Russia.

It is a worry. A real worry. Its clear NATO countries aren't crazy about Putin, but with their disastrous record at regime change they could end up with someone more extreme than Putin in charge. And, America's puppets in Europe are sitting ducks for cruise missiles, whilst America is not. You guys get a lot of risk for not enough reward.
So yes I would not trust them but I would not go around making them any more paranoid than they already are either

 

[dystopian]

And now you know why nobody trusts Russia.

It is a worry. A real worry. Its clear NATO countries aren't crazy about Putin, but with their disastrous record at regime change they could end up with someone more extreme than Putin in charge. And, America's puppets in Europe are sitting ducks for cruise missiles, whilst America is not. You guys get a lot of risk for not enough reward.
So yes I would not trust them but I would not go around making them any more paranoid than they already are either

Ah yes, the old "you guys are just America's puppets!" routine. An argument that falls apart as soon as one looks at things objectively.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe the question was answered. Putin was on the conference with military and what else he was going to talk about if not military?

Putin has all the earmarks of a nightmare politician. You need to understand that he has roughly the same mentality as our most "conservative" politicians in our country. He appears to believe very strongly that might makes right...and has not yet figured out that might just makes dead. The very last thing that should be happening in the world these days is an expansion of nuclear arsenals in the hands of a very narcissistic political class in Russia, in Britain, in the U.S. and France...and what the fuck...North Korea. Francis, a man of the silly Roman Catholic cloth, even he, recognizes the importance of climate change and poverty....but Putin or even Obama or Hilary....no so much. They are still playing Monopoly. Still too childish to be able to envision cooperation in elimination of common threats..making more bombs, fielding more spies, and shaking their fists at each other.

I disagree--I think it's more about wag the dog than a true belief in power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wheres US had detailed plan and ICBMs specifically designed for taking out russian ICBM and command structure.

Well, yeah.
What kind of a moron decides in advance that if the balloon goes up, we'll leave the other guy's nuclear capability intact?

The 'plans' were four scripts.
1) they shoot first, surprise. Targets selected on the 'no point in shooting empty silos' theory.
2) they shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets selected on the 'empty silos' theory plus we've had time to prepare more nukes (spin up silos, put more subs to sea and in range, sober up more of the pilots)
3) we shoot first, surprise. Targets selected to cripple their ability to retaliate.
4) we shoot first, after increasing tensions. Targets to cripple their ability to retaliate, plus we've got more nukes to play with.

So...you're saying the ONLY Russian plans for targeting were to wait until the nukes were already in the air, then shoot back? No plans for what to do if they got intel that the madman in the White House was intending to shoot first and loading more planes with more nukes?

You're saying the Russian military was insane or stupid?

Or they made a virtue of necessity--not being able to hit the silos anyway. (If he's even right.)

 

[arkirk]

Putin has all the earmarks of a nightmare politician. You need to understand that he has roughly the same mentality as our most "conservative" politicians in our country. He appears to believe very strongly that might makes right...and has not yet figured out that might just makes dead. The very last thing that should be happening in the world these days is an expansion of nuclear arsenals in the hands of a very narcissistic political class in Russia, in Britain, in the U.S. and France...and what the fuck...North Korea. Francis, a man of the silly Roman Catholic cloth, even he, recognizes the importance of climate change and poverty....but Putin or even Obama or Hilary....no so much. They are still playing Monopoly. Still too childish to be able to envision cooperation in elimination of common threats..making more bombs, fielding more spies, and shaking their fists at each other.

I disagree--I think it's more about wag the dog than a true belief in power.

This is exactly the childishness I was referring to. It starts off as bluster...till there is a "miscalculation."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or they made a virtue of necessity--not being able to hit the silos anyway. (If he's even right.)

Somehow, basing policy on a realistic approach to their limitations doesn't sound like the Russian way... Seems more likely they'd just up the kilotonnage until they only had to hit the right time zone...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or they made a virtue of necessity--not being able to hit the silos anyway. (If he's even right.)

Somehow, basing policy on a realistic approach to their limitations doesn't sound like the Russian way... Seems more likely they'd just up the kilotonnage until they only had to hit the right time zone...

That means much bigger rockets. You're also facing the fact that blast energy spreads out in three dimensions--to double the kill radius means 8 times the bang.

There's also the issue of dense-pack silos--far enough apart that a warhead won't kill two but close enough together that the fireball of one will kill the next inbound. While it's very hard to kill them quickly the denial of the sky works both ways--they can't launch while they are being killed silo by silo.

 

[barbos]

It's all academic now, because this particular threat of US first strike was eliminated.

 

[bilby]

It's all academic now, because this particular threat of US first strike was eliminated.

How so?

I am pretty sure that the US still has the capability to launch a large-scale nuclear strike against Russia, at fairly short notice.

 

[barbos]

It's all academic now, because this particular threat of US first strike was eliminated.

How so?

By placing ICMBs on trains and ordinary wheels I believe
I wonder how much money US had spent on R/D to get their warheads into meters precision range before they realized that was a wasted of effort.

I am pretty sure that the US still has the capability to launch a large-scale nuclear strike against Russia, at fairly short notice.

Yes but Russia will do the same.

 

[Togo]

How so?

By placing ICMBs on trains and ordinary wheels I believe

You mean like the US did back in the 1950s, where they dug extra silos and moved missiles around. Or do you mean more like the US did in the1960s, where they upgraded the highway network so that they could move missile carriers around so the Russians couldn't hit them? Or do you mean the 1970-80 development of the ATV missile carrier, so missiles could be posted in remote locations?

I wonder how much money US had spent on R/D to get their warheads into meters precision range before they realized that was a wasted of effort.

But that's not what it's for...
Can we please, please, change the subject to something you actually understand? This is just depressing....

 

[barbos]

By placing ICMBs on trains and ordinary wheels I believe

You mean like the US did back in the 1950s, where they dug extra silos and moved missiles around. Or do you mean more like the US did in the1960s, where they upgraded the highway network so that they could move missile carriers around so the Russians couldn't hit them? Or do you mean the 1970-80 development of the ATV missile carrier, so missiles could be posted in remote locations?

No, not like that. ICBM are really mobile, the one they always show during parade. US never had these.
And Russian warheads did not have precision to hit your precious silos anyway.

I wonder how much money US had spent on R/D to get their warheads into meters precision range before they realized that was a wasted of effort.

But that's not what it's for...

Then what is it for?

Can we please, please, change the subject to something you actually understand? This is just depressing....

It's not me, it's you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By placing ICMBs on trains and ordinary wheels I believe

That doesn't exactly eliminate a first-strike threat. It just changes the risk factors and the chance of retaliation.
But not much. The idea of the nukes on the trucks where they could be parked just anywhere was a good idea, but in practice the things turned out to need a pretty substantial prepared location to launch from. All these are well mapped out, so one or another asset is pointed at them.

I wonder how much money US had spent on R/D to get their warheads into meters precision range before they realized that was a wasted of effort.

Ideally, the entire strategic trident is a wasted effort. But if you're going to play the game, put your best pieces in play. If we're targeting hardened military sites, rather than civilian populations, precision is always desirable.