Russia v. USA Worldviews & Nuclear Security

[Fascist lite]

I would think there would be a secondary issue with warheads failure to achieve fusion with increased levels of radioactive produced when it failed to fully detonate
I don’t know how much of a problem this would be though. someone else probably could speak to that better.

 

[REALHumanRights]

I would think there would be a secondary issue with warheads failure to achieve fusion with increased levels of radioactive produced when it failed to fully detonate
I don’t know how much of a problem this would be though. someone else probably could speak to that better.

After 60+ years of USSR/Russia focus on how to use nuclear weapons against the USA, I have no doubt that they have planned for contingencies if some nuclear missiles fail.
And when we are discussing over 1000 nuclear bombs, the narrative that Russia nuclear bombs are a toothless threat against USA is simply denial IMO.
In the YouTube that I referenced, I understand and appreciate the need for such denial. But when USA is looking at actual defense for its own country, it has to be realistic about threats.
I think there is this perception that failures by the Russian conventional army = Russia is really no threat.
The USA modern military concerns about Russia/USSR were never its "conventional army," but always its nuclear threat.
As we forced 20th century children to hide under their desks, it wasn't because of concern about Russian tanks and soldiers.

Along with challenges in USA capitalism, this become another damage in USA national trust among one another and our government.

 

[Dr Arthur]

In Russia-USA nuclear debate, voices now claim that Russia's nuclear threat is non-existent, because Russian nuclear bombs likely won't work.

Ryan McBeth claims Russia's nuclear bombs not likely to work, since he and another source believes Russia has not kept them up to date, regarding tritium radioactive sources. In: "Will Russia’s nuclear weapons actually work? #ukraine #ukraineRussiaWar #osint"

Yes and the concern is the maintenance issue. Russia has shown this has been an issue with sections of their military so does the same apply to their nuclear forces? If inadequate maintenance will they launch and will they detonate?

 

[Irag8er]

Yes and the concern is the maintenance issue. Russia has shown this has been an issue with sections of their military so does the same apply to their nuclear forces? If inadequate maintenance will they launch and will they detonate?

And where will they detonate, within 100, 500, 1000 miles of the intended target? Or the launchpad?

 

[Dr Arthur]

And where will they detonate, within 100, 500, 1000 miles of the intended target? Or the launchpad?

Really complicates the question of RUssian nukes where will I run? ...Hell were is it going to land?

 

[REALHumanRights]

Really complicates the question of RUssian nukes where will I run? ...Hell were is it going to land?

The likely first strategic targets in USA would be
-- Washington DC
-- Omaha, Nebraska
-- Colorado Springs, Colorado
-- Cheyenne, Wyoming
-- Minot, North Dakota
-- Bluemont, VA
I would expect a surface nuclear bomb attack with a functional yield of 20 MT, whether it is one 20 MT, or multiple 855 KT, etc.
(This has been the standard strategic "nuclear bomb" size of USSR for decades in terms of destruction goals. I would not mix engineering with USSR military mind; the goal of destruction IMO is likely to be the same, regardless of blast(s) yield.)
I would expect fallout contour to go from west to east and south to north, with 1000 Rads/Hour of 230 miles (371 kilometers, and 100 Rads/Hour of 372 miles (599 kilometers).
Of course, fallout contour could likely also follow any wind pattern, with fallout contour directly just east, just north, just south, or just west. West least likely. Wind probablility below.
This is pretty common in the northern hemisphere.


I respect the jingoism of those in USA who advocate that the Russia nuclear threat is not real, how they will blow up on their platforms, how they are incompetent, etc.
Really respect, understand, and God knows hope all of that would be true.
But the idea that USSR/Russia enemy chose to ignore its greatest strength ignores the Russian/Soviet military strategic thinking and goals regarding the world.
Simply because it does not have an economy of the scale of the USA. Clearly this ignores the actual history of the past 100 years.
In other (non-nuclear) circumstances, I would quietly appreciate the "USA USA USA" toned analysis.
But my greater concern is for the lives of fellow Americans, to save as many lives as possible from nuclear war.
And denial that it could happen simply does not further that cause in my opinion.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Russia - more nuclear bomb talk from the governments during war.
@Reuters report on press conference of spokesman of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov - "Russia says seized Ukrainian lands are under its nuclear protection" ...
Asked by reporters if the regions were under Moscow's nuclear umbrella, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "All these territories are inalienable parts of the Russian Federation and they are all protected. Their security is provided for at the same level as [it is for] the rest of Russia's territory."

Russia says seized Ukrainian lands are under its nuclear protection

Russia said on Tuesday that four Ukrainian regions whose annexation it proclaimed last month are under the protection of its nuclear arsenal.

www.reuters.com

Notably USA/Western media do not consider this to be an important headline story, and it is buried down in the list of Reuters news releases.
Perhaps the USA/Western media has gotten "used" to hearing about nuclear war as "routine" now.

 

[REALHumanRights]

While USA / Western media has chosen that nuclear bomb talk now rates a shrug, WSJ is also glad to write about USA military weakness.
"Americans like to think their military is unbeatable if politicians wouldn’t get in the way. The truth is that U.S. hard power isn’t what it used to be. That’s the message of the Heritage Foundation’s 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, which is reported here for the first time and describes a worrisome trend.

Excerpt from WSJ report:
"Heritage rates the U.S. military as “weak” and “at growing risk of not being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.” The weak rating, down from “marginal” a year earlier, is the first in the index’s nine-year history.
The index measures the military’s ability to prevail in two major regional conflicts at once—say, a conflict in the Middle East and a fight on the Korean peninsula. Americans might wish “that the world be a simpler, less threatening place,” as the report notes. But these commitments are part of U.S. national-security strategy.
Heritage says the U.S. military risks being unable to handle even “a single major regional conflict” as it also tries to deter rogues elsewhere. The Trump Administration’s one-time cash infusion has dried up. Pentagon budgets aren’t keeping up with inflation, and the branches are having to make trade-offs about whether to be modern, large, or ready to fight tonight. The decline is especially acute in the Navy and Air Force.
The Navy has been saying for years it needs to grow to at least 350 ships, plus more unmanned platforms. Yet the Navy has shown a “persistent inability to arrest and reverse the continued diminution of its fleet,” the report says. By one analysis it has under-delivered on shipbuilding plans by 10 ships a year on average over the past five years.
From 2005 to 2020, the U.S. fleet grew to 296 warships from 291, while China’s navy grew to 360 from 216. War isn’t won on numbers alone, but China is also narrowing the U.S. technological advantage in every area from aircraft carrier catapults to long-range missiles.
The Navy wants to build three Virginia-class submarines a year, and the U.S. still has an edge over Beijing in these fast-attack boats. But the shipbuilding industry has shrunk amid waning demand, and the Navy’s maintenance yards are overwhelmed. Maintenance delays and backlogs are the result of running the fleet too hard: On a typical day in June, roughly one-third of the 298-ship fleet was deployed, double the average of the Cold War.
It’s worse in the Air Force, which gets a “very weak” rating. Aging “aircraft and very poor pilot training and retention” have produced an Air Force that “would struggle greatly against a peer competitor,” Heritage says.
The fighter and bomber forces are contracting to about 40% of what America had in the 1980s. The service has been slowing its F-35 buys even as it needs modern planes to compensate for the smaller fleet. Aircraft have low mission-capable rates, roughly 50% for the F-22. Heritage says the Air Force has “abandoned even the illusion” that it is working toward an 80% aircraft readiness goal. Munitions inventories “probably would not support a peer-level fight that lasted more than a few weeks,” and replacements can take 24 to 36 months to arrive.
A pilot shortage “continues to plague the service,” and the “current generation of fighter pilots, those who have been actively flying for the past seven years, has never experienced a healthy rate of operational flying.” Fighter pilots flew a meager 10 hours a month on average in 2021, up from 8.7 in 2020 but still far below the 200 hours a year minimum needed to be proficient against a formidable opponent.
The story isn’t much better for the Army, which has lost $59 billion in buying power since 2018 due to flat budgets and inflation. The Army is shrinking not as a choice about priorities but because it can’t recruit enough soldiers—nearly 20,000 short in fiscal 2022.
The Marines scored better in the index as the only branch articulating and executing a plan to change, reorganizing for a war in the Pacific in a concept known as Force Design 2030. But the Marines are slimming down to a bare-bones 21 infantry battalions, from 27 as recently as 2011. Mission success for the Marines depends on a new amphibious ship that the Navy may not be able to deliver."

Clearly WSJ believes the report is good timing to pressure increased "defense" budget for weapons to support USA foreign wars.

 

[REALHumanRights]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582206125235048448

Sadly POTUS Biden continues the bipartisan elitist tradition of being totally unaware of how many are also suffering in the USA.
We need multiple nations to help those nations in need, so that the charity is understood as a global measure. USA just doesn't grasp that. The wealthy in USA don't grasp this.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I would expect a surface nuclear bomb attack with a functional yield of 20 MT, whether it is one 20 MT, or multiple 855 KT, etc.

20 MT surface bursts are old school. They don't do that anymore except for hardened targets. Think NORAD.

They aren't wasting a 20MT on a city. And certainly not a surface burst.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

20 MT

There are no active ready to go warheads with that yield anymore. Big maybe one or two are still around to hit as the Director said NORAD or Russian gov bunker's in the mountains.

They are just to expensive to justify anymore with more accurate missile tech. They only got that big to makeup for inaccuracy. If you where off by a few miles it wouldn't really matter with a 20 MT bomb. Inaccuracy isn't a issue anymore with ICBM's therefore large yield devices have become irrelevant.

 

[REALHumanRights]

20 MT surface bursts are old school. They don't do that anymore except for hardened targets. Think NORAD.

They aren't wasting a 20MT on a city. And certainly not a surface burst.

With greatest respect, my comment was 20 MT or equivalent. Plan for worst, hope for the best.
Watching for decades, I am confident in my interpretation of the Russia/USSR military mind in terms of their goals in levels of destruction in the USA, that is a minimum intention of level of destruction.

There is no Russia/USSR desire to "conquer" USA as too many would like to believe, but to end it as a world threat to Russia's nuclear power status.
But it does not have to waste all of its weapons to destroy it, just end the USA military threat. There is the rest of the world for Russia to keep in check.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Watching for decades, I am confident in my interpretation of the Russia/USSR military mind in terms of their goals in levels of destruction in the USA, that is a minimum intention of level of destruction.

I am not disagreeing with your estimate on the level of destruction. I am disagreeing with the method of delivery.

Multiple, smaller nukes air-burst are more efficient than a single, large nuke ground burst.

I refer you to the article You Can Survive Nuclear War which briefly discusses the difference and efficiency of destructive power.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

The largest ICBM mounted warhead is from China, and it's "only" 5 Mt.
The only thing that comes close to 20 Mt is the STATUS-6 (a torpedo) and that's speculation as we don't know the yield. It's estimated to be somewhere between 2Mt - 100Mt.
Also the director is right, you get more damage with multiple smaller yield warheads than one high yield.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

you get more damage with multiple smaller yield warheads than one high yield.

Also cheaper and easier to maintain.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Also the director is right, you get more damage with multiple smaller yield warheads than one high yield.

I would not be the one to convince bitter former USSR KGB 's Putin not to use a 20 MT nuke on DC. I am sure that they would use more than one type of nuclear missile. That said, I would not believe the former USSR would be using any KT level nuke alone on DC; again twenty 855KT nukes are just a mathematics issues to me. But since total lack of nuclear preparedness leaves USA civilian population with no way to estimate the specific level of danger to MSAs, other than doing our own diameter around a major likely target, the civilian population needs to overestimate using larger nukes. Alex Wellestein's Nuke Map is far from perfect, but it at least provide something for the civilian population while the USA "Defense" Department is busy at protecting the rest of the world. It would be helpful for a USA "Department of Defense" to provide meaningful information on potential risk to USA public, but that would undermine their primary modern age goal of waging foreign war.

 

[Dr Arthur]

Really complicates the question of RUssian nukes where will I run? ...Hell were is it going to land?

I was being tongue in cheek that maybe you could not trust their guidance systems and may be really wide of the mark so end up hitting totally unexpected locations. Just another complication. Glad I live in rural Australia well away from any targets.

 

[REALHumanRights]

I was being tongue in cheek that maybe you could not trust their guidance systems and may be really wide of the mark so end up hitting totally unexpected locations. Just another complication. Glad I live in rural Australia well away from any targets.

Glad for you. Unfortunately, I am in quite a different situation and see things very differently.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

I would not be the one to convince bitter former USSR KGB 's Putin not to use a 20 MT nuke on DC

Have you not read posts in this thread? There is no such thing as a 20 MT warhead anymore. The largest nuke actively deployed by any nation is 2 MT.

What part of large war heads are impractical and unjustifiable due to better missile tech do people not get? Large war heads only existed to makeup for inaccuracy. ICBM inaccuracy isn't a problem anymore for Russia & US. Has been for decades.

 

[REALHumanRights]

The fact that I have read the comments in this thread does not mean that I also do not have information of my own.
The USSR made between 360 to 740 of 20-25 MT nukes.
If Washington DC is attacked, whether twenty 855 KT nukes or they use a single 20 MT nuke, you can be certain Russia wants to wipe it off the map with that level of destruction, as has ALWAYS been their intent for the past 60 years.
Probably more so right now than at any time in history of USA/Russia-USSR relations. (Actual Russian cities are bombed.)
The idea that the nuke size was only to "allow for ICBM inaccuracy" is very generous historical thinking to Russia military.
Instead it represents the level of ruthlessness of the Russia/Soviet enemy, which modern Americans are regularly "surprised" about, as if we did not have 60 years of world experience to teach us. As if this was JUST Vladimir Putin.
The former USSR would use Tsar Bomba if they could get it here.