• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Russia v. USA Worldviews & Nuclear Security

REALHumanRights said:
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
Click to expand...
A 50-200 KT warhead would wipe DC off the map. So not sure where your getting at. You don't need a large warhead to wipe a city clean off the map. AGAIN ONLY REASON WE HAD large yeilds **was** (past tense) to make up for inaccuracy.

A small yield warhead with good precision does do just as much damage if not more then a inaccurate large yield warhead....

It is that simple. Stop trying to contemplate something that isn't in existence anymore. A few precision 50-200 KT warheads do more damage to a region then a single 20 MT warhead. Which is why large yield weapons are a thing of the past. Not to mention large yeild warheads are really god danm pricy to upkeep & build.

I keep laying down stone cold facts on repeat like a broken record but entirely blindly ignored and responded with fantasies based on scenarios that have not existed for us in many many decades.... can we stop and start discussing real possibilities for CURRENT TIMES. This isn't the 70's or 80's anymore. The entire worlds nuclear arsenal has drastically changed entirely into smaller more precision based weapons.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
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.
Click to expand...
What would the likely yield be for military runways, like those that our bombers are stationed at. I would think a surface burst to destroy the runway but what is the best way to destroy a runway? Multiple < 1MT warheads or ? Thanks.
 
DarkNoon said:
A 50-200 KT warhead would wipe DC off the map. So not sure where your getting at. You don't need a large warhead to wipe a city clean off the map. AGAIN ONLY REASON WE HAD large yeilds **was** (past tense) to make up for inaccuracy.

A small yield warhead with good precision does do just as much damage if not more then a inaccurate large yield warhead....

It is that simple. Stop trying to contemplate something that isn't in existence anymore. A few precision 50-200 KT warheads do more damage to a region then a single 20 MT warhead. Which is why large yield weapons are a thing of the past. Not to mention large yeild warheads are really god danm pricy to upkeep & build.

I keep laying down stone cold facts on repeat like a broken record but entirely blindly ignored and responded with fantasies based on scenarios that have not existed for us in many many decades.... can we stop and start discussing real possibilities for CURRENT TIMES. This isn't the 70's or 80's anymore. The entire worlds nuclear arsenal has drastically changed entirely into smaller more precision based weapons.
Click to expand...
Here's a good site with information on weaponry.

Missiles | Military-Today.com

Information on modern missiles, including ballistic missiles, air defense missile systems and anti-tank missile carriers in service with different countries around the world.
www.military-today.com

R-36 (SS-18 Satan) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile | Military-Today.com

The R-36 (SS-18 Satan) is the worlds heaviest and most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of carrying a MIRV payload of 10 warheads. A single ICBM can completely destroy 3 US states.
www.military-today.com
The R-36M missile could also carry a single warhead of up to 20 MT. Development of this missile began in 1969. Its first test launch was made in 1973. A first batch of 56 missiles was deployed in 1977, but these were later replaced by more modern Mod.3 and Mod.4 versions.

en.wikipedia.org

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The mod3 and the mod4 have since been upgraded to the Mod5 in the R-36 platform.

The Mod 5 carries 10 MIRVs, each having a higher yield than the Mod 4 warheads. The Mod 5 warheads have nearly twice the yield of the Mod 4 (approximately 750 kt to 1 Mt) according to Western estimates, though Russian sources suggest a yield of 550–750 kt each.
 
falloutsucks said:
Here's a good site with information on weaponry.

Missiles | Military-Today.com

Information on modern missiles, including ballistic missiles, air defense missile systems and anti-tank missile carriers in service with different countries around the world.
www.military-today.com

R-36 (SS-18 Satan) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile | Military-Today.com

The R-36 (SS-18 Satan) is the worlds heaviest and most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of carrying a MIRV payload of 10 warheads. A single ICBM can completely destroy 3 US states.
www.military-today.com
The R-36M missile could also carry a single warhead of up to 20 MT. Development of this missile began in 1969. Its first test launch was made in 1973. A first batch of 56 missiles was deployed in 1977, but these were later replaced by more modern Mod.3 and Mod.4 versions.

en.wikipedia.org

R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The mod3 and the mod4 have since been upgraded to the Mod5 in the R-36 platform.

The Mod 5 carries 10 MIRVs, each having a higher yield than the Mod 4 warheads. The Mod 5 warheads have nearly twice the yield of the Mod 4 (approximately 750 kt to 1 Mt) according to Western estimates, though Russian sources suggest a yield of 550–750 kt each.
Click to expand...
So yes. Thanks for proving my point further. Nations have moved to smaller more accurate low yield warheads. These large yeild weapons just don't exist anymore and are impractical now a days.
 
More USA Government Nuclear Bomb talk... Can anyone give USG and DoD an explanation of what "De-Escalation" means?
USA DoD Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder @PentagonPresSec - "We Got This" on Russia Nukes... That is the Russia Nukes Not Even Coming (?)...
-- Politico Pentagon reporter @laraseligman: "'We are completely ready" to deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats, says
@PentagonPresSec - "In the meantime, we have not seen anything that would indicate that Russia has made a decision to employ" nukes
https://twitter.com/x/status/1582424047920369664

Oh yeah (massive eyeroll), "we are completely ready" to deal with Russia nukes, Brig Gen Ryder.
And worse yet, to actually say this to an American public who clearly know this is NOT true, as if the trust chasm with USG is not already the size of Grand Canyon.
Nuclear-Effects-You-Got-This.jpg
www.dvidshub.net

NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS 101

There are many misconceptions about nuclear weapons effects and a potential post nuclear detonation battlefield environment. In this video, LTC James Gifford, Ph.D. removes the myths associated with nuclear detonations, to help prepare military forces to fight in and through a post nuclear...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
 
Last edited:
DarkNoon said:
So yes. Thanks for proving my point further. Nations have moved to smaller more accurate low yield warheads. These large yeild weapons just don't exist anymore and are impractical now a days.
Click to expand...
Oh thanks. "Military-Today.com" with the Chat Girl ad to chat with girls without any limits.... :rolleyes:
It never occurs to some that some of us also had lives and information too, especially when it came to the USSR.
And we all "know" what exists now in Russia.... because you know... they would tell us, right?
There is more than one type of nuclear bomb threat from Russia. That doesn't mean they don't have multi-warhead KT systems of course.
 
REALHumanRights said:
More USA Government Nuclear Bomb talk... Can anyone give USG and DoD an explanation of what "De-Escalation" means?
USA DoD Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder @PentagonPresSec - "We Got This" on Russia Nukes... That is the Russia Nukes Not Even Coming (?)...
-- Politico Pentagon reporter @laraseligman: "'We are completely ready" to deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats, says
@PentagonPresSec - "In the meantime, we have not seen anything that would indicate that Russia has made a decision to employ" nukes
https://twitter.com/x/status/1582424047920369664

Oh yeah (massive eyeroll), "we are completely ready" to deal with Russia nukes, Brig Gen Ryder.
And worse yet, to actually say this to an American public who clearly know this is NOT true, as if the trust chasm with USG is not already the size of Grand Canyon.
View attachment 2949
www.dvidshub.net

NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS 101

There are many misconceptions about nuclear weapons effects and a potential post nuclear detonation battlefield environment. In this video, LTC James Gifford, Ph.D. removes the myths associated with nuclear detonations, to help prepare military forces to fight in and through a post nuclear...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
Click to expand...
I still think both of these cases area clearly attempts to lighten the subject matter, James does it in a strange way and should've maybe tried to do something else, but the other video, well, it's just in a way similar to the good old Duck and Cover videos, actual (at least somewhat) tips provided in a relatively easy to digest, light subject matter that's not overly bleak or serious. It's just "modern language" to instill calmness, note that the last part of the tips say "stay put". I honestly don't know why some people here got a problem with the last video.
 
Last edited:
REALHumanRights said:
Oh thanks. "Military-Today.com" with the Chat Girl ad to chat with girls without any limits.... :rolleyes:
It never occurs to some that some of us also had lives and information too, especially when it came to the USSR.
And we all "know" what exists now in Russia.... because you know... they would tell us, right?
There is more than one type of nuclear bomb threat from Russia. That doesn't mean they don't have multi-warhead KT systems of course.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any ads sorry about that. I have an ad blocker. I read the information presented on that site and compared it to other resources and looks like they are fairly accurate in their depiction of various nations weaponry and capabilities.
 
REALHumanRights said:
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.
Click to expand...
Regurgitated fear porn. l feel like I’m listening to Tokyo rose telling the us the end is near.
20mt or three smaller one.
We get it, probably got it before we ever ended up here.
Regurgitated old fear provoking numbers does not bring us to a resolution or useful new policies.
It’s just to induce fear and reversal of course.
Just link to any popular Hollywood movie about nuclear Armageddon and call it covered.
 
DarkNoon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Chinese use a 5Mt warhead on their DF-5. There are only about 20 of them though.
 
Seriously said:
Regurgitated fear porn. l feel like I’m listening to Tokyo rose telling the us the end is near.
20mt or three smaller one.
We get it, probably got it before we ever ended up here.
Regurgitated old fear provoking numbers does not bring us to a resolution or useful new policies.
It’s just to induce fear and reversal of course.
Just link to any popular Hollywood movie about nuclear Armageddon and call it covered.
Click to expand...
The reality is that USA and other nations need to use restraint in dealing with nuclear powered nations. This is not "new." We have known this for 60+ years.
The idea that reality is equivalent to propaganda for imperial Japan's during 1940's WWII, just seeks to insult those with concerns over public safety, as way to undermine their arguments, when facts just don't work.

The USSR built 20-25 MT nuke bombs for ICBM delivery between 1970-1990.
In these ICBM delivery models, the Soviets built up to 430 of them at 20-25MT and up to another 290 at 18MT (720 total).
That was the USSR's destructive goal with nuclear weapons.
I understand the arguments that these were all too expensive to maintain, outdated, needed high yields due to targeting concerns, etc.

But then there is point that the Soviet military sought REAL destruction.
It created and detonated a 50 Megaton nuclear bomb (which creates a 5 mile fireball alone).

Let's assume all of these equivalent to 20 MT weapons have been replaced.... they are still a clear sign of the Soviet/Russia goal for DESTRUCTION.

System/warhead: R-36M2 Voevoda (SS-18 Mod 6)
type: ICBM
IOC: Aug 1990
megaton yield: 20
number built: 20

System/warhead: R-36MUTTKh (SS-18 Mod 3)
type: ICBM
IOC: 1976
megaton yield: 20
number built: 20-60

System/warhead: R-36M (SS-18 Mod 1) [15B86]
type: ICBM
IOC: Dec 1974
megaton yield: 24
number built: 20-60

System/warhead: R-36 8K67 Tsiklon (SS-9 Mod 2) [8F675]
type: ICBM
IOC: 1966
megaton yield: 25
number built: 140-290

System/warhead: R-36 8K67 Tsiklon (SS-9 Mod 1)
type: ICBM
IOC: Nov 1966
megaton yield: 18
number built: 140-290

“Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap." -Albert Einstein
 
REALHumanRights said:
The reality is that USA and other nations need to use restraint in dealing with nuclear powered nations.
Click to expand...
How much restraint? To what point?

How much are you willing to give up before you (I am speaking generically, not aiming this at you personally) are willing to stand up to someone like Russia?
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
How much restraint? To what point?

How much are you willing to give up before you (I am speaking generically, not aiming this at you personally) are willing to stand up to someone like Russia?
Click to expand...
Exactly I recognize all of the culpability the west has caused by mis-steps and general stupidity. But there are times and conflicts that need addressed.
This war is no longer just about Ukraine. But it is about Russia changing from non-kinetic means to direct action to enforce it’s will on another. Then as the invasion has evolved adversely for Russia they have chosen to introduce nuclear weapons to the fight.
This is unprecedented and it cannot go unaddressed.
Inadvertently Putin has turned this into geopolitical contest of wills.
So here we.
 
Ukraine war impact on: US heating worries mount amid growing costs, uncertainty
apnews.com

US heating worries mount amid growing costs, uncertainty

JAY, Maine (AP) — Across the U.S., families are looking to the winter with dread as energy costs soar and fuel supplies tighten. The Department of Energy is projecting sharp price increases for home heating compared with last winter and some worry whether heating assistance programs will be able...
apnews.com apnews.com

USA AP Report - "The Energy Department projects heating bills will jump 28% this winter for those who rely on natural gas, used by nearly half of U.S. households for heat. Heating oil is projected to be 27% higher and electricity 10% higher, the agency said. That comes against inflation rates that accelerated last month with consumer prices growing 6.6%, the fastest such pace in four decades." "A number of factors are converging to create a bleak situation: Global energy consumption has rebounded from the start of the pandemic, and supply was barely keeping pace before the war in Ukraine further reduced supplies."
.....

"JAY, Maine (AP) — Across the U.S., families are looking to the winter with dread as energy costs soar and fuel supplies tighten. The Department of Energy is projecting sharp price increases for home heating compared with last winter and some worry whether heating assistance programs will be able to make up the difference for struggling families.... In Maine, Aaron Raymo saw the writing on the wall and began stocking up on heating oil in 5-gallon increments over the summer as costs crept upward. He filled a container with heating oil as he could afford it, usually on paydays, and used a heating assistance program to top off his 275-gallon oil tank with the arrival of colder weather. His family is trying to avoid being forced into a difficult decision — choosing between food or heating their home."

"In Jay, where Raymo lives with his partner, Lucinda Tyler, and 8-year-old son, residents were already bracing for the worst before the local paper mill announced it’s going to close, putting more than 200 people out of work. That has the potential to wreak havoc on the town budget, and cause higher property taxes that will further eat into residents’ budgets. Both Raymo and Tyler work full-time jobs. He works as many as 70 or 80 hours a week in an orthopedists’ office and she works from home in shareholder services for a financial services company. They don’t qualify for much help even though they’re scraping by to keep up with repairs, buy gas and put food on the table — and heat their 100-year-old home in a state known for bitter cold weather."

"In Maine, the state has the nation’s oldest population and it’s the most reliant on heating oil, creating a double whammy."
 
Narwal808 said:
With respect, A European war in a country such as Ukraine is a vastly different situation than any of the previous conflicts we've played party to in the last 60 years.
Click to expand...
Meaning that the level of restraint must be fluid to match the situation at hand. Too little restraint and you end up in a hot war, too much and you end up with a pissed off and egotistical dictator bordering the bulk of Nato. What we are doing currently is the best possible route, given the current circumstances IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom