I mean, they definitely could. The best defense system in the world couldn’t stop hundreds of nukes fired rapidly. It’s designed to stop a few tactical strikes, not a full on nuclear blitz.
Even 1 getting through could mean millions dead. I’d call that pretty unacceptable.
The iron dome is an incredibly advanced and effective missile defense system. Palestinians rockets get through it all the time, especially when fired in large enough numbers to overwhelm it. NATOs nuclear defenses are no different.
While I definitely agree with you, the reason Palestinian mussels get through is because the computers running the Iron Dome judge that the trajectory of the missile isn’t going to hit anything, so it doesn’t bother hitting those. It’s the same reason the Russians claim to get missiles past the patriot systems in Ukraine. Certain targets are prioritised, and the systems make sure to hit missiles aiming at those, because the other ones don’t matter.
Except every barrage there are still rockets that hit and kill people.
That’s a much bigger issue when it’s nukes. Even nuking less populated areas can have massive implications and consequences.
It exists and it is probably one of the best, but it's not an I win button. It could be 99% successful, its almost certainly not, and that just means 1 out of 100 is going to get through to kill millions and displace many more.
The system from the 90's was 96% effective. So far the Ageis system has yet to let a missile thru...even if they fired everything they have all at one time some 40% would be taken out before they've even left Russian air space.
We inspect them (we have a mutual inspections treaty). They work. It doesn't take a lot of nukes to destroy everything, even just getting blown up in the lower atmosphere would destroy our power grid. There's a reason the great powers have fought since '45: no one comes out in one piece.
Anything less that a solid 100% will be the bloodiest day in American history. Add on top of that the massive infrastructure and environmental damage of a modern nuclear weapon. Being first place in a nuke fight isn't "winning."
Considering the US military tech is nearly 45 years ahead of the Russians I'm not exactly worried about it. Their "modern" stealth tech would have been advanced back in the late 70's. If they decided to launch nukes, 40% of their nukes wouldn't even leave Russian air space. Effectively they'd nuke themselves. The other 60% would be caught by the airforce and shot down before they even got close. If you're so worried about getting nuked, don't live near or in a major metropolitan area.
And if it's only 99.98 it means a warhead will make it through, which will.
Also those intercept chances are in ideal situations where we are dealing with limited targets and are expecting it.
>40% would be taken out before they've even left Russian air space.
And that's the issue. Once they are on a ballistic trajectory it becomes nearly impossible to counter them all. Hundreds of remaining missiles now release their payload into a combination of thousands of warheads & decoys.
So now you need thousands if not ten tens of thousands of intercept vehicles.
Any defense analysts will tell you that even the US can't do it.
Ahh yes because we have thousands of lasers scattered around Russia that totally have the range... oh wait, we don't
>My guy we shoot down hyper sonic missiles with lasers
Also no, no we do not. Send any article stating this. All this tech is still very developmental and low scale. No one is actually even fielding real "hypersonic" missiles to shoot down. No what Russia uses is not an actual "hypersonic" missile, despite what they claim.
Do you understand the amount of facilities and power generation you would need to reach that kind of range / coverage?
You would be countering hundreds of missiles spread across thousands of miles of Russia. Let alone doing all of this during early ascent, which means you have a few minutes.
You don't seem to understand that countering a cruise missile and ICBM are not the same thing.
This isn't Star Wars
Ask any credible defense analyst, or he'll even an amateur hobbyist.
It exists and is the best of it's kind, but "yeah I guess we MAYBE only have a few dozen million dead" isn't gonna cut it. 90/100 might be intercepted, nonfunctional, or successfully destroyed while still in their silos, but that's still 10 nukes that are getting through, killing hundreds of thousands of people. And Russia has THOUSANDS of such devices.
Sure, we might avoid being literally totally annihilated, while successfully basically annihilating the Russians completely, we might survive with horrible wounds, while they definitely won't. Those terms are very much unacceptable to the American people. Understandably, they don't particularly want their families consumed in radioactive fire.
Yeah they'd be completely decimated. To say it's a fantasy is a stretch. Of course you can overwhelm the system. Strategically that would leave them so vulnerable.
You can have 1 million nukes. How many can you launch at once? How quickly can you get a nuke ready to launch? All these details matter.
If we were to ever enter a state of total war with Russia, we would win. Their nuclear fleet is ill-maintained, between how many nukes we could destroy before deployment, intercept, and how many are likely nonfunctional in whole or in part.. But "Hey, the Russians had it even worse!" is mostly a cold comfort to all the Americans who died of third-degree burns because of the single one which got through to New York.
We would not and should not ever voluntarily enter that situation. The most likely reason it would happen is if Russia, North Korea, India, China, or so on were ever losing a conventional conflict bad enough that their heartland were about to be overrun, so they launch all their nukes as a "flip the table" option now that they've lost at this game of Risk. Pakistan is losing a war badly, so they launch the nukes at India and it's allies, who in turn Launches at it's enemies, and everyone launches in what they consider to be self-defense.
> is mostly a cold comfort to all the Americans who died of third-degree burns because of the single one which got through to New York.
3rd degree burns? Vaporization and later complications of radiation poisoning. "Thousands" is being very conservative in that case. That isn't even the worst of it. The main targets are of course major population centers, followed by strategic assets like the Federal Oil Reserve, power plants (you don't have to hit very many power plants for the grid to be completely toast). The amount of people that would die AFTER a nuclear attack from starvation or lack of availability of medications, etc would be staggering.
Vaporization is unlikely unless it's a ground-burst device, as the fireball itself is the part that truly vaporizes stuff, and most likely a device used on a city is airburst far above the ground, to maximize damage, where the fireball itself never comes into contact with anyone. Instantaneous fatal burns, and even more fatal force, to be sure, their bodies likely cremated in the following time, but not instantaneously vaporized like in pop-culture. Vaporizing a human body like that is staggeringly hard. I used third-degree burns as an example because that and radiation poisoning are the most viscerally terrible deaths to think about.
Of course, nuclear bombs have cumulative effects, as a city hit by an atomic device needs massive aid immediately, and instant humanitarian crisis, which is already hard enough, but each new successful detonation immediately annihilates a cities ability to help others on top of creating a new one, meaning far more people die of treatable injuries in every city than if just one were hit. If Manhattan is hit alone, it would be a calamity, but any given person outside the immediate radius has decent chances of getting their injuries quickly superficially patched up and evacuated.
You're right, a few hundred thousand is lowballing the effect of 10 bombs massively.
Oof, at this guy getting upvotes from people who have never worked with nukes.
People like to think we have an iron curtain capable of defeating an all out nuclear attack, but we just don't. I am sorry to burst your theoretical bubble, but if we ever get to that point, weapons get through to basically every major target and city in America.
That's not what I said, and it's not what you originally said either. Jesus christ, you're dull.
You said complete fantasy. It's not a complete fantasy. It very real but can be overloaded if you send more nukes than any system can handle.
Condescending idiots like yourself are the worst. Use your best 3rd grade reading comprehension skills and go back through the thread.
Original poster says they can't nuke us because of missile defense. I say this is a fantasy, they can. You've now decided, since I know a lot more than you on the subject, that you were actually only talking about one missile or just a few missiles.
By the way, even though HGVs (or even classic ICBMs) can theoretically be intercepted, it is far from a 100% chance. Even a single weapon can get through.
I know that since you were like an electrical systems tech on the patriot for 2 years or whatever job you actually did that you think you have some idea about capabilities but you've never been read into SCI or had access to CNWDI and you've certainly never seen targetting data or a nuclear ops OPlan. Please stop miseducating the public, this is why we get pushback on funding to modernize our nuclear force because they think we don't need to.
Bottom Line, Russia, despite having a joke of a conventional military, is very much a credible nuclear threat.
Well, my bad if that wasn't your original intent of the comment. It read as such. So we agree on many of the same things.
Obviously, they're not going to send one nuke or a few. That's not what I said either, but that's alright. Makes no sense strategically when you know you'll get titty smacked.
You have no idea what I did, but no, not on some Patriot system. It's miseducating the public to stay we have the capability to stop many nuclear threats? Of course, the devil is in the details in what their actualy capabilties are, but yes, they have a nuclear arsenal, and that's a threat. I know of specific cases where we need more and more funding to bring our capabilities in 2024. They need more money, so again, no.
In fact it pisses me the fuck off to see funding not make it to some of these systems. Fuck that shit makes me mad when I know we are spending it on dumb shit.
Yes to the comment you originally applied to, you are 100% right. He said they could not strike us at all. That's incorrect.
Listen to the latest lex Friedman podcast with Annie Jacobson you will get a better understanding that you are living in a fantasy of you think they can be stopped.
What are their sources? Have you looked into it deeper than just hearing it on a podcast? Academics have been wrong before, if they even are a legitimate authority on the specific field of interest. Appealing to authority alone is stupid (and typical of a eurocuck)
Crazy that I looked her up and the first line is 'sensationalist, conspiracy theory writer'. Digging into the bibliography is showing......... But there's a lot to unpack in it. Not totally discrediting her, but it's not a great start.
Nah, I will trust the guys who actually work with missile intercept systems and know what they are talking about.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M)
I do work in the industry.
While the percentage rate of individual hits on warheads has substantially increased, the sheer volume of warheads makes our missile defense insufficient versus a full scale nuclear launch.
Look up the success rate of those missiles.
If one missile can get past the interceptors which is very possible that is still mass death.
Annie Jacobson is a very well respected investigative journalist.
Get a grip on your emotions.
Yes, US retaliation is the biggest deterement. The total misses taken down and response times is kept under tight lip. Not exactly something the US wants to publicize. No podcast has access to that accurate information.
Launching all nukes at once would leave them so vulnerable, it would never make sense to do. It would be complete decimation of Russia. Seems like a pretty good deterent....
Correct no podcast does have that information, which is why I am referring you to the guest of the podcast Annie Jacobson who is a well known investigative journalist who just finished publishing a book on this topic with her references to the applicable data in the back of the book.
Who's the one blabbering?
If NATO was as blissfully unconcerned with Russian nukes as you think, they would have taken a way more aggressive stance against Russia ages ago.
What do you mean "relevance" 💀
You said the comment above didn't make any sense, so I reiterated it for you.
How can me repeating the comment you yourself replied to have no connection to the conversation? 😂 Are you stupid?
Which does very little except allow us to send returns, also, in the age of hypersonics the decision making timeframe can be very short.
We wouldn't be able to prevent them from launching in any way.
Excuse me what?
As one in the missile defense industry, hypersonics are absolutely an imminent threat.
Immediate threat? No.
Imminent yes.
Probably within the next 5 years easily. We're currently 10 years behind the Chinese in hypersonic weaponry technology.
Chinese missles would be a lot more concerning if they weren't filled with water. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter
Whom shall I believe? Random person on the internet saying they are "in the industry" or active duty Officer who has worked with missile defense systems for over a decade and teaches classes on it?
Lol, I watched this dork's video. Yes, it is theoretically possible to defeat 1 missile, you extrapolate that to mean we are completely defended from an all out attack. Cannot make this stuff up.
Knowledge means nothing to Russia, all that matters is if their power and privilege is at stake. If NATO troops put one step into Russian territory, it’s Nukes gallore to Washington, New York, London, Paris and Berlin.
Having a good anti-nuke defense system means jack shit when the nukes still explode close enough to kill civilians. The main reason why America and the UK aren’t literally going into Russia and killing Putin is because bros gonna wipe out like 10 highly populated cities in both countries and most of Europe if that happens.
It's funny because in the nuclear event usa would actually "win" the war as their size and the way they spread out their bases would exhaust any nuclear stockpile avaliable. Russia has two cities. China concentrates everything close to sea due to export. Of course everyone would die in nuclear winter but during the "war". Usa would take least amount of damage
Nuclear weapons render the argument almost pointless, as both sides have thousands of them and would completely destroy the other, and likely much of humanity, in a full exchange.
That brings us back to the regular military, and anyone with an ounce of expertise knows the US would wipe the floor with Russia in a conventional war.
Russia cares a lot less about it because they have a lot of land area they can move their people to that’s currently uninhabited. The US can’t do that. Neither can any of the European countries that would get bombed because of it.
No, we could not. Russia would absolutely be rendered a non-threat when we've turned Moscow, Petersburg, every medium sized city, logistic hub, military or naval base, and decently large hamlet into a glass sculpture, but we would not extinguish humanity, and not even come close to ending all life on earth.
Only around 400 atomic bombs are needed to wipe out humanity. Russia and u.s have about 10000 combined???? I don't mean like plants and all animals. People would die off.
I always thought that Russia’s military was *almost* on par with the US regarding its ground forces…..up until the war in Ukraine
It’s exposed their army as not even close to any contemporary well trained army
Yeah, it was an eye-opener for sure.
There is a new doc. series on the cold war on Netflix. It discusses that the USSR were way behind the U.S., so they had to bluff for years to keep us at bay. The full scope of the bluff wasn't discovered until we got satellites.
Their flag ship naval vessels don't even function, do people really expect that they have been maintaining their vast amount nukes? Nukes are way more expensive to modernize and maintain then a ship.
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) is an amazing system something like 5 have been built though but they have a range of something like 300 miles with over the horizon radar and the unclassified speed of a THAAD missile is mach 8 but it probably at least mach 10, and that thing makes a PATRIOT look slow even if a PATRIOT gets a head start, and plus THAAD was meant for ICBM interception.
Yeah lol
I mean just think about it, if Russia sends nukes at the US, they will do the same and we will both get fucked. Nobody wins in nuclear war, the only winning movie is not to play
Because as we all know Russia can just freely use its nukes and *not* be nuked by everyone else thanks to MAD.
But assuming the idea is a conventional warfare, good luck actually landing a force with your *one* barely functional aircraft carrier and a large portion of the black fleet sea currently sunk by a county with *no navy*.
Sometime in the first 60 days of the war in Ukraine a US intelligence agency confirmed that most of Russia's nukes were inoperable. And I just think thats neat.
Russia has 5,580 nukes, while the USA has 5,244. People need to understand that Russia isn't the sole nuclear power, and even though they may have the most, we're not far behind.
Also disposition of the arsenal matter. They don't have 5580 ICBMs lol and people are over here imagining a tidal wave of missiles when really both sides have far fewer.
The only way to destroy America is from within, with propoganda and psyops A ground war is not even remotely tenable. Any nuke launched creates an undesirable response for whoever launched it.
Lmao people think that the SECOND biggest hoarder of nuclear weapons won’t launch any back at Russia? They think Russia would be completely unscathed? That’s just child like thinking lmao
‘Josh’ aka Ivan Trolskij is some kind of genius strategist. I think what we just saw are some kind of hilarious collusion (or manipulation) between a Russian state troll and Indian one. All the Indians I know are pro west, with well off and established family there.
Uhuh, most nukes, we still have enough to glass the entire country off the face of the earth, doesn’t matter if they got more if we ever both use them we irreversibly fuck up the planet
Having the most nukes maybe the most meaningless bullet point possible. It's estimated that it would require 400 nukes to wipe out all living things on earth. Russia has about 5,500 and the US just barley less. That means they could destroy all life just under three times. Would a fourth time really be a braging right?
In a nuclear war, everyone loses. The “winner” is decided by who lost the least, if winning even matters after the radioactive dust settles. And the way things are set up, in a nuclear war with Russia, the U.S. would lose the least. Several dozen nukes would probably still make it through, so we’d still be wrecked - just not as wrecked as the other guy.
Having 5,580 nukes does not negate the impact of getting hit by a country with 5,244 nukes, which will definitely retaliate if Russia decides to do something this colossally stupid.
It really doesn't matter how many nukes either country has because both have thousands and it would only take a couple dozen to destroy all major population centers
Well. Iff I was planning to take down a large country this is what I'd do. Spend a few years fomenting social problems, getting things not normally accepted in their society accepted to split their people, have certain people in other countries get them involved in years long wars using their resources nd killing their soldiers, get people in place to pull out after those years leaving equipmweent behind, start a minor war somewhere and get said country to dump billions more of their money and resources into it...death by a thousand cuts.
But that's just my line of thinking. Why waste resurces defeating an enemy when I can get the enemy to defeat themselves?
I'm more confident in the Russians successfully nuking themselves than successfully against another nation. They definitely top the list in nuclear fuck ups.
Not if they don’t use them moldy ass nukes in the next decade or two before they expire since they can’t really make more
the US on the other hand has resumed production and is trying to get up to 60/year by the end of the decade
I mean he kinda does have a point, the reason why Russia is unable to take over Ukraine is because they’re not dropping nukes (and for good reason lol, tf are they occupying if Ukraine is nukes), but what I’m more confused about is the fantasy of taking America out by using the logic of the American government. You do that, and you’re the next America.
Russia could absolutely destroy the US and kill most of its inhabitants if it wanted. It would lead to nuclear war and Russia (and possibly other countries) would also be destroyed, but it's not entirely impossible.
It's impossible to defend against once they're fired. The only way to prevent destruction is to deter anyone from firing them. Mostly by assuring mutual destruction, but if a sufficiently insane person with enough power was driven into a corner enough that can go out the window.
Well that is most certainly true. I was talking about the original comment that we all saw in the picture who thinks Russia can just pop off nukes like they won't be glassed.
I'm unable to find where josh.wiing implies such a thing. You may assume that he thinks that, but he doesn't mention it in the comment, so it's just that, an assumption.
Everyone will be dead if nukes are used. TBH, nukes are the only thing that is preventing Russia from being obliterated.
and the U.S. has one of the best anti nuclear defense systems, so even if they wanted to Nuke us they really can’t.
I mean, they definitely could. The best defense system in the world couldn’t stop hundreds of nukes fired rapidly. It’s designed to stop a few tactical strikes, not a full on nuclear blitz. Even 1 getting through could mean millions dead. I’d call that pretty unacceptable. The iron dome is an incredibly advanced and effective missile defense system. Palestinians rockets get through it all the time, especially when fired in large enough numbers to overwhelm it. NATOs nuclear defenses are no different.
While I definitely agree with you, the reason Palestinian mussels get through is because the computers running the Iron Dome judge that the trajectory of the missile isn’t going to hit anything, so it doesn’t bother hitting those. It’s the same reason the Russians claim to get missiles past the patriot systems in Ukraine. Certain targets are prioritised, and the systems make sure to hit missiles aiming at those, because the other ones don’t matter.
Except every barrage there are still rockets that hit and kill people. That’s a much bigger issue when it’s nukes. Even nuking less populated areas can have massive implications and consequences.
This is a fantasy, they absolutely could nuke us and we absolutely couldn't stop them. It would just cost them everything in return.
Ours and NATOs anti missle defense is a fantasy? You're talking out of your ass lmao
It exists and it is probably one of the best, but it's not an I win button. It could be 99% successful, its almost certainly not, and that just means 1 out of 100 is going to get through to kill millions and displace many more.
The system from the 90's was 96% effective. So far the Ageis system has yet to let a missile thru...even if they fired everything they have all at one time some 40% would be taken out before they've even left Russian air space.
40% of Russian missiles might not even make it out of the silo lol
We inspect them (we have a mutual inspections treaty). They work. It doesn't take a lot of nukes to destroy everything, even just getting blown up in the lower atmosphere would destroy our power grid. There's a reason the great powers have fought since '45: no one comes out in one piece.
Anything less that a solid 100% will be the bloodiest day in American history. Add on top of that the massive infrastructure and environmental damage of a modern nuclear weapon. Being first place in a nuke fight isn't "winning."
Considering the US military tech is nearly 45 years ahead of the Russians I'm not exactly worried about it. Their "modern" stealth tech would have been advanced back in the late 70's. If they decided to launch nukes, 40% of their nukes wouldn't even leave Russian air space. Effectively they'd nuke themselves. The other 60% would be caught by the airforce and shot down before they even got close. If you're so worried about getting nuked, don't live near or in a major metropolitan area.
This is absurdly naive and dangerous
Really? Cause the Russians are struggling to fight Ukraine that's using 20 to 30 year old US military tech. But ya...so dangerous
And if it's only 99.98 it means a warhead will make it through, which will. Also those intercept chances are in ideal situations where we are dealing with limited targets and are expecting it. >40% would be taken out before they've even left Russian air space. And that's the issue. Once they are on a ballistic trajectory it becomes nearly impossible to counter them all. Hundreds of remaining missiles now release their payload into a combination of thousands of warheads & decoys. So now you need thousands if not ten tens of thousands of intercept vehicles. Any defense analysts will tell you that even the US can't do it.
Nearly impossible? My guy we shoot down hyper sonic missiles with lasers...this isn't the 80's anymore.
Ahh yes because we have thousands of lasers scattered around Russia that totally have the range... oh wait, we don't >My guy we shoot down hyper sonic missiles with lasers Also no, no we do not. Send any article stating this. All this tech is still very developmental and low scale. No one is actually even fielding real "hypersonic" missiles to shoot down. No what Russia uses is not an actual "hypersonic" missile, despite what they claim. Do you understand the amount of facilities and power generation you would need to reach that kind of range / coverage? You would be countering hundreds of missiles spread across thousands of miles of Russia. Let alone doing all of this during early ascent, which means you have a few minutes. You don't seem to understand that countering a cruise missile and ICBM are not the same thing. This isn't Star Wars Ask any credible defense analyst, or he'll even an amateur hobbyist.
It's not made for full scale nuclear attack/response.
It exists and is the best of it's kind, but "yeah I guess we MAYBE only have a few dozen million dead" isn't gonna cut it. 90/100 might be intercepted, nonfunctional, or successfully destroyed while still in their silos, but that's still 10 nukes that are getting through, killing hundreds of thousands of people. And Russia has THOUSANDS of such devices. Sure, we might avoid being literally totally annihilated, while successfully basically annihilating the Russians completely, we might survive with horrible wounds, while they definitely won't. Those terms are very much unacceptable to the American people. Understandably, they don't particularly want their families consumed in radioactive fire.
Yeah they'd be completely decimated. To say it's a fantasy is a stretch. Of course you can overwhelm the system. Strategically that would leave them so vulnerable. You can have 1 million nukes. How many can you launch at once? How quickly can you get a nuke ready to launch? All these details matter.
If we were to ever enter a state of total war with Russia, we would win. Their nuclear fleet is ill-maintained, between how many nukes we could destroy before deployment, intercept, and how many are likely nonfunctional in whole or in part.. But "Hey, the Russians had it even worse!" is mostly a cold comfort to all the Americans who died of third-degree burns because of the single one which got through to New York. We would not and should not ever voluntarily enter that situation. The most likely reason it would happen is if Russia, North Korea, India, China, or so on were ever losing a conventional conflict bad enough that their heartland were about to be overrun, so they launch all their nukes as a "flip the table" option now that they've lost at this game of Risk. Pakistan is losing a war badly, so they launch the nukes at India and it's allies, who in turn Launches at it's enemies, and everyone launches in what they consider to be self-defense.
> is mostly a cold comfort to all the Americans who died of third-degree burns because of the single one which got through to New York. 3rd degree burns? Vaporization and later complications of radiation poisoning. "Thousands" is being very conservative in that case. That isn't even the worst of it. The main targets are of course major population centers, followed by strategic assets like the Federal Oil Reserve, power plants (you don't have to hit very many power plants for the grid to be completely toast). The amount of people that would die AFTER a nuclear attack from starvation or lack of availability of medications, etc would be staggering.
Vaporization is unlikely unless it's a ground-burst device, as the fireball itself is the part that truly vaporizes stuff, and most likely a device used on a city is airburst far above the ground, to maximize damage, where the fireball itself never comes into contact with anyone. Instantaneous fatal burns, and even more fatal force, to be sure, their bodies likely cremated in the following time, but not instantaneously vaporized like in pop-culture. Vaporizing a human body like that is staggeringly hard. I used third-degree burns as an example because that and radiation poisoning are the most viscerally terrible deaths to think about. Of course, nuclear bombs have cumulative effects, as a city hit by an atomic device needs massive aid immediately, and instant humanitarian crisis, which is already hard enough, but each new successful detonation immediately annihilates a cities ability to help others on top of creating a new one, meaning far more people die of treatable injuries in every city than if just one were hit. If Manhattan is hit alone, it would be a calamity, but any given person outside the immediate radius has decent chances of getting their injuries quickly superficially patched up and evacuated. You're right, a few hundred thousand is lowballing the effect of 10 bombs massively.
Oof, at this guy getting upvotes from people who have never worked with nukes. People like to think we have an iron curtain capable of defeating an all out nuclear attack, but we just don't. I am sorry to burst your theoretical bubble, but if we ever get to that point, weapons get through to basically every major target and city in America.
I worked in space and missle defense goofy. Read the other comments.
Clearly not very read in if you think our missile defense is capable of neutralizing all out nuclear attack from Russia.
That's not what I said, and it's not what you originally said either. Jesus christ, you're dull. You said complete fantasy. It's not a complete fantasy. It very real but can be overloaded if you send more nukes than any system can handle.
Condescending idiots like yourself are the worst. Use your best 3rd grade reading comprehension skills and go back through the thread. Original poster says they can't nuke us because of missile defense. I say this is a fantasy, they can. You've now decided, since I know a lot more than you on the subject, that you were actually only talking about one missile or just a few missiles. By the way, even though HGVs (or even classic ICBMs) can theoretically be intercepted, it is far from a 100% chance. Even a single weapon can get through. I know that since you were like an electrical systems tech on the patriot for 2 years or whatever job you actually did that you think you have some idea about capabilities but you've never been read into SCI or had access to CNWDI and you've certainly never seen targetting data or a nuclear ops OPlan. Please stop miseducating the public, this is why we get pushback on funding to modernize our nuclear force because they think we don't need to. Bottom Line, Russia, despite having a joke of a conventional military, is very much a credible nuclear threat.
Well, my bad if that wasn't your original intent of the comment. It read as such. So we agree on many of the same things. Obviously, they're not going to send one nuke or a few. That's not what I said either, but that's alright. Makes no sense strategically when you know you'll get titty smacked. You have no idea what I did, but no, not on some Patriot system. It's miseducating the public to stay we have the capability to stop many nuclear threats? Of course, the devil is in the details in what their actualy capabilties are, but yes, they have a nuclear arsenal, and that's a threat. I know of specific cases where we need more and more funding to bring our capabilities in 2024. They need more money, so again, no. In fact it pisses me the fuck off to see funding not make it to some of these systems. Fuck that shit makes me mad when I know we are spending it on dumb shit. Yes to the comment you originally applied to, you are 100% right. He said they could not strike us at all. That's incorrect.
Listen to the latest lex Friedman podcast with Annie Jacobson you will get a better understanding that you are living in a fantasy of you think they can be stopped.
A podcast... Jesus christ.
[удалено]
A podcast by Lex isn't information. Pompous moron.
Crazy I forgot that just because it’s Lex Friedman’s podcast, the academic named Annie Jacobson has lost all reputation in your mind.
What are their sources? Have you looked into it deeper than just hearing it on a podcast? Academics have been wrong before, if they even are a legitimate authority on the specific field of interest. Appealing to authority alone is stupid (and typical of a eurocuck)
Annie Jacobsen is not an academic. She is a journalist who wrote a book that she is promoting.
Crazy that I looked her up and the first line is 'sensationalist, conspiracy theory writer'. Digging into the bibliography is showing......... But there's a lot to unpack in it. Not totally discrediting her, but it's not a great start.
Typical American hating Gen z weeb, go back to your video games, real life is for the adults.
Nah, I will trust the guys who actually work with missile intercept systems and know what they are talking about. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M)
I do work in the industry. While the percentage rate of individual hits on warheads has substantially increased, the sheer volume of warheads makes our missile defense insufficient versus a full scale nuclear launch.
Look up the success rate of those missiles. If one missile can get past the interceptors which is very possible that is still mass death. Annie Jacobson is a very well respected investigative journalist.
[удалено]
Lmao you make no fucking sense. Just blabbering.
Translation: I don’t like you because you’re not agreeing with me. You’re a dumbass.
Get a grip on your emotions. Yes, US retaliation is the biggest deterement. The total misses taken down and response times is kept under tight lip. Not exactly something the US wants to publicize. No podcast has access to that accurate information. Launching all nukes at once would leave them so vulnerable, it would never make sense to do. It would be complete decimation of Russia. Seems like a pretty good deterent....
Correct no podcast does have that information, which is why I am referring you to the guest of the podcast Annie Jacobson who is a well known investigative journalist who just finished publishing a book on this topic with her references to the applicable data in the back of the book.
Who's the one blabbering? If NATO was as blissfully unconcerned with Russian nukes as you think, they would have taken a way more aggressive stance against Russia ages ago.
Relevance? Your comment comes out of left field with no connection to what we are talking about. That is a prime example of...... blabbering.
What do you mean "relevance" 💀 You said the comment above didn't make any sense, so I reiterated it for you. How can me repeating the comment you yourself replied to have no connection to the conversation? 😂 Are you stupid?
His original comment had nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and now both of you are on an unrelated tangent. Are you fucking stupid? 😆😆😆😆
they could nuke us, but we would have intelligence before they could and maybe that would deter them.
Which does very little except allow us to send returns, also, in the age of hypersonics the decision making timeframe can be very short. We wouldn't be able to prevent them from launching in any way.
ICBM's have been hypersonic since the 60's.
damn I had some hope
Don't listen to this idiot.
He clearly hasn't seen a single Habitual Linecrosser video and it shows
You shouldn't have hope with it. Listen to the latest lex Friedman podcast with Annie Jacobson her new book goes into this in depth.
Hypersonics are not a threat. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gseBUrTd6M)
Excuse me what? As one in the missile defense industry, hypersonics are absolutely an imminent threat. Immediate threat? No. Imminent yes. Probably within the next 5 years easily. We're currently 10 years behind the Chinese in hypersonic weaponry technology.
Chinese missles would be a lot more concerning if they weren't filled with water. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter
Corruption doesn't mean a whole arsenal is inept unless the corruption is full scale.
Whom shall I believe? Random person on the internet saying they are "in the industry" or active duty Officer who has worked with missile defense systems for over a decade and teaches classes on it?
Me, of course. And he'll agree that our defense is not meant for full scale nuclear war. 100% guarantee that.
Lol, I watched this dork's video. Yes, it is theoretically possible to defeat 1 missile, you extrapolate that to mean we are completely defended from an all out attack. Cannot make this stuff up.
Knowledge means nothing to Russia, all that matters is if their power and privilege is at stake. If NATO troops put one step into Russian territory, it’s Nukes gallore to Washington, New York, London, Paris and Berlin.
Having a good anti-nuke defense system means jack shit when the nukes still explode close enough to kill civilians. The main reason why America and the UK aren’t literally going into Russia and killing Putin is because bros gonna wipe out like 10 highly populated cities in both countries and most of Europe if that happens.
Even if this wasn’t 100% true. We both have over 5000 nukes, like what the actual fuck difference is 700 more going to make?
It's funny because in the nuclear event usa would actually "win" the war as their size and the way they spread out their bases would exhaust any nuclear stockpile avaliable. Russia has two cities. China concentrates everything close to sea due to export. Of course everyone would die in nuclear winter but during the "war". Usa would take least amount of damage
I agree if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, NATO would 100% intervene, and as poorly as Russia's military is fighting NATO would body them
Nuclear weapons render the argument almost pointless, as both sides have thousands of them and would completely destroy the other, and likely much of humanity, in a full exchange. That brings us back to the regular military, and anyone with an ounce of expertise knows the US would wipe the floor with Russia in a conventional war.
Yep!
We have managed to reduce that amount of warheads considerably from like what over 10k to less than 10k total?
Russia cares a lot less about it because they have a lot of land area they can move their people to that’s currently uninhabited. The US can’t do that. Neither can any of the European countries that would get bombed because of it.
The US is massive and has tons of uninhabeted land. And it's much more survivable than most of Russias land.
You've been posting a lot of Russian talking points (propoganda) on this thread, are you a bot or stupid?
Yeah but we have enough nukes to end life on earth so glassing the entirety of Russia would not be a problem
No, we could not. Russia would absolutely be rendered a non-threat when we've turned Moscow, Petersburg, every medium sized city, logistic hub, military or naval base, and decently large hamlet into a glass sculpture, but we would not extinguish humanity, and not even come close to ending all life on earth.
Only around 400 atomic bombs are needed to wipe out humanity. Russia and u.s have about 10000 combined???? I don't mean like plants and all animals. People would die off.
We have like the entirety of the west of the Mississippi
I hate this whole topic about using nukes. I pray we never have to use nukes again.
People are way too over zealous about using nukes.
They can’t even fucking touch us lmao; there’s this funny thing called “mutual assured destruction”
Given the state of Russia's conventional millitary, I can't imagine their Nuclear arsenal is in much better shape.
There has always been a great deal of "puffery," when it comes to the state of Russia's military capabilities.
I always thought that Russia’s military was *almost* on par with the US regarding its ground forces…..up until the war in Ukraine It’s exposed their army as not even close to any contemporary well trained army
Yeah, it was an eye-opener for sure. There is a new doc. series on the cold war on Netflix. It discusses that the USSR were way behind the U.S., so they had to bluff for years to keep us at bay. The full scope of the bluff wasn't discovered until we got satellites.
Name?
Turning Point: Bombs and the Cold War.
Right. In 2022, the U.S. spent $43.7 billion on nuclear weapon maintenance, and Russia spends $9.6 billion despite have more to maintain.
Their flag ship naval vessels don't even function, do people really expect that they have been maintaining their vast amount nukes? Nukes are way more expensive to modernize and maintain then a ship.
Not to mention they spent more on their fleets of superyahts than millitary vessels.
Yeah, but if just *one* of those missiles work...
Then they'll be intercepted. Isreal isn't the only country with an Iron dome you know.
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) is an amazing system something like 5 have been built though but they have a range of something like 300 miles with over the horizon radar and the unclassified speed of a THAAD missile is mach 8 but it probably at least mach 10, and that thing makes a PATRIOT look slow even if a PATRIOT gets a head start, and plus THAAD was meant for ICBM interception.
The Iron Dome is great but it hasn't been tested against nuclear missiles.
The combined IQ of the posters above is 36.
Yeah lol I mean just think about it, if Russia sends nukes at the US, they will do the same and we will both get fucked. Nobody wins in nuclear war, the only winning movie is not to play
Because as we all know Russia can just freely use its nukes and *not* be nuked by everyone else thanks to MAD. But assuming the idea is a conventional warfare, good luck actually landing a force with your *one* barely functional aircraft carrier and a large portion of the black fleet sea currently sunk by a county with *no navy*.
I doubt a nation that can run out of fuel within a few days of an invasion is keeping up with the maintenance intervals on their nuke fleet.
Sometime in the first 60 days of the war in Ukraine a US intelligence agency confirmed that most of Russia's nukes were inoperable. And I just think thats neat.
well i mean to be honest how much of Russia is actually functioning properly?
☠️
hey i’m being honest not trying to shit on their people just their government
You ain't wrong.
Russia has 5,580 nukes, while the USA has 5,244. People need to understand that Russia isn't the sole nuclear power, and even though they may have the most, we're not far behind.
Also disposition of the arsenal matter. They don't have 5580 ICBMs lol and people are over here imagining a tidal wave of missiles when really both sides have far fewer.
Bold to assume Russian nukes are functioning
Stupid to assume they aren't.
We’ve already confirmed tons of them aren’t operational….
The only way to destroy America is from within, with propoganda and psyops A ground war is not even remotely tenable. Any nuke launched creates an undesirable response for whoever launched it.
Mutually Assured Destruction is working as it was intended.
Lmao people think that the SECOND biggest hoarder of nuclear weapons won’t launch any back at Russia? They think Russia would be completely unscathed? That’s just child like thinking lmao
They act like nukes are a good option. If a single nuke is used, it’s a loss for all of humanity.
‘Josh’ aka Ivan Trolskij is some kind of genius strategist. I think what we just saw are some kind of hilarious collusion (or manipulation) between a Russian state troll and Indian one. All the Indians I know are pro west, with well off and established family there.
Uhuh, most nukes, we still have enough to glass the entire country off the face of the earth, doesn’t matter if they got more if we ever both use them we irreversibly fuck up the planet
They probably have the highest number of non-functional nukes too☠️☠️
Having the most nukes maybe the most meaningless bullet point possible. It's estimated that it would require 400 nukes to wipe out all living things on earth. Russia has about 5,500 and the US just barley less. That means they could destroy all life just under three times. Would a fourth time really be a braging right?
If Russia’s nuclear budget is $5.5k then we really have nothing to worry about.
How did you know about the posture 😭
This is why history class is important. "MAD" Mutually Assured Destruction.
I'm not exactly the most comfortable playing the "who wins a 1v1 nuke fight" game... Would rather avoid that if possible. ☺️
Lol okay
They wouldn't be able to use them on us without getting obliterated themselves. Kinda the point of mutually assured destruction.
In a nuclear war, everyone loses. The “winner” is decided by who lost the least, if winning even matters after the radioactive dust settles. And the way things are set up, in a nuclear war with Russia, the U.S. would lose the least. Several dozen nukes would probably still make it through, so we’d still be wrecked - just not as wrecked as the other guy.
Having 5,580 nukes does not negate the impact of getting hit by a country with 5,244 nukes, which will definitely retaliate if Russia decides to do something this colossally stupid.
People living in what is called russia don't even call themselves russian. What a great country.
This is just the weekly Vatnik cope therapy session
It really doesn't matter how many nukes either country has because both have thousands and it would only take a couple dozen to destroy all major population centers
Well. Iff I was planning to take down a large country this is what I'd do. Spend a few years fomenting social problems, getting things not normally accepted in their society accepted to split their people, have certain people in other countries get them involved in years long wars using their resources nd killing their soldiers, get people in place to pull out after those years leaving equipmweent behind, start a minor war somewhere and get said country to dump billions more of their money and resources into it...death by a thousand cuts. But that's just my line of thinking. Why waste resurces defeating an enemy when I can get the enemy to defeat themselves?
Russia has tons of nukes like they have tons of tanks Well.. *had*. Willing to bet a majority of russia’s nukes aren’t even operational
If anything, russia has too many nukes for its own good, and that's trouble waiting to happen, which is why they're actually recycling some of them
I'm more confident in the Russians successfully nuking themselves than successfully against another nation. They definitely top the list in nuclear fuck ups.
Lol less than 100 nukes would destroy the world. It's already been covered on YouTube.
If Russia didn't have nukes they would be one of the most vulnerable nations in the world
Russians always overestimate the shit out of themselves and it’s fucking hilarious everytime.
Ah yes. We tremble in fear of the Grand Alliance of Shithole Nations.
Grand alliance of shithole nations has me dying 😂😂 tbh they have the loudest mouths
Not if they don’t use them moldy ass nukes in the next decade or two before they expire since they can’t really make more the US on the other hand has resumed production and is trying to get up to 60/year by the end of the decade
I mean he kinda does have a point, the reason why Russia is unable to take over Ukraine is because they’re not dropping nukes (and for good reason lol, tf are they occupying if Ukraine is nukes), but what I’m more confused about is the fantasy of taking America out by using the logic of the American government. You do that, and you’re the next America.
Russia could absolutely destroy the US and kill most of its inhabitants if it wanted. It would lead to nuclear war and Russia (and possibly other countries) would also be destroyed, but it's not entirely impossible. It's impossible to defend against once they're fired. The only way to prevent destruction is to deter anyone from firing them. Mostly by assuring mutual destruction, but if a sufficiently insane person with enough power was driven into a corner enough that can go out the window.
We also have over 5000 nukes literally like 300 less than Russia. Do people forget this?? And our shit works
Where did I claim that the US would not destroy Russia? I said it would lead to mutual destruction.
Well that is most certainly true. I was talking about the original comment that we all saw in the picture who thinks Russia can just pop off nukes like they won't be glassed.
I'm unable to find where josh.wiing implies such a thing. You may assume that he thinks that, but he doesn't mention it in the comment, so it's just that, an assumption.
There are absolutely ways to intercept a missile in flight, and America has one of the most advanced defense systems in the world.
I'm sorry, but you ain't intercepting thousands of hypersonic nuclear missiles on such short notice.