SHOCKING INFO! Former CIA on NUCLEAR WW3

[ArmedCorgi]

WTF is in Albany that they would nuke??

It's the capital of ny for one and the arsenal, which makes naval and army artillary barrels. Plus GE.

 

[Jmac00]

from a strategy standpoint, you hit military and communications first, then hit major metropolitan areas,

personally, I would hit Yellowstone National park, they say its sitting on a super volcano? put a big hole in the top of that and let nature do the rest

 

[Phazer]

The thing with the more advanced Russian weapons, the ones that look like they are at least in the same class as ours, is that they don't have the numbers of them to do anything.

For instance, the SU-57 is a legit 5th generation fighter. Maybe not up to the standards of the F22 or F35, but it is in the same class at least.

With a bit of luck and a good pilot an SU-57 might be able to get the upper hand on an F35 in a fight.

But it wouldn't be a 1 on 1 fight.

It would be 4 (14 if they put all the test aircraft in the fight too) of them vs 770 F35s and 187 F22s.


The Russians supposedly have a tank on par with the M1A1 Abrams too. Their T14 Armata might be pretty bad ass, if they ever field any.

We have produced over 10,000 Abrams. The US has over 8000 available right now. Russia has reduced their initial order of T14s to less than 100, and that is a test batch due to be fielded sometime this year.

Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality all it's own". But they are outclassed in quality, and massively outclassed in quantity.

This isn't just the Russian basketball team up against the US team at the 1992 Olympics. This is the Russian team up against the entire NBA on the court at the same time.

But....isn't that exactly why a conflict between NATO and Russia would rapidly escalate to a nuclear exchange?

By my amateur observations, the Red Army's conventional forces in Ukraine have been shown to be poorly trained, poorly maintained, have mostly outdated technology, and have lost a lot to similarly poorly outfitted Ukrainian forces. The Russian losses have been made worse by NATO-provided small arms and AT weapons. The Russians have not faced NATO (read: mostly American) attack helicopters, 5th generation fighters, stealth bombers, first-rate electronic warfare, high tech artillery, well-equipped modern professional infantry, off-shore assaults, and well-studied logistics, all in a highly networked digital battlespace.

Against overwhelming opposition, Russia would be obliterated on a conventional level. Thus, Russia would have to resort to nuclear weapons (first tactical, then strategic). After all, once Russian leadership sees that they have nothing else to lose, they will have no reason to hold back on any form of weaponry to strike back at their opponent.

 

[spat]

But....isn't that exactly why a conflict between NATO and Russia would rapidly escalate to a nuclear exchange?

By my amateur observations, the Red Army's conventional forces in Ukraine have been shown to be poorly trained, poorly maintained, have mostly outdated technology, and have lost a lot to similarly poorly outfitted Ukrainian forces. The Russian losses have been made worse by NATO-provided small arms and AT weapons. The Russians have not faced NATO (read: mostly American) attack helicopters, 5th generation fighters, stealth bombers, first-rate electronic warfare, high tech artillery, well-equipped modern professional infantry, off-shore assaults, and well-studied logistics, all in a highly networked digital battlespace.

Against overwhelming opposition, Russia would be obliterated on a conventional level. Thus, Russia would have to resort to nuclear weapons (first tactical, then strategic). After all, once Russian leadership sees that they have nothing else to lose, they will have no reason to hold back on any form of weaponry to strike back at their opponent.

Yes, that is the only card they hold.

And this is a giant game of chicken for control of the world with the survival of civilization at stake.

But, either you call their bluff, or you let them get away with anything they want because they have nukes.

There really is no middle ground.

 

[Phazer]

Yes, that is the only card they hold.

And this is a giant game of chicken for control of the world with the survival of civilization at stake.

But, either you call their bluff, or you let them get away with anything they want because they have nukes.

There really is no middle ground.

I agree with that.

At some point, we have to stop being afraid of "what the Russians might do" and make sure that the Russians are afraid of what we might do.

In lieu of respect, fear can go a long way in maintaining international peace.

As with defensive firearms, the best number of rounds to fire during an exchange to save a life is zero. But, you must first be able to present the firearm against your assailant, otherwise you are not credible.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

But....isn't that exactly why a conflict between NATO and Russia would rapidly escalate to a nuclear exchange?

By my amateur observations, the Red Army's conventional forces in Ukraine have been shown to be poorly trained, poorly maintained, have mostly outdated technology, and have lost a lot to similarly poorly outfitted Ukrainian forces. The Russian losses have been made worse by NATO-provided small arms and AT weapons. The Russians have not faced NATO (read: mostly American) attack helicopters, 5th generation fighters, stealth bombers, first-rate electronic warfare, high tech artillery, well-equipped modern professional infantry, off-shore assaults, and well-studied logistics, all in a highly networked digital battlespace.

Against overwhelming opposition, Russia would be obliterated on a conventional level. Thus, Russia would have to resort to nuclear weapons (first tactical, then strategic). After all, once Russian leadership sees that they have nothing else to lose, they will have no reason to hold back on any form of weaponry to strike back at their opponent.

There are so many theories trying to get into the minds of the Russian decision makers and guess what they are thinking. They don't look at the world how we do.


There is a theory that Russia has a lot of advanced weapons, but not in great enough quantities. They are steadily going through their advanced stockpiles and at some point they will likely decide they need to maintain a reserve of (guesstimate 50% of their inventory for potential battle with NATO).

So where does that leave Russia? Perhaps they are contemplating using tactical low yield battlefield nukes in Ukraine. They have plenty. It would preserve their stockpiles of more advanced weapons. And Russia thinks the west is a bunch of woke sissies. Seriously from Russias perspective it makes sense. Using nukes is a part of their battlefield doctrine. They don't think we will do anything about it other than yell and scream. They don't think we can cause them any more economic harm than we already have (we're pretty much at maximum sanctions and our economies are decoupled already). They know we don't have the stomach for a massive direct war with them so in their eyes it's a genuine consideration.




If Russia and the US ever start getting into nuclear exchanges there are some different theories on how it might go. One of them is full immediate strategic deployment where you just let loose with everything you have at 0 hour.

The later is more controlled escalation hoping to "win" by getting the other to stand down. The thinking is a sudden first strike on all strategic military targets and decision making centers while leaving civilian population centers and infrastructure in tact. If Russia was able to degrade our nuclear forces by 90% in the first half hour of war before we were able to strike back they might say "look sue for peace and we won't send any more missiles you still have a country and we haven't wiped out your cities". That would put the US in a miserable position.

The flip side is if it escalates to full out attack if you are within a blast zone or fallout area for any location that is;
A city greater than 100,000
A state capitol
A military base of any size
Any airfield with runway 8,000 ft or longer
Any major power plant
Any major chemical company, steel mill or oil refinery
And major interstate highway interchange where they meetup
Any major rail switching yard
Any sea port

Etc.. Russia has thousands of strategic warheads they have a lot of targets chosen. In total war they want to wipe out anything of significance.

 

[Truebeliever]

There are so many theories trying to get into the minds of the Russian decision makers and guess what they are thinking. They don't look at the world how we do.


There is a theory that Russia has a lot of advanced weapons, but not in great enough quantities. They are steadily going through their advanced stockpiles and at some point they will likely decide they need to maintain a reserve of (guesstimate 50% of their inventory for potential battle with NATO).

So where does that leave Russia? Perhaps they are contemplating using tactical low yield battlefield nukes in Ukraine. They have plenty. It would preserve their stockpiles of more advanced weapons. And Russia thinks the west is a bunch of woke sissies. Seriously from Russias perspective it makes sense. Using nukes is a part of their battlefield doctrine. They don't think we will do anything about it other than yell and scream. They don't think we can cause them any more economic harm than we already have (we're pretty much at maximum sanctions and our economies are decoupled already). They know we don't have the stomach for a massive direct war with them so in their eyes it's a genuine consideration.




If Russia and the US ever start getting into nuclear exchanges there are some different theories on how it might go. One of them is full immediate strategic deployment where you just let loose with everything you have at 0 hour.

The later is more controlled escalation hoping to "win" by getting the other to stand down. The thinking is a sudden first strike on all strategic military targets and decision making centers while leaving civilian population centers and infrastructure in tact. If Russia was able to degrade our nuclear forces by 90% in the first half hour of war before we were able to strike back they might say "look sue for peace and we won't send any more missiles you still have a country and we haven't wiped out your cities". That would put the US in a miserable position.

The flip side is if it escalates to full out attack if you are within a blast zone or fallout area for any location that is;
A city greater than 100,000
A state capitol
A military base of any size
Any airfield with runway 8,000 ft or longer
Any major power plant
Any major chemical company, steel mill or oil refinery
And major interstate highway interchange where they meetup
Any major rail switching yard
Any sea port

Etc.. Russia has thousands of strategic warheads they have a lot of targets chosen. In total war they want to wipe out anything of significance.

The question isn't how many warheads but how they are delivered. Russia is said to have 1500 warheads on missiles. Yes, they have more warheads in reserve but not on long range missiles They aren’t all aimed at the US. Then add the doctrine of using more than one warhead to be sure the targets were hit. Some will be left in reserve for a second strike capability.
Realistically, that leaves about 300 places destroyed by direct attack by long range missiles.
The east coast is screwed but if you are on the interior of the country and not near a military base, it might not be targeted. An airfield with a 8000 foot runway? There are more than 1500 such runways in the US alone. A 8000 foot runway isn’t that important compared to other possible targets. Russia would want to knock out the ability to conduct warfare first. EMPs to knock out power plants and the intrastructure. Knock out fuel processing and exchange hubs. And command and control before hitting the major population centers. Even then, the yields currently used might require more than one to do the job.