Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
- Status
mrttao
Well-known member
for some reason this embedding is broken for me. I managed to extract the video ID and from that I reconstructed the share link
Code:
https://youtu.be/7u0tUmKeMWs
Last edited:
DarthOne
☦️
I’m sorry for the inconvenience; I legitimately have no idea why that happened
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
we have nukes too and we know ours actually work.
mrttao
Well-known member
what % of their nuclear arsenal you think is faulty?
how many nukes are you ok with being hit with?
Their economy collapsed 30 years ago, and with corruption we know that their stuff was in all likely hood not properally maintained. They have around 6,000 nukes in theory but Id be willing to best most of them have issues. Its a situation where time is on our side and with each day their arsenal most likely gets weaker and weaker.
Id say at least half of them most likely dont' work and that might be over estimating them.
From declassified Soviet files when the Soviets were actually maintaining them actively the missiles still had a failure rate of 40% compared to US ICBM fleet. The warheads had a more reliable 20% failure rate. Accuracy was horrible hence the reliance on saturation of the target within a 50 kilometer radius.
I'm going to guess that the collapse and corruption have seriously degraded them as much as the Soviet Fleet. Seeing unadressed rust common inside an active warship tends to lower your opinion of the navy in question. The majority of their ships are rotting, so are the rest of their military equipment. The Generals and Oligarchy stole the funds
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
This is one of the reasons why I'm of the opinion that NATO, much like the United Nations, is ultimately doomed; because it's run by sycophants for the CCP.
The problem for them is that modern day china is a national Enron on Sterioids and when that party ends its going to end hard.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
And in the aftermath, a lot of people in power (whether it be in politics, the media, or what have you) are going to find themselves suddenly without a sugar daddy.
imagine selling out your people your entire civilization for nothing.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'm pretty sure none of these jerks are going to be losing any sleep thinking about that.
mrttao
Well-known member
... only half?
I don't know about you but I don't want to be hit by 3000 nukes.
DarthOne
☦️
No, just their lives if the right people get their hands on them…
And you would not be.They are cowards,who never start war in which they die/unless somebody would kill them anyway/
Besides,they would nuke China ,USA and Europe.India probably too.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
They have ~6000 warheads, but more like ~300 delivery systesms.
If half of those work, you're spreading 150 missiles around Europe, the US, and probably a couple in China, because if Russia launches they don't want to leave the CCP with the ability to take the eastern half of Russia at their leisure.
If we assume the USA gets half, being the most threatening target, that leaves 75 missiles for the ABM shield to work on. In ground-based launchers alone we have the theoretical ability to deal with more than half of that, though I have no idea how much sea-launched intercept ability we have.
I have no idea what our interception rate would be like, but if you assume a 20% failure rate of the warheads, that by itself brings it down to 60 missiles. An ugly, ugly time to have, but the lack of knowing what the intercept rate is key here.
The US & NATO, on the other hand, would be launching hundreds of missiles, expecting a 5% or less failure rate, and a 0% interception rate.
Russia would functionally cease to exist, and in exchange, they might land as many as 60 hits.
Or alternately, they might land six. They don't know either, and that not knowing matters when they're choosing between 'Go out in a blaze of nuclear spite' vs 'have a chance at faking my death and retiring to a private island with the millions I embezzled from the treasury over the years.'
Right now the likely hood is that Russia's nukes are...not in great shape, and it's likely only 1/3rd of their nukes are fully functional.
There are multiple reasons for this, but a big one is that USSR warheads were only good for 5 years before needing to be 'recooked', where as the US warheads can go 15 years without needing to be 'recooked'. The Russian economy and industrial base was gutted by the fall of the USSR, and they haven't got many people set to replace their older engineers/designers, so a lot of the know-how to handled/build/maintain Russian nukes is dwindling away and not being replaced.
As well, with the amount of black market operations and general corruption in the Russian military, there is a real question of how many important/pricey bits of the their nuclear weapons and delivery systems have been pulled and sold over the years, and how much of this Moscow is actually aware of in it's nuclear plans.
This is even before we get to the US/allied ABM systems, which involve not just installations like the Aegis Ashore in Europe or the interceptors in Alaska, but also ABM duty Burkes with SM-6 missiles, which are rated for ABM work. Plus whatever classified goodies we are hiding.
And in any event, it is unlikely that Russia would get all it's functional warheads off as it is, because the US has no 'no first use policy' and if we think Putin is going for a mass nuclear launch, we're likely to hit them pre-emptively to limit how many nukes the Russians get off to begin with. Second strikes by Russian subs or such are somewhat of a risk, but not much of one because they make nice subs, but Russian navy maintenance practices are still shit so their subs get continually louder as they age, so many of them are likely to go down with their missiles aboard.
My guess is the US might sustain...~100 hits in a full on exchange, if Russia doesn't toss nukes at anyone else, but that would be it, and most of those would be on first strike targets, not just random cities, like a full counter-value strike would. And of those 100 hits, many are going to be multiple hits in the same areas, because Russian nukes have shit accuracy that requires saturating everything within 50 km of a target just to ensure a kill, so not that many places will actually be hit directly.
So really, as long as you are not near a first strike target, or in the downwind area from them, you should be rather safe from the exchanges. And if you are near first strike targets, it is not bad practice to figure out how far away you could get with a few days warning and have a plan to survive, if say all the subs in the Russian fleet put to see at the same time, or ours do the same.
Nuclear war between the US/allies and Russia is survivable for most of the US/allies; it would be the end of Russia as a coherent nation. The real wild card is what the CCP would do; if they side with Russia and launch on us, it gets more dicey about the second/third string targets in the US getting hit. However if the CCP decides to keep it's powder dry and not get involved, they would be in a position to make a move on Siberia with minimal, if any, objection from the West and without needing to worry too much about a coherent Russian defense.
The CCP has been agitating for the invasion of the Russian Far East since Stalin snubbed Mao. They hate the accurate perception of the CCP being weak and non-threatening to Russia. They consider the West an enemy, but that term The West includes Russia as well.
mrttao
Well-known member
facepalm
1. you are assuming this will be entirely contained instead of spreading and resulting in every nuclear power launching all their nukes.
I seriously doubt both sides will completely leave china out of it. Especially as more and more missiles go into the air.
2. Wildly optimistic predictions that the opponent is harmless is not how I want to stake my life on
3. 100 nukes is in fact 100 too many. Your blaze attitude about being hit by this many nukes is scary.
4. Did you do a calculation? Because I did. I happen to live close enough to 2 cities that would be high priority targets, actually. So I am fucked if it does go down.
5. EMP is far more dangerous than direct hits (although we will still get direct hits)
100 nukes is many times more than needed to completely wipe out every car and electrical appliance in usa thanks to the spread on a high altitude emp nuke. With infrastructure down starvation, looting, and riots will start within days. which in turn will destroy any hope of repairing the infrastructure in a timely manner.
If the CCP gobbles up russia we just get USSR 2.0
- Status