[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

As for us, I don't know if it's worth going to war with Russia over this. Unlike WWII that everybody likes to dredge up, nukes change the pic.

No, nukes don't change a thing. They have a relatively small stockpile of functioning, inaccurate nukes that they are actually able to deliver via missile or bomb. We (NATO) have more functioning nukes that are more accurate, and we have limited defences against nukes where the Russians have none at all.

If we do go to war, and the Russians do pull the trigger, they will lose. We will all lose, but they will lose most. If this is the case, you are fighting a mad, self-destructive country. There are only 2 real ways to survive that; you bow down to their will, or you eliminate them. So lets deal with them; and, as Sting said, "I hope the Russians love their children too."




A possible silver lining, the nuclear winter may counter-act the effects of global warming for a few years.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

If this is the case, you are fighting a mad, self-destructive country dictator and his henchmen.

We are. Putin cares about Putin. If we defeat him militarily, his goose is cooked at home, be dead in no time. So his calculus is a bit different than ours.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

We will all lose, but they will lose most.

That's like saying we'll all be dead, but they'll be deader than we are. That's the insanity of MAD.

[Delwin]

If NATO and the world are unwilling to act in Ukraine, they should at least work proactively to fast track Moldova and Georgia into NATO. That'll put Putin's panties in a twist. Also, regardless of the outcome, shoring up neighboring allies defenses is a must, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Canada. It seems this is already happening.


Finland Upgrades NATO Ties After Condemning Russian Tactics
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-2 ... ctics.html

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

A possible silver lining, the nuclear winter may counter-act the effects of global warming for a few years.

A much greater silver lining is that it will reduce the number of people on the planet and their ability to spew greenhouse gases - that effect will last much longer.

[Canadian_Mind]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

We will all lose, but they will lose most.

That's like saying we'll all be dead, but they'll be deader than we are. That's the insanity of MAD.

It is insane for the calculation given above by Andy. Putin is very likely dead if he loses, and right now he's got about 180 000 000 Russians who are throwing all their support behind him. Of course he's going to keep pushing.

[Winnipegger]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

They have a relatively small stockpile of functioning, inaccurate nukes that they are actually able to deliver via missile or bomb. We (NATO) have more functioning nukes that are more accurate, and we have limited defences against nukes where the Russians have none at all.

There you go again, falling into the trap of believing Western propaganda. During the Cold war, the United States spouted propaganda to counter Soviet propaganda. Part of that rhetoric was to say Soviet stuff was all obsolete and inaccurate. Some US military planners actually fell into the trap of believing their own propaganda. Then in the 1990s we got to see what Russia actually has. It's a hell of a lot better than US intelligence led us to believe. Their missiles are accurate.

The START treaties reduced nuclear stockpiles. As a result the largest Russian warhead is 900kt, but that's still 0.9 megaton. That's still dangerous.

And Russia does have some defences. In the 1970s, both the US and Russia built defensive systems. With 1970s technology they weren't able to hit a missile with a missile, so put a small nuclear warhead on the anti-missile. A nuclear air burst just has to be close. They signed a treaty limiting their defence system to one installation only. The US built theirs at the US nuclear silo fields. Russia put theirs at Moscow. I don't know if the US still has that 1970s system, but I haven't heard anything about it being dismantled so assume it's still there.

The US built a new system in Alaska and California. True, Russia does have a new system; but they still have the old one.

[BartSimpson]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

There you go again, falling into the trap of believing Western propaganda. During the Cold war, the United States spouted propaganda to counter Soviet propaganda. Part of that rhetoric was to say Soviet stuff was all obsolete and inaccurate. Some US military planners actually fell into the trap of believing their own propaganda. Then in the 1990s we got to see what Russia actually has. It's a hell of a lot better than US intelligence led us to believe. Their missiles are accurate.

The START treaties reduced nuclear stockpiles. As a result the largest Russian warhead is 900kt, but that's still 0.9 megaton. That's still dangerous.

And Russia does have some defences. In the 1970s, both the US and Russia built defensive systems. With 1970s technology they weren't able to hit a missile with a missile, so put a small nuclear warhead on the anti-missile. A nuclear air burst just has to be close. They signed a treaty limiting their defence system to one installation only. The US built theirs at the US nuclear silo fields. Russia put theirs at Moscow. I don't know if the US still has that 1970s system, but I haven't heard anything about it being dismantled so assume it's still there.

The US built a new system in Alaska and California. True, Russia does have a new system; but they still have the old one.

Speaking of propaganda....

Obama cancelled the US missile defense system that Bush had started. The proposed installations at Elmendorf and Beale were never built. The mobile ABM radar that was built to float in the middle of the Pacific has been mothballed.

The US has nothing for missile defense at this point. The Russians were never limited by ABM treaties because they never had to verify their participation in the agreements.

Given that Bush withdrew from the last ABM treaty there is now no binding ABM treaty between the US and the USSR.

As to missile reduction it is no secret whatsoever that when the US destroyed missile silos that we destroyed functioning silos. The Soviet/Russian silos that were destroyed were almost always filled with water and were useless anyway. Meaning that Ivan didn't lose any capability he hadn't lost already.

No more of this idiocy! We need an in-depth missile defense and we need it NOW. Russia is not the only player with nukes anymore and we need to be able to defend against anyone who comes up with a nuke missile. If that offends the Russians then effem.

[Zipperfish]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

A possible silver lining, the nuclear winter may counter-act the effects of global warming for a few years.

I'm stealing that line!

[peck420]

Bart,

Russia won't launch not because they are worried that they're nukes won't make it...they won't launch because the target will have plenty of time to return fire before the Russian nukes get to target.

Same applies to every other nuclear nation.

An extremely capable missile defense would make nuclear strikes a more likely probability, not less likely. Ie: I have a high degree of confidence that my defenses will stop their nukes from hitting, I am more willing to launch my nukes at them.

As for the crazies with nukes...nothing will stop them if they get the capability to put it on target (everything from missile to briefcase). If they are willing, they will find a way, and they are not overly concerned about the consequences.

[Delwin]

Is there actually a defense system that could stop a barrage of missiles launched from subs off of your coast ? I was under the impression that this is the real threat and that it is indefensible. (SLBM's)

[Winnipegger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Obama cancelled the US missile defense system that Bush had started. The proposed installations at Elmendorf and Beale were never built. The mobile ABM radar that was built to float in the middle of the Pacific has been mothballed.

Glad to hear it. Thank you for that. But news claimed that 10 missiles were deployed in Alaska while George W. Bush was still president. Are they still there? Announcement said another 10 in Alaska plus 20 in California. Were just the additional missiles cancelled, or the first 10 as well?

My perspective: test of these missiles showed they were only able to hit their target 1 time in 3. So 10 missiles in Alaska mean they stop 3 incoming missiles. According to Wikipedia, Russia currently has...

$1:

Strategic nuclear forces of Russia include:

• Land based Strategic Rocket Forces: 489 missiles carrying up to 1,788 warheads; they employ immobile (silos), like SS-18 Satan, and mobile delivery systems, like SS-27 Topol M.
• Sea based Strategic Fleet: 12 submarines carrying up to 609 warheads; they should be able to employ, in a near future, delivery systems like SS-N-30 Bulava.
• Strategic Aviation: 79 bombers carrying up to 884 cruise missiles.

While George W. Bush was president, I argued that the proposed ABM system was a colossal waste of money. News said $80 billion for the first 10 missiles. That's more than a human mission to Mars. I consider a mission to Mars to be far more productive. Details: NASA's budget office estimated Mars Direct would cost $20 billion for the first mission, including research, development, and infrastructure; then $2 billion per mission thereafter. With that spread over 8 years and one mission every 26 months, that means $2.5 billion per year for 8 years then $1 billion per year. That price estimate was in 1990, but still I call that affordable. NASA's design reference mission was a lot bigger: $55 billion for 6 missions.

Now, with all this stuff from Russia, I don't know. There is still the question of efficacy. How effective is the defence system, and how expensive to actually defend against what Russia has?

[DrCaleb]

A long time ago, we found that if we can map it, we own it. There is always a big kerfuffle when new maps come out. When Maps in China don't show Taiwan as part of China, or when maps in Pakistan and India don't show Kasmir a certain way . . .

Just out of curiosity, I had a look on Google Maps for Ukraine and Russia, and how they see the Ukraine. Slight difference, only with the Crimean Peninsula.

1:

google.com.ua.jpg [ 94.9 KiB | Viewed 470 times ]

0:

google.ru.jpg [ 125.24 KiB | Viewed 469 times ]

[andyt]

Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-ru ... 56691.html

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-ru ... 56691.html

The West won't and Putin knows this.