Time to invade!
Crazykenny
04 Mar 2008
Its seems some people still havent learned how the start and maintain a normal discussion 
Russia will not attack Europe, period! Take a good look back at the 60's or better even the Cold War and the Doomsday clock. Most of us do realize it was close now, and try to avoid similair conflicts. But some of you just wont learn, and live on the emotion that is aggression. Threads like this are useless as its never gonna happen.
The threat today is terrorism, and even Russia knows that. Also as a Russian, U.S.S.R, you must know the Soviet Union died at the fall of the Berlin Wall therefore such ideas and strategies will not be used by Russia. Even if they did, its deadly clear they'll lose, perhaps lose everything, in the end.
Edited by Crazykenny, 04 March 2008 - 14:31.
Russia will not attack Europe, period! Take a good look back at the 60's or better even the Cold War and the Doomsday clock. Most of us do realize it was close now, and try to avoid similair conflicts. But some of you just wont learn, and live on the emotion that is aggression. Threads like this are useless as its never gonna happen.
The threat today is terrorism, and even Russia knows that. Also as a Russian, U.S.S.R, you must know the Soviet Union died at the fall of the Berlin Wall therefore such ideas and strategies will not be used by Russia. Even if they did, its deadly clear they'll lose, perhaps lose everything, in the end.
Edited by Crazykenny, 04 March 2008 - 14:31.
Wizard
04 Mar 2008
The concept of Russia, as is, making any such attack is really proposterous, but there are some here that maybe writing the Ruskies off. Right now they have a military that isn't up to speed, but it won't take too much to get it there. Half a year of concerted effort and you'll be looking at a much timmer, leaner and meaner force. Sure it won't be in a position to tackle the world. Let's face it, no one is. But it might give some other players some bigger headaches. Lets face it, no one, and I mean no one would've thought that Russia was in a position to start throwing Strontium 90 around Londons restaurants last year. That should be a wake up call to show they are back and mean business. The original discussion has failed, but it has certainly opened up an interesting discussion none-the-less.
Crazykenny
04 Mar 2008
Recent developments do show Russia is once again taking a active part in the arms race.
Dr. Strangelove
04 Mar 2008
CommanderJB, on 4 Mar 2008, 12:17, said:
I have to agree with you, Herr Murkwurdigliebe...
As a side note, some good words from President Merkin Muffley on the start of World War III:
"Hello Dmitri?... I'm afraid one of our pilots has gone a bit funny in the head, and he's, well, he's gone and done a silly thing. What's he done?
Well, I'll tell you what he's done.. he's... he's ordered his planes to bomb your country..."
That (from the incomparable Dr Strangelove (Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb)) aside, there's really no such thing as thermonuclear war as war implies a victor of some kind. About 40 1 or 2 megaton bombs detonated in a wide pattern has been calculated to be enough to create sufficient fallout to destroy food supplies, population centres and subsequently civilisation as we know it, thus making 'victory' impossible. Virtually nothing will protect you from a high-yield device detonating on top of you - even Cheyenne Mountain, home of NORAD and buried in the centre of a mountain, was only designed to withstand direct hit from a less-than-1-megaton-yield blast.
I also think you overestimate the chances of ABM systems, as well - not only has nobody succeeded in creating a remotely viable interceptor (if you try shooting at a 3-metre-long black cone emitting no signals to home in on, on a difficult-to-calculate ballistic path, travelling at something like 8 times the speed of sound and filled with countermeasures and you haven't got very good chances, after all) there just aren't anything like the numbers, and at this rate never will be, needed to counter a full-scale first strike.
As a side note, some good words from President Merkin Muffley on the start of World War III:
"Hello Dmitri?... I'm afraid one of our pilots has gone a bit funny in the head, and he's, well, he's gone and done a silly thing. What's he done?
Well, I'll tell you what he's done.. he's... he's ordered his planes to bomb your country..."
That (from the incomparable Dr Strangelove (Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb)) aside, there's really no such thing as thermonuclear war as war implies a victor of some kind. About 40 1 or 2 megaton bombs detonated in a wide pattern has been calculated to be enough to create sufficient fallout to destroy food supplies, population centres and subsequently civilisation as we know it, thus making 'victory' impossible. Virtually nothing will protect you from a high-yield device detonating on top of you - even Cheyenne Mountain, home of NORAD and buried in the centre of a mountain, was only designed to withstand direct hit from a less-than-1-megaton-yield blast.
I also think you overestimate the chances of ABM systems, as well - not only has nobody succeeded in creating a remotely viable interceptor (if you try shooting at a 3-metre-long black cone emitting no signals to home in on, on a difficult-to-calculate ballistic path, travelling at something like 8 times the speed of sound and filled with countermeasures and you haven't got very good chances, after all) there just aren't anything like the numbers, and at this rate never will be, needed to counter a full-scale first strike.
You do realize that most nuclear weapons carried by the U.S. and Russia these days are below 0.3 megatons, and the fact that there are no deployed 1 megaton or higher bombs by either side, don't you?
An SDI or ABM project would be very difficult to build, but its not like those missiles are invisible to radar or anything.
Crazykenny
04 Mar 2008
IIRC The Peacekeeper missile, both used by Europe and America contain warheads with a yield in a range from 150kt anywhere up to 500kt. The higher the yield, the fewer the rentry vehicles.
CommanderJB
05 Mar 2008
Quote
You do realize that most nuclear weapons carried by the U.S. and Russia these days are below 0.3 megatons, and the fact that there are no deployed 1 megaton or higher bombs by either side, don't you?
Yes, I do realise this. But this didn't used to be the case (Titan IIs and Atlas Vs used to carry 3 or 5-megaton warheads, and B-52s, B-47s and B-36s on constant patrol with SAC throughout the 50's, 60's and most of the 70's used to carry multi-stage thermonuclear devices as standard - and when one crashed in middle America in the late 60's one almost detonated, too). If people are letting off low-yield devices then they'll usually do it in greater numbers (MIRVs anyone?) so it sort of balances out. Not only that, but if someone were to attempt a nuclear first-strike, then if I were them I'd dig those old big warheads out of storage (actually I'd call off the strike and not kill hundreds of millions of people, but you get my point).
Quote
An SDI or ABM project would be very difficult to build, but its not like those missiles are invisible to radar or anything.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's exceptionally difficult. No-one has managed to make one work yet, and no-one seems likely to do so in the next 10-20 years either.
Edited by CommanderJB, 05 March 2008 - 01:46.
Dr. Strangelove
05 Mar 2008
The thing is, I don't think those big warheads even exist anymore due to the fact it's a ton more efficient to just pepper them with much smaller yields.
It would be very difficult, but it still is worth the price if you are on the brink of nuclear war.
Back on the topic of detonating 40 n(at least one)-megaton bombs, you see, the fallout would take several months if not years to achieve the civilization destroying effect you're are talking about, which is plenty of time for major wars and figuring out how to survive the fallout.
It would be very difficult, but it still is worth the price if you are on the brink of nuclear war.
Back on the topic of detonating 40 n(at least one)-megaton bombs, you see, the fallout would take several months if not years to achieve the civilization destroying effect you're are talking about, which is plenty of time for major wars and figuring out how to survive the fallout.
Comr4de
05 Mar 2008
Overdose, on 1 Mar 2008, 14:18, said:
Yes! Cobra shall reign supreme! Death to G.I Joes! COOOBRAAAAA!
CommanderJB
05 Mar 2008
Given that there were over forty thousand nuclear devices built during the Cold War, I doubt they've simply destroyed them all. I don't think Russia in particular still has the cash or much of an incentive to get rid of them on a large scale anyway.
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
Crazykenny
05 Mar 2008
CommanderJB, on 5 Mar 2008, 11:17, said:
Given that there were over forty thousand nuclear devices built during the Cold War, I doubt they've simply destroyed them all. I don't think Russia in particular still has the cash or much of an incentive to get rid of them on a large scale anyway.
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
I think half of those nukes are completely useless by now. Only by the fact fusion weapons need proper maintenance to keep operational. I know for sure Russia signed of allot of those weapons and I pretty much know America did the same.
Keeping those kinda weapon functional costs lots of money and precious minerals and resources.
Also, recent developments in convential weapons make nukes far less efficient. Why kill thousands and thousands of people when you have the powers to bring there government to there knee's by a few surgical strikes. I may be expensive but you all known nuclear weapons are far and I mean far more higher in price.
My opinion, just get rid of the pesky things and keep an eye out for politicly unstable and terrorist countries that try to develope them.
Face it, the Nuclear Age has ended a long time ago.
Dauth
05 Mar 2008
Kenny the thing about nukes is the mutually assured destruction, we don't trust a number of possibly nuclear states and thus can still survive with them because we all know we don't trust each other.
Dr. Strangelove
05 Mar 2008
CommanderJB, on 5 Mar 2008, 10:17, said:
Given that there were over forty thousand nuclear devices built during the Cold War, I doubt they've simply destroyed them all. I don't think Russia in particular still has the cash or much of an incentive to get rid of them on a large scale anyway.
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
At any rate, I think we can all agree that a nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it, right?
40,000!Where did you get your numbers?
Russia has approximately 15,000 total and 5,800 of those are at operationally ready status.
The U.S. has 9,900 and 5,700 of those aren't in warehouses.
Source:Scientific American, November 2007
Jok3r
05 Mar 2008
I think he may have meant 14 thousand, which, IIRC, was the peak number of all types of nuclear weapons (tactical and strategic).
~SLG
~SLG
CommanderJB
06 Mar 2008
No, I meant forty thousand built (not operational), and actually that's just for Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_..._stockpiles.svg
My point is that genuine disarmament (destroying the devices and their delivery systems safely, not just dismantling them) is extremely expensive and difficult due to the expertise and resources needed to break down and destroy something as dangerous and complicated as a nuclear weapon. They have dismantled most of the warheads, and the U.S. has destroyed most of its stockpile, but I would consider it unlikely that there no high-yield devices of any kind sitting in a storage bunker somewhere. But enough about that. Can we agree to disagree?
Edited by CommanderJB, 06 March 2008 - 02:14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_..._stockpiles.svg
My point is that genuine disarmament (destroying the devices and their delivery systems safely, not just dismantling them) is extremely expensive and difficult due to the expertise and resources needed to break down and destroy something as dangerous and complicated as a nuclear weapon. They have dismantled most of the warheads, and the U.S. has destroyed most of its stockpile, but I would consider it unlikely that there no high-yield devices of any kind sitting in a storage bunker somewhere. But enough about that. Can we agree to disagree?
Edited by CommanderJB, 06 March 2008 - 02:14.
ultimentra
06 Mar 2008
Hey fuck you guys at least I tried. You dont have to be jerks about it.
smooder
06 Mar 2008
Send FOAB missiles raining down on the military bases, airfields and naval structures of every European MOFO. Then send a few Helibopters and soldiers in. Simple as that
Jok3r
06 Mar 2008
FOAB missiles... isn't that odd? Father of All BOMBS missiles? Plus those things are still prototypes.
~SLG
~SLG
smooder
06 Mar 2008
My son, tis a foab in a missile, a foab in a missile I hear yeh say? A foab in a missyle? I'll tell ye how its possible...
Crazykenny
07 Mar 2008
And your spamming up a normal discussion with ridiculous facts and statements.
Dauth
07 Mar 2008
ultimentra, on 6 Mar 2008, 5:17, said:
Hey fuck you guys at least I tried. You dont have to be jerks about it.
It's the internet, people disagree, people get ridiculed (I have been pwned pretty hard many times), if you don't like it thats fine, but responding like this isn't.
Lets keep this on topic, which I think is discussing how Russia would invade Europe? Well they'd shut down the gas and oil in the middle of Winter for a start.
Crazykenny
07 Mar 2008
Hmm, there are some serious problems with that theory Dauth. For start, The Netherlands have there own gasfields (although not big, but sufficient) and I'm pretty sure a couple of other countries have pockets of gas aswell.
I think the best thing to invade Europe is to somehow cut there diplomatic connections with the USA, isolate them.
I think the best thing to invade Europe is to somehow cut there diplomatic connections with the USA, isolate them.
Umbrella Secrets
08 Mar 2008
First you say are airforce (USA) is crapy "U.S.S.R" and now your saying ideas on how to invade Europe? Anyways if Russia tried to invade, they would fail.
Edited by U-W-SAtomicarmy, 08 March 2008 - 00:45.
Edited by U-W-SAtomicarmy, 08 March 2008 - 00:45.
Dauth
08 Mar 2008
I am not letting this thread turn into a flame war, keep it civil or I will lock it, no further warnings here.
