Russian strategic bombers reportedly practice nuclear missile strike against US

Even if the missle defense system was able to knock out most of the incoming russian nukes, Both sides have missles with multiple warheads attached, some of the incoming warheads are real and some are dummy. It wopuldnt matter anyway, once fired on the whole world would be a waste land. Russia even has a nuclear sub, whos job is to stay under the artic ice for up to a year in the event of a nuclear war, then surface and fire more missles. The sub even has its own hot tub, to keep the sailors spirits up.crazy world

a reply to: dragonridr

No its not were you aware the US has been upgrading its nuclear arsenal as well in fact 2007 started producing new war heads.

Huh ?

For the last 6 years we have been gutting our nukes.

theweek.com...

Meanwhile other countries are building these:

opol-M carries a single warhead with an 800 kt yield [1] but the design is compatible with MIRV warheads. According to chief designer Yury Solomonov, the missile can carry four to six warheads along with decoys

en.wikipedia.org...

And other variants said to be able to withstand DEW's.

a reply to: Glassbender777

The Typhoons have all been removed from service. The chances of them staying out even a few months are remarkably slim.

Even if one missile was fired it wouldn't necessarily be game over. It would depend on how the immediate aftermath of launch was handled.

a reply to: neo96

Which is about the same as US missiles are capable of. I wouldn't say "countries" though considering it's only Russia, and it only just reached IOC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well thats some good news, thanks for the info. because that was really one scary way to retaliate, a future nation is on its way to rebuilding , then bam, another nuke.

a reply to: neo96
I'm pretty sure that our real deterrent now is all submarine based. Bombers haven't been a serious threat in that type of war for a long time now, and there are obvious disadvantages to land based silos.

a reply to: Glassbender777

They have a new missile boat that's about the size of an Ohio, and stealthy as can be, but only two or three have been built, and its iffy about many more.

a reply to: defcon5

I am sure most will agree.

I don't.

I don't think we have any deterrence left now.

Putin is doing what he wants.

Radical Islamofacists are doing what they want.

The world is just laughing at US anymore.

Paper Tiger, Crouching golfer.

a reply to: neo96

That has nothing to do with our nuclear arsenal.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: neo96

That has nothing to do with our nuclear arsenal.

Sure it does.

That is why we have them after all.

So that no one will 'mess' with us.

Strength is also a means of deterrence.

Strength of purpose.

Strength of character.

Strength of WILL.

And the means to back those up.

Which is what the military is created for.

a reply to: neo96

The nuclear arsenal was built in large part to keep the Soviet Union from launching a preemptive strike and destroying us. It was never meant to be used to intimidate conventional opponents. If it had been then it was proven to be useless a long time ago, long before this point. Especially considering the Soviets shot down our recon aircraft with impunity during the Cold War.

a reply to: SloAnPainful

This is Russia showing US it isn't another Iraq or Afghanistan

juuuust in case

a reply to: BettyHill400

This is Russia doing what they've done for the last fifty years, just as the US does with their surveillance.