Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

President Carter was correct to cancel the B-l, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Soviet air defenses, in fact, are poor. Even Secretary Weinberger's 99-page booklet, "Soviet Military Power," which was designed to justify the Reagan defense budget by making Soviet armed might seem as powerful as possible, admits that "Soviet [air] defenses characteristically have fallen short of being able to handle fully the tasks they face."

www.cato.org...

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm conventional strategic nuclear weapons, I'm not sure what you mean by this. You've contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

There are imo far more dangerous weapons than nuclear weapons so they have become the new conventional imo.

Yeah right, why aren't these included in your assessment of Soviet power ? I think it's probably because you'd get laughed out of the thread

Ahem, 90% of your information is based on these DIA reports, you constsnatly quote them in your posts.

I quoted them a great deal but mostly repetivitle to drive home a few basic points which has not been disputed by other sources. Nowhere near 90% of my claims were ever based on DIA resources. Making up blatent lies to suit your agenda will get you moderated in no time at all. Try that again if you like.

LOL, anyone reading your posts, can easily see that most ( IMO 90% ) of your relevant information comes from DIA sources specifically Soviet military power. You have provided no other sources of Soviet military strength apart from that.
Making up blatent lies pffft, could you get any more dramatic

You should read the following article, detailing how the Soviet Military Power reports came about and how inaccurate they were.

Vague claims bother me not when i make specific pointed arguments about weapons systems. If you are not willing to engage in proper debate do not bother me with your biased dismissive trolling.

Thought it may hvae been a bit too intellectual for you. However it's all fact, if you'd bothered to read it, you'd know. Far more specific than any information you've posted in here.
But hey, I posted it more for the benefit of other people, rather than yourself. People who wish to deny ignorance not embrace it.

But the Soviet colossus had feet of clay. In the mid-1980s, the intelligence community quietly halved their estimates of the accuracy of the most dangerous type of Soviet ICBMs, and with that, the window of vulnerability instantly disappeared.

Since the accuracy of Soviet strategic missiles were still enough to do damage to American naval and strategic airfields it hardly negates their effects. A CEP of 1000 yards just means the nuclear weapon has a 50% chance of landing within that radius from target. The other 50% could still be nearly anywhere on earth.

Your point being what ? My point was that DIA estimantes were highly overinflated in the early 80's, sources which you've quoted as being accurate
BTW, wth regards to CEP 50% will land within the circle and the other half will land in a circle twice as wide - not anywhaere on the planet as you state.
Come on I thought you said you'd read all this before - very simple mistake

Trying to estimate what the USSR were spending were allways a fools game anyways since their cost structure and entire society were in so many ways different. Changing your estimates in a mostly guessing games hardly proves a damn thing. Political agenda's plays a far larger part than does math most of the time. Fact is the USSR were doing things that could almost never have been afforded in the West and trying to put a pirce tag in dollar value on such expenditure was just a exercise in stupidty.

This is funny, so you're going to completely disregard economic realties now You want to build something you need money doesn't matter which country you're from. The economic situation in the USSR was a very real concern for teh country and it's military - they went bankrupt from overspending militarily and not attending to their citizens. Simple fact.

This is the same Gorbachev, who made the following statement, which was printed by Pravda on December 11, 1984: “In the struggle for peace and social progress the Communist Party of the Soviet Union pursues a consistent policy of rallying the forces of the international communist and working-class movement in every possible way. We uphold the historical justness of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, and along with all the revolutionary and peace loving forces of mankind, stand for social progress, and peace and security for all nations. This is what should determine the resolute nature of our propaganda.”

And ah, this has what to do with what ? I like how you use ramble like this as a smoke screen

In short, the burden of Soviet military spending, which was much greater than U.S. intelligence projected (and completely discounted by Team B) caused such dislocation in the Russian economy that it brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union

Great act was'nt it?

LOL, this is really funny. In case you hadn't noticed the USSR has ceased to exist LMAO.

Originally posted by rogue1

President Carter was correct to cancel the B-l, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Soviet air defenses, in fact, are poor. Even Secretary Weinberger's 99-page booklet, "Soviet Military Power," which was designed to justify the Reagan defense budget by making Soviet armed might seem as powerful as possible, admits that "Soviet [air] defenses characteristically have fallen short of being able to handle fully the tasks they face."

Why do we assume their arms where not in fact as powerfull? The whole idea that because a new administration decided that weapons are not as powerfull as the one before it did is quite strange? Do you realise that the Russian nuclear weapon arsenal is still today more potent than the American one? Why is that still so? If they were wrong then why is Russia today still so powefull?

Do explain that as i do not see how sense can be made of it other than political agenda's of people who want to see American disarmed.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Why do we assume their arms where not in fact as powerfull? The whole idea that because a new administration decided that weapons are not as powerfull as the one before it did is quite strange?

Lets see, how about hindsight. We know today that thos estimates were completely overinflated - as I have already proven several time in this thread.

Do you realise that the Russian nuclear weapon arsenal is still today more potent than the American one? Why is that still so? If they were wrong then why is Russia today still so powefull?

Hmm lets see, the US has retired all it's heavy ICBM's whilst the RUssians still retain a portion of theirs.

If you look at the warhead numbers now on both sides, they are roughly even. Not because more are being produced but that they are decommisioning them to roughly the same levels.

You have voted StellarX for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

StellarX, you obviously know what you're talking about and you have fully backed up all your claims, and then some. I have enjoyed reading all your posts thus far, and believe we have very similar thoughts and ideas.

Keep up the good work, friend

Originally posted by rogue1
Yeah right, why aren't these included in your assessment of Soviet power ? I think it's probably because you'd get laughed out of the thread

No they are not included in my assesment as that would be silly. Who is laughing rogue? Do you want to conduct a poll?

LOL, anyone reading your posts, can easily see that most ( IMO 90% ) of your relevant information comes from DIA sources specifically Soviet military power. You have provided no other sources of Soviet military strength apart from that.
Making up blatent lies pffft, could you get any more dramatic

It just is not true and i guess i will call a mod now as your just here to distract people from the evidence on hand. I did expect more from you but i guess i was wrong to do so.

Thought it may hvae been a bit too intellectual for you. However it's all fact, if you'd bothered to read it, you'd know. Far more specific than any information you've posted in here.

Another blatent lie to cover up the fact that your not interested in backing your points with anything but distraction.

But hey, I posted it more for the benefit of other people, rather than yourself. People who wish to deny ignorance not embrace it.

You have always played to the crowd as that is all you can manage with your limited knowledge and large bias.

Your point being what ? My point was that DIA estimantes were highly overinflated in the early 80's, sources which you've quoted as being accurate

YOur making vague statements attacking a massive ammount of information indicating that it's somehoe ALL false which is NOT supported by any facts. Your just assuming what you like as you have always done so far.

BTW, wth regards to CEP 50% will land within the circle and the other half will land in a circle twice as wide - not anywhaere on the planet as you state.
Come on I thought you said you'd read all this before - very simple mistake

Ok i am in error on that score. 50% will land in area indicated by CEP with 43% landing on average twice the distance away and the rest two to three times the distance away. In my defense strategic planners prepare for missile failure, in all phases( meaning they do not reach their target area at all) of about 15-20% of all those launched. This does not however affect my argument as Soviet/Russian missiles are generally more reliable. What you have in fact done is help my argument as i thought ICBM's less accurate in general.

This is funny, so you're going to completely disregard economic realties now

You want to build something you need money doesn't matter which country you're from.

Which proves how completely ignorant you are of reality in the Soviet Union. You can in fact print as much money as you like if you can force others to take it as payment. Do you really believe that the Soviet Union were limited by money? If you do you are profoundly ignorant of economic realities. The only thing that could limit the Soviet military expansion is raw resources and technical and economical know-how.

The economic situation in the USSR was a very real concern for teh country and it's military - they went bankrupt from overspending militarily and not attending to their citizens. Simple fact.

A country like the USSR can not technically go 'bankrupt" as it is so very different from capitalist models. What can happen is that resources and personal can be wrongly allocated thus wasting resources and man hours. They were not bankrupt in 1989 and they are not bankrupt now and even at the worse of times their strategic nuclear rocket forces were at least on par with American strategic forces.

And ah, this has what to do with what ? I like how you use ramble like this as a smoke screen

Read it again till it starts making sense as it is critical to the discussion. The 'fall' of the USSR were imo ( and many others) in fact staged to fool the west and the Russian public in general.

LOL, this is really funny. In case you hadn't noticed the USSR has ceased to exist LMAO.

Well it might be funny but it is very much true. Russia has NOT disarmed and is still well capable of fighting the same old nuclear/conventional war they always prepared for.

Stellar

Originally posted by James Daniel
Keep up the good work, friend

Since i do not get much in the way of encouragement i do appreciate the fact that at least someone appreciates the effort AND the 'facts' such as they are.

Stellar

Why do some people forget Russia still has the abillity to destroy the United States and most of the world a few times over?I find it funny when people say"Oh the cold war is over and Russia is broke they are no threat."They would seem pretty threatening if dozens of icbm's were on the way.

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
Why do some people forget Russia still has the abillity to destroy the United States and most of the world a few times over?I find it funny when people say"Oh the cold war is over and Russia is broke they are no threat."They would seem pretty threatening if dozens of icbm's were on the way.

Hmm, well they can't destroy the world a few times over And no one here is saying they are not a threat, hence the heading of this thread

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
Why do some people forget Russia still has the abillity to destroy the United States and most of the world a few times over?I find it funny when people say"Oh the cold war is over and Russia is broke they are no threat."They would seem pretty threatening if dozens of icbm's were on the way.

Destroy the US capability to continue fighting a strategic war with the weapons both sides have declared at this stage ( including the systems known to be in operation but with fudged capabilities) i can agree with. There would however be little benefit for Russia to destroy the US ( or the other way round) so utterly that there remains no economic or social benefit in the transaction. Given the utterly unpredictable nature of war having a advantage on paper ( and in wargames) does not mean you will win and such advantages is best used for strategic blackmail and to use towards increasing the balance of force in your favour.

So i do believe they have a strategic edge and that they will "win" a nuclear war but what they would do with that edge ( and all the destruction they will also suffer) i am not so sure. Even thought Russia is still preparing to fight and win/survive such a war they are no more eager to test their 'advantage' than any other sane party would be.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Yeah right, why aren't these included in your assessment of Soviet power ? I think it's probably because you'd get laughed out of the thread

No they are not included in my assesment as that would be silly. Who is laughing rogue? Do you want to conduct a poll?

Yeah, cnduct a poll. What are these weapons you talk baout which are more powerful than nuclear weapons Come on tellus, or was it a throw away comment ?

It just is not true and i guess i will call a mod now as your just here to distract people from the evidence on hand. I did expect more from you but i guess i was wrong to do so.

LOL, a bit self agrandising aren't we. The words above lend absolutely no weight to your argument and quite frankly are petty

Thought it may hvae been a bit too intellectual for you. However it's all fact, if you'd bothered to read it, you'd know. Far more specific than any information you've posted in here.

Another blatent lie to cover up the fact that your not interested in backing your points with anything but distraction.

LOL, I've heard of selective hearing, but not selective site I posted the external source near the top of this page with the apropriate link - it's all their in black and white from official sources. You didn't even bother to read it did you
You seem to ignore anything which contradicts your view, yet on the other hand expousing your virtue of being open to all information, LMAO. Your words are hollow and have no substance.

You have always played to the crowd as that is all you can manage with your limited knowledge and large bias.

You are just getting more and more eccentric - I think we know who tries to pander here don't we.

Your point being what ? My point was that DIA estimantes were highly overinflated in the early 80's, sources which you've quoted as being accurate

YOur making vague statements attacking a massive ammount of information indicating that it's somehoe ALL false which is NOT supported by any facts. Your just assuming what you like as you have always done so far.

**Sigh** I have posted plenty of information. As I have said many times amd proven you nase most of your statements off outdated overinflated DIA reports from the early to mid 80's. Modern literature completely discounts most of the estimates of Soviet weaponry. BUt alas, it doesn't suit your view, so it can't be true

This does not however affect my argument as Soviet/Russian missiles are generally more reliable. What you have in fact done is help my argument as i thought ICBM's less accurate in general.

WTF ? Since when have you argued Soviet missiles are more reliable which of course they aren't and and what proof do you have, you hvae presented nothing except your opinion with no fact.
I have no idea how I helped your argument, defingin what true CEP is doesn't cahnge a thing.

Which proves how completely ignorant you are of reality in the Soviet Union. You can in fact print as much money as you like if you can force others to take it as payment. Do you really believe that the Soviet Union were limited by money? If you do you are profoundly ignorant of economic realities. The only thing that could limit the Soviet military expansion is raw resources and technical and economical know-how.

Sure just disregard every economic theory LMAO print more money, umm ever heard of inflation - do you even understand economics. It's almost laughable - you don't even understand how communism works
I can't help but think you're stupid or just purposely puittng forward a ridiculous arguament.

Originally posted by rogue1
Yeah, cnduct a poll. What are these weapons you talk baout which are more powerful than nuclear weapons

Come on tellus, or was it a throw away comment ?

They have no bearing on this conversation and i should have never given you the oppertunity to imagine they were. Current Russian ICBM's seems perfectly capable to do the damage with the added mobility to make them impervious to counterforce strikes.

LOL, a bit self agrandising aren't we. The words above lend absolutely no weight to your argument and quite frankly are petty

Well the DIA does not constitute 90% of my sources and if you really have a issue with the times i did use their material i could have used Russians or CIA sources instead. You still have no valid reason to mistrust them because it suits your current agenda.

LOL, I've heard of selective hearing, but not selective site

I posted the external source near the top of this page with the apropriate link - it's all their in black and white from official sources. You didn't even bother to read it did you

And it was written in 1982 while i used material from the years 1983 onwards. There is nothing specific in that page beside their claims that the DIA estimates are not in fact accurate. Why the CATO institute should be trusted over the DIA is anyone's guess but i guess it's how far you will go to defend your point of view.

You seem to ignore anything which contradicts your view, yet on the other hand expousing your virtue of being open to all information, LMAO. Your words are hollow and have no substance.

I read the page the first time and i guess i could break it down and argue all the points. I do however feel that would be a waste of time as you would just answere with more one liners claiming American intelligence sources were ALL lying about the Soviet threat. What is your motive for distrusting ALL American intelligence sources?

You are just getting more and more eccentric - I think we know who tries to pander here don't we.

I do the work while you just pander to your captive audiance ( 'Americans could NEVER be fooled in such a way') with pointless speculation based on people who dismiss American intelligence gathering as inaccurate and worse.

**Sigh** I have posted plenty of information. As I have said many times amd proven you nase most of your statements off outdated overinflated DIA reports from the early to mid 80's.

You have posted nothing to suggest that the DIA was mostly wrong ( they make hundreds of claims) or even wrong any large number of times. All you have done is question the accuracy because you dislike the logical conclusions you are forced to draw. To try find evidence only to maintain conclusions drawn before you saw all the information is stupidity manifest.

Modern literature completely discounts most of the estimates of Soviet weaponry. BUt alas, it doesn't suit your view, so it can't be true

Modern literature backs all my claims otherwise i would have had serious reason to rethink my position. Russia still has a far more deadly strategic nuclear force so it hardly makes sense to discount their strength in the past based on continued US inferiority.

WTF ? Since when have you argued Soviet missiles are more reliable

which of course they aren't and and what proof do you have, you hvae presented nothing except your opinion with no fact.

Soviet rockets have always been more reliable and there is no reason for me to argue the point as it's allready agreed upon by anyone that knows anything on the topic. When i state something as fact odds are it is no matter how contrary to your current delusion it is. It's best you check and make sure i think.

I have no idea how I helped your argument, defingin what true CEP is doesn't cahnge a thing.

I thought that ICBM's were generally less accurate ( CEP indicating 50% in target area with other 50% far less accurate) even if Soviet missiles were supposedly rather less accurate than American weapons in general. Given the fact that CEP indicates far more reliability and accuracy inherent in strategic warheads Russian counterforce and rapid reload capacity ( and civil defense and ABM defenses) makes their forces even deadlier than i at first believed. That is what i was talking about and what you had such a hard time understanding. I sometimes wonder why you engage in discussion at all when you can missunderstand/not understand at all even such simple clarification.

Sure just disregard every economic theory

LMAO print more money, umm ever heard of inflation -

Money is just a method of exchange and printing more money is not inherently problematic. At worse people will have to carry more money with them to buy the same goods. What inflation really means is that there is more money in circulation and that you thus have to give more money for the same thing. The problem is that people are in fact getting poorer in America ( less buying year on year since mid 1970's) so where is all the money if they are printing too much of it? Why is there inflation in America if the average person can buy less and less? Is it because the money is in the hands of a few who can keep it from the masses and thus rob them of their time and labour? In a economy like the USSR 'money' did not work like that and it just served as a method of transaction AS IT IDEALLY should. If a government makes sure all the currency it prints stays in circulation ( and is thus not hoarded to manipulate the economy) priting too much at best help create jobs, thus creating demand, and at worse force people to carry more money to purchase the same article for the same relative cut of their salary.

do you even understand economics. It's almost laughable - you don't even understand how communism works

I can't help but think you're stupid or just purposely puittng forward a ridiculous arguament.

Well all you ever do is tow the government line on everything and anything. What people will not do for some security. All i can tell you is there is as always far more going on than you are even willing to contemplate. I suggest you do some research ( Oh the horror) for once.

Stellar

When it comes to nuclear war how does one determine who wins and who loses? Doesn't everyone lose?

Originally posted by mytym
When it comes to nuclear war how does one determine who wins and who loses? Doesn't everyone lose?

Well, humans have ego..

So I guess that justify the need to know a winner.

Originally posted by mytym
When it comes to nuclear war how does one determine who wins and who loses? Doesn't everyone lose?

Winning is a rather subjective notion and each person has his own standards. For some people finding enough food to stay alive another day is 'winning' where in other countries a bigger house is considered ' winning'. Any war ,including a nuclear war, can be fought and won when one side is confident that they will reach their objectives. These objectives may very include large scale destruction on both sides with the winning side just ready to accept the damage while the other are not. Wars are in fact mostly won by those who is willing to lose most to achieve victory and this has always been so.

Stellar

Winning is a rather subjective notion and each person has his own standards. For some people finding enough food to stay alive another day

How can they eat if the food is contaminated?

Originally posted by pepsi78
How can they eat if the food is contaminated?

In a fallout shelter you can eat whatever you have stored and outside you can eat whatever food is covered/processed and stored with a cover. If you grain silo is damage in some way you can scoop off the top 30 cm ( they say less but lets make sure) and the rest will be fine. Covered water is fine and so is well water for at least a few days.

Stellar

Mutually Assured Destruction is all I have to say.

Originally posted by Karl Toussaint
russia may have the upper hand on us ... i belive they have nukes in america now and we dont know about them.

We can only hope they have one smack dab in the middle of D.C.

Gentlemen,Presidents,generals..I have only one thing to say.In case of an all out war,these two countries jus can't fight each other.There will be other oppurtunists also..Waiting their chance they will destroy the remnants of the surviving country of the two and indirectly collapse the whole bio mass on earth..