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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
The B-2 (and B-52 for that matter) probably would not be used as a high altitude bomber against a country such as Russia (or China or North Korea). I don't know, and really don't care if somebody has a system that can theoretically detect the B-2 given the way it has been used up until today.

The real qeustion is if Russia has a system that can detect a B-2 flying at under 300ft at very high subsonic speeds - the way it would likely attack a target that is very well defended. I highly doubt it.



Yes the real question. Even the B-52 has an ability to attack low level agaist anything but an airborne radar.
radarproblems.com...
A stealth bomber at low level lofting a B-83 would be undetectable right up to the really harsh sun burn.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Sandman11]

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Sandman11]




posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Speculation aside, both sides had enough nuclear weapons to lay waste to the planet Earth a number of times over. As such, neither side would win, nor would the world or humankind.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Speculation aside, both sides had enough nuclear weapons to lay waste to the planet Earth a number of times over. As such, neither side would win, nor would the world or humankind.



Actually, this is common myth. If every weapon on the planet were used the death toll would be in the 60 to 80% range.

And Russia would "win" due to her size. We could not cover the entire Russian country, however due to our comparatively smaller size and our weather systems, America would be over. The best place to be in a nuclear exchange? South western Oregon.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Sheer size? This is not a land mass size ratio contestation. This is a fact of nuclear reality.

The three fourths of the Russian population live in the European part [western] and the other fourth lives in the Asian part of Russia [eastern]. With selective targeting and considerable radiation fallout and jet stream factors, you can bet your last bottom dollar that if the US is allegedly destroyed, Russia will be destroyed. What will remain of both will be nothing in comparison. Both will cease to exist as operating governments. Bottom line, again, despite hypotheticals and speculation, both Russia and the US would be completely destroyed.




seekerof

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Posted this a few weeks ago, I think it was posted on ATS some time ago as well. Both times, no one bothered to reply, but yet we have all this speculation, with nobody really knowing anything.

For those of you who wish to enlighten yourselves read this thread.

NRDC Comprehensive Simulation of a US Nulcear Attack on Russia



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Some here say that no on one wins , that may turn out to be true in the end , the question is what those who would commit such an act would consider to be victory.

The US constitution sez that there will be enough food for every man woman and child in storage to last three years , yet there are no food reserves to speak of here in the US to cover such emergencies , THIS IS THE LAW OF THE LAND , yet ther is supposedly only enough food to last about 20 minutes if it were even possible to distribute it evenly within that time.....

So where is it all ? , there is more going on here than most would really even want to know.

If all countries had nuclear weapons , then how would one even be able to threaten another ? .

Governments are the problem , not the solution , if they didn't write laws so they could send you and me to die for the sake of settling their little 'policy disputes' , we would all be better off.

Anarchy is what those who want , but do not have control of the masses , call freedom.

Been there , done that , can I leave now ?.

It's all just scare tactics , like terrorism , or is that what that is anyway .



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XiNGYaNGFoo
The US constitution sez that there will be enough food for every man woman and child in storage to last three years , yet there are no food reserves to speak of here in the US to cover such emergencies


Not being an American, I'm curious about this part of your constitution. Could you post a link to the relevant part please.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Mad Scientist,
Yes I have read this and it is a good read.
Really we are all very much amatures compared to the people who put together these war plans, and rest assured all you naysayers of US nuclear firepower... The US has plenty of "counter-value" nuclear force to obiterate Russia. Indeed, there would never be a place the US would let itself get into over the last 40 years of nuclear warfare design where it felt we would be at a disadvantage in counter-value, since it is truely the last phase of a nuclear war, and the end point of greatest deterrence. Some Russians might just survive such a war, not many, but those who did and emerged from their deep bunkers after the radiation died down, would be met with repeated invasions from the worlds new "superpowers", like China, India, GB, or anyone small enough to be left out of the nuclear conflict, but large enough to claim it is the next 'world power', not to mention the strontium 90 in the water and air spreading cancer for generations to come, if there were any future generations from the damaged gene pool. I dont' think Russia could ever realistically claim 'victory' in a nuclear conflict with the US. The real danger is if anyone in Russia thinks they could win...



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Russia would "win" mainly because their country is so much larger.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

And it is a myth that a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would result in destruction of mankind. South America, South Asia, and Africa would be relatively untouched.

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   


These guys.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
Russia would "win" mainly because their country is so much larger.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

And it is a myth that a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would result in destruction of mankind. South America, South Asia, and Africa would be relatively untouched.

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Kozzy]


What would be left? A vast uninhabitated wilderness with occasional radioactive regions where there were cities? Russia would cease to be a military power, much less a major one. No air base would be left, no navy bases, ports, airports, industrial areas, if any medical facilities survived they would be overwhelmed with wounded, and lack of supplies due to cut supply lines. If half the population were killed, that means much of what is left is wounded, irradiated, and dying. Russia as a world power would cease to exist, and barely remain a country at all, if at all. If the US ended up any worse than this then it would be better because there would be less suffering. The cockroach would rule the northern hemisphere, and some intermediate power today would be the new world leader.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I Can Believe Nobody Mentioned This

M.A.D. The Answer Is That Everyone Loses

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)--Is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. It is also cited by gun control opponents as the reason why crime rates tend to be lower in heavily armed populations. See also Switzerland, whose comprehensive military defense strategy has prevented potential enemies from attempting invasions, even during World War II.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The theory of "counterforce" as mentioned in the link by Mad Scientist above, is a seductive one, which does not subscribe to the notion that nuclear war is like a tick tack toe game, neither side winning given a certain level of competence. It requires the first use to disarm in order to come out the end of such a conflict less hurt than the opponant. Both sides worked to have a counterforce capability. This pressed the tension level to more of a "hair trigger" situation, since neither side could afford to sit and ride out the first strike, resulting in a "launch on warning" situation. The US did not to my knowlege ever refuse to be the first to launch a nuke, presumably because it required nukes to defend europe, but also to avoid losing most of it's ICBMs to a Soviet "first strike". This was a controversial issue among many in the US who did not want to ever strike first with nuclear weapons, requiring the US to ride out a first strike and losing much of it's retaliatory ability, however it is unlikely the US would have done so. Many theories of US vulnerability to Soviet first strike weapons followed in order to increase funding for nuclear weapons which Reagan did in the 1980s, but many claim this was unnecessary. Launch on warning resolved the vulnerability issues, however the resulting hair trigger brought up issues of human and mechanical error resulting in a false warning. This resulted in the redundant detection of incomming warheads, and the very short launch cycle, and retargeting of a solid fuel ICBM like the MM3. Thus the US never renounced "first use". Russia never had a clear window of opportunity IMHO.
www.thebulletin.org...
www.thebulletin.org...
I don't think Russia can claim any sort of nuclear superiority.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
And by some accounts, "counterforce", meaning military strikes only, would have more Soviet casualties than Countervalue/

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I am kind of surprised that people are just saying the same thing they were saying on page 1 and 2 after i spent the time to explain the Russian ABM capability. Has any of the last ten responders gone too the trouble of reading page 3 and 4 and if so what was unconvincing about my arguments? The information i provided there was but part of Soviet defensive strategy to win a possible nuclear war ( strategically and with most of critical infrastructure intact) with casaulties likely below 20 or even 10 million and there is far far more information if a effective ( wich it was certainly by the late 80's) ABM system does not mean anything in your book. Soviet killer sats and 400 square miles of underground work space ( in just on facility) goes a long way to making up the rest of what the SU would have needed.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11

Originally posted by Kozzy
Russia would "win" mainly because their country is so much larger.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

And it is a myth that a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would result in destruction of mankind. South America, South Asia, and Africa would be relatively untouched.

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Kozzy]


What would be left? A vast uninhabitated wilderness with occasional radioactive regions where there were cities? Russia would cease to be a military power, much less a major one. No air base would be left, no navy bases, ports, airports, industrial areas, if any medical facilities survived they would be overwhelmed with wounded, and lack of supplies due to cut supply lines. If half the population were killed, that means much of what is left is wounded, irradiated, and dying. Russia as a world power would cease to exist, and barely remain a country at all, if at all. If the US ended up any worse than this then it would be better because there would be less suffering. The cockroach would rule the northern hemisphere, and some intermediate power today would be the new world leader.


This is why "win" is in quotes. Russia would just have more habitable land then the US.

Actually, China or Brazil would win. They would have tons of room for expansion without Russia and the US

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The United States will be destroyed in case of a nuclear war with Russia. Russia has a fair chance of surviving as a national entity considering the vast underground industrial base and civil defense shelters.



Originally posted by StellarX
Has any of the last ten responders gone too the trouble of reading page 3 and 4 and if so what was unconvincing about my arguments? The information i provided there was but part of Soviet defensive strategy to win a possible nuclear war ( strategically and with most of critical infrastructure intact) with casaulties likely below 20 or even 10 million and there is far far more information if a effective ( wich it was certainly by the late 80's) ABM system does not mean anything in your book. Soviet killer sats and 400 square miles of underground work space ( in just on facility) goes a long way to making up the rest of what the SU would have needed.

And?
Let me assert again, as others have:

Inevitable Mutually Assured Destruction

Most of those Russia underground industrial complexes and civil defense shelters are not long term survival solutions, neither being adequate enough to survive the long term effects of a number of devastating nuclear strikes. This was admitted by the Russian's after the Cold War ended. Also, you do not take into account US underground industrial complexes and civil defense shelters, which neither would have been adequate to survive the long term inherent effects of a number of devastating nuclear strikes. Your pointing out such underground complexes and shelters begs the questions: How much notice would be given when and if a nuclear war was impending? Would it be enough time to adequately move population into those underground complexes, etc? And if so, the number of population that would be moved into those underground complexes to survive would be what in relation to total population? How long would they be able to survive in those underground facilities?

The point here, is that though you want to dwell in hypotheticals and base assumptions on who would win a nuclear war, bravado, assumptions, and speculation aside, a near total release of the arsenals of both Russia and the US [at height of Cold War was estimated for both at over 10,000+ warheads] would have technically destroyed both nations, demographically, militarily, economically, near politically, and culturally. Russia has near 145,000,000 million people, 75-80% living in the Western European side of Russia---easily targeted, and the other 20-25% live in the Eastern Asian side---also easily targeted. The US has near 300,000,000 million people, and the same can be calculated and established on the US, which the Russians were and are well aware of. And again, this is not a land mass size ratio contestation. Furthremore, none of this conjecturing and assuming takes into account the inevitable climate change that would take place because of the number of nuclear weapons detonated and released, thus, affecting the earth's atmosphere, nor the other environmental conditions that would be inherent with a total nuclear war between Russia and the US.

Total, unadulterated nuclear war between Russia/Soviet Union and the US would be a no-win scenario, no matter how many people want to spin survivability and a win.
Humankind has nothing on cockroaches. Bet.






seekerof

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I am kind of surprised that people are just saying the same thing they were saying on page 1 and 2 after i spent the time to explain the Russian ABM capability. Has any of the last ten responders gone too the trouble of reading page 3 and 4 and if so what was unconvincing about my arguments? The information i provided there was but part of Soviet defensive strategy to win a possible nuclear war ( strategically and with most of critical infrastructure intact) with casaulties likely below 20 or even 10 million and there is far far more information if a effective ( wich it was certainly by the late 80's) ABM system does not mean anything in your book. Soviet killer sats and 400 square miles of underground work space ( in just on facility) goes a long way to making up the rest of what the SU would have needed.

Stellar


I think there are many propaganda sources with interest in showing Soviet/Russian superiority. From US sources who want new funding from a cash stingy congress, to the Soviets who want to exaggerate their strengths, which they have done in the past to much effect.
Most 'countervalue' exchanges include hundreds of millions on both sides. That is the ultimate 'end of the world' deterrence motivation. Even 'counterforce' exchanges include tens if not hundreds of millions depending on the source. Who do you want to believe?? Many say Soviets come out ahead in an all out exchange, some say US. Probably the one who strikes first without a "launch on warning" by the attacked force, will come out somewhat ahead, but that would require some level of stupidity. If you bet on comming out on top in a nuclear exchange you better hope you and your sources are right. Clearly the US has decided to invest in ABM countermeasures and Penetration Aids on their ballistic missile warheads and diversification of delivery like SLBM, Bomber gravity, SRAM, and Cruise missiles, along with the ICBMs. Add to this the theatre nuclear forces with the US SIOP and you have there is no possible winner IMHO. Russia has invested in a lower technology effort of civil defense, SAM/ABM defense. Neither side would come out on top, and it is impossible to determine a 'winner'.
I will grant that there will be more 'habitable' land in Russia, but it will not be of any significance.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Could people really live underground for a hundred years?
It would not be difficult, Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could easily provide power almost indefinently. Greenhouses could mantain plant life. Animals could be breed and slaughtered."




Etc...

Anyone who didn't get thae joke go watch "Dr. Strangelove" what a good movie.

Also, its absolutely correct, the idea of someone winning a nuclear exchange its nuts.

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair must, but I do say 10 to 20 million killed TOPS, uh, depending on the breaks."



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Seekerof
Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Speculation aside, both sides had enough nuclear weapons to lay waste to the planet Earth a number of times over. As such, neither side would win, nor would the world or humankind.



Actually, this is common myth. If every weapon on the planet were used the death toll would be in the 60 to 80% range.

And Russia would "win" due to her size. We could not cover the entire Russian country, however due to our comparatively smaller size and our weather systems, America would be over. The best place to be in a nuclear exchange? South western Oregon.


I am in love with your avatar. My kind of woman!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join