It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   


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.


It's not just the Soviets who have been exaggerating their strengths. Obviously during the cold war it was in each sides own interest to promote their standards of living, culture, millitary, etc. You can't generalise and say that one side 'faked' out the other side more. I recommend you go watch Red Dawn.
Of course it only seems normal that it would please people to think that their country is the best and is superior in each and every way. Instead of contemplating about who would win in an all out nuclear exchange, I think it's great that Russia keeps the U.S. in check as it mantains an equal balance of power and provides stability.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Liquidus]




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liquidus
I recommend you go watch Red Dawn.


LOL, if you think Red Dawn is based on any type of reality, I suggest you do some more reading



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Liquidus
I recommend you go watch Red Dawn.


LOL, if you think Red Dawn is based on any type of reality, I suggest you do some more reading


It was meant as a joke.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I think that the idea that either the US or Russia could actually "win" a nuclear exchange is nearly obscene.

If I am not mistakened the US strategy is no longer to bomb cities but military targets. I am not clear on Russia's stance, but if they are less discriminating on whether they bomb cities or military targets it would probably leave the US is absolute chaos and leave them with some form of organized society.

I really don't see the US and Russia going at it head on, there is no longer a big ideological difference as they have embraced capitalism, limited democracy and are no longer actively pursuing the spread of a counter-western ideology.

However, due to the fact that Russia is now an economic and thus technological competitor, I do see a war by proxy being a possibility, if for no other reason to show potential customers of Russian arms how effective they are are against the "great satan".

I am more fearful of having a nuclear showdown with states who have an ideological difference with the US - such as Iran, North Korea, Syria... and of course China.

Here's a question for you guys - if the issue of Taiwan was non-existent, would the US and China still be on an adversarial stance with one another?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Here's a question for you guys - if the issue of Taiwan was non-existent, would the US and China still be on an adversarial stance with one another?


The issue is one of who will use weapons first - china has over 1000 short range missiles aimed at taiwan - they can be re aimed very quickly -

china has allready stated that any chinese aircraft/ship/tank soldier that gets killed by the usa will enable a nuclear response


that is some kinda of stopper for the usa - we shoot up there coast with cruise missles , they nuke us back.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Now there is one exchange that would be highly lopsided and have a definite winner. A nuclear exchange between China and the USA will set the US back 50 years and set China back 500. No one ever wins, but for the record, China would not pull such a stunt if they realize what happens next.

Russia still has a very large ICBM force, and have the tactical training to use it porperly. They have also evolved their understand of missile exchange since the end of the cold war, and thus would probably be on par with the US in tersm of ICBM exchange, in terms of technology and numbers. however, they would be lacking in nearly all other arms of combat.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
Now there is one exchange that would be highly lopsided and have a definite winner. A nuclear exchange between China and the USA will set the US back 50 years and set China back 500. No one ever wins, but for the record, China would not pull such a stunt if they realize what happens next.


i disagree - china have MAD capability to CONUS - even 50 warheads is enough



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Intelligirl,

The Chinese have not relinquished communism, so I would say there is a definate ideological chasm.
Russia has not totally embraced capitalism. Organized crime and the remains of the KGB power structure have grasped the economic capital of Russia. The "Cold War" is not necessaily over.
www.afio.com...
The biggest question is if Russia has ever, including the Soviet era, ever subscribed to the ABM treaty. William T. Lee has shown otherwise:
www.fas.org...
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...
www.jinsa.org...
I personally don't think the 'cold war' ever ended, and the major players are still playing, regardless of what CNN tells you.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Sandman11]

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Karl Toussaint
true but nukes have fail safes we haves mislle defense systems and so do they. if contact is made between the two they will explode harmlesely. who will be able to actually hit the other if need arises.


Hmm, the missile system is limited in scope and can only really protect aginst 1 or two missiles launched from say North Korea. Yes they will kill the incoming missile using lasers, explosives or a direct hit (also called a kinetic kill) but you would have alot of weapons grade plutonium spread around in the process.

Russia does not have an active ABM program going right now.


Russia does not have an active ABM development program because they did that in the 1980's. Under the non-proliferation agreement regarding ABM the USA and Russia were not allowed to continue development or production except to maintain their present stockpiles. They were also only allowed to protect less then 5% of their territory. Reagan's star wars program turned out to be an elaborate rouse designed to pressure the Soviets into spending large sums of money. The USSR's ABM program was actually ready for service and had entered production. They currently have enough missiles around Moscow to shoot down 50+ warheads. However the readiness of these systems and their accuracy isn't well known. They also have a number of systems capable of firing at warheads but not as effectively as the Moscow system.

The US ABM system is currently in development and has only 'hit' targets when the targets were equipped with tracking devices and the missiles were instructed to home in on those devices. Even then they achieved less then 20% accuracy. Being in development the system is not ready to deploy.

All that said and done neither country could win in a nuclear shoot out. No real advantage exists due to the huge amounts of ICBM's and Nuclear Sub's in both nations arsenals. No matter the strategic or political advantage at the time both, if not all nations in the world, would lose from any sort of nuclear war.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
The US ABM system is currently in development and has only 'hit' targets when the targets were equipped with tracking devices and the missiles were instructed to home in on those devices. Even then they achieved less then 20% accuracy. Being in development the system is not ready to deploy.


The US based ABM system based on the Standard SM-3 missile has proven to be far more accurate than the land based system at the moment. In I thiunk 7 tests the SM-3 has been successful 6 times.
Also they are developing the SM-3 LEAP warhead for even greater range.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Just goes to show its best to keep up to date on these things. My knowledge on the development of the system was from when I was still studying it over 2 years ago.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RaideurA nuclear exchange between China and the USA will set the US back 50 years and set China back 500.


From what I've read the figures would be more like:

USA; a few irradiated surivors (maybe 15% pop max) clinging to hope of evacuation

China; a huge number of irradiated survivors in neighbouring countries hoping that the cloud created by the obliteration of every corner of China doesn't head their way. If that wasn't obvious enough I meant no Chinese survivors and very severe problems as far away as Sri Lanka thanks to the spread of radiation.

According to most studies into Cold War doctines and ideologies regarding to the Nuclear arms race, when any nation attempted to acquire a first strike capability against another the premise was that they could save upwards of 80% of their population by elimating enough of the enemies response. A modern example of a first strike capability is the USA > North Korea situation. North Korea has perhaps a small handful of warheads if they're lucky. The best launching systems available to them could hypothetically allow them to hit US interests in a nearby country like Japan. Meanwhile the USA could flatten their country without fear of losing much more then 1% of their population. Of course I think these doctrines were the insane dribble of crazy men who thought that killing 100+ million civilians in another country was an ok price to pay to win a war and I'm glad cooler heads have prevailed.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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]


Well thanks for the very specifc points in your response. I would start as i normally do ( just break it down and respond to each statement) but i think it's probably best if we sort out your stance on the Russian ABM capability in say the early 80's since i specifically asked about that. After that we can proceed to civil defense network preparations in the USSR and down the rest of my list.


Stellar



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Seekerof
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]


Well thanks for the very specifc points in your response. I would start as i normally do ( just break it down and respond to each statement) but i think it's probably best if we sort out your stance on the Russian ABM capability in say the early 80's since i specifically asked about that. After that we can proceed to civil defense network preparations in the USSR and down the rest of my list.


Stellar


Yes the USSR had some ABM systems and civil defense programs the US didn't in the 1980s, however it wouldn't matter. Those programs would have been persued by the US if they were truely effective and relevent within the framework of the ABM treaty and the bipolar superpower dominated world at the time. In fact, the US did have all the air defenses, civil defense, and ABM system development and more, but cut them from the budget and shut them down effectively. If they were relevent and mattered in such a potential conflict, then we should be asking why they were cut, but I doubt they really were relevent. No potential winner, otherwise the US would have matched, at least, the expendature of the USSR on these programs. So I would say the more relevent questions would be why did the US cut those programs (ABM, Air defense, civil defense) and did the USSR/Russians cheat on the ABM treaty? (as they did on the Bio-weapons treaty, and probably most others)??



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
Yes the USSR had some ABM systems and civil defense programs the US didn't in the 1980s, however it wouldn't matter.


What does " some" ABM and civil defense programs mean? Is there any reason your not being more specific?


Those programs would have been persued by the US if they were truely effective and relevent within the framework of the ABM treaty and the bipolar superpower dominated world at the time.


Oh so because the US could not, or for some reason chose not to, build a ABM system it could not and was not done in the SU? I am sorry but that is circular reasoning . The SU have ben in breach of all weapon reduction and ABM treaties for decades as is well understood in the US intelligence comunity.


In fact, the US did have all the air defenses, civil defense, and ABM system development and more


Yes there were programs to develope ABM and air defense systems but the civil defense programs were never very serious or aimed at saving the lives of civlians in general.


, but cut them from the budget and shut them down effectively. If they were relevent and mattered in such a potential conflict,


Your assuming far too many things including the fact that politicians never got involved in military spending and research. The fact that these programs were not inplemented just does not mean that they could and would not have been relevent if implemented.


then we should be asking why they were cut, but I doubt they really were relevent.


Well you should imo be asking that and not assuming based on assumptions.


No potential winner, otherwise the US would have matched, at least, the expendature of the USSR on these programs.


This is another instance of circular reasoning. Because the US chose to invest money in other programs ABM and Civil defense programs were not relevent or possibly effective? Why not stick to what we know and stop assuming the Russians are always the idiots who would spend so much money and resources on ineffective systems? Is'nt the odds rather large in favour of both countries making choices based on their unique strategic plans instead of one or both just making plain stupid efficient decisions?


So I would say the more relevent questions would be why did the US cut those programs (ABM, Air defense, civil defense) and did the USSR/Russians cheat on the ABM treaty? (as they did on the Bio-weapons treaty, and probably most others)??


Now your talking! My opinion is that the US chose to invest the money in operation and mobile forces that could police their "interest" (wich is a topic in itself) all over the world while the USSR chose to invest in trying to disperse and protect their industrial complex ( including the workers) in such a way that they might survive a nuclear exchange and then dictate world affairs after. America never suffered the consequences of a war on own soil such as the USSR did in the second world war and did not have the experience of losing infrastructure and trained workers at the rate the USSR had to learn to cope with. I think this influenced thinking to the extent that they would spend as much as they did to protect their infrastructure even if a nuclear war should take place.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

i disagree - china have MAD capability to CONUS - even 50 warheads is enough


I don't think 50 nuclear warheads is enough to MAD the united states. Even if all the Chinese warheads were 15 megatons it would be equal to about 350,000 (which you could survive in if you had shelter)square miles of fallout local fallout contamination, which is only 10% of US land. Much of this land could be cleaned up within 6 months. Of course the Chinese warheads would actually be far less then 15 megatons and the total fallout area would be far less.

Not saying it wouldnt kill a #load of people or be a major diasater, but it wouldn't be anything near MAD.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Kozzy]

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin


The issue is one of who will use weapons first - china has over 1000 short range missiles aimed at taiwan - they can be re aimed very quickly -

china has allready stated that any chinese aircraft/ship/tank soldier that gets killed by the usa will enable a nuclear response


that is some kinda of stopper for the usa - we shoot up there coast with cruise missles , they nuke us back.

I think thats totally incorrect. Except for that crazy general dude, china has never positioned itself in a overtly premptive way in terms of nuclear weapons use. Infact out of all the nuclear weapons states, only China and India have a "no first use policy". People might say :
"oh its only a polictical statement;they're not going to stick by it" etc etc..
but the fact is that it is a statement mdae at the international level which shows that these countries recognise the repurcussions of pre-emptive nuke strikes.
Also its shows that they are confident that any pre-emptive action thaty they may need to take in the future can be completely ful filled by conventioanl means.
I fail to understand, why the Us doesn't employ the same policy, especially since its conventional capability is so potent and far reaching.

Bottomline:Countries with a sound conventional capability do not need to conduct pre-emptive N-strikes.

Infact the way it stands, I feel, that US should have a NFU policy and China should think twice before employing the same because they are conventionally inferior, to the US.
In India's case, I suppose our policy makers feel that the greatest threat that we could currently face(China), can be dealt with in conventional terms; if at all there was any need for pre emptive action against them(china).

Wouldn't it be a safer world if all N-weapon states, employed 'no-first use' and gave that policy serious commitment?

Better yet: NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!! NO NUKES!!


[edit on 30-12-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Sandman11
Yes the USSR had some ABM systems and civil defense programs the US didn't in the 1980s, however it wouldn't matter.


What does " some" ABM and civil defense programs mean? Is there any reason your not being more specific?


Those programs would have been persued by the US if they were truely effective and relevent within the framework of the ABM treaty and the bipolar superpower dominated world at the time.


Oh so because the US could not, or for some reason chose not to, build a ABM system it could not and was not done in the SU? I am sorry but that is circular reasoning . The SU have ben in breach of all weapon reduction and ABM treaties for decades as is well understood in the US intelligence comunity.


In fact, the US did have all the air defenses, civil defense, and ABM system development and more


Yes there were programs to develope ABM and air defense systems but the civil defense programs were never very serious or aimed at saving the lives of civlians in general.


, but cut them from the budget and shut them down effectively. If they were relevent and mattered in such a potential conflict,


Your assuming far too many things including the fact that politicians never got involved in military spending and research. The fact that these programs were not inplemented just does not mean that they could and would not have been relevent if implemented.


then we should be asking why they were cut, but I doubt they really were relevent.


Well you should imo be asking that and not assuming based on assumptions.


No potential winner, otherwise the US would have matched, at least, the expendature of the USSR on these programs.


This is another instance of circular reasoning. Because the US chose to invest money in other programs ABM and Civil defense programs were not relevent or possibly effective? Why not stick to what we know and stop assuming the Russians are always the idiots who would spend so much money and resources on ineffective systems? Is'nt the odds rather large in favour of both countries making choices based on their unique strategic plans instead of one or both just making plain stupid efficient decisions?


So I would say the more relevent questions would be why did the US cut those programs (ABM, Air defense, civil defense) and did the USSR/Russians cheat on the ABM treaty? (as they did on the Bio-weapons treaty, and probably most others)??


Now your talking! My opinion is that the US chose to invest the money in operation and mobile forces that could police their "interest" (wich is a topic in itself) all over the world while the USSR chose to invest in trying to disperse and protect their industrial complex ( including the workers) in such a way that they might survive a nuclear exchange and then dictate world affairs after. America never suffered the consequences of a war on own soil such as the USSR did in the second world war and did not have the experience of losing infrastructure and trained workers at the rate the USSR had to learn to cope with. I think this influenced thinking to the extent that they would spend as much as they did to protect their infrastructure even if a nuclear war should take place.

Stellar


Well we may have to agree to disagree on some points here... The US had 10,000 SAMS in sites around it's cities from 1950s to around 1974, Nike Herculese which, like the SA-5, had a nuclear capability on most of them, and this specific missile had been tested successfully on ballistic targets.
ed-thelen.org...
The follow on missile, Nike Zeus, was the ABM system the SU copied by many accounts, and put around moscow.
www.paineless.id.au...
The US in the 1960s, 1970s, and on were at cutting edge technology and every bit as good if not better at ABM engineering. The US just didn't see the cost of keeping it's "Safeguard" base operational, or to cheat on the ABM treaty...
www.paineless.id.au...
There was also a significant Civil Defense program in the 1950s and 1960s, (I am old enough to remember the nuke drills in grade school) but like the SAM system, it atrophied. The theory was that to try to defend against a massive nuclear attack would be significantly harder than to spend valuable reasources on the ability to attack, and on a cost benefit analysis, it would be cheaper and easier to "deter" an attack than to try to defend against one. For example it is cheaper and easier to just send a few more missiles against a defended target assuring it's destruction and using that overkill to deter an attack than to attempt to actually defend against an attack, which is the course of action the SU stuck with. No matter what kind of defensive missile system you think Russia had (and they did cheat on the ABM treaty), it would not be able to stop a coordinated attack. During the peak of the cold war, the US had around 12,000 strategic warheads, to 10,000 for the SU, and about 400 were going to Moscow alone. Do you actually think Moscow would survive not being hit many if not hundreds of times because of an unproven, and many accounts a not very successful ABM system and "dual use" SAM system? I think not. Nuclear war the SU would not have survived, Russia will not survive, and it is nieve and dangerous to adhere to the notion that it could. Most accounts give a "counter value" against Russia in the hundreds of millions, and only the most extreme cases think otherwise.
www.nrdc.org...
One thing not really talked about are the countermeasures that can effectively be use agaist ABMs, just as the Russians are soo proud of their new Topol missile, with a maneuvering capability, this is not much different than MARVs, which also maneuver, only not in the higher athmosphere using hypersonic propulson, or other countermeasures like decoys and jamming, along with MIRVS which compound the ballistic defense to impossibility. Directed energy weapons may change this some day, but not in what we are talking of here, and Directed energy weapons are something the US is quite advanced in, although I am sure you are now going to tell me Russia is ahead in that as well...

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
kozzy - the flip side is , that strikes to nuclear power stations (which will be tartgeted) will leave far more radiation than those numbers suggest.



Russian and American ABM systems:

There seems to be ALOT of false information;


srmsc.org...

have a read - its the only operational (and then for only a few months) US ABM complex.

The russian ABM system (in use an very operational)

SH-11 ABM-4 Gorgon exo atmosphere missile with 1MT warhead (enhanced radiation ) - number deployed is 36 based around moscow

SH-08 ABM-3 Gazelle endo atmosphere missile with 10kt warhead - similar to Sprint missile used at safeguard - number deployed 64

russianforces.org...

theres photo`s on there of the launch sites!

The last launch was in 2004 - it was the short range missile , whilst the long range one was tested in 2002.


It is VERY operational and is still the worlds only system in service for defending against incoming warheads.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Perhaps, but it would only be downwind of the plants.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join