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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
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.



Ok, so if you read my post above then how is 100 ABM misslie system around Moscow going to stop 400 inbound warheads?




posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Could anyone win a nuclear war? No. A nuclear war would not just effect one or two nations but the world altogther. Especially if we were talking about expelling a massive number of weapons during this war. It wouldn't be one missile each but hundreds each or more. That is massive damage on a worldwide scale.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Well Russia could certainly win a Nuclear exchange with Pakistan or Israel and the USA could certainly win a Nuclear exchange with North Korea or India. But Russia better hope that Pakistan aim their nukes at Moscow and the USA better hope that the Indians can't scramble Su-30's with nukes on them in 15 minutes
a fact I'm sure they checked out in recenty air force exercises.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
"Pre-emptive" strikes go a long way in avoiding domestic collateral dammage. Any country going up against the US or Russia in an all out nuke battle would hurt a lot more in the end. I think that is what the ABM systems are today largely about.
The Discussion was primarily involving the two largest nuclear powers.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I think that in am all out nuclear that the United States would clearly be the winners. We have our ABL (747 with laser cannon), missle defense, and even the new bombs that create an electromagnetic pulse. We would shoot down the missles that were launched, use our global strike capability to disrupt the infrastructure of the country (using Falcon), and possibly send them back to the stone age. My only fear is that the law of numbers say that some missles of theirs would get through.
The bottom line is that the United States is ready, and we would be in a lot better shape than the Russians would be. I do hope that nuclear war never happens


www.boeing.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
There would be no winners which would have someplace to live. The whole world would be destroyed. One lauches a nuke, the other retaliates, other #ries side up and fire theirs...There is NO winner.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by agwardlds
I think that in am all out nuclear that the United States would clearly be the winners. We have our ABL (747 with laser cannon), missle defense, and even the new bombs that create an electromagnetic pulse. We would shoot down the missles that were launched, use our global strike capability to disrupt the infrastructure of the country (using Falcon), and possibly send them back to the stone age. My only fear is that the law of numbers say that some missles of theirs would get through.
The bottom line is that the United States is ready, and we would be in a lot better shape than the Russians would be. I do hope that nuclear war never happens


www.boeing.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


EMP effects have been part of generally accepted strategy for any nuclear strategy. I think it was expected that a high yield weapon would have been used over the central US to EMP effects from the early 1960s on, and played on the selling of the ABM treaty since it could be used against an ABM system. (and I am sure it would be used against the Moscow ABM system as well, along with multiple, and maneuvering, and "depressed tragectory" high speed SLBM warheads, and low level stealth warheads along with Stealth and decoys and electronic warfare as well...)
Face it, Russia is FRIED! (and unfortunately, so are we...)
The thing that bothers me is that the USSR and indirectly, Russia, lied and cheated on the ABM treaty, the SALT, START, and most obviously, the BIO Weapons 1974 treaty.
Can Russians be trusted???







[edit on 31-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I remember reading something about the new Russian missile being able to overcome EMP's. anyone else heard of this?



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Nuclear fallout would certainly be of upmost concern, as would the submarine launched missles that would be located at various spots around the globe. The missles being launched from Russia's silos would simply be shot down by the ABL in the boost phase of their launch (assuming the ABL was on station). Thereafter, the Falcon would already have left an air force base in the conus in route over the poles.
The Falcon, capable of Mach 10-17, would simply skip in and out of the atmosphere on a path into Russia. Approximately one hour later(assuming 8,000pmh or so mph), Falcon would launch several merv's(multiple independent reentry vehicles) into Russia. As quickly as it bombed, more Falcon aircraft could be headed across the poles to drop moab's, emp bombs, etc. Trust me, this isn't Science Fiction....if the USAF says they have global strike capability, they aren't lying. They are just exagerating the year



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snake64_009
I remember reading something about the new Russian missile being able to overcome EMP's. anyone else heard of this?


Missiles and individual electronic components can be "hardened" agaisnt EMP, however the majority of electronic components from your CVR, or DVD player, to the multiple computers required to run your car, would all be fried, along with most other electronic components with a microchip. Even the 'hardened' components are blinded by the EMP effects for a matter of many minutes or even hours. Against any electronics and radar it causes chaos at least in the short term if not long term. Even ABM systems use hydrogen "neutron" warheads, not to blow the target away, (not in a vaccume) but to fry the electronics in the targeting, detonation, and proximity systems in the incomming warhead. EMP is a very importent component of any nuclear attack, and ususally involves a high altitude, ballistic delivery to expose the greatest territory and thus systems to it's EMP, I think over 100,000 feet altitude. But yes, most incomming warheads are hardened against EMP to prevent "fratracide", and ABM effects. This is also assumed. (and implied by most weapons descriptions)

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Sandman11]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Yeah i know they can fry electronics...Just I thought I read it up somewhere. It was only a claim made by thr Russians regarding their new missile.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I don't doubt that emp bombs would not affect the warheads,but they would disrupt the circuitry used in radars, command centers, etc. The pulse would also help to disrupt communications with other installations.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
fficial%26sa%3DN' style='width: 100%;'>


America's new toy!!



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
[edit on 31-12-2005 by agwardlds]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by agwardlds
I think that in am all out nuclear that the United States would clearly be the winners. We have our ABL (747 with laser cannon), missle defense, and even the new bombs that create an electromagnetic pulse. We would shoot down the missles that were launched, use our global strike capability to disrupt the infrastructure of the country (using Falcon), and possibly send them back to the stone age. My only fear is that the law of numbers say that some missles of theirs would get through.
The bottom line is that the United States is ready, and we would be in a lot better shape than the Russians would be. I do hope that nuclear war never happens


www.boeing.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


Too bad the US's current missile defense system would only shoot down a fraction of the warheads in their current state.

You think the Russians wouldn't use their own EMP. A possible scenario is the Russians detonating a nuclear device in space over the US, knocking out the entire countries electonics. This doesn't matter though, silos and ICBMs are hardened gainst it.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I would not be suprised if we don't have some laser satelites to assist us. I mean, we did shoot down a drone at White Sands in 1972 with a laser. By now i'm sure we have come up with something better. The bottom line is this:

1. Some missles are bound to get through
2. We will get a great deal of them
3. The Russians will be worse off than us
4. We will use our global strike capability to wreak havoc



You think the Russians wouldn't use their own EMP. A possible scenario is the Russians detonating a nuclear device in space over the US, knocking out the entire countries electonics. This doesn't matter though, silos and ICBMs are hardened gainst it.


[edit on 31-12-2005 by agwardlds]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The projections said something like 90 million Russians die and 160 million Americans would die from the war alone, not including disease and famine. The average REM does would be 150 in the SU and 1200 REM in the US. The huge size of the SU is mainly responsible for this.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I don't like those statistics. Do the math, Lets say the Russia and USA launch their few ABM's and gets a hits with every single missile. Big deal. Thats 100 or less Warheads down over Moscow and 3-4 over USA. That leaves over 15,000 warheads in the USA and 20,000 in Russia. Sure that might not cover the entire landmass of Russia but the radiation would get the survivors. If each nuke had an average radius of 20km of pure destruction that would make for 4 million square km of total destruction in Russia before radiation and 'medium level' destruction was counted. Of course I don't know enough about the true destructive power of nuclear warheads but I doubt any country could hope to have more then a small handful of survivors after 20% of its landmass (starting with big cities and working down to villages) was destroyed. As for the USA, that number would increase to 6 million square km which is the 90% of the mainland, totally and utterly destroyed not including Alaska.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I find it a bit unnerving reading these posts about who would "win" a nuclear war when basically there would be no winners only those who are lucky or unlucky in some eyes to survive.
Its when people start thinking that a nuclear conflict could be winnable that rational thinking goes out the window in terms of countries leadership.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
I don't like those statistics. Do the math, Lets say the Russia and USA launch their few ABM's and gets a hits with every single missile. Big deal. Thats 100 or less Warheads down over Moscow and 3-4 over USA. That leaves over 15,000 warheads in the USA and 20,000 in Russia.


Your warhead figures are completly wrong.

As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads

We estimate that as of early 2005, Russia has approximately 7,200 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,800 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 400 from 2004 due to the withdrawal of approximately 60 ballistic missiles from operational service

www.thebulletin.org...



h nuke had an average radius of 20km of pure destruction that would make for 4 million square km of total destruction in Russia before radiation and 'medium level' destruction was counted.


A nuke with that blast radius would be in the Megatonnes, almost all modern strategic warheads have a size in the several hundred magetonnes. I think you need to redo your calculations with the right information.
Non strategic weapons have even smaller yields.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join