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.
Originally posted by The_Investor
As for "nuclear fall out" doesn't really exist in above ground tests. More radioactive material was left over after Fat Man and Little Boy because their yields were at best 17% - yet Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thriving.
Airbursts by efficient bombs 95% or greater are not going to leave much residue at all.
Originally posted by The_Investor
I disregard about anything The Bulletin says ever since they proved to me they do not have an expert Russian translator working for them (I had an argument with one of their editors over what a specific Russian General was saying and eventually had to give-up because the editor frankly knew nothing about Russia).
So it's nice you can find information on the internet, but in the future, becareful where it comes from.
Originally posted by Hiphar
Originally posted by The_Investor
I disregard about anything The Bulletin says ever since they proved to me they do not have an expert Russian translator working for them (I had an argument with one of their editors over what a specific Russian General was saying and eventually had to give-up because the editor frankly knew nothing about Russia).
So it's nice you can find information on the internet, but in the future, becareful where it comes from.
Well at least I am linking to some source other than my "word". Please do the same.
Pavel Podvig is Russian, same numbers;
russianforces.org...
And by some credible accounts, the US is entering a period of nuclear superiority;
www.foreignaffairs.org...
Originally posted by Hiphar
I am not sure how you could claim that. Podvig claims Russia has 3400 strategic warheads. The National Review artical claims the US has or will soon have a clear nuclear superiority, with a first strike capability. ?????????????????????????
Originally posted by The_Investor
FredT you attempt to make an argument but in all instances but one ignore everything I said for information that in turn is irrelevant (but potentially makes an ignorant teenager think you're smart).
First I'll agree with you about the range issue as I have seen reported ranges as high as 12,000 KM but the US is not keen on reporting actual ranges, suffice to say that operationally an Ohio Class is not going to be within its area of patrol (then again the NAVY is difficult on defining patrol as well) until around 1,000 KM of Russia.
The accuracy is within about 250 meters which puts it well outside the limits of performing what is referred to as a 2-on-1 cross targeting.
This is consuming resources (that means the complete success of one submarine can only strike a limited number of hardened facilities, and that is about 90. Russia has 93 known hardened facilities and has a mobile launch force anyway).
The 2-on-1 cross targeting only works on the premise that the D-5 can have an accuracy of 150 meters, without that it may need as many as 10 and none of them may destroy any facility because now the cratering effect is not within range of the facility when the missile misses by more than 150 meters.
This system is a remotely linked or "soft-lined" communication system to the in-transit missile and can be scrambled easily if not completely hacked and thus the wrong information is given (making your D-5 believe Berlin is Moscow).
Russian cyber warfare will be up to par to deal with this and hence the counter cyber terrorism units etc...that the US are working on.
This puts ICBMs at the advantage particularly for the Russian ICBMs because they are mobile and thus more survivable, because these ICBMs have a better accuracy (150 meters or less) upon launch. They require no inflight corrections. This command and communication system is governed by hard-line comms and prevents error or corruption.
As for "nuclear fall out" doesn't really exist in above ground tests. More radioactive material was left over after Fat Man and Little Boy because their yields were at best 17% - yet Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thriving.[/uote]
This really made me laugh, you are comparing 2 small warheads to the use of thousands. And yes places do become highly radioactive when hit with nuclear weapons. DO some reading.
Airbursts by efficient bombs 95% or greater are not going to leave much residue at all.
Erm right, complete bollocks. Air-burst suck up vast amounts of debris and irradiate it causing radiation to be spread far and wide. Ever heard of fallout ? Obviously not.
Originally posted by The_Investor
I find the argument that Russian bombs are "lower quality" or even "out of date" to be wholly unsubstantiated.
Russia still actively repairs and rennovates their warheads - the US is only about to in after 20 years of no activity.
WW2 saw more fire power dropped on cities than all the Nuclear Bombs in the world could ever produce. The difference is two-fold. The myth that Nuclear Bombs are "Super powerful" (as an individual bomb they are but when modern nations drop millions of bombs Nuclear weapons are still pale in comparison) and the myth that Nuclear bombs generate substantial fall-out.
Irradiation requires close proximity - thus air-bursts do not generate fall-out because it does not irradiate ground material then kick it straight into the air as with ground-bursts.
Hundreds of above ground tests of far larger bombs than what will be used in actual nuclear war has not changed the state of reality of humans on the Earth, it has had a barely measurable effect on the environment, and this is all from ground bursts.
A nuclear exchange is not going to occur often.
Nuclear war would doubtfully kill a country the size of Germany - let alone the whole world.
Originally posted by The_Investor
I disregard about anything The Bulletin says ever since they proved to me they do not have an expert Russian translator working for them (I had an argument with one of their editors over what a specific Russian General was saying and eventually had to give-up because the editor frankly knew nothing about Russia).
So it's nice you can find information on the internet, but in the future, becareful where it comes from.
Originally posted by The_Investor
Harlequin the radiation released from the melt down at Chernobyl was MUCH greater than that released in a bomb.
Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm you are incorrect about a few things.
The US's SLBM the Trident D-5 has counterforce ability. that is the ability to target the other sides Silo based missiles. Its CEP is less than 120 meters. yes they still can be used for "city busting" but are as accurate as thier land based firends. Given the superior state of the US SSBN's thier ability to be targeted is remote.
Using nuclear tipped ABM's would be a foolhardy proposition at best. You (depending on where they aere intercepted) EMP your own territory, and the effects may be as bad as the incomming missiles landing at any rate. Less upfront destruction but the fallout would be ugly.
You do not win a all out exchange you deal with the aftermath and thats about it.
The Russians may have more warheads, but how many are deliverable?
And at the numbers you posted, we are taking about bouncing the rubble even half tahn number is enuf to wipe out both countries.
Originally posted by Iblis
One. This issue is all-ready being argued in several current threads.
Two. Russia's nuclear arsenal is largely inflated, as it does not identify how many of its components have the capability to perform as intended: Most-any member here can describe to you why the numbers will have been very exaggerated
Further, its actual nuclear forces are in [declining] disarray
-- So even if they had such a preposterous number, it would take quite a large amount of time to utilize such an arsenal.
Further, please research why we no longer perform high-altitude nuclear tests.
I believe fusing several thousand miles of telephone line, and more serious consequences was bad enough, for both respective countries.
Nuclear ABM's are blind-fold safety mechanisms; ie. it creates a [false] sense of security in the populace.
They only work to increase the survivability of state-figures, who presumably would all-ready be sheltered.