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 Zukov
why cant i do that i posted something about the topic before
Originally posted by Flinx
Hello? Nukes? No one wins.
Originally posted by KrazyIvan
Originally posted by Flinx
Hello? Nukes? No one wins.
why do people always bring up nukes when they discuss a conflict between the super powers? honestly!
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Let's face the truth: It's not 1986 any more.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet-era military was an unheard of force of incredible strength and might.
It's 2004. Russia has almost nothing, it's like a private military now.
Originally posted by AD5673
Yuore wrong. Russias navy is pretty strong.
Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground
Originally posted by RedOctober90
Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground
I doubt that the Russian nukes would fail like that as you say. I am sure they keep them well maintained since they are the most powerful defense/offense force they have against an invasion.
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by RedOctober90]
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Originally posted by RedOctober90
Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground
I doubt that the Russian nukes would fail like that as you say. I am sure they keep them well maintained since they are the most powerful defense/offense force they have against an invasion.
[Edited on 4-5-2004 by RedOctober90]
Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Russian nuclear arsenal is in a sad state. In their last wargames exercise (a few months ago if i remember right) two missles were fired from submarines...... BOTH failed. It took two weeks after this to actually get one to hit it's target. Thats 1 outa 3 - not exactly what you want from you're nukes. Also, in nuclear war you dont have 2 weeks to set up one launch. The US has the advantage in nukes - we have more reliable, and more accurate nukes. We also have the best delivery systems, such as our B-2 bomber.
Chalk this advantage up to the Yanks....