It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Please show us how it's changed, as far as I'm concerned scince 77 Russia has the MAJOR advantage over U.S.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This report is a good one, I've known of it for a while.
However, note that this is based on the best availiable data up to ten years ago. The U.S. has introduced some many new concepts and changed their nuclear war plans significantly. the SIOP essentially does not exist anymore, what took its place is a CONPLAN that is said to be quite different from the Cold War protocals.
Russian's CEP of nuke warheads are 250 meters "750+ feet" thier warheads are an average of 550kt-25 Megatone so even if they were 100-300kt (like the U.S.) they would still destroy thier targets.
Originally posted by Harlequin
With the reduction of US missile bases eg in the 80`s the Whiteman base was targetted by 100+ warheads - today its not a missile base anymore and the missiles are gone , so those 100 are retargeted elsewhere , and russian weapons arn`t quite as accurate as the US ones , so they make up for it by using a bigger yield.
The bottom line is that approximately one-third of Russia's citizenry become casualties from an attack with only 150 - 200 warheads. (Page 130).
Recommendation #1: Unilaterally reduce US nuclear forces, and challenge Russia to do the same. The United States will still have more than adequate nuclear deterrent. Under their worst case planning assumptions, our friends in Russia would know that our weapons hold millions of people at risk. (Page 131)
It is highly likely that going forward with a missile defense system will have widespread ramifications, including the obvious response of causing certain nations to build more offensive weapons to overwhelm the defense. (Page 132)
Originally posted by Buck Division
After researching this in more detail, one of the issues I have about the NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) is that they appear to be anti-nuclear, across the board.
Although the credentials of the paper's authors look great, I wonder if the NRDC isn't slanting things a bit to support their positions that nuclear power of any type is too dangerous to implement.
I would look upon the NRDC more favorably if I could trust their intentions better. Are they against nuclear war? (That's pretty good.) Are they against all nuclear power? (I would argue that.)
It would be very easy for them to misrepresent the facts within this very densely written nuclear warefare simulation. I looked at there equations at length in the appendices. They are very difficult. Who knows how correct they are?
Similarly, who knows if nuclear power generation is as dangerous as the NRDC claim?
Is this group to be trusted? Or do they have some secret agenda that we don't know about, and probably wouldn't agree with?
Edit: To get their name exactly right.
Originally posted by Harlequin
something i think most people don`t realise is that the US is now in ths situation of having to target 2 or 3 warheads at a single hardened silo to destroy it
the CEP of the best warhead is 90meters - the kill radius of an SS19 silo in rock is 50 meters - the russians have been in the same situation for many years so have over compensated with larger warheads ,
but the us super hard silos are vulnrable.
whats also funny is that russia have been reducing there weapons for years now - they have less than 400 long range icbm`s of all classes left - whilst the USA have hardly reduced any.
Originally posted by alienstar
StellarX i'm pretty impressed with your knowledge of all this.