US verses RUSSIA: who engages, has more nukes, wins?

According to WIKI, RUSSIA has 8500 declared nukes while USA only has 7700.

Interestingly enough, adding US allies (France, Israel, etc), adds up to 8500 just like Russia. Weird.

Anyway, since USA preemtively attacks all countries in at least the past decade and change, is the case any different with Russia?

We've seen former presidents meet with Hussain, Massoud, Gadafi in peace talks only to have them viciously murdered even along with their grandchildren, by US.

Eventually, US will be dropping nukes on other countries, like it did on Japan's Hiroshima & Nagasaki. And/or increase the amount of Uranium in its staple bombs, to depop & poison whole continents.

I dont know what strong alies Russia has, but according to Wiki that's alot of nukes on its own, if they can all be pointed at US at once and fired. Or whatever their strategy, maybe they have drones too.

Who would "win"? Nobody??

I think this sums it up rather nicely.



No one wins.

Originally posted by KamaSutra


Who would "win"? Nobody??

1 feels it Creates an ASCENSION process. And so THEN everyone is in ENERGY form... what that means for those there being guided is LOVE because it was not their fault nor the fault of the Flora/Fauna in the middle sending out the same FREQUENCY SOS MASS SOS. Don't know 1 has many the loves here so guess if they have to face chemical burns then 1 shall with them but... The nonbelievers 1 feels will better believe. ALL that $$$ and homeless walk on EACH landmass.
NAMASTE*******

No brainer
we all lose

Cody

You can't be seriously asking this?

If either Russia or US or even most of their allies fired their nukes, there would be no atmosphere left and everyone would be dead world wide..not just in the countries where the nukes detonated.

I read that Russia's underground bunkers are open to the public. If that's true I'm pretty sure that you have to be really "important" or rich to have a place in one of the US... So my vote is with Russia on this one, because they will comeback with a vengeance.

Originally posted by KamaSutra

Anyway, since USA preemtively attacks all countries in at least the past decade and change, is the case any different with Russia?

The US only overtly attacks nations that cannot seriously fight back, just like any good bully would do, so no, the US would not attack Russia, overtly, because Russia would hit the US just as hard as the US hit them.

reply to post by KamaSutra

Who would "win"? Nobody??

Well, nobody would win in an all out nuclear exchange, that's for sure.

But, there are other factors to consider when comparing...

There is: age and technology of the missiles, launch method of the missiles (more likely your sub missiles will fly, for example), degree of countermeasures, the concentration of population (Russia is largely unpopulated, so there are less areas getting more inbounds)...so many factors.

When taking all into account, I believe the US would have a much higher kill and destruction result...but as any survivors would then rule a desolate wasteland....it'd all be for what?

Joshua (WarGames) said it best...."A strange game....the only winning move...is not to play."
I think that movie single-handedly illustrated the futility of nuclear war for the entire world....

I read that Russia's underground bunkers are open to the public. If that's true I'm pretty sure that you have to be really "important" or rich to have a place in one of the US... So my vote is with Russia on this one, because they will comeback with a vengeance.

And do what? Try to grow food in irradiated soil under a sun-blocked sky? I'm a prepper at heart, but the one SHTF scenario I would NOT want to survive, is an all out nuclear war. I'd rather go out close to a primary target...thanks.

True. Quality>quantity .....however I think US has a few hundred more currently active nukes than russia and the important counter measures against nukes is the thing most of us wont consider when assessing the nuclear power of a country.
Anyway doesn't china, UK, france all have around the same number of nukes approx. 200-300? which is a lot less than what US and russia have(correct me if I am wrong). So does numbers really matter or it all comes down to the degree/level of threat a nuke possesses.


Who'd win? Only Einstein- for the correct prediction he made.

reply to post by Mirajane

So does numbers really matter or it all comes down to the degree/level of threat a nuke possesses.

Believe it or not...yes.

The best way to circumvent the US's missile defense system is numbers...and that's exactly why Russia concentrated on quantity, not quality, when building their arsenal. Even if the missile defense system GMD works as advertised, it can still be taxed by too many inbounds to successfully neutralize all of them. Lets hope we NEVER have to test its effectiveness...shall we?

Of course, I think the publicly announced effectiveness, and the actual effectiveness are in completely different ballparks. I'm betting the actual defenses are about 30 years more advanced than info publicly available. Even still, the more inbounds involved, the more difficult and unreliable the defense grid...and that's only vs. ICBMs.

You still need ground intel and forces to deal with a terrorist detonating a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb...that's the far more realistic threat these days.

I don't reckon' that Nukes are the real thing to watch. In the NBC trilogy of death, Biologicals and Chemicals are the evil genies to watch for.

Also, while it's possible that Russia would attack the US government, it's much more likely any domestic attack will be a self inflicted wound from DoD. Like dropping BC-filled lightbulbs in subway tunnels, suicide aircraft or aerial spraying from aircraft. Or any of 1000 other DoD experiments over the last 80 years.

A few years back, I saw some army helios fly very low over the farm at ~ 200 feet altitude. The lead helo had a nozzle in the rear and was spraying a fluid in a sharp conical pattern. The second helo was directly behind the first and was flying more-or-less in the center of the sprayed stream. I'm guessing that the first helo was spraying water as a test and the second helo was observing/testing performance.

But ..... why were they spraying *anything*? Death-from-above? Startpage is your friend.

We all lose, except those who have bunkers and food supplies to last five years minimum. They will be the humans that inherit the earth.

If I know I am going to die of radiation poisoning, and all my relatives are going to die, I will seek out these government shelters and bury their entrances in concrete. If they caused the death of most of us off while they and their kin live, I will try to make sure that it is a thorough cleansing. I can run a backhoe and a cement truck. If someone is not involved in the creation of the war, I will not harm them in their bunkers. Why should the ones who created the WMD's be the ones to survive?

reply to post by jcarpenter

A few years back, I saw some army helios fly very low over the farm at ~ 200 feet altitude. The lead helo had a nozzle in the rear and was spraying a fluid in a sharp conical pattern. The second helo was directly behind the first and was flying more-or-less in the center of the sprayed stream. I'm guessing that the first helo was spraying water as a test and the second helo was observing/testing performance.

But ..... why were they spraying *anything*? Death-from-above? Startpage is your friend.

My bet would be DEA killing a drug crop. If it was on your farm though, didn't you bother finding out? I would.

One of my hobbies is combat analysis, and I actually write software to do this very thing. And I know that it is almost impossible to accurately simulate an event like this, at least for those of us not in the know. This is because the declared number of anything that is so well guarded and powerful is not going to be accurate. This goes for nukes, missile defense systems, etc. It is written that the US can stop maybe a little under 20 incoming inter-continental ballistic missiles, which basically is just a missile that reaches space before coming down on its target, in a ballistic trajectory.

But we also know that Obama has done some things regarding our missile defense shield, although the military never came out and advertised these pieces of information. Obviously there are reasons for this, the main one being that we do not want any potentially hostile countries to have this much information, because it would be highly beneficial to their developing an attack strategy against the US.

So it is highly probably that the US, and other countries, have tricks up their sleeves that are extremely sensitive, and classified at the highest level. I mean who knew that the Ukranian military had killer dolphins? LOL...

reply to post by JiggyPotamus
Which president is actually on the side of his country surviving? In that context, Russia would definetly win.

reply to post by KamaSutra


Who would win ?
- Yes , Nobody

Anyways , I don't think Nuclear weapon will ever be used again against any country in the future. Everybody knows, it kills Millions in a minute

coool

Originally posted by rickymouse
We all lose, except those who have bunkers and food supplies to last five years minimum. They will be the humans that inherit the earth.

If I know I am going to die of radiation poisoning, and all my relatives are going to die, I will seek out these government shelters and bury their entrances in concrete. If they caused the death of most of us off while they and their kin live, I will try to make sure that it is a thorough cleansing. I can run a backhoe and a cement truck. If someone is not involved in the creation of the war, I will not harm them in their bunkers. Why should the ones who created the WMD's be the ones to survive?

I like that idea. They would be guilty of war crimes and it would be a just punishment for them to be permanently sealed underground and never able to escape to the surface. However I do think the Supreme Being would be making a Final Judgement on those who pressed the button and blew away His Creation. I suspect that there is a room waiting in Hell for them.

reply to post by Eterne


I don't know.. I always expect that they will come into popular use, but as low yield nuclear artillary. They would be small, effective, and have the fear element. I think you will actually see regular use of nuclear weapons in the future.

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss

Originally posted by rickymouse
We all lose, except those who have bunkers and food supplies to last five years minimum. They will be the humans that inherit the earth.

If I know I am going to die of radiation poisoning, and all my relatives are going to die, I will seek out these government shelters and bury their entrances in concrete. If they caused the death of most of us off while they and their kin live, I will try to make sure that it is a thorough cleansing. I can run a backhoe and a cement truck. If someone is not involved in the creation of the war, I will not harm them in their bunkers. Why should the ones who created the WMD's be the ones to survive?

I like that idea. They would be guilty of war crimes and it would be a just punishment for them to be permanently sealed underground and never able to escape to the surface. However I do think the Supreme Being would be making a Final Judgement on those who pressed the button and blew away His Creation. I suspect that there is a room waiting in Hell for them.

God works through people many times We can make sure they stay in hell on earth for a long time.