Russia Practices Nuking U.S.

Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reports that the Russian military is playing wargames in which their strategic bombers and nuclear submarines "will deliver hypothetical nuclear strikes on the U.S. and Britain, while locating and destroying aircraft-carrier groups of the U.S. Navy" because "Russian military leaders have learned a lesson from the Iraq war, and intend to show the U.S. and its allies their determination to repel any potential threat coming from the West."
During the 1990s, Russia attained nuclear superiority over the U.S. and they now have between 20,000 to 40,000 nuclear weapons. While they've been building up their arsenal, we've been downsizing ours.


www.unknowncountry.com...

20,000 to 40,000 Nukes?????????????

I never imagined such a number. That's disgusting.

very interesting but it is not really suprising. we do the same to russia all the time. Plus they are also suposebly downsizing also.

Plus they are also suposebly downsizing also. Posted by Quicksilver

Supposedly being the operative word.... do we have confirmation on that???

My goodness, we think of one nuke as being a disaster, but 20,000 of them!!!

Why is it when some other country that is not the U.S. or Britain is found with WMD's has to be considered 'a threat to national security' or they must be searched for these weapons or chemiclas.

This really pisses me off The U.S. most likely has twice as many nukes more than Russia and half of them are probably stored in the Yukka Mtn. range.

Yea, do you really think that the U.S. government is going to let another country, especially one that has been falling apart, gain nuclear superiority over a world super-power? (The U.S.) The government might say that they have oh say, 10,000 nukes, but really having 50,000? I mean, for the U.S. that isn't so suprising. They could easily hide them in a mountain, as they do with bases, arsenals, etc etc. As for Russia:

1) They used to be a super-power, except they fell apart, hehe, and are trying to become more of a democracy. I don't think they would be practicing taking/destroying the U.S. (A Super-Power) when they have to worry about getting food everyday, since they aren't all that rich.

2) They do have a nuclear arsenal, but, after everything is over, you still need ground troops, and especially TECHNOLOGY, which makes the U.S. the most powerful...because they have the technology to prevail...

3) Yes, Russia is a formidable foe, but so was the Brits in the Revolutionary War, hehe, even though Great Britain strongly outmatched the Rebels (U.S.) the "Rebels" prevailed, (U.S.)

4) If the U.S. and Russia went to war, we would be in for very, very, tense and scary showdown, after the smoke clears, if Russia didn't destroy the U.S. (And their own arsenals for that matter, since I just heard a report about them test launching some nukes...but the nukes backfired and blew the arsenal to shreds...their nuclear program ain't in the greatest state, after all. Anyways, after the smoke is gone, the Brits will prevail, lol, because the U.S. and Russia would probably be wiped off the face of the Earth due to destruction.

5) Finally, let us not forget that if Russia attacked the U.S., and the U.S. attacks Russia, the world is gone. How can I predict this? When the U.S. dropped the Atomic Bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, the shockwave and effects of the bomb STILL produces leukimia(sp?) after more than 50 years later. We only dropped 2 bombs. Imagine if the U.S. and Russia drop a combined 60,000 nukes....if 2 can produce deadly and gas effects more than 50 years later, imagine 60,000 more deadly, effective, and stronger bombs? The world would be a desert waste land, I don't think Russia or the U.S. would want this..hence why we haven't seen the use of nuclear bombs in ANY war since....

Thanks - Mac

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the effects of the A-Bomb are seen around the world, not just in Japan where they were dropped. The lethal gases it produces, and disease it causes, are seen around the world. The shockwave was a messenger boy for the disease, it carried it around the world. The world would be destroyed in a case where either country uses only 200 nukes, which are stronger than A-Bombs. This is why no country has ever used them...the only reason they would want to would to take the world - and their own lives for that matter - away, more like a suicide attempt and taking everyone with you.

Conclusion: Russia will not use their nuclear arsenal on the U.S., and the U.S. will not use their nuclear arsenal on Russia. Let us not forget that, even though tensions have been growing between the U.S. and Russia, that the countries are still allies.

lol im being forgetful tonight, forgot:

Dragon, wait? what threat does Russia have from the U.S. Has the U.S. declared war on Russia all of a sudden? They must either be using propaganda on their public or they think the U.S. is really going to use a nuclear assault on them

Did the U.S. declare war? No. OK Problem solved

Originally posted by dragonrider

During the 1990s, Russia attained nuclear superiority over the U.S. and they now have between 20,000 to 40,000 nuclear weapons. While they've been building up their arsenal, we've been downsizing ours.

Not the 1990s but the 1980s. In the 1980s the Russians had 2375 ICBM's deployed and 1175 others ICBM's kept in stock for a second strike. + the bombers and the SLBM's. Also, they had hundreds and hundreds of MRBM's and IRBM's who were targeting Western Europe.

That's why Ronald Reagan ( I miss him ) has deployed the MX peacekeeper ICBM , the B1 bomber and started the SDI program.

I imagine the Russians have been "practising" scenarios involving attacks on such targets for decades.
What else, on balance, would they practise - other than, perhaps, China?

And the range 20,000-40,000 is absurdly inexact: one imagines a number was simply plucked from the air - and who could easily verify it?

And "nuclear weapns" could, presumably, cover anything from an artillery shell to an ICBM.
This is filling up space in a magazine!

i thought they did that in 99 or 00..
oh and 2001 yes they launched 2 nukes i think and there were also exercises against a nimiz like carriers near alaska.

And the Nezavisimaya (Russian for Independent -and it ain't!) is a pretty dreadful rag: part of the empire of the appalling tycoon Boris Berezovsky

they also acquired a lot of new topol-m icbms and now working on an icbm that dont leave the atmosphere.

If I were a Russian general and I wanted to test my strategic nuclear capabilities I would use the US as the subject of my practice too.
Why? Well it's a waste of time practicing an attack on a neighbouring country. You can't use nukes on the country next door without fear of damaging yourself.
It's a waste of time practicing against a country which doesn't have nuclear weapons or if it does, doesn't have the range to reach you. It's a waste of time practicing against a close ally - you're already going to know what their response would be so it kind of makes the test redundant.
Add to that the fact that America is the biggest country with nuclear weapons (apart from China) and it's halfway around the world from Russia and the actual test will give you some positive results.
I would read nothing into this other than the Russians wish to test their nuclear weapons systems. The systems have to be checked so why not pick your best testing scenario? The fact that they are using the US for their test and not China even gives me some kind of weird reassurance. Relations are now so good that they actually turn around and say "Don't worry, we're gonna test our systems and you're gonna be the target for the simulation" gives me a lot more confidence than if the tests were publicised 3 or 4 months after they actually took place. Also the fact that Russia has not changed the target from their Soviet days could be taken as meaning that they haven't really been doing any secret targetting behind the rest of the world's back. Just imagine the problems if they turned around and said they were practicing on China!!!!
Sure there is a little bit of political posturing here, but I doubt very much that the new Russian political system sees the US as a nuclear threat to itself nowadays.
As for weapons build ups? I read on the net a couple of days ago that another reduction agreement has been signed and that two thirds of weapons on the US and Russian sides are to be decommissioned. Again, I see this as politics at work. What's the point of scrapping 20,000 nuclear weapons when you still have 10,000 in reserve - enough to destroy the whole planet?

A very sane point, Leveller: does anyone imagine the US "wargamers" "practise" hitting Mexico City or Vancouver.

I'm not surprised by this.
What is the point of having them if you don't go over scenarios in which you might use them?
Does anybody seriously think the UK,US don't practice?

This sort of thing has been going on for 50 years.

As for the number,I have to agree with Estragon,it is plucked from the air.
There may, indeed ,be thousands of warheads.
But the question is how many have been regulally maintained.

It may be an irony but people should be reassured that they are practicing.God help us all if they don't analyse under what circumstances they would be used and how.The last thing anybody wants is a potentially panicky Russia resorting to badly maintained nuclear weapons under unplanned circumstances.
It is the very process of thought that excludes their use.

The story does have some value though.The fact that this has been leaked is a warning that Russia,at present ,feels insecure.The worry is they have no real military resort other than this.The conventional military supiority of the USA could only end up as sign that any serious escalation would be a lot swifter,then say,the Cuban Missile crisis.

And this is almost certainly a bit of Russian posturing: they're not happy at being carved up over the loot in Iraq, or threats in their traditional sphere of influence: N.K.
They can't actually do much; but at least they can huff and puff.
It was joint exercises with India, a month ago! But -then again -so many memories are so very short on ATS.
Jessica Lynch syndrome (JLS) -potentially more frightening than SARS..