Putin says successful test carried out of new nuclear-powered strategic missile

a reply to: grey580

I personally think that NATO would be happy to sacrifice the UK.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

Why might you think that?

Article 5 and all that?

We do have our own nuclear deterrent, you know?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Glad somebody said it...and most of all glad it was you. Seems more like a warning to back off rather than a "I'm coming at you bro" type of move. Kind of like the whole thing in Ukraine...ita a back the f#&* up not at all an I am coming to get you move. We should have left them alone and left a small buffer like they have been ok with for over a decade.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mahogany

It’s still a subsonic cruise missile. It can turn to evade defenses, but subsonic means the interception is still relatively easy. The advantage to nuclear power is that it has effectively unlimited power for countermeasures.

Right. And the fact that it would be relatively easy to intercept if we still had intact interception capabilities is what makes it a revenge weapon, IMHO.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
We do have our own nuclear deterrent, you know?

You also have history. Remember the last tyrant who tried to bomb Britain into submission!

For Putin, not sure what he's thinking or trying to benefit from here. This is an almost North Korean move; maybe Putin got some of Kim's propaganda officials in their recent friendship exchange?

originally posted by: oddnutz
a reply to: 1947boomer

since they presume that Russia couldn't win a nuclear war with the US or other major power.

will anyone win if a war goes nuclear?
maybe the cockroaches

In nuclear warfare game theory, there are basically two common strategies--counter value and counter force. A counter value strategy means that one side holds the other's population and society at risk. The idea is that if an opponent can reliably hold enough of your population at risk even after absorbing a first strike, you will be deterred from striking first. It only requires a few hundred warheads on major population centers to do that. Every nuclear power EXCEPT the US and the USSR have opted for that strategy, basically because it's the only affordable strategy for most nations. That includes France, the UK, Israel, India, North Korea, and even China. A counter value strategy is also referred to as deterrence strategy.

A counter force strategy means that you have the ability to more or less reliably attack and destroy an opponent's nuclear war fighting infrastructure. If successful, that drastically eliminates your opponent's ability to threaten your civilian population and it also makes the situation somewhat unstable because if you have a counter force capability the temptation is to use it preemptively. A counter force strategy is also referred to as a war fighting strategy, and it takes thousands of warheads to have that kind of capability, instead of just hundreds.

Back in the good old days of the Cold War, when both the US and the USSR had around 30,000 nuclear warheads each, the Soviet Union at least wanted us to think they had a war fighting capability and could therefore win a nuclear war in a military sense. Whether that was actually true or not, that was their posture.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia ended up owning all the nuclear warheads that had been dispersed among the old Soviet Republics, the main ones being Belarus and Ukraine. I think it was obvious to both them and us that since Russia no longer had the resources of their previous empire, they couldn't afford to maintain 30,000 weapons. We could, but we decided it was actually in our interest to maintain a nuclear war fighting capability at a much lower level. So we and Russia negotiated our way down to about 5,000 warheads, each, of which less than 2000 are deployed on active strategic delivery systems. That's still enough for both the US and Russia to maintain a war fighting capability against each other and all other nuclear powers.

However, the US economy is about 10 times the size of Russia's, so it is still much easier for us to maintain the status quo than it is for Russia. Personally, I suspect that Putin is looking at a future where he can not afford to maintain a credible nuclear war fighting posture any more, but he doesn't want to be seen as just another nuclear deterrence nation along with France, the UK, etc. So he's looking for something to set himself apart from all those pipsqueaks.

If/when Russia gets to a point where it can no longer afford a credible counter force posture, Russia will be vulnerable to a first strike from the US and it will have to rely on a deterrence strategy. That's where these nuclear powered cruise missiles and torpedoes come in. Basically, they (supposedly) give Russia the ability to cause huge population loss to the US from beyond the grave (i.e., after Russia is decimated). That's why I say I think they are actually a sign that Russia sees its nuclear posture weakening.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If the only NATO nation Russia strikes is the UK, I get the feeling the rest of NATO would let it slide because they won't want to face the same fate.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

That would be a dick move. But I'm sure some countries would think that. Certainly would be a test of NATO.

a reply to: grey580

Yes it would be. But there is no love lost between the UK and the EU.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

There's no love lost between the EU and the UK, that's true....but I can't see people from those EU nations letting it slide.
And I can't imagine the military of those countries being too happy, they'd demand some sort of retaliation.

I don't think European people are as fickle and weak willed as some imagine.

But one things certain; the UK would strike back with everything it has at its own disposal, Moscow would be obliterated.

That's sort of the reason we've maintained our own independent nuclear capability.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

And that instantly invokes Article V, and the rest of NATO gets involved. But Russia isn’t only going to hit the UK in any possible scenario, without hitting any other country.

At times like this, when the fear mongering and propaganda flies thick and fast, I am reminded of the only country that has used nuclear weapons on civilian populations (not once, but twice) and considered using them in a couple of conflicts since (Korea, Vietnam). Wonder who that is then?

A world without nukes would be great. A world with a US monopoly on nukes doesn't bare thinking about. We know how that ends.

The Russian position on nukes is pretty clear. Hope our leaders are aware of it, as they're nothing if not stupid people full of self interest.

originally posted by: Mahogany

What would I do as president?

1. Support our allies who are in immediate danger, help them reinforce their defensive capabilities. Defensive only. No one wants a bigger war.

The US doesn't have allies, hasn't for a very long time. They have subordinates and vassals (poodles). This war will probably take whatever direction the MIC thinks is in their best interests. Unlikely they'll want it to end anytime soon.

If you really look you'll see that Russia has some very important (economically especially) allies with a vested interest in them not failing. Around 80% of the world's population (the non west, that are aware of actual history) understand that this is another US proxy war and would love for the US (and Brits no doubt) to get a dose of comeuppance as the west crumbles.

Hell even many of their "allies" would enjoy that (even if they don't say it out loud).

2. Support Ukraine for as long as they want support. As long as they want to defend their country, we should help them out. This splits the focus of Russia's potential plans and drains money away from other endeavors. As long as Russia is losing people, weapons and time in Ukraine, it has less capability of attacking elsewhere.

Yeah, because that's gone so well so far...Russia attacking elsewhere..? is that you Antony (and why did your parents forget the "h" lol?).

3. Make sure all Americans and all people of the free world understand what is happening in real time, hopefully unifying us against the threats being made. Perhaps any military action by Russia can be avoided if we all stand together before it can happen.

Jesus you got it bad. The "free world" lol? Now you're starting to sound like another dementia addled war criminal/US president (Reagan). The whole point of war propaganda is to dehumanise the enemy, to conceal and confuse people about what's really happening in preference for the "Russia ebil" and Putin is the latest "Hitler de jour" narrative.

It's all been sorted by a group of geniuses anyway. When the fear of ebil Russia cripples you, jump under your desk and play this, then feel all safe and secure.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MetalChickAmy

And that instantly invokes Article V, and the rest of NATO gets involved. But Russia isn’t only going to hit the UK in any possible scenario, without hitting any other country.

If we are discussing first-strike scenarios whatever Russia does they, would likely strike the US simultaneously.

I just find it interesting that Poland has stopped supplying Ukraine. For example, if Russia hit Poland pretty sure US bases are getting hit everywhere they can.

That said if we don't have subs ready to launch from close up since the last 2 years we are dumb as hell

a reply to: Quintilian

It’s funny how everyone ignores the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities with civilian populations.

Oh yes. The US totally controls their allies. That’s why they occasionally kick our forces out, refuse the use of their airspace and bases, deny support for some of our operations….

That’s totally the actions of vassal states.

a reply to: putnam6

Poland is in the same boat as the rest of the allied forces. They are getting to the bottom of their excess supplies of weapons and need to resupply themselves before sending more to Ukraine. The grain dispute was just a convenient reason to stop.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MetalChickAmy

There's no love lost between the EU and the UK, that's true....but I can't see people from those EU nations letting it slide.
And I can't imagine the military of those countries being too happy, they'd demand some sort of retaliation.

I don't think European people are as fickle and weak willed as some imagine.

But one things certain; the UK would strike back with everything it has at its own disposal, Moscow would be obliterated.

That's sort of the reason we've maintained our own independent nuclear capability.

Definitely, there would be a quick and brutal response American response from every asset in the region.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Mahogany

# him.
Does anyone really think we'll cower down to that little prick?

Sad you can only see this as a threat, not the warning it's ment to be.

You probably still think Russia was "unprovoked"...

If your so emotional invested you should go to Ukraine and help.

sure glad ukraine has putin under control wheeew

What's the big deal? Nuclear powered means it won't run out of fuel so theoretically it can reach anywhere. Other than that it's a cruise missile that may or may not have a nuclear warhead. The US also has cruise missiles with or without nuclear warheads that can reach anywhere. They can also be launched FROM anywhere, including submarines, cruisers, carriers, airplanes, etc. And probably from orbit. So Putin's new missile gives him no clear advantage. This is not a game changer. It just gives Putin some bragging rights over an untried system while he's using WWII era tanks and getting his azz beat in Ukraine. Meh?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Quintilian

It’s funny how everyone ignores the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities with civilian populations.

If that helps you sleep at night, go for it.

Meanwhile back in reality, it was a war crime. In fact the targeting of civilians in a terror bombing campaign of over 60 Japanese cities, largely with napalm (neither of the nuclear bombings were the most devastating, Nagasaki is about no.6) constitutes one continuous, 6 month-long war crime. One of the worst war crimes of WW2.

Oh yes. The US totally controls their allies. That’s why they occasionally kick our forces out, refuse the use of their airspace and bases, deny support for some of our operations….

That’s totally the actions of vassal states.

It's quite obvious Nato is a collection of vassals. When you grenade your own economy (looking at you Germany) and allow your pipeline to be blown up for US geopolitical interests, that doesn't indicate brave independence (nor does the fact they have been under military occupation since WW2).

No doubt they make concessions (so do the mafia) but if the US really wants something from their vassals, they get it.