# Nuclear war.



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

I have to say, nuclear war is looking more and more a reality.
I ain't looking forward to that day I can tell you, or the aftermath for that matter.
We humans suck balls at being peaceful. I hate what my young children might have to go through.

Supposedly Russia have missiles that can blow up an area the size of France, or Texas:vs_shocked: When did this bullshit happen?
I always thought the biggest ones we had blew up an 8 mile radius or there about.
Boy, was I wrong.


----------



## 7515 (Aug 31, 2014)

Why do you think this? What has changed other than Trump being elected that makes you feel this way?
We have had nukes since the mid 1940's. Just because they have improved in power and accuracy doesn't mean nations are lobbing them around like frisbee 's


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Why would anyone want to blow up an area the size of a State? A nuclear weapon discharged in the atmosphere will send us back a few hundred years. The perpetrator then only needs to sit back and watch us implode ... from within.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Of'course, Russia has missiles as advanced as what US has, but Putin is less likely to start a nuclear war than all of your previous presidents combined. I'm glad to see some people shaking in their boots at the mere mention of Russia though haha


----------



## 7515 (Aug 31, 2014)

^^^ where is the dislike button ^^^


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Don't forget what we baby boomers learned from our duck and cover drills in school.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

rstanek said:


> Don't forget what we baby boomers learned from our duck and cover drills in school.


Our drills were to head for the nearest bomb shelter. Near one of my schools (we moved a lot when I was a kid), we had 4, which would fit population of the whole neighbourhood.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

No need to prep then??


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> Why would anyone want to blow up an area the size of a State? A nuclear weapon discharged in the atmosphere will send us back a few hundred years. The perpetrator then only needs to sit back and watch us implode ... from within.


The only people who would do this are deranged.



TG said:


> Of'course, Russia has missiles as advanced as what US has, but Putin is less likely to start a nuclear war than all of your previous presidents combined. I'm glad to see some people shaking in their boots at the mere mention of Russia though haha


No one mentioned Russia. The people I am concerned that would do this are North Korea, Iran and possibly ISIS.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Jackangus said:


> I have to say, nuclear war is looking more and more a reality.
> I ain't looking forward to that day I can tell you, or the aftermath for that matter.
> We humans suck balls at being peaceful. I hate what my young children might have to go through.
> 
> ...


that's just Hollyweird fantasy about nuke explosions - it went MIRV decades ago vs city blockbusters - the Ruskies probably have some of their big ones pinpointed on Cheyenne Mt and other buried command & control centers - otherwise it's multitudes of small accurate warheads ...

your problem in Ozland will depend on what's sitting in the major ports when the balloon pops - only direct offensive threat is your sub service - you got some decent diesel boats .... I'd be more worried about an invasion by one of big asian army aggressors - if China ever rolls Ozland is on their list .....


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

You think ANYONE wants nuclear war? Plus, Russia has latest Generation weapons that can just be deployed for EMP purposes, our nukes are being recertified and are old as dirt. But yes, their tactical HYs will glass over a large area

The thing the US has got going is our ADA capabilities are far more advanced than anyone else and will be able to ODIN everything - of course Russia can launch all their stuff and overwhelm it but why do that?

sent from a paper cup and string via quantum wierdness


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

inceptor said:


> The only people who would do this are deranged.
> 
> No one mentioned Russia. The people I am concerned that would do this are North Korea, Iran and possibly ISIS.


OP mentioned Russia


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

TG said:


> OP mentioned Russia


Ok, I missed that. I'm still not worried about Putin.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

No matter the discussion, . . . one can always discern the answer by the old adage: "Follow the money".

In this case, . . . nuclear war, . . . we need to replace "money" with "desired reward".

What "desired reward" could Russia achieve by bombing us into non existence? There really is none, . . . in fact, . . . cooperation is a greater reward.

What "desired reward" could China get by nuking us? Again, nothing really, . . . they have no ability to invade us, . . . and our retaliatory strikes on their western front would decimate them, . . . with the eastward drift of radiation and fallout overwhelming most of the survivors.

What "desired reward" could N. Korea, Iran, or ISIS get, . . . now you have a winner. Genocide masquerading as jihad, . . . intended to usher in the "Caliphate" or the 12th imam, . . . this is the one to be afraid of.

Islam and it's degenerate rabble would not bat an eye at totally destroying Western civilization. And the idiot muslim in the white house has given them the go-ahead to do it.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> No matter the discussion, . . . one can always discern the answer by the old adage: "Follow the money".
> 
> In this case, . . . nuclear war, . . . we need to replace "money" with "desired reward".
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

This is why we have to make sure Israel has enough long range bombers and fighter planes. Any nuclear device will be set off by Iran, not Russia.

Besides, I'd love to see the look on Obama's face when a United States bomber--replete with a six-point Israeli star--completely destroys all the toys he sent to his beloved muslim brothers...


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I would worry less about Russia and more about Iran, that crazy bastard in North Korea, and ISIS somehow getting their hands on one. I don't see an all out confrontation although accidents can and will happen I suppose. There are current inventories and yield calculations available on the internet for both sides. I am not aware of either side having a device that can wipe out Texas or France. Yields came down on our side as missile technology and accuracy improved. There are still what they called " City Busters" in both inventories however. Both countries are updating and modernizing their inventories. Russia started in earnest a few years ago and we have just started. The two countries have differing methodologies on how they deploy their systems and the explosive yields from what I gather, but the general idea is neither side will win.

World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile | Ploughshares Fund

Create a Nuclear Firestorm - Nuclear Weapons Explosion Simulator | Nuclear Darkness & Nuclear Famine

How the US's nuclear weapons compare to Russia's - Business Insider


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

I like to think ISIS being a Sunni organization is a bit of a God send, if Hezbollah ever stopped raping little boys and stopped beng statists then Iran would probably arm them and it would create all sorts of mess

sent from a paper cup and string via quantum wierdness


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Illini Warrior said:


> that's just Hollyweird fantasy about nuke explosions - it went MIRV decades ago vs city blockbusters - the Ruskies probably have some of their big ones pinpointed on Cheyenne Mt and other buried command & control centers - otherwise it's multitudes of small accurate warheads ...


Actually, we are getting away from MIRV, to some extent, as all our Minutemen are now a single warhead... as opposed to the three when I served.

Also, correct on no more city busters. The old missiles, such as the Titan II, were rather inaccurate so made up for that with a large bomb. It carried a 9000 kiloton warhead. The Minuteman III was more accurate & used to carry three 170 kiloton warheads. To give you an idea of accuracy, I had the opportunity to launch a Minuteman. They pulled the operational missile from a silo at our base in Minot, ND, removed the nuclear component which is actually a rather small amount of the warhead, and replaced that with a self destruct package & telemetry gear. The missile & 3 crews then went to Vandenberg AFB California & brought the missile back online in a silo there. We launched the missile out into the Pacific to the Kwajalein Atoll test range. Long story short, we aimed at a building & hit that building... back in the 80s. They are even more accurate today.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

IMO, the old fashioned way of physically destroying a country like what is happening in Syria only works in 3rd world, undeveloped nations. If Russia really wanted to mess with US, an EMP would be the way to go. 90% of the population would die off in a year or probably less, way less. Then the Russians can walk in and occupy US. Sure, they'd use a few nukes here and there to take out specific, high value targets, but the idea of carpet bombing a country with nukes is Hollywood or SciFi channel. But then again, that's why we prep.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

Illini Warrior said:


> that's just Hollyweird fantasy about nuke explosions - it went MIRV decades ago vs city blockbusters - the Ruskies probably have some of their big ones pinpointed on Cheyenne Mt and other buried command & control centers - otherwise it's multitudes of small accurate warheads ...
> 
> your problem in Ozland will depend on what's sitting in the major ports when the balloon pops - only direct offensive threat is your sub service - you got some decent diesel boats .... I'd be more worried about an invasion by one of big asian army aggressors - if China ever rolls Ozland is on their list .....


I live in New Zealand which is fairly close to Australia. We would be at the mercy of one of these big Asian countries taking over.
I would hope we would fight rather than let them peacefully take over us. Taking over would mean death anyway.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Jackangus said:


> I live in New Zealand which is fairly close to Australia. We would be at the mercy of one of these big Asian countries taking over.
> I would hope we would fight rather than let them peacefully take over us. Taking over would mean death anyway.


You are correct in that you would be at their mercy. It may be death for some but not all. What's the point of taking over if you can't control and lord it over on the people you invaded? They may make you wish you had died but they won't kill everyone.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

inceptor said:


> You are correct in that you would be at their mercy. It may be death for some but not all. What's the point of taking over if you can't control and lord it over on the people you invaded? They may make you wish you had died but they won't kill everyone.


It would be slave labour for the rest.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Jackangus said:


> It would be slave labour for the rest.


Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The ballast radius of a 50 megaton is around 15 miles.

The size compensated for lack of accuracy early on.

They are still around and can be used in a second strike mode if a bigger club is needed.

Our key strike missiles today are the SLBM's, a lot less flight time.

Then there are the cruise missiles to get under the radar defenses, dropped by the BUFF.

Of course O'thugger wanted to destroy all of them.

It would have been nice to see him ride one in place of Slim Pickens, but for real on its way down to Nairobi.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Jackangus said:


> I have to say, nuclear war is looking more and more a reality.
> I ain't looking forward to that day I can tell you, or the aftermath for that matter.
> We humans suck balls at being peaceful. I hate what my young children might have to go through.
> 
> ...


Eventually the US and Russia will nuke it out; it is inescapable, but it won't be within the next 10 years or so. After that time period, things get murky for my crystal balling. The throw weight of a Russian missile, can be about 100 megatons, if they wanted to make them. The capabilities of atomic warheads are pretty bad, and getting worse.

This is a projection of a 50 MT going off over NYC, the number cruncher's came up with 7,630,000 deaths and 4,000,000+ injured. Those circles that you see are projections of fallout, which would depend on the wind direction. The actual fallout zones would be conical, and not all around the blast area.
View attachment 34506

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/238325-russia-unveils-new-class-rs-28-satan-2-nuclear-missiles

*From The Article::*
The stats on the RS-28 demonstrate this is a missile that means business, and media outlets controlled by the Russian government have stated that a single missile is large enough to destroy Texas or France. We could quibble with the definition of "destroy," but we won't - any time a government drops 50MT of nuclear weapons on you, you're going to have a really bad day.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

MisterMills357 said:


> The throw weight of a Russian missile, can be about 100 megatons, if they wanted to make them.


That sounds pretty big to me. Please list which current Russian missile carries this warhead & what the warhead is called.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Ok Russians won't use nuclear missiles on America, ever.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

TG said:


> Ok Russians won't use nuclear missiles on America, ever.


Naw........ They will just send their women here disguised with kids and husbands as simple tourists. They will start in the south because they know that's where it will be the toughest to conquer. Slowly, year after year, they will vacation here in the south pretending to love the people, traditions, food and drink, all the while sending Intel back to the motherland on how best to attack. Then, after she has designated the best BBQ joints and restaurants, the best bars, best honky tonks and music halls in the south.........BANG! they drop the hammer! I am on to you little lady. :devil:


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Prepared One said:


> Naw........ They will just send their women here disguised with kids and husbands as simple tourists. They will start in the south because they know that's where it will be the toughest to conquer. Slowly, year after year, they will vacation here in the south pretending to love the people, traditions, food and drink, all the while sending Intel back to the motherland on how best to attack. Then, after she has designated the best BBQ joints and restaurants, the best bars, best honky tonks and music halls in the south.........BANG! they drop the hammer! I am on to you little lady. :devil:


haha Too funny 
I know it's hard to believe but we are just like you and it may sound cheesy or corny or pathetic but.. Russians have always liked Americans and we still want to be your allies. Our leaders ruin our chances from time to time but I know it'll happen.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> Naw........ They will just send their women here disguised with kids and husbands as simple tourists. They will start in the south because they know that's where it will be the toughest to conquer. Slowly, year after year, they will vacation here in the south pretending to love the people, traditions, food and drink, all the while sending Intel back to the motherland on how best to attack. Then, after she has designated the best BBQ joints and restaurants, the best bars, best honky tonks and music halls in the south.........BANG! they drop the hammer! I am on to you little lady. :devil:





TG said:


> haha Too funny
> I know it's hard to believe but we are just like you and it may sound cheesy or corny or pathetic but.. Russians have always liked Americans and we still want to be your allies. Our leaders ruin our chances from time to time but I know it'll happen.


Rumor has it that the Ruskies have already started the silent assault in the South's tequila bars.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

A Watchman said:


> Rumor has it that the Ruskies have already started the silent assault in the South's tequila bars.


I actually still need to try more Tennessee moonshine flavours :vs_laugh:


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

Flavored Moonshine!
Moonshine should be clear and burn a pretty blue color. 
Flavored moonshine.....some Starbucks doofus came up with that crap...like mixing soda pop with good whiskey...damned furreners from Massychuzetts probably...


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Coastie dad said:


> Flavored Moonshine!
> Moonshine should be clear and burn a pretty blue color.
> Flavored moonshine.....some Starbucks doofus came up with that crap...like mixing soda pop with good whiskey...damned furreners from Massychuzetts probably...


I tried the beautiful light blue (plain ?) Moonshine in Gatlinburg few days ago, it was 110 proof I think, similar to Kozak Horilka (home-made). I'll go with flavours because it's more fun to get intoxicated in slow stages with variety of options haha


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

I have 190 proof shine, right from the mountains of North Carolina in gallon milk jugs.

I can use it in a lamp if needed.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

SOCOM42 said:


> I have 190 proof shine, right from the mountains of North Carolina in gallon milk jugs.
> 
> I can use it in a lamp if needed.


Let me know if you need some help with that!!
Because...I have a lamp.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

SOCOM42 said:


> I have 190 proof shine, right from the mountains of North Carolina in gallon milk jugs.
> 
> I can use it in a lamp if needed.


I've only ever tried moonshine once, about a 100 years ago. THAT was enough for me.


----------



## ND_ponyexpress_ (Mar 20, 2016)

******* said:


> Actually, we are getting away from MIRV, to some extent, as all our Minutemen are now a single warhead... as opposed to the three when I served.
> 
> Also, correct on no more city busters. The old missiles, such as the Titan II, were rather inaccurate so made up for that with a large bomb. It carried a 9000 kiloton warhead. The Minuteman III was more accurate & used to carry three 170 kiloton warheads. To give you an idea of accuracy, I had the opportunity to launch a Minuteman. They pulled the operational missile from a silo at our base in *Minot, ND*, removed the nuclear component which is actually a rather small amount of the warhead, and replaced that with a self destruct package & telemetry gear. The missile & 3 crews then went to Vandenberg AFB California & brought the missile back online in a silo there. We launched the missile out into the Pacific to the Kwajalein Atoll test range. Long story short, we aimed at a building & hit that building... back in the 80s. They are even more accurate today.


Ahh.. My home town.... nothing says Minot like 2-3 Air Force peace keepers broken down on 83..... and a half dozen missile cop baser pickups stuck in the snowy ditch between minot and the base.. lol


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> Let me know if you need some help with that!!
> Because...I have a lamp.


Yes, you do light up don't you???:vs_laugh:

I heard slippy's drinking problem was directly caused by you!:vs_shocked:


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

SOCOM42 said:


> Yes, you do light up don't you???:vs_laugh:
> 
> I heard slippy's drinking problem was directly caused by you!:vs_shocked:


Slippy's got a problem?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SOCOM42 said:


> Yes, you do light up don't you???:vs_laugh:
> 
> I heard slippy's drinking problem was directly caused by you!:vs_shocked:


Slippy isn't the only one @Mish has broken down to drinking.


----------



## john10001 (Mar 20, 2013)

paraquack said:


> IMO, the old fashioned way of physically destroying a country like what is happening in Syria only works in 3rd world, undeveloped nations. If Russia really wanted to mess with US, an EMP would be the way to go. 90% of the population would die off in a year or probably less, way less. Then the Russians can walk in and occupy US. Sure, they'd use a few nukes here and there to take out specific, high value targets, but the idea of carpet bombing a country with nukes is Hollywood or SciFi channel. But then again, that's why we prep.


Agreed with paraquack.
I think the way this would be done would be to disable the enemies ability to respond by disabling all their electronics, and taking out all their nuclear subs in ports or at sea, as well as hitting the runways where any nuclear bombers are based. EMP and any other electronic warfare weapons first then the rest all simultaneously.

I agree with the sentiment on Russia here. Russia in itself is not necessarily a problem. Putin no angel but not stupid. Very smart. Smarter than Obama that's for sure. The biggest concern here is not Russia but a war hawk US leader like Obama doing something stupid and taking us to the brink.

Agreed with others that the biggest threat we face will probably be from rouge terror states like Iran. The leaked Democrat emails confirm what they are all thinking privately that it was a very bad deal likely to consign the region to a nuclear war. I think there is a big concern for Israel. The Mad Mullahs in Iran would like nothing more than to fire a nuke at Tel-Aviv however they have one enemy they dislike even more and that is Saudi Arabia. I suspect we will most likely see Iran go nuclear and the Saudis obtain their own nukes from Pakistan. Then all hell will break loose with a major exchange that will probably draw others into the conflict too e.g. Syria and Pakistan. I don't think MAD is a deterrent for Iran like the rest of us who value life for them it is an incentive.

Other potential sources of nuclear conflict? Jihadists have attempted twice to take Pakistan's airbase where their nuclear weapons are kept. Also think Incirlik in Turkey falling into Islamist hands. Could be ISIS or the Turkish regime itself. Either way I think it is way past time we kicked Turkey out of NATO. They are going the same way as Iran. We need to pivot NATO to the East perhaps e.g. Georgia, Armenia. And West with Macedonia/Montenegro?

There is always North Korea. The longer we continue to appease them the worst that problem gets. I think we could deal with that problem once and for all right now without too much reprisals if any.

China not a problem? Well I think they are a pretty big one and in a major exchange, nobody really wins when this occurs but in such a case decades later after the radiation dies down and the fallout is gone I think the Chinese probably emerge as victors for the simple reason that they have a lot more underground bases than the US or anybody else that can shelter their military.

I don't think nukes even ground burst that the US or even Russia have would be as effective at taking out such deeper hardened targets as the biggest bunker busters that the US now possesses and even they may not be able to do the job that is provided you can get them where you need to past the S-300 and S-400's. I think the only things that will carry them and stand a chance are the B-2 bombers and B-21 Raiders that are in production but even they could be intercepted. You may also have to make numerous runs dropping GBU-57s for each target and China has a lot. In that time though after the first attack the world could be a very different place and they may have nowhere to return to.

I think other allies in NATO like the UK and allies outside like Israel and Australia should consider upping their defenses and making them even more dynamic by putting in orders for the B-21's and GBU-57's provided the US is willing to allow sale of this technology. The US has complained about other NATO members not spending enough so it would be a good chance to put this to the test if they were to ask about ordering these long range stealth strike bombers. I think it is best not to have all your eggs in one basket but to spread them around. If anything ever happened to the US its allies would be better able to respond to any and all threats.


----------



## ND_ponyexpress_ (Mar 20, 2016)

I do not believe Israel will allow Iran to get a nuke...... they haven't bought an assload of our bunker-busters for nothing...


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Not going to happen, unless Obama does something stupider than normal by next weekend


----------

