'Russia is seriously running out of cash'
- Thread starter Sankari
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
We don't need to. We sell arms and offer advice instead.
Meanwhile the UK has been conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Saudi Arabia
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-slammed-training-turkish-and-saudi-troops-1346615757
Meanwhile the UK has been conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Turkey
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-slammed-training-turkish-and-saudi-troops-1346615757
Meanwhile the UK has been conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Qatar
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-slammed-training-turkish-and-saudi-troops-1346615757
There won't be any lines. Any attempt by the West to openly take on Russia in a war will almost immediately lead to nuclear exchange.
No country will survive. America, certainly, will be totally destroyed. Various research shows that Russia has the best chance of salvaging something after a nuclear war just down to the large land mass. America is tiny in comparison (you can fit 3 Americas into the Russia).
Russia also has the most nuclear bunkers of any country. And the best ICBMs. And the best anti-missile defences.
Russia will 'win' any war. If you can call presiding over a nuclear winter a win.
Soldato
Why the hell would Russia go for nuclear war?
Just because they are most prepared does not mean they would count it as a 'win'.
You need to put the American comic books down.
Just because they are most prepared does not mean they would count it as a 'win'.
You need to put the American comic books down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,306
Better accelerate that climate change, then. Permafrost in a large chunk of Russia won't thaw itself.
What feeds this line of thinking's Russia's cray-cray nuclear protocols. If you assume they're worth the paper they're written on, you must accept that any conflict with the country can escalate rather quickly. Heck, I think there's little stopping Russia nuking even its own parts or regional neighbours [in theory]!
What feeds this line of thinking's Russia's cray-cray nuclear protocols. If you assume they're worth the paper they're written on, you must accept that any conflict with the country can escalate rather quickly. Heck, I think there's little stopping Russia nuking even its own parts or regional neighbours [in theory]!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
What research is this?
Look, if Russia and the USA launch full scale nuclear attacks on one another, we'd all be sent back to the stone age. Every major population centre would be destroyed, infrastructure and agriculture would collapse and the northern hemisphere would descend into nuclear winter. Even if the UK was not hit itself, there'd be mass starvation and disease within a year.
Would humanity be destroyed? No, probably not. People will survive on the fringe and in time bounce back. But civilization would be wiped away. Neither Russia nor the US could survive that conflict as nation states.
As for your comments about the size of Russia. Have you never wondered why huge swathes of Russia is empty? I'll let you in on a secret: it's empty because the land is not productive. Most of the land is tundra or semi-tundra, there is very little rainfall and the soil is poor. So if the land is crap during the fairly ideal conditions of the last 100 years, I can only imagine how poor it would be with irradiated winds and nuclear winter thrown into the mix.
So with all of that said, do you really think Russia is any more eager than the US to get sucked into a major nuclear exchange?
Oh and the Russian ABM system is useless in a major exchange. MIRV is designed to overwhelm these systems.
Last edited:
Soldato
Besides it only takes a very small percentage of warheads to get through and it still curtains for everyone.
Full on nuclear winter* is a worst case scenario - realistically even a full on exchange between 2 super powers would be more likely to result in something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer - don't forget that over 2000 nuclear weapons (albeit not hitting major population centres with a lot of stuff to burn) - some individually larger than the entire arsenal held by the UK currently - have been tested in the last half century many of them directly exposed to the environment not just tests underground or at high altitudes - so it would take more than a few getting through to be curtains for everyone.
If Russia was faced with essentially an existential threat I fully believe it will escalate to nuclear exchanges - the Russian upper hierarchy are preparing for "the end times" and seem to believe one way or another a major war is coming - I suspect that if it came to a major threat to Russia they will strike first with weapons of mass destruction not just nuclear as they know they can't win a conventional war and it isn't in their nature just to roll over.
EDIT: Oh and yeah Russia's ABM systems while good on paper aren't without their issues - as mentioned they are relatively easy to overwhelm which will probably necessitate our subs going with more like full compliment than the light loads we have now once the next generation platforms are online.
* Many of the models are based on (or based on scenarios that would require) something like the max number of missiles with 100% effectiveness all hitting dense population areas while in reality a good number would be used against military targets often in more remote areas - often desert type environments and so on.
If Russia was faced with essentially an existential threat I fully believe it will escalate to nuclear exchanges - the Russian upper hierarchy are preparing for "the end times" and seem to believe one way or another a major war is coming - I suspect that if it came to a major threat to Russia they will strike first with weapons of mass destruction not just nuclear as they know they can't win a conventional war and it isn't in their nature just to roll over.
EDIT: Oh and yeah Russia's ABM systems while good on paper aren't without their issues - as mentioned they are relatively easy to overwhelm which will probably necessitate our subs going with more like full compliment than the light loads we have now once the next generation platforms are online.
* Many of the models are based on (or based on scenarios that would require) something like the max number of missiles with 100% effectiveness all hitting dense population areas while in reality a good number would be used against military targets often in more remote areas - often desert type environments and so on.
Last edited:
Do you have any links for this? I thought America with THAAD and Aegis had the best missile defence, not that they're really relevant with SLBMs though
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Setting off the occasional nuclear weapon here and there isn't a problem, it's the effect of them all detonating at once over major population centres that is the problem. The accumulation of dust, ash and smoke thrown into the atmosphere all at once is what causes nuclear winter.
It's certainly true that the impact of nuclear warfare is over exaggerated by most people. A few nukes going back and forth is no big deal. But a complete exchange of warheads between Russia and the US would end modern civilisation. It's not likely to destroy us as a species and we may over the course of centuries bounce back, but yeah, the modern world would be wiped out.
I could see the Russians using nuclear weapons tactically, absolutely. But strikes against major population centres? Not likely. What could they gain out of that? Even if Putin's regime was threatened, the people involved still have families and loved ones they'd not want to die in nuclear war.
The Russian ABM pretty much only covers Moskow and shooting down a nuclear warhead is difficult at the best of times. A single Trident missile would guarantee the destruction of Moskow.
I think the key there is modern civilisation - we undoubtedly would be set back considerably but its unlikely to be the world ending event portrayed in the emotional rhetoric from some.
Assuming such a scenario came about gain isn't really in it. The Russia mentality is a bit different on this aspect to that more common in the US, etc. (Coincidentally this was something I learnt also from Eve Online - many times people were caught out by the tactics employed by entities like blood union because they didn't expect them to do it because they couldn't see what they'd gain from it).
Once the S-500 generation of systems (not just that platform - upgrades for A135, etc. as well) come online on paper they would be moderately capable of dealing with the Trident platform - but still overwhelmed with a full compliment to work from. ******* in the wind against a full nuclear exchange though.
The upgraded S-400 platform they are rolling out from Kaliningrad through to Crimea (and some other sites) at the moment has some capabilities against the spectrum of airborne nuclear delivery mechanisms though realistically against the likes of ICBMs probably not going to do much other than in idealistic scenarios against a single or small number.
Last edited:
Caporegime
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/alm...emlin-plans-to-tax-unemployed-parasites-55532
Makes this forum look like Jeremy Corbyn's Jam Making club.
Makes this forum look like Jeremy Corbyn's Jam Making club.
Probbaly around the same time the conspiracy theorists realise they're never not being drawn.
Caporegime
Welcome back to the third world folks!
I sincerely hope that story isn't true.
I sincerely hope that story isn't true.