Soldato
Not on twitter anymore. Who is he etc?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia
The RS-28 Sarmat recently entered service, so what you're saying just isn't accurate. The Russians do know a lot about launching missiles.
Additionally Russia has SLBMs parked North of Canada which can hit North America and Europe in 10-15 minutes, i.e. when they see we have missiles in the air, they can launch before ours even hit.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 41
Depends on the roles - women tank crews served in the USSR in WWII and were as successful as men. Their smaller size an advantage in small crew compartments. Bomber crew too. As for 'biological imperatives'... permanent pill-taking should obviate the necessity to rinse out the same rag in a cold bucket of water every morning, as one soviet woman tanker told in an interview.
Soldato
Your creating a certain scenario which is a hell of a risk
Do I think Russia would have 100% success rate in launches, no. Do I think it would be 0%, no. So your into a guessing game on the middle realistically.
Thats all very well talking about stealth bombers and if the US was to undertake the first strike then I would agree that the chances of significant Russian missiles making it to end targets would be pretty low.
However, if the Russians were to launch first the majority of those bombers sitting on the ground would have little benefit.
The russians just like the US have or had a lot of air based bombers as well. That often intrude into our airspace. We would probably see it coming to some extent but whether we would be able to genuinely scramble enough to intercept a full blown attempt I have no idea.
I still think its very unlikely to come to this point and if tensions were rising the pieces would move on the game board so to speak.
Much like the UK the most potent Russian weapon is probably their nuclear missile subs. Most (all?) of which are relatively new.
One major contribution to this is that Ukraine haven't done any maintenance on them since 2014 (something happened that caused them to void Russia's maintenance contracts, can't remember what) and Russia have limited knowledge on how to do it themselves.
This is why they're trying to rush their new domestically built ICBM (Sarmat) into service to replace the Soviet era Ukrainian ones.
If China are going to all the trouble of building nuclear weapons and silos then I'm pretty sure they will build silos that actually work despite what some leaked document says and Russia has plenty of working nuclear weapons to completely destroy the UK, I don't think there is any doubt in that either.
I get people want to believe all they read about the West's equipment being great and the Easts useless but some of the propaganda is just ludicrous.
RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The RS-28 Sarmat recently entered service, so what you're saying just isn't accurate. The Russians do know a lot about launching missiles.
Additionally Russia has SLBMs parked North of Canada which can hit North America and Europe in 10-15 minutes, i.e. when they see we have missiles in the air, they can launch before ours even hit.
So Russia decided to break SALT II (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks#SALT_II_Treaty) as the RS-28 is a FOBS system which they agreed with SALT to prohibit.
I smell the return of starwars and mass drivers.
Did you actually read that wiki, tested and found to be unsuccessful…RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia
The RS-28 Sarmat recently entered service, so what you're saying just isn't accurate. The Russians do know a lot about launching missiles.
Additionally Russia has SLBMs parked North of Canada which can hit North America and Europe in 10-15 minutes, i.e. when they see we have missiles in the air, they can launch before ours even hit.
But like the t-14, the new apc the new artillery and now there new radar…
I could claim I’ve built a ICBM in my garage and have as much credibility as Russia has
The US claimed it was unsuccessful but that was in February, then it entered service in September. An ICBM is essentially just a low earth orbit rocket, Russia has demonstrated they're capable of putting rockets into orbit since the 1960s, so I don't think this is some wildly unbelivable claim they're making personally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,682
Just for context, russia is believed to have around a total of 500 deployed subs, ICBMs, and bombers and 1,500 nuclear warheads.
Russia pulled out of START in 2023, so those numbers may be changing.
With a 50% fail rate, that is still a bad day for the world.
Russia pulled out of START in 2023, so those numbers may be changing.
With a 50% fail rate, that is still a bad day for the world.
Soldato
Says everything about those that would actually consider voting Reform in the first place.
Soldato
Underestimating Russian ICBM's is just foolish. Part of the reason we've got to this point is by continually underestimating threats.
i suspect the worlds oceans will be soon full of drones and anti-drone hardware.
In the future, a launch could see the release of sea drones with nuclear warheads, not just ICBM.. as a middle finger to the countries involved. Same with biological weapons.. if you want to be a mutually assured destruction #evilgenius
Last edited:
In a full on nuclear war the death toll is estimated at 5 billion humans after the nuclear winter caused most of the planet not killed in the initial exchange to starve to death. This would set the human race back several hundred years, any technological progress would simply stop for the foreseeable future, it would likely be centuries until our civilisation had fully recovered. It would make World War 2 look like a meaningless skirmish in comparison. These are the sort of consequences we're balancing when handling this conflict.
Radiation mutation would pretty much remove life. The genetic pool in any bunker population would be too small to continue life.
Soldato
Seems there was a prisoner swap due to take place that has since been cancelled, with Sky news reporting that:
''Sky News team in Ukraine has spoken with a former PoW who had been part a previous exchange, who said the route and type of aircraft used to transport he and his comrades was similar to those of the plane that crashed this morning.
"The Il-76 - this is the workhorse of Russian transport, this is the kind of thing that they would use [for a swap like this]," she says...''
''Sky News team in Ukraine has spoken with a former PoW who had been part a previous exchange, who said the route and type of aircraft used to transport he and his comrades was similar to those of the plane that crashed this morning.
"The Il-76 - this is the workhorse of Russian transport, this is the kind of thing that they would use [for a swap like this]," she says...''
horizon zero dawn disagrees
Soldato
Its interesting the nuclear winter "model" has been coming up for deeper and deeper criticism in recent years, so much so that "Since 2023, the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has established an Independent Study on Potential Environmental Effects of Nuclear War. The aim is to evaluate all research on nuclear winter, and the final report will be issued in 2024."
One of the big "advantages" of climate change is that there is vastly more known now (although probably still a fraction of what we could find out), and far better climate modelling is now available than when the first views of the nuclear winter were calculated.
For sure however, it wouldn't really be a very nice time to be alive.
Should also be stated that modern nukes produce far less radiation, but it would still suck to be alive for those that survived.
en.wikipedia.org
One of the big "advantages" of climate change is that there is vastly more known now (although probably still a fraction of what we could find out), and far better climate modelling is now available than when the first views of the nuclear winter were calculated.
For sure however, it wouldn't really be a very nice time to be alive.
Should also be stated that modern nukes produce far less radiation, but it would still suck to be alive for those that survived.
Nuclear winter - Wikipedia
Soldato
Most worrying is that most survivors would be orange glow like Trump after the nukes went off
- Status