Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I think with ICBMs the issue is they can be shot down, but if a full blown nuclear exchange there likely wouldn't be enough capacity to intercept whatever % of the russian ones made it out of Russian airspace and didn't simply fail completely, or in fact headed off completely to the wrong place (due to failure of varying degrees)
You would also need to hit them in the ICBM stage and not the final stage (the nuclear warhead stage) which would be incredibly difficult.
Click to expand...
Again the last Russian icbm was built before the Soviet Union collapsed…

The amount of money the USA spends on maintaining their smaller fleet of nuclear weapons is larger than the entire Russian military budget, then when you take into account the rampant corruption. Those ibcms are more likely to be duds if not more harmful to Russia.

The USA has spent billions developing stealth bombers, you think the Russians would even get the chance to launch them?
 
Abraxaz1 said:
Again the last Russian icbm was built before the Soviet Union collapsed…

The amount of money the USA spends on maintaining their smaller fleet of nuclear weapons is larger than the entire Russian military budget, then when you take into account the rampant corruption. Those ibcms are more likely to be duds if not more harmful to Russia.

The USA has spent billions developing stealth bombers, you think the Russians would even get the chance to launch them?
Click to expand...

RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org 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.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Women on the front line are a liability and that's just a fact.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Abraxaz1 said:
Again the last Russian icbm was built before the Soviet Union collapsed…

The amount of money the USA spends on maintaining their smaller fleet of nuclear weapons is larger than the entire Russian military budget, then when you take into account the rampant corruption. Those ibcms are more likely to be duds if not more harmful to Russia.

The USA has spent billions developing stealth bombers, you think the Russians would even get the chance to launch them?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rroff said:
EDIT: By all accounts most of the Russian silo based nuclear weapons are "rusting away" and the mobile ones don't seem in hugely better shape - but they'll likely have as many which work, or work well enough as they will failures if Ukraine is anything to go by.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Abraxaz1 said:
Wrong….

As usual even the patriot has been able to shoot down ICBM’s. That’s even if they launch, we haven’t seen anything more modern than the t-80 used in combat (t90 doesn’t count as it’s a t-72 hull with a t80 turret)

Latest intelligence reports state that the majority of Russian ICBM’s are beyond economical repair and the rest haven’t had the correct funding for years due to rampant corruption.its why the us sees china as their main threat and even then a leaked report last year said due to poor construction the majority of the missile silos in china can’t even open their doors…

Russia is a couple of steps from being neutralised and seperated up
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roar87 said:

RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roar87 said:

RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org 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.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read that wiki, tested and found to be unsuccessful…

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
 
Abraxaz1 said:
Did you actually read that wiki, tested and found to be unsuccessful…

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bug One said:
Underestimating Russian ICBM's is just foolish. Part of the reason we've got to this point is by continually underestimating threats.
Click to expand...

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:
potatolord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roar87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Radiation mutation would pretty much remove life. The genetic pool in any bunker population would be too small to continue life.
 
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...''
:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom