Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

Where have I made any such statements? You are making stuff up.

 

You mean when I posted this?

And your answer to that post was this?

If you need all this proof of what I claimed, then the following is true

You claim to have been in the AF for 20 years but
You don't know Russian ICBMs exist
You don't know they are liquid fueled
You don't know US ICBMs exist
You don't know they are solid rocket fueled
You think there is an over opposing force of Russian jet bombers
You think the US would allow Russia to launch an ICBM

Which of these are you so ignorant of that your (Supposed) 20 years in the Airforce couldn't answer that you need something that constitutes proof?
I bet you won't answer that question either.

 

They are not proof that Russia does not have a first strike capability.

By the way, if you are calling me a liar that I served twenty years in the Air Force, don't. I will report you.

 

Then you don't know what first strike capability is.
Which is pretty amazing for a 20 year AF guy to not know.

First strike capability is the ability to attack an enemy's nuclear arsenal that effectively prevents retaliation against the attacker.
And you need proof that liquid fueled missiles that are detectable prior to launch have that capability against the US?
When we can empty our silos and put our weapons on target before they can even get through the fueling process?
And you need proof of this?
A 20 year AF guy needs proof of this claim?
This is what you telling me?

Or were you going to tell me (As a 20 year AF veteran) that the First Strike capability means the first one to launch?

Tell me, which one is it? You have had no problem calling my honesty into question this entire thread so I don't give a s*** about calling you out.

Tell me the answer or run like you did before. Lets find out how much you know as a 20 year AF veteran.

What does First Strike capability mean and what part of the information I provided did YOU need proof of?
Can't wait to hear this

You can report me all you want. My post speak for themselves and aren't up for your interpretations because you got your feelings hurt.
You didn't have a problem calling me a liar. Now your feelings are hurt?

 

None of what you presented is proof of anything because it does not identify our assets which are dedicated to preventing the bombers and missiles from hitting us. All those aircraft, ships and helicopters are meaningless unless they are somehow contributing to air defense.

Saying that you are wrong about Russia not having a first strike capability is not calling you a liar. That is your opinion and I have a different opinion.

I served 19 years 11 months and 22 days in the US Air Force. I retired as a major. I had enough time for a twenty year retirement because of previous national guard active duty service. I served eleven months in Vietnam at Binh Thuy AB. I earned a Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal and Commendation medal in addition to a number "I was there" medals.

Don't even imply I am a liar again. You have been warned.

 

Which has NOTHING to do with your continued request for proof

Which has NOTHING to do with your continued request for proof

So when you decide to stop running from your own request, let me know.
Now, I will state it again as per YOUR REQUEST

These are the reasons Russia does not have first strike capability

1. First strike capability is the ability to attack an enemy's nuclear arsenal that effectively prevents retaliation against the attacker.
2. Russian uses liquid fueled missiles will take at least 60 minutes to fuel before launch
3. You can't fuel a liquid fueled missile in the silo
4. The US has 530 Minuteman III solid rocket fueled missiles that can be launched in 10 minutes and strike Russia before they can fuel or launch their ICBMs
5. We have the ability to detect Russia fueling their missiles before the launch

Now, if you claim this is not proof of Russia not having first strike capability, and you claim this isn't proof for you.
Then you tell me which of the 5 reasons I listed you know nothing about because it isn't proof Russia does not have first strike capability.
Which of the 5 do you not know about or need proof of?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

I repeatedly asked you for aircraft dedicated to air defense and antiaircraft batteries dedicated to air defense.

Lets talk about refueling. The Russians could notify us that they are testing their refueling procedures. We would not attack them under those circumstances even though we might suspect they are lying. They might even claim they are not even refueling, but just simulating refueling.

 

Has nothing to do with you first claim. When thats settled, we can move on to the next

1. Why would you fuel and launch one missile.
2. I am assuming you have seen a Saturn 5 rocket or the Space Shuttle on the pad? You have seen the evaporation cycles coming out of the ships valving while its being fueled or the ice falling
once launched? No different. Those are liquid fueled rockets and they are keeping the tanks topped off and cooled all the way up to the last 10 second countdown.
3. There is no defueling procedure for a Russian R-36 ICBM. Why, because it cost weigh, fuel, and range. Less weight means less warheads. Why would you defuel and ICBM. If they fuel it, it will be launched. They can divert it if they want but they don't spend money of procedures they have no intention of using. Additionally, those missiles are not ignited. The mixing of the fuels ignites itself. So even fueling one is a very hazardous procedure. Once fueled the cryogenic fuels will start warming up and expanding rapingly. The fuel valves can't handle those pressures and its highly likely the expanding gasses would overcome the internal valves, leak out and detonate once they mix. Which is why you will see continued fueling of the Space shuttle until launch. You see the liquid oxygen escaping as the fuel is kept topped off and freezing ice on the side of the tanks.
4. Russia has testing facilities for these procedures so doing it on an active silo wouldn't be something anyone would believe. And it would only be one missile and if they launched it, the entire country of Russia would be obliterated before they could launch another one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)

 

Yep, you need to PROVE your assertions. Its just that simple.

 

post deleted

 

Does anyone remember the SAC? That was the Strategic Air Command. Before ICBM's they were several squadrons of nuclear armed bombers that were kept flying in the air on the borders of the Soviet Union, one relieving the the other so that they were there 24/7
And after that I can't help but think it logical that something similar was done with fueling up ICBM's and then draining ICBMs. That would be expensive and difficult but this is the military and what else is there to do with our taxes? Repair roads and bridges, feed hungry children?

And several of the ICBMs were Minuteman, types, these were solid fuel rockets, which could be kept ready all the time. (Hence the name, I believe)

Or, maybe the entire multi-Billion dollar early warning system we have could have been totally ineffectual the whole time, basically no use at all to anyone and nobody in the military had ever noticed something so blindingly obvious to a bunch of itinerant yahoos on an Internet discussion board

Your choice.

 

Yes, actually I do as we were stationed at McCoy AFB in Orlando during the Cuban missile crisis. Its was the 919th air refueling wing and the 321st Bombardment wing. 15 KC 135s and 15 B-52s
But there wasn't a 24/7 bomber relieving bomber in the air that I ever heard of.

The air wings at McCoy kept half of the KC-135s and half of the B-52s on ready alert with the balance of aircraft airborne within the hour. It was also a launch and recovery base for the U-2 spy plane.

The US has 530 Minuteman III missiles that are solid rocket. Russia uses liquid fueled ICBMs because they can carry more weight (warheads)
Minuteman III carry 3 warheads and the Russian R-36 carries 10.

I have no clue what you are trying to state.

 

Willya just stop. Please, nobody is dissing the Bronze Deity. We are just pointing out that batshit crazies DO occasionally get to run polities that can easily destroy all known life and that one was there just recently.

Sleep tight children.

 

Completely ignoring the obvious.

1) Not all Russian ICBMS are liquid fueled. Quite a few of them are solid fueled like ours.
2) Liquid fueled ICBMs can be fueled while out of sight in their silos. Just as those ancient American Titans used to be.

 

Normally 15 aircraft would be a squadron rather than a wing.

You have never heard of Chrome Dome? That was a 24/7 airborne alert

 

Chrome Dome ended decades ago.

 

Not from McCoy

 

I was involved in the early 1970s.

At Blytheville AFB, it was the 97th Bomb Wing with the 340th Bomb Squadron. I don't remember the number for the refueling squadron. They had around 18 aircraft per squadron.

 

The early 1970s were "decades ago". About five decades more specifically.

 

The have around 70 solid rocket fueled birds and 18 of them on mobile launchers. Topol-M
The farthest distance one was ever tested was 4000 miles. Not enough to reach the US.
Out of 6 test launches, 2 exploded, one failed in flight. The last time one even flew was in 1998.

And the Russian liquid fueled ICBM would detonate on launch. Why would you do that.
They use cryogenic liquid oxygen and non cryogenic bipropellants and hypergolic (self igniting)
Any leaks in the silo would mean detonation during fueling or launch.

The Titans used liquid oxygen and kerosene. Not self igniting and Not the same propellants

 

The Titan IIs used hyperbolic fuels like the Russians did. The Titan Is used liquid oxygen and Kerosene.

 

So no leak, no detonation. Next.

 

Which is why they started launching them outside of silos'

Liquid oxygen is dangerous to use in an enclosed space, such as a missile silo, and cannot be stored for long periods in the booster oxidizer tank.
There were several accidents in Titan II silos resulting in loss of life and/or serious injuries.
In August 1965, 53 construction workers were killed in fire in a missile silo northwest of Searcy, Arkansas. The fire started when hydraulic fluid used in the Titan II was ignited by a welding torch.[5][6]
The liquid fuel missiles were prone to developing leaks of their toxic propellants. At a silo outside Rock, Kansas, an oxidizer transfer line carrying NTO ruptured on August 24, 1978.[7] An ensuing orange vapor cloud forced 200 rural residents to evacuate the area.[8] A staff sergeant of the maintenance crew was killed while attempting a rescue and a total of twenty were hospitalized.[9]
Another site at Potwin, Kansas leaked NTO oxidizer in April 1980 with no fatalities,[10] and was later closed.

In September 1980, at Titan II silo 374-7 near Damascus, Arkansas, a technician dropped an 8 lb (3.6 kg) socket that fell 70 ft (21 m), bounced off a thrust mount, and broke the skin of the missile's first stage,[11] over eight hours prior to an eventual explosion.[12] The puncture occurred about 6:30 p.m.[13] and when a leak was detected shortly after, the silo was flooded with water and civilian authorities were advised to evacuate the area.[14] As the problem was being attended to at around 3 a.m.,[13] leaking rocket fuel ignited and blew the 8,000 lb (3,630 kg) nuclear warhead out of the silo. It landed harmlessly several hundred feet away.[15][16][17] There was one fatality and 21 were injured,[18] all from the emergency response team from Little Rock AFB.[13][19] The explosion blew the 740-ton launch tube cover 200 ft (60 m) into the air and left a crater 250 feet (76 m) in diameter.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)

 

Russia has 114 known Topil ICBMs, and those use solid fuel. A large share of those are sitting on mobile platforms.
Russians have pretty good decoy systems, so, once launched, I’d expect 2/3 of them to reach their destination.

While these wouldn’t cripple the US, we shouldn’t pretend that they aren’t there and that the US would not suffer pretty significant losses.
Having said that, I think we should respond to Pootins nuclear rhetoric in kind. Bowing to such behavior invites even more bullying.

 

Oh, yeah, we will know that Russians are attempting to fuel their ICBMs by observing numerous accidental explosions near silo sites due to inexperienced staff fueling an ICBM under very stressful conditions.