Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

Yes he is.

You are free to disregard reality if you like. Doing so will not prevent our stealth planes from pummeling our enemies.

I can provide explanations as to why his claims are untrue, but you do not seem interested in reading such explanations.

That was never the claim. If we nuke Russia, we will use strategic nukes.

The claim is that we will use tactical nukes against Russian forces that have invaded the EU. And that we will most certainly do.

 

So as a previous poster said something about being scared, I agree if we can't do anything why worry. whistles as he skips away lol

 

Nonsense.

Nuclear weapons aren't the only thing that you have no understanding of.

North Korea instigated the Korean War when they launched a massive invasion of South Korea.

Only if by "control" you mean our support for democracy so those people can rule themselves.

So long as Russia does not invade the EU, there is little chance of our direct military involvement.

We will probably provide arms though so that local people in these other countries can try to resist Russian tyranny.

If it comes to war with NATO, Russia won't have much luck downing any F-35s.

If that is a conventional attack, NATO F-35s will respond in kind if they are not already bombing Russia by that point.

If that is a nuclear attack, US stealth bombers will destroy Russia using nuclear weapons.

Note also that NATO does not have bases in Ukraine. And no one will care if Russia bombs Turkey.

NATO will protect Romania and Bulgaria (and all other EU territory) however.

NATO has no plans of any sort to make a ground invasion into Russia.

NATO only means to prevent Russia from invading the EU.

We will survive just fine until power is restored.

And our nuclear retaliation will eradicate whichever country or countries did it.

 

Dude .. you are the one disregarding reality .. all you have presented is naked claims.. I gave you the fellow who was on the team that brought us the F-16 and the A-10 .. and you cry "Liar Liar" .. but give no support for your own claim. Any fool in the peanut gallery can twirl around in peanut gallery crying liar liar. .. Not that you are one .. but how would I know any different .. as you do not support your claim.
That was never the claim. If we nuke Russia, we will use strategic nukes.

then there is this loopy doopy idea that we will use tactical nukes against Russia .. somethign no one has ever done before .. but hey .. why not. The problem is that then Russia will use them on us .. wipe our little F-35 boom boom .. which everybody realizes . such that France-Germany would never allow such a thing. We are not going to start nuclear war over "Ukraine" and Russia is not invading "France"

Detering the invasion of France is not done with a few F35's with tactical nukes -- it is done with an arsenal of Nuclear Missiles..

You are simply lights out on this one .. both your points actually .. and of course one reflects on the other .. making me doubt .. well. lets leave it at that. ..

 

Of course as shown by the wikipedia entry I linked to Pierre Sprey played no role in designing the F-16 or A-10.

You lied about that or at least grossly exaggerated his role in your pathetic quest for support for your idiotic position regarding the F-35.

 

My facts are all in order.

I've given you some explanation as to why I am correct. You didn't seem interested in listening. I could try again I guess.

While VHF radar can detect stealth fighters (not bombers), it is also very easily jammed or spoofed.

You may remember VHF if you are old enough to remember the era before flat screen TVs.

VHF is what used to be channels 2 through 13 on old TV sets. So if someone tries to track our stealth fighters using VHF radar, our electronic warfare guys could decide to overwhelm their radar with old episodes of Seinfeld.

A more likely move is that our electronic warfare guys will feed their VHF radar incorrect responses and send them chasing after imaginary ghost signals that are far away from the position of our actual fighters.

Well now I've provided an explanation (above) as to why VHF radar does not mean absolute doom for our stealth fighters.

Note my explanation above.

I've repeatedly explained that they are not for use against Russia itself, but for use against Russian troops that have invaded the EU.

If this nuclear strike from Russia causes any significant collateral damage in the EU, the US will respond by sending our stealth bombers to destroy Russia with strategic nuclear weapons.

If Russia invades the EU and the invasion cannot be dislodged with conventional weapons, then France and Germany will very much allow the use of tactical nukes to dislodge the invasion.

No one ever said that we were.

I spoke of dealing with a Russian invasion of the EU.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

And what happens when deterrence fails? Dislodging Russian forces with big strategic nukes is going to kill millions of EU citizens and leave much of the EU contaminated with fallout.

These little tactical nukes are designed to be used.

By scoring direct hits with low yields they will not kill millions of European citizens.

Their clean yield that is mostly from fusion will not leave much of the EU contaminated with fallout.

Note that both the nukes and the F-35s are heading to Europe.

 

Your "Facts" conflict with "the Facts" as per a subject matter expert .. of which you have produced no equivalent.

and I have been repeatedly addressed the use of tactical nukes on Russian Troops in the EU .. and Ukraine .. Why are you pretending otherwise and not addressing what was said to you.

What part of "Russia is going to fire back" is not sinking into your head ?

 

I have however produced a sound explanation as to why the expert is wrong.

You keep saying attacks on Russia.

Is that referring to attacks on Russian troops who have (hypothetically) invaded the EU?

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. I consider "attacks on Russia" to mean attacks against targets on Russian soil.

If a Russian nuclear attack causes significant collateral damage to any part of the EU, then American stealth bombers loaded with strategic nuclear weapons will end Russia.

 

One more time -- slowly - If tactical nukes are used on Russian Troops attacking Ukraine .. Russia will respond with nukes.

Only a complete friggen moron would use nukes on "Russian Troops" ... anywhere .. as the source would be nuked into oblivion.

and if we send our bombers to respond .. Russia will send ICBM's our direction in response .. and that will be that.

I didn't realize you were one of those folks that thinks nuclear war was winnable .. That thinks "MAD" ... is not "MAD".

 

I'm not talking about Ukraine. Ukraine is not part of the European Union.

The tactical nukes are for eliminating Russian troops that have invaded the EU.

If Russia invades the EU, and if that invasion cannot be repelled with conventional force, NATO will use tactical nukes to eliminate the problem.

We have more than enough strategic nukes to harm Russia equally as much as they harm the US and EU. We can keep retaliating for as long as they keep attacking.

I suppose my earlier comment about "ending Russia" was an oversimplification. What we'd really do is harm them equally as badly as they harm the US and EU.

So if Russia invaded the EU and it took tactical nukes to eliminate that invasion, and Russia then launched a nuclear attack that did X amount of damage to the US and EU, US bombers with strategic weapons would then do X amount of damage to Russia.

If Russia then fired some ICBMs that did Y amount of damage to the US and EU, US bombers with strategic weapons would then do Y amount of damage to Russia.

Unless Russia decided to attack our ICBMs. In that case we'd launch them all at Russian military targets (largely ending the entire Russian military) and the Russian attack on our ICBMs would destroy empty holes in the ground.

Actually I don't worry too much about whether we will win (whatever that even means in a nuclear war).

If a nuclear war needs to be fought, the United States will fight it.

 

Your just lost .. changing goalpost .. Yes we are talking about Ukraine .. mentioned it a long time ago.. and Russia is not attacking "France" aka "The EU" as that would lead to nuclear war .. which was also covered.

1) We are not talking about "France" we are talking about Ukraine .. as explained to you previously as attacking France would be "MAD" Mutually Assured Destruction .. So Russia is not attacking France ... as there is already a massive deterrent orders of magnitude larger than some tactical nukes.

2) In the case of Ukraine .. we would not use tactical nukes .. which you seem to now grant .. hence you desperately trying to move the goalpost.

Since you have granted 2) we are back to deterence to Russia attacking France -- in which case some F35s with tactical nukes are a complete waste of time .. as France already has a nuclear deterrent .. much bigger and badder than an F35 with a tactical nuke.

3) in both 1 and 2 .. if we did use a tactical nuke .. Russia would respond with nuke .. again leading to MAD

There is no scenario where this action is not "MAD" . no scenario where not a complete waste of time ..

 

I have not been talking about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The nuclear weapons are for protecting the EU.

That's where the new tactical nukes come in.

The new tactical nukes are for protecting the EU, not for protecting Ukraine.

We are not going to use large strategic nukes to drive Russian forces out of the EU. That would kill millions of European citizens and contaminate large parts of the EU with radioactive fallout.

These new tactical nukes will land direct hits with low yields for little collateral damage, and will not contaminate Europe with radioactive fallout.

OK.

Well, yes. Although I am unsure what Ukraine has to do with anything.

No goalposts are being moved. If a Russian invasion of the EU cannot be dislodged conventionally, then these new tactical nukes will eliminate the problem.

We are not going to use large strategic nukes to drive Russian forces out of the EU. That would kill millions of European citizens and contaminate large parts of the EU with radioactive fallout.

These new tactical nukes will land direct hits with low yields for little collateral damage, and will not contaminate Europe with radioactive fallout.

If Russia uses nukes against the US or EU, then US stealth bombers will use strategic nukes against Russia.

OK.

I do not agree that destroying the enemy is a waste of time.

 

"Conservative"/Republican knee-jerk support for endless warfare seems to be on the wane.

“The idea didn't go down well with Carlson. Watch the segment, posted by Fox News, here:

"But hold on," Carlson said. "Why would we take Ukraine's side and not Russia's side? It's a sincere question. If you're looking at America's perspective, why? Who's got the energy reserves? Who's the major player in world affairs? Who's the potential counterbalance against China.

"I'm totally confused."
YAHOO NEWS, Tucker Carlson railed against a GOP lawmaker, asking why the US should defend Ukraine and not side with Russia, By Bill Bostock, November 11, 2021
https://news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-railed-against-gop-105409067.html

 

Exactly .. its a local issue .. Let the EU handle it .. its in their back yard .. not ours. The whole Crimea thing was a joke ...a pure propaganda parade .. for who knows what reason.. The Strategic port in Crimea has been in Russian hands for 400 years .. They are not just going to "Give it up" and allow it to become a NATO port.. only a complete moron would think otherwise.

Yet -- that is exactly what we got from the EU Leaders and Heir Obama. After poking the bear for decades .. the bear not responding .. Putin drew a big fat Red Line .. and everyone knew it .. not like Putinski kept it a secret... But Hey .. we been pokin this bear for years and didn't but stir .. Lets do it again..

This time .. the bear woke up .. and did what need be done to protect its cubs .. followed by the Leaders of the NATO clown show all running around with hands in the air crying OMG OMG - feigning complete ignorance .. forgetting that it was NATO who set the damn precident when Kosovo was annexed. Good for goose .. Good for gander .. No ? Oh .. guess not .. forgot .. the old "Do as we say .. not as we do foreign policy"

That used to work .. but not no more.

 

I agree with you that NATO is in no position to complain after Kosovo.

But I do not see why you think NATO provoked Russia. Russia is responsible for its own choices to invade other countries.

 

Because Russia are the bad guys and Ukraine are the good guys.

Besides, all we are doing is giving weapons to Ukraine. It's not like we are sending American soldiers there to die or anything.

 

Kosovo, another opportunity for the dingbats that now seem to rise to the top of the US military to start WW III.

“A column of 30,000 Nato troops is advancing towards Pristina airfield – a crucial strategic position.

Unexpectedly, the Russian forces, reach the airfield first; Russia, Serbia's patron, is hoping to stake a claim in the occupation. The soldiers are pointing their weapons at the incoming Allied troops. "Destroy!" orders the US general over the radio – instructions from the very top. World War Three is on the cards. Enter crooner James Blunt. Crisis averted.


Blunt was then 25, a captain in the Life Guards and the lead officer at the front of the Nato column. He risked a court martial by refusing to obey those orders from General Wesley Clark to attack the Russian forces.”
THE INDEPENDENT, How James Blunt saved us from World War 3, By Tom Peck, Monday 15 November 2010.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-blunt-saved-us-from-world-war-3-2134203.html

 

What makes anyone think that the Russians were going to start a war over an airfield?

 

Once again .. why are we messing around in the affairs of others .. this time a long running blood feud . "picking a side" ..in a BLOOD FEUD... hmmm where have I seen that before .. never does turn out well.

There were crimes committed .. no doubt .. both sides .. then Nato came in and committed some more crimes.. big happy party. The Hague Trials were a kangaroo joke .. the one fellow finally had his trial end a few years ago .. 20 years after the fact ..at least a decade in custody .. Political Prisoner .. full on.

Never had much direct evidence but .. after 20 years accumulating "Indirect Evidence" anyone can be found guilty of anything.. but OK .. When then does Obama's Trial Start ... Biden and Hillary as accomplices .. Syria was 50 times worse than anything the Serbs did.

 

Seriously dude(ess) --- this is just the basics .. Look at the map - and the history . Russia withdrawing for decades - here .. 14 or so territories .. Go .. but there were conditions - agreements .. both formal and informal.. Everytime Russia took a step back . withdrawing troops and so on .. Nato came in an built a base .. as a general backdrop.

round 2002 Baby Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty - unilaterally .. and .. OK .. but then 2007 announces he is going to put these things on Russia's border.. Destabilizing nuclear detente' - forcing Russia to take counter measures to restabilize the balance. Dumb and dumber .. no ifs ands or buts .. beginning with "ABM's dont work" sans some very specific conditions .. but later on that .. Russia has to act on the basis that they will work .. and they did.

Ruski announced 3 options 1) More Subs 2) violate short term treaty and build a whack of short range nuclear cruise missiles 3) "Mystery Prize" These are random skill testing questions for fun and love of Trivia.

Fortunately -- we didn't end up at 3) .. but we would have were Russia not confident in 1) and 2)

2) Subs .. One nuclear sub - 16 Missiles - 10 MIRV's each .. 160 bombs each roughly 10 times Nagasaki .. baby ones. .. but enough to single handedly take out the US .. and yes .. there will still be stuff left --but the damage to infrastructure and radioactive poisoning and subsequent chaos from such a strike and .. US as we know it is kaput .. end of fairy tale.. rough estimate is 400 Bombs (bitter than these but serves for comparison) .. is enough to cover entire continental US with Radiation.. one big contamination zone.

but we talking many subs .. and that is just the begining of the party... First thing happens prior to the end .. High Altitude EMP blasts take out our electrical grid .. mess with anything electronic. .. Power Out .. concurently .. the communications - GPS satellites taken out ..around the same time .. nuclear cruise missiles take out the ABMs in the territory of any nation dumb enough to house these things.

Then in darkness you wait .. not for the babies 10 times nagasaki .. the big puppies 1 megaton rougly 70 times Nagasaki .. Thousands of them ..

Poking the Bear .. cause we need a "Bad Guy" .. to keep the Military Industrial Complex Gravy Train flowing.

 

General Clark ordered an attack on Russian troops.

“"Fortunately," Blunt recalled, "up on the radio came General Sir Mike Jackson [commander of the British forces], whose words were, 'I'm not going to have my soldiers start World War Three.' He told us, 'Why don't we encircle the airfield instead?' And after a couple of days the Russians there said, 'Hang on, we have no food and no water. Can we share the airfield with you?'"

Blunt told John Pienaar, on Radio 5 Live's Pienaar's Politics, that even without General Jackson's intervention he would have refused to carry out that order given by Wesley Clark, who was at that time the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato forces in Europe.

The stand-off lasted two weeks. Russian forces continued to occupy the airport, until eventually an agreement was secured for them to be integrated into peace-keeping duties, while remaining outside of Nato command.”
THE INDEPENDENT, How James Blunt saved us from World War 3, By Tom Peck, Monday 15 November 2010.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-blunt-saved-us-from-world-war-3-2134203.html

 

I'm not aware of us building any new bases. However we did violate our pledge to not expand NATO east of Germany.

But Russia still makes their own decisions. We do not make them invade other countries.

The ABMs are no threat to Russia. They are there to prevent Iran from nuking the EU.

Russia knows this. Their fuss over the ABMs is bogus.

The US Navy is prepared to sink Russian subs if war ever breaks out.

US stealth bombers will fly in with strategic nukes and ensure that Russia is damaged equally as much as Russia has damaged the US and EU.

 

I know all about the incident. I was alive and watching the news back then.

I ask again, what makes you think the Russians were going to war even if NATO troops fired on them?

 

Whatever happened to that submarine BTW?

 

160 MIRVs on a single submarine can NOT be targeted on 160 different cities in the U.S.

Nor can the U.S. do anything similar to Russian cities.