Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

Russia has liquid fueled ICBMs. The US has solid rocket fueled ICBMs.
Whats the difference?

Liquid fueled ICBMs take 60-90 minutes to fuel before launch and they can't be fueled until they are ready for launch.

The choice of liquid propellant also influence's other technology choices. liquid propellants are cryogenically cooled to temperatures approaching absolute zero. The cryogenic coolers make the missile less mobile and more difficult to prepare to fire. liquid oxygen and hydrogen can not be transferred to the rocket days or even several hours before launch as the fuel will warm up, expand, making the pressure to high for the internal valving to handle.

This fueling process makes the Russian ICBMs vulnerable to attack during the fueling process as everyone is watching.

Our solid rocket missiles can be launched in 10 minutes from silos in the US. Additionally, our subs actually lay on the bottom of Russian harbors tracking navel activity and have done so for over 30 years.

Any indication that Russia is fueling an ICBM would draw an immediate response from one of our subs that have a 5 minute response time. A simple cruise missile response is all that is needed.

Which makes the entire Russian ICBM inventory a deterrent force and not a first strike force.

If Putin was dumb enough to start the fueling process, the entire Russian command knows what the response would be before a single missile left the ground and they would be convinced that the incoming birds would be a nuclear response.

This is why Russia is not a first strike threat to any nation. And just an FYI, if they were to start the fueling process, there is no way of knowing where the missile is targeted until after launch and a trajectory could be determined. Meaning, everyone is going to assume its headed for them.

 

Interesting. Great and timely information.

 

depends how crazy he is, Trump was just saying he would threaten Russia with nukes

 

They also have small yeild EMP nukes (nukes designed specifically to maximize EMP instead of destructive force). Most likely launched from submarines. And most assuredly so do we.

The problem is that Russia is hardenned against EMP. Components that can easily be sheilded, are, and components that cannot be easily sheilded have replacements on hand. At least in critical junctions and urban centers.

We don't.

Further to that, Russians are far less likely to riot when their internet stops working or their food stamps show up late. Quite frankly, they're used to the system breaking down now and then and waiting for it to be fixed.

They dont have to destroy our cities They just have to knock our power out, and we'll destroy our cities for them.

If they do manage to knock our power out- which do you think is more likely, that we'll send our military to fight Russia, or we'll send our military to try to stop our own people from burning and looting our own cities? Given our population size, roughly half of it in the cities, we'll need every servicemember we have on the streets trying to keep the peace at home and no one available to fight a war overseas.

 

Russia still has first strike nuclear capability in their submarines and in their aircraft which occasionally fly close to our shores.

 

Most U.S. residential housing is mostly wood and other highly flammable material, while most European housing is either brick or stone or other less flammable material.

 

Hey, I have a liquid nitrogen Dewar in my lab that allows me to keep liquid N2 for half a year. I do not see a reason why Russian launching sites wouldn't have such storage Dewars, which are topped up every few months. In fact, not having them would almost be criminally negligent. I highly doubt that liquid H2 and O2 will first have to be transported to the launching site before launch. This would make Russia a sitting duck, which it isn't.

 

Does this mean I can get out of my fallout shelter now?

 

True but they are not a threat to destroy our deterrent in their silos or on their runways. They are only a first strike on civilian population and industrial sections of the nation for which there would be massive retaliation . Thus MAD.

 

russia has moved much of its critical industry underground, and most cuties include large bomb shelters. maybe they think they have a chance to survive a nuclear exchange.

bomb shelters? do you think americans will even turn their lights out for a black out?

 

A very limited number of bombers are on nuclear alert. Maybe six out of a squadron of fifteen or twenty. The rest take time to get armed and would be part of the second strike if such a thing exists.

Our silos are also likely targets and they will not survive a direct or nearby nuclear hit.

At any rate, MAD is the word of the day and no one survives an all out nuclear war.

 

With GPS, the lights make no difference.

 

Unfortunately, the MAD strategy to avoid nuclear war doesn't really work if one of the players is actually MAD.

 

They do keep their fuel on location. They just can't fuel a rocket until launch.

 

in game theory this mad business is modelled as the game of "chicken, wherein drunken teenage boys aim dilapidated vehicles towards a head on collision with the first one to steer aside being "chicken." the way to win is to convince the opponent that you are crazier than he is.

 

Maybe that's what Putin and Trump had in common, and why they seemed to like each other.

 

Which most are still propeller driven. Their subs are very easy to locate as well and subs don't have a first strike capability as they are very limited in on board weapons. Most of them are tracked every day. And those delivery systems are cruise missiles which can be shot down. Not a system you would use for a first strike.

 

So you think its better to hate each other and bring us all to the brink of nuclear war while Russia is targeting civilians in Ukraine for the sake of saying you hate Putin?

 

Problem is, they have to expose themselves as being a first strike aggressor. Their subs use cruise missiles. Easy to locate and take down. This would mean a full retaliatory attack on Russian soil.
A few might get through but they can't shut down all of the US or get even close to the US not responding.
Its a suicide move.

 

As soon as we get the detection of Russia fueling missiles, the bulk of our airborne strike force would be in the air and on their way to rally points in less than an hour.

Those silos would be empty long before being hit.

And everyone in the Russian command knows this and they also know Russia would be the biggest loser. I doubt 20% of their birds would get off the ground and with their high trajectory and reentry speeds, most of those would be shot down. The US would also take some damage but it wouldn't be anything compared to the devastation Russia would encounter as the US wouldn't be the only dog in the fight. Russia knows this and believes this which is why they would never be a first strike nation.

 

I hate to pee in your cheerios, but the fueling process for ICBMs applies to everyone who has ICBMs such as USA, China, Russia, Pakistan, and India. Thus the 10 minute not only applies to Russia, but the US as well and to every other country that has capable ICBMs. Does not prove your point about Russia's nuclear capabilities.

If Russia were to fuel their ICBMs for launch, we would not know they are doing that, or even had done that. We would know through our satelitte imagary and warning systems of their launch, but that is all.

However, I will say this, no one is that stupid to launch a singular ICBM or SLBM and expect no other nation who has nuclear launch capabilities to reitaliate.

 

Not all their bombers are propeller driven The subs are not tracked every day and you cannot shoot down all of their cruise missiles when each aircraft likely carries a dozen or more.

I worked in an air support center in Thailand in the early 1960s and the Thai F-86s could not catch them.

Never underestimate your enemy.

 

I think you have been watching way too many movies.

For starters, if our intelligence, through our satelittes, detects fueling ICBMs, that 10 minute window is not enough time for a response. Second, the US general public would not know anything until Russia makes an announcement of some kind, like what Putin did by saying "we are putting Russia nuclear forces on alert." AKA, they were probably fueling the hard cased and mobile ICBMs at that point or were moving to do so at a moment's notice.

Second, our beauracracy, both Military and Civilian would need to advise an appropriate time. To move from standy to activate would take at least 30 minutes and the nuclear capable forces would be on stanby too. The boomers in port will prepare, but not leave. The airforce would be on the ground still. All reserve pilots, pilots on leave, or not on standby will be recalled. And all that takes time.

In other words, it is not as quick as you might think it is.

 

Wow 3 posts in and we turn it into a Trump "thang"... Trump is not president... Biden is president, this is his baby.

 

10 minutes? Where did you ever come up with that? It takes up to 90 minutes to fuel and launch a liquid fueled ICBM.
Our solid rocket fueled missiles take 10 minutes.
You are way behind the power curve here

Its a 90 minute process no matter where they fuel them.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
I actually lived it. We were stationed at McCoy AFB (before it was Orlando International AP) during the Cuban missile crisis. Once the ORI system (Operational Readiness Inspection) is alerted, B-52s and KC-135s start rolling in 30 second intervals within 20 minutes. Reserve and on leave pilots are a very small percentage of active duty personnel. Given the 90 minute fuel to launch plus flight time to the US, the bulk of our bombers are already headed to rally points.

All you are doing is guessing at scenarios and its all fictitious.