Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

52 of those sit in silos and only 18 are mobile. The only successful test for range was in 1994 at a target 4000 miles away. The US is 5500 miles.
They claim it has a range of 6500 miles but have never tested that particular claim. Out of 6 test flights, only 3 were successful meaning it didn't explode in flight.
And to even think about a 5500 mile flight, it would only be able to carry one warhead.

Which is why the bulk of Russia's ICBMs are liquid fueled. Longer range with larger payloads of multiple warheads.

 

Not since 1987.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

Granted, they've found it much easier to maintain the turbo-prop big bombers, but these Tu-160s are supersonic, and many of them still fly. Just not the ones left in Ukraine in 1991 (about 20 of them, if I recall)... those haven't been maintained because Ukraine couldn't get the parts from Russia.

 

Why would I waste any time convincing someone about bases, who claims we have no air defense capabilities, then claims the very systems that do provide air defense don't exist?
Like
NORAD,
3000 Navy fighters,
5200 active duty Air Force aircraft, (Which is the worlds most advanced and most powerful air force in the world)
The North Warning System long range radar sites
The CADIN/Pinetree systems
The Mid Canada Line, air defence early warning line
The US based AN/TPS-59 mobile long-range surveillance radar

When you can admit you were wrong on your (No air defense claim) we can move forward.
But I am not going to sit here and rebound unfounded guesses on systems you know nothing about.

 

The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 entered service with the Long-Range Aviation of the Soviet Air Forces in 1956 and was first used in combat in 2015 in Syria. They are Russia's
front line bomber with over 500 produced

Of the Tu-160, only 36 were built, of which only 27 are still in existence and of those, 16 are in service.

 

Trump just mentioned using nukes, Trump just can't shut his mouth, you may not like it, but trump stuck his foot in this issue

 

I served twenty years in the Air Force and a couple of years in the army national guard as part of a 90mm AA crew ..

The Navy has less than a thousand fighter aircraft capable of air defense. . It makes no difference how many total aircraft the Air Force has. Only those capable of air defense count and most of those are not even in a position where they can offer a defense. And even fewer of those are on any kind cockpit alert. I haven't seen a radar shoot down an aircraft or missile.

I never said we had no air defense. I said we have no real air defense. Meaning it is not even close to adequate to stop an attack. Which it isn't.

 

Maybe you are overestimating Russian tech equipment and skills? Based on their inability to finish off a small military it's just possible that the Bear isn't the savage beast we have always anticipated.

 

That only applies to their silo-based missiles. The ones they have on mobile launchers are solid fueled.

 

The hitch in this reasoning is the internal state of a sociopathic authoritarian in the Kremlin.

 

Very true. The good news is Russian command knows what we know, and I don't think Putin would survive an order to launch.
Thats obviously a guess but at the same time, its not like they haven't done it before.

 

They only have 18 of those and its not determined they can reach the US as the longest test thay did successfully was 4000 miles. To reach 5500 miles it would have to be a single warhead which isn't what you you want for a first strike weapon

 

Trump is not president…do you have a credible link to him saying it.

 

It's time someone reminded Putin that there is a counter offer available.

 

I spent 15 years on US AF bases, was a high school to flight school US Army helicopter pilot and have spent a lot of time in strategy statistics, mission planning as well as my own research.
(By the way, thank you for your service sir)

That is not a true statement. Currenty our carriers average 85-90 fighters alone per carrier and we deploy 11 total carrier groups.
Additionally, the US Navy has another 2000 ground based assets with half of those being fighters as well

Again, not true
Current inventory we could bring to bear
F-22s 178
F-15s over 400
F-35s 284
F-16s 930
A-10s 284
U2s 26
E-8s with target attack radar systems 17
EC-130 Radar jamming 15
Aerial command and AWACS 35
US Navy currently have 1970 fighters with over 75% above average readiness on active duty and only 21% of their Airforce
US Marines have 908 fighters on active duty with 75% above average readiness which is only 24% of their Airforce.

Thats over 3800 fighters on active duty right now. More than enough to handle anything Russia could produce capable of getting to the US by 100 to 1.
Which 99% of Russia's long range bombers are turbo prop. They only have 16 jet bombers currently flyable.

So now you don't know what those radars would be used for like tracking, alerts, and identification.

Then what was this exchange?

Seems all evidence to the contrary

 

And Biden did exactly that, didn't he.
Trump sanctioned and stopped Putins NS2 pipeline into the EU giving Putin a monopoly on gas.

But Biden removed those sanctions in May. I wonder what message that sent to Putin?

Biden stopped all lethal aid to Ukraine in June, I wonder what message that sent to Putin?

Biden came out publically and stated no US troops would be deployed into Ukraine.
Yet nobody even asked him that question. I wonder what message that sent to Putin?

You're right, there is a counter offer to Putin and Biden seems to be on Putins side.

 

You never show exactly how many fighter aircraft that can be used for air defense. Even more importantly, how many are on cockpit alert in the US. None of the rest makes a bit of difference for defense of the US. A navy carrier in Mediterranean is useless for defense of the US.

Those radars can track and alert, but they cannot actually shoot down an aircraft or missile. Only those aircraft and anti aircraft units which you continually refuse to identify can do that.

 

Trump is running in 2024, and he is interfering in us foreign policy by saying these things

 

There isn't a single Russian aircraft getting close enough to the US to fire a cruise missile (600 miles) or over US soil to drop nuclear warheads without detection in plenty of time to reach and defeat it.
Did you think every aircraft the US has, isn't in the US?
We don't have any aircraft anywhere in the US?
We don't have the capability to detect long range bombers heading for the US?

Surprise, we have more than enough aircraft and early warning systems to defeat any Russian bomber threat heading into US air space.
To even try and deny that is just false. We have plenty of satellites looking down and radar covering far beyond the entire US.
If we had too we could tanker fighters across the globe.
You're being ridiculous
No Russian bomber is going to make it to US soil undetected or untouched.
And you have provided NOTHING that supports your theory.

 

So are you.

 

Says the poster who can't dispute it. lol

 

How long ago was the Cuban missile crisis?

 

October of 62
Which means what?

 

Nope, you get to prove it.

 

60 years have gone by, so you expect no advances in tech.

 

Don't make me laugh. You think anyone on PF is going to dance through hoops for a poster that just says Nope?
NOPE
You think you know more, prove it.
I made my statements and they are there to dispute. If you think you have the education to dipute them then be my guest.
If you think I'm going to waste my time educating you on something I know is way beyond your learning ability, you're dreaming.

We have all seen way way too many of your post. You can't even recall breaking news or historical facts.
Don't make me laugh out loud.