Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

Wait, you're trying to compare medium range MRBMs in Cuba to the current Russian ICBM inventory?
Just wow

 

Nope, first you have to provide proof.

 

Nope

 

A few EMPs would destroy us as a nation.

 

Nooooo, they are nowhere near that capable. A 2019 report by the Electric Power Research Institute, which is funded by utility companies, found that such an attack would probably cause regional blackouts but not a nationwide grid failure and that recovery times would be similar to those of other large-scale outages.

We have devices in place to help protect us on important electronics. But we also have EMP weapons on cruise missiles.

 

You have not provided an iota of proof that any of that is true.

 

Then you don't know what your talking about.

 

Says the poster that thinks 1962 missiles in Cuba are some how related to the current ICBMs in Russia.
And just an FYI, Nobody cares what you think anyone is talking about because you can;t even figure out a question or statement to make.

 

You're the one who thinks that missile tech has remained stagnant for 60 years.

 

You seem to forget that you started this thread titled
"Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone".

Now obviously you started this thread because this was something that you thought most people did not believe. As such, it is your job to prove that you were correct. It is not our job to disprove it. It is your job to defend this position which you have taken.

You have provided a massive amount of numbers. Unfortunately, they have little to nothing to do with whether Russia is or is not a first strike nuclear threat.

 

And I have provided data to back up my position.
If a poster doesn't know that Russian ICBMs are liquid fueled or what that means, they can ask.
Have I not answered your post with posted information? Does google only work for me?
If someone thinks I'm falsifying information then claim it. Tell me what you think I got wrong or what you don't understand.
Its a pretty simple process.

 

Really, show me.
GUARANTEED YOU WON"T

 

Your posts are proof.

 

Like I said
GUARANTEED YOU WON'T

Man its hard being right all the time

 

I wasn't really thinking of Biden in that way.

 

Yep, you're a legend in your own mind.

 

No. You have provided numbers of helicopters, ships, etc. Total number of aircraft. The only numbers that count is the number of aircraft interceptors on alert and the number and location of anti aircraft batteries. That, you have not provided.

 

Link won't load.

But it sounds kinda sus anyway. Part of the problem with upgrading the grid to resist EMP is govt keeps trying to get the utilities to pay for it, to which they always respond 'it isnt necessary' because they dont wanna do it.

It seems unlikely to me that in 2 years we went from:

"As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government previously reported, In 2017 testimony to Congress about the imminent threat of an EMP attack on the United States by Dr. William R. Graham, Chairman, and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, chief of staff, of the Commission to Assess the Threat to America from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), the two experts noted:

“In the event of a nuclear EMP attack on the United States, a widespread protracted blackout is inevitable.” According to their report, “The damage level could be sufficient to be catastrophic to the Nation, and our current vulnerability invites attack…" in 2017

to 'short regional blackouts' in 2019

https://www.usagovpolicy.com/u-s-vulnerable-to-emp-attack/

Does your link state what changed in that two years? Im betting the power companies are betting once the grid goes down, no one is going to be able to hold them accountable for saying it wasn't a threat...

 

Ukraine has taken a play from Russia's own playbook, namely Stalingrad. Russia was banking on Ukraine trying to isolate the fighting from the Ukrainian civilians and fight them on a front. If they had, Russia would've achieved a quick victory as planned. Ukraine has opted to fight in the population centers, which are far easier to defend, far more complicated logistically to attack, and far more costly to both Russian forces and Ukrainian civilians. This sort of battle says a lot more about Ukraines determination to win and willingness to suffer casualties than it does about Russia's ability to fight. Russia is no fighting a military anymore as much as it is fighting an extremely well armed and well supported insurgency, which is a whole different can of worms, as we know all to well from our fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Can we see inside the silos?

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. How does just looking at their silos tell us when they're refuelling? I don't think they just drive up in a tanker truck, do they? Wouldn't they have some covert way to refuel, like keeping fuel on hand nearby, and just throwing a switch to start the refueling?

Do you actually know? Again, where do you get your information? Please provide a link. (Why do I continually have to ask the right to prove their claims?)

 

Oh ffs ... I gave you information. I did not need you to tell me about the turbo-prop bombers ... I already mentioned those in my post. Didn't you read it?

smh ...

Your original post claimed, or implied, that Russia did not have jet propelled, supersonic bombers. My post was a direct, factual response to that (and do please note that I included a link without having to be asked). No one likes to be corrected, but geez!

 

They have always had a belief they could survive a nuclear war, the operative part being "they" are only the upper echelon of the Communist Party.

 

Not even remotely close to what I said. I stated (AND YOU UNDERLINED) MOST were prop driven aircraft
Then you posted (NOT SINCE 1987)

So I showed you the turbo prop aircraft and their numbers.

Maybe you should go back and read what you posted

 

They don't fuel them inside of silos. Liquid fueled ICBMs are stored vertically, then raised shortly before launch for fueling. This a consequence of the cryogenic liquid fuels used, which required the missiles to be stored unfueled and then be fueled immediately prior to launch. This isn't some super secret here and China is no different.

I actually know the difference between solid rocket fueled missiles and liquid fueled missiles from personal experience and I know the benefits and drawbacks of each.
My father was in the first graduating class of the AF academy and his first duty station was the Cheyenne Mountain Complex for NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command).
He was a silo sitter upon arrival then given a shift commend.

He left NORAD and was appointed to navigation training and was a navigator on KC-135Q which was a special refueler just for the SR71 Blackbird which flew missions into Russia.
So you could say I have a lot of nuclear missile activity around me as well as watching them load nuclear weapons onto B-52s. The first strike air crews were required to live in bunkers at the end of the runway for two weeks on and two weeks off.
Most of the air crews lived on base, When we would visit my dad it was in a fenced off location with a playground and tables about 200ft from the bunker.
It was common place for ground crews to load weapons on the tarmac about another 200ft from where we were sitting.

This was during the Cuban missile crisis
Which is why we were stationed at McCoy AFB (Now Orlando International) which is why their airport signature is MCO if you ever buy a ticket to Orlando.
I watched actual operational readiness inspections (ORIs) with KC-135s and B-52s loaded with nuclear weapons taking off in 20-30 second intervals during an alert.
He also worked for NASA in Florida along with other family members after he left the Air Force.
And I was a high school to flight school helicopter pilot for the US Army as aviation was just kind of a family thing at the time.

In 1968 a Soviet sub (K-129) sank north of Hawaii and the CIA along with Howard Hughes launched a mission to recover that sub, (which they did) and buddies of my dad were on that mission. They recovered code books, guidance systems and a host of Soviet missiles. It was called the Jennifer Project. (Azorian Mission) Its a story how the CIA stole a nuclear Soviet sub.

So I have spent a lot of hours studying aircraft, weapons, and missiles throughout my life.

What Russia has is public information and easy to find. This isn't secret information. What I have provided I have provided from my actual studies of their capabilities.
If you have a direct question I am sure I can find information you can access.

 

You've been asked to provide proof, you won't.