Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone.

Yet you just answered your own question.
Amazing

So if you believe only a few can make it through, then you are claiming the US assets would respond in time and take out the majority of the aircraft attacking US soil.
Do you have any proof of this or is this based on the information and radar facilities I provided you?

 

How many aircraft do we have on alert right now to stop an attack?

 

No no no, I'm not doing roundy rounds with you because you got caught making my point.
You're just going to have to deal with it.
You knew all along the US would respond and you admitted only a few could even get through.
Which means you knew all along Russia wouldn't defeat our early warning and radar systems.
Now you want to change the subject to hide your admission.
Sorry, you already admitted what I have been posting all along.

 

How many anti aircraft batteries do we have in place right now to stop an attack?

 

You tell me.
You claimed only a few could get through.
So what was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

 

How many missiles and bombers can the Russians launch at one time.

I never said only a few. I said there will always be a few who make it through. The question is how many is an acceptable number of bombs landing on American soil.

So. How many bombs hitting American cities do we consider acceptable?

 

You're posting black space

 

So heres how this works.
You have asked me dozens of question and I have answered post after post.
In fact, I have answered more question from you than any other poster in this thread.
Now I asked you a question and there is no moving forward until you answer it.

You claimed there will always be a few who will make it through in the fog of war.
And my question is
What was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

This is the 3rd time I have asked. So stop with all the deflections and answer the question.

 

You have no answered a single question. The total number of aircraft, ships and helicopters is meaningless.

I never said that the our inventory would take down the majority of the bombers. I said there will always be a few which make it through. The majority might also make it through. We will not be able to stop all of them So answer the very basic question. How many nuclear bombs landing American soil do you consider acceptable.

This was your thread. You posted a very controversial claim. You claimed "Russia is not a first strike Nuclear threat to anyone." I know of no one believes this to be true except for you. It is not our job to prove you wrong. It is your job to prove you are right.

 

Still running from you own statement huh.
Typical
No matter how much dung you throw on top of it, you can't change it and the fact that you keep running from your own statement tells the story.

we know that there will always be a few who will make it through in the fog of war.
Thats not might, could, maybe, blah blah blah, you said WE KNOW

But you know the most telling part, is you trying desperately to run and change the subject.

So what was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

So what was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

So what was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

So what was your conclusion as to what US forces inventory that took down the majority of the bombers?

RUN FORREST RUN

 

All ICBMs in existence are liquid fueled. The question of first strike nuclear capability is how rapidly can they deploy and fire those missiles. All the data you provided does not answer the question of how rapidly can they deploy and fire those missiles. In other words, you are concentrating in the wrong areas such as how long it takes to fuel the rocket for instance. Or that we can detect Russian aircraft by airplane radar while on CAP patrols. None of that is being used.

United States greatest strength in detection is our early warning systems, both satellite and strategically located radar facilities. They can detect a launch of an ICBM but not the fueling or Russian decision on when to strike. That is why mutually assured destruction is the policy of every nuclear capable country from United States to Russia to China to Israel or India to Pakistan to United Kingdom to France, etc.

And what you have not provided is proof that Russia is not capable. In fact, all the data you have provided suggest otherwise.

 

Stop running and provide proof.

 

the problem is we generally won't know if they are fueling the missiles for a test launch or a first strike. We won't know a damn thing unless we see them launch or about to see them launch an ICBM. SLBM are totally undetectable and one Typhoon class submarine can devestate the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States.

 

I will restate it. We will never be able to stop them all. There will be at least a few who make it through or most will make it through. We will stop some of them, but not all of them.

You have failed to prove that Russia does not have a first strike capability even though that was your big contention. I don't believe there is a single person in this forum besides you who believes that is true. I know of no knowledgeable military official that believes it is true. I have seen no published report which says this is true.

You hold this ridiculous position all by your self.

 

We did have Russian bombers come very close to the United States at times in the past. So your claim that "Russian bombers can get within 600 miles" is a bunch of bull.

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...year ago,miles from U.S. territorial airspace.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-bombers-intercepted-miles-us-airspace/story?id=71171943

https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/u-s-russia-military-flights/index.html

First article happened in 2021, second article in 2020, and third article in 2014. And no, I don't care who was president at that time. The fact remains that Russian bombers have come close to our shores. It's the chess game both Russia and we play. We send aircraft to test their air defenses and they do the same.

 

Wrong, Only Russia and China use liquid fueled ICBMS
The US uses the LGM-30G Minuteman III, 3 stage solid rocket fueled missiles

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Contractor: Boeing Co.
Power Plant: three solid-propellant rocket motors; First Stage ATK refurbished M55A1; Second Stage ATK refurbished SR-19; Third Stage ATK refurbished SR-73
Technologies Chemical Systems Division Thrust: First Stage: 203,158 pounds; Second Stage: 60,793 pounds; Third Stage: 35,086 pounds
Weight: 79,432 pounds (36,030 kilograms)
Diameter: 5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
Range: 6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
Speed: Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
Ceiling: 700 miles (1,120 kilometers)
Date deployed: June 1970, production cessation: December 1978
Inventory: active force, 400; Reserve, 0; ANG, 0

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104466/lgm-30g-minuteman-iii/

Current American ICBMs use solid propellants. The solid propellant used in the first three stages of both the Minuteman II and III, as well as the Peacekeeper, uses acrylic acid/aluminum powder for fuel, ammonium perchlorate as the oxidizer, and polybutadiene as the binder. Once ignited, solid propellant cannot be extinguished; it burns until exhaustion. The resulting burn is a metal fire which produces exhaust fumes consisting primarily of aluminum oxide dust and hydrogen chloride gas. In the event of an accident, small levels of hydrochloric acid could be inhaled by nearby personnel, but it is unlikely that much more than eye and upper airway irritation will be experienced.

https://nuke.fas.org/intro/missile/icbm.htm

The choice of liquid propellant may also influence other technology choices. Some liquid propellants are storable, and others must be cryogenically cooled to temperatures approaching absolute zero. The cryogenic coolers make the missile less mobile and more difficult to prepare to fire. The superpowers long ago abandoned nonstorable liquid-propellant missiles for these reasons, but a country that can support the technology to manufacture and store liquid oxygen and hydrogen may find this to be one possible path to making an ICBM.

There is no published data I can find on fueling the R-36 Russian liquid fueled ICBM but it wouldn't be any different than any other fueling process. The liquid fueled engines don't ignite. The combination of the two fuels ignites when mixed. So fueling inside a silo is out. The missile has to be raised to launch position outside the silo then fueled. An average fueling process is 60 minutes.

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

Any massive bomber launch by Russia would be detected before they even left Russian airspace. If they were headed to the US you don't think NORAD would scramble a response?
Please

Wrong. We wouldn't use radar to detect a Russian launch or fueling. We have birds looking down on Russia and they have birds looking down at us. You don't think the technology has reached a point to determine an ICBM coming up to launch status and fueling?
Thats not even disputable.

 

You are just deflecting from the OP.
I NEVER said they NEVER came within 600 miles.

I claimed that a launched mission from Russia to ATTACK the US wouldn't get within 600 miles so they could launch a cruise missile.
You are taking my claim out of context to make a fake point.
We have been caught invading Russian airspace and they have been caught as well.
NOBODY was attacking anyone. We were not at war.

 

I never made that claim
NEXT

Yet you refuse to explain how the others didn't make it
NEXT

You have failed to use any common sense or provided anything other than your opinion on the matter. Which is very limited at best
When you can provide such, let me know
NEXT

Guess what else you don't know
1. Anything about the US inventory of radar systems
2. Anything about liquid fueled ICBMS
3. Anything about our Minuteman III solid fueled missiles
4. Anything about fueling a liquid fueled missile
5. Anything about the current war planes in inventory
6. Anything about our satellite systems looking down on Russia
7. Anything about our subs capabilities

Hell, you can't even explain your own claim of how Russia aircraft would get shot down before reaching the US.

So that makes your opinion about as worthless and your post

 

I have no doubt they are being watched by satellites. But I think you fail to see how long the process takes. Usually, those satellites routinely send the photos to command and control on a periodic basis, usually every 15 minutes or so. And for a short period of time, a continuous stream or every 5 minutes or so. Then the photos/digital images have to be decrypted, developed, interpreted, analyzed, and reported with duplicate teams doing the same thing on the same set of photos. Once agreed, it goes up the chain of command. That can take an hour at least before it is given to the president. With a 60 to 90 minute time frame, at best, you have 15 minutes left and at worst, they are already fueled and ready to fire. What this means is that Russia will already have the nukes armed and either ready or about ready for launch sequence.

I stand corrected that we don't use liquid fuel rockets.

I think it has to do more with how you are interpreting your data, not the data itself. You have a precise account for both our and Russia nuclear rocket forces, combat aircraft, etc. However, where I think you are missing the mark is all the other departments and military pipeline that will go into the decision making process. There has been books written about this in the past. And although the current protocols are top secret or better, we can surmise that the processes may be more efficient on our end AND on Russia's end as well. Personally, I think you are making the same mistake as our military leaders did with the Japanese Armed forces in 1941. We knew Japan had a first class navy. We also knew they can mount compex operations. But we mistakenly believed they can never attack Pearl Harbor despite having a sub in the area to "watch the Japanese Navy."

I think the point is that our alert status is not as hyped up today as it was during the cold war. It can be through directions by the President and the chain of command issuing the orders. However, given the Berlin Wall has fallen, our alert status is not as it was in the past, nor should it be most of the time.

I am well aware of what NORAD can and cannot do. However, the point I was making is to counter your point that Russia is not a first strike capable nation. You data, with the amount of nuclear forces and bombers at their disposal, is very capable of first strike. I think you are overtly optomistic in our response capablities no matter who is President. I am more of a realist myself. Yes, we are capable, but it is not goint to be as quick or as black and white as you are trying to potray here.

 

I am not deflecting at all. You were the one who made the statement, "If you think Russian bombers can get within 600 miles of the US border undetected, thats just ridiculous and a severe lack of knowledge." This occured in post #121, your response to another poster. I merely pointed out that Russian bombers have gotten close, very close, in the three seperate articles I cited. I was simply disputing that claim and ignoring the rest of your post.

 

You have failed to answer the most basic questions about your claim. You can accuse me of failing all day long, but this is your thread and your obligation to prove, not mine.

I have no heard a single person defend your position. That should tell you that you are wrong.

 

Wait
First you claimed

But now you're an expert on satellite imagery and chain of command issues?
Sorry, Thats not how the system works. I was part of the system. My Dad was part of the system.
We were stationed at Cheyanne Mountain Missile complex then McCoy AFB in Orlando during the Cuban missile crisis.
Did you think I was pulling this out of my butt?

Everything I have posted is accurate and concise. I have spent a lifetime becoming familiar with these attributes. Russian and US. I am not winging it.
This isn't up for political debate.

Heres how it works.

Either the US or a NATO ally will get (What we call) a launch detection. Not necessarily an actual launch but the preparation of a launch.
We do it when they are testing ICBMs and we do it when they are moving ICBMs and we do it when they breach a silo for fueling.
This isn't the 1983 movie War Games against the Soviet Union.
This is current day 2022 against a dying Russian economy with birds that can identify what kind of car or truck it can see.
So seeing a 70 ft missile and its fueling watching the evaporation and smoke coming out of the valve ports during the fueling process isn't magical.
Its just a current capability.

I am assuming you have seen a Saturn 5 rocket or the Space Shuttle on the pad? You have seen the evaporation cycles coming off the ship 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.

All of these ally communications are hotlined directly to NORAD. But it is HIGHLY doubtful NORAD doesn't know about it first.
There are standing orders with NORAD command in case of (X) meaning in case of a (Launch detection)

While they are communicating with the President on current strategies given a particular situation, NORAD has already scrambled bombers and tankers to their rally points in which those squadrons are in the process of getting airborne.
From the time a launch detection is verified to the call would be less than 2 minutes. How long it might take to reach the President is another matter but the guy carrying the football is first on the list and he is always within sight of the president.

This is a live event, not processing 1980s photos from a recon flight.

If Russia is fueling an ICBM they have already committed to launching it. If they are fast enough they can reach that in about 60 minutes.

My opinion in this process (and my only opinion in this process) is what comes next. I am pretty secure in the fact that a non nuclear cruise missile would be deployed by a sub with a 5 minutes response time. I don't believe the US will allow a Russian ICBM to be launched as we have no data as to the trajectory until its launched.

Also, the technology I have provided used by Russia clearly shows they have no first strike capability. So let me give you an example of first strike capability.

All 530 Minutemen III missiles are fueled and ready to launch. Upon command, the missile can be warmed up and ready for flight, while in the silo, within 10 minutes.
Once the silo doors open, the missile launches from inside the silo and on its way to (X). Meaning we could launch against Russia or China, with no indication until launch, and bombard them while they are in the fueling stages of their ICBMs. First strike meaning as much destruction possible in a single launch.

That is the current state of our capabilities, responses, and reediness.[/QUOTE]

 

That claim is out of context because it was in response to other posted information.
I never stated no Russian aircraft ever came within 600 miles. The reason I was using 600 miles is that is the effectual range of their cruise missile. Which I was discussing. I wasn't just pulling that number out of thin air.
I was commenting on being at war with Russia, and they would not be able to reach within 600 miles of their target to launch that particular missile.
If you read the entire thread or the previous post you would have know that.

 

Oh, so this is the new excuse for running from your own claims.
You don't have to be accountable for what you post because it isn't your thread?
Thats pretty typical

 

Proof of what.
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.