Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

That's the problem with MAD. They can't. The fixed systems have the longest trajectories, from memory (don't quote me) something like 45 minutes. Sea based systems can be down to 10 minutes or less (I think) but only if you park your SSBMs off the opponents coast which is risky but are supposed to be typically 20 minutes of so (again no quote).

Both Russia and the US have gamed this out for decades. Even destroying 90% of the US ground based ICBMS before launch (not going to happen) still sees 120 warheads on their way to the enemy . And that's not considering the subs. In order to stop the subs responding you have to know with absolute certainly exactly where every single one of them is. (And if you do know be able to destroy them without alerting the enemy to what your attempting.) Fail and its over. 'Succeed and and you've probably only doomed your country to a hundred or so nuclear explosions - each 10 times bigger than Hiroshima. Yeah!

 

Mobile ICBMs would show that we never had any intention of launching on warning. Which showed the same by the Soviet Union. Because the whole point of Mobile ICBMs is being able to ride out an attack without being immediately launched.

 

No. Try "Since Trident II D-5 SLBMs entered service"

 

Not just delusional, but outright nonsense that only someone without any clue (or someone peddling propaganda) could even imagine to be true.

 

The fact that our SLBMs are capable of attacking military targets does not mean that they will never be used to attack cities.

It merely gives them the flexibility to attack either sort of target.

I don't get that message from the use of mobile ICBMs.

Adopting them says to me: "We don't like launch on warning and we are taking steps to make it unnecessary."

Taking steps to make it unnecessary doesn't mean that we won't do when it is necessary.

 

Iran's simple bunkers can be destroyed with 5000-pound bunker busters.

Israel has 5000-pound bunker busters.

No nuclear weapons are needed for Israel to destroy Iran's illegal nuclear program.

 

Really, I guess my bad then Continue with the rest of your drivel and delusional beliefs. But just FYI: the Pentagon has doubts whether even its own bunker buster bombs can taken out some of Iran's facilities. Never mind that in the case of Iran's nuclear program, you are talking about a program spread wide over dozens of facilities. I think only a fool (or those who liked to be fooled) can even pretend to believe Israel can really do more than take a shot at some of the easier targets, like the over-ground facility at Natanz. And even then, have to sit and wonder what comes next.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/what-...lks-about-striking-irans-nuclear-program-war/

 

Israel knows how to attack multiple targets.

Israel has 5000-pound bunker busters, and has the means to deliver them to Iranian bunkers.

 

Not a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb it doesn't .. nor any other hydrogen bomb - what weapon are you talking about ?

 

Sure thing cowboy. You just need to run and share your intel with the Israelis. Anyway, I just hope Israel gets on with it soon, as I am getting tired of hearing the same kind of thing for 20 years now!

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...ion-for-israel-here-s-what-it-must-1.10426152
Analysis |
Striking Iran’s Nuke Sites Is an Impossible Mission for Israel. Here’s What It Must Do
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/a...ot-be-able-to-stop-irans-uranium-track-687634
'Israel may not be able to stop Iran's uranium track' - Amos Yadlin
https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossa...s-credibility-of-military-option-scrutinized/
Mossad head vows no Iran nukes ‘ever,’ as credibility of military option scrutinized
David Barnea says agency will ‘do everything needed to alleviate threat,’ but air force head won’t say if Israel can destroy Iran’s program and report claims IDF has no strike plan

 

Wrong. Yes it does.

Wrong. Yes it does.

I am talking about nearly every hydrogen bomb that has ever been built.

 

Israel is already aware of the fact that they possess 5000-pound bunker busters plus the means to drop them on Iran.

 

Why does Russia and Putin want to start a nuclear Holocaust? I guess the millions killed during the Holodomor was not enough for them. Putin's lust for blood never ends.

 

Forget stealth planes. There are no invisibles for a serious opponent. All talk about this is a banal PR.

 

But this is not your case. In the comment above, I have provided links to the source.

 

That is incorrect. Stealth bombers work amazingly well against serious opponents.

Actually it is our case. We are refurbishing the B-52s. And we are building a new generation of nuclear-tipped stealth cruise missiles for them to carry.

Our refurbished B-52s will be able to launch these nuclear-tipped stealth cruise missiles from well outside the range of enemy defenses.

 

The nuclear talks with Iran aren't going anywhere so far and I am hoping they don't. That should give Israel the chance to put your fanciful notions to a test. God knows they have been blabbing about this enough. Let them try with the capabilities you imagine they have and the ones they really do have. In either case, you will see how pitifully incapable they really are to make even a dent in Iran's nuclear program. In the meantime, if the corrupt mullahs and officialdom in Iran (who are willing to send young men to their graves in the name of resisting US/Israeli hegemony, but don't seem too eager to risk much personally) find the balls to hit back at Israel, we will also see if even a nuclear armed Israelis is a match for Iran? My view: Iran will be able to turn Israel into rubble even without nukes, while all Israel can do against Iran is to threaten nuclear genocide.

 

You know, some arrogant military folks said the same thing when they flew a U-2 spy plane over the USSR. Then the USSR promptly shot it out of the sky. I saw the wreckage on display at the armed forces museum in Moscow. Have you?

 

Iran will definitely be bombed in that case. By either Israel or the US.

The bombs are not imaginary. When Barack Obama first took office he wanted Israel to stop building settlements for a year. Israel would only do it if he gave them a number of 5000-pound bunker busters. He did so.

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/why-did-obama-bunker-buster-bombs-israel-145927712.html

Even if Israel were not capable of destroying Iran's bunkers, they could still wipe all all the targets on the surface.

And like I said, Barack Obama gave Israel a bunch of 5000-pound bunker busters.

Simply asking Iran to follow the law, to stop murdering innocent people, to stop kidnapping innocent people, and to stop building illegal weapons, is hardly hegemony.

Even without the bombs from Barack Obama, Israel's ability to bomb Iran conventionally exceeds Iran's ability to bomb Israel.

 

If they said "from well outside the range of enemy defenses" in regards to a plane that was flying over Soviet territory, then their statement was untrue.

The B52s will not be flying over any enemy territory. That is the job of our stealth bombers.

 

Israel is all about dragging the US into the fight against Iran. Even if they take the first shot, the ultimate aim is the same.

I didn't say the bombs are imaginary. I said or implied that the capability is imaginary. I could explain that to you, but why bother?

Some of the targets, none all too critical in the larger scheme of things, are vulnerable and can theoretically be taken out even by Israel. But Israeli sabotage and spies were able to do as much damage to some of these facilities as any munitions dropped from the air could. How much of an effect did these actions have, except to loosen some of the self-imposed chains Iran's fifth columnists have managed to put on Iran's nuclear program and actually speed up Iran's nuclear program considerably?

You have no clue. None whatsoever. Israel has two interrelated cards that deters Iran from turning it into rubble given the sh*t they have pulled already and neither has anything to do with Israel's conventional capabilities against Iran. Those two are 1) Israel's nuclear arsenal, and 2) Israel's sway in dragging the US into a costly war with Iran. The two are interrelated because even if the US was ever able to free itself of the special interest groups allied with Israel, it still would prefer not to see Israel fire nukes and open that Pandora's box. The Israelis and their neocon brethren know this, which is why they are quite willing to entertain the option of using nukes against Iran in case Israel is left on its own. It is a form of nuclear blackmail that has paid huge dividends for these folks so far.

 

If you like to think so and it calms you down - think the way you want.
Ostriches, for example, hide their heads in the sand.

 

Nah. Israel isn't afraid to take on Iran by themselves.

They would appreciate our help of course. But it isn't actually necessary.

Well if you choose to present an argument then I'll address it. If not then I guess I won't.

Iran has no ability to turn Israel into rubble.

Israel has the ability to turn Iran into rubble without using nuclear weapons. Specifically, Israel can repeatedly bomb Iran with their fighter jets.

Israel has refueling planes. All a raid from Israel needs to do is head across Saudi Arabia and set up their refueling planes over the Persian Gulf, and send their fighter jets into Iran from there.

 

I prefer reality. And in reality our stealth bombers will have no trouble penetrating the defenses of an advanced enemy.

 

You can say what you wish, but those who need to know, know better.

This piece from Israel's former ambassador to the United States, written in 2019 when Trump was still POTUS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/israel-preparing-open-war/601285/