Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

If they think that I am wrong about Israel's ability to attack Iran, they are wrong. Israel does have refueling planes and so can strike Iran with their fighter jets.

As for US aid, I agree that Israel would be better off with it than without. So yes, if Israel had a choice they would of course choose to have our help.

But if they were ever forced to fight on their own without our aid, while that would be less desirable, they are capable of doing it if they have to.

 

So I went and looked it up .. Initially I just look at the yeild from Hiroshima -- did the math and it did not work out .. the biggest pure Fission yeild ever was half a megaton .. and used a lot of Enriched Uranium - hundreds of kilos. .. .. and no point in using something that big as a the primary in a hydrogen bomb as only a few kilo's is required to set of Fusion .. and Fusion releases much more energy per gram .. .. so would be completely pointless to detonate a 1 megaton fusion bomb with hundreds of kilos of Fissile material. when only a few kilo's are required to get the Fusion reaction going.

But . on the question of -= " Is most of the yeild in a hydrogen bomb from fission" -- you are correct .. oddly enough. While this yeild does not come as stated above .. from the initial fission reaction .. the Secondary Reaction is a combination of Fusion and Fission .. albeit Fission of a different kind.

The primary fission "Splitting the atom" creates the heat and pressure which sets off fusion. but they encase the fusion material in Uranium .. so that when the Fusion goes off .. the massive energy release splits / annihilates the depleted uranium atoms .. in a way far more efficient than the primary .. and there is huge yeild from this secondary Fission ..

So .... correct on the Yeild .. but incorrect at least partially on the heat .. and on the contamination ..

You could make a bomb way cleaner by not putting the depleted uranium around the Fusion material .. this is a neutron bomb .... which is not what we are discussing .. so practically speaking .. almost all bombs used by Russia - US - in a nuclear war will be dirty ... and in the case of a ground burst .. really dirty.

 

and 10 times bigger than Hiroshima would be the small ones .. the Sub Launched MIRVS .. The ICBM MIRVS are 0.7 megaton which is roughly 60 times Hiroshima ... One Sub 16 missiles (MIRV x 10) is 160 cities ... wipe 100 US cities off the map of population 500 k or more .. and tell me what you have left.

But this is only the beginning of the problem .. Prior to an attack Russia is first going to take out our satellites .. communication - GPS and so on .. then high Altitude EMP blasts will take out electrical grid .. anything electrical that is exposed .. No electriity .. no gas ..no gasoline .. Bridges gone .. roads impassable . .. and no one is coming anyway as everything is contaminated .. no drinking water ..

And that is one sub.

 

Ignoring the obvious. There had been literally dozens of missions by U-2s already where the U.S. spy planes were untouched. And on the mission in question Gary Powers planes had suffered engine troubles that forced it to descend to much lower altitudes than normal.

 

No, I'm right on that as well. Allowing the primary to heat the secondary will result in pressure building up in the secondary which will then prevent it from being compressed to the necessary density for fusion.

Note again that website you linked:

"Similarly, the secondary doesn’t consist purely of fusion fuel; layered within it is a fission "spark plug," consisting of either plutonium-239 or uranium-235. As the primary explosion compresses the fuel from the outside, the spark plug material becomes supercritical and fissions, heating the hydrogen from the inside and facilitating further fusion reactions."

Yes. And these tactical bombs that defend Europe do just that. Thus the ability to defend Europe without contaminating it with fallout.

It takes a bit more than that to make a neutron bomb. You would also need to make the bomb out of specific materials to ensure that few neutrons would be absorbed by those materials.

Almost all bombs, yes. But not the little tactical nukes that will be used to defend Europe.

 

There will be no tactical nukes used to defend Europe .... once the nukes start flying .. boom boom booom

 

Sure there will be. The new tactical nukes just entered production:
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/12/updated-b61-nuclear-warhead-enters-production/

 

Sugar plum fairy's - and Caviar Dreams .. Russia won't be attacking France ... cause they have big nukes defending the homeland .. not the fire-crackers you are so enamoured by.

 

France will not use big strategic nukes to attack a Russian invasion of France. That would kill millions of French civilians and leave France contaminated with fallout.

 

Of course they would .. should the homeland be threatened .. as would we, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel.

You think Israel is not going to use a nuke on Iran if Iran were about to take over Israel ? Caviar Wishes Mate.

 

No. They would use clean nukes to eliminate the invasion without doing massive damage to their country. We would do the same if we found ourselves in that position.

No one is going to willingly drop large dirty nukes on their own territory. Although the US Air Force might do it accidentally.

I do not know if those countries have developed clean tactical nukes. If they have, I'm sure they would prefer such weapons over large dirty nukes if they had to use them within their own borders.

They would surely prefer to use nukes to destroy the Iranian invasion.

Nuking the other guy's cities is what you do as a last resort.

 

Yer not getting it .. Russia is not going to fire back with clean tactical nukes .. nor is China, India, Pakistan, Israel .. and after they fire, France is not going to fire back with "clean tactical nukes" ... sorry mate .. this scenario don't pass the giggle test.

 

If Russia or China use nuclear weapons against us or our allies, then the US military will use strategic nukes against them.

Israel and India are the good guys. They will never be our adversary.

Our potential nuclear adversaries are Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.

Neither will the US military if Russia nukes us or our allies.

If Russian nukes us or our allies, the US military will retaliate with large strategic nukes.

It's what will happen if Russia invades the EU and the invasion cannot be dislodged conventionally.

 

Actually the U.S. military will make no decision on how to retaliate against the Russians or Chinese. The U.S. president decides whether to retaliate with nuclear weapons or not and then the number and types of nuclear devices to use.

 

Keep in mind that they thought WWI would never happen because it would destroy the Global Economy.

MAD is older than we think, and it has failed once already.

 

If Russia or China nukes us or any of our allies, the US President will order the US military to retaliate in kind.

 

Probably. But not definitely.

 

I have no doubts that the US will retaliate forcefully if nuclear weapons are used against us or our allies.

 

Why are you repeating this .. one time is plenty .. and why are you saying this at all given this what I have been telling you - and you have been resisting.

If one side uses nukes .. the other will respond .. which is why tactical nukes will not be used.

 

I am merely responding to each of your points.

I only resist when you say something that isn't true.

That is incorrect. If Russia invades the EU, and if that invasion cannot be dislodged conventionally, tactical nukes will be used to dislodge the invasion.

 

Numerous of your claims have been false .. you are unfortunately immune to correction. . but no point in beating that dead horse.

The above is gibberish .. as Russia is not going to be attacking France .. for the same reason France will not be attacking Russia .. as if either does use nukes - it is not going to be tactical nukes - because the French are not morons .. and realize that nukes will be met with nukes.

Your claim that tactical nukes add to "deterrence" .. is completely false .. France's strategic nuclear arsenal is the deterrent. .. Putting flea on the back of an Elephant does not increase the deterrence of the Elephant - in this zero sum game.

 

That is incorrect. Everything that I've said is true.

Not when there is reason to think that I am actually mistaken.

OK.

Let's hope you are right.

The French will not use strategic nukes on their own soil.

I don't recall making that claim. I'm not entirely sure that it is false, but I don't want to bother defending a claim until I actually make it.

What clean tactical nukes do is allow a nation to use nukes on their own soil without slaughtering their populace and turning their countryside into a toxic wasteland.

 

I Am .. and that makes your above claim false.

No one said they would - you having trouble finding the right page ? France would use nukes on Russia .. no one suggested they would use them on themselves .. as that would be kind of silly .. like all of your commentary thusfar.

Of course you claimed that F35's with tactical nukes were a deterrent to Russia invading the EU .. That was your whole premise in one of the conversations we had... and once again you are wrong and in case you were unaware France is part of the EU -

 

Let's hope so. But we'll see how history plays out.

No it doesn't.

The only way for nuclear weapons to eliminate an invasion of a country, is to use them within the country that has been invaded.

I do not recall saying anything about a deterrent. The point of the tactical nukes is to actually use them.

If the EU is invaded, these tactical nukes will allow the invasion to be destroyed without causing massive harm to the EU.

That is incorrect. All of my statements have thus far been correct.

I am aware.

Poland and the Baltic states are part of the EU as well.

 

In the real world it does.

No kidding .. say it isn't so

Not sure what to tell you .. perhaps try those memory pills ?