Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

I'd give up if I were you won't get any kind of honest debate from DoI. He trolls all Russia threads. His standard MO is to
1) Mock;
2) Move the goal posts of the argument (followed by more mocking); and/or
3) Deflect - quote facts statistics that have nothing to do with the question at hand. (Followed by - ....)

 

Towards the end of the war, I am told the Germans came up with these
truly BIG submarines comparable to modern size. One wonders what might have happened if they had them earlier and a brace or more of them had slipped into New York harbor or Baltimore.

Piney Point is a short drive from home.

 

I've always wondered why we spent uncounted billions on a land-based missile system when we had the Polaris but the old Silos sure make neat homes now.

 

What? You'd think that most of them ARE Russians if you ever actually talked to one off this board. Putin is Trump's mentor. Neither one ever admitted to the relationship but it was as obvious as the bronze nose on Trump's face

 

Originally the problem was part accuracy, part politics. I'd have to look up the details but early generation nuclear missiles lacked the pinpoint accuracy of current systems. In order to order to destroy key hardened targets like missile silos or command posts you needed to get the warhead as close as possible.

From memory land based systems, launched from known fixed points (their own silos) were more accurate than moving sea based systems, landing within say a 100-200 meters from their targets verses say 500-1000 for sea based systems. (These figures are mine from memory - not gospel but you get the idea). SO you aimed land based systems at key military systems and destroyed civilization as we know it with sea based systems.

The other issue is that Congressmen and Senators whose electorates covered ship building districts wanted in on the money. (Nothing changes.)

 

I always wanted to dive the U-Boat at Piney Point back when I had a boat at Tappohannock Va. but never did. The State of MD used put a mooring buoy on the wreck for six months out of the year. Not sure why they did this for only 6 months. I have done a lot of boating in the Chesapeake Bay and other than the shipping channels the water is not deep. A U-Boat would have had to make a run up to Baltimore partly on the surface which would have been very high risk.

 

I know right, Killing hundreds of Russians in Syria, expelling 60 Russian diplomats, and providing arms to Ukraine to kill more Russians is the perfect way of showing how much you love them.
You should find another propaganda channel to watch as most of everything you post is nothing but idiotic leftist drivel.

 

Putin and Trump kill each other's people just to keep in practice while they laugh at fools who think they do anything aboveboard.

You should understand that Rush's analysis of world diplomacy was shallow even when he was alive

 

Is the sub here yet? Did all the sailors defect to the US?

 

Ah,so you're one of those who think a sitting president can go out and kill Russians and provide arms to kill Russians all by himself.
Well, that explains a lot

Why would I care what Rush's analysis of world diplomacy is again. I missed that part

 

We'd still have won but the "happy time" would have lasted longer.

 

Russian and Chinese subs are easily sunk.

 

And today, thanks to hypersonic missiles, against which current defense systems are ineffective, so are ALL surface vessels....

 

US bombers armed with anti-ship missiles will pose a formidable threat to enemy shipping if a large war ever breaks out.

 

Formidable threat? There is not navy on the planet that can survive one day against the US military.

 

Russia's coming for ya Zoomie - got a missile named SATAN commin yer way -- .. no so good a tracking we are -- had subs pop up right next to our carriers .. good thing they didn't attack and sink our ships .. sitting ducks .. gonna be Red October mate .. cept this time Ramirez not going to defect

 

- definitely .. but we always had anti ship missiles .. Problem these days near everyone has anti-ship missiles - Everyone's navy would be fish fodder in a very short time .. and then what ? .. every pne would be like Damn .. how do we attack those folks across the Ocean with no ships .. hopefully nukes do not come into play.

 

Those "whale" subs were first devised during WW1 as blocade runner. They made the run to the USA while it was still neutral. The increase size was for cargo and fuel. The later WW2 U-boat were smaller due to the lack of ressources and working shipyards but they could stay submerged for longer with the help of snorkel and improved batteries.

 

Most nations will not be able to carry their anti-ship missiles on long range bombers and thereby attack ships throughout the oceans.

I think only the US and Russia have long range bombers. Other nations will only be able to attack ships that come within range of their land-based missiles.

 

Don't need em .. as if it is a war .. we will be bringing our ships to their missiles --- which could be land based - or fired from their ships- aircraft - subs ..

Read something the other day about how our ships have to locate so far away from land - our planes don't have enough range to get to the enemy .

 

Our heavy bombers do not rely on ships though, and they have plenty of range to reach the enemy.

 

50 megatons was the clean yield that was tested. The weaponized version would have a dirty yield of 100 megatons.

Well, it was certainly so big that it had to hang out of the belly of a bomber because its diameter was too large for it to fit inside the bomber. But they did plan for bombers to be able to drop them.

The US planned to build 100 megaton bombs that would have been equally as unwieldy if the USSR did not agree to a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing. But when the atmospheric test ban went into effect we shelved those plans.

Here is a casing for the never-developed US 100 megaton bomb hanging out of the belly of a B-52:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/flashback-in-B52.jpg

 

Sure .. but, good luck winning a war with just long range bombers .. and if we are talking the more sophisticated powers .. those Bombers are not going to make it to the target .... shot down by fighters ... heck even the less sophisticated nations .. we will be getting shot down with some of our old F-16s

 

Our stealth bombers will make it to the target just fine. At the worst they will have to take out a heavily defended target with cruise missiles. But they can do that too.

 

Not against the sophisticated powers ... as our "Stealth Bombers" are not Stealthy .. because Stealth is mostly a sham. Stealth makes the aircraft more difficult to target -- but it is not like you don't see it coming .. thats where your fighters come in...

Serbia was able to track and hit two of our Stealth bombers -- using modified 1970's military technology .. .. back in the 90's .. Good luck against modern Russian Air defenses ..