NATO "seriously worried" about Russia's intermediate-range missiles!

With the exception that even in your front yard = Central America and South America you get more and more enemies and you show your middle-finger thanks to your shameful behavior.
But we know that the United States give a crap on everything here too and if necessary simply march with the military, eh?

If you go on like this, maybe China will just get together with Venezuela. Is not that crazy ... Venezuela has a lot of oil and China has big oil thirst - China has a lot of capacity and power, the regime in Venezuela (that's even even socialists!) Needs such help!

 

Not too worried, I hope China does help that country. They need some help.

 

The thing is now slowly becoming "evil" ...

Last message (example):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...21/4b462540-d4ea-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story. html? utm_term = .2d74130cf574

In detail we have the charge that Russia has built an intermediate range missile system - designation 9M729, NATO code SS-C-8 - which should violate the INF contract because it operates within the range specified in the contract AND could also be equipped nuclear.
As always, there is no proof that this is the case ... only alleged or actual insights from secret services, which are also based on assumptions and on what one calls "erroneous" hearsay in court!

But let's suppose that Russian system can actually and violates the contract ... the Russians are not right that the US has committed the first violation here? Yes!

Not only the fact that the US is putting a missile defense system in the direct face of the Russians in Poland and Romania, which threatens the Russian nuclear power, and in Washington they tell the lie that it is against the threat of Iranian and North Korean missiles ... Russian also claim that with this system in Romania and Poland also intermediate missiles missiles can be shoot, is also in the room! Is that correct? No idea to be honest, but I think not unlikely!

Worse, but once again the absolute arrogant solo effort of the United States in this matter, without agreeing and talking with the European allies or even to respect their wishes. That's typical arrogant and Trump style!
Even if you read his allegation to Obama in the matter, you can only shake your head because of the stupidity and lies of Trump! Obama did not do anything, because the Europeans want to stick to the INF ... Trump does not interest the Europeans and then he claims hypocritically to act in their interest here ... free to the motto of "I act only in your interest, even if you do not have the interest or want to recognize it, because I know it all better than you!"

So it's about time that the Europeans quit NATO and make their own alliance without the US ... but maybe including Canada. Beibedarf also with its own nuclear armament, even if alone in this forum are enough trolls, which then release an "anti-german **** storm" in an atomic rearmament of Germany as usual if Germany does not play the sub as they wish!

 

The USA, mandelus, is always right, and Mother Russia is always wrong is how Americans, imo, overwhelmingly think about these things.

More importantly is the fact that America is much more violently powerful than Mother Russia, and Putin knows that.

 

It was Bush unilaterally pulling out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 that marked the beginning of this new arms race and current mentality. Putin's comment at the time "This is a Mistake".

The idea behind the ABM (anti ballistic missile) treaty is somewhat counter intuitive. Why would a nation want to defend itself against nuclear missiles ? Sounds like a crazy treaty - On the Surface.

The doctrine at the time was "MAD" - Mutually Assured Destruction. The Idea behind the ABM treaty was so that some "buckaroo" would not get the hair brained idea "We can strike first and when the enemy retaliates we will just shoot their missiles down". ABM's are then regarded as a first strike weapon (on the basis of enabling a first strike) rather than a defensive weapon.

So not only did we start building ABM's - in 2007 Bush announced his plan to put them on Russia's borders in Poland and Czech. The Kremlin was not happy - and nor should they be. This would destabilize nuclear detente and force Russia to take counter measures.

Can you imagine the howls - akin to childbirth - that would be heard round the world from the Pentagon if Russia were to do such a thing - put ABM's on US borders. Yet we thought it was a good idea.

Russia was forced to take counter measures and the feud was aired publicly. There are a number of things that were considered.

1) Nukes in space. A missile launched from Russia takes roughly 30 min to get here. Not much time but a bit -which gives a little time in case of "mistakes" - perception of a launch. Not sure about you but knowing there is a nuke above my head - 30 seconds away - would not make me sleep better at night. Talk about "hair trigger". This is lunacy.

Russia did not do this - thank goodness.

2) Submarines - Russia did revamp its Sub Program. 1 nuclear sub carries 16 missiles (10MIRV's each) = 160 warheads roughly 5-7 times the power of Hiroshima. - wipe 160 US cities off the map of population 500,000 or more and let me know what you are left with.

That is one sub and these are firecrackers compared to the land based ballistic missiles. They no longer build the 20 megaton variety but there are still some around. These are roughly 1500 times the power of Hiroshima. These were simply too big. Instead of one 20 megaton it is far more efficient to have 4-5 megaton warheads on one missiles or 12 x 1 megaton warheads on one missile. 1 megaton is 75 times the power of Hiroshima.

3) Violating the short and intermediate range treaty. Russia did this as well and started building short range cruise missiles - of the nuclear kind.

In the case of launch - Russia would first take out the ABM's with nuclear cruise missiles. You do not see them coming until 25-50 seconds prior to impact at which point you are toast.

These nations that decided to allow these ABM's are very stupid. They could be nuked on the basis of a "scare" as a precautionary measure.

In the case of actual war the first thing that would happen is the satellites would be taken out simultaneously with the ABM's Then in darkness we would wait.

In Summary - It was our direct actions that led directly to ramping up the arms race. We destabilized nuclear detente which forced Russia to take counter measures.

Obama some years ago went on Television whining "Russia has violated the Short and Intermediate range treaty" - for the next 3 days the media showed video of Reagan signing the historic arms reduction and limitation agreements.

What Obama failed to mentioned was "and BTW - we forced them to do it" !!

It is one thing to dislike Russia - it is quite another to intentionally provoke them and threaten their national security - which is exactly what we did.... and this is "MADness".

 

Only an idiot would not think that poking a bear while walking in the woods is a good idea.

The US is a bigger threat to world peace than Russia - at least at the moment.

Suppose I told you that there were two major nuclear superpowers on planet earth - Power A and Power B. Each is capable of destroying the other - and take much of the world with it should the conflict spread.

Then I tell you that one of the two powers "Power A" started provoking the other in ways that threatened to destabilize nuclear detente and undermine the security of Power B. Power B is then forced take actions to restablize nuclear detente.

Which of the two powers is a bigger threat to world peace. Power A or Power B ?

 

The conversation is about Nukes. Given that Russia can easily annihilate the USA many times over - I would claim that we have something to worry about ... especially when our Gov't is poking the bear which is causing the arms race to ramp up.

The "Doomsday Clock" is the closest its ever been to midnight. Clearly "someone" out there things we have something to worry about.

 

The statement ""Power A" started provoking the other in ways that threatened to destabilize nuclear detente and undermine the security of Power B.", in terms of Russia's defense, are merely words.

 

No doubt this has created a problem. When times were good and the US was head and shoulders above the rest of the world in terms of economic might we could get away with this. This is no longer the case.

In previous days it was easy to herd the sheep. Now it is like trying to herd cats and our previous actions are coming back to haunt us.

 

No they are not. They are actions ... see post 55.

 

First off, that last statement is completely wrong.

 

What a mindless response. This is a debate forum. If you are going to claim "this statement is completely wrong" you need to back up that statement with "SOMETHING" ... otherwise the statement is worthless.

Any fool can run around a room crying "WRONG WRONG WRONG" .. but what is that worth ?

Second - Russia is fully capable of annihilating the US many times over. We have been through this before and you had no valid retort.

 

How many strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear warheads that can be delivered to the U.S. mainland from Russian territory or international waters) do the Russians have deployed and usable at any one time?

I guarantee it is far, far FEWER than the viable targets in the United States (and vice versa).

 

You're the one making an extraordinary claim that you've offered no evidence in support of.

Anyone can mindlessly repeat anti nuclear propaganda.

 

Americans are not worried about Russians.

If you stay within your borders, the Europeans won't knock you around.

 

If you have to ask this question - you have no business sitting in the peanut gallery crying "Wrong Wrong Wrong"

One nuke is able to take out more than one target. Regardless - this is a nonsensical way to look at things. Just because a few strategic targets are not destroyed does not mean the US is not annihilated.

One of the ground blast tests done in the Bikini Islands - Castle Bravo - contaminated 7000 sq miles of ocean. Radioactive ash falling on a fishing boat 90 miles away caused all of the crew to be hospitalized with severe radiation sickness - one died.

Divide 7000 into the Total Sq Miles of continental US and you get around 450 nuclear ground blasts. Realistically half that many are needed to contaminate almost all of the habitated US with high radiation levels. The difference being that - unlike the fishermen who were able to escape exposure relatively quickly - there is no escape - and nothing to escape to.

Never mind a couple of hundred. Russia can hit us with 500 nukes - multiple times. The first blasts are air blasts - taking out the electrical grid, communications, and a whole lot of electronic equipment. The satellites are taken out as well - so even if your cell phone works - the satellite is gone and you have no way to recharge.

Then in darkness you wait. When the bombs stop falling (assuming you are not in the blast radius) there is no power, no gas, no non contaminated drinking water of any significance and what exists is gone in short order, no food (and what is left is gone in short order) and no help is on the way.

There is no way to escape high levels of radioactive contamination and zombie like humans are running every direction. That is day 1.

By the time day 2 hits people are already starting to fight over scarce resources - high levels of radioactive contamination are everywhere - and will remain high for at lest a week or two. People are dying left right and center.

By the time day 3 hits most everyone is dying of thirst. People are resorting to going outside (and many have already on day 2) looking for food but in particular for water. They have to resort to drinking water contaminated by radioactivity. The problem is that everyone else is doing the same thing. Hundreds of millions of people running around searching for the same scarce resources and for someplace safe but with nowhere to run .. because almost nowhere is safe.

Your out of your noggin if you think this is not the picture of complete annihilation.

 

I gave you plenty of evidence in a previous thread - some of which is recounted in a post just written to you. You are the one mindlessly running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial .. same as you did the last time.

 

I am American - and I am not much worried as I do not think the odds of a nuclear exchange with Russia are very high (you should learn how to use the quote function BTW).

That does not change the fact both Nations have the ability to annihilate the other numerous times over.

 

Castle Bravo was 15 megatons or around THIRTY TIMES more powerful than the typical Russian strategic nuclear warhead.

Also it was an exceptionally radioactive "dirty" weapon.

And it was exploded primarily in the ocean which means millions of tons of irradiated water (and steam) which dramatically increase the area of contamination.

Thus your figure of "7,000 square miles contaminated" is virtually useless.

No offense.

 

Like you would have clue how that figure relates. Give me a break. You do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about. "virtually useless.

Tell me than fancy pants.... what is the contamination of a 1 megaton bomb or 500kt - exploded at the ground surface verses a 15 megaton bomb. How do the two relate.

Back up your "virtually useless claim"

 

Why do you insult me? You're the one making wild ass claims that go back to the anti nuclear propaganda that was spewed for years.

And you do know there probably aren't more than a few dozen nuclear weapons in the Russian arsenal of 15 megaton yield or higher anymore anyway. The largest warheads the Soviets ever had in general deployment were a few dozen 25 megaton warheads mounted on some SS-18s.

In regards to the contamination that depends on a great deal on the surface, atmospheric conditions, and a whole host of other factors.

 

The area contaminated by a 1 MT surface blast is roughly 3000 square miles - 50 rad/hr. https://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_10.pdf

50 rad/hr - Changes in your blood begin at 50 rads = within the first hour. 450 rads is lethal so you better get out of that zone quick (hopefully you have a radiation detector with you). https://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/nomograph_information.htm

1/2 rad per hour is when you can safely leave a shelter. If you are lucky and are in the zone with only 8 rad/hr - it still takes 2.5 days before you can leave the shelter. The area receiving 5 rad/hr contamination is roughly 7000 square miles.

Total annihilation.

 

You do not know what you are talking about... see post 72. Contamination area is not linearly related to yield. And you are the one who is being insulting with statements like "wild ass claims" and "propaganda".

 

Your math is radically off either in your Castle Bravo claim or in this one. But I suspect that no matter how you do the math you will announce that a nuclear conflict would mean the end of the United States.

It wouldn't of course.

 

I give you the data - for a 1 Mt blast - trot it out for you in language a grade 8 student could easily understand - and you go running to the playground crying (NO NO NO) to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial.

I gave you the link dude. It is pretty easy to stick a ruler up to the 50 rad/hr blast area for a 1 MT surface blast and calculate the area.

Did you not learn the formula for area in school ? Sorry - let me give it to you. Length x Width in miles gives you square miles.