Post: #26

I've heard tell that if even one major city got nuked the resultant fires would cast enough ash into the sky to ruin crops for long enough that a serious famine would ensue.

In any serious nuclear scenario the living would envy the dead.

Post: #27

(08-01-2016 08:38 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  No serious country would ever launch an attack, it would mean centuries in the bronze age.

They wouldn't unless they thought they were backed into a corner and about to be attacked themselves. Then they might think, "If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me."

Post: #28

(08-02-2016 11:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  What we all need to do is reduce arsenals so that the human race is not wiped out. No reason to have 5,000 warheads. The Chinese are surprisingly restrained and wise in this regard with "only" 260 estimated. Certainly enough to deter an attack though.

You need a large enough arsenal to still be able to deliver a retaliatory strike even after being struck first, taking into account any anti-missile defences the enemy might possess. Otherwise the enemy might be able to obliterate you with a first strike while taking minimal damage themselves.

Post: #29

Russia Has Constructed Massive Underground Shelters In Anticipation Of Nuclear War

Quote:Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration was deeply concerned about the construction of this enormous complex deep inside Yamantau mountain, but they could never seem to get any straight answers from the Russians.
The command center for this complex is rumored to be 3,000 feet directly straight down from the summit of this giant rock quartz mountain. And of course U.S. military officials will admit that there are dozens of other similar sites throughout Russia, although most of them are thought to be quite a bit smaller. But that is not all that the Russians have been up to.

http://www.infowars.com/russia-has-const...clear-war/

Post: #30

Could Russia be preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike on the US?

Quote:roubling signs are emerging that Russia is preparing for a nuclear war with the U.S. Whether that war happens soon or sometime much later will depend on U.S. actions and the decisions made by Putin and key members of the Russian leadership if they interpret U.S. actions as a legitimate existential threat to the Russian Federation. A new cold war between the two countries is heating up.

NATO troops are parked on Russia’s doorstep. A US-based missile shield is to be erected in Romania and Poland. The U.S. and Russia are engaged in a no-holds barred proxy war in the Ukraine and Syria. Russian jets are buzzing American ships in the Black Sea. Against American wishes, Russia is providing advanced anti-aircraft defensive systems to both Iran and Syria. Neither side really trusts each and what little, if any, trust there is left is rapidly eroding. We have all the makings of a potential nuclear conflict.

https://utopiathecollapse.com/2016/08/02...us-part-1/

Post: #31

Hopefully everyone is calm enough to not engage in nuclear war. No matter our issues or conflicts, finding a solution that does not result in global nuclear winter is preferred.

Post: #32

What's the time for radiation fallout (excess activity that harms health in both deterministic and stochastic effects), apart from the ability to get food?

Basically, can you go outside or would you have to be 100s of miles or 1000 at least from a blast center?

Post: #33

I read somewhere that primary nuclear targets aren't really military but infrastructure and power grid related. They will hit the targets that will generate maximum and sustained casualities to cripple the nation's emergency and civilian response.

This means that nuclear power plants will be hit as well which will cause secondary and tertiary effects when it comes to radioactive dust clouds.

The dense urban centers are toast though. NYC has always been the symbol of America's financial and urban elite. It will be vaporized for sure.

I'm guessing other targets will be government centers such as Washington D.C.

I bet they spare L.A. but will hit San Francisco though.

Post: #34

Another option for Russia:

Do an EMP blast that cuts off the American power grid and nuclear retalitatory capabilities. Then go to USA government with terms. If they don't agree to terms, then launch nuclear attacks on citizen centers.

In all-out armageddon, everything is getting bombed, but in a strategic first-strike, they will probably only go after the most important military targets.

Post: #35

First strike targets are primarily the command hubs and the opponents nuclear arsenal, all other targets are in a distant third as far as importance goes. That is why thanks to the Aegis system installed in Romania we are now closer to the nuclear war then we ever were. Now there is not enough time for Russia to react so they are probably for the first time seriously considering an option of first strike.

Post: #36

(08-03-2016 11:12 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Another option for Russia:

Do an EMP blast that cuts off the American power grid and nuclear retalitatory capabilities. Then go to USA government with terms. If they don't agree to terms, then launch nuclear attacks on citizen centers.

In all-out armageddon, everything is getting bombed, but in a strategic first-strike, they will probably only go after the most important military targets.

I'd guess any missile defense systems are focused on protecting military targets over civilian ones as well.

Post: #37

I've been doing research on this for awhile (Almost 3 years) - a hypothetical preemptive nuclear strike on America. Whether it be Russia, North Korea who recently declared War on the U.S., or ISIS, I've concluded it's a real possiblility. And they will probably launch a Nuke on the coast of California, crippling the U.S., sending Tidal waves that will send floods on the East coast from New York on down to Florida.

"The earth will literally crack open. And you will feel it on the East coast"





Why Southern California/New Madrid Fault line? Not many people know of the defunct San Onofre Power plant. It hasn't been functional for almost 3 years. It does not produce any electricity. It's essentially a giant bomb sitting there. If this was hit with a Nuked it would be an unfathomable, cataclysmic event.





Not to mention the gas leak and oil spill that happened in New Orleans some years back that's ripe with methane gas.

This is all speculation, but I do know that if the U.S. does get nuked and an EMP takes out all the power, it will be invaded soon after. And then well literally see hell on earth - Zombie apocalypse shit you see in the movies. Water will be scarce. Martial Law. People will resort to cannibalism (Look at what's going on in Venezuela now).

This is scary stuff - and God forbid it happens. But the Global tension right now is undeniable.

Post: #38

(08-03-2016 03:26 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I've heard tell that if even one major city got nuked the resultant fires would cast enough ash into the sky to ruin crops for long enough that a serious famine would ensue.

In any serious nuclear scenario the living would envy the dead.

Not likely from a single nuclear weapon. There have been "ultra-Plinian" volcanic eruptions in modern history that injected tens of kilometers of ash into the atmosphere, far more than any single nuclear strike ever could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pina...c_eruption

We still seem to be doing mostly OK.

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about these scenarios, as there essentially only two ways things could play out:

A limited nuclear engagement with maybe a dozen or two missiles exchanged, mass confusion ensues, nobody has authority to do anything, and the war is self-limiting. Most strikes wouldn't be on cities. There would be an enormous number of casualties, perhaps up to a million or more dead, and it would be a catastrophe unlike anything the world had seen. Still, while life would be difficult for many of the survivors for a time I don't see it as a catastrophe the planet, humans or even modern technological civilization couldn't recover from relatively rapidly...though in many ways the world afterwards likely be a very different place.

A massive nuclear engagement, with thousands of weapons exchanged. I find this scenario fairly unlikely, as there are significantly fewer weapons in the world than there were in the 1980s, and safeguards are better.

For most of us, pondering what you'd do is sort of a waste of time, because if you live in a major population center the answer is pretty straightforward: you wouldn't live long enough to contemplate it. Even scenes like the one where San Fran gets destroyed in the recent Terminator movie don't do the destruction justice: cities wouldn't be getting just one or two bombs on them, but dozens or even hundreds in carefully calculated and timed grid patterns, like cluster munitions.

If you look at the various Soviet targeting maps from the late 1970s early 1980s that we're fairly confident about, on New England the entire east coast is packed; I couldn't tell exactly how many strikes were targeted on the Boston metro area but it looked like more than 50 (including every airport with a runway longer than about 5000 feet.)

Post: #39

(08-03-2016 03:41 AM)Diogenes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 11:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  What we all need to do is reduce arsenals so that the human race is not wiped out. No reason to have 5,000 warheads. The Chinese are surprisingly restrained and wise in this regard with "only" 260 estimated. Certainly enough to deter an attack though.

You need a large enough arsenal to still be able to deliver a retaliatory strike even after being struck first, taking into account any anti-missile defences the enemy might possess. Otherwise the enemy might be able to obliterate you with a first strike while taking minimal damage themselves.

Something many do not take into account are the satellites affiliated with missile defense. Some might have payloads inside them, but a war up there might precede or be launched simultaneously with ground and nuclear sub strikes.

This is a really big subject, but all in all, it will come down to both missile defense systems hitting their targets on time. In regard to MIRV style systems, all the warheads are the major problem.



Staged missiles like the one in this photo, are very hard to defend against. They do not need to get too close to break apart. Even if the Navy/Air Force intercepted 5 or so, if 3 others slip by, it's still catastrophic. This is where satellite defense also plays a part as well as the 4 F22s in the air at all times (One for each quadrant of the Earth). This is the reason why no one takes North Korea very seriously. If they were trying to make something like this, a war with them is almost guaranteed. A 17 million man army is nothing compared to a legit MIRV capability. That Army could get starved out or tactically nuked, but a MIRV? No way.

War game rehearsals for this look decent or sometimes good on paper on computers, but the truth is that it probably won't be enough. Heck our systems do not even have the range the S500s have.

Then there are subs. Our own USS Texas can hit any place in the world with it's nukes, no matter where in the ocean it is located, in minutes. I don't know exactly what the Russians have on that front, but hitting those has to be different than ground launches from known locations.

Despite issues, mankind has a good thing going right now. To fuck it up now just isn't right. Even if one side has an advantage, the damage alone isn't worth it at all. Like XPQ posted, several detonations in the right place would damage the planet. So even if we did not get hit or got hit once but hit them 10-20 times, that still ass fucks the planet. The international community would be pissed and rightfully so. It would ruin the world economy immediately and ruin everyone's quality of life for decades.

Post: #40

I don't see an all out MAD scenario playing out, I think that time has come and passed.

Both sides are smarter now, not to mention proxy wars are the way to go.

We have to become friends with the Russians - which would help keep China in check and them putting NK in check.

The wild cards here are NK, Dirty Bombs, and a possible Nuke Commander going crazy.

Nuclear war has always fascinated me - I remember we had 1950's era encyclopedias at my house. Alot of Cold War references in it.


EDIT: TK is right about the MIRV system, it's a fuck all scenario. Even a few nukes would fuck this world up.

Post: #41

(08-03-2016 09:18 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Russia Has Constructed Massive Underground Shelters In Anticipation Of Nuclear War

Quote:Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration was deeply concerned about the construction of this enormous complex deep inside Yamantau mountain, but they could never seem to get any straight answers from the Russians.
The command center for this complex is rumored to be 3,000 feet directly straight down from the summit of this giant rock quartz mountain. And of course U.S. military officials will admit that there are dozens of other similar sites throughout Russia, although most of them are thought to be quite a bit smaller. But that is not all that the Russians have been up to.

http://www.infowars.com/russia-has-const...clear-war/

There used to be a lot of nuke bunkers under every noteworthy building connected to the government or industry across the entire Soviet Union. Most of them fell into disrepair in the 90s. They were no longer maintained, were ransacked for anything of value, and many of them are in likelihood too far gone to be restored. Once the reinforced concrete is compromised, it's probably cheaper to build a new bunker than repair the old.

Furthermore, bunker busters and smart targeting systems make it much harder to secure all but the highest priority targets...which is why Russia has focused more on mobile ICBM launchers than digging expensive launch sites which are well-known to satellites and not hard to hit. As you get closer to the center of an explosion, the pressure increases exponentially,making defending against it that much harder.

In other news, the Moscow metro is arguably the biggest nuclear bunker ever built - which is why most of the old stations are so far underground. There are rumors (and evidence of probable locations and lines made by US intelligence in the Cold War) of a parallel metro system, Metro-2. It is rumored to have minimal overlap with the civilian system (aside from well-camouflaged entrances, probably) and it's purpose was to evacuate top leadership from Moscow if SHTF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2

Five or so years ago, there used to be a bunch of sites online of urban explorers who climbed into abandoned bunkers for their dose of adrenaline. Some used to upload pictures. Most of these websites appear down. Most are treated as trespassers, but some have proved useful to special forces. Keep in mind that Moscow is over 850 years old, and there are tons of subterranean layers not on any maps, much less maps that the general public can get their hands on.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-th...nd-tunnels

For instance, in the 2002 hostage crisis in the Moscow theatre, special forces were aided by such urban explorers, who helped them find underground entranceways to the building.

The smarter ones won't reveal sites anymore. Plus, the government has gotten smarter about the safety and security risks - if pictures of a site went up, soon the entrances would be welded shut. Punishments for trespassing have been greatly increased up to fines of $6k and 15 days in jail, and that's not including the bouquet of other charges from vandalism to espionage and treason. There appear to be some sort of directives to prevent and curtail any public exposure to even abandoned sites.

Sample field report from these guys:
http://bit.ly/2aS9AEm

Post: #42

(08-03-2016 03:18 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I don't see an all out MAD scenario playing out, I think that time has come and passed.

Both sides are smarter now, not to mention proxy wars are the way to go.

We have to become friends with the Russians - which would help keep China in check and them putting NK in check.

The wild cards here are NK, Dirty Bombs, and a possible Nuke Commander going crazy.

Nuclear war has always fascinated me - I remember we had 1950's era encyclopedias at my house. Alot of Cold War references in it.


EDIT: TK is right about the MIRV system, it's a fuck all scenario. Even a few nukes would fuck this world up.

The problem is that the Neocons and globalistic liberals no longer want MAD based Foreign Policy. I posted the reasons in the other thread (bolded and underlined)

(07-24-2016 03:11 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Porcheguy is right. It really doesn't matter. That is "shooting the messenger" talk. If you come across any American using this as an excuse, they have shit for ethics and values. You would be wasting your breath trying to convince them most likely. This is no different than a simp getting angry at you because you smashed his bitch. You owe that cat a favor if he helped you avoid marrying the woman.

There is no extradition treaty between the US and Russia. If a lone wolf Russian hacker wants to pull emails from party servers, Russian police won't stop him unless Putin wants it stopped. The FBI has not arrested th3j35t3r and he has been attacking islamic terrorists and other countries against America since 2011. Why would the Russian govt. arrest Russian hackers doing the same? Jester actually helped the FBI catch LulzSec and Sabu.

This is America getting a taste of it's own medicine for the first time perhaps. Destabilizing nations and countries internal politics is America's specialty. Now Putin gets to turn the tables and start his own campaign to disrupt American political structure and destabilize the country.

If he really hates Obama he will give Wiki or whoever he can use, information to leak out to the public. Whether or not Americans deserve getting our own electoral system manipulated by external forces is irrelevant. We earned this heat with the past 8 maybe 16 years of arrogant intervention in other countries and especially Obama pushing those Patriot systems closer to Russia.

You have to understand geopolitical nuclear warfare strategy and how it affects foreign policy. Russian ICBMs won't make it to the US, if Patriot systems are in the Ukraine. They called Putin's bluff and he invaded to their surprise. All this stuff affects every kind of deal making between all sides, US, Russia, NATO, EU, etc. Russia also lost some of it's ability to hurt the EU with their natural gas chokehold. So if he can use our democracies against our own leaders by method of cyberwarfare, he will do it. He has shown the world several times that his gangster is to be respected.

It's not a coincidence that all the major think tanks and foreign policy specialists in the past 3 years are worried about cyberwarfare and blocking attacks. You even have congress trying to do things about it and Obama has had what? 3 or so Cyber czars already?

Obama's push on Putin seems to have gotten somewhat personal. They keep going back and forth over the missile dome issue. Obama recently put more in South Korea. I honestly cannot tell you if Trump would or would not continue this foreign policy strategy, but I think Putin will figure that out when the time comes. If he is behind this, he knows that a Hillary victory is a 100% guarantee she will pursue that strategy and create issues for him. He dealt with her enough when she was Sec of State long enough to know what she will do. He has all her email, so of course he knows her strategy. She is a Globalist using Europe to put economic pressure on him.

If Trump wins, continue to pay attention to these things. I promise you it will continue to come up, over and over and over. Remember it's about ICBMs, Raytheon/Patriot missile defense, NATO memberships, and the Russian S500 missile systems.

CREAM (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) is still the rule of the world, but at the end of the day, the placement of these trucks are what determines the deals involving the money.





When MAD is not an issue, who has all the leverage at the deal table?

They seem to want to choke the financial life out of Russia and neuter their system by surrounding it with Aegis.

Even though I know why they want to do it, I still do not understand the rationale behind it. It seems to go more toward crass and reckless arrogance as opposed to ballsy or tough strategy. Obama/Hillary (should she win) if they do not manage to blow up the whole world, may end up being remembered by historians for having unstable economies and social policies based upon this foreign policy strategy they pushed.

Pushing a hegemonic power into a corner with nukes has never been done before. You really cannot blame Putin for trying to fight back for the well being of his people. Our leaders are bullying them and our own people are too stupid to even notice it to put an end to it. Foreign policy discussions on TV are basically middle east and terror related. That's a giant ass smokescreen.

Post: #43

Quote:Even though I know why they want to do it, I still do not understand the rationale behind it. It seems to go more toward crass and reckless arrogance as opposed to ballsy or tough strategy.

If the plan all along is for the USA to be nuked. If you consider every single option on the table, one of the more logical conclusions is that current globalist agenda demands a nuclear strike against the USA, and perhaps a wider nuclear war.

Post: #44

(08-03-2016 03:52 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:Even though I know why they want to do it, I still do not understand the rationale behind it. It seems to go more toward crass and reckless arrogance as opposed to ballsy or tough strategy.

If the plan all along if for the USA to be nuked. If you consider every single option on the table, one of the more logical conclusions is that current globalist agenda demands a nuclear strike against the USA, and perhaps a wider nuclear war.

I could see maybe an internal nuke strike in the USA, but even a wider but small nuclear war would devastate the Earth. That sounds a like a suicidal gamble to me, even for globalists.

Post: #45

Quote:That sounds a like a suicidal gamble to me, even for globalists.

There are two options for them:

1. Lose power, get hanged on the streets
2. Start nuclear war, hope things go your way and you can usher in one-world government authoritarianism.

They will try option 2.

Post: #46

It's scary that this is a rational thought by them.

Post: #47

(08-03-2016 03:58 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 03:52 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:Even though I know why they want to do it, I still do not understand the rationale behind it. It seems to go more toward crass and reckless arrogance as opposed to ballsy or tough strategy.

If the plan all along if for the USA to be nuked. If you consider every single option on the table, one of the more logical conclusions is that current globalist agenda demands a nuclear strike against the USA, and perhaps a wider nuclear war.

I could see maybe an internal nuke strike in the USA, but even a wider but small nuclear war would devastate the Earth. That sounds a like a suicidal gamble to me, even for globalists.

You know what I forgot all about the whole suitcase nuke scenarios. Remember the big deal about Russian suitcase sized nukes and if Bin Laden and/or terrorists were actually bought them on the black market?

Shipping container security sucks because we cannot search every container. Having a crap border with Mexico is even worse. Trump's wall is not just to keep out illegals. If they still dig under it the wall, like they dig under the fence, is a moot point however...

That said a real legit concrete wall can have seismic sensors that can detect digging built into it.

Post: #48

Sidebar, this discussion reminds me of the single greatest class I took in High School.

We had this eccentric history teacher that would 'test the waters' by offering elective classes and seeing who signed up. With one cohort of classes (mine was a part) he got lucky and had already had two successful semesters of offering "World Philosophy". Towards the end of "World Philosophy" he asked the class, would anyone be interested in taking the next elective "World Politics", the class enthusiastically agreed.

We entered "World Politics" on the first day and it was a class of about 20 students, 2 of which were girls, the teacher said "you two will drop this by the end of the month". He then proceeded to present the course syllabus. The entire semester was studying 1. The rise of communist of russia 2. The rise of Nazi Germany and 3. The Cold war

The girls dropped out as predicted, they couldn't handle the bi-weekly onslaught of war films, political figures and battle history. From then on it was a class on global warfare taught be a red pill hermit to 18 young men aged 17-19.

The tests, especially the cold war, were on military tactics, technology and disarmament treaties. That class incredible and a subtle case study on why schools should be sex segregated. This was also in Canada, about 20 years ago.

Post: #49

Howard, I'd die for a class like that.

Fortunately I had the internet beginning when I had a fascination for the ultimate destruction of nuclear power.

I even went to SONGS (mentioned above) to create a history report/display.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre...ng_Station

When it was still in operation, we got to check out a test control room, control rods, mock uranium pellets, and even got to don radiation gear as well.

Pretty cool stuff.

Post: #50

(08-03-2016 03:35 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 03:18 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I don't see an all out MAD scenario playing out, I think that time has come and passed.

Both sides are smarter now, not to mention proxy wars are the way to go.

We have to become friends with the Russians - which would help keep China in check and them putting NK in check.

The wild cards here are NK, Dirty Bombs, and a possible Nuke Commander going crazy.

Nuclear war has always fascinated me - I remember we had 1950's era encyclopedias at my house. Alot of Cold War references in it.


EDIT: TK is right about the MIRV system, it's a fuck all scenario. Even a few nukes would fuck this world up.

The problem is that the Neocons and globalistic liberals no longer want MAD based Foreign Policy. I posted the reasons in the other thread (bolded and underlined)

(07-24-2016 03:11 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  .... We earned this heat with the past 8 maybe 16 years of arrogant intervention in other countries and especially Obama pushing those Patriot systems closer to Russia.

You have to understand geopolitical nuclear warfare strategy and how it affects foreign policy. Russian ICBMs won't make it to the US, if Patriot systems are in the Ukraine. They called Putin's bluff and he invaded to their surprise. All this stuff affects every kind of deal making between all sides, US, Russia, NATO, EU, etc. Russia also lost some of it's ability to hurt the EU with their natural gas chokehold. So if he can use our democracies against our own leaders by method of cyberwarfare, he will do it. He has shown the world several times that his gangster is to be respected.

.......
When MAD is not an issue, who has all the leverage at the deal table?

In regards to the bolded, that is simply inaccurate. The Patriot missile, even in its current iteration as a bastardized component of the "missile defense" system is not designed for nor capable of intercepting strategic ballistic missiles in their boost phase. It is an 80's era SAM originally conceived to intercept tactical missiles or at the very best short or intermediate range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their trajectories.

In other words, the Patriot is not a system designed to track and shoot down an ICBM as it leaves its silo or mobile launcher and climbs on the initial part of its trajectory to some faraway target. Rather, Ukraine-based Patriot batteries could only be used to shoot down ballistic missiles targeted at the Ukraine or its immediate neighbors, once those missiles had already climbed above the atmosphere and initiated their final descent to their targets. Even then, they could only (theoretically) intercept IRBMs launched from at most 3,000km, as longer range ICBMS would have far too great terminal velocity for the Patriot missiles to deal with. Remember: the Patriot is a glorified SAM. Real anti-ballistic missile systems, like GMD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Bas...se_Defense) don't use 700kg missiles, they use thousand-ton rockets


Furthermore, even were the US to base a bona fide boost-phase or midcourse missile defense system in E. Europe, this would not threaten Russia's ground based strategic missile forces for the simple reason that they are spread out all across the unimaginable vastness of Siberia, more than 3,000 miles from the nearest of Russia's European borders. In the event of launch, their trajectories would take them over the North Pole and Canada on a trans-polar route, which is the shortest distance from Siberia to any location in North America. Any missile defense system located in E. Europe would not come into play for protecting the United States proper.