Putin brags Russia's new hypersonic missiles 'can wipe out US cities' sparking WW3 fears

Good questions.

They inspire the question: which are the greater threat, foreign enemies or domestic enemies?

There are many facts that suggest the domestic enemies are the greater threat, and nuclear weapons will not do a thing to stop them because they are already inside the gates, for many years.

 

I don't see domestic enemies using nukes at all. Although Biden and company have them, I don't think their strategy to destroy America would include their use.

 

Biden and Company are using sociological and psychological nukes, and they work very well.

Scaring hell out of people over a virus with a 99% survival rate is but one tactic. Illegally demanding that everybody including our military take the clot shots is another tactic that destroys our country and its ability to defend itself. Biden & Company are traitors.

 

The intent is to destroy our Constitution and the sovereignty of the nation founded by our brilliant and highly devout forefathers. Now they're tearing down the statue of Jefferson in NYC. Once they discredit the very foundation of our nation, then what have we?

To me it's evil incarnate and no different then the Bolshevik overthrow of Imperial Russia. The difference is that this time the proposed liberal world government, would be controlled by the multi corporations.


This land we love so mightily,
should not be handed readily,

to selfish men with hearts of stone,
who carest only for their own.

And who will come so angrily
to tellest us so blatantly

that we should never dare to stray.
For only they should have a say.

And that we not do as we please,
while forcing us upon our knees,

to worship gods of lust and greed.
And things that we can never heed.

Now these are things we did not choose.
And freedoms something we can't lose.

To liberal laws and swords so cruel
and brandished 'bout by those who rule.
- Jeannette

 

Dude -- there is no "Conquering the USA" ... just as there is no "Conquiering Russia" - because if they are shooting at us .. we are shooting at them .. and nothing is left at the end -

What part of -- you are not going to conquer Russia - until every last one of their nukes has been fired .. do you not understand ? .. and vice versa .. Russia will not be conquering USA - until every last one of our nukes has been fired.

Thus - what you are suggesting is literally and unoquivocably the definition of "M-A-D" ok ? there is no conquering .. and going to locate there .. move our troops on in .. as to acomplish such a thing .. would required nuking the place into obvlivion -- and having our place nuked into oblivion -

This is lunacy .. of the first order ,, bar none

 

Why would the Russians launch 6400 nuclear weapons?

And there are lots of population centers in the U.S. of under 500,000 population.

Besides you don't consider all the intricacies of nuclear weapons targeting. A target in any nuclear war would be Minot, North Dakota. Probably worth several warheads. But the U.S. won't end because 20,000 people in Minot get killed.

But go ahead and act all sanctimonious and arrogant with me.

 

If you want to know if one Russian submarine can disperse its warheads across the entire United States (that is what you claimed, I said nothing about "6400 nuclear warheads". ) ask our resident nuclear weapons expert @AARguy

 

Putin is not suicidal. Our old fashioned ICBMs can still destroy Russia, regardless of his hypersonic missiles. I'm not going to lose a wink of sleep over this.

 

We have less than 500 ICBMs. Too few to target on Russian population centers.

 

500 is plenty to turn Russia's cities into glass.

In a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, no one wins. Putin knows that.

 

Why would the U.S. waste its ICBMs on Russian cities? ICBMs are meant to destroy hardened targets like underground command centers, nuclear weapons storage sites and such as that. Sure some of these are near cities but certainly not all the targets in Russia.

 

It's MAD, Dayton. Mutually Assured Destruction. It's why Putin will not attack us no matter how fast his missiles can go. Moscow, Leningrad, all their cities - gone. A steaming radioactive pile of rubble.

 

But the U.S. does not need to bother with ICBMs to destroy Russian cities.

And you have a very simplified idea about MAD.

 

ICBMs, medium range, short range missiles, submarine based missiles .... whatever! Enough to provide a deterrent to any nation with a sane leader.

MAD is a simple concept. It's not complicated.

 

Perhaps you should devote more study to it.

 

You bviously have no understanding of your subject. Its much more complex than that. If Russia can hit our offensive nuke forces quickly, before we can react, then they can win. This has been the most basic supposition since nuclear war reared its head as a possibility. That's why faster, more accurate missiles have always been important... so one side could surprise the other before they could react. Once either nation has been damaged enough to become almost helpless, the other can move in.

You really know nothing about what you are talking about.

 

We have 3,750 nukes (https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/us-nuclear-weapons-stockpile/index.html). We have disassembled most of our "tactical" nukes... including all of our artillery delivered nukes. So most of what remains are high yield. More than enough to destroy just about anything you'd like to destroy.

 

You are the sanctimonious and arrogant one .. calling other poster liars for posting what is obviously true -- now trying to project your failings onto others - because you are hoplessly wrong once again.

The Russia's would most likely not launch 6400 nukes - as only a fraction of those are needed to annihilate the US - contrary to your nonsense claim that all 6400 would not wipe out the US.

No one said the US would end due to 20,000 people in Minot got killed .. just one nonsense statement after another from you.

 

Look at the back tracking - desperate disingenuous denial of your claim that the entire Russian Arsenal would not wipe out the US. That you did not know that the Russian Arsenal is 6400 nukes does not make you any less wrong.

 

You are one who " knows nothing about what you are talking about" projecting your failings onto others ... trying to promote the fantasy narrative that nuclear war is winnable ..

Only someone completely oblivious to reality would think one could wipe out the entire US nuclear arsenal with a first strike -

https://www.state.gov/transparency-in-the-u-s-nuclear-weapons-stockpile/

The suggestion that we reduced our nukes by near 90% -- so we would not have enough to withstand a first strike - would only be made by someone who "Knows nothing about what they are talking about"

 

I never said that anyone could knock out the ENTIRE arsenal. You do not speak the truth. We tremendously reduced our nukes when the decision was made to eliminate our Army nukes. I Commanded an M110A2 nuclear "tube" artillery battery in the 1980's. They are all gone now, as are the Army Pershing and Lance missile systems. I'd love to know the process which led to that decision. The precision use of tactical nukes always seemed like a good policy. My battery could deliver 15kt, 7.5kt, 3.5 kt and 1.25 kt yields out to about 40 kilometers. (Hiroshima was about 15kt). Now that option is gone. I've never felt it was a good idea to eliminate options.

 

If you read the newspapers after the end of the First World War, you will see almost the same argument that you are making.
The main meaning was this - there will never be a war again, there are a lot of victims in the First World War ... and (the most important argument) - because the machine gun was invented.
But, as you know, a little time passed and the Second World War took place. Even more terrifying.
Today, many people reassure themselves that nuclear weapons have been invented and therefore no one will dare to start direct hostilities (on a global scale, of course).
But firstly, nuclear weapons have already been used against civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Secondly, wealth and power make a person insane. Therefore, for the sake of preserving wealth and power, the ruling class (in a capitalist society, the ruling class is an oligarchy) will commit any crime against humanity.
And thirdly, each side will hope for a preventive strike and a quick victory. (Who cares about the deaths of several billion ordinary people if the ruling class is safe in their bunkers?)

 

You are the only one telling fibs here .. claiming a nuclear war is winnable - which requires knocking out "Nearly" the entire arsenal .

Don't care what you commanded -- what I care about is your nonsense claim that we reduced our Nuclear arsenal by 88% - so that we would not have enough to survive a first strike...

The fact of the matter is that our nuclear experts obviously think we have way more than enough to survive a first strike .. duh - as obviously we would not have reduced that far if we did have such a worry.

The option you need to eliminate is the "MAD" option - as it is called that for a reason.

 

Countries with a communist system have never fought.
The fact is that there has never been a single country in the history of mankind with a communist system of government.
Briefly about the principles of communist society.
1. No money and payments with money. (There is no money at all - neither physical, nor digital, nor shells, nor beads ... etc.)
2. Communist society presupposes the absence of the state as such.

 

Again? You seem to have a problem with the truth. I NEVER... NEVER... NEVER said anything about 88%. Where do you get this stuff? Are you hallucinating?

No one really knows what a first strike would accomplish, that's why no one has executed one.

I wait, expectantly, for your next crazy claim that said something about some specific percentage of something. What will your crazy imagination make up THIS TIME?