US Interior Secretary: Naval Blockade is an Option for Dealing with Russia

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Destroyer of illusions, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just for you:
    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    Pick a typical warhead of 750kt and detonation in the air for maximum effect. I picked Chicago, where I live.
    The air blast radius (ruined buildings) is almost 4 miles. That means diameter is 8 miles. I look at air blast because thermal radiation and other effects are survivable and won’t immediately kill you. Considering that in North America we will have a 30 minute warning, it’s reasonable to assume most people will run inside nearby buildings.
    So, 8 mile diameter seems like a lot for Chicago, right? Not really: Chicago + suburbs Covers over 10,800 square miles. So, to effectively exterminate everyone in this metropolitan area the attacking nation would neeed to spend around 1,000 warheads. Russia has only 2,800 that are ready to go.
    Can Russian attack cause massive damage? Of course! Will it spell the end of this country? No!
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Baff likes this.
  2. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38,438
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a proxy war for us, but not for Russia... right.

    Anyway, Russia's defeat in Afghanistan doesn't seem all that relevant to a possible naval blockade of their country.

    Anyone who thinks that is a good idea is clearly unhinged beyond belief.

    But with the recent revival of McCarthyism, there are no limits on anti-Russian lunacy anymore. It is actively encouraged and celebrated by corrupt politicians and media.
     
  3. dave8383

    dave8383 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    1,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There isn't going to be a blockade.
     
  4. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which, of course, has nothing to do with the truth of the proposal that they are itching for a civilization-ending nuclear war.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  5. notme

    notme Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    23,617
    Likes Received:
    2,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His proposal is to start a war with a nuclear power.
     
  6. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38,438
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I certainly hope not. It would be an act of insanity.

    The fact that someone in a position of authority is even considering such a move is a clear indication of how deranged and unstable the political class has become.
     
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,970
    Likes Received:
    9,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is complete nonsense. Think something more believable
     
  8. dave8383

    dave8383 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    1,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, if that's what floats your boat.
     
  9. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    35,364
    Likes Received:
    8,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...
    "Russia is a one trick pony," Zinke said, explaining that its economy hinges on its ability to sell energy. "I believe the reason they are in the Middle East is they want to broker energy just like they do in eastern Europe, the southern belly of Europe."

    The Trump administration has been adamantly opposed to Russian energy projects, such as the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany, because of the leverage it would give over Europe. President Trump wants the European Union to buy more U.S. natural gas to diversify the continent's energy supply away from Russia.

    Energy Secretary Rick Perry this week reiterated that sanctions against the pipeline are still an option if Russia does not remain a good neighbor to its European customers.

    On Iran, the situation is very similar, Zinke explained. "National security-wise, how are you going to deal with Iran?" Zinke asked. "Well, there are two ways."

    "There is the military option, which I would rather not. And there is the economic option," he added. "The economic option on Iran and Russia is, more or less, leveraging and replacing fuels."

    "We can do that because ... the United States is the largest producer of oil and gas," Zinke said.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...blockade-is-an-option-for-dealing-with-russia

    Truth!
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,970
    Likes Received:
    9,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know the US military has plans on file to go to war with Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia... right?
    That the US military updates these files from time to time... right?
    Why are you shocked that the US has a plan to blockade Russia?
     
  11. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113


    That is just one.
    They have thousands.

    So now add as many nukes to Chicago as is needed to flatten the entire city like Hiroshima.
    Answer... 68.

    10,800 /Pi R squared the blast radius.

    68 warheads = 7 missiles.


    Now this is just to kill everyone from the initial blast, less will be required if they are happy to let people die slowly of exposure.


    Here is a nice guesstimate of the disposition of their nuclear forces.
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2017.1290375
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  12. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don’t know how you got your math here. Radius is 4 miles. Square that, you get 16. Multiply by Pi and you get around 50. That’s the deadly blast area.
    10,800 divided by 50 = 216.
    You need 216 warheads to accurately reach specific position to reliably kill everyone in that area.
    LA is pretty much a giant suburb with population more than Chicago. New York is even bigger.
    Those who claim that the world will end with nuclear war just can’t think in terms of scale. It is realistically survivable. And look at the list of weapons Russia possesses in your own website. ICBMs total to just over 1,000 warheads. The rest can only be deployed during conventional warfare. 1,000 warheads realistically is 3 largest cities. Hardly the end of the US. Oh, and don’t forget Russia’s fame for producing real quality products and think about how many of their ICBMs will actually work.
     
  13. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, I don't think warheads have to be all that accurate.
    Thanks for your correction on the maths.

    LA is all wood build bungalows. There is no cover.


    If we look at the above info graphics we can see that the big meteor strike was less than one big bomb.
    But that Krakatoa is much bigger.

    One thing I would bear in mind with your calculations is that we have been using 750kt as our model.
    We don't actually know the yields of Russians nukes. They could be 20 megatons. not .75
    They could be up to 50 Mt.

    Either way with the best part of 5,000 warheads to play with they have enough.
    I don't think they need to catch everyone in the initial blast to kill cities.

     
  14. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Luckily, we still live in this universe where the laws of physics still apply.
    The higher the yield of the bomb, the more it’s going to weight. You simply cannot mount a 50mt bomb on an ICBM because it’s just too heavy. Also, conventional wisdom, backed by tests, states that it’s better to drop 10 750kt bombs instead of 1 7.5mt bomb on the same area. Bigger is not always better.
    The website you quoted before shows that most of Russian ICBMs carry warheads with yield of 800kt, none carries more, some carry less. The average for the US is 750kt. I think russians always carry a bit more because they just got to have heavier and bigger everything they compare to America.

    Anyway, my scenario above assumes that whoever runs Russia goes for heaviest death toll. I think any rational leader would go after the military abilities of the opponent by attacking military installations and trying to break the ability to defend self and counter attack. With having that in mind, I think most of the nukes would target those assets, including overseas. So, with Russia having 2800 active nukes, it would expand at least half on all of the US military installations around the world, leaving even smaller amount of nukes available to attack cities. It would also need to be prepared to be declared a war on by any country that hosts US troops and equipment and ended up getting a few nukes, which is a lot of countries, including pretty much all of the Western Europe.

    Having all that in mind, you can see that WWIII would be very deadly, but Russia would lose. Humans would survive and be able to carry on with the civilization.
    You know when it was really scary? When both, USSR and the USA had over 47,000 nukes each. That was the time when you could think that if war starts it will be a holy crap moment for everyone on this planet.
     
    Baff likes this.
  15. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree, but they still have bombers as part of their delivery equipment.

    AsI read it, they have 2800 nukes ready to launch and a few thousand more non strategic nukes.
    In that link I posted earlier.

    I don't really know how many they have, I know they have enough.

    And I don't think they need 200 to kill Chicago. I don't think being caught in the blast radius is the half of it.


    No one cares about declaring war on any host nations for US forces.
    They can't do anything about it. Only the UK can retaliate.
    Russia's conventional forces, like their nuclear forces, dwarf NATO's.
    They will do us all at the same time.

    Russia doesn't need any nukes for Europe.
    Might as well lob a couple in a few capitals to suck the fight out of them for 100 years.
    But you are misjudging the relationship if you think Russia needs nukes to defend against anything except nuclear attack. It doesn't.


    Russia certainly loses WW3. (Unless successful preemptive strike).
    The idea that America can beat them is just as ridiculous however.
    America gets wiped off the map with 15 minutes of that war beginning.

    They have you outgunned and in a big way.
    Not that you don't still have enough to do the same back to them, you do.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  16. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    10,048
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not judge anyone. I'm asking. All your ancestors fought for one country, but you went to the enemies. Because all American leaders, at all times, called Russia the enemy of the United States. At the same time you left voluntarily. Nobody forced you. For example, Dinikin, the enemy of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet authorities, refused to serve the Nazis.
    Or, for example, the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich Romanov, the grandson of Nicholas 1, who, by the way, had more than enough reasons to hate the Bolsheviks as his natural enemies. he wrote "... on guard of Russian national interests stood none other than the internationalist Lenin, who in his constant speeches did not spare the forces to protest against the division of the former Russian Empire, appealing to the working people of the whole world ...I once hated them, and my hands itched to get to Lenin or Trotsky, but then I began to learn something about one or another constructive step of the Moscow government and found myself whispering: “Bravo!”."
    And the leader of the cadet party, Milyukov, who fled abroad, watched the battles of the Second World War and wrote about the Red Army “ours are attacking”, “our, bravo”.

    You, having appeared abroad of your fatherland, on the contrary in every possible way try to humiliate and curse all the achievements of your former fatherland. For which all your ancestors died in battles with the enemy. Therefore, I ask you - who are you? Do you remember your ancestors? Or do you spit on them? Are you ready to serve the enemies for an extra piece of sausage?
     
  17. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    10,048
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what? I have long noticed that in the American media a lot of crazy. But not only in the American media. More recently, a single Negro American president quoted Hitler "We are an exclusive nation." Remember? Isn't that funny? A negro (about whom it is said that he has Jewish roots also) quotes Hitler. This is some kind of surrealism.
     
  18. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    35,364
    Likes Received:
    8,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I can't say that I remember any such thing. Not sure which "Negro" is supposed to have Jewish roots, either. That sounds a little oxymoronic.
     
  19. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38,438
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't about some theoretical plans sitting inside a desk at the Pentagon, this is about a high level US official publicly discussing the possibility of blockading Russia at a time when our relations are at historic lows. If sanity prevails, there is zero possibility of such a blockade happening, so his comments are only applicable in a world that has lost its sanity. Simply put, the man is an unhinged buffoon talking dangerous nonsense.
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,970
    Likes Received:
    9,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He stated a fact. Do you think the US does not have a plan on file to blockade Russia?
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    41,482
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dream on - Russia can annihilate the US many times over. The reason both sides reduced stockpiles is because of the pointlessness of being able to destroy each other 10 times over. Shall we go for 11 ?!.

    It got so way beyond stupid that both sides agreed to reduce. That said - .The idea that both sides reduced nuke levels to below being able to destroy the other at least two times over for good measure - is preposterous nonsense.
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    41,482
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to lack the conceptual understanding of what a thermonuclear weapon is :)
     
  23. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38,438
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now put his statement into its larger context and you will see the problem.

    I'm sure they do. But what purpose does it serve to publicly opine on such plans? As far as I can tell, the only thing it will accomplish is to further strain US-Russian relations.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    31,970
    Likes Received:
    9,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because... you think the Russians don't know we have such a plan?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    41,482
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good grief. The Chicago metro area number I get is 378 Sq miles

    Not sure where you get your number for Chicago from but the number I get is 378 square miles.

    The entire state is 57,000 sq miles .. Chicago does not cover 1/6th of Illinois- not even close.

    The radius for an for a 750 kt air blast is given in kilometers (10.7) = 6.7 miles on your site which gives a blast area of 140 sq miles = Chicago is pretty much gone with a 0.75 megaton blast.

    Russia will send many 1-5 megaton puppies over and a few 20 megaton monsters.

    Regardless - One - 750 kiloton blast would do the trick.

    The ground blast "Castle Bravo" spread radioactive contamination over 7000 sq miles .. While the blast will kill many - it is the radioactive contamination that will kill more. Ash from the blast fell on Fishermen on a boat over 90 miles away who went to the hospital with severe radiation sickness - one died.

    The difference being that these people were only exposed for a short period of time. In a full scale nuclear attack there is nowhere to escape to.

    Divide 7000 into the continental US and you get roughly 450. Realistically this number is about half that.

    Conclusion - you are way way off - not only in your numbers but in relation to the total effect of a nuclear blast.
     

Share This Page