Why not nuke 'em?

Russia is a real PITA, now threatening to use nukes.

Is turnabout fair play?

I wonder...were we to launch a preemptive nuclear attack do we IN FACT have defensive weaponry to prevent them from successfully counter-attacking, or is mutually assured destruction the likely result?

What weapons have we in space to intercept ICBM's?

What weapons on the ground or at sea, e.g. rockets and beam weapons?

Not saying we SHOULD launch, but if we did...would we survive, and if so...is our military considering it?

Why let those S.O.B's launch first, which seems to be an increasingly likely scenario?

Primer reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense#

Quote:

Is turnabout fair play?

No. the US should never threaten a nuclear strike unless it actual intends to strike. The world knows we have lots and lots of nukes. No reason to threaten to use them. The world knows we will if we need to.

Quote:

I wonder...were we to launch a preemptive nuclear attack do we IN FACT have defensive weaponry to prevent them from successfully counter-attacking, or is mutually assured destruction the likely result?

We may be able to stop some, but not all.

Quote:

What weapons have we in space to intercept ICBM's?

Other than spy satellites, none. Based on physics alone, there is little utility in space-based weapons targeting Earth.

Quote:

What weapons on the ground or at sea, e.g. rockets and beam weapons?

See above reading.

Quote:

Not saying we SHOULD launch, but if we did...would we survive, and if so...is our military considering it?

Depends what enemy warheads get through, where they hit, what damage they do, etc. Our military considers a lot of things in their war planning. But...

Quote:

Why let those S.O.B's launch first, which seems to be an increasingly likely scenario?

The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. Google "no first use" for some interesting reading.

We are reading Putin's emails and have tapped his phones. He knows that in the event of nuclear strike there is no scenario he personally survives the counterstrike, no matter where he escapes or evacuates to.

My curiosity is what percentage of Russia's ICBM would likely hit their target? My guess is less than 10 percent. I envision less than 50% actually leave their tube and that most of them targeted at the U.S. would be intercepted. Maybe less than 10% fired hit their target. I would guess closer to 40% of ours hit their target because they would intercept very few but many would still miss their target.

something told me mr V started this thread

as far as a likely scenario, no way Putin decides to strike first in an all out nuclear war with what would essentially be all NATO countries. He might use battlefield nukes in, say, Ukraine, gambling that there would not be an in-kind response [a fairly good gamble] and that he can handle what response there is, not going up against all NATO. He could lose 'everything' going that far, but with his nuke threats, also conceivable he'd contain it against weak West leadership.

Quote: missedhervee

Russia is a real PITA, now threatening to use nukes.

Can't trust those Commies. Kim Jong Un said he was going to nuke LA and Chicago and he never came through.

Whoever strikes first, wins.

A nuclear detonation 25 miles above the US would cause an EMP storm that could knock out the power grid for months and possibly years, destroy computers and other electronic equipment, disrupt radio communications and make it impossible for the US to launch a counter strike.

Blackout Warfare

Those Chinese balloons were a test run.

'Recent overflights of balloons from China have been at altitudes high enough to cause a nuclear EMP

Create Chaos

'Some experts have suggested that a major EMP or GMD hit could result in the death of up to 90% of the U.S. population.'

'USAF Role in the Electromagnetic Pulse Vulnerability of the United States Critical Infrastructure'

'Another EMP was triggered by man-made weapons in 1962 when the United States detonated a 1.4-megaton bomb above the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean at an altitude of 250 miles. The blast resulted in an EMP that knocked out radio communications and electricity in Hawaii, including traffic lights.'

Russian population only down by 0.5%.

Brazilian up by 1.4%.

---------------

Deagel 2025 Forecast by Country:
https://nobulart.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Deagel-2025-Forecast-by-Country.pdf

----------------

FWIW I am NOT advocating we do a first strike.

I simply recall something my uncle told me about fifty years ago: he was an aeronautical engineer working on advanced defense systems in So Cal.

When I asked what our true strike and defense capabilities were he said, to the effect: "Think about what the public knows now; then project to about 20 years from now...that's where we're at, what we're currently working on."

Nukes are obsolete.

But these aren't:

------------

Radio Frequency (RF) Weapons:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/radio-frequency-rf-weapons

------------

Showing the 9th question:


"No comment"

----------------

9 Questions That We Should All Be Asking About The Catastrophic Fires In Hawaii

August 14, 2023
.
.
.
#9 Why is Joe Biden lounging on the beach while all of this is happening?…

Outraged Americans blasting President @JoeBiden after he said ‘no comment’ when asked about the catastrophic Maui wildfire, now the deadliest US blaze in over a century. Despite the death toll climbing to about 100, Americans were outraged that Biden remained sunbathing on a beach near his Delaware home.

How can Biden be sunbathing on a beach while such tragedy is unfolding in Hawaii?

I don’t understand it.
.
.
.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/9-questions-that-we-should-all-be-asking-about-the-catastrophic-fires-in-hawaii/

--------------------

Quote: odiousgambit

something told me mr V started this thread

as far as a likely scenario, no way Putin decides to strike first in an all out nuclear war with what would essentially be all NATO countries. He might use battlefield nukes in, say, Ukraine, gambling that there would not be an in-kind response [a fairly good gamble] and that he can handle what response there is, not going up against all NATO. He could lose 'everything' going that far, but with his nuke threats, also conceivable he'd contain it against weak West leadership.

His Army is a Potemkin Army and his surface navy isn't far behind. There's no way he can handle what would happen in a US/NATO conventional response if he used a single nuclear weapon against Ukraine. And he knows it.