ICBM

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 15.12.2017 at 18:30

Simple we launch a missile from a submarine in the baltic sea into moscow

Wow, is this real? A simple non-bitter no-troll no-sarcastic reply by yellow rose?

If you go through Denmark and enter Baltic Sea, you will become visible on Russian radars and sonars (in the range), why would you do that? Most logical approach is via Barents Sea or Kara sea and launch nukes, that is the weakest link in Russias defence.

Second, is it really worth it to hit Moscow and kill 15 million (total city population) in exchange for your hit cities? New York have 20 million, Los Angeles 10? Not sure for other cities like Chicago and Atlanta, around 5m, have to check, but the point is you have so many big cities you can easily lose in a nuclear exchange, while Russia have only 2 (moscow+piter=20 million people). If nukes fall on USA, that's 100-150 million lost humans. Logic doesn't say that's a fair trade for you, and you should find another approach to fight, non-nuclear since you will be bigger loser and the point is to win at the end.

Russia is the one which have higher chance of using nukes right now because it is poor, new, pressured, surrounded by enemies, sanctioned and demonized in the western media. Combine all that and you will create a time bomb. I think this all happens because USA lost ideological advising and strategic planning, so they are randomly trying to compete with Russia, but creating chaos (Brzezinski and Kissinger still doesn't have decent replacement in their positions for decades).

Read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives to better understand how to deal with the greatest historical American competitor.

Написано от Skanderbeg, 16.12.2017 at 13:36

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 15.12.2017 at 18:30

Simple we launch a missile from a submarine in the baltic sea into moscow

Wow, is this real? A simple non-bitter no-troll no-sarcastic reply by yellow rose?

If you go through Denmark and enter Baltic Sea, you will become visible on Russian radars and sonars (in the range), why would you do that? Most logical approach is via Barents Sea or Kara sea and launch nukes, that is the weakest link in Russias defence.

Second, is it really worth it to hit Moscow and kill 15 million (total city population) in exchange for your hit cities? New York have 20 million, Los Angeles 10? Not sure for other cities like Chicago and Atlanta, around 5m, have to check, but the point is you have so many big cities you can easily lose in a nuclear exchange, while Russia have only 2 (moscow+piter=20 million people). If nukes fall on USA, that's 100-150 million lost humans. Logic doesn't say that's a fair trade for you, and you should find another approach to fight, non-nuclear since you will be bigger loser and the point is to win at the end.

Russia is the one which have higher chance of using nukes right now because it is poor, new, pressured, surrounded by enemies, sanctioned and demonized in the western media. Combine all that and you will create a time bomb. I think this all happens because USA lost ideological advising and strategic planning, so they are randomly trying to compete with Russia, but creating chaos (Brzezinski and Kissinger still doesn't have decent replacement in their positions for decades).

Read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives to better understand how to deal with the greatest historical American
competitor.

Thing is after the nuclear exchange, USA would survive due to a bigger population and the fact that there are many more cities to nuke in the US than in russia.

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 16.12.2017 at 16:01

Thing is after the nuclear exchange, USA would survive due to a bigger population and the fact that there are many more cities to nuke in the US than in russia.

Almost 2x smaller country than Russia and 2x more population means easier to kill them (clusters). It is worth more to nuke Chicago, Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, Denver, San Franscisko, San Antonio, San Diego, Seattle than Kazan, Volgograd, Novgorod, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok, which mean Russia win if it hit them.

More people live in large cities in USA, while in Russia majority live in small towns and villages which are not worth hitting with expensive nukes, so more people will survive in Russia than in USA in nuclear exchange, now couple that with economy (developed american and underdeveloped russian) and you will have zombie apocalypse in USA due to failed social order where people didnt used to chaos and Russia will simply still be underdeveloped after nuclear exchange where life won't change much so obvious plus (no more strong america to oppose russia in geopolitics).

Написано от Skanderbeg, 17.12.2017 at 12:50

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 16.12.2017 at 16:01

Thing is after the nuclear exchange, USA would survive due to a bigger population and the fact that there are many more cities to nuke in the US than in russia.

zombie apocalypse in USA due to failed social order where people didnt used to chaos and Russia will simply still be underdeveloped after nuclear exchange where life won't change much so obvious plus (no more strong america to oppose russia in geopolitics).

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 17.12.2017 at 13:02

Написано от Skanderbeg, 17.12.2017 at 12:50

Написано от Witch-Doctor, 16.12.2017 at 16:01

Thing is after the nuclear exchange, USA would survive due to a bigger population and the fact that there are many more cities to nuke in the US than in russia.

zombie apocalypse in USA due to failed social order where people didnt used to chaos and Russia will simply still be underdeveloped after nuclear exchange where life won't change much so obvious plus (no more strong america to oppose russia in geopolitics).

[youtube]ztVMib1T4T4[youtube]

I don't know what's hard to understand here. Maybe the part that says if Moscow is hit, Yakutsk will live? Or do you think all of Russia will burn when 1 city is hit and likewise when 1 US city is hit all America will burn?