Happening discussion

How many seconds would the USA last in a nuclear war against Russia?

Realistically speaking, how could the Pentagon operate after the Kremlin sends 1000 cobalt enriched warheads toward them from mobile platforms?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

a couple of hours would be my guess

About as many seconds as Russia would. We both loose. The whole world dies

Both sides would be obliterated, alongside probably the rest of humanity. So it doesn't really matter.

>tfw happening thread on Sup Forums before humanity's nuclear destruction
Gonna be comfy lads

Hillary told us we only have four minutes, which is classified, but she's a criminal white and doesn't care about national security

neither side would be able to stop ballistic submarines, both countries would be entirely annihilated

Mobile platforms can't reach the US, retard.

about a minute

>How would the US respond?
I'm going to go ahead and guess with Patriot anti-missile systems, scrambled jets with SEAD and other systems enabled and probably a whole bunch of other really cool anti-nuke tech that's sitting beneath tarps right now. The US is quite possibly the only nation on earth capable of disarming and dismembering a massive incoming nuclear salvo. Israel could stop one or two given their 7 step system, but would eventually be overwhelmed. Basically any other country is fucked.

Then comes the retaliatory strike.

this will never happen because the people in power want to keep that power.

Russia's got bigger nukes so a few seconds less.

Yes they can retard. Swedish subs reach your shores frequently as part of excercise.

lol

Bring it on Russia no one attacks the motherfucking Burger Land

You grossly overestimate the effective of anti-balistic missile technology.

keep thinking technology is stuck int he 60s.

The USA was completely left behind. Russia is the only country with a working anti missile systems.
The only reason they haven't stroke yet is because they're waiting for the US to collapse on it's own. In a symphony of celebrity president, race mixing and obesity.

:D

nuclear is only a secondary option to Russian would rather cut the power in the US... give it a week, and the country would be emersed in anarchy. Give it another week and UN forces would be marching through the streets of US to restore order.

/thread

You can not even defend youtselfs against a horde of sub human scum with average IQ of 60, and expect to do something against the US?!?!
Omg you swedes are truly pathetic

I heard Russia was working on a bipedal tank capable of launching a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world somewhere in the Groznygrad mountains

sub-Saharan Africa (except maybe South Africa) will become the new dominant region of the world because it's so irrelevant that nobody will bother nuking it.

"Do something" isnt the same as "Reaching"
God damn you guys cant read worth shit.

The chicken and the AK47 will be the new world currency and the Black NWO will begin hoarding shiny 20 inch rims

Yeah but that shit-hole will collapse with no foreign aid.

Remember the US has enough atomic weapons in their subs ALONE to destroy the planet.

Both Soviet openly and Americans secretly included a preemptive strike on all non aligned nations as well in their nuclear doctrines.

They're taking the whole world with them. These are psychopathic pedos, sadists, homosexuals and jews we're dealing with. The hardcore satanic kind.

Dunno, I have a feeling both sides have weaponized space already so there would probably be a massive upper atmosphere web of EMP oriented detonations and everything would go dark with much less actual impacts than people would have predicted but a lot of mess.

It makes sense to just spray the boundary of the country with thousands of warheads and burst them on the coast like a shield and hope it works.

Maybe the reason the US have been focusing on EMP hardening their defences in particular the past 15 years.

Not one part of that is vaguely truthful
[Citation needed]

Why do you want to reach it if you will not do nuffin?!?
See the lack of logic there?!
Just reinforcing the meme of swedes being stupid....

>You grossly overestimate the effective of anti-balistic missile technology.
That's the thing though, the US mainland is absolutely blanketed in every kind of defense possible. From missiles, ballistic, electronic, etc, you name it and the US military has it ready to go. You see patriot systems failing in SK where they're poorly maintained, old Vietnam war models. These are what the US sells to it's allies.

Take a look at what the US and Israel have been working on basically since the creation of the country. Israel's main focus is on deterring a nuclear threat, and guess who designed, built and mass produces that technology for them?

Nuking an American ally without it's own nuclear deterrent would be fairly simple. Nuking mainland USA however, would be a completely different story.

Do I need to post that training operation where a 2 US ships, 1 US heli and 1 US sub failed to properly track and find a bloody Australian sub despite cheating?

Russia only maintains ONE single operational Typhoon.

If USA launched a first strike Russia would be fucked.

On the other hand, USA has over a dozen boomers at sea, each with enough firepower to cause nuclear winter.

Did you even read the comment that I quoted? You're a fucking dumbass, Portuguese people truly are the bottom tier latins.

USA doesn't have a magical space laser that shoots down nukes.
They have at best ABMs with maybe a 50% hit rate.
But as has been shown in the past, brute force easily overwhelms the systems the US has for shooting down ballistic missiles, if the Russians wanted to nuke the USA it wouldn't just be a few nukes, it would be hundreds of actual nukes then thousands of duds to eat up the ABMs.

Anti-nuke tech is nowhere near close enough to actually stop a nuclear threat, just reduce it.

ICBM travel about 6 km/s in average.
US bases are in average around 5000Km away from Russian population centers and vice versa.
Russia is 1500 Km away from the UK.
The war would be over in about 30 minutes, 20 if the US army response in a nuclear strike is quick enough. The UK would be annihilated in 5 minutes, the rest of Europe in less. If China and Russia attack each other during the exchange they would fall in about 3 minutes after the launch of their nuclear warheads. If that is the case, Russia would die first due to Chinese attack, the US being blown up minutes later. If they don't attack each other then it will be 15 minutes.

South America wonders why the internet went off but doesn't give a fuck.
Australians keep fighting emus since their slow internet is the same thing as being shut down.
Aussies are now Mustard race and South America becomes the Second Best place in the world.
Mecca is now glass so nothing of value was lost.
Only the Swiss survive in Europe and maybe some communities in Nordic europe.
Argentina is now the Third whitest region on Earth.

Same goes for the nords, you guys are the scum.
Btw I read it and does not make sense, maybe if you can explain would be nice.
You want to reach US with missiles but you wont do nothing....
So I ask, where is the logic in that?!?
Fucking pathetic.

>Portuguese people truly are the bottom tier latins.

Same goes for the nords, you guys are definitely the most cringe worth, pathetic people.

That's my point though. That's why these systems failed / were not fully effective in the past. We're seeing them on limited deployment on countries who can afford to purchase them.
In the US however, every military base is armed with both ballistic and missile based countermeasures for ICBMs.
Ballistic based CMs are good enough to track and shoot down incoming mortar shells in the pitch black with nearly 100% effeciency, and that's just 1 unit firing. When an ICBM flys over / into the US, it has to pass over a nearly infinite series of these countermeasures.

You're right though, that no nuke-screening will stop every single bomb from dropping, but enough major command and control points should be safe from blasts while the US organizes and implements it's counter attack.

>Russia's got bigger nukes so a few seconds less
>flag

New Zealand can finally stop having it's economy fucked over by China.


No they're not.
The US doesn't have anti-Nuke launchers just sitting around, they have some which are still of limited effectiveness.
Interceptor missiles were at 50% hit ratio.
And systems designed for other types of missile strike won't be effective on ICBMs, they might hit a few but the positioning has to be perfect.

Thousands upon thousands of missiles will be fired, how many are you actually going to hit in the maybe 30 minutes you get of warning?
It will be a small fraction of the total launched, sure not every missile launched will actually be a nuke but you're not going to get lucky and perfectly hit all the nukes with your interceptor missiles.

MAD is still in effect. Stopping a full scale nuclear attack from another major power isn't currently possible, especially since the USA isn't focusing on it, they have small systems so if say North Korea nuked the USA, the USA could shoot most of the down.
But Russia?
Not happening.

Of course stopping it wholesale isn't going to happen. The question is how would the US respond to that threat? The answer is by deploying every single countermeasure in it's arsenal, which by the way extends much beyond simple interceptor missiles. Even aircraft can be used to intercept ICBMs, given a long enough time on target to predict and intercept.

The US can scramble more interceptor missiles, pilots, AA systems, AAM systems, electronic countermeasures, actual lazers (check out boeings decked out 747 for this very purpose), etc than any nation has of ICBMs, dummy or otherwise. Some of these systems would fail, of course. Priorities would be misplaced, mistakes would be made and luck would not be on everyone's side. However, to imply that there's very little we could do in the event of a nuclear Armageddon is naive, especially since it's where most of the US military funding has been going towards since the cold war.

Just an addendum, a very similar thing would happen to the nukes the USA fired in return, but afaik Russian missile interception game is pretty weak, they rely on stuff like the S-400, a dedicated anti-plane system, to also intercept missiles. You can read about them at work if you do a bit of research on Trump's tomahawk strike in Syria and the role Russian made AA played in mitigating that threat.

You people have a massively overinflated idea of the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Even in the depths of the Cold War, when worldwide stockpiles were massively higher, the government estimated a 30% casualty rate MAX from a full exchange. Today we're probably looking at a 10-15% maximum casualty rate in the US, (which by the way would mostly affect liberal big-city coastal areas). The US Govt estimates a return to pre-war GDP within 15 years. An entire generation of economic growth lost, yes, but hardly the end of our American way of life, let alone our country or the human race. But 100% of our truest foreign enemies would be dead, and never again would this country deal with enemies with one hand tied behind its back. Also, scientists now know that nuclear winter is a complete myth. Basically, if you survive the war, you'll survive for a normal lifespan, and be pretty much back to normal life within 20 years max.

>ICBM travel about 6 km/s in average.
That's the old speed.

It's been a while since they can send some capable of flying at 50 times the speed of sound 20 meters above the ground.
And that's only the technology we're aware of.

From the moment the first nuclear explosion occurs on American soil, less than 1 hour for total destruction.

Given time the US could scramble it's systems, but in a full scale nuclear conflict it has a matter of minutes to identify where the missiles are, scramble countermeasures, and then actually shoot down the missiles.
The vast majority of the USA's interception systems aren't built for ICBMs, they might hit a few but will be ludicrously ineffective. And as the first few missiles reach their target's it'll get harder and harder to intercept the next set as bases are vaporised.

1 second less than Russia would last.
>USA: 7k nukes
>Russia: 8k nukes

It would be the end of times.

flight time is about 30 minutes.

so ... yeah about 30 minutes.

just enough time to take everyone else with us.

Protip: it only takes about 30 nominal-yield detonations within 30 days to irreparably fuck the environment so bad that everyone dies with two years of cancer.

you severly understimate the yield of dirty bombs. It's not about the blast, it's the radiation fallout that follows. The russians can cover the entire states with a nuclear cloud if they so desire.

And we all know what their doctrine has been for the past decades. Complete hegelian anihilation of the enemy's people.

USA has more missiles and more warhead capacity in its missiles.
But USA doesn't actually use most of that capacity while Russia does.

>You grossly overestimate the effective of anti-balistic missile technology.
we have a "surprise"

Well, but not all ICBMs are updated. And those with the cutting edge tech would be used to strike military targets, not cities.

I think you'd be surprised at how detailed and in-advance this stuff is planned out. Nobody is making decisions in the event of a nuclear dawn, everyone just follows pre-set plans. I mean, back during the cold war they built the radar lines up in Canada just to give them a few more minutes to detect incoming missiles. There was a plan then to deal with this event and there's an even more detailed plan now I'm sure. Also you underestimate the technology that has been built specifically for this purpose. There is a very small possibility of a land invasion in America, so of course military bases are placed and planned in such a way as to deter that threat. The real reason for homeland military bases is specifically to house these massive anti ICBM countermeasures, since a long range strike over the north pole was and still is the most likely possible situation.

Not to mention fun stuff like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

how long can the planet survive. it would be all over.

>truest foreign enemies

Our enemies are domestic: liberals, shitskins, and the jews orchestrating them.

that's the best of the best though
it's unlikely they've updated even half of the missiles to that level

Umm.. wut? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are real cities that were wiped out in mere seconds. The weapons today are much better than they were then. Keep in mind, the Tsar Bomb is not a theoretical weapon, but an actual tested and legitimate device. The United States and even many of its offshore military bases (like the one in Iraq) can be targeted and wiped out one morning.

nigger detected

...

Negatron. I wish I could boast about having the most nukes but Russia has more. But when you're talking about thousands of nukes, a difference of a couple hundred is a moot point. A full nuclear exchange would be Armageddon.

it's all smoke in mirrors and a way to suck up tax dollars
we have no plan and it won't ever happen anyways

They'd do the same
War would be fought with whatever is left, head quarters would be in hidden bunkers

gotta say nordbro, the spic has a point. you welcome the horde yourselves

Have you read it?

"The ABL was designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). These have a shorter range and fly more slowly than ICBMs. The MDA has recently suggested the ABL might be used against ICBMs during their boost phase. This could require much longer flights to get in position, and might not be possible without flying over hostile territory. Liquid-fueled ICBMs, which have thinner skins, and remain in boost phase longer than TBMs, might be easier to destroy.[citation needed]

If the ABL had achieved its design goals, it could have destroyed liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely have been limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense.[27]"

Not designed for ICBMs.
How many can the USA field in 15-30 minutes?
How many can they actually get into range and use before they've missed their window?

Yes, the USA has known this could happen for a long time, so has Russia, this does not mean that either country is capable of effectively countering it.
Just because everyone has a preset plan of action does not mean that they can effectively counter the threat within such a limited time window.
At best they can make a dent, but it will be miniscule, if the USA wanted to stop full scale nuclear war they would construct at field more systems designed for countering ICBMs, but they don't, they have very few that actually can.

if Russia attacks the US then so will Europe

You have been reading a bit too much alternative journalism

shit, you know how long they have been preparing for this.

That's why they're Fallout style wastelands today where no one lives, right? Most of the radiation dissipated in Hiroshima within hours, and was almost entirely gone within a month. Yes, our bombs today are more powerful, but the laws of physics haven't changed. Hiroshima's population recovered to pre-war levels within 10 years. I'm not saying a nuclear war wouldn't be horrible, with millions dead, but 30-40 million dead is a very different number than the 350+ million population of the US. The "End Of the World" nuclear war scenario mostly comes from movies, propaganda, and peacenik bullshit.

>if the USA wanted to stop full scale nuclear war they would construct at field more systems designed for countering ICBMs, but they don't, they have very few that actually can.
But see, that's where you're wrong. That is the area to which the most US Military funding has been allotted.

Also, I know that YAL-1 isn't a functional working lazerplane, but this is also a fairly old project and declassified. I just wanted to include it because it's so damn cool. Imagine the tech they have behind closed curtains now adays?

Like I've been saying all along, it's impossible to stop a full fledged nuclear attack, but the hardpoints would survive as that's where all the defensive equipment is located, and also where retaliatory strikes are controlled from.

America's ability to project power in other countries looks badass, but it's nothing compared to all that gear sitting at home currently without congressional approval.

Considering how difficult it is to send any kind of rocket up. I highly doubt the missile arsenal of either side could get a single missile onto enemy soil.

It's going to be bombers shot down by planes and more conventional aircraft.

ie: Not gonna happen.

It's far more likely each country ends up bombing themselves and blaming it on the other side.

0 seconds , just 10 nukes crash markets 4evr

>You can not even defend youtselfs against a horde of sub human scum with average IQ of 60, and expect to do something against the US?!?!
US has this same problem. You just don't hear about it because it's nothing new. The shit your seeing today from Europe with white women being attacked and molested by darkies is shit America has been going through for over 2 centuries. America has just wisened up about it (somewhat), European women are still in their "it's ok they are just people, no need to be so racist" phase, walking by muzzies in their designer slut outfits.

Everyone of earth would die, there would be no winners, only losers; the question is if the people in the bunkers would ever have a reason to get out.

nah, only russia can intercept a few of its incoming, sead btw is not what you think

There is no winner, everyone will be fucked - apart from New Zealand

anyone else thinks fattie is going shit allover the midget ?

We have SAM sites in place all over the country to intercept nuclear warheads.

penguins on the south pole would survive, be about it.

Suppression of enemy air defense, I know what it's for. You would never send up a big ICBM hunting jumbo jet without buttloads of SEAD on escort

The guy said: "Mobile platforms can't reach the US, retard."

Why wouldnt a mobile platform be able to reach the US if sandnigger Swedish subs can?

Your English is 10/10.

sweetie confirmed

are you sure ? sead is against enemy radar and sam

You're looking at this in a very tunnel visioned way.

We didn't completely level Japan into radiated ash. We bombed 2 cities and then threatened them with bombing more cities if they didn't surrender. Needless to say, they surrendered. It's easy to rebuild a city in 10 years when you have neighboring cities contributing and not to mention a homogenous people that see each other as a family.

If US is surprised attacked, it's going to be full scale death and destruction. There isn't going to be a peace negotiation. There will be no neighboring cities to help rebuild what is lost. It will be total wipeout.

Not to mention... we are not a homogenous people. We have rural white areas, and we have apes living in the cities. Our classism and race differences are going to be relevant in a survivalist setting. Don't expect surviving towns to help the nigger infested cities.

Once we got to the point of nuclear bombardment, we're all fucked.

US nuclear doctrine is "overkill Russia" and vice versa. The resulting fallout and such will proceed to destroy the world for humanity save by blind luck.

They didn't call it MAD for nothing.

The truth you fail to realize is that nukes aren't even real, they're not simply weaker than they say. The reason Hiroshima isn't fucked up today is because it was fire-bombed, not nuked. If nukes were real and as weak as you say they actually would have beeb used in combat at some point after WW2 because MAD wouldn't be true. Nukes are just a hollyjew lie to scare the goy into submission and trick them into believing in the Sampson option/MAD.

I've crunched the numbers in threads before. The Russians no longer have enough ICBM warheads to effectively decapitate the US and maintain a deterrent force. The US has more active warheads and more serviceable delivery systems. A nuclear war between the IS and Russia would devastate both countries but the US would probably lose less, especially if NATO (or even just the UK) gets involved.

enough of this flat earth shit

Except the USA, as I said, doesn't field a large number of ICBM ABMs.
Most of their ABMs that are actually fielded and ready to be used are designed for slower shorter range missiles, because that is what they face the majority of the time.
Work has been put into devloping ways of intercepting ICBMs(Intercept test this year for example)but the systems they do have are in a very small quantity and couldn't be deployed rapidly.
Every military base doesn't have a launch pad a few interception missiles just lying around.

The USA's low quantity of anti-ICBM systems and high quantity of ABMs focused on lower velocity missiles highly suggests a focus on using them to counter small strikes and threats from minor countries like North Korea.

If nuclear war breaks out between the USA and Russia, the USA will not launch hundreds of laser planes, thousands of specially designed fighter interceptors, millions of interception missiles that were all prepped and ready to go. It will launch a few interception missiles and focus on it's counter attack by firing all of it's on missiles and launching cruise missile/bomber attacks in retaliation.

Yes. Any kind of long range first strike would probably be composed of not only ICBMs but also aircraft of every size. With them come AA assets, probably naval based. For that, SEAD.
When I first typed that out I didn't mean to imply that SEAD was anti-nuke, but rather that it's a cool high-tech technology would that would certainly be involved in the exchange. I re-read my post though and it is worded quite poorly.

>russias got bigger nukes so they're faster
wat nigger

USA and Russia are top 2 nuke carrying countries, also it's probably not public information what either countries maximum payload is, either way both countries firing off both of their nukes would be a doomsday for the entire world

losing less in a full scale nuclear war means you don't get incinerated but die of cancer a few years later. or months if you're lucky.

Russia tested the largest nuke ever, that doesn't mean that's the largest either side has. Don't you have someone to get raped by somewhere?

its ok chill out brother , if nukes fall were fukt anyway

>I crunched the numbers and figured out that 1400 is a bigger number than 1700, USA USA USA USA USA

Russia has more deployed warheads in every estimation.
Russia has more than enough warheads to severely damage the USA
Just as the USA will do the same to Russia

What do you mean? Russians use warheads between 550-750kt and the US uses the W78 warhead on missiles which have a yield of 335-350kt.

Not only that, but there are systems in place to protect the U.S. mainland from space.

and then we take over the east coast.

Um, why can't we be friends?

Please bomb us.

Don't forget about the space laser the USA has to shoot down missiles.

it's not public information what their strongest warheads are, they definitely have nukes that strong, but neither would ever release what they actually have

Burgers need so much self-assurance. They can't accept how vulnerable they truly are.