So a lot of you folks seem to think Russia will go full nuclear if Clinton starts going all-in in Syria

So a lot of you folks seem to think Russia will go full nuclear if Clinton starts going all-in in Syria.

I mean let's face it, the Russians wouldn't be able to stand ground against the US in Syria, so it's pretty obvious that Putin would get his ass whooped by this tremendous lady called HRC.

But what do you think is going to happen then? Do you think Putin will be so pissed over it that he starts a nuclear war? Let's face it, the person who starts a nuclear war can only be as psychologically sick as somebody who runs amok. The logic is basically the same: I know i won't survive this, but at least I want to take as many people with me as possible.

So is Putin really just a teeeenaaaage dirtbaaag who is so psychologicaly unstable, feels so misunderstood and bullied that he will flip and go on an epic nuclear amok run?

That would definetely explain why you guys like him so much. He's basically one of you :)

pic related: Putin's face after "being bullied" out of Syria by the magnificent HRC.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/iKiQmFJqZYg?t=98
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

On the off chance we really do go to war, it will be conventional, not nuclear. The edgy children that post here just want nuclear hellfire because they hate their lives and blame it on everyone else around them.

Of course it will be nuclear burger.

Russia has been stockpiling 5,000 warheads and has the most accurate and powerful thermonuclear weaponry to date.

What? Do you think they're going to give up their greatest advantage?

No way this wouldn't turn Nuclear.

Nuclear Retaliation is the only thing keeping Russia stable and in Power.

You are one dumbass britbong.

Putin is not so stupid as to just use nuclear warheads the nanosecond the bitch gets into office. If he uses nukes, everyone loses. Neither is she. Same case with her. Go back to sleep you overdramatic little pansy.

I'm sure you guys are scared that your candidate is losing ergo the 18 fucking threads filtered "Russia", so you're pushing this shit out of fear. But this "MUH NUKES" and "MUH WW3" bullshit is so outlandishly dumb it makes me wonder why you haven't been check into insane asylums yet.

He will use them if the US attacks Russia.
Why wouldn't he?
If he doesn't use them he is as good as out of office anyway.

the question should be who has more to lose?
The US losing all their major citys and the russians losing like Irkutsk, Moscow and St Petersburg and some other shitholes.
Who has more to lose burger

>Russia has been stockpiling 5,000 warheads and has the most accurate and powerful thermonuclear weaponry to date.

Yeah i get it, you can stockpile ammunition and some freakin' awesome assault rifles and then go to school and feel like god for a couple of hours, but eventually you will definetely die. Same thing with starting a nuclear war. So you are basically saying Putin is mentally as unstable as teeeeenaaage diiiirtbaaag?

>hes practically out of the office
>implying Putin will not still be popular as fuck with russian bydlos
>implying there are free elections in Russia in the first place

USA. The bitch knows this, which is why she won't attack with nuclear weaponry either. Shove your LARPing up your ass Achmed.

>massive cyberattack on a bunch of sites normies use
>"IT WAS RUSSIA BECAUSE WE SAY SO"
>objections = overruled
>her minions at CNN shill the "muh putler" angle constantly
>Shrillary follows through on her promise to respond with military force
>Putin decides he isn't going to be regime-changed without taking us with him

It's unlikely but I can see it happening. She is just that psychotic. The alternative is the military turning on her rather than go through with it, which isn't a recipe for good times either.

But it's better than a nuclear exchange because she's got something to prove and a fixation on Russian Superhackers.

She's a psycho, but not at the level of using nukes on Russia and vice versa the moment she gets elected. Why is Sup Forums so fucking stupid and suicidal?

It's not about being pissed off.

It's the fact that whoever launches first has a clear advantage.

Hillary said in the 3'rd debate US has a 4 minute response time.

With EMP / anti satellite / internal sabotage and a +4 minute advantage and knowing when you will strike -> having everyone ready in bunkers, you are very much likely to completely destroy your enemy and survive the limited retaliation.

It's huge gamble not to strike first, which is why active engagements between US/Russian aircraft / anti air / navy will make it likely someone decides to strike first.

I'm not saying it's going to happen. I think it's close to impossible, actually. But if anyone would do something like this, she would.

Are you really genuinely convinced that this is happening or are you just in on shitposting fun? Because if it's the former you need like a therapist or some shit.

You have no Idea what you're talking about. Things can escalate very very fast and if Russia is pushed into a corner anything could happen.

We know that they have thousends of Warheads, there are regulations in place that Limit their number. However we don't know how many tactical nuclear warheads they posess and how much is in storage.
We also know they have Cruise Missile technology which is also a huge threat.

The second he appears weak some other cunt will step up.

apparently not if she plans a no fly zone in russian controlled airspace.
This shit will go nuclear.

I'm not convinced anything is going to happen.

I'm just saying its a huge strategical gamble to allow your opponent to strike first.

If active engagements like a no fly zone in Syria take place, you will escalate and make it more likely either Russia or NATO decides they can't wait any longer.

>anything could happen
Yes. Anything. Including fucking nothing, just like Ukraine.

US has lots of SSBN and nobody knows where they are.
MAD is still in place and if russia does the first strike they will get their fair share of Nuclear detonations.

>So a lot of you folks seem to think Russia will go full nuclear if Clinton starts going all-in in Syria.

No, but there will be a shooting war where Americans will die to defend ISIS.

And that's one major reason Trump needs to win.

These are two different pair of shoes here. Everyone knows Ukraine can't do shit.
US however is a real threat.

Ukraine handed over most of it's missles to Russia anyways.

I'm not denying shit will hit the fan. I am denying that either of them are just going to throw nukes around for funsies though. Something like is saying. We can both agree that if Trump wins we can just let out one big giant relieved orgasmic sigh though, yes?

Russia has the greatest literate writes and big brains there .. i think Putin would get problems, before he can send 1 nuclear weapon, they would stop him ... those discussions already in Russia, like in us and other countries, nobody can use those weapons without going into civil war before inside the country ... i think those can only do people like Kim or Erdogan !!!

If you have shelters in massive scale and know when you're going to strike, you can limit the destruction caused by SSBNs.

Yes, you will take a lot of destruction but ultimately completely destroy the other side if the first move is executed correctly.

If tomahawks are being launched from NATO ships against Russian assets, they can't distinguish them from nuclear ballistic missiles on radar.

Hesitating can mean your country is completely destroyed before you even retaliate.

>she has talked about a no-fly zone and apparently intends to enforce this
>Russia is not likely to shrug and say "we didn't want that airspace anyway"
>she is convinced that Russians are hacking her toaster 24/7
>she has actually said she intends to respond to cyberattacks with military actions
>we've been dragged into one war with bullshit like this already and almost got dragged into Syria the same way
>for whatever fucking reason we're supposed to be angry at Russia for fighting ISIS

Putin is not stupid. He's not going to launch nukes for the hell of it. But if he's looking at an all-out war with the US, he may figure he's got nothing to lose and take the risk in hopes of ending the problem before it starts.

And again, I doubt any of this is going to happen. But it's a possibility, which is bad enough. Putin obviously has no respect for Obama, but I don't think for a second that Obama could somehow involve us in a nuclear exchange with Russia.

And yes, for many reasons including this one I hope to whatever deity you care to name that Trump wins.

everyone can calculate what happens if a nuclear war is started .. they use only muscles !!
if anyone start the nuclear war, nobody would be a winner !!!

Not him, but you can't not agree with that. Trump being POTUS is the only way burgerland isn't going to war for Yisrael

I wouldn't even be surprised if she went war against Russia just because "muh im a woman and im not scared to do this muh muh"

Not to mention:

a) Russia has been preparing for years for nuclear war (bunkers, drills, stockpilling), the US has not;

b) Public opinion is a major factor. American public would really reproach a nuclear attack on Russia, people would try to topple the government, from left-wing hippies to nat-socs. If Russia would decide to create a big hole on the ground where the USA used to be, even if that meant the death of dozens of millions of Russian nationals, the russians would clap.

Most people aren't like Sup Forums. They know the system is rigged in the bitch's favor, but they have to scream at themselves and other people that it's fine and we haven't anything to worry about. Those are the people that have things to lose: family, friends, children, money, dreams, you name it. Not everyone feels that their life is pointless and thinks "oh finally! an answer to my shitty life without the hassle of having to commit suicide!" I hope you are right for the most part though.

earlier this month, 40 million russians went into bunkers as part of a drill, and their bunkers can hold at least twice that many. the USA doesn't have such a civil defense capability

if the USA starts a war with russia, it only makes sense for russia to respond with a full scale nuclear strike. if you demonstrate that you are unwilling to use nukes, you may as well not have them. it's like carrying a gun and letting someone take it. up until now, russia and usa have been careful to avoid direct fighting. hillary has promised a military response to "russian hackers" so make of that what you will

>earlier this month, 40 million russians went into bunkers as part of a drill, and their bunkers can hold at least twice that many. the USA doesn't have such a civil defense capability
Exactly what I was talking about. This is more than just a drill. This is propaganda. This is Putin telling his people "hey, if a nuclear war breaks out, I got your asses covered, don't worry"

why would we ever go to war? it serves absolutely no purpose to either side. We have nothing to gain from war, and everything to lose as a consequence.

Why even get involved in Syria? The war there has stagnated. Russia and Assad are not gaining any ground anymore. Why not deliever Russia a second Afghanistan? Let them spend billions there for years to come while their country goes more and more down the shitter. And Putin doesn't get it, because he thinks he's being the strong man. Let Russia slowly bleed out, and in a decade Russia will collapse for the second time and shrink even more.

>Russia and Assad are not gaining any ground anymore.
Aleppo is about to fall, hello.
>Why not deliever Russia a second Afghanistan?
Because heavily supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda might backfire a little
>Let them spend billions there for years
That was an original idea of Obama, what was the word, Russia is in... quidmire? quagmire? "stuck". Now amerifats admit they were wrong.

are you retarded?
Russia and Assad are actually winning, they push the US backed forces out without problems.

Why you think the west cry around because of aleppo?

Same reason why ukraine pushed for ceasefire after Debaltsevo.
Because they're losing ground fast.

Since how many months is "Aleppo about to fall?"

>losing ground quickly
>can't even conquer one single city

russia alone maybe not
but all russian will be able

get it ahmed?
might i add that only 18% of germans are willing to fight for germany!

HNGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH U LOL HNGHHHHHHH IM RETARDED DURRRRRRR

Everyone i think agrees here that putin is pretty damn charismatic and at least competent to rise up and hold power for so long. I think leaders like that come once in a while. I'm pretty sure its going to be 1 in 10000 chance another charismatic leader replaces him even if its a hand picked protoge of his.

It will be interesting to watch down the line. See what the chinese will do with all that delicious oil and them using mexican tactics of outbreeding russians near the border.

Its about to happen, ISIS is losing as well as the moderate beheaders.

Russkis have no problem grinding this city to Dust, constant US whining for cease fire is what sets them back

Since it was surrounded and is running out of ammo. Or if you wish since western media became hysterical about Aleppo bombings. And they scream the loudest when we're winning.

Turkish shit itt.

>Do you think Putin will be so pissed over it that he starts a nuclear war? Let's face it, the person who starts a nuclear war can only be as psychologically sick as somebody who runs amok.

stupid western BILD washed sausage nigger.
Putin is more humanistic and have better health than 99% of EU monkeys

It's like you think this is the first asymmetric war that has ever been lead. There is Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan even twice. Grinding Aleppo to dust... and then what? All the Sunni muslims that hate Assad to their guts will suddenly live happily ever after under him?

You really believe the war will be over if Aleppo falls? Are you retarded or what?

>running out of ammo

Wow, so maybe you will have a time window of two months until they are restocked and start shit again. Did you not learn out of Afghanistan? And Afghanistan, btw, was a war that went far better for you than Syria right now.

It's easy. There are two options:

1. Syria will turn into a second Afghanistan for you. Devasted and bankrupt at some point you will eventually leave Syria, and then Assad is going to be removed from power.
2. You leave Syria now, and Assad is going to be removed out of power, but at least you are not bankrupt and won't collapse another time.

Truth is you must look at the situation strategically. Russian is really fucked up right now.
Economically its the size of Italy, There are wars on its borders and the level of unrest is higher than you know despite it being suppressed. Considering this.

IF Russian BTFO of Syria, Then from that point on Russia will lose every single political engagement with the west. It essentially will be chipped away and dissolved becoming a puppet state or several different ones

Any one who played chess or any kind of strategy game knows that after a point, you have already lost and are just postponing the inevitable.

This is what makes the situation dangerous. Like a Cornered dog, if it bites it dies, if it doesn't it also dies.

Considering that you are more likely to win, if you put all your money on red and spin the roulette once rather than trying your luck many times.

Russia/Putin may decide to take advantage of the political turmoil in the USA and launch everything in a surprise move rather than waiting for Hillary to ring them with Missille defence.

What would you do, Go all in for a chance victory, Or wait for a slow but assured death.

This is the type of strategy Hillary doesn't seem to understand. This will be most likely the fall of the West.

>Assad is going to be removed
Dream on, Ahmed. He'll be in charge killing you sunni scum for decades to come. And then his son will do it.

Well the Strategic location matters a lot here.

In Vietnam they had the Ho Chi min trail who supplied the insurgents, it was dense jungle and no bombing managed to stop it.

In Iraq there is a huge border to Iran who supplied EFP, ammo and other stuff to insurgents, US failed to control it.

Afghanistan is a mountain region with shitton of caves and other failed sttes bordering it where supplys pour in from.

In Syria it was the border to turkey where all the supplys came from, now turkey is best buddys with Russia and US backed Iraqi forces are slowly advancing and cutting them off from other supply lines.

Its getting harder everyday for ISIS to resist.
Also all captured insurgents will probably be executed by Assad forces.
Syria has clear frontlines and its easy to see who is a sunni and who needs some
Bullets to the head.

>What is mutually assured destruction

Please consider this a an. Nuclear war is not the only type of war which exists. Putin has already mobilized an effort to convince the Russian population that we will instigate war with them, of the conventional type or otherwise. Refer to the hazmat drills and recalling of students in the us here on visa programs by the Russian government. On the opposite side of the ocean, the only person who is ready for war with Russia is hrc. Really makes you thinks op.

it might not be accurate but, remember the tsar? well, that was 60 years ago, imagine after so many decades what improvements could have been done to it.

These days they make multi-warhead bombs to cover whole territory. Kinda unfair when one city is turned to ashes and another just hit by shock-wave. Equality is important.

I played 2,000 hours of Fallout 4.
Bring it on, bro.

Putin is more or less a dictator, this allows him to do actions that a oligarch or a commitee will not do. A king may risk his kingdom if he so chooses.

The USA Nuclear Arsenal is Woefully under maintained, thanks to SJW who are convinced of peace. The Russians know this, it just depends on how much they or how much putin believes in how bad it is.

IF there is no MAD, there is no threat, The problem of today is frivolousness, you may have noticed it. People are so convinced that others do not want to die, They will happily use words that may cross the line. But if with your words you convince me that i am to die. what choice do i have ?

That was just a Demonstration of Power.

Nobody needs a 50+ megaton bomb, all the energy goes out into space because its too damn big.

However Russia has a shitton of smaller (still 800 kilotons) warheads which are way more dangerous.
Interlapping explosive radii leave more destruction.

MIRVs are brutal, they have decoys and maneuvering which protects them from ABM systems and make it harder to intercept them.
They also come in at mach 23+.

They got land and sea based ICBMs, they have mobile ICBMs, they have hidden ICBMs, they have nuclear Cruise missiles and other shorter ranged Nuclear ballistic missiles.

Well well well

But can russia win a conventional war against the west ? I don't think so.
A conventional war in this case is like russia getting it self trapped in more and more quick sand. Losing more and more advantages.

Right now it can nuke. With missile defences in place it can not.

This is the realm of cold hard reason.

But that's the thing. Going into all out offense is the least best chance to remain in power and keep Russia stable. It would mean a destroyed Russia almost 100%. And although the West will have a huge blow, the West will come out of a war more unharmed. The West of course will not be kind anymore to Russia at this point. The west has way better capabilities to restock their nuclear arsenal quickly. People who call for total destruction of the russian people will be very loud in the west. That was the plan for Germany btw after WW2, but eventually USA and Britain realized that the Soviet Union is the bigger threat and they need Germany as the border stone against communism. For Russia, no purpose for their existence is going to be there. There is no bigger threat that the West needs Russia against. Their will be no good argument to not totally destroy Russia.

Thing is I don't think anyone would ever go for the big bomb,
nuking major cities and stuff. Mutually assured destruction is
real and it is big. So big that not even some fucked up secret
society would do it this way. Even if they would save a lot of
people they would have to deal with a world full of new problems
and dangers that is harder to control than the world now.

What CAN happen is

a) A major false flag to be able to change how the world works.
And I mean major. Like the Koreas nuking each other to oblivion
while the rest of the world refrains from joining in, so everybody
can make new rules afterwards. Or a terrorist nuclear bomb in
Manhatten. Or an Alien attack. Dunno.

b) A major war with alle kinds of weaponry. Air, Ground, Cyber
and mini-nukes - something that is rumored to be in use already.
The permament threat of mutual destruction would make this a
very slow and tedious conflict since noone would risk to start
the final countdown, while at the same time trying to take over
countrys. This would be the ugliest, sneakiest and most devastating
war ever. Nobody would know anything afterwards and call for NWO.

c) Same scenario as b) but in a proxy way: Create a permanent
frontline that is not moving at all, for constant conflict, while also
making everyone afraid of the final countdown. This would lead to
great economic efficiency while being able to keep martial law up.
See 1984. Most likely scenario imho.

>he thinks ABM systems can intercept 1000 of MIRVS who come in at Mach 23+
More modern ones also got Maneuvering and decoys on bord.

You won't catch the low flying cruise missiles either because by that time you will be to busy trying to figure out where the heavy ICBMs will hit.

One TU95 Bear can shit out 16 low flying stealth cruise missiles (KH102).

Shit is fucked and missile shield is a fucking meme.

>west will come out unharmed
>russia has around 3000 ICBM warheads and unknown number of tactial nukes
Lol

No we would be fucked, US would be fucked, europe would be fucked.

>Things can escalate very very fast and if Russia is pushed into a corner anything could happen.
Silly Achmed, Russia has been pushed into corner ever since end of cold war, the fact that US and NATo refused to drop their cold war doctrine and continued the encirclement of Russia is the reason Putin even got into office in first place, now you have a ex-KGB thug who's used to cold war in office ready for war because US refused to move on, every really aggressive move Putin did was a move to counter US, why do you think he took Crimea? Do you think it was because of the native russians or the fact it has strategic port to medditeraean?
Do you think he holds onto Syria tooth and nail because he cares or Syria or because he doesnt want ISIS with yet another US missile system on his border?

the intercontinental rockets are basically real space rockets and you never know how many of them will not randomly fuck up. They are so unreliable that it remains in question if anybody would actually use them. Submarine-based missiles are pretty much as effective as intercontinentals can theoretically be, but are way more reliable. Intercontinentals would be the last ones flying.

>Sup Forums is one person
Also, have you considered that maybe, since we could beat him conventionally, that he'd resort to nukes to hold on to power? Why would he care if the world dies, he'd be dead either way.
All of you fags seem to be forgetting the fact that we managed to survive the Cold War without nuclear holocaust on PURE FUCKING LUCK. Believing we'll just get lucky again is perhaps the most brain dead thing I can think of

This is true, there is a high chance russia will be destroyed. But in the case of nuclear war there is a chance it will survive. (see Satan 2)

you are also correct in that there is no point in russia being in existence. Power politics is not a place where people do useless things however. So if it has no purpose in existence then the goal is to destroy it.

Hence my argument. If Russia does not go full out with Hillary, it will certainly be destroyed, Albeit slowly and over many years. Putin is a strong nationalist and Russians are know for their love of tactics.. which means that there is a good chance it will go full out against Hillary.

it will just start off with tit-for-tat. some aircraft shot down, retaliation in kind. a russian airbase gets hit, then the ruskies will respond in kind with a tactical nuke on a US base, perhaps even bahrain gets taken out.

but no, it will get walked down before escalating to ICBMs at civvies

Missile defence may be a meme, but its still something that may severly reduce russian nuclear capabilities. See Putins speech. MAD means MAD. if there are no more MAD, Russia will lose with the world against it and be destroyed.

worthless opinion

Americans will start bitching crying and pull out having lost a few thousand troops.

Just like Vietnam or something.

>teeeenaaaage dirtbaaag
>:)
Here's (You), wear it with pride

>putin wouldn't attack the US because if you defend yourself your enemies win

>it will be conventional, not nuclear.
We will 100% nuke your forces on our own soil and your ships in our own water.
We will nuke your carrier groups.
And we will also use Sarin.

And no this does not justify nuclear retaliation from US to Russia when Russia is nuking itself you cant retaliate.

This is also i think not the case. Americans will be fighting Russia, If it loses then it will likely concede its place as hegemon, international politics can be perfectly described as a pack of wolves. Old wolves die..

>I mean let's face it, the Russians wouldn't be able to stand ground against the US in Syria
They would post Grozny Russian military doctrine utilizes the Russian armies resources far more effectively.

Russian surface to air missiles, radar and jamming technology are probably the best in the world.

If the US is willing to deploy 300 000-500 000 boots to Syria, US can win easily, but if deployment sizes are the same Russia wins because the US lacks air superiority.

>Inb4 F-35
The plane is utter garbage and stealth is a marketing gag that works against 70s radar technology, but completely irrelevant to modern warfare.

Air superiority is gained via SAM systems not fighter jets, this has been true since the Vietnam war.

American counter attack would destroy Soviet nuclear capabilities before all their arsenal is airborne.
Only Soviets would be destroyed.

>American counter attack would destroy Soviet nuclear capabilities before all their arsenal is airborne.
Because the US can neutralize 500 200m deep nuclear silos and 24 nuclear submarines in a 1minute time frame

Not only will the regime wipe out Al Nusra leaving only isis, but russians will get another military base in Syria, securing a pipeline that Turks have agreed with after many things happen to them after they shot down the russian jet.
Having the Syrian fiasco blow up in their faces, the west will go down world wide.
Empires fall, it is the only thing certain with them.
You of all people know how cucked europe is, how big of a powder keg it is and its not getting any better.
USA is divided as fuck, but the dollars keep on making the yanks fat and happy for now.
And russians are known to endure and survive shit that is unimaginable by other people that lived in comfort all their sheltered lives.
Anyway, the nuclear war is just talk, nothing else.

The rest is not enough to destroy America.
No mutual destruction.

>Smug faggot is sure war with Russia will be no biggie, don't worry guys

youtu.be/iKiQmFJqZYg?t=98
Putin will not stand for the missile defense system that can be replaced for a missile offense system at any given minute if and when we kick them out of syrian airspace. Furthermore the destabilization of the russian economy afterward would cause them to have to go to war with a certain nation that is putting up a lot of aggression or russia being taken apart by foreign powers. There is a possibility russia will just collapse in on itself but the bigger possibility is that we will get into a engagement with them and either it is dealt with by the US backing out, the US losing in tactical engagements and then giving up, or we win and russia goes nuclear.

>Russia

what the fuck does he have to lose? at least he has the capability of becoming the most infamous niggers in world history.

>russia
>has china on their side
lol

Taking out these systems is incredibely easy. Let them shoot down a drone with them to know where they are located, and then just blast them with missiles. They may be able to handle 4 or 5 missiles flying at them but they wont be able to handle 40 or 50.

The launchers are mobile, they also use multiple radars.

It still isn't a threat for the nukes.
Maybe they shoot down a few but some will get through anyway, like 90% if not more.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>his missile defense is hoping that Russias missiles are so rusty that they don't take off

LOL

Mobile means they will take several minutes to change location. That is enough times to blast them. In the end of the day the USA has a huge navy in the mediterranean and have a perfect logistics they can quickly restock. They dont mind blasting the russians with an endless stream of rockets.

It takes a few minutes at most and there are multiple launcher and anti air systems. At no time you will be able to know where they are exactly.

SEAD mission don't work like "you just spam missiles".

In case it ever happens that the US enters russian airspace and flys missions from their carriers they will be nuked. Either by nuclear torpedos, nuclear mines or any other nuclear delivery system.

But you would use your nukes to take out the other guys nukes and conventional militaries. Imagine you would blast everything on the cities. You have now a incredibely pissed of opponent who has both a superior military and all the nukes in the world, while you have no nukes anymore and a inferior military.

It doesn't against an inferior anti-air system. But if you are facing a very good one spamming missiles is the most effective way, if you dont want to risk airplanes. When quality is similarly good it comes down to quantity, and the USA beats Russia there easily.

the US is investing 1 trillion dollars in upgrading all its nuclear warheads. they wouldnt do that if nuclear war wasnt a real possibility.

Putin, China, and Iran could easily stand a chance against the US and NATO

They are doing that so it remains a non-possibility.

They have more than enough nukes to hit their targets.

You can't just spam missiles because you don't know where exactly they are.
Or are we talking about nuclear cruise missiles?

Sure they could nuke the AA sites but at that point AA systems don't matter anymore anyway.

tfw
russia`s bunker equivalent is actually running into Metro undergrounds...

fuck wish i was in russia now

> who is China?

Dumb fuck