Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
DogOnPorch

Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

Recommended Posts

Canada's role in all this was to provide shock troops to the American Corps commander south of the Fulda Gap, wherever there was a breach in the lines, 4 CMBG would counterattack to plug the hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

As if a Tu-16 would ever have made it to New York.    The only card the Soviets had was they could nuke Europe, after Cuba they didn't really have the capability to inflict unacceptable casualties on the Americans until the Delta class SSBN.

 

The Tu-16 was more a threat to European targets. But it was powerful for a twin engine bomber....thus hauling that huge bomb. Only the Chinese clone is still being used. Great aircraft, overall.

The M-4 Bison/Molot was, again, the apparent big threat at the time...big and powerful...but had hugely inefficient engines. It could only manage a one way trip to the USA. When it came time to modernize, it became apparent that it sat way too low to be of much use as a missile platform...so, off to the museum. One was retained to haul the Soviet space shuttle clone around.

The Tu-95 has the raw intercontinental range and there are still a surprising number of those operational. It finally saw its first combat in Syria with good effect. About as stealthy as a hammer on a tin pan, though.

The Tu-160 is intercontinental...especially if it uses its refueling capabilities...but there are only a few of those flying... a mere 27.

Russia's main nuclear force remains its mobile launchers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia's main nuclear force remains its tactical weapons, as those are the ones they are most likely to use.

Those were the ones they were mostly likely to use in the First Cold War.

Exponentially more likely that we are going to have a theater thermonuclear war than a global thermonuclear war. 

The price of global thermonuclear war is too high, whereas theater thermonuclear war is just the Russo-European War with really big bombs.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm specifically referring to intercontinental strike capabilities of which Russia's mobile launchers...by far...represent the largest threat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are for the most part irrelevant to the actual situation in play.  

The odds of America and Russia nuking each over Europe are extremely slim. 

More likely the Russians employ nuclear deescalation in Europe and the Americans jump at the chance to deescalate.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the Topol and Yars is that they're essentially unstoppable while being nearly undetectable. Much like a submarine. As well, the rocket itself has plenty of extra throw weight if newer larger warheads need to be employed. Unlike many Russian systems, they are pure solid fuel propelled...making them ready to go right now. Can launch without any support with reasonable accuracy. With support...pinpoint. It's beyond fast at Mach 20+ at burnout. 

Too boot, it reloads in a reasonable amount of time for a second go. Much like the silo based liquid fueled Satan which might still be referred to as a city buster due to its MIRV warhead options...large and larger. Self contained launch tube systems...but you got to fuel the Satan. Just replace the whole tube/missile...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the SBIRS detects the launch resulting in launch on warning, so pretty sure the Russians are not going to launch against the CONUS with Yars nor Topol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the effects of dispersal and concealment are being rapidly degraded by big data.

The ability of algorithms to estimate location based on pattern of life recce is making things less undetectable by the hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest weakness of the Soviets/Russians is that they are predictable. 

They have a rigid politicized chain of command which fears subordinates taking the initiative and so they tend to do the same thing every single time.

They don't have NTC where they exercise for fluid scenarios, they're not dynamic, they just plow straight ahead and try to overwhelm with massed echelons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Just to illustrate Soviet/Russian doctrine, visual representation of;

 

 

Providing the Russians decide to fight the next war like it was 1980.

Syria showed quite the opposite type of doctrine. Massive air power backing special forces for the most part...no invading mech divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Providing the Russians decide to fight the next war like it was 1980.

Syria showed quite the opposite type of doctrine. Massive air power backing special forces for the most part...no invading mech divisions.

They won't get very far in Europe with that.  I'm talking about fighting NATO,  not Arabs.

In Syria, the Syrian conscripts are doing the bulk of the fighting, but they're not going to fight NATO for the Russians in Europe.

The Russians can't fight major a war without their conscripts, Spetsnaz and VDV is too light, and too small.

Also, they're not using massive air power in Syria, by NATO standards its a very modest force.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia using its strategic bomber force to do Viet-Nam War style Arc Light Raids on ISIS is what I'd term massive use of air power. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Russia using its strategic bomber force to do Viet-Nam War style Arc Light Raids on ISIS is what I'd term massive use of air power.

Nonsense. 

Only the Tu-22M can drop conventional bombs, Tu-95 and Tu-160 are cruise missile carriers only.

The Tu-22M doesn't carry anything close to the payload of the B-52, and the Russians only have 63 Tu-22M's in service and they're not flying many sorties in Syria, only a handful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the Russians have flown a handful of missions with Tu-22M's, they don't pack the punch of a B-52, not even close,  and you can play the footage of the same bomber dropping the same bombs over and over on yourtube, that's not massive air power, that's replaying video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Nonsense. 

Only the Tu-22M can drop conventional bombs, Tu-95 and Tu-160 are cruise missile carriers only.

The Tu-22M doesn't carry anything close to the payload of the B-52, and the Russians only have 63 Tu-22M's in service and they're not flying many sorties in Syria, only a handful.

 

Sixty-two Backfires.

Fifty-eight B-52s with some extras in reserve still in plastic wrappers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Again, the Russians have flown a handful of missions with Tu-22M's, they don't pack the punch of a B-52, not even close,  and you can play the footage of the same bomber dropping the same bombs over and over on yourtube, that's not massive air power, that's replaying video.

 

You said 'nonsense'...I showed otherwise.

But I could say the sky is blue and you'd tell me why it isn't.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backfire is not in the same class as B-52.

Tu-22M is a cruise missile carrier which can carry a small number of conventional bombs, but an F-15 Eagle has a higher conventional payload than the Backfire.

By NATO standards the Tu-22M is a glorified fighter bomber in the conventional bombing role.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You said 'nonsense'...I showed otherwise.

But I could say the sky is blue and you'd tell me why it isn't.

;)

You're saying a handful of Tu-22M's dropping a handful of bombs in a handful of missions in Syria, amounts to Rolling Thunder Arc Light, thus you are mistaken.

If you wish to publish your mistake to the internet, that is your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The typical payload for a Tu-22M flying a mission in Syria, is 8 x FAB 1500 bombs.

The B-52's from Al Udeid have dropped 12,000 bombs on IS in just over 300 hundred sorties. 

The Russian Tu-22M's are not equivalent to the B-52's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To wit, yes, Arc Light is in effect, but it's not the Russians dropping it on IS, it's the Americans, Arc Light is well beyond the Russian means.

I do note that the Pentagon has smartened up, so they don't provide the media with footage of the B-52's in action anymore, lest it incite the hippies.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operation Tumbler-Snapper Shot Dog. Some very close-up footage of the 19 kiloton test blast. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Rockets and smoke pots are for measuring the resulting shock wave(s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tumbler–Snapper 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×