Cooperation with evil - nuclear weapons

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The next time they are use it will be devastating - there will be no winner and the world will be poisoned - How can you win a nuclear war? The bombs of the past are gone -they are not atomic bombs they are all hydrogen bombs now and multiple war heads - the Russian satan 2 has ten hydrogen bombs on it that can take out an area the size of France with one strike and who know what the Americans have developed - there will be no winner just lots of dead people and slow painful death for those who survive. Lets hope God intervenes when our crazy leaders decide they are going to use them.
 
There are many newer anti-missile technologies. There have been for years but they get defunded by the Democrats.

Start here:

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-ballistic missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If you scroll down, you learn that the more recent developments are extremely precise.

Brilliant Pebbles concept[edit]
Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon during 1991 but never realized, Brilliant Pebbles was a proposed space-based anti-ballistic system that was meant to avoid some of the problems of the earlier SDI concepts. Rather than use sophisticated large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles consisted of a thousand very small, intelligent orbiting satellites with kinetic warheads. The system relied on improvements of computer technology, avoided problems with overly centralized command and control and risky, expensive development of large, complicated space defense satellites. It promised to be much less expensive to develop and have less technical development risk.

The name Brilliant Pebbles comes from the small size of the satellite interceptors and great computational power enabling more autonomous targeting. Rather than rely exclusively on ground-based control, the many small interceptors would cooperatively communicate among themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM warheads in space or in the late boost phase. Development was discontinued later in favor of a limited ground-based defense.
 
Last edited:
And check out the work done by High Frontier and Dan Graham:

highfrontier.org

About | High Frontier

About High Frontier—Past, Present, Future For over three decades, High Frontier has been among the nation’s leading non-government authorities on missile defense issues including missile defense, arms control, nuclear weapons, and strategic systems. Our funding comes from the private sector and...
highfrontier.org highfrontier.org
 
Discussion of EMP threat and countermeasures:


Dr. Pry has spoken entensively on EMP.
 
Last edited:
We haven’t had a nuclear war - their effectiveness is not really know should a real nuclear war break out. Don’t really want to find out either.
 
Modern nukes can indeed be much more powerful than so-called atomic bombs, but they can also be less powerful. The trend in US weapon development has been toward variable yield where the power can be tailored to the target. Yield is not the only factor and it alone does not determine how much area a weapon can “take out.” The delivery method has as much to do with it. Also know that long-term radioactive fallout can be more deadly than the blast. Paradoxically, the tendency is that larger the yield, the “cleaner” the yield, meaning more of the fallout-producing materials are burned up in the explosion.

As horrible as nuclear war would be, such a war could be won decisively and that is what we plan for. That doesn’t mean that is the only possible outcome, just that it is a realistically possible outcome.
 
Effectiveness is actually very well known. I knew it well when I was nuclear delivery crew. Just not completely known to the general public. However, you can get a lot of good information on line if you know where to look.
 
I am not interested in nuclear war I am against the weapons and would do anything to rid the world of them save your talk to me I will never agree with you.
 
Well then you should save your responses, because you are never going to convince me. It takes to to Tango, but I’m not complaining about that, you are.
 
If the Russians were to strike first with nuclear armed cruise missiles and nuclear depth charge fields, then the outcome is not so clear. As I said before, the stealth cruise missile is much harder to detect at launch than an ICBM and impossible to shoot down with anti-ballistic missile systems. Your arguments about the USA’s ability to detect Russian submarines works both ways. If the USA can detect theirs, then they can target our SSBNs. And I was under the impression that a snorkel boat is undetectable by satellite radar.

BTW, you are misinterpreting what I said about the Russians having no interest in attacking the USA. What I said was that the Russians would have no interest in attacking a nuclear disarmed USA as that country would then present no threat to them. But they have every interest in relieving what they perceive as deadly threat to their very existence, and that threat is the USA’s strategic nuclear force.
 
You’re making sense but the Pentagon would disagree. The average person is not in control of these weapons. If Japan was hit with a nuclear weapon tomorrow, then what? That scenario has already been prepared for. I’m sure the Russians and Chinese are watching. If the US doesn’t attack the aggressor, they could, and with full justification. The military literature clearly shows what’s going on but the mainstream media can’t or won’t talk about it.

Other means exist to take out the entire military infrastructure of a rogue state. Or a lot of innocent people die first and then action is taken? Is that a common view? You’re making your case before the wrong people. It’s a good reminder, yes, but I lived through the aggressive Soviet Union “We will bury you!” period. Tens of millions dead. Concern for civilians? Zero. That’s what I’m talking about. So, if that happens here, what do you suggest the response should be?
 
They won’t strike first. It would be suicide for them and they know it. They would have no interest in any case. We are not a threat to them because it is not a part of our current nuclear strategy, or our Rules of Engagement to strike first and they know it. They, on the other hand, have not such scruples. If they think we are vulnerable, they may not attack, but they are not above nuclear blackmail. That is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was all about.

Our ability to detect Russian subs far superior to their ability to detect ours. We have better satellites, the SOSUC Nodes, etc. And of course a snorkeling sub can be detected. That has been the main means of detecting subs since there have been subs.
 
edwest211 said:
So, if that happens here, what do you suggest the response should be?
Click to expand...
The “right” military/political vs moral answer is quite likely different. Morally speaking, what we may do to prevent our own obliteration is limited. I doubt the prevailing politico/military opinion is the same.
 
Last edited:
Could you please document the satellite radar detection of Russian snorkel boats? I am sure that in WW II the German snorkel subs could not be seen by British radars, and that was at a much closer range. Furthermore, the Russian electric subs are known to have an extended underwater rage capability, perhaps up to a month.

Of course you and I know that the USA would not launch a nuclear first strike on Russia. But the Russians might see things differently. The latest development that I am aware of is the much improved targeting capability of the USA’s SLBMs. These are now capable of taking out Russian missile silos in a first strike with very little warning time. And the USA is still not committed to officially forswearing that first strike.

As I have said, conditions are not likely to provoke a global nuclear war at this time. But conditions can change. Other nuclear players may not be so reluctant to use their nukes. According to Jeremiah 25:32,

See! The disaster spreads from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises from the far ends of the world.

You may call this “tin-foil hat” stuff if you want, but it is there in black and white.
 
Last edited:
Well, it’s not a threat. As if nobody in the defense industry knows about it, or even heard of it. It was a big threat during the Cold War but only the military literature mentions it. EMPs - the concept - was not introduced a few years ago. But scaring the public seems to be the pattern today.
 
In clear weather, diesel exhaust from a snorkel can be seen on the surface to a distance of about 3 miles. Periscope feather, the wave created by the snorkel or periscope moving through the water, is visible from far off in calm sea conditions. Early British Royal Navy ship’s radar set Model 271 was shown in tests conducted in 1940 to detect the periscope tip of a submerged submarine at a distance of a half mile.

But WWII radars are not an example and not what I was talking about. Radar was very primitive back then. I can tell you I could see a snorkel on my radar in the A-6 Intruder from a long, long way off and it was not even designed for that! Also you can often see the whole sub when it’s snorkeling. When you are low-to-medium altitude, a sub looks like a giant whale just under the surface and if it is making any speed, it throws a wake to the surface.

But in any case, I was talking about satellite detection of snorkeling subs, not visual or radar. Our satts can see anomalies created on the surface caused by subs hundreds of feet below. so a snorkel would be easy.

What I have read about underwater endurance on Russian subs is more like two weeks. You have to have recycled air for the crew to breathe and the batteries have to be recharged. There is only so much you can do about that. It is much improved from the old U-boats that could only do about 24-48 hours, but at some point, you reach the limits of physics.

Finally, the Russians have been spying on us for long enough and our own policies are pretty public. I think they have not only a high degree of confidence we won’t launch first, but actually some contempt for the idea that we would be "tough enough " to launch first. And they are right. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Strategic Command, said recently at a symposium that he would refuse an unlawful order from the president to launch nukes. He could go to prison for the rest of his life he did, whereas the president could only relieve him of command. All senior officers know this well.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the first hand info. You may be right when you say that the Russians do not presently see the USA as willing to launch a nuclear first strike against them. But conditions and leaders are subject to change. According to Jeremiah, the global nuclear war is sparked by the minor nuclear powers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top