Topic: USA attack to RUSSIA soon. - page 6. (Read 14233 times)

Russia Prepares Mock Nuclear
Attack On US And Britain

Russia will soon launch a mock nuclear attack against the U.S. and Britain during military exercises over the next week.
 
Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports that Russia's strategic bombers and nuclear submarines "will deliver hypothetical nuclear strikes on the U.S. and Britain, while locating and destroying aircraft-carrier groups of the U.S. Navy."
 
The massive air, sea and land maneuvers are being conducted in the wake of America's stunning victory over Iraq, a long time client state of Russia.
 
The paper said the exercises are taking place because, "Russian military leaders have learned a lesson from the Iraq war, and intend to show the U.S. and its allies their determination to repel any potential threat coming from the West."
 
The Russian military, in plans drawn up at the request of President Vladmir Putin, argues that the only way Russia can deal with an escalating regional conflict with the U.S., would be to employ nuclear weapons.
 
Though Russia's military has been considerably downzied since the end of the Cold War, and its conventional forces hold little weight against a modern, equipped army, Russia has continued to invest heavily in strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.
 
Sometime during the 90s, Russia attained nuclear superiority over the U.S. While Russia's large, strategic nuclear weapons have remained in parity with the U.S., Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal has been estimated to include between 20,000 to 40,000 weapons.
 
At the same time Russia has continued its nuclear buildup, the U.S. has virtually destroyed its arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads. Under orders from the Bush administration, the U.S. has also been moving to further reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal. Currently, the nation's most modern fleet of ICBM, the MX missiles, are being destroyed.

http://www.rense.com/general37/newsm.htm

I'm sorry but your statement is pure nonsense.

Even the most dirty nuclear war would be far cleaner than any mediocre NPP incident. The reason is significantly lesser amount of fission products. Nuclear reactor maintains a sustainable reaction, it's a fuel cycle which goes on for years. On the other hand, the fission process in nuclear bomb is sustainable only during 100-200 ns interval, which is too short. Reactor operation results in accumilation of enormous amount of fission products while the nuclear explosion is unable to produce significant of fission products. Because the bomb vaporizes before this would be possible.

Dead Hand, Russia's doomsday machine.

...Valery Yarynich glances nervously over his shoulder. Clad in a brown leather jacket, the 72-year-old former Soviet colonel is hunkered in the back of the dimly lit Iron Gate restaurant in Washington, DC. It's March 2009—the Berlin Wall came down two decades ago—but the lean and fit Yarynich is as jumpy as an informant dodging the KGB. He begins to whisper, quietly but firmly.
"The Perimeter system is very, very nice," he says. "We remove unique responsibility from high politicians and the military." He looks around again.
Yarynich is talking about Russia's doomsday machine. That's right, an actual doomsday device—a real, functioning version of the ultimate weapon, always presumed to exist only as a fantasy of apocalypse-obsessed science fiction writers and paranoid über-hawks. The thing that historian Lewis Mumford called "the central symbol of this scientifically organized nightmare of mass extermination." Turns out Yarynich, a 30-year veteran of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces and Soviet General Staff, helped build one.


The point of the system, he explains, was to guarantee an automatic Soviet response to an American nuclear strike. Even if the US crippled the USSR with a surprise attack, the Soviets could still hit back. It wouldn't matter if the US blew up the Kremlin, took out the defense ministry, severed the communications network, and killed everyone with stars on their shoulders. Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched.... more

http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all

There is no any provocation from both country for now, maybe US is being busy to prepare the election for next president. I think Russia will take advantage of this situation.

USA to attack Russia?

Hmmmmm, perhaps you should take this seriously.

The USA is, after all, the undisputed 2 time back to back WORLD WAR CHAMPION

who is bound to "3-peat" because of their seemingly supernatural abilities.

Also, it truly does appear that God or "The Gods" favor them and their cause.

Damn those handsome devils!!!

And today's nuclear weapons are much more powerful, when compared to those bombs which were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. The radiation will spread for thousands of kilometers (just like the Chernobyl incident, which caused a sharp increase in cancer rates in countries such as Sweden and Finland, which were far away from the nuclear plant).

Haha, that’s funny. We do not have any resources available to go after Russia. We are making our own military smaller, I have family who were released from their service because of the downsizing before their time was up, we are fighting the War on terrorism still, and we just agreed to a nuclear weapon thing with Iran. We do not have the time for going after Russia, one of the few countries in the world who is seeing their economy grow and things going well. The complete opposite of us. We are not going to attack Russia. We’ll put little sanctions on Russia like the bully all full of steam and no action in the playground, but nothing else will happen.

Putin is not someone I would mess with and all of the countries in history who have gone after Russia have failed. Remember Napoleon or Hitler? Both were the biggest powers at their time and both failed the second they started going after Russia. Who says we will have a chance that those people did not have? Russia will just retreat into their country and wait out the winter while our economy gets better because so many people die and the jobs need filled. It would be foolish to try and it is all just talk to get people riled up and distracted from more important things. 

In my mind one of the biggest problems in dealing with Russian aggression in Ukraine , is that the instant the west becomes directly involved against Russian forces the whole situation is liable to slide very quickly out of control.

Subject's scholars & practitioners seems to disagree with your statement. Studies shows that even a limited nuclear regional war - e.g. India vs Pakistan conflict, a scenario dire enough to have about 20 million people dead due to bomb blasts and subsequent fires and radiation - could have consequences on a global scale due to a global cooling of about 1.25 °C (average) by killing crops & possibly starving about 1 billion people worldwide. A regional nuclear war could cause widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict.

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf

http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/

https://scholar.google.it/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Won't happen...the two countries make enough off proxy wars as it is

I don't think so. The Chinese politicians are not that fond of Russia. In case a Russia vs United States (NATO) war happens, then China is likely to remain neutral. Once the war is over, both Russia and the US will be devastated, economically. At the same time, China will emerge as the sole world super-power, displacing the half-a-dozen or so super powers who exist as of now.

Any major conflict with the US, Russia or China together would be the bloodiest war the world has ever seen.

What kind of attack are you talking about ? Is it a cold war attack , or a verbal attack? Because USA might not have time to plan another attack since it is itself struggling through its million dollars economy. I hope this is not true.

In addition, China would not be looking at being a spectator.

You should consider the sudtainability of your comments, before you make these 
Sarcasm is inappropriate on this matter 

For US it is difficult to destroy the Russian nuclear warheads all at once because Russia have road mobile ICBM's which can be hide in cities and forests so it was difficult to locate all these an destroy them. Another thing is that both the countries have huge number of nuclear warheads.  so it will be foolish to say that US attack Russia.   

It would be foolish for the United States launch an attack against Russia.

Do you know what the word sarcasm means?

Sarcasm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."[1][2] Sarcasm may employ ambivalence,[3] although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.[4] "The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections".[5] The sarcastic content of a statement will be dependent upon the context in which it appears.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

The oil fields of the middle east and the pipelines to Greece
The economic struggle over the Eurozone vs China basically war is economics now a days.

In Russia people know that America can be destroyed only by nuclear strikes. So the coming war must be a nuclear war