By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The webpage seems quite click baity and gung ho, but it is an interesting proposition. Once upon a time America did have such capabilities. Google the "Davy Crockett" to see just how small they got. It is somewhat ironic that part of the reason for their retirement by the US was not wanting to escalate a conventional war into a nuclear war, but by allowing the Russians to have them, it leaves the US either the option of either no comparable response or massive overresponse (large nuke).
1
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 21:19 - Feb 1 with 1716 views
America will back out long before any of that gets serious. Boris will back out once everyone’s forgotten about his latest transgressions. Wouldn’t want to be living in Ukraine right now.
1
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 21:39 - Feb 1 with 1649 views
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 21:19 - Feb 1 by Seablu
America will back out long before any of that gets serious. Boris will back out once everyone’s forgotten about his latest transgressions. Wouldn’t want to be living in Ukraine right now.
I'm not convinced Russia's nuclear weapons are up to much. Or indeed any of their weapons.
I'm reminded of the story told by a CIA officer who said he knew the USSR wouldn't win the Cold War when the wash basin fell off the wall in his 'four star' Moscow hotel.
That article reads primarily as an appeal for NATO/US nuclear rearmament. An arms race which would be far too late for the present crisis and increase the risk of escalation in any future one.
The question is not just whether the US would trade New York for a cow pasture in northeast Poland, but if the Russians themselves were prepared to trade Moscow or St Petersburg for the same piece of ground. The outcome would be destruction for everybody (assuming the weapons systems function properly - but that is another issue).
I would just like to say that I quite like the vehicle.
Not with the explosives of course, but the vehicle itself, maybe with the shell/launcher/whatever the feck that is on top, hollowed out and turned into quarters. Think camping holidays.
For anyone wondering where I'd park it, I suppose the obvious answer would be 'Anywhere I liked'.
What I took out of the article is that the Russians are going to detonate a nuclear device which will do little damage and NATO will capitulate.
Also ...................................................................................... ........... there is simply no substitution for nuclear weapons.
Seems plausible.
0
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 06:44 - Feb 2 with 1218 views
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 21:19 - Feb 1 by Seablu
America will back out long before any of that gets serious. Boris will back out once everyone’s forgotten about his latest transgressions. Wouldn’t want to be living in Ukraine right now.
We must not forget that we are dealing with a man who had absolutely no hesitation in deploying a nerve agent chemical weapon on the streets of Britain and considered you me and everyone else as acceptable collateral damage.
As a great man once said,
“Think of this....always”
[Post edited 2 Feb 2022 6:46]
0
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 08:00 - Feb 2 with 1156 views
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 23:43 - Feb 1 by StokieBlue
That article is very strange.
- Nobody knows what the US really has, they spend 50bn a year on black projects that nobody knows about.
- 20kt is not a small battlefield weapon, it's larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
- The Russian's aren't going to use any nukes, it's a no-win scenario for them and everyone else if they do.
SB
Interesting feedback Mr. I didn't post the link in support of what it's saying, just in case anyone cares - more than I thought the specific scenario described was intriguing. Also the thought that a nuke going off could ever be not absolutely devastating, which was news to me. The authors do have an obvious bias but as long as the reader bares that in mind, it's a good article for a know nothing on war, like me.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 06:44 - Feb 2 by solomon
We must not forget that we are dealing with a man who had absolutely no hesitation in deploying a nerve agent chemical weapon on the streets of Britain and considered you me and everyone else as acceptable collateral damage.
As a great man once said,
“Think of this....always”
[Post edited 2 Feb 2022 6:46]
This is how I see it. Getting rid of people in other countries has never been a problem to the Russians and they’ve been very successful at it.
Putin has a clear objective and the means and the will to achieve it without nuclear weapons, in my view. Threat has been enough for Biden to show his hand and now is the best time for Russia to take exactly what it wants.
If Russia say snapped up the Baltic countries, Ukraine and let’s for arguments sake say Poland, does anyone really think the US with its policy of America first is going risk anything more than words? Lots of ire, rage, sanctions that don’t work and that will be that. It’s what happened with Crimea, so why should it be any different now? That’s how I’d view it if I was Putin. Dangerous times.
0
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 11:20 - Feb 2 with 1037 views
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 08:00 - Feb 2 by giant_stow
Interesting feedback Mr. I didn't post the link in support of what it's saying, just in case anyone cares - more than I thought the specific scenario described was intriguing. Also the thought that a nuke going off could ever be not absolutely devastating, which was news to me. The authors do have an obvious bias but as long as the reader bares that in mind, it's a good article for a know nothing on war, like me.
Nuclear weapons (in general, especially modern ones) are considerably less powerful than they appear in the public imagination. With more accurate delivery systems, there is no need for the massive yields of devices in the late 1950s, which made them heavy and very expensive to produce.
The city-destroying power of an atomic bomb is somewhat exaggerated by aftermath photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A lot of the buildings (particularly housing) in those places were constructed of wood, with paper-screen internal walls. Highly flammable and less able to withstand blast (or radiation) than concrete or brick. People inside more solid structures survived as little as 300m from the point below where the bomb went off (see: Akiko Takakura).
That doesn't make them any nicer, tho. The damage and deaths will still be very widespread.
I'm also slightly dubious about the authors' claims over negating fallout - the blast wave will still disturb material from the ground, some of which will be sucked into the updraught from the rising fireball.
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 08:22 - Feb 2 by Churchman
This is how I see it. Getting rid of people in other countries has never been a problem to the Russians and they’ve been very successful at it.
Putin has a clear objective and the means and the will to achieve it without nuclear weapons, in my view. Threat has been enough for Biden to show his hand and now is the best time for Russia to take exactly what it wants.
If Russia say snapped up the Baltic countries, Ukraine and let’s for arguments sake say Poland, does anyone really think the US with its policy of America first is going risk anything more than words? Lots of ire, rage, sanctions that don’t work and that will be that. It’s what happened with Crimea, so why should it be any different now? That’s how I’d view it if I was Putin. Dangerous times.
Ukraine is one thing, the Baltic States quite another. They are members of NATO, a formal mutual defence alliance to which the USA belongs. As is Poland.
The US abandoning allies like that would be a catastrophic disaster for foreign policy. They would lose pretty much all status and influence. Trump might consider doing so, but neither Biden nor anyone else would abdicate responsibility to that degree.
Ukraine is not a mamber of NATO and was unlikely to become one at any point in the near future. The chances of Americans being sent to die for Kiev was always low. Particularly as Russia's claims on Crimea and the Donbass are not without all logic* (if viewed a certain way - enough to cast a shadow of doubt at least).
* Crimea and the Donbass were never part of any independent or confederate Ukrainian state before the Soviet era. Crimea was administratively transferred to control of the Ukrainian SSR by Moscow as late as 1954. The Donbass, technically in rebellion, not Russian occupied, has a different demographic makeup to the rest of the country, due to the number of Russian-speaking settlers who went to work in mines and industry there in the mid-to-late 20th century. Against that, all regions of Ukraine (including Crimea) voted in favour of independence from the USSR in 1991.
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 11:20 - Feb 2 by Guthrum
Nuclear weapons (in general, especially modern ones) are considerably less powerful than they appear in the public imagination. With more accurate delivery systems, there is no need for the massive yields of devices in the late 1950s, which made them heavy and very expensive to produce.
The city-destroying power of an atomic bomb is somewhat exaggerated by aftermath photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A lot of the buildings (particularly housing) in those places were constructed of wood, with paper-screen internal walls. Highly flammable and less able to withstand blast (or radiation) than concrete or brick. People inside more solid structures survived as little as 300m from the point below where the bomb went off (see: Akiko Takakura).
That doesn't make them any nicer, tho. The damage and deaths will still be very widespread.
I'm also slightly dubious about the authors' claims over negating fallout - the blast wave will still disturb material from the ground, some of which will be sucked into the updraught from the rising fireball.
[Post edited 2 Feb 2022 11:30]
They are less powerful but it's all relative, they are still 40 or 50 times more powerful than Hiroshima and each missile can contain up to 14 independent warheads each yielding 400kt+.
Given the above, comparisons to the destruction of Hiroshima wouldn't seem that applicable. Modern nukes are going to deal out far more damage to city given the multiple impacts, larger yields and bigger pressure waves.
SB
0
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 13:59 - Feb 2 with 927 views
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 13:34 - Feb 2 by StokieBlue
They are less powerful but it's all relative, they are still 40 or 50 times more powerful than Hiroshima and each missile can contain up to 14 independent warheads each yielding 400kt+.
Given the above, comparisons to the destruction of Hiroshima wouldn't seem that applicable. Modern nukes are going to deal out far more damage to city given the multiple impacts, larger yields and bigger pressure waves.
SB
A lot of them are variable yield nowadays, with 400kt at the top end of the range. They're also designated for harder targets, such as military and communications centres. City-flattening was mainly a strategy because delivery systems weren't accurate (or reliable) enough to hit the really useful things.
Blast is a funny thing. Damage does not rise on a linear scale with the power of the explosion. I read some research on WWII munitions (years ago, can't currently remember where to provide a link) which found that larger bombs produced less damage pro-rata than one would expect.
Tho with nuclear weapons, a lot depends upon terrain and the height above ground at which it is fired.
,America Isn’t Ready For Russia’s Battlefield Nuclear Weapons on 08:22 - Feb 2 by Churchman
This is how I see it. Getting rid of people in other countries has never been a problem to the Russians and they’ve been very successful at it.
Putin has a clear objective and the means and the will to achieve it without nuclear weapons, in my view. Threat has been enough for Biden to show his hand and now is the best time for Russia to take exactly what it wants.
If Russia say snapped up the Baltic countries, Ukraine and let’s for arguments sake say Poland, does anyone really think the US with its policy of America first is going risk anything more than words? Lots of ire, rage, sanctions that don’t work and that will be that. It’s what happened with Crimea, so why should it be any different now? That’s how I’d view it if I was Putin. Dangerous times.
So you are saying the US would abandon NATO which includes the Baltics and Poland?
I don't think so. Russia and China would relegate the US to the status of another irrelevance provided they didn't militarily attack them.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
