Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[Gecko1978]

pingu393 said:

If someone pressed the button on a single ICBM now, they wouldn't really have a choice. 10-15 minute flight time. Is it a real launch? By the time all the checks have been made it's landed.

What is the reaction to a single launch? Do they respond with everything? I doubt it. If not, how many do they respond with? What are the targets? All of these questions need to be answered in less than 15 minutes. They won't be.

My assumption would be the powers that be would see the launch long before it landed steps would be taken to contact putin direct, at the same time a given plan would start moving and by the time the missile made land others would be going back.

You wouldn't wait a day as you might be wiped out in an hour.

[pingu393]

Gecko1978 said:

pingu393 said:

If someone pressed the button on a single ICBM now, they wouldn't really have a choice. 10-15 minute flight time. Is it a real launch? By the time all the checks have been made it's landed.

What is the reaction to a single launch? Do they respond with everything? I doubt it. If not, how many do they respond with? What are the targets? All of these questions need to be answered in less than 15 minutes. They won't be.

My assumption would be the powers that be would see the launch long before it landed steps would be taken to contact putin direct, at the same time a given plan would start moving and by the time the missile made land others would be going back.

You wouldn't wait a day as you might be wiped out in an hour.

If, during that day, even a silo door was opened, US would launch.

I'm talking about a single launch. It would be avenged, but the scale of the reaction needs to be proportionate.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

pingu393 said:

If, during that day, even a silo door was opened, US would launch.

I'm talking about a single launch. It would be avenged, but the scale of the reaction needs to be proportionate.

If it was a single launch, there is a good chance it would be intercepted, so no retaliatory launches would happen but they would go def on one.

Then it’s game on

[Evanivitch]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

If it was a single launch, there is a good chance it would be intercepted, so no retaliatory launches would happen but they would go def on one.

Then it’s game on

A single launch vehicle still releases over a dozen re-entry war-heads. Not aware the US having an ability to hit Russian ICBM in ascent from outside Russian airspace. US demonstrations of anti-Ballistic missiles against ICBM haven't been particularly successful.

[aeropilot]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

pingu393 said:

If, during that day, even a silo door was opened, US would launch.

I'm talking about a single launch. It would be avenged, but the scale of the reaction needs to be proportionate.

If it was a single launch, there is a good chance it would be intercepted

There's no chance of an ICBM being intercepted, and if Russia is going to launch one, it'll come from a Sub, not a silo, so, as soon as it's detected as launched, the US would be retaliatory launching. The two way check comms that happen between US and Russia means that the US would know it was a real launch....

[BikeBikeBIke]

aeropilot said:

. The two way check comms that happen between US and Russia means that the US would know it was a real launch....

How does that work? Surely whoever fires first is going to claim it's a drill or a mistake or blank rounds. Any confusion they sow could save their country

[aeropilot]

BikeBikeBIke said:

aeropilot said:

. The two way check comms that happen between US and Russia means that the US would know it was a real launch....

How does that work? Surely whoever fires first is going to claim it's a drill or a mistake or blank rounds. Any confusion they sow could save their country

I think people would be surprised at how much comms the US and Russia have between them, so all tests and trials are pre-warned and notified by agreement. There is a lot of 'talk' between the two to avoid any accidental disasters. The US have said that since the Ukraine invasion, more regular dialogue has taken place between the two nuclear missile commands, despite what the public bluster has emenated from the Kremlin which is for home consumption of course...
Therefore, an unexpected launch by either side, would be deemed a real event by the other side.

[BikeBikeBIke]

aeropilot said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

aeropilot said:

. The two way check comms that happen between US and Russia means that the US would know it was a real launch....

How does that work? Surely whoever fires first is going to claim it's a drill or a mistake or blank rounds. Any confusion they sow could save their country

I think people would be surprised at how much comms the US and Russia have between them, so all tests and trials are pre-warned and notified by agreement. There is a lot of 'talk' between the two to avoid any accidental disasters. The US have said that since the Ukraine invasion, more regular dialogue has taken place between the two nuclear missile commands, despite what the public bluster has emenated from the Kremlin which is for home consumption of course...
Therefore, an unexpected launch by either side, would be deemed a real event by the other side.

I'm sure that the case, but means Biden would never "know". Putin would be in the phone saying it was a mistake launch with no live warheads. I don't doubt Biden would be assuming it was real and respond accordingly but the Comms wouldn't help him work out it was real. Quite the opposite.

But you've answered my question, so ta.

[aeropilot]

BikeBikeBIke said:

aeropilot said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

aeropilot said:

. The two way check comms that happen between US and Russia means that the US would know it was a real launch....

How does that work? Surely whoever fires first is going to claim it's a drill or a mistake or blank rounds. Any confusion they sow could save their country

I think people would be surprised at how much comms the US and Russia have between them, so all tests and trials are pre-warned and notified by agreement. There is a lot of 'talk' between the two to avoid any accidental disasters. The US have said that since the Ukraine invasion, more regular dialogue has taken place between the two nuclear missile commands, despite what the public bluster has emenated from the Kremlin which is for home consumption of course...
Therefore, an unexpected launch by either side, would be deemed a real event by the other side.

I'm sure that the case, but means Biden would never "know". Putin would be in the phone saying it was a mistake launch with no live warheads. I don't doubt Biden would be assuming it was real and respond accordingly but the Comms wouldn't help him work out it was real. Quite the opposite.

The procedures don't allow for phone calls between Presidents to check or whatever.......there is no time for that.
The Subs have their sealed orders, NORAD would detect and signal subs once NORAD systems had verified etc., it was real.

Google Stanislav Petrov, and how this Russian officer averted full scale nuclear war back in 1983, when the Soviet Early Warning System malfunctioned.

[TTmonkey]

All this chatter about nuclear war is mad.

[gruffalo]

TTmonkey said:

All this chatter about nuclear war is mad.

+1

All this talk about xyz will definatlly happen in abc scenario when in reality not one of us knows and it is all guess work and pointless as a result.

[B'stard Child]

TTmonkey said:

All this chatter about nuclear war is mad.

WYDTISI - What you did there - I see it

[TheJimi]

TTmonkey said:

All this chatter about nuclear war is mad.

[Talksteer]

Bodo said:

aeropilot said:

TGCOTF-dewey said:

TEKNOPUG said:

dukeboy749r said:

We may no longer be a very big military power...

Depends who you compare us to....

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

France do well to spend essentially the same as Germany and Saudi and have a nuclear at sea deterrent + associated ssn fleet.

Perhaps France still do what the UK used to do, and their nuclear deterrent is paid for direct by Govt, and so does not show up in the defense budget...?

In any case, the statistic doesn't factor in the bang per buck. I need to leave now

I'm sure that the whole world is intimidated by our generous pensions for ex-servicemen from back when our military was larger! (Included in defence spending)

About half the costs of the armed forces are stuff that is subject to local cost of living. The rest of the stuff is likely to have an approximately similar cost in relation to capability.

The issue with the UK is that expeditionary capabilities are incredibly expensive compared to their combat power.

[paua]

SpeckledJim said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

bmwmike said:

What if, as the tide went out, the only country with any actual working ones was NK.

On reflection, what do NK actually want? He's clearly using the threat of 'the west' to control his people but imagine we surrendered to him tomorrow? What would he actually want us to do?

Let him have South Korea 'back'?

Plus pies & cakes - lots of.

[Talksteer]

bloomen said:

Talksteer said:

Nuclear war would kill a lot of people but most people who survive and countries and infrastructure are resilient.

A handful of arsey truckers can paralyse a country in peacetime.

If you go nuclear you will also go cyber, EMP too, which will fully finish off whatever vestiges of modern life continue.

The aftermath would do a wonderful job of ending most people even if they're relaxing in the countryside.

Uncontacted tribes and farmers in the Falklands will be fine. Your average suburbanite will be a casserole within a week.

Remember before the pandemic when you couldn't do lockdowns, get millions to work from home or develop and deploy vaccines to most of the world in a year.

Said truckers didn't paralyse the country they were a minor inconvenience.

The capacity and capabilities of a first world nation are massive in comparison to what we actually need to physically survive. So yes you might loose a good proportion of the mobile network, but its residual capability vastly exceeds the coms capability the UK had only decades ago, plenty enough to organise emergency rebuilding or distribution of food.

We could all still sleep inside a watertight dwelling if half the homes in the country were destroyed. Most of us have 10x the number of clothes we actually need.

The amount of shipping you would need to bring in the food needed to supply the country is around 1/50 the amount of trade which goes through our ports at the moment. Hell given our average BMI the average British person is carrying several months emergency rations around with them 24/7.

It's the same for virtually every commodity, ergo most of us will survive.

But yes this is mostly OT.

[Bodo]

Talksteer said:

Bodo said:

aeropilot said:

TGCOTF-dewey said:

TEKNOPUG said:

dukeboy749r said:

We may no longer be a very big military power...

Depends who you compare us to....

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

France do well to spend essentially the same as Germany and Saudi and have a nuclear at sea deterrent + associated ssn fleet.

Perhaps France still do what the UK used to do, and their nuclear deterrent is paid for direct by Govt, and so does not show up in the defense budget...?

In any case, the statistic doesn't factor in the bang per buck. I need to leave now

I'm sure that the whole world is intimidated by our generous pensions for ex-servicemen from back when our military was larger! (Included in defence spending)

About half the costs of the armed forces are stuff that is subject to local cost of living. The rest of the stuff is likely to have an approximately similar cost in relation to capability.

The issue with the UK is that expeditionary capabilities are incredibly expensive compared to their combat power.

There's a lot more to this graph than just the $ spent, as you highlighted. It's worthless to draw conclusions on military capability from $/GDP%/etc. military spending. It's useless.

Does your military match the hardware you've bought?
Does your hardware match the military you have?
Is your hardware well maintained?
What's the buying power of a $ you've spent?
How corrupt is your military apparatus?
Will your military fight the war you thought you've invested in?
Do you entertain hardware you'll ever use in the case you need to address?
.... plus thousands of other aspects

[Digga]

I'm pretty sure that, as with previous tech, the US in particular will have kit, the likes of which we have never seen. Not the sort of "look how big my ICBM is" crap that Putin and Russia grandstand, but things that would render a conflict escalation moot.

If I were Russia, I really would not bet on the fact that NATO (or certainly the USA) does not have some very big sticks hidden up their sleeves. The sort of stuff literally nobody needs to know about. They are simply there, in readiness, just in case.

[Gecko1978]

TheJimi said:

TTmonkey said:

All this chatter about nuclear war is mad.

Have another but for all thr guess work you can read about most of this on wiki. There is no waiting a day etc as one poster suggests it pretty much a mad world and by design that's what it's supposed to be. You don't get to wipe out say New York and go opps sorry my bad

[Gecko1978]

Digga said:

I'm pretty sure that, as with previous tech, the US in particular will have kit, the likes of which we have never seen. Not the sort of "look how big my ICBM is" crap that Putin and Russia grandstand, but things that would render a conflict escalation moot.

If I were Russia, I really would not bet on the fact that NATO (or certainly the USA) does not have some very big sticks hidden up their sleeves. The sort of stuff literally nobody needs to know about. They are simply there, in readiness, just in case.

Submaries pretty much do that plus add in any cyber warfare ability example could the US shut down networks in China etc maybe they could. Imagine if you turned electricity off in say Shanghi thr panic it would cause ans nit a shot fired....and then the missiles from the subs land....works both ways of course