The photo of US troops debarking from a landing craft (perhaps in Normandy) is quite stirring. Less so when you know that a surprising number of them jumped bravely out of the landing craft when it hadn't been able to get as far in to the beach as desirable, and simply drowned in their heavy gear. I remember reading about one tank that rolled off its LTC and simply vanished under the water - there happened to be a hole in the bottom.
"When asked about his views on nuclear weapons at his first news conference as president, Stubb said it would be for the Finnish government and parliament to decide if Finland wants to alter its current legislation that bans nuclear weapons on Finnish soil, including their transfer".
Isn't he the head of the Finnish government? And since when did a parliament have any say in such matters?
" The S500 has a range of at least 500 km and a response time of 3 to 4 seconds— and an altitude of 100 km allowing it to kill satellites as well.
"Okay—so ICBMs are out — like those old folding cellphones".
Not so fast! Hold it just one cotton-pickin' moment. Don't forget the quantitative aspect. The S-500 can shoot down one ICBM warhead, maybe - or even all the warheads in one MIRV. But the USA has hundreds of ICBMs that can be launched from land and sea. Even if many - or even most - of them get intercepted, how many S-500s and missiles does Russia have? There wouldn't be much time for reloading.
I concede that there is no chance that the USA could deliver a knockout sneak attack without incurring massive retaliation - if only from Perimeter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
But that would just mean that we all die, instead of just most of us.
Each S500 battery has four missiles. The objective would not to be protect population centers in Russia but C&C centers from which nuclear strikes on enemy assets would be coordinated. Old-style ICBM launches can be easily detected and the missiles destroyed in near-space. Keep in mind that both the upgraded S300 and S400 systems are also antimissile systems. However, the most effective countermeasure is the S550 which is mobile and can be positioned closer to NATO borders . It is also designed to intercept missiles in space along with satellites. The closest base in NATO is Finland -- 5 minutes from Moscow. New York, London, Washington could be destroyed in about a minute by Russian missiles. Cruise missiles might be a bigger problem for the Russians. I think that Russia MIGHT survive an attempted sneak attack--but not the US. Keep in mind too that a coordinated saturation attacked by the West, would have to be, well, coordinated – something the West is not too good at these days. That said, including all my possible caveats, you are entirely right – we would all die!
With the start of nuke-ready fast-launch missiles (Minuteman) from underground systems, which could survive a nuke-hit except a direct (within some 10's of meters) one, came the vulnerability to more precise targetting and more precise detection of launch-bunkers by satellites.
Those, combined with separately targettable MIRV's came the possibility, that the US could launch an unexpected first strike and hit and eliminate so many Russian Launch sites, before they could all be fired, that they could not create a big hit on the US as retaliation.
This was exploited further by creating relatively cheap middle-range High precision Nuke-ready (Cruise) missiles as close as possible around Russia (and after that China), in which the Projects NATO-to-the-East and Ukraine played an important role.
Another threat against a retaliation strike by Russia, were middle range anti-missile (Air-Defense) systems (AEGIS Weapon System - AWS), which made for sea could also be launched by ground based systems in Poland and Rumania.
They could both shoot down just launched Russian ICBM's or launch Nukes on Cruisemissiles, as AEGIS on ships can.
Putin started the Mobile ICBM production to solve this problem. ICBM's could be based on Mobile all-terrain trucks and moved around, to make it difficult to keep them under target. First (Topol-M) the ICBM needed to be placed in an underground Launch-silo.
The RS-28 SARMAT can be placed in a silo and launched from there, but doesn't need a Silo:
And so most Silo's are empty and can be used by mobile ICBM MIRV's as needed within minutes. So a "First-Strike" is difficult to eliminate a strong retaliation.
Yep, U.S. and NATO country citizens have been so screwed by our large defense contractors. The goods look fine on the showroom floor or in an airshow, but once the debris flies they go down for rehab frequently. This observation works across the entire span of U.S. weapons systems. Start at aircraft carriers and work your way down.
https://youtu.be/qJeHl3aAigU?si=QFVGngog_FNK2RT2
Thank you for this --very good.
The photo of US troops debarking from a landing craft (perhaps in Normandy) is quite stirring. Less so when you know that a surprising number of them jumped bravely out of the landing craft when it hadn't been able to get as far in to the beach as desirable, and simply drowned in their heavy gear. I remember reading about one tank that rolled off its LTC and simply vanished under the water - there happened to be a hole in the bottom.
"When asked about his views on nuclear weapons at his first news conference as president, Stubb said it would be for the Finnish government and parliament to decide if Finland wants to alter its current legislation that bans nuclear weapons on Finnish soil, including their transfer".
Isn't he the head of the Finnish government? And since when did a parliament have any say in such matters?
LOL.,
" The S500 has a range of at least 500 km and a response time of 3 to 4 seconds— and an altitude of 100 km allowing it to kill satellites as well.
"Okay—so ICBMs are out — like those old folding cellphones".
Not so fast! Hold it just one cotton-pickin' moment. Don't forget the quantitative aspect. The S-500 can shoot down one ICBM warhead, maybe - or even all the warheads in one MIRV. But the USA has hundreds of ICBMs that can be launched from land and sea. Even if many - or even most - of them get intercepted, how many S-500s and missiles does Russia have? There wouldn't be much time for reloading.
I concede that there is no chance that the USA could deliver a knockout sneak attack without incurring massive retaliation - if only from Perimeter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
But that would just mean that we all die, instead of just most of us.
Each S500 battery has four missiles. The objective would not to be protect population centers in Russia but C&C centers from which nuclear strikes on enemy assets would be coordinated. Old-style ICBM launches can be easily detected and the missiles destroyed in near-space. Keep in mind that both the upgraded S300 and S400 systems are also antimissile systems. However, the most effective countermeasure is the S550 which is mobile and can be positioned closer to NATO borders . It is also designed to intercept missiles in space along with satellites. The closest base in NATO is Finland -- 5 minutes from Moscow. New York, London, Washington could be destroyed in about a minute by Russian missiles. Cruise missiles might be a bigger problem for the Russians. I think that Russia MIGHT survive an attempted sneak attack--but not the US. Keep in mind too that a coordinated saturation attacked by the West, would have to be, well, coordinated – something the West is not too good at these days. That said, including all my possible caveats, you are entirely right – we would all die!
Thank you, Julian and thank you Tom...
History...
With the start of nuke-ready fast-launch missiles (Minuteman) from underground systems, which could survive a nuke-hit except a direct (within some 10's of meters) one, came the vulnerability to more precise targetting and more precise detection of launch-bunkers by satellites.
Those, combined with separately targettable MIRV's came the possibility, that the US could launch an unexpected first strike and hit and eliminate so many Russian Launch sites, before they could all be fired, that they could not create a big hit on the US as retaliation.
This was exploited further by creating relatively cheap middle-range High precision Nuke-ready (Cruise) missiles as close as possible around Russia (and after that China), in which the Projects NATO-to-the-East and Ukraine played an important role.
Another threat against a retaliation strike by Russia, were middle range anti-missile (Air-Defense) systems (AEGIS Weapon System - AWS), which made for sea could also be launched by ground based systems in Poland and Rumania.
They could both shoot down just launched Russian ICBM's or launch Nukes on Cruisemissiles, as AEGIS on ships can.
Putin started the Mobile ICBM production to solve this problem. ICBM's could be based on Mobile all-terrain trucks and moved around, to make it difficult to keep them under target. First (Topol-M) the ICBM needed to be placed in an underground Launch-silo.
The RS-28 SARMAT can be placed in a silo and launched from there, but doesn't need a Silo:
->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V75U4AciEpg&t=78s
And so most Silo's are empty and can be used by mobile ICBM MIRV's as needed within minutes. So a "First-Strike" is difficult to eliminate a strong retaliation.
Sander
A Masterpiece again...
And on weapons technology too, one of my special interests...
Sander
I really should write something more detailed. Which fills in the gaps that Tom has pointed to. Questions that need to be addressed.
Yep, U.S. and NATO country citizens have been so screwed by our large defense contractors. The goods look fine on the showroom floor or in an airshow, but once the debris flies they go down for rehab frequently. This observation works across the entire span of U.S. weapons systems. Start at aircraft carriers and work your way down.