Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

NATO can easily deny Russia using first strike nuclear attack.

Without centralised command issuing computerised targeting info, it will be for missile officers own initiative to launch them, fully knowing from what they learned in the military academy that an uncoordinated launch will likely be futile.

USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.



> NATO can easily deny Russia using first strike nuclear attack.

This is very dangerous nonsense.


Raytheon has never guaranteed anything. GMD tests have been very limited with many failures. And I don't mean that as a criticism of Raytheon or the other defense contractors involved; ballistic missile defense is extremely hard and getting it working at all was an amazing technical accomplishment.


>USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.

Russia has >6000 Nukes. If most were launched and missile defense systems have a 99% success rate that is still 10s of Nuclear strikes on the US Mainland. This would be the end of the US and likely irradiates large parts of North America...


Do all 6000 nukes have capability to be delivered to the US mainland?


About 25% of that, so 1500 give or take. This is subject to signed treaties, what those are still worth I don't know.


80 R29 of which half of on subs at port call

32 Bulavas on 2 Yasens in Pacific

46 R36, 6 with 20MT warheads, 40 with 10 1MT MIRV. 406 warheads total.

36 UR100

162 Topols

The Russian airforce doesn't have serious nukes, the land force don't have megaton scale weapons either.

R36, and UR100 in silos are the only genuine first strike option, everything else is a retaliation weapon. Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory, it's impossible with military C3 beheaded. The surviving military officers in bunkers in far reaches of the country would know that each of them don't have enough forces under their command to continue the war.


Warheads != delivery vehicles, and hasn't been for a long time (MIRV).

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

> Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory

The idea that a nuclear war can be won died a while ago too.


This all seems a rather pointless argument. I don't want to live in a country that is hit by 5, 10 or 50 Nuclear Strikes. Period.


Which is the only sensible stance to take. Unfortunately that requires rational actors.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: