''After all, even if the Russian air and submarine strategic forces were defeated by U.S. forces, the Russians would still retain their ground based ICBM forces. And the range of Russian ICBMs mean they would be able to hit every major U.S. city with confidence.
Put another way, even if the U.S. won a nuclear war by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same, the social and economic consequences of any nuclear exchange with Russia would be horrendous.''
You can win a nuclear war if you achieve your goals going into it. Besides, a nuclear war can mean many things - it doesn't have to be a apocalyptic exchange. For example, it only requires one state to be a nuclear power for a war to qualify as a nuclear one. Because they are the only thing that offers them true parity with NATO.
Daniel Smith
Russia has enough nukes to destroy the entire world.....Lets pretend the US has an A-235 and S-500s that can intercept multiple nukes all on ships and they have 100s of these ships surrounding Russia's landmass by sea putting Russia in a birdcage that if nukes flew they would be intercepted in their land while only the US can launch nukes at them. The next problem would be AI drone Torpedoes like the Status-6 with a 100 megaton payload. Watching unleaded tsar bombs go off on every coast of the US is not a pretty sight.
Wonder if you were trolling or being serious posting this thread?
Blake Lee
>Besides, a nuclear war can mean many things - it doesn't have to be a apocalyptic exchange. For example, it only requires one state to be a nuclear power for a war to qualify as a nuclear one. >it doesn't have to be a apocalyptic exchange. DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WILL ALWAYS BE tactical nuclear exchanges are no longer a thing (America wants to make them a thing again) but MAD is the predominant policy, even the indians will use their nukes if they are threatened
Jason Walker
Where is debt?
Eli Cox
Tactical nuclear exchanges will continue to be a thing and they have most certainly not gone away! Especially with the reintroduction and debut of new nuclear tipped cruse missiles on all sides.
Ayden White
Jesus, was this written by a high school junior for a civics class?
that's only so people can use nukes while causing only minor thermonuclear war... its like as standoff with RPGs instead of everybody standing around with suicide vests
Wyatt Clark
Uh, right? I've never argued that you cannot further escalate from using tactical nuclear weapons (dial-a-yied), just that the concept of using the weapons like still exists.
Dylan Turner
Ah yes the washington examiner. A local newspaper turned weekly magazine turned pure internet website. Such a gem of political reporting.
Charles Mitchell
>Jesus, was this written by a high school junior for a civics class? Judging by the rest of his articles, yes.
Alexander Cook
>nuclear war >"winning"
I have played matches of defcon where other side gets literally 0 hits in and other gets vaporized to nothing
>he played defcon Quick! Get Pentagon on the line!
Adam Hill
Holy shit, you played a video game so now you're qualified as head of nukes
Easton Ross
Well what credentials do you guys have for heading a strategic rocket force?!
Thats what I thought..
Brayden Wilson
I played more Defcon than you ever will.
Oliver Allen
Then how come you let me take out your radars right off the bat? Checkmate
Samuel Hernandez
>Is it like North Korea where the nukes are meant to compensate for their shitty economy? Yes, actually. All shitposting aside Russia's nuclear forces is the only thing that keeps them relevant on the world stage.
That and their territory. Raw resources, especially gas and oil. Massive weapon exports. Nuclear technology and, may tigers forgive me, S-P-A-C-E (as they are the only way to put people in orbit). Important transit routes. Oh and second most capable conventional armed forces in the world. There's a bit a difference between "weaker than US" and "completely irrelevant".
Don't allow your inner Jow Forumsak to get in the way of your rational thought. That is exactly how you end up critically underestimating your enemy.
>we are better than cucknada and asylum aussies,obviously worst korea is behind us. what happened BRbros?
Joshua Green
their territory is a curse in disguise. most of the population is west of moscow. the sheer scale prevented russia from enjoying oceanic trade and the attendant logistic and commercial benefits.
Carson Torres
T-I-G-E-R-S
Carson Reyes
I love the Russian solution to the US's ballistic missile shield. they simply developed non-ballistic delivery solutions.
I can't think of any major cities significantly west of Moscow. largest one I can think of is Smolensk.
can't think of anyone else that would be a serious threat to the US. and the Mexicans are just walking here instead of bombing us.
Jacob Sullivan
1/10
you made me reply after all
Joseph Green
Mexican invader detected
Wyatt Adams
>their territory is a curse in disguise It's a lot of things, but among others it makes one unable to make two steps in Eurasia without stumbling over a piece of blyat clay.
Kaliningrad: The One That Most Americans Forget.
Iran, you retard.
Jordan Ross
>Oh and second most capable conventional armed forces in the world lmao no
Considering the state in which the U.S. is in right now, a nuclear war dosent seem that bad, most liberal nests would get roasted and any survivors would have to toughen up fast.
Gabriel Watson
>"Don't worry, the US would win a nuclear war with Russia" But we would. We have too many engineers to not win. We would be the first ones to re-establish production capability and military capability.
Nolan Garcia
To be fair, the US is the only nation to have actually used atomics in war.
Owen Butler
I mean, he's not wrong.
Dylan Morris
>we You'd be dead, user.
Daniel Torres
you can if your side is the only one with nukes
Luis Johnson
Of course I would, I live in a population strategic target, production strategic target, and military strategic target. I'm going to be super vaporized.
But others like me will be rebuilding. If we get serious about mechatronics and pre-build some full body waldos, then we can start to rebuild within 72 hours.
Oliver Jenkins
Russia''s debt is at about 0.94% what the US has
Christian Robinson
wtf is this article and wtf is that picture
Robert Morris
>But others like me Others would not be like you. Others would hate you and those like you for dooming them to live in a scorched shithole with no Internet and rationed food just for the sake of adhering to some asinine delusions that make no sense to them.
Brayden Barnes
Look Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. I'm just saying: 20 to 30 million killed tops- uh, depending on the breaks.
Jonathan Anderson
>Others would hate you and those like you for dooming them to live in a scorched shithole with no Internet and rationed food just for the sake of adhering to some asinine delusions that make no sense to them. You don't need to ration when all the population center faggots are dead. You don't think people would be happy about america voting red/pro-freedom guaranteed for the next 50 years? You don't think people would be happy about next to no taxes? Nukes don't magically ruin the internet, though we would probably be relegated to a normal intranet and high ping internet for a few months. Jow Forums quality would increase, but nothing much else would change.
Nicholas Green
I miss OP, I really do. Hasn't been gone that long and just look at where we are now. I guess you can't blame him for leaving.
Ryder Gomez
it's not for serious threats, it's for iran (and saudi, if saudi cues off iranian nukes).
Jackson Taylor
>You don't need to ration when all the population center faggots are dead. You do when all your agriculture infrastructure goes to shit. No high-grade chemical industry -> no complex mineral fertilizers and pesticides -> welcome to Holodomor. >You don't think people would be happy about america voting red/pro-freedom guaranteed for the next 50 years? "Red" as you know it will literally die. It will be an ideology literally more dead than communism. Because the nuclear war itself would be a whole new level of fail that it will run a nation into. And more than that - it is unlikely that country will be able leave the Emergency State and hold elections in the next 50 years. >You don't think people would be happy about next to no taxes? AHAHAHAHAHAHA he thinks that a massive crisis makes government go easy on exploiting it's populace, the absolute madmen. >Nukes don't magically ruin the internet You kinda need all those limp-dicked IT numales to maintain infrastructure. Who the fuck do you think gonna host Jow Forums when server farms are >poof, and manufacturing capabilities are siting in Taiwan to begin with, and ports are guaranteed to go >poof? >for a few months Sorry, I didn't realize you were b8ing me.
Ethan Fisher
>smaller economy than fucking Italy
Matthew Wilson
>was this written by a high school junior for a civics class Common Core.
Vietnamese are better in every aspect than a drunk slavshit
Aiden Adams
>No high-grade chemical industry Potatoes.
>no complex mineral fertilizers and pesticides Don't need to worry about yields when you exceed your requirements by fuckloads.
>welcome to Holodomor. Nope.
>it is unlikely that country will be able leave the Emergency State and hold elections in the next 50 years. ... You do know that the nuke stone age meme is a meme, right?
>You kinda need all those limp-dicked IT numales to maintain infrastructure. You're forgetting that population centers are dead, so they hardware is all operating at far below capacity. It'd be like a drip going through a hose.
We decisively won the last one. With only two nukes, at that.
Wyatt Collins
Debt only matters if you don't use the money in ways that yield high returns. About half of the US debt is actually bad, whereas Russia buys tanks they can't afford for a war that won't happen.
Julian Bennett
yeah, I hate welfare too.
Lucas Young
>whereas Russia buys tanks they can't afford for a war that won't happen. Guess they spend money where it matters like air defenses, tons of those projects.
Logan Evans
but we would be better off if they took out every major US city. LA San Francisco New York Chicago DC Atlanta Seattle Miami Detroit
The majority of Russian nukes wouldn't even take out 10 sq miles each, and our defense systems would take out 75% of the incoming nukes, so they would need to use most of their nukes just to take out the major cities that we don't care about.
Christian Martinez
>durrr there's no winner in a nuclear war!
Literally whoever survives with an intact government that can maintain control of its territory is a winner. It's that fucking simple.
Brandon Perez
>and our defense systems would take out 75% of the incoming nukes Please user provide source
Ryder Richardson
>Potatoes. "What is yield?" >Don't need to worry about yields when you exceed your requirements by fuckloads. You don't though. >Nope. Yep. Happens every time. >... You do know that the nuke stone age meme is a meme, right? You do know that US doesn't have to enter Stone Age to descent to Iraq-tier level of social and economic stability? >You're forgetting that population centers are dead Yeah. And so are all the major data centers. Networking goes to shit, and you don't have material and personnel to rebuild it. Actually you do, but they got mobilized and are currently busy trying to lift the remains of C&C up from WWI level.
Parker King
>The majority of Russian nukes wouldn't even take out 10 sq miles each You say that like it means something.
>our defense systems would take out 75% of the incoming nukes We couldn't hope to take out 75% of incoming nukes even if we had enough interceptors to try.
Logan Fisher
CHang, pls. Your rabble can barely qualify as a militia. You slant eyes still rely on the T-54 for the bulk of your forces, outside of the parade and photo op divisions.
It's no coincidence that Slavs own half the physical world, the North Pole and outer space.
>"What is yield?" Not what potatoes are for. Potatoes are for nitrogen fixing.
>To descent to Iraq-tier level of social and economic stability? again, population centers are glass, so there are no social or economic problems.
>You don't though. But you do. Pre-industrial yields means somewhere between 1/4th and 1/2 as much, but your demand also has dropped by about the same.
>Actually you do, but they got mobilized and are currently busy trying to lift the remains of C&C up from WWI level. Yeah. But it's not like major corporate access is the primary concern. Peer to peer will still be possible.
Andrew Hall
You don't understand. Your nation is burning, but it doubled in size.
Connor Ward
Fuckall x2 is still fuckall.
Angel Gomez
Look at the chinks, then think about how fast a competent nation that actually pioneered and developed the technologies can rebuild.
Growth is exponential, and clay is really valuable.
Luke Torres
>Potatoes are for nitrogen fixing. Some Jow Forums-tier agricultural engineering here. You can't maintain soil under high-yield cultures with just some potato rotation. Modern maize will literally kill the soil without high amounts of mineral fertilizers. >again, population centers are glass, so there are no social or economic problems. Sure. There were no social or economic problems before urbanization. Feminists invented war. Communists invented hunger. Prior to them, resources were completely unlimited, and conflict of interests was literally nonexistent. >Pre-industrial yields means somewhere between 1/4th and 1/2 as much Actually way less. You do remember that it took just a bit of soil drain and bad weather to cause Dust Bowl? You aware of the existence of such things as locust? Rust fungi? Phytophthora? Do you know how vulnerable efficient cultures are to weed plants. In underdeveloped nations that cannot afford the means of modern agriculture, they take at least 40% of harvest yields. AT LEAST. And about the same amount is lost to low-tech storage and transport. It is simply impossible to maintain a level of labor specialization comparable to that of First World today without it's industrial capacity. Lose that and here comes the XIX century. >but your demand also has dropped by about the same Not only your production efficiency drops, genius. The scale also does. You have a way smaller number of way less efficiently cultivated land. >Yeah. But it's not like major corporate access is the primary concern. Peer to peer will still be possible. You still need infrastructure to maintain p2p, retard. For every several hundred miles your other peer is away - some ass-faced nerd has to keep that server booth powered and running.
How exactly do you plan on taking over and exploiting Russia when Navy just evaporated into gaseous state? You think that nuked US will be able to produce Gerald R. Ford-class? More than that - how would you even keep what's left of US from dissolving? Conventional forces are the third target for enemy nukes, after your nukes and C&C. In a full exchange with Russia scenario less than 20% of federal armed forces are estimated to survive. Not retain combat capability of over 50% - just SURVIVE. What exactly would bunker near Washington do when Texas declares "fuck it, this is OUR oil and we need it more than you, piss off"? Express it's concern?
Adrian Diaz
>Look at the chinks, then think about how fast a competent nation that actually pioneered and developed the technologies can rebuild. user, a nation stops being competent when it gets bombed to hell and back. Every achievement of a developed nation is not an expression of some magical internal ingenuity - it's a result of centuries of work of thousands of institutions involving hundreds of millions of men. All those people, being well-fed, educated, protected and provided for. The wonder of US is that this particular machine never had a really big wrench thrown into it. Nuclear war would be one hell of a wrench in the system.
You say "look at chinks"? Chinks only started developing after they crawled out of perpetual war, and even that they had to do at tremendous cost of human life and using a great deal of luck with growing markets. Why don't you look at Russia, which still hasn't recovered the economic capacity that RSFSR had under USSR under all the breakup's turmoil? Why don't you look at poverty-stricken Balkan states that still haven't recovered from wars that happened over 20 years ago? Why don't you look at how Middle East descended from halfway-functional nations into a hellstorm it is today?
Growth requires proper conditions. Take those conditions away, put those great people of growth and development into a hungry and hopeless ghetto - and the society will fall back decades and centuries before it eventually starts to rebuild itself, slowly, haphazardly, it's traumatized collective psyche giving birth to monsters like Fascism, Communism and Islam.
John Moore
Well, I can agree with everything you wrote, save for the last sentence. Before equalling Communism, Fascism and fucking religion, PLEASE take some free time and read at least brief translations of Marx, Lenin and Stalin`s works. And I think Jow Forums know "Mein Kampf" by heart as it is.
Christian Jones
We're on Jow Forums. Average local literally refuses to comprehend the concept of Marx being anything less than the Devil, and strongly suspects that he was a muslim.
I thought you could guess from how my point stands almost entirely on historic materialism.
