In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
Both have a full nuclear triad and more nuclear weapons than they would need to kill everyone plenty of times over. The major strategic difference is that the US assumes that in a first strike, all of their land based nuclear weapons would be destroyed. Russia has a lot more land and a lot more nuclear fallout infrastructure and that would be less likely to happen.
China is very strongly land based and focuses on designing mountain-based silos that would be functional after being hit by a nuke. Britain is mostly submarine based because they don't have much land. France also got rid of a lot of their land-based nuclear capability for some reason or other.
You never stop learning i guess.
Point of me was though, one or two Akula class boats are already enough to retaliate. Devastatingly. And there's a couple more than two. The US struggles to keep an eye on those already, and these are not half as modern as the newer yasen class, which carry 40 cruise missiles, each 200kt warhead.
And missile defense systems don't work against cruise missiles, only ballistic ones. To argue that the US doesn't need to fear retaliation is.. "optimistic" at best.
The issue is that I could see some of the US's more prominent warhawks taking a gamble on some long shot that maybe Russia might not be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Not directly, but they could provoke a scenario that could lead to that.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Basically the Russian Republic hasn't had the money or organization to maintain an effective second strike capability. Which is fine because there is absolutely no anticipation of a first strike out of nowhere and they could restore second strike capability if relations with the west deteriorated to the point that MAD became a relevant concept again. But right now they don't have any interest in engaging in a futile contest with a superior power. They have better things to spend the money on than trying to measure dicks with someone they know has a bigger dick.
That's what I mean by there being no interest in challenging American hegemony. That while some nations wish they had America's dick they recognize that they don't and they're happy enough working within that reality because America doesn't helicopter dick too much in their faces. China could spend their time mass producing nukes and ICBMs to enter a cold war over the South China Sea but it'd be an awful lot of effort and money and they don't care enough.
Well to be fair isn't our maintenance of our arsenal completely flubbed and a mess as well?
Nuclear arsenals are not always public knowledge.
As far as I know the US has focused very strongly on submarines at the exclusion of land-based and strategic bomber capabilities though.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Basically the Russian Republic hasn't had the money or organization to maintain an effective second strike capability. Which is fine because there is absolutely no anticipation of a first strike out of nowhere and they could restore second strike capability if relations with the west deteriorated to the point that MAD became a relevant concept again. But right now they don't have any interest in engaging in a futile contest with a superior power. They have better things to spend the money on than trying to measure dicks with someone they know has a bigger dick.
That's what I mean by there being no interest in challenging American hegemony. That while some nations wish they had America's dick they recognize that they don't and they're happy enough working within that reality because America doesn't helicopter dick too much in their faces. China could spend their time mass producing nukes and ICBMs to enter a cold war over the South China Sea but it'd be an awful lot of effort and money and they don't care enough.
Well to be fair isn't our maintenance of our arsenal completely flubbed and a mess as well?
Relevant.
That being said, it's rather far from actual proof. It's an opinionated piece by someone who's arguing that russian technology stagnated, which already isn't correct. In fact, and i just stumbled across that, apparently the navy is quite impressed with the new russian boats.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it. If the US attacked out of nowhere they would have a reasonable chance of a complete success. The Russian Republic no longer relies on MAD but rather on an assumption of a rational United States that has no interest in attacking and the flexibility to adjust should that state of affairs not continue.
I don't know if it's as true now, but I believe that during the Cold War, firing enough nukes at the USSR to disable their nuclear capability would have utterly trashed the entire world's climate, even if the USSR didn't fire a single thing back.
Also, putting that aside, how many nukes does Russia have to successfully fire back before the cost becomes too great?
Experts or not, some people's definition of "complete success" is different to others.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Basically the Russian Republic hasn't had the money or organization to maintain an effective second strike capability. Which is fine because there is absolutely no anticipation of a first strike out of nowhere and they could restore second strike capability if relations with the west deteriorated to the point that MAD became a relevant concept again. But right now they don't have any interest in engaging in a futile contest with a superior power. They have better things to spend the money on than trying to measure dicks with someone they know has a bigger dick.
That's what I mean by there being no interest in challenging American hegemony. That while some nations wish they had America's dick they recognize that they don't and they're happy enough working within that reality because America doesn't helicopter dick too much in their faces. China could spend their time mass producing nukes and ICBMs to enter a cold war over the South China Sea but it'd be an awful lot of effort and money and they don't care enough.
Well to be fair isn't our maintenance of our arsenal completely flubbed and a mess as well?
That being said, it's rather far from actual proof. It's an opinionated piece by someone who's arguing that russian technology stagnated, which already isn't correct. In fact, and i just stumbled across that, apparently the navy is quite impressed with the new russian boats.
Kwark's opinion piece is dated 2006. Russia 2006 vs 2016 is a big difference. The rhetoric has changed a lot in recent years.
A lot of the "zomg Russia beating us" rhetoric is just jockeying for more funding. Russia can make a lot of high tech for a lower cost than the US but the US has by far the best technology in the world in most fields of war.
On August 12 2016 08:39 WhiteDog wrote: Kwark doesn't understand shit about Russia. Everytime you talk about the you present them as a third world country.
You should see what a conversation about Russia looks like if you talk about it with most anyone from the Baltic nations. Compared to them Kwark is moderate and reasonable.
On August 12 2016 08:40 Aquanim wrote: I don't know if it's as true now, but I believe that during the Cold War, firing enough nukes at the USSR to disable their nuclear capability would have utterly trashed the entire world's climate, even if the USSR didn't fire a single thing back.
Also, putting that aside, how many nukes does Russia have to successfully fire back before the cost becomes too great?
Experts or not, some people's definition of "complete success" is different to others.
There is no feasible way to prevent a second strike under real scenarios that would occur in the real world. You could design some optimistic scenarios in which it could happen if everything goes perfectly but that's not how it will happen in the real world. Reality is that everyone dies.
A lot of the "zomg Russia beating us" rhetoric is just jockeying for more funding. Russia can make a lot of high tech for a lower cost than the US but the US has by far the best technology in the world in most fields of war.
Oh, i don't doubt that. Fact is though, even a musket can kill you. And it's only partially true, considering that the most modern russian submarine is (even by americans) assumed to be the strongest submarine in the world.
You should see what a conversation about Russia looks like if you talk about it with most anyone from the Baltic nations. Compared to them Kwark is moderate and reasonable.
That being said, i'm not fond of russia either. I just am realistic enough to accept if something isn't as shiny as american TV wants me to think it is.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing. They're just no longer attempting to defend against a strike that they know isn't coming.
On August 12 2016 05:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump not only needs to lose but he needs to be humiliated. As this country is wtinessing the birth of a mainstream American National Front type of party.
The Secret Service protected MSNBC reporter Katy Tur after Donald Trump launched a personal attack at a December rally.
The candidate had previously blasted her as “dishonest” for her coverage of protests at an earlier rally and demanded an apology, which Tur refused to give.
"What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was," Trump said, pointing at Tur from the stage. "Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that.”
In an essay for Marie Claire, Tur wrote that the crowd turned on her "like a large animal, angry and unchained." Afterwards, the Secret Service took what she described as the "extraordinary" precaution of walking Tur to her car.
It was unlikely, Tur said, that any future attack by the candidate could be "as scary."
Trump has a history of lashing out at what he calls the "very, very dishonest" media, and a slew of reporters and publications have been denied access to Trump's campaign events, including The New York Times, BuzzFeed News, Telemundo, Politico and The Des Moines Register.
You do realize that this is the very attitude that is going to result in the failure to stop the emergence of a national populist party, right?
Who gives a fuck? Every country has their idiot fringe parties. This tendency is consistent throughout history. When countries become more progressive, there is always a trend where moderates leave a party for a more progressive party. This results in the original conservative party becoming even more conservative than before. This trend continues until you essentially have this rotten core of crazies, which is what we now have on our hands.
But this is normal and has happened to many more countries than our own. We're a bit behind, but we're making progress. Populist parties can exist, they just won't ever win anything.
The idea that "progressive" ideas are always good is precisely what gives those parties substantial power. It's pure arrogance to think that they can't win. Do you seriously think a slightly more level-headed Trump would have no chance of winning this election? Trump as is still has a reasonable chance of winning.
I tried really hard to imagine what a candidate that's a more level-headed Trump would look like but I can't when the only thing Trump offers is being the guy that isn't level-headed. There's nothing else there.
A lot of the "zomg Russia beating us" rhetoric is just jockeying for more funding. Russia can make a lot of high tech for a lower cost than the US but the US has by far the best technology in the world in most fields of war.
Oh, i don't doubt that. Fact is though, even a musket can kill you. And it's only partially true, considering that the most modern russian submarine is (even by americans) assumed to be the strongest submarine in the world.
You should see what a conversation about Russia looks like if you talk about it with most anyone from the Baltic nations. Compared to them Kwark is moderate and reasonable.
That being said, i'm not fond of russia either. I just am realistic enough to accept if something isn't as shiny as american TV wants me to think it is.
There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
On August 12 2016 05:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump not only needs to lose but he needs to be humiliated. As this country is wtinessing the birth of a mainstream American National Front type of party.
The Secret Service protected MSNBC reporter Katy Tur after Donald Trump launched a personal attack at a December rally.
The candidate had previously blasted her as “dishonest” for her coverage of protests at an earlier rally and demanded an apology, which Tur refused to give.
"What a lie. Katy Tur. What a lie it was," Trump said, pointing at Tur from the stage. "Third. Rate. Reporter. Remember that.”
In an essay for Marie Claire, Tur wrote that the crowd turned on her "like a large animal, angry and unchained." Afterwards, the Secret Service took what she described as the "extraordinary" precaution of walking Tur to her car.
It was unlikely, Tur said, that any future attack by the candidate could be "as scary."
Trump has a history of lashing out at what he calls the "very, very dishonest" media, and a slew of reporters and publications have been denied access to Trump's campaign events, including The New York Times, BuzzFeed News, Telemundo, Politico and The Des Moines Register.
You do realize that this is the very attitude that is going to result in the failure to stop the emergence of a national populist party, right?
Who gives a fuck? Every country has their idiot fringe parties. This tendency is consistent throughout history. When countries become more progressive, there is always a trend where moderates leave a party for a more progressive party. This results in the original conservative party becoming even more conservative than before. This trend continues until you essentially have this rotten core of crazies, which is what we now have on our hands.
But this is normal and has happened to many more countries than our own. We're a bit behind, but we're making progress. Populist parties can exist, they just won't ever win anything.
The idea that "progressive" ideas are always good is precisely what gives those parties substantial power. It's pure arrogance to think that they can't win. Do you seriously think a slightly more level-headed Trump would have no chance of winning this election? Trump as is still has a reasonable chance of winning.
I tried really hard to imagine what a candidate that's a more level-headed Trump would look like but I can't when the only thing Trump offers is being the guy that isn't level-headed. There's nothing else there.
Imagine Trump exactly as he is now, except with enough good judgment to shut the fuck up when it's best to say nothing or say something really neutral.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing.
No, in fact they actually have the most modern nuclear sub in the world right now. You also can't ever tell at what point there's "no boats on patrol", because you don't know where every boat is at all times. Especially not in the last decade, where they're literally fucking popping up everywhere.
And on top, you said this first:
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
Which then turned into:
I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times.
So, how about you "fucking learn to remember what you actually entered a discussion with".
There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing.
No, in fact they actually have the most modern nuclear sub in the world right now. You also can't ever tell at what point there's "no boats on patrol", because you don't know where every boat is at all times. Especially not in the last decade, where they're literally fucking popping up everywhere.
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times.
So, how about you "fucking learn to remember what you actually entered a discussion with".
You brought up the subs so I responded that the subs are not always an effective MAD deterrent because they are sometimes accounted for as viable targets due to not being at sea.
The point remains, Russia does not maintain a constant state of second strike readiness. The age of MAD is over. That does not mean that they never patrol, it means that they work on the assumption that any first strike will be preceded by warning allowing them to return to MAD should they need to.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing.
No, in fact they actually have the most modern nuclear sub in the world right now. You also can't ever tell at what point there's "no boats on patrol", because you don't know where every boat is at all times. Especially not in the last decade, where they're literally fucking popping up everywhere.
And on top, you said this first:
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
Which then turned into:
I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times.
So, how about you "fucking learn to remember what you actually entered a discussion with".
You brought up the subs so I responded that the subs are not always an effective MAD deterrent because they are sometimes accounted for as viable targets due to not being at sea.
The point remains, Russia does not maintain a constant state of second strike readiness. The age of MAD is over. That does not mean that they never patrol, it means that they work on the assumption that any first strike will be preceded by warning allowing them to return to MAD should they need to.
I said your argument that you don't have to fear a retaliatory strike for reason "x" is wrong. Your paper is a decade old. You know that the conclusions in these papers were incorrect by now. There ARE russian boats around the US. You've seen them twice already. You don't know if there's any left.
If you would've said what i initially put on you, that the US could bomb russia to hell and back, where as (in comparison) they could only retaliate with a fraction of that, okay. It's relative, because 60 nukes is already quite the blow and would assure that the US would be wiped from the landscape immediately (remember china?) - but still, that statement would've been true.
To flatout state "the US can bomb at will and doesn't need to fear a second strike" is flatout wrong. You might get lucky, but you can never be sure that there's no second strike - considering that, again, you (nor anyone else for that matter) don't know the positions of their subs at all times.
edit: and of course i brought up subs, if we're talking nuclear weapons.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order. Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing.
No, in fact they actually have the most modern nuclear sub in the world right now. You also can't ever tell at what point there's "no boats on patrol", because you don't know where every boat is at all times. Especially not in the last decade, where they're literally fucking popping up everywhere.
And on top, you said this first:
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
Which then turned into:
I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times.
So, how about you "fucking learn to remember what you actually entered a discussion with".
You brought up the subs so I responded that the subs are not always an effective MAD deterrent because they are sometimes accounted for as viable targets due to not being at sea.
The point remains, Russia does not maintain a constant state of second strike readiness. The age of MAD is over. That does not mean that they never patrol, it means that they work on the assumption that any first strike will be preceded by warning allowing them to return to MAD should they need to.
I said your argument that you don't have to fear a retaliatory strike for reason "x" is wrong. Your paper is a decade old. You know that the conclusions in these papers were incorrect by now. There ARE russian boats around the US. You've seen them twice already. You don't know if there's any left.
Seeing a Russian submarine once does not mean that it is always there. Again, I never claimed that there are no Russian submarine patrols ever. I claimed that there are times during which there are no Russian patrols during which the Russian submarines are vulnerable to a first strike and do not have an effective second strike capability. Stop responding "but how can you say that there are times when the submarines are in dock if they were seen at sea in 2012". It's dumb as hell and I've responded to it three times already. I quoted an authoritative source arguing that the nuclear subs are usually not at sea but rather maintained at a state of readiness. Your refutation of this is just "yeah but one time one was seen at sea". It's not a refutation and it won't be no matter how many times you restate it.
On August 12 2016 05:16 KwarK wrote:... The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike. ...
I'm also going to call [Citation needed] on this line. Unless the facts of nuclear warfare have drastically changed somehow...
Nah. I assume Kwark was trying to be "smart" and was defining "catastrophic" as "total annihilation of the US". Which potentially wouldn't happen. But "no retaliation" is kinda impossible considering that the US actually doesn't know russian submarine positions at all time. Especially funny considering that they've located an Akula class submarine close to american waters in 2012.
edit: sorry, was 2009. In 2012, they've lost track of an Akula in the gulf of mexico for over a month.
And they carry 28 nuclear cruise missiles.
US nukes are mostly submarine-based, Russia does a lot more with land based weaponry. As of now there are no real ways to stop a second strike in any scenario that would occur in the real world. Kwark definitely has shown to have some pretty unusual and dangerous ideas about nuclear weapons and their use in general.
I actually thought it was the other way around, although i don't really know too much about nukes and their deployment. I just know that russia, while maybe not as many as the US, has quite a few boats with pretty impressive nuclear firepower.
During peacetime Russia has very few nuclear submarine patrols. Their nuclear submarine fleet is underfunded, aging and decaying. There are times at which there are no nuclear submarines at sea, instead relying on a readiness state during which they could be deployed should tensions be heightened. This is no true defence against a first strike but is a perfectly good defence against a responsible hegemonic power that would not attack out of nowhere.
This is my point. They are not relying on MAD, they have accepted their position as a second rate power and have assumed a role within the US dominated world order.
In fact, Russia usually has no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine in port is on alert
I just told you that in 2009, the US detected Akula class boats at the US east coast. Then they've lost track on one in 2012 in the gulf of mexico. Russian subs are popping up across europes coasts (sweden, iirc, was the last one?) So what you're calling "factual", is factually and proven to be wrong. There's quite a few things wrong in that journal, maybe because it's outdated - i can't tell.
Those two Akulas that are proven to be somewhere around the US (were, are - i don't know, and the US doesn't either) are already 56 nuclear warheads. Which you have no chance of stopping in case of a US first strike.
Rather than try to be smart I just remembered the conclusions of some people who are smart and said what they were. But if I say something you should probably assume that even if I'm not smart I probably read something from someone smart and am regurgitating it.
And again. If you regurgitate something that's wrong, you still look like you actually have no idea.
I never said that the Russian Republic never does nuclear sub patrols. I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times. Learn to fucking read. Obviously they haven't converted all the nuclear subs to low income housing.
No, in fact they actually have the most modern nuclear sub in the world right now. You also can't ever tell at what point there's "no boats on patrol", because you don't know where every boat is at all times. Especially not in the last decade, where they're literally fucking popping up everywhere.
And on top, you said this first:
The United States is currently in a position of being able to launch an effective first strike on the Russian Republic, should it so choose, without risk of a catastrophic second strike.
Which then turned into:
I said that there are times in which they commit the cardinal sin of having 0 nuclear subs at sea which leaves them vulnerable during those times.
So, how about you "fucking learn to remember what you actually entered a discussion with".
You brought up the subs so I responded that the subs are not always an effective MAD deterrent because they are sometimes accounted for as viable targets due to not being at sea.
The point remains, Russia does not maintain a constant state of second strike readiness. The age of MAD is over. That does not mean that they never patrol, it means that they work on the assumption that any first strike will be preceded by warning allowing them to return to MAD should they need to.
I said your argument that you don't have to fear a retaliatory strike for reason "x" is wrong. Your paper is a decade old. You know that the conclusions in these papers were incorrect by now. There ARE russian boats around the US. You've seen them twice already. You don't know if there's any left.
Seeing a Russian submarine once does not mean that it is always there. Again, I never claimed that there are no Russian submarine patrols ever. I claimed that there are times during which there are no Russian patrols during which the Russian submarines are vulnerable to a first strike and do not pose an effective second strike capability. Stop responding "but how can you say that there are times when the submarines are in dock if they were seen at sea in 2012". It's dumb as hell and I've responded to it three times already.
But your "we don't see them so they aren't there" is smart?
If a sub is in its dock is pretty much the only time you know where they are. So yes, if all planets align and suddenly ALL subs are in their docks (and i don't think that happened ever), then you know you're good to go.
PS: your claim, or rather, your quoted source stating that russia doesn't spend much anymore on nuclear weaponry or delivery systems is also debunked with the yasen class, which costs 3.5 billion us dollar per pop. And they've ordered 12, 5 of which are already started. And they're already fricking developing the next one (husky class).
("Rather than continue to challenge the US they have decided to spend the $ on something other than nuclear submarine patrols against a non hostile superpower.") remember?
You seriously seem to have a problem with admitting that you made a miscalculation somewhere, even if it's just the (decade old) source that you're quoting.
My source literally refutes your claim that you don't think it happened ever. That's literally what it says. It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not because you are not an authoritative source and nobody cares what you think, even if you saw one once in 2012. I'm arguing based upon an actual source saying one thing and you are claiming the complete opposite based upon literally nothing.
On August 12 2016 09:20 KwarK wrote: My source literally refutes your claim that you don't think it happened ever. That's literally what it says. It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not because you are not an authoritative source and nobody cares what you think, even if you saw one once in 2012.
It happened before 2006, okay. That obviously sets it in stone. Lets forget the rest of the source that was debunked by US authorities in the last decade, because obviously, you were talking just prior 2006. You know, when your source had a chance to be correct. It's proven that things changed. Proven by actual (US and european) military intelligence. Sidenote: it wasn't me that "saw" the boat, it was the US north command that confirmed it. So excuse me if i go with that, rather than a piece that's proven to be wrong on multiple occasions since it was published.
EPT
