2hats
Dust.
Exactly thats why since 1945 nobodys decided to try to throw nukes about
Irrespective, we all still glow in the dark anyway. A lot of the ex-Soviet landscape already more so than others.
Exactly thats why since 1945 nobodys decided to try to throw nukes about
...One would "nuke the shit" out of the other. No prizes for guessing who.
while what you'd said is broadly true, if you took the 40 largest cities in Russia and detonated a 100kt warhead over each - would Russia still exist as a polity?
This shit happens all the time by all players,it's just played up in the media from time to time to make a point about Russian (or U.S.,Iranian,Israeli,Chinese or a whole raft of others) aggression.
Yes the timing is somewhat suspect.Also news about the Swedish sub hunt a while ago,looks like it wasn't a sub but a commercial boat of somewhat odd design.Or to then whine about defence budgets being cut.
And another "Bear" gets an escort from Lossiemouth's Typhoons ..............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32308307
while what you'd said is broadly true, if you took the 40 largest cities in Russia and detonated a 100kt warhead over each - would Russia still exist as a polity?
if the idea of nuclear deterance is to make a nuclear exchange so painful, regardless of the damage done to the enemy, that its an unusable weapon, then the logic of it is to make a credible threat. nuking missile silos and submarine bases that might be empty is, imv, not a way to make that threat more credible, and therefore more untenable a risk.
The yanks got into counterstrike how to fight a nuclear war etc to attempt to justify th military industrial compex and sac general posts.
Nukes make the rest of the military fairly irrelevant you cant take your toys out to fight the designated big bad.
then you know little of counter-strike - counter-strike is a viable doctrine (ish), however it would require spectacular testicular fortitude to actually implement it, which rather detracts from its usefulness.
its true that its of more use to the US as the geographical size and spread of the US gives them a far greater ability to accept a limited number of return shots, whereas as in Europe everyone is on top of each other and there's very few places you could use strategic warheads without vapourising a city/large town as collateral damage - the French system is designed with this in mind, our system uses an incredibly accurate off-the shelf US system because thats what happened to be what was available.
despite the French system being less capable - ours can do counter-force and old fashioned city-busting, whereas the French system can only do city busting - theirs is more expensive.
Got to love the French; up to 1961 they called their buckets of sunshine "Force de frappe"...Yeah but are policy is to make sure whoever starts it gets to glow in the dark.
Trident can punch through moscows abm defences kill hardened underground shelters or even target flying command centres ( thats not really difficult get a nuke with in 10 miles and vladforce 1 is toast).
Uk goverment really doesnt belive stings idea that the russians love their kids but does tend to belive they care rather more about their own neck
Happily the french take the complimentary view that what counts in nuclear war is lots of dead citys so are going for the megadaeth approach france might not survive but niether will the majority of russians
Got to love the French; up to 1961 they called their buckets of sunshine "Force de frappe"...
Pour encourager les autres..." Force de dissuasion" is almost as good
Pour encourager les autres...
Is that the Russian for "Enola Gay" behind the cockpit?
(The Volkisch font is possibly as scary as anything...)
"my other plane is also forty years old", probably
Is that the Russian for "Enola Gay" behind the cockpit?
Still in better nick than the vulcan ...
it ought to be, given that its 30 years younger than the Vulcan and only entered service 3 years after the Vulcans were retired...