It is vital that the U.S. destroy China within the next 20 years.

[Rich2018]

And the US would need to have strike aircraft positioned very close to Russian territory to have any hope of a disarming first strike. iMINT assets would pick them up.

Why do you think nuclear-armed aircraft would need to be near Russian territory to bomb it ?
US bombers don't require to fly over Russian territory to strike it - you're stuck watch Dr Strangelove:


"The removal of nuclear gravity weapons like the B-61 and B-83 from the B-52 platform has been in effect for several years," said Justin Oakes, public affairs director for the Eighth Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center.
"The B-52 remains the premier stand-off weapons platform utilizing the air-launched cruise missile as the main nuclear deterrent...

The B-52 Will No Longer Carry Certain Nuclear Weapons. Here's Why

The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs as it prepares to carry the new long-range standoff weapon, known as LRSO.

www.military.com

.


Secondly, there's no way IMINT can determine if it's a nuclear or conventional strike

Thirdly, there's no way IMINT can determine what the target is


How little you know about nuclear strike aircraft


Are you ready to concede that IMINT assets are useless in determining US nuclear targets ?

Also, are you ready to concede that when you talk of Russian HUMINT assets, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about ?

 

[Questerr]

Why do you think nuclear-armed aircraft would need to be near Russian territory to bomb it ?
US bombers don't require to fly over Russian territory to strike it - you're stuck watch Dr Strangelove:


"The removal of nuclear gravity weapons like the B-61 and B-83 from the B-52 platform has been in effect for several years," said Justin Oakes, public affairs director for the Eighth Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center.
"The B-52 remains the premier stand-off weapons platform utilizing the air-launched cruise missile as the main nuclear deterrent...

The B-52 Will No Longer Carry Certain Nuclear Weapons. Here's Why

The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs as it prepares to carry the new long-range standoff weapon, known as LRSO.

www.military.com

.


Secondly, there's no way IMINT can determine if it's a nuclear or conventional strike

Thirdly, there's no way IMINT can determine what the target is


How little you know about nuclear strike aircraft


Are you ready to concede that IMINT assets are useless in determining US nuclear targets ?

Also, are you ready to concede that when you talk of Russian HUMINT assets, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about ?

Speed is why. They would need to be able to get their strike off before Russian satellites can notice they are gone from their bases. When satellites are doing a pass every 10 to 20 minutes, having your bombers several hours away means that the Russians have time to react and put their interceptors in the air. Having them extremely close by means that by the time the Russians realize those airfields have been flushed, the bombers are already inside Russian airspace and approaching the launch points for their missiles. You realize that modern stand off nukes for US aircraft don’t really have that long of a range compared with how big Russia is, right?

It doesn’t matter if the strike is nuclear or conventional. If the intent is to disarm Russia’s nuclear deterrent, they are going to respond by launching whatever weapons they can.

 

[Rich2018]

Speed is why. They would need to be able to get their strike off before Russian satellites can notice they are gone from their bases.

What planet do you live on ?

"Strike aircraft" release stand off cruise missiles...do you not know what they are, or their range ?
So it doesn't matter if B-52 bombers take off from California or Georgia, plus that's only a fraction of the USA's nuclear strike force, with most of it stored in silos inside the USA or submarines at sea

And don't you think alerting an enemy by moving aircraft closer to their perceived targets is EXACTLY what the USA would want to avoid if a nuclear strike was being contemplated ?
And indeed one of the arguments for using bombers is because they ARE slow and give time to be recalled - not the case with a missile strike from a silo or SSBN

Silos don't move - yet strangely enough the USA doesn't see this as inhibiting the "speed" of an attack
I wonder why ?

It doesn’t matter if the strike is nuclear or conventional. If the intent is to disarm Russia’s nuclear deterrent, they are going to respond by launching whatever weapons they can.

Of course it matters !!!

Do you really not think that the US or Russian governments would measure a different response if they're subject to a conventional or a nuclear strike ?
SMH


And you leave the main question unanswered (yet again) - which is the identity of US nuclear strike targets
Do you still think that Russian IMINT assets can determine this ?

Secondly, do you still say Russia has HUMINT assets capable of discovering this ?

 

[Questerr]

What planet do you live on ?

"Strike aircraft" release stand off cruise missiles...do you not know what they are, or their range ?
So it doesn't matter if B-52 bombers take off from California or Georgia, plus that's only a fraction of the USA's nuclear strike force, with most of it stored in silos inside the USA or submarines at sea

And don't you think alerting an enemy by moving aircraft closer to their perceived targets is EXACTLY what the USA would want to avoid if a nuclear strike was being contemplated ?
And indeed one of the arguments for using bombers is because they ARE slow and give time to be recalled - not the case with a missile strike from a silo or SSBN

Silos don't move - yet strangely enough the USA doesn't see this as inhibiting the "speed" of an attack
I wonder why ?




Of course it matters !!!

Do you really not think that the US or Russian governments would measure a different response if they're subject to a conventional or a nuclear strike ?
SMH


And you leave the main question unanswered (yet again) - which is the identity of US nuclear strike targets
Do you still think that Russian IMINT assets can determine this ?

Secondly, do you still say Russia has HUMINT assets capable of discovering this ?

You really think the Russians would go, "Well gee, the American are only taking our ICBM's offline with conventional weapons. We should only respond with conventional weapons"?

 

[Rich2018]

You really think the Russians would go, "Well gee, the American are only taking our ICBM's offline with conventional weapons. We should only respond with conventional weapons"?

So you deflect again by only responding to the questions you're comfortable with

What would the size be, of a conventional strike on Russia to guarantee the neutralization of its nuclear forces ?
(and a conventional strike could never neutralize Russia's Naval nuclear capability)

In fact, I'm not even sure that the USA has the capacity to neutralize (much less destroy) Russian nuclear capability, with conventional missiles/bombs
It might do, but such an attack would have to be so massive it would be indistinguishable from a nuclear strike...and indeed why would the USA launch such a strike

Conventional missiles are generally reserved for surgical strikes, intended to kill what they're aimed at and nothing more


And you leave the main question unanswered (yet again) - which is the identity of US nuclear strike targets
Do you still think that Russian IMINT assets can determine this ?

Secondly, do you still say Russia has HUMINT assets capable of discovering this ?

 

[Dayton3]

In fact, I'm not even sure that the USA has the capacity to neutralize (much less destroy) Russian nuclear capability, with conventional missiles/bombs

Well that's not exactly true. I had an extensive discussion about this issue at a military site (using conventional warheads to destroy hardened sites like nuclear missile silos) and the consensus was that direct hits on even ultra hardened nuclear silos could damage the silo or most likely the silo hatch enough to prevent the launch of the ICBM inside.

And of course it would be childs play for a conventional warhead to destroy or damage beyond repair a mobile ICBM launcher.

The keys would be locating all of them (mobile ones) and targeting them all near simultaneously (mobile and silo based).

 

[Rich2018]

Well that's not exactly true. I had an extensive discussion about this issue at a military site (using conventional warheads to destroy hardened sites like nuclear missile silos) and the consensus was that direct hits on even ultra hardened nuclear silos could damage the silo or most likely the silo hatch enough to prevent the launch of the ICBM inside.

And of course it would be childs play for a conventional warhead to destroy or damage beyond repair a mobile ICBM launcher.

The keys would be locating all of them (mobile ones) and targeting them all near simultaneously (mobile and silo based).

OK, I accept that is true. But what I was saying was that I wasn't sure that the USA has the capacity to neutralize (much less destroy) Russian nuclear capability, with conventional missiles/bombs

ie: Not all of the silos (and remember, Russia has more than just rockets in silos, but also ground mobile units and air assets (not to mention naval assets).

 

[Dayton3]

OK, I accept that is true. But what I was saying was that I wasn't sure that the USA has the capacity to neutralize (much less destroy) Russian nuclear capability, with conventional missiles/bombs

ie: Not all of the silos (and remember, Russia has more than just rockets in silos, but also ground mobile units and air assets (not to mention naval assets).

A) I mentioned the ground mobile units.
B) air assets (bombers and cruise missiles) can be detected and shot down. old technology
C) naval assets can be sunk, again, old technology.

Its only matters of timing and scale.

ICBMs are the only nuclear threat that we don't have proven ways of destroying on a large scale.

Yet.

 

[Rich2018]

A) I mentioned the ground mobile units.
B) air assets (bombers and cruise missiles) can be detected and shot down. old technology
C) naval assets can be sunk, again, old technology.

Its only matters of timing and scale.

ICBMs are the only nuclear threat that we don't have proven ways of destroying on a large scale.

Ground units, if deployed are impossible to neutralize

Air assets and cruise missiles are also impossible to stop (our current technology can only get a fraction of them)

Naval assets are equally impossible to stop, SSBN's are basically a mobile silo.

ICBMs are to only static nuclear defense...as such they are the most vulnerable. But as I said, I'm not sure they can be neutralized with a conventional attack. On an individual basis yes, en masse, no.