JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Thoughts on Nuclear Strike Scenario
- Thread Starter Jasonanddeonna
- Start date
The linked web site in post #2 is interesting to speculate with. Looking around on the internet, it looks like 750 megaton yield would be a reasonable number to plug in that we might expect to receive from a MIRV'd Russian ICBM. In the northern Puget Sound area where I live, there is a strategic submarine base, an aircraft carrier home port (you've got to hope the thing is out to sea when the balloon goes up), the Boeing plant, the USN Jim Creek communication center (linked to all the submarines in the Pacific). Probably enough targets to be worthy of bang-boom. The new Sarmat ICBM can carry up to 50 MIRV missiles, but those probably are smaller than 750 megatons each. However, with that many MIRV's, they could blanket a pretty big area.
Remember the arms limitations agreements? I guess all that stuff was pretty much for nothing. In the meantime, the Russians have been busy:
The nugget in that article was the author's assessment that Putin's philosophy about strategic weapons is not focused on survivability but on warfighting.
I'm thinking that right about now, we have technicians that are swapping warheads in our ICMB's. And upgrading some with higher yield cores.
Remember the arms limitations agreements? I guess all that stuff was pretty much for nothing. In the meantime, the Russians have been busy:
The nugget in that article was the author's assessment that Putin's philosophy about strategic weapons is not focused on survivability but on warfighting.
I'm thinking that right about now, we have technicians that are swapping warheads in our ICMB's. And upgrading some with higher yield cores.
- Messages
- 2,793
- Reactions
- 5,995
Lets hope the same guys that are selling things to the Russian Army are providing the high-tech items that will make the ICBM's work!
Here is a link to a report that Ukrainians have found that T-72 "reactive" armor is at least sometimes made from cardboard egg cartons:
https://nazk.gov.ua/en/news/ukraine...ster-shoygu-for-corruption-in-the-army-video/
Here is a link to a report that Ukrainians have found that T-72 "reactive" armor is at least sometimes made from cardboard egg cartons:
https://nazk.gov.ua/en/news/ukraine...ster-shoygu-for-corruption-in-the-army-video/
- Messages
- 4,271
- Reactions
- 5,955
Do you mean kilotons not megatons? The Tsar bomb was the largest nuclear weapon that was tested by the USSR and yielded 50 megatons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
The largest test for the United States was 15 megatons:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/02/27/castle-bravo-the-largest-u-s-nuclear-explosion/
- Messages
- 5,720
- Reactions
- 14,056
Actually, most modern historians believe the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor causing the Japanese to surrender, not the A-bombs. Here's a sample:
"Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.
The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.
The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not."
Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?
Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.
www.carnegiecouncil.org
ETA: The Soviets already knew about our nuclear weapons program, thanks to their spies. There was no message.
Jim Creek is a backup system. I've got a project up there right now.Who knows...
In the greater Seattle area two likely targets are the Jim Creek Naval Radio Station, and the Bangor sub base.
Jim Creek Naval Radio Station - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
- Messages
- 5,783
- Reactions
- 11,243
Not to worry folks when you have Brandon and Kamala at the wheel...
I disagree.Actually, most modern historians believe the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor causing the Japanese to surrender, not the A-bombs. Here's a sample:
"Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.
The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.
The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not."
Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?
Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.
ETA: The Soviets already knew about our nuclear weapons program, thanks to their spies. There was no message.
The Soviets were in no position to invade the home islands. We were. Japan was incapable of reinforcing or evacuating their troops in China because we had totally blockaded the home islands. All the Emperor could do about Russia's destruction of the Japanese armies in China was watch. In addition, Russia lacked the sea power to mount a serious invasion. On the other hand, the United States (and Britain) had plenty of sea power,. More than enough to invade Japan as plans for Operations Olympic and Coronet demonstrated So I can agree that the Soviets declaration of war may have been a factor, but it was. America's power to invade Japan or destroy it from the sky at will that brought Hirohito around to bearing the unbearable.
re A-bombs and messages: The message wasn't that we had the atomic bomb, the message was "We have the will to use them."
- Messages
- 4,936
- Reactions
- 13,012
I've seen that before; Soviet propaganda. Stalin waited until after Hiroshima to declare war on Japan so they could invade Manchuria and gobble up as much territory as they could before Japan surrendered to the U.S..Actually, most modern historians believe the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor causing the Japanese to surrender, not the A-bombs. Here's a sample:
"Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.
The Soviet Union's declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan's leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn't defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.
The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not."
Did Nuclear Weapons Cause Japan to Surrender?
Ward Wilson, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, explains that the Soviet declaration of war and not the Hiroshima nuclear bombing caused Japan to surrender at the end of World War II.
ETA: The Soviets already knew about our nuclear weapons program, thanks to their spies. There was no message.
The invasion of Manchuria was the final straw, but if that was the main reason rather than the bomb, why did they surrender to us rather than Stalin? The Soviets like to take credit for everything.
- Messages
- 5,720
- Reactions
- 14,056
Maybe. Maybe not.
"On 9 August, the Soviets launched a full-scale invasion of Manchuria, which started the Soviet–Japanese War. That was began three days after the United States atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and it included plans to invade South Sakhalin. The main purpose of the invasion was to clear Japanese resistance and to be prepared within 10 to 14 days to to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's home islands."
Soviet invasion of South Sakhalin - Wikipedia
- Messages
- 4,936
- Reactions
- 13,012
A lot of people think that any nuclear exchange will inevitably be like in the movies- total and world ending.
My understanding is that nukes in general are actually much smaller than they were 50 years ago. Accuracy has improved to where there is no need for the huge megaton city-busters any more.
My understanding is that nukes in general are actually much smaller than they were 50 years ago. Accuracy has improved to where there is no need for the huge megaton city-busters any more.
- Messages
- 24,715
- Reactions
- 66,836
Wait... Both of these quotes are from you? So, you're calling yourself a... Oh, never mind...
- Messages
- 5,720
- Reactions
- 14,056
You can call it Soviet propaganda if you want, but if it is, a lot of people are buying into it. Just peruse these references:
did a bombs or soviet declaration of war cause japan to surrender
Also:
"Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already secretly promised Washington and London that he would attack Japan within three months of Germany's defeat. He thus ignored Tokyo's plea, and mobilized more than a million troops along Manchuria's border.
Operation August Storm was launched Aug. 9, 1945, as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, and would claim the lives of 84,000 Japanese and 12,000 Soviet soldiers in two weeks of fighting. The Soviets ended up just 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Japan's main northern island, Hokkaido.
"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents."
Oh, be assured that I am am a nerd.Wait... Both of these quotes are from you? So, you're calling yourself a... Oh, never mind...
The game is ignomeable...The heights are unscaleable.
Pocket protector, side rule intact I'm ready for the Nooklear attack.
- Messages
- 24,715
- Reactions
- 66,836
Did you mean to say ignomeinious?
Wow, that's a good one! I need to get it logged in the Gnome Country for Old Men thread before anyone else does. I don't think I've seen it in there yet...
And I thought the "proper" pronunciation for nuclear was noo - que - ler... (GWB said so)
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 4,936
- Reactions
- 13,012
I watched a documentary a while back that was all about how the Soviet Union single-handedly defeated Germany, then went on to single handedly defeat Japan. Sure enough, made in Russia.
The Allied powers played up good ol' "Uncle Joe", but they knew full well that he was never our friend, and many of them foresaw the Cold War. Yes the Soviets bore the brunt of defeating Hitler, and we sent literally millions of tons of vehicles, weapons and supplies to help him do it.
I don't claim to be any kind of history expert, but I did read up on the subject after seeing that documentary. I came to the conclusion, for myself, that things were definitely much more complex than most Americans have always believed, but that this idea that the Soviets actually defeated Japan rather than the U.S., is pure Soviet Propaganda.
It's no more historically accurate than the idea that the bombs were the ONLY reason Japan surrendered.
The Allied powers played up good ol' "Uncle Joe", but they knew full well that he was never our friend, and many of them foresaw the Cold War. Yes the Soviets bore the brunt of defeating Hitler, and we sent literally millions of tons of vehicles, weapons and supplies to help him do it.
I don't claim to be any kind of history expert, but I did read up on the subject after seeing that documentary. I came to the conclusion, for myself, that things were definitely much more complex than most Americans have always believed, but that this idea that the Soviets actually defeated Japan rather than the U.S., is pure Soviet Propaganda.
It's no more historically accurate than the idea that the bombs were the ONLY reason Japan surrendered.
- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,157
This thread is better while listening to TOOL.
- Messages
- 5,783
- Reactions
- 11,243
History is written by the victors. We are living through something for the books. Unfortunately you can only see it from one sides propaganda. I think folks want more than that so I bring it up again that if you want a better picture of how we got here the Ukraine on Fire by Oliver Stone is really good but an hour and 36 minutes long. It's on Rumble.
You will walk away feeling you have learned something.
You will walk away feeling you have learned something.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WTS: Two Cimarron 1873 Lever Guns w/5th Gen Short Stroke Kits Cowboy Action Shooting- Started by static-x
- Replies: 0
-