I haven’t read it but saw the movie it doesn’t look like anything I would want to experience. If we are talking about “The Road”.
1 Like
Yeah, we are pretty much toast. After 9/11 every time the threat level changed we would get faxed our information. I can’t remember now what tier level we are on since that’s been awhile, but we are up there. Not first level but once it starts might as well not worry, we probably won’t even know when it happens. 
Being a senator is a pretty good job.
I’d trade.
Allan
By the way, the persons name was Dimitry, not Vlad. I don’t see where someone named Vlad said anything, or that Dimitry has authority to do what he threatens.
You can’t remember it and you’re a fan. No name other than “her husband”.
Just like Fweedom’s husband or Bootyjudge’s wife.
You’re not, strategic military sites are protected. The US has capabilities to destroy multiple ICBMs before they even reach US air space. Those defense sites are the primary targets.
Correction husband.
Allan
Wouldn’t they just launch a large enough barrage to overwhelm the interceptors?
Most Russian missiles carry 4 to 10 warheads.
We’d have to destroy the Buses before warhead separation. Is our ABM tech good enough to reliably do that?
1 Like
I would guess not 100%, I honestly think it won’t get to that point. I wouldn’t be shocked to see tactical nukes though.
Given that NATO’s military budget is an order of magnitude more than Russia’s, it’s probable they would not have.
According to a survivalist website nuclear target map, I am about 400 miles from the nearest high value target and the wind almost never comes from that direction. Hmmmm. That kinda sucks in a way. I was thinking ground zero might be the better place to be for reasons already mentioned above.
What website?
I am within 60-75 miles of Wright Patterson AFB which is a major target and 30 miles of General Dynamics Land Systems that manufacturers the Abrams, MRAP, and other armoured vehicles.
How do we see tactical nukes without it escalating?
Once one is used and there’s no response, deterrence is dead.
They’ve gamed this out every which way…every time the first nuke launched…tactical or not…it escalates to full strategic exchange.
And every time they have the games, the players are surprised that’s how it ends because every decision they make leading up to full exchange feels totally rational to them.
1 Like
They do say “primary” nuclear targets, so that means there are secondary and third strike targets I suppose LOL, but here it is;
1 Like
On a lighter note, found this on Twitter today.
I didn’t know such a website existed. Looks like I’m a goner too.
Well then I may survive the first round. Nothing in Ohio
1 Like
Is this a legit question or a test of my knowledge of anti-ICBM intercept capabilities?
Nonetheless, during the Cold War the US could defend against multiple Soviet launches from sites on land and sea. As we see today the Russan doctrine hasn’t really changed. They throw an overwhelming air, tank and artillery blitzkreig at an objective then being in the occupiers. The US and NATO members know this and have planned counter measures. The only thing standing in the way to protect North America from a nuclear attack from the Slavic inbred is the ■■■■■■■ in the White House.
Yes, sanctions that threaten the lives of innocent civilians are immoral.
It’s an honest question.
Most of the things I’ve read tend to show that ABM systems that function after warhead separation are hit or miss. Basically they can successfully intercept one or two warheads, but that they would struggle against 20 or more incoming warheads along with their numerous penetration aids being used.
