Attention: Russian State TV Threatens Nuclear Strike on US

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Another prominent Russian propagandist makes yet another threat to start a nuclear war with the United States over Ukraine and the world barely notices and shrugs (because it’s absurd).

40 years ago, Russia and nuclear threats were taken much more seriously.

A Kremlin propagandist has issued the latest nuclear threat against the West regarding the war in Ukraine, warning that the U.S. could be in danger of a Russian missile attack.

Igor Korotchenko, editor of the newspaper National Defense and a regular guest on the Russia 1 channel where guests have repeatedly called for strikes against Ukraine's allies, took exception to criticism of Russian conduct in the war.

"Russia is being warned and threatened that if we misbehave, or if in [NATO senior member for logistics] Ben Hodges' opinion, we exceed what he considers to be the necessary permissible lines for the use of all types of Russian weapons, he threatens us with more than just strikes on the Crimean bridge," Korotchenko said.

Hodges has repeatedly called for Ukraine to be provided with all the weapons it needs to retake Crimea, such as ATACMS, (Army Tactical Missile Systems), which would allow long-range precision strikes on the peninsula Moscow annexed in 2014.

Korotchenko said that Hodges believed the U.S. might consider strikes on the bases of Russia's Black Sea Fleet and troops in Crimea, as well as strike Russian naval bases in Tartus, Syria.

Korotchenko believed these were "not just statements of a retired hawk" but also a concerted information campaign "designed to influence both us and a Western audience."

While the U.S. is the biggest provider of military aid to Ukraine, it has taken pains to avoid direct confrontation with Russia and has made no threats of attacking the targets that Korotchenko referred to.

But Korotchenko said there should be a discussion about what will determine "the use and permissibility of tactical nuclear weapons what goals and what tactics we will use."



"The most important message we should send to the Americans is that we will not wage war with you in Europe," he said in a clip subsequently posted on X (formerly Twitter) by Ukrainian internal affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko.

"In response to your attacks on Russian military or civilian facilities, the first strike will be a preventative limited strike against targets on the territory of the United States of America, " he told the anchor of 60 Minutes, Yevgeny Popov. Last week, Russia announced that its Sarmat strategic missile system, which can reach the U.S., had been put on combat duty.

"Attention, United States!," wrote Geraschchenko next to the video. "Russian propagandists threaten with nuclear strikes on U.S. territory."

In response to Korotchenko's comments, Hodges told Newsweek that the U.S. administration was "finally realizing that the likelihood of Russia using a nuclear weapon is extremely small."

"Russia has been threatening nuclear strikes since the beginning. I take them seriously because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and because they clearly don't care how many innocent people may die," he said.

"But I think they realize that their nukes are actually most effective when they don't use them. They see how we self-deter."

"Crimea is the decisive terrain of this war," said Hodges of the peninsula, which has seen a stepping up of attacks believed to be carried out by Kyiv—including the Kerch Bridge that links the occupied territory with the Russian mainland.

"Once Ukraine liberates Crimea, it is over. Ukraine knows they cannot ever be safe or secure or rebuild their economy as long as Russia occupies Crimea," Hodges added.

Russian State TV Threatens Nuclear Strike on US

Igor had also predicted war between the US and China in 2027.

I can only imagine the fun they all had discussing nuclear weapons.

[xuenchen]

I smell a setup for a False Flag 

[Schmoe]

I never knew nuclear threats could be boring until we had all this sabre-rattling from North Korea and Russia.  Sleepy Joe should respond with a picture of Sleepy Joe sleeping.

[dbcowboy]

If Washington DC can find a way to benefit from it, then it'll happen.

[Snarl]

I'm still wondering who it is that's benefitting and exactly where they're benefitting.

It's obvious Zelensky's skimmed a cool billion plus.
Hunter's run off with 10s of millions.
I remember Romney's kid was fingered along with relatives of Pelosi and John Kerry. Haven't heard much of any of that since Trump left office.

It can't be Biden who's getting a big cut. What would a doddering old fool need with that kind of coin? Maybe his wife. I'd still bet it's 0bozo and his team taking the biggest slices laundered.

[OmegaLogos]

Another prominent Russian propagandist makes yet another threat to start a nuclear war with the United States over Ukraine and the world barely notices and shrugs (because it’s absurd).

40 years ago, Russia and nuclear threats were taken much more seriously.

A Kremlin propagandist has issued the latest nuclear threat against the West regarding the war in Ukraine, warning that the U.S. could be in danger of a Russian missile attack.

Igor Korotchenko, editor of the newspaper National Defense and a regular guest on the Russia 1 channel where guests have repeatedly called for strikes against Ukraine's allies, took exception to criticism of Russian conduct in the war.

"Russia is being warned and threatened that if we misbehave, or if in [NATO senior member for logistics] Ben Hodges' opinion, we exceed what he considers to be the necessary permissible lines for the use of all types of Russian weapons, he threatens us with more than just strikes on the Crimean bridge," Korotchenko said.

Hodges has repeatedly called for Ukraine to be provided with all the weapons it needs to retake Crimea, such as ATACMS, (Army Tactical Missile Systems), which would allow long-range precision strikes on the peninsula Moscow annexed in 2014.

Korotchenko said that Hodges believed the U.S. might consider strikes on the bases of Russia's Black Sea Fleet and troops in Crimea, as well as strike Russian naval bases in Tartus, Syria.

Korotchenko believed these were "not just statements of a retired hawk" but also a concerted information campaign "designed to influence both us and a Western audience."

While the U.S. is the biggest provider of military aid to Ukraine, it has taken pains to avoid direct confrontation with Russia and has made no threats of attacking the targets that Korotchenko referred to.

But Korotchenko said there should be a discussion about what will determine "the use and permissibility of tactical nuclear weapons what goals and what tactics we will use."



"The most important message we should send to the Americans is that we will not wage war with you in Europe," he said in a clip subsequently posted on X (formerly Twitter) by Ukrainian internal affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko.

"In response to your attacks on Russian military or civilian facilities, the first strike will be a preventative limited strike against targets on the territory of the United States of America, " he told the anchor of 60 Minutes, Yevgeny Popov. Last week, Russia announced that its Sarmat strategic missile system, which can reach the U.S., had been put on combat duty.

"Attention, United States!," wrote Geraschchenko next to the video. "Russian propagandists threaten with nuclear strikes on U.S. territory."

In response to Korotchenko's comments, Hodges told Newsweek that the U.S. administration was "finally realizing that the likelihood of Russia using a nuclear weapon is extremely small."

"Russia has been threatening nuclear strikes since the beginning. I take them seriously because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and because they clearly don't care how many innocent people may die," he said.

"But I think they realize that their nukes are actually most effective when they don't use them. They see how we self-deter."

"Crimea is the decisive terrain of this war," said Hodges of the peninsula, which has seen a stepping up of attacks believed to be carried out by Kyiv—including the Kerch Bridge that links the occupied territory with the Russian mainland.

"Once Ukraine liberates Crimea, it is over. Ukraine knows they cannot ever be safe or secure or rebuild their economy as long as Russia occupies Crimea," Hodges added.

Russian State TV Threatens Nuclear Strike on US

Igor had also predicted war between the US and China in 2027.

I can only imagine the fun they all had discussing nuclear weapons.

Explanation: Its absurd eh? ...

Nihilism = Everything is broken and sux   ... VS ... Absurdism = Everything is broken and sux LOL 

Pick one ok.

Personal Disclosure: I am a Z-tard on discord Politics server and I support Russia ...

Why?

Because I like winners and Russia has won, is winning and will win this war!

I have gamed out all scenarios in my mind and both debated and argued with others on these points already.

Russia has won the stalemate already, by retaining the eastern Ukraine in a kinetic war.

Jack Posobiec: The West’s Prolonging of The Ukrainian War Has Cost Countless Lives And Money For No Different Outcome

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/ukraine...901-p5e17z

Russia is winning currently by single handedly fending off up to 50 western/nato backed countries sanctions in an economic war ... Russia is slightly in the black and Ukraine is deeply in the red after the Black Sea grain deal was not renewed. 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-...ntral-asia

Regional output is now expected to grow by 1.4% in 2023, substantially better than the previously anticipated 0.1%. The positive, though deeply depressed, economic activity in 2023 reflects a softer contraction of Russia’s economy and an improvement in Ukraine’s outlook. Regional growth is expected to increase to an average 2.7% over 2024-25 as inflation eases, domestic demand recovers, and the external environment improves.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/overview

[b]Ukraine In Numbers[/b]

• [b]GDP [/b]projected to [b]grow by 0.5%[/b] in 2023 after contracting about 30% in 2022.
  
• [b]7.1 million[/b] additional Ukrainians are estimated to live in poverty.
  
• [b]15-year[/b] setback in poverty reduction goals.
  
• Ukraine needs [b]$11 billion[/b] for repairs and essential services in CY23.
  

Plus Ukraine has lost 25%+ of its base population which is down to 30million [now] from 42million [before the war]. Most will not return to Ukraine ever. 

https://rmx.news/ukraine/the-demographic...the-front/

By 2001, it had dropped to 48.5 million, and right before the invasion, it stood at only 42 million, a fall of 10 million since 1991.

“These figures are consistent with population declines in all former Soviet republics, but the biggest blow came in the opening weeks of the war, which caused women and children to flee abroad en masse, given that the government had immediately banned the departures of men between the ages of 18 and 65. And today, the resident population is estimated at between 28 and 31 million,” writes the Italian newspaper.

“From 52 million to less than 30 in three decades: a very serious loss for the country, undermining its chances of reconstruction after the end of the war, penalizing economic normalization, and drowning the pension system,” says Alexander Demenchuk, rector of the Faculty of Political Science in Kyiv.

Russia will win a pyrrhic victory if by chance Ukraines failed counter offensive [so far] does actually do something and retakes the eastern Ukraine territories which will start WW3 nuclear war.

Warfare between US and Russia ‘can be fought and can be won’: Joe Siracusa

Curtin University Political Analyst Joe Siracusa says tactical warfare between the United tates and Russia “can be fought and can be won” as tensions rise between the two nations over the Ukraine war.
“Biden’s got the idea that he’s not going to go to war, not going to put troops into Ukraine,” he told Sky News Australia.

“Putin has simply delivered the hard message to the Americans, if you want to go into Ukraine or if NATO wants to go to Ukraine, you’re going to be looking at tactical nuclear warfare which by the way can be fought and can be won.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/rus...023-07-03/

So Ukraine has lost, is losing, will lose this war ... sorry, not sorry! 

[Snarl]

I have gamed out all scenarios in my mind and both debated and argued with others on these points already.

I came to a rather odd conclusion:

This war was fought to whittle down the global population of white males. In that ... the orchestrators have succeeded brilliantly.

[OmegaLogos]

I have gamed out all scenarios in my mind and both debated and argued with others on these points already.

I came to a rather odd conclusion:

This war was fought to whittle down the global population of white males. In that ... the orchestrators have succeeded brilliantly.

Explanation: According to google and bing about 1million males total have died in the conflict [about 500,000 from both sides] and that pales in comparison to the birth death rates in the world ...

About 150,000 people die every day from all causes ... twice that amount are born [300,000] and half of them are males [50%] and so the deaths from the conflict can and will be replaced in about 1 week only [7days x 150,000 males = 1,050,000 male births].

BUT if we have WW3 , which the democrats in the USA want , because they dont want to risk Trump winning the 2024 election, then yes most people gonna die, both male and females.

Personal Disclosure: WW3 IS on the cards and on the horizon and coming down the pipeline at us! 

May God help us all, so get prepped for it ok. 

[Ninurta]

Russia ain't gonna do a goddamned thing. This is just more propaganda and  saber rattling, from both sides - it's just a dick measuring contest It's just Russia saying "my dick is bigger than yours" and the US responding with "Oh yeah? Take a look at this, girlie-man!"

Now, I'm well aware from their actions that the Democrats, and an excessive proportion of (Neocon) Republicans are just slobbering all over their selves trying to spark an all-out war, but ain't nothin' gonna happen from the Russians. If the US Democrats want a war with Russia, they're going to have to start it themselves - Russia ain't gonna take the bait.

Take it from an old Cold Warrior. We used to see and listen to this shit all the time, back when it was an actual danger, and nothing ever happened. So long as Russians are TALKING, they ain't DOING. That's how we knew way back then that nothing was going to happen if Russia was still ranting and raving and trying to rattle everyone's cage.

It was only when they got quiet and secretive that we knew they were actually going to DO something...

So, all this loud bullshit and bluster is just that - bullshit and bluster. And the war-hawkis in the US are pissin' all over themselves trying to convince everyone that the mean old scary Russian in The Closet is gonna get them when the sun goes down.

Piss ants, the whole lot of them.

.

[OmegaLogos]

Explanation: I was on Politics discord server in the war-room discussing Russian ICBM's and WW3 and this is what I learned ...

Russia has about 1200 ICBM's of which 25% are held in reserve, leaving 900 active ICBM's of which about 300 are Satan-1 and Satan-2 ICBMs which can carry up to 1 large warhead/decoy [20MegaTons each in destructive power] and the remaining ICBMs can carry about 10 light warheads/decoys [225KiloTons each in destructive power] ...

There are about 300 maximum onshore Aegis missiles which can intercept the Russian ICBM's in the mid-flight phase of their journeys, based in Poland and Romania and they have about a 2/3rds kill rate currently. 

So best case scenario is 900-300 [100% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 600 ICBM's making it through that protective net. 

And worse case scenario is Russia deploys all 1200 ICBM's and 200 are shot down [67% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 1000 ICBM's making it through that protective net, to hit their targets world wide.

In a worst case scenario if each ICBM carries a single warhead then 200 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles [each carrying a 20MT warhead = 4GT] and 800 other ICBM's [each carrying a 225KT warhead = 180MT] then the world would suffer 4.180 GigaTons of damage.

Scientists worked out that if 100 x 20KT nukes were detonated world wide in the same hour the planet as we know it would be destroyed =  a mere 2MT which is 25 times less than the Tzar Bombs [50MT] damage. 

In March 2018 the MDA announced it “is evaluating the technical feasibility of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an ICBM-class target. If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection, augmenting the currently deployed GMD system.” The MDA plans to conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an ICBM-like target by the end of 2020.[17] On November 17, 2020, an SM-3 Block IIA missile successfully intercepted a threat-representative Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) target in its mid-course phase of flight, reaffirming the capability to intercept non-separating, simple separating, and complex-separating ballistic missiles.[18]

Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) will provide defense against hypersonic weapons.[19] Glide Phase Interceptor will be integrated with modified Baseline 9 Aegis Weapon System.[20]

Aegis Ashore[edit]

NATO's Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System (AABMDS) site in Romania
NATO's Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System (AABMDS) site in Redzikowo, Poland

As of the 2014 NATO Wales summit a land-based component, Aegis Ashore, was being developed.[21] The first site to be declared operational was Deveselu Romania in 2016.[22] This consists of equipment commonly used by the Navy being deployed in land-based facilities. This includes SPY-1 radars and a battery of Standard Missile-3s. The Obama administration's plans call for two sites: the first in Romania at Deveselu that was opened in May 2015 and the second in Redzikowo, Poland (planned for 2018, but delayed twice, to 2022[23][a]). In 2020, both will get the latest versions of the Aegis BMD software and the latest version of the SM-3.[25] Some radar facilities will be placed in Turkey at a future date.[26][27][28][29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ball...gis_Ashore

Aegis BMD and the SM-3 make up the foundation of the EPAA. Each phase of the EPAA calls for the deployment of upgraded SM-3 variants to counter the improving ballistic missile capabilities of Iran. In March 2011, Phase I of the EPAA mandated the deployment of 113 SM-3 Block IA interceptors and 16 SM-3 Block IB interceptors to Aegis BMD ships in Europe.


In 2015, Phase II called for 100 SM-3 Block IB interceptors to be deployed in Europe alongside the new Aegis Ashore site in Romania. The new land-based version—Aegis Ashore—is configured as Aegis BMD 5.0 with SM-3 IB interceptors. Aegis BMD 5.0 does not add new functionality, but is designed to integrate Aegis BMD 4.0.1 with the Navy’s open architecture system, enabling any Aegis ship to perform the BMD mission.

Scheduled for 2020, the third phase of the EPAA mandates the deployment of 19 new SM-3 Block IIA interceptors alongside the development of another Aegis Ashore site Poland. Phase IV of the EPAA originally called for the deployment of SM-3 Block IIB interceptors capable of intercepting ICBMs coming out of Iran. However, diplomatic pressure from Russia resulted in the cancelation of the fourth phase of the EPAA and development of the SM-3 Block IIB halted.

https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defen...le-3-sm-3/



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123

Although the Outer Space Treaty's stipulations calmed some of the panic around the R-36 missile, the USSR's second version of the weapon wasn't going to make anyone feel better for long. The first model featured only one 20-megaton warhead.

https://www.military.com/history/worlds-...satan.html



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...79249.html

According to a new scientific study, a nuclear attack of 100 bombs could harm the entire planet including the aggressor nation. How so?

New research argues that 100 nuclear weapons is the “pragmatic limit” for any country to have in its arsenal. Any aggressor nation unleashing more than 100 nuclear weapons could ultimately devastate its own society, scientists warn.


The study was published in the journal Safety on Thursday; it was co-authored by Michigan Technological University professor Joshua Pearce and David Denkenberger, assistant professor at Tennessee State University and director of Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED).
“The results found that 100 nuclear warheads is adequate for nuclear deterrence in the worst case scenario, while using more than 100 nuclear weapons by any aggressor nation (including the best positioned strategically to handle the unintended consequences) even with optimistic assumptions (including no retaliation) would cause unacceptable damage to their own society,” the scientists wrote.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/doomsday-wa...evastation

Personal Disclosure: This analysis doesnt include any of the other nuclear powered nations [UK, France, China, North Korea, India , Pakistan & Israel] nuclear arsenals being deployed, ONLY Russia's arsenal of ICBM's [note: NOT intermediate and short range ballistic missiles etc]. 

Pretty sobering huh? 

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

The term "mutual assured destruction", commonly abbreviated "MAD", was coined by Donald Brennan, a strategist working in Herman Kahn's Hudson Institute in 1962.[2] However, Brennan came up with this acronym ironically, spelling out the English word "mad" to argue that holding weapons capable of destroying society was irrational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_ass...estruction

[Snarl]

And worse case scenario is Russia deploys all 1200 ICBM's and 200 are shot down [67% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 1000 ICBM's making it through that protective net, to hit their targets world wide.

In a worst case scenario if each ICBM carries a single warhead then 200 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles [each carrying a 20MT warhead = 4GT] and 800 other ICBM's [each carrying a 225KT warhead = 180MT] then the world would suffer 4.180 GigaTons of damage.

Scientists worked out that if 100 x 20KT nukes were detonated world wide in the same hour the planet as we know it would be destroyed =  a mere 2MT which is 25 times less than the Tzar Bombs [50MT] damage.

We knew better than that back in the '80s. "Destroyed" is more like their buzzword. I mean, I wouldn't want to instantly revert back to the Stone Age ... but, we wouldn't all be killed outright.

And, truthfully, the things that are strategic targets are things that might make you go, "Huh!! I never would have thought off that, but that's pretty damned smart if you really wanna knock a country down and keep it down for good."

[Ninurta]

And worse case scenario is Russia deploys all 1200 ICBM's and 200 are shot down [67% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 1000 ICBM's making it through that protective net, to hit their targets world wide.

In a worst case scenario if each ICBM carries a single warhead then 200 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles [each carrying a 20MT warhead = 4GT] and 800 other ICBM's [each carrying a 225KT warhead = 180MT] then the world would suffer 4.180 GigaTons of damage.

Scientists worked out that if 100 x 20KT nukes were detonated world wide in the same hour the planet as we know it would be destroyed =  a mere 2MT which is 25 times less than the Tzar Bombs [50MT] damage.

We knew better than that back in the '80s. "Destroyed" is more like their buzzword. I mean, I wouldn't want to instantly revert back to the Stone Age ... but, we wouldn't all be killed outright.

And, truthfully, the things that are strategic targets are things that might make you go, "Huh!! I never would have thought off that, but that's pretty damned smart if you really wanna knock a country down and keep it down for good."

Amen to that! It looks like someone dusted off their old 1980's propaganda playbook and gave OL an unhealthy dose of it.

Someone is blowing smoke up someone's ass to claim that any ICBMs have 20 MT warheads. Even during the height of the Cold War frenzy, the largest warhead deployed was THREE MT, and that was very few. There is a good reason for that. In terms of nuclear bombs, bigger is not better. The destructive power increases as the CUBE ROOT of the yield, not linearly. In other words, the smaller the explosion the better, not the bigger the better. You get more bang for your buck.

In simpler terms, "the cube root of the yield" means that an explosion gets less  efficient as it gets more "powerful", and exponentially so. To double the destructive radius of a nuke, you have to increase it's explosive power by EIGHT times (2x2x2), not just two times. To merely triple the destructive radius, you have to increase the yield by TWENTY SEVEN times (3x3x3). That is because the explosive force radiates in three dimensions, not just one. A lot of it gets wasted just moving air molecules around instead of blowing up buildings and people.

Because of that property, a distributed barrage of 100 kt bombs does a lot more damage than one big Tsar Bomba. So nuclear forces have gone mostly to smaller warheads, 100 to 300 kt,and loaded them into MIRV warheads for a shotgun effect. So far as is public knowledge, ALL of the 1 to 3 MT warheads, the biggest we had deployed during the Cold War, have been decommissioned and replaced with smaller 100 to 300 kt warheads, each having about 1/10th the "power" of the bigger boys we used to deploy.

But wait - there's more! Everyone worries about "fallout", but fallout is not always present. Matter of fact, in the explosions with the biggest destructive radii, it is often not present at all. That is because all explosive weapons, nuclear or otherwise, destroy with the shock wave produced. In order to maximize that shock wave's radius for a given overpressure, it must be exploded at a predetermined height above ground, which allows the shock wave to travel from the center of the explosion unimpeded by things like hills and buildings so that it can destroy the most area. The energy used to destroy a building or try to move dirt around on a hill is used up at that point, doesn't get to move onward, and consequently reduces the destruction radius.

As that impacts fallout production, it means that less or no dirt or debris is close enough to get sucked back up into the nuclear fireball to produce fallout. It just gets blown up and pushed forward, not backward. The fireball has to have ground contact in order to produce appreciable fallout at all - the dirt and debris has to be vaporized and sucked up into the fireball to have any chance of condensing, combining with radioactive isotopes, and then fall back out as radioactive fallout.

Taken together, these two properties of nuclear weapons means you can have either fallout OR maximum destruction, but you cannot have both. You have to choose one in planning.

The Lefties used the same tactics on us back in the 80's as they have tried to use on OL. They would rush in, make a claim of just how much "destruction" a 100 MT nuke would do to try to scare us, and neglect to mention that no 100 MT nukes have ever been developed or deployed. In other words, they'd try to scare us with big numbers, but not tell us those big numbers were impossible to achieve. Even the Tsar Bomba, billed as being "100 MT", only had between 50 and 60 actual MT of power when it was tested. That's why there was only one, and they never built another - it was just infeasable to make a bomb that big.

That is why I know about nuclear weapons - they scared me into doing my own due diligence in the matter rather than just taking their propagandistic word. When I did, and dug into the actual physics of explosions, I saw just what they were doing there, all in an effort to scare the hell out of kids with lies to mobilize them against nuclear anything. Next thing you know, even nuclear power plants were under fire from the Lefties, because they "wuz NUKULUR!"

Itr was all just a propaganda fear campaign, and they seem to have dusted that playbook off for a new generation to try it again.

ETA: A 67% "kill ratio" by Aegis on 1200 ICBMS would take out 800 of them, not 200.

ETA 2: Another trick they used was using a low overpressue to represent the "destructive radius" of a bomb. They usually chose 0.5 PSI as the overpressure for the "destructive radius", and neglected to tell you that at 0.5 PSI, about half of the glass windows perpendicular to the blast would break, and that is the worst damage that would occur at that distance. They left us thinking that the "destructive radius" was all like those spectacular movies of buildings getting disassembled by the shock wave during test explosions, and allowed us to think that level of damage went all the way out to their "destructive radius", when it really, REALLY isn't. Reality is that the overpressures fall off just as exponentially as the destructive power over distance.

.

[OmegaLogos]

And worse case scenario is Russia deploys all 1200 ICBM's and 200 are shot down [67% kill ratio by Aegis missiles] = leaving 1000 ICBM's making it through that protective net, to hit their targets world wide.

In a worst case scenario if each ICBM carries a single warhead then 200 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles [each carrying a 20MT warhead = 4GT] and 800 other ICBM's [each carrying a 225KT warhead = 180MT] then the world would suffer 4.180 GigaTons of damage.

Scientists worked out that if 100 x 20KT nukes were detonated world wide in the same hour the planet as we know it would be destroyed =  a mere 2MT which is 25 times less than the Tzar Bombs [50MT] damage.

We knew better than that back in the '80s. "Destroyed" is more like their buzzword. I mean, I wouldn't want to instantly revert back to the Stone Age ... but, we wouldn't all be killed outright.

And, truthfully, the things that are strategic targets are things that might make you go, "Huh!! I never would have thought off that, but that's pretty damned smart if you really wanna knock a country down and keep it down for good."

Amen to that! It looks like someone dusted off their old 1980's propaganda playbook and gave OL an unhealthy dose of it.

Someone is blowing smoke up someone's ass to claim that any ICBMs have 20 MT warheads. Even during the height of the Cold War frenzy, the largest warhead deployed was THREE MT, and that was very few. There is a good reason for that. In terms of nuclear bombs, bigger is not better. The destructive power increases as the CUBE ROOT of the yield, not linearly. In other words, the smaller the explosion the better, not the bigger the better. You get more bang for your buck.

In simpler terms, "the cube root of the yield" means that an explosion gets less  efficient as it gets more "powerful", and exponentially so. To double the destructive radius of a nuke, you have to increase it's explosive power by EIGHT times (2x2x2), not just two times. To merely triple the destructive radius, you have to increase the yield by TWENTY SEVEN times (3x3x3). That is because the explosive force radiates in three dimensions, not just one. A lot of it gets wasted just moving air molecules around instead of blowing up buildings and people.

Because of that property, a distributed barrage of 100 kt bombs does a lot more damage than one big Tsar Bomba. So nuclear forces have gone mostly to smaller warheads, 100 to 300 kt,and loaded them into MIRV warheads for a shotgun effect. So far as is public knowledge, ALL of the 1 to 3 MT warheads, the biggest we had deployed during the Cold War, have been decommissioned and replaced with smaller 100 to 300 kt warheads, each having about 1/10th the "power" of the bigger boys we used to deploy.

But wait - there's more! Everyone worries about "fallout", but fallout is not always present. Matter of fact, in the explosions with the biggest destructive radii, it is often not present at all. That is because all explosive weapons, nuclear or otherwise, destroy with the shock wave produced. In order to maximize that shock wave's radius for a given overpressure, it must be exploded at a predetermined height above ground, which allows the shock wave to travel from the center of the explosion unimpeded by things like hills and buildings so that it can destroy the most area. The energy used to destroy a building or try to move dirt around on a hill is used up at that point, doesn't get to move onward, and consequently reduces the destruction radius.

As that impacts fallout production, it means that less or no dirt or debris is close enough to get sucked back up into the nuclear fireball to produce fallout. It just gets blown up and pushed forward, not backward. The fireball has to have ground contact in order to produce appreciable fallout at all - the dirt and debris has to be vaporized and sucked up into the fireball to have any chance of condensing, combining with radioactive isotopes, and then fall back out as radioactive fallout.

Taken together, these two properties of nuclear weapons means you can have either fallout OR maximum destruction, but you cannot have both. You have to choose one in planning.

The Lefties used the same tactics on us back in the 80's as they have tried to use on OL. They would rush in, make a claim of just how much "destruction" a 100 MT nuke would do to try to scare us, and neglect to mention that no 100 MT nukes have ever been developed or deployed. In other words, they'd try to scare us with big numbers, but not tell us those big numbers were impossible to achieve. Even the Tsar Bomba, billed as being "100 MT", only had between 50 and 60 actual MT of power when it was tested. That's why there was only one, and they never built another - it was just infeasable to make a bomb that big.

That is why I know about nuclear weapons - they scared me into doing my own due diligence in the matter rather than just taking their propagandistic word. When I did, and dug into the actual physics of explosions, I saw just what they were doing there, all in an effort to scare the hell out of kids with lies to mobilize them against nuclear anything. Next thing you know, even nuclear power plants were under fire from the Lefties, because they "wuz NUKULUR!"

Itr was all just a propaganda fear campaign, and they seem to have dusted that playbook off for a new generation to try it again.

ETA: A 67% "kill ratio" by Aegis on 1200 ICBMS would take out 800 of them, not 200.

ETA 2: Another trick they used was using a low overpressue to represent the "destructive radius" of a bomb. They usually chose 0.5 PSI as the overpressure for the "destructive radius", and neglected to tell you that at 0.5 PSI, about half of the glass windows perpendicular to the blast would break, and that is the worst damage that would occur at that distance. They left us thinking that the "destructive radius" was all like those spectacular movies of buildings getting disassembled by the shock wave during test explosions, and allowed us to think that level of damage went all the way out to their "destructive radius", when it really, REALLY isn't. Reality is that the overpressures fall off just as exponentially as the destructive power over distance.

.

Explanation:  That is excellent to find out that Russia doesnt have 20Mt warheads on 300 Satan-1 and Satan-2 missiles!

Lets say it was a typo and they actually meant 2Mt warheads NOT 20Mt warheads...

I shall do the maths again with the new 2Mt figure in mind ...

300 Russian Satan-1/2 Missiles - 67 [33%* {half of 67%} shot down  by 100 Aegis Missiles] = 223 Russian Satan-1/2 Missiles x 2Mt = 446Mt + (900 remaining Russian ICBM's - 133 [34%** {other half of 67%} shot down by remaining 200 Aegis missiles] = 767 x 225Kt = 172.575Mt) = 618.575Mt of damage which is way less that 4.180Gt of damage ... still a lot ... but far more reasonable end total amount of damage done. 

Still enough that on their own they can destroy the entire world as we know it in a single hour. 

Personal Disclosure: But I still must correct the record on Aegis missiles ... the west ONLY has 300 Aegis land-based missiles in TOTAL so a 67% kill ratio would mean only 200 Aegis Missiles [300 - 200] hit their Russian counterpart Missiles ... meaning that 1000 Russian ICBM's would make it through the protective net of 300 ONLY Aegis Missiles in a worst case scenario!

* & **: ... 33%* + 34%** = 67% of 300 Aegis Missiles = 200 Aegis Missiles hit their Russian counterpart targets.

The 1200 Missiles figure IS Russian ICBM's ok ... NOT Aegis Missiles!!!   

1200 Russian ICBM's - 200 [67% of 300 or 200 total Aegis Missiles shoot them down] = 1000 ICBM's remaining!

I hope that makes more sense now.  

[Grace]

In the fairytale which also serves as a moral lesson, the boy who cried wolf wrongly so many times when the wolf showed up no one believed the boy.... 

The problem here is Russia is the boy, and Nukes are the wolf. 

At the exact moment everyone is dismissing the threat out of hand is exactly when we need to be heeding the warning. 

Russia has nothing to loose. NATO on their doorstep is an existential threat, and it's clear this is a NATO expansion that we are funding here - Russia is right about that. 

Now is actually when - or the what - that will push Russia into using nukes if anything ever will. To be honest with the ending of the war after Hiroshima it's potentially in Russian best interests to use nukes to put an end to it. An
existential threat is just that.... existential and honestly should be treated like one. 

I don't think Russia is going to bow the knee here... I wouldn't.

[Ninurta]

I can accept the correction that I failed to factor in the scarcity of Aegis missiles, such that a substantial number of Russian nukes would get through the curtain and hit their targets. I'm still failing to see how a mere 1000 nukes could possibly "end the world", given their destructive potentials. It's a big world, and nukes still have a fairly small destructive radius - I'm talking real-world destruction here, not the propagandistic "let's scare a bunch of folks" fake destruction potentials. They might take out Washington DC, New York, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc, but that still leaves a lot of folks alive and scratching their heads, and really, who would miss those places anyhow other than their denizens? We'd probably be better off without them.

While it's true that Russia (and the US) only targets "military" targets, we must also understand that in the Russian mind, a Boeing 747 is just another bomber with a flashy paint job, so "military" targets is somewhat flexible as a target description.

I'm also not seeing how in the world NATO is an "existential threat" to Russia, whether on Russian borders or not. Why is NATO an "existential threat"? What has NATO done that threatens the existence of Russia? After all, threatening someone's very existence is an act of aggression, rather than an act of defense. Who is the aggressor? NATO or Russia? Which one is REALLY the "existential threat"?

Now a case could be made that the Ukraine IS a part of Russia, and they have just moved to reclaim that rebellious state, just as the US did against the Confederacy 160 years ago, and that NATO is trying to block that reunion... but that still doesn't threaten the existence of Russia, it only threatens their re-annexation of lost territory. If they fail to re-annex the Ukraine, Russia still exists, and is not under threat even if they just let the rebels walk away like they are trying to do.

A good primer for nukes is The Effects of Nuclear War (1979). There was another one from 1977 that may have been a bit more science, calculation, and calculus heavy, but I cannot recall the name of it now. These include the actual science of nuclear destruction.

There were also a couple of civilian-geared reference works at the time that were pretty good, such as Dr. Bruce Clayton's "Life After Doomsday", and Cresson Kearny's "Nuclear War Survival Skills" (Kearny's main claim to fame was his development of a rudimentary radiation meter that could be built from kitchen scraps).

To get an idea of just how panicky folks were about nukes back then, here is a 'select bibliography' of nuclear war related texts from 1982

From what I can see, a nuclear strike would not be "world ending", but it would definitely imperil the globalist's grip on the world, and create a hard reset. In the case of Russia, they need to figure out just how much MORE of their territory, population, and infrastructure they are willing to sacrifice just to make a point and hit "the west" with nukes. In the final analysis, I would say Russia has far more potential to be an "existential threat" to itself than NATO could ever have hoped to have been. All they gotta do is fuck around and find out.

ETA: Here is the other technical document I mentioned The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1977).

.

[OmegaLogos]

I'm also not seeing how in the world NATO is an "existential threat" to Russia, whether on Russian borders or not. Why is NATO an "existential threat"? What has NATO done that threatens the existence of Russia? After all, threatening someone's very existence is an act of aggression, rather than an act of defense. Who is the aggressor? NATO or Russia? Which one is REALLY the "existential threat"?

From what I can see, a nuclear strike would not be "world ending", but it would definitely imperil the globalist's grip on the world, and create a hard reset. In the case of Russia, they need to figure out just how much MORE of their territory, population, and infrastructure they are willing to sacrifice just to make a point and hit "the west" with nukes. In the final analysis, I would say Russia has far more potential to be an "existential threat" to itself than NATO could ever have hoped to have been. All they gotta do is fuck around and find out.

Explanation: NATO is not a 'Defense' ONLY organization anymore OK!

Here is why ...

Operation Allied Force Lessons for the Future

On March 24, 1999, NATO forces initiated an air war against Serbia in an effort to put an end to the human rights abuses that were then being perpetrated against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo. This bombing effort, code-named Operation Allied Force, ended 78 days later with the capitulation of Yugoslavia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, and the subsequent withdrawal of Serbian army and paramilitary forces from Kosovo. Yet despite its success in bringing about Milosevic's defeat, Operation Allied Force was a suboptimal use of air power to resolve a regional conflict. Although NATO's air offensive ultimately proved crucial to Milosevic's decision to submit to NATO's terms, a host of deficiencies—both strategic and operational—protracted the air effort and hampered its overall effectiveness.

NATO’s Bombing of Serbia: The Unpunished War Crime

[b]Act Two: The Phone Call[/b]
March 24, 1999. 9:20am. In the White House Situation Room, an aid places a phone call to the Kremlin, where Russian President Boris Yeltsin is waiting. The call goes through, and the aid hands the phone to Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States. The conversation started off with a grimnotification: The leaders of NATO, including himself, Clinton said, “have decided we have to launch air strikes against military targets in Serbia soon.”

The problem, Clinton noted, was the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. “He has displaced 30,000 more people just since last Friday,” Clinton said. “He is killing innocent people. We have reports of summary executions.” Left unspoken was the role played by Kurtz and his fellow CIA operatives in creating the conditions for such actions. Clinton continued. “He [Milosevic] has basically told Russian, EU, and American negotiators that he doesn’t care what any of us think.”
Clinton was getting worked up by the consequences he had triggered by unleashing the CIA on Kosovo. “My God, they [the Europeans] have nightmares they’ll [the Serbs] repeat Bosnia and all the instability and all the problems, and it will spread from Kosovo to Macedonia to Albania and engulf all of their southern flank. They are very, very worried about it. They are right to be worried about it.”

Again, left unsaid was the fact that the very scenario that was giving the Europeans nightmares had been carefully crafted by the CIA, at Bill Clinton’s direction.

Yeltsin wasn’t buying any of it. “It is easy to throw bombs about,” he said, dismissing Clinton’s characterization of the problem and proffered solution. “It is intolerable because of the hundreds of thousands of people who will suffer and die.”

The consequences of any NATO strike, Yeltsin warned Clinton, were dire. “In the name of our future, in the name of you and me, in the name of the future of our countries, in the name of security in Europe, I ask you to renounce that strike, and I suggest that we should meet somewhere and develop a tactical line of fighting against Milosevic, against him personally. And we are wiser, we are more experienced, and we can come up with a solution. That should be done for the sake of our relationship. That should be done for the sake of peace in Europe.”

The Russian leader’s pleas fell on deaf ears. “Well, Boris,” Clinton replied, “I want to work with you to try and bring an end to this, but I don’t believe there is any way to call off the first round of strikes because Milosevic continues to displace thousands of people every day… I don’t want this to be a great source of a split between Russia and Europe and Russia and the US. We have worked too hard. There are too many economic and political things for us to do together, and I regret this more than I can say.”

The American president was outright lying to his Russian counterpart – the events in Kosovo were unfolding along the lines of a carefully scripted game plan that had been in motion for some time. War was inevitable because the US, through the CIA, had shaped the narrative to make it so. Worse, the US president was willing to sacrifice relations between the US and Russia in pursuit of this NATO objective. This fact was driven home by Yeltsin in his closing remarks.
“[O]ur people,” Yeltsin lamented, “will certainly from now on have a bad attitude with regard to America and NATO. I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn heads of our people, the heads of politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that. Well, since I failed to convince the President, that means there is in store for us a very difficult, difficult road of contacts, if they prove to be possible. Goodbye.”

March 1999, several facts stick out. First is that Spain, as a member of the United Nations, is bound by its commitment to the Charter of that organization. When it comes to the use of force, the UN Charter is quite clear – there are only two acceptable conditions under which such force might be legitimately employed by a member state. One is an enforcement action to maintain international peace and security, carried under the authority of a resolution passed by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. The other is the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter.
As Spanish bombs fell on Serbian soil, two things were quite clear – there was no Chapter VII resolution in existence which authorized an enforcement action against Serbia, and Serbia had committed no act of aggression against either Spain or its NATO allies that would justify any claim of self-defense in explaining the Spanish (and NATO) military assault on Serbia.
In short, by dropping bombs on Serbia, the Spanish Air Force was initiating an illegal war of aggression. “To initiate a war of aggression,”the judges who comprised the International Military Tribunal convened in Nuremburg to judge the crimes of Nazi Germany, declared, “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulative evil of the whole.”
Spain wasn’t alone that night – aircraft from the air forces of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and other NATO members participated in this “supreme international crime.” Viewed individually, there is no doubt that each nation involved in the attack on Serbia violated the UN Charter and, as such, is guilty of the crime of initiating an illegal war of aggression.
Not so fast! NATO, it seems, had crafted a novel legal argument built around the notion that it had a right to anticipatory collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and that this right was properly exercised under “normative expectation that permits anticipatory collective self-defense actions by regional security or self-defense organizations where the organization is not entirely dominated by a single member.” NATO, ignoring the obvious reality that it is, indeed, dominated by the United States, postulates that it is, indeed, such an organization, comprised as it is of “a number of powerful states, three of which are permanent members of the Security Council.”
The credibility of the NATO claim of “anticipatory collective self-defense,”however, arises from its characterization of the Kosovo crisis as a humanitarian disaster infused with elements of genocide which created not only a moral justification for intervention, but a moral necessity.

The problem for NATO is that its legal justification was built on a foundation of lies. The fiction that NATO is an organization not entirely dominated by the United States evaporates the moment one understands the role played by the CIA in preparing the script used by NATO to justify its actions. The fact that this script promulgated outright fabrications of alleged crimes perpetrated by Serbia to justify NATO military intervention only underscores the criminal nature of the entire NATO enterprise.
There is no escaping the fact that when the first bomb dropped by the Spanish Air Force on Serbia that evening 23 years ago to this date impacted on the ground, Spain and every other member of NATO had committed the “ultimate crime.”
That this crime remains unpunished is a travesty of international justice. That this crime remains unrecognized by those who perpetrated it is a testament to the hypocrisy of nations. That this crime set in motion the events that have led to the current state of affairs between the US and NATO on the one hand, and Russia on the other, is a global tragedy.

AND ...

Ten years after NATO intervention, Libya remains unstable

In 2011, the international community supported rebel forces against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. But hopes of democracy and stability have yet to be fulfilled.

Eleven Years Ago: US-NATO Invasion of Libya and Its Consequences

The US-NATO invasion of Libya was not restricted to air raids. In the opening hours of the attack, American and British war ships and submarines fired scores of cruise missiles which, by 21 March 2011, had wiped out Gaddafi’s entire strategic air defence system along the Libyan coastline. US B-2 spirit bombers destroyed Libya’s largest airport, in the capital Tripoli, while Tornado aircraft launched Storm Shadow missiles at numerous strategic targets.

Gaddafi’s critical mistake “was to give up his nuclear weapons agenda”, as noted by prominent Indian historian Vijay Prashad (1). In a deal with the Western powers, Gaddafi had abandoned the enrichment of uranium for nuclear bombs, while sanctions were lifted on Libya. Various nations, including Iran and North Korea, informed Gaddafi that it was a serious error to weaken his defences and pursue overtly friendly relations with the West.

Through ostensibly outsourcing the war to NATO, Washington could deny accountability, and in the background apply the full measure of its economic and military power. 

Gaddafi had ample warning of the imperialist states’ untrustworthy nature, and the brutal manner of their offensives. In the 1999 US-NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, Serbia’s third largest city, Niš, was struck with hundreds of “precision-guided” missiles, only 2% of which landed on military installations. Serbia as a whole was subjected to NATO cluster bomb attacks which killed women, children and the elderly. During the Kosovo War, the NATO list of civilian targets for their bombing of Yugoslavia, codenamed “Stage Three”, was published on the internet and completely ignored by the mass media.

Civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia earmarked for attack by NATO ranged from hospitals and schools, to museums and churches (25). Canada’s Ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bissell said, “It was common knowledge that NATO then went to Stage Three: Civilian targets. Otherwise they would not have been bombing bridges on Sunday afternoons and market places”.

The US-NATO invasion of Libya was not restricted to air raids. In the opening hours of the attack, American and British war ships and submarines fired scores of cruise missiles which, by 21 March 2011, had wiped out Gaddafi’s entire strategic air defence system along the Libyan coastline. US B-2 spirit bombers destroyed Libya’s largest airport, in the capital Tripoli, while Tornado aircraft launched Storm Shadow missiles at numerous strategic targets.

Gaddafi’s critical mistake “was to give up his nuclear weapons agenda”, as noted by prominent Indian historian Vijay Prashad (1). In a deal with the Western powers, Gaddafi had abandoned the enrichment of uranium for nuclear bombs, while sanctions were lifted on Libya. Various nations, including Iran and North Korea, informed Gaddafi that it was a serious error to weaken his defences and pursue overtly friendly relations with the West.

Through ostensibly outsourcing the war to NATO, Washington could deny accountability, and in the background apply the full measure of its economic and military power. 

Gaddafi had ample warning of the imperialist states’ untrustworthy nature, and the brutal manner of their offensives. In the 1999 US-NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, Serbia’s third largest city, Niš, was struck with hundreds of “precision-guided” missiles, only 2% of which landed on military installations. Serbia as a whole was subjected to NATO cluster bomb attacks which killed women, children and the elderly. During the Kosovo War, the NATO list of civilian targets for their bombing of Yugoslavia, codenamed “Stage Three”, was published on the internet and completely ignored by the mass media.

Civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia earmarked for attack by NATO ranged from hospitals and schools of civilian targets for their bombing of Yugoslavia, codenamed “Stage Three”, was published on the internet and completely ignored by the mass media.

Civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia earmarked for attack by NATO ranged from hospitals and schools, to museums and churches (25). Canada’s Ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bissell said, “It was common knowledge that NATO then went to Stage Three: Civilian targets. Otherwise they would not have been bombing bridges on Sunday afternoons and market places”.

A key reason for the attack on Yugoslavia was that its president,[b] Slobodan Milosevic,[/b] had not been sufficiently obeying Washington’s orders, like Gaddafi after him. Canadian author Michael Ignatieff outlined that “the really decisive impulse” behind the invasion of Yugoslavia “was the need to impose NATO’s will on a leader [Milosevic] whose defiance, first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo, was undermining the credibility of American and European diplomacy and of NATO’s willpower”.

So NATO has a history of ATTACKING and not just defending, as it is claimed to just do OK!

Russia had great cause for concern when NATO creeped eastwards towards its very border by courting Ukraine. 

Personal Disclosure:  NATO fucked around and found out that Russia has its red line in the sand limits and woe betide those who ignore that eh. 

[Ninurta]

I'm not disputing that the US and NATO regularly make illegal attacks on parties that have presented no threat to them - that's one of the reasons I think NATO should be disbanded. They have outlived their remit when the Soviet Union collapsed, and every since then, they've just found smaller countries to pick on and attack unprovoked, so it's past time to dissolve them, I'm just wondering when they have ever commited an unprovoked attack against RUSSIA, to warrant the use of the phrase "existential threat" against NATO.

Bosnia, Ksovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, etc, while all suffering illegal attacks from the US and NATO, are not Russia. When did NATO become an existential threat against Russia?

.

[Grace]

I'm not disputing that the US and NATO regularly make illegal attacks on parties that have presented no threat to them - that's one of the reasons I think NATO should be disbanded. They have outlived their remit when the Soviet Union collapsed, and every since then, they've just found smaller countries to pick on and attack unprovoked, so it's past time to dissolve them, I'm just wondering when they have ever commited an unprovoked attack against RUSSIA, to warrant the use of the phrase "existential threat" against NATO.

Bosnia, Ksovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, etc, while all suffering illegal attacks from the US and NATO, are not Russia. When did NATO become an existential threat against Russia?

.

When did they become an existential threat to Russia? 

Now ..... now. 

Have you missed these last few years? The Nation State versus Globalisation models of government... Russia getting the brunt of the globalists hate and ire, just as Trump got it here. 

The globalists are making a huge power play right now, and Russia is in their cross hairs... I see it as overtly threatening to the existence of Russia AS IT IS RUN now. 

And that's what is "existential" about it. Just like we see it as "existential" to loose our constitutional rights and freedoms here.  It's existential to their way of life to become another vassal state to the NWO.

[Ninurta]

I'm not disputing that the US and NATO regularly make illegal attacks on parties that have presented no threat to them - that's one of the reasons I think NATO should be disbanded. They have outlived their remit when the Soviet Union collapsed, and every since then, they've just found smaller countries to pick on and attack unprovoked, so it's past time to dissolve them, I'm just wondering when they have ever commited an unprovoked attack against RUSSIA, to warrant the use of the phrase "existential threat" against NATO.

Bosnia, Ksovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, etc, while all suffering illegal attacks from the US and NATO, are not Russia. When did NATO become an existential threat against Russia?

.

When did they become an existential threat to Russia? 

Now ..... now. 

Have you missed these last few years? The Nation State versus Globalisation models of government... Russia getting the brunt of the globalists hate and ire, just as Trump got it here. 

The globalists are making a huge power play right now, and Russia is in their cross hairs... I see it as overtly threatening to the existence of Russia AS IT IS RUN now. 

And that's what is "existential" about it. Just like we see it as "existential" to loose our constitutional rights and freedoms here.  It's existential to their way of life to become another vassal state to the NWO.

I can see what you're saying, but that still doesn't make the US an existential threat against Russia. It makes the globalists an existential threat, but not the US, nor even NATO. Per your own observation, WE are under the very same existential threat, so it would make more sense to ally with us against the common enemy than it would make to nuke the crap out of a potential ally in the fight, thereby weakening one's own position in the long run.

Threatening the US is threatening the wrong target in that scenario.

======================

Here is a fun video. It's speculative musings on Russian targeting. It makes some fundamentally wrong assumptions in order to maximize and sensationalize the presumed outcome, but the specific targeting speculations are fairly accurate - they just try to ramp things up for a worst-case scenario.

For example, they appear to assume every explosion will be a ground burst for maximum fireball damage and radiation AND an air burst for maximum destruction radius. It can't be both, but who am I to ruin a good scare video?

They also used that old hackneyed scare tactic of "what if they dropped a Tsar Bomba on New York?", same as the fear porn purveyors back in the '80's did to college kids with "what if they dropped a 100 MT bomb on the nearest city to YOU?", while failing to mention that there was no such thing as a 100 MT bomb, just like there is no more Tsar Bomba.

"What ifs" are fun, especially when they fail to mention that they cannot happen and it's all just fear porn.

Even at the maximum fear setting, I was shocked to hear them admit that a full third of the US population would be entirely untouched by either the explosions or even the fallout from such an exchange. You have to listen closely, but they admit that very thing in the middle of all the fear porn.

They may be employing a similar tactic to what my teachers did back when I was in school, and we had to practice all those drills where you hide under your desk against the 'splosion and face away from the windows against the flash... and we had to watch all those "scary" movies about the results of the Hirishima and Nagasaki nukes. Our teachers would talk the movies up about how "hell on Earth" , grotie, and just plain scary they were, but the movies were never as bad as they were talked up to be. I asked a teacher why they did that to us once, and he said "because if you are over-prepared, then the shock to your system is less when you see the actual movies."

Did you know: at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ONLY times nukes have ever been deployed for realz, there was NO detectable fallout at all, in either case? At Nagasaki, there was no firestorm, either. Fallout and firestorms are not a given for nuclear explosions. In most cases, if done right, there will be no appreciable fallout at all. That is because the fireball must make contact with the ground if there is to be any fallout generated, but at explosion heights that low, the blast radius is minimized, the destruction circle smaller, less destruction at the flash point, because more energy is being channeled into the ground and into generating fallout. The only time surface bursts like that are warranted is when one is trying to bust missile silos, which is a vast minority of the potential targets. The rest of the time, you want a wider path of destruction, so you have to pop the egg at a height too great to generate appreciable fallout.

Like at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



.

[Snarl]

Because of that property, a distributed barrage of 100 kt bombs does a lot more damage than one big Tsar Bomba. So nuclear forces have gone mostly to smaller warheads, 100 to 300 kt,and loaded them into MIRV warheads for a shotgun effect. So far as is public knowledge, ALL of the 1 to 3 MT warheads, the biggest we had deployed during the Cold War, have been decommissioned and replaced with smaller 100 to 300 kt warheads, each having about 1/10th the "power" of the bigger boys we used to deploy.

I remember some stats. Two ICBM loads of warheads could utterly flatten everything in a 30 mile radius like it was ground zero at Hiroshima. They do this with 'elegant patterning' (I'll probably be under arrest here in a few days -chuckle-). I also remember that most attack patterns were to be straight line. And, the re-entry speeds were astronomically higher than anything you see in unclassified reporting.

Bad thing about ICBMs is that when you fire them, "It's on like Donkey Kong." It's at that moment you find out who 'believes you' amongst the members of the nuclear club.

The real threat comes from the subs. Those can take down all command and control within 3 1/2 minutes anywhere that that is desired. Anywhere being the operative word. I also believed subs would be used to annihilate China if it ever got down to it. And the estimates were annihilation within 30 minutes of launch orders being issued and a zero percent chance of retaliation.

All of that info is at least 30 years old now. Probably most of it is still very accurate.

Probably the bigger threat to Putin (bio-warfare aside) where our Ukrainian BS is involved is getting our advanced anti-missile capability closer to his borders. Those systems can peer deeply beyond the border and they see 'everything'. China about lost its mind because we were always deploying the latest and greatest to Korea to counter the North Korean Kim threats. If the Patriot pissed 'em off ... the THAAD was a swift kick in the balls. I don't even know what the latest and greatest is anymore.