Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We have far more nukes than anyone and, have nukes like the Tsar Bomb which at full power is 6 times more powerful than any nuke on the planet.

( when they tested it it was holding back) they reduced it to half the power when testing so the bomber plane wouldnt get destroyed by the blast.
That was long ago emagine what they have now...

They never built another Tsar Bomba because the concept went out of date very quickly. Modern nuclear weapons launch a bunch of moderately sized warheads to cover an area.

wouldnt it be better to make one large nuke that will destroy a whole country than to deploy hundreds of regular nukes to specific areas?

No.

Yep, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

Originally posted by ares834
No. Why?

Originally posted by Bentley
Yep, that's pretty much the end of the discussion.



Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Why?

Think about it for a few seconds. Because it's wasting a ton of energy by destroying land where almost no one lives.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
wouldnt it be better to make one large nuke that will destroy a whole country than to deploy hundreds of regular nukes to specific areas?

No.

First consider the size of a country you might wish to annihilate. Let's take something moderately sized like France. It's about 450 kilometers in radius.

The area of an explosion rises by the cube root of the energy of the explosion (a bomb 10x as powerful destroys an area 2.15 times as wide). The Tsar Bomba flattened everything within 30km. To flatten France with one bomb it would need a yield . . . (math) . . . 3375 times as powerful. For scale the Tsar Bomba was only 2775 times as powerful as the Little Boy bomb.

There's also the fact that one huge bomb puts all your eggs in one basket. If it fails the whole attack fails. Flatten each major city with a smaller weapon and even if they stop half of them the attack is a success.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No.

First consider the size of a country you might wish to annihilate. Let's take something moderately sized like France. It's about 450 kilometers in radius.

The area of an explosion rises by the cube root of the energy of the explosion (a bomb 10x as powerful destroys an area 2.15 times as wide). The Tsar Bomba flattened everything within 30km. To flatten France with one bomb it would need a yield . . . (math) . . . 3375 times as powerful. For scale the Tsar Bomba was only 2775 times as powerful as the Little Boy bomb.

There's also the fact that one huge bomb puts all your eggs in one basket. If it fails the whole attack fails. Flatten each major city with a smaller weapon and even if they stop half of them the attack is a success. I understand now.

Okay lets say it is non nuclear war.a country want to bomb our major cities and bases,can the usa prevent all bombing attemps?
Can icbms be shot down? Whats the possibility of russia succesfully bombing a usa city?

And we're worried about Iran


haermm

Yeah we seem to have plenty of aspiring nuke bombers right here.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Okay lets say it is non nuclear war.a country want to bomb our major cities and bases,can the usa prevent all bombing attemps?

it really depends on the nation and the target. By ICBM, only Russia and China have the ability to launch them from silos and only France and Britain added to that if we include sub launched. In terms of "what is the most likely thing to hit an American city", those would be it, though they are reduced in efficiency by thousands of times given they aren't nuclear armed in this case. Failing a 100% effective missile shield, Russia and possibly China (UK or France I suppose, but they are NATO allies, so idk) could probably land a strike on an American city.

In terms of bases, any of these nations could use missiles to hit them, American military bases are much softer targets, in terms of accessibility, than is the American mainland.

In terms of bombers or other aircraft, only a handful of nations on the planet have aircraft carriers, and none have the naval power to defend them from the Americans, so bombing from a naval position is unlikely. The most likely bombing path into America then is over the north pole across Canada, for Russia at least, which has been an actively monitored route by NORAD since the cold war, making it unlikely that aircraft would reach anything south of Alaska. Hawaii is another potential target, and I guess I could see someone reaching either coast with a strong enough force in the air, but American defenses should easily stop most bombing runs coming at the mainland across the ocean. Again, bases throughout the world would be much more vulnerable, though should have more defenses against planes than missiles.

I suppose the only really "successful" situation I could see were if Canada or Mexico or Cuba just up and randomly attacked a city near the boarder, but such action would ultimately lead to the obliteration of any nation within the Americas.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Can icbms be shot down?

yes, but there has never been a combat situation test of the American missile shield, there are reasons to think it wont be 100% effective, and the Russians have already developed new missiles that it contends will be able to penetrate the system (both land and sub launched ICBMs)

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Whats the possibility of russia succesfully bombing a usa city?

if they just all out launched all their missiles and all their planes for one massive suicidal attack? ya, they would hit most of their targets, but the attack would be so costly and leave them so vulnerable that it wouldn't be worth it at all.

In fact, hitting American cities wouldn't really even be the best choice of attack. Even with nuclear weapons, the idea isn't to try and eliminate the population, it is to try and remove the ability of your target to attack back. A surprise Russian attack would have to focus on military bases and civilian institutions in order to cripple the American's ability to launch a proper defense or counter-offensive. This is why ICBMs are aimed at the opponent's missile silos in an attempt to prevent them from returning fire. Hell, the first "early warning" systems weren't set up to defend against the attack, but just to ensure you got to press the red button before the other guy's bombs hit you. Bombing cities would have massive casualties, sure, and makes for great fear-mongering propaganda, but there is way more strategy to it than that.

So, uh, Colossus, you know something we don't know? Collecting info for some ulterior purpose, perhaps?

Originally posted by Mindship
So, uh, Colossus, you know something we don't know? Collecting info for some ulterior purpose, perhaps? Yes i do know something that will happen, thats why i need this information

Originally posted by inimalist
it really depends on the nation and the target. By ICBM, only Russia and China have the ability to launch them from silos and only France and Britain added to that if we include sub launched. In terms of "what is the most likely thing to hit an American city", those would be it, though they are reduced in efficiency by thousands of times given they aren't nuclear armed in this case. Failing a 100% effective missile shield, Russia and possibly China (UK or France I suppose, but they are NATO allies, so idk) could probably land a strike on an American city.

In terms of bases, any of these nations could use missiles to hit them, American military bases are much softer targets, in terms of accessibility, than is the American mainland.

In terms of bombers or other aircraft, only a handful of nations on the planet have aircraft carriers, and none have the naval power to defend them from the Americans, so bombing from a naval position is unlikely. The most likely bombing path into America then is over the north pole across Canada, for Russia at least, which has been an actively monitored route by NORAD since the cold war, making it unlikely that aircraft would reach anything south of Alaska. Hawaii is another potential target, and I guess I could see someone reaching either coast with a strong enough force in the air, but American defenses should easily stop most bombing runs coming at the mainland across the ocean. Again, bases throughout the world would be much more vulnerable, though should have more defenses against planes than missiles.

I suppose the only really "successful" situation I could see were if Canada or Mexico or Cuba just up and randomly attacked a city near the boarder, but such action would ultimately lead to the obliteration of any nation within the Americas.



yes, but there has never been a combat situation test of the American missile shield, there are reasons to think it wont be 100% effective, and the Russians have already developed new missiles that it contends will be able to penetrate the system (both land and sub launched ICBMs)



if they just all out launched all their missiles and all their planes for one massive suicidal attack? ya, they would hit most of their targets, but the attack would be so costly and leave them so vulnerable that it wouldn't be worth it at all.

In fact, hitting American cities wouldn't really even be the best choice of attack. Even with nuclear weapons, the idea isn't to try and eliminate the population, it is to try and remove the ability of your target to attack back. A surprise Russian attack would have to focus on military bases and civilian institutions in order to cripple the American's ability to launch a proper defense or counter-offensive. This is why ICBMs are aimed at the opponent's missile silos in an attempt to prevent them from returning fire. Hell, the first "early warning" systems weren't set up to defend against the attack, but just to ensure you got to press the red button before the other guy's bombs hit you. Bombing cities would have massive casualties, sure, and makes for great fear-mongering propaganda, but there is way more strategy to it than that. so if war happens than usa citizens are safe for the most part?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so if war happens than usa citizens are safe for the most part?

not at all

many live near legitimate military targets

... and if you are the right age, then you will be drafted.

Originally posted by inimalist

In fact, hitting American cities wouldn't really even be the best choice of attack. Even with nuclear weapons, the idea isn't to try and eliminate the population, it is to try and remove the ability of your target to attack back. A surprise Russian attack would have to focus on military bases and civilian institutions in order to cripple the American's ability to launch a proper defense or counter-offensive. This is why ICBMs are aimed at the opponent's missile silos in an attempt to prevent them from returning fire. Hell, the first "early warning" systems weren't set up to defend against the attack, but just to ensure you got to press the red button before the other guy's bombs hit you. Bombing cities would have massive casualties, sure, and makes for great fear-mongering propaganda, but there is way more strategy to it than that.
Which is why America would have Russia's number in a nuclear conflict. Submarines are all but impossible to target for a pre-arranged attack unless you have some incredibly good intel (like competent spies on every submarine relaying constant information on secure channels)

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Yes i do know something that will happen, thats why i need this information

Dare I ask, what is going to happen?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
First consider the size of a country you might wish to annihilate. Let's take something moderately sized like France. They've suffered enough, you monster. haermm

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is why America would have Russia's number in a nuclear conflict. Submarines are all but impossible to target for a pre-arranged attack unless you have some incredibly good intel (like competent spies on every submarine relaying constant information on secure channels)

True, and I agree America would end up the victor in that conflict, but Russia isn't too far behind.

They have like 20 of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M

for sure, more liable to get hit than a sub during a first strike, but still, the Russians aren't without 2nd strike capacity. idk, I tend to see MAD between the US and Russia as being still in place, I think everyone realizes that the Russians are slipping (hence why they are trying to bolster their arms cache and develop new subs etc) but the conflict, regardless of who had first strike, would be so Pyrrhic for the Americans that it wouldn't be worth it at all. imho at least.

Originally posted by inimalist
True, and I agree America would end up the victor in the conflict, but Russia isn't without second strike.

They have like 20 of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M

for sure, more liable to get hit than a sub during a first strike, but still, the Russians aren't without 2nd strike capacity. idk, I tend to see MAD between the US and Russia as being still in place, I think everyone realizes that the Russians are slipping (hence why they are trying to bolster their arms cache and develop new subs etc) but the conflict, regardless of who had first strike, would be so Pyrrhic for the Americans that it wouldn't be worth it at all. imho at least.

I was thinking that as the technology for interceptors matures, conventional nuke delivery is going to become useless/void. There are already systems in place that can intercept (though not perfect) incoming ballistics. More technologies are being worked on, too.

I think that if nuclear warfare will be waged, it will have to be done with discreet delivery (like a dude setting it off in a subway).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking that as the technology for interceptors matures, conventional nuke delivery is going to become useless/void. There are already systems in place that can intercept (though not perfect) incoming ballistics. More technologies are being worked on, too.

I think that if nuclear warfare will be waged, it will have to be done with discreet delivery (like a dude setting it off in a subway).

the Russians claim their modern missiles are able to penetrate anything the Americans have

Though I'm curious, I suppose I hope we never learn the answer

The problem with such small scale stuff is that it is more of a psychological warfare than warfare aimed at destroying the enemy. People with briefcases and car bombs wont get close enough to destroy the military infrastructure. You could set one off in a very heavily populated area, however, you are unlikely to get one into the place where they are manufacturing tanks or planes or whatever. Additionally, if would be far more difficult for coordinated first strikes, etc.

I'd suspect we'd see the militarization of space before defensive technology comes to the point where there is no long range type of equivalent of the modern ICBM.

Originally posted by inimalist
the Russians claim their modern missiles are able to penetrate anything the Americans have

Though I'm curious, I suppose I hope we never learn the answer

It's typical boasting and both sides do it. But it is impossible to stop an interceptor when it has 3 methods of tracking. They would have to be claiming "Star Trek" levels of cloaking which is a bit absurd on their part.

Originally posted by inimalist
The problem with such small scale stuff is that it is more of a psychological warfare than warfare aimed at destroying the enemy. People with briefcases and car bombs wont get close enough to destroy the military infrastructure. You could set one off in a very heavily populated area, however, you are unlikely to get one into the place where they are manufacturing tanks or planes or whatever. Additionally, if would be far more difficult for coordinated first strikes, etc.

I'd suspect we'd see the militarization of space before defensive technology comes to the point where there is no long range type of equivalent of the modern ICBM.

What is the use of nuclear warfare other than to destroy civilians and military targets at the same time?

But, I would not put it past a new-age of nuclear weapons that are built from things like cars.

A nuke that is built to look like a functional car could be a discreet delivery method. Then there's the old school infiltration methods: spies. So combining the two into a delivery package is possible: nuking a military facility via car-bomb-nuke. The person delivers it because he or she works there. The warhead can be more than small enough, even at decent yields (100 Kt), to fit on a vehicle. The warhead from the MGM-52 is definitely small enough to be fit on a medium car (sedan). It would not take clever engineering, either. Bombs with higher yields could probably be custom built into cars for a very potent yet discreet delivery.

The only way to detect this stuff would be radiation leaks from the fission materials. They could mitigate this by having duplicate cars and never exposing the "deliverer" to the payload UNTIL the day of delivery.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is why America would have Russia's number in a nuclear conflict. what does this mean?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what does this mean?
it's an idiom, to have someone's number means you can/will beat them.

unless cyber warfare renders many usa icbms usless. and cause submerines to go off course.

one of our stealth planes was hacked, now they have the tech to make stealth bombers. they say they can hack missles and make them go off course and even return and bomb its point of launch.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
wouldnt it be better to make one large nuke that will destroy a whole country than to deploy hundreds of regular nukes to specific areas?


Do you have any idea what the implications would be if an entire country were to be nuked? Could you imagine if the dearest people in your life were caught up in such a blast? Would it seem cool to you then?

First of all no one truly knows what lies behind the curtains of some countries, for all we know the most powerful military countries in the world are the ones feigning weakness, or crying broke. The best question would be, which country in our world has the least amount of debt.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
unless cyber warfare renders many usa icbms usless. and cause submerines to go off course.

Cyberwarfare very well could render nukes useless.

Warfare against control systems (PLCs and other systems used for things like electricity and water) is a new area that security is just now closely improving. Generally, hackers do not even mess with that stuff because it could actually kill someone. Hackers are more interested in the "high profile" targets. It does not get you lulz to kill an old-lady by cutting off her clean water supply or electricity. It does, however, get you lulz to hack the DoD.

But...it would be easy to hack into much of the control systems and do more monetary damage than a nuke could.

"Hacking the DoD" or "Hacking the CIA" inevitably means defacing their website. Systems like missile control would never be connected to the internet to begin with, you'd have to get into the building.

Originally posted by Stoic
Do you have any idea what the implications would be if an entire country were to be nuked? Could you imagine if the dearest people in your life were caught up in such a blast? Would it seem cool to you then?

First of all no one truly knows what lies behind the curtains of some countries, for all we know the most powerful military countries in the world are the ones feigning weakness, or crying broke. The best question would be, which country in our world has the least amount of debt. debt isnt bad

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Hacking the DoD" or "Hacking the CIA" inevitably means defacing their website. Systems like missile control would never be connected to the internet to begin with, you'd have to get into the building. they need gps, which can easily be hacked. also iirc china routed all amercan internet content through there servers before ( which means everything on the internet, like this very website even cia content. EVERTHING.)

Originally posted by Stoic
First of all no one truly knows what lies behind the curtains of some countries, for all we know the most powerful military countries in the world are the ones feigning weakness, or crying broke.

Every major world power devotes resources to investigating that kind of thing. Weapons don't spring into existence out of nowhere. If Luxembourg started importing uranium by the truckfull everybody would know about it.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Yes i do know something that will happen, thats why i need this information Then make sure you stock up on water and duct tape. Though if a nuclear exchange were big enough, you'd also need at least one good snow shovel.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Every major world power devotes resources to investigating that kind of thing. Weapons don't spring into existence out of nowhere. If Luxembourg started importing uranium by the truckfull everybody would know about it.

I always knew the Greeks, the Irish, and Luxembourg were up to something.

Originally posted by Mindship
Then make sure you stock up on water and duct tape. Though if a nuclear exchange were big enough, you'd also need at least one good snow shovel. Alright

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
We have far more nukes than anyone and, have nukes like the Tsar Bomb which at full power is 6 times more powerful than any nuke on the planet.

( when they tested it it was holding back) they reduced it to half the power when testing so the bomber plane wouldnt get destroyed by the blast.
That was long ago emagine what they have now...

1: The Tsar bomba was tested at 50mt not because the plane would get destroyed but because the radiation generated would've contaminated half the Soviet block.

2: The Tsar Bomba was never deployable because there isn't a plane or a missle on earth capable of delivering it to this day.

3: The reason Russia developed more powerful bombs was to make up for the fact that their missiles were completely unreliable in actually hitting their targets.