Russia the most powerful nuclear country
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...
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 ChaosI understand now.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by inimalistso if war happens than usa citizens are safe for the most part?
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.
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.