First Soviet ICBM becomes strategically operational on 9 Febuary 1959

And from then on the Soviet Union could reliable target the American mainland without having to rely on their limited number of nuclear bombers and bombs at the time. Truman and Eisenhower were a mistake, and Patton and MacArthur were right. They should have done the needful when they had a nuclear monopoly. Now MAD is inevitable.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1945
    >The US has nukes, the USSR doesn't.
    >Let's just hand over half of Europe into Russian slavery for the lulz.
    The real mistake was FDR and his administration.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The USA only had 133 bombs ready to use by 1949. To sufficiently wipe out most important Eastern Bloc targets the attack would need to be done then or preferably some time in the 50s before Soviet ICBMs were operational. Missed opportunity of the millennium right there. MAD never had to even be a thing but incompetent leadership ruins everything as always.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frick it, get the party started in 1945

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What just start nuking Soviet cities and military infrastructure as the bombs get produced? In the 1940s we were capable of producing a handful per month at most.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's far more than they can take with their battered army/population (same thing for commies really), industry, and an occupation full of people who despise them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How many of us wouldn't be here because of death grandfathers?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The most important Eastern block targets would have been their major cities or transportation links. Industry can't survive without food, and Russia at the during ww2 time was hell dependant on the USA.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I must kill
      Come on now. Curb your panic-driven bloodlust.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      frick Europe, not my problem

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      US handed over half of Europe
      > in exchange for Russia declaring war on Japan
      > in exchange for Russia allowing elections in territory it had yanked back from Germany
      Russia later said it would take months to declare war on Japan, because, you know, it's hard
      Russia later said "give us $1Billion (with an 'illion')" or we change our mind
      Lesson: never, ever negotiate with a Russian.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, polio didn't kill that fricker fast ebook

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Life will go on even if the the needful is redeemed with nukes. Life is just gonna suck some more for quite a while.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Huey Long's assassination is the greatest tragedy in human history. Had America stayed out of the war, Germany could have dealt with the Russian problem and established an early EU that would actually carry its weight militarily.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MAD hasn't existed since the 1990's.
    One US nuclear submarine could take out every single russian nuclear asset. Two could destroy every single strategic target in Russia (including cities) in under 20 minutes.

    Russia has no decent early warning
    No missile defense
    No kill vehicles

    Russian technology ground to a halt around 1985. They have no high tech capabilty. Even preparing a nuclear launch would be straight up suicide.
    Putin however has nothing to lose. He might well be crazy enough to draw the entire Russian population down into his grave with him

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He might well be crazy enough to draw the entire Russian population down into his grave with him
      We can only hope.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean they still have Don radars(pic), and I'm sure they actually work, since they were designed in Ukraine. russia may not completely destroy the US, but sure af it will still hurt

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't there a whole docomunetary about how half of these don't work or get used because they're too expensive.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is obsolete tech in 2024.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a SHF AESA radar with an insane size and ridiculous power that apparently had 69 bombs allocated for it in 1998 is suddenly obsolete because I say so
          i hope this is a bait post

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            1998 is 26 years ago.

            Not to mention that even back then it was already obsolete. This has almost no use against modern icbm tech. It is a cold war solution for a cold war scenario.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There it is! Fricking moron.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever gets you through the night, my friend

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you realise the level of anti icbm technology the US has up its sleave.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Like 100 GBI interceptors plus whatever SM-3s are hanging about, not enough to stop a full Russian magdump.

          This is the part where you use magical thinking to claim that the US can deactivate the atoms or some shit or outright claim that Russian nukes don't work.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Implying you are aware of the full spectrum of US anti icbm tech

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Magical thinking, a good choice.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wake me when you have an argument
                This is just too boring

                There is clear and documented data showing that modern us icbms are capable of destroying any kind of russian icbm inside their fortified silos.
                I'm not even going into the huge disparity of satelite and early warning tech.

                It remains to be seen if Russia would be able to get even a single warhead to the US in case of a full exchange. It's however a nobrainer that the us has the capability to wipe out russias assets fully.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >us icbms are capable of destroying any kind of russian icbm inside their fortified silos.
                Yea, but they're going to be in the air within a few moments of you launching your ICBMs.

                The US simply doesn't have the capability to intercept hundreds of simultaneous ICBMs. Maybe a few dozen would be possible to intercept without missing a single warhead, but once you're dealing with 100+ and add decoys and shit into the mix? Sorry but that's game over.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                These people think that, again, an AESA SHF ABM radar is obsolete because its core design is like 20 or so years old. They don't understand what AESA SHF ABM radar means, and they resort to magical thinking. I wouldn't bother arguing with these morons. The Ukrainian war brought them here, they genuinely think that anything non-American is just trash and that the US is superior to literally everything everywhere no matter what, and they're so moronic in arguing that it looks like a false flag. I hate them so much.

                Stop using psychological terms you have no idea how to use.

                Magical thinking is a perfectly appropriate description for what you people are doing. By the way an explanation for how the Don radars are obsolete please.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Yea, but they're going to be in the air within a few moments of you launching your ICBMs.

                This is simply not true.
                The US can strike targets in under 8 minutes after launch. Russia simple has early warning, threat assesment analysis fast enough to process this. In fact it hardly has any modern early warning systems at all. This while the US can detect launch preparations even before the launch happens, analyse it near instantly and process and transmit the data to attack units. On top of that the US has an entire spectrum of options to deal with icbms in preflight, midflight and terminal stages and that is only the stuff we know about.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that is only the stuff we know about.
                Saying this immediately invalidates your entire post.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US can strike targets in under 8 minutes after launch
                Lol lmao even

                With an air launched nuke from just outside Russian's border maybe.

                Certainly not an ICBM from mainlined USA.

                > An ICBM requires roughly 30 minutes to travel distances comparable to those between the United States and the Soviet Union.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Russia has satellites watching for silo launch signs 24/7 and if even a dozen of the hundreds of silos fired, Russia would know within moments, and would likely be opening their silo doors to fire back in less than 10 mins.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia has satellites watching for silo launch signs 24/7 and if even a dozen of the hundreds of silos fired, Russia would know within moments, and would likely be opening their silo doors to fire back in less than 10 mins.
                Russia is in a terrible state and so is its nuclear arsenal, Russia is not the USSR, not the Warsaw pact and it was effectively bankrupt for a decade after the collapse of communism relying on EU and US food aid. Nuclear weapons require an incredibly complex and specialized refit every decade or they stop working or diminish vastly in effect. Russia is no longer in a position of mutually assured destruction with NATO and has not been for a long time. Just the fact that members of the Russian public and administration make threats and idiots like you exist is enough of an excuse for me to see Russia nuked already. Russia is not a mighty military, not a mighty nuclear power, not a mighty diplomatic power or an economic one, it is a squalid dictatorship of 144 brainwashed morons, 1/3rd of them pensioners who celebrate mass murderers like Stalin and Putin. Russia is very lucky people more kind and loving and gentle than I are the leaders of NATO nations or Russia would already be a glass car park, which it absolutely will be if Putin tries ANYTHING involving radiation and as he had already been told.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >On top of that the US has an entire spectrum of options to deal with icbms in preflight, midflight and terminal stages and that is only the stuff we know about.
                SM-6 only reliably works during the boost phase, which means you need to be near the launch site. SM-3 and GMD can intercept during the mid-course phase, but requires expensive interceptors (minimum of 2 per target generally) and high quality discrimination to find the warheads in orbit among background clutter and potential decoys. And finally in the terminal phase we have GMD, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, and Patriot. Though terminal phase intercepts are tricky, if you miss you're fricked.

                We have the capability to intercept singular ICBMs, maybe even a couple at once, but we do not have the capability to intercept an all-out ICBM strike.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Full exchange is never going to happen, let alone that it is highly doubtful that Russia still has the ability to launch a large number of icbms simultanously and if they tried they would get detected and iced before launch. Subs are tracked nonstop.
                You only list missiles systems. There's a whole lot more between heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy...

                Russia has satellites watching for silo launch signs 24/7 and if even a dozen of the hundreds of silos fired, Russia would know within moments, and would likely be opening their silo doors to fire back in less than 10 mins.

                You live half a century in the past

                >The US can strike targets in under 8 minutes after launch
                Lol lmao even

                With an air launched nuke from just outside Russian's border maybe.

                Certainly not an ICBM from mainlined USA.

                > An ICBM requires roughly 30 minutes to travel distances comparable to those between the United States and the Soviet Union.

                And so do you

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Get back in your grave Ronald, SDI never worked

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stop using psychological terms you have no idea how to use.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >plus whatever SM-3s are hanging about
            And it isn't that many, in FY25 for example the US is only purchasing 12 SM-3s that's hardly going to deter a Russian or Chinese All-out nuclear strike.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MAD never existed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >hurr I think in this context destruction means x while everybody else thinks it means y and they're all wrong hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr derp

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          MAD was never pursued as a doctrine. Second strike capabilities are not MAD.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Second strike capabilities are not MAD.

            sure they are - they're actually key to MAD.
            as for MAD not being pursued as a doctrine - of course it was and is, and this is obvious if you look at the efforts made to protect second strike capability.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If you want MAD you develop cobalt bombs and the like that actually assure destruction.
              Second strike capabilities just ensure you can still use your nuclear weapons for tactical and strategic purposes. They can still be used in limited nuclear exchanges.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you want MAD you develop cobalt bombs and the like that actually

                We have MAD alredy, have had it for 70 years, and the only reason to develop new weapons or defense systems related to WMD's is to protect your second strike capability and maintain the doctrine of MAD - the idea that one could develop a weapon that would somehow guarantee total destruction of your opponent and not risk them using their second strike capability is ridiculous. Even if such a weapon was developed it's likely your opponent would develop it himself in short order, thus bringing you back to MAD.

                >Second strike capabilities just ensure you can still use your nucle

                No, second strike capability simply means you still have the ability to strike your opponent with strategic nuclear weapons if they launch theirs first - it acts as a deterent, is key to the doctrine of MAD.

                >They can still be used in limited nuclear exchanges.

                No, this is to be discouraged since first use is an escalation - besides the obvious geopolitical destabilization such use would provoke, use of nukes against a nation with second strike capability would risk MAD.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Countries like France, China, Britain, Israel or North Korea have very small stockpiles compared to the Russian or American ones. MAD is nowhere on the table. Even the deployed nuclear weapons for Russia and US have become very limited.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >very small stockpiles compared to the Russian or American ones.

                Not the point, since even a "small" stockpile of nuclear weapons can inflict vast amounts of damage on an adversary, ie an amount of damage that makes striking them not worth it in the first place. France and the UK are in NATO anyway, so the amount of nuke capability is somewhat moot.
                You can't really discount the value of MAD; it's stopped nuclear capable states risking their own annihilation for 70 odd years now, is surely worth something as a doctrine.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread seems to be implying that World's Second Best Army still has over 100 working nuclear warheads given the absurd precision of the detonation chain and maintenance that are needed.
    The same army was giving airsoft vests to their conquest army.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are 7 active Borei-class SSBNs with another 3 being built, and 4 more planned beyond those 3 for 14 total.

      Each one has 16 RSM-56 Bulava, each with 6 MIRVs.

      This means a single Borei-class submarine can potentially have 96 warheads that would need to be intercepted.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As T-14 or actually built and working?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Unlike the other forces, the russian submarine force has a massive budget and not nearly as much graft.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the russian submarine force has a massive budget and not nearly as much graft.

            There are 7 active Borei-class SSBNs with another 3 being built, and 4 more planned beyond those 3 for 14 total.

            Each one has 16 RSM-56 Bulava, each with 6 MIRVs.

            This means a single Borei-class submarine can potentially have 96 warheads that would need to be intercepted.

            The Russian submarine fleet from its onset has been riddled with incompetence, particularly its nuclear submarines which have a manifestly disastrous record of accidents and disaster, quite often driven by the utter ineptitude of its senior commanders. Neither is the Russian navy or submarine service responsible for maintaining and servicing corroded plutonium pits or tritium detonators or electronics. The current Russian submarine nuclear thread includes a bullshit nuclear tsunami that defies the laws of physics. All in all the evidence points to the Russian nuclear submarine capacity to being just as or even more inept and corrupt than the rest of the Russian military. From k19 to the kursk an absolute clusterfrick of epic moronic fails

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Russian_submarine_accidents

            And remember, Russia and the USSR were very secretive, this is just what we know off and not the inevitable additional irradiated vatniks at the bottom of the sea. Its almost as if the idiots in Moscow who are responsible for Chernobyl are poor incompetent corrupt and cruel leaders under which dysfunctionality, disaster and misery proliferates

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >All in all the evidence points to the Russian nuclear submarine capacity to being just as or even more inept and corrupt than the rest of the Russian military
              Not necessarily, submarine/nuclear disasters are just harder to hide, larger in scale, and a lot more shocking. Compare the degradation of Russia's submarine fleet to the rest of their forces since the USSR collapsed and their absolute state isn't so bad
              >Continued building subs through the 90s/2000s
              >New designs progressed past the render stage
              >Built more than a single boat in new classes
              >Only one major disaster since the Kursk
              >Fast and bulbous, pic related

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Compare land systems in development for the army, naval surface ship development, and airforce development since the fall of the soviet union.

              Russia has by FAR kept the submarine fleet the most up to date, and has kept the industry more or less intact from what it was in the soviet era.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you a Russian propagandist or are you stupid? Who told you the Russian submarines were well maintained and modernized? The same people who told you about the su57 and armata? Are you thick, a moron?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >everything that exists in the public sphere of knowledge is carefully designed to confuse and obfuscate
                > NOTHING IS REAL
                wewlad

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i always believe the kremlin about weapons also!

                >public sphere
                by that you mean russian state lies?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't based on russian media though

                https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45861/10

                This is a few years old, but they've only dumped more money into the subs in the past few years.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >> NOTHING IS REAL
                almost none of the claims Russia has made about its weapns systems from su57, to armata, to s400 to its carrier to its hyper sonic missiles have proven to be true and neither have it's claims of competency, quality or force readyness. Again are you stupid?

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Patton and MacArthur were right.
    we know,the greatest disaster was Roosevelt though who gave stalin eastern Europe as a human shield..

    "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not and that he doesn't want anything except security for his own country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.

    Response to advice from Ambassador William C. Bullitt to pursue a containment policy against the Soviet Union (1943)"
    The only US presidnet as bad as him was carter who ultimately gave the kims in North Korea nukes because 'you know man, like come on be cool give peace a chance'

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.
      And he was correct. USSR didn't annex any of the eastern european countries and was helping US fight against the remnants of european colonial empires (yes, back then US a key player in the fight for decolonization from Old Europe).
      Roosevelt policies were singlehandedly responsible for establishing the period after WWII that right-wing brainlets now refer to as the golden age of US and american dream.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And he was correct. USSR didn't annex any of the eastern european countries
        The kgb torture centers in riga and lublin say otherwise. What a vile excuse for a human you are to deny the lived experience of hundreds of millions who were forced to live in Russia's dystopian communist empire. Frick you

        >Roosevelt policies
        He died in 1945 and Truman saved Europe because Roosevelt was one of the greatest imaginable disasters in his appeasement of the evil mass murderer stalin..

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >kgb torture centers in riga and lublin

          etc etc

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USSR didn't annex any of the eastern european countries
        https://www.doomedsoldiers.com/torture-methods-of-ub.html

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *