If Russia acts a fool. When to leave the DMV?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alan3413

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 4, 2013
    14,145
    These days, it's probably a bunch of warheads in the 100s of kT range. Harder to take down all of them, but the end result's the same
     

    Ponder_MD

    Active Member
    Mar 9, 2020
    2,979
    Maryland
    If Russia hits Ukraine with a tactical nuke, I think there will be a period of "stunned silence" before a global response. Different than a direct ICBM attack on the US.

    This will give time for citizens to react. There will be chaos as people try to evacuate or change locations.

    I have a plan, it may work and it may not. It's none of your business.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    11,763
    If you live within 20 miles of a target also consider in actual use, not prearranged testing, what the actual accuracy might be. They might miss the target either because of poor quality control, damage to the delivery device, inadequate training, etc. Now if they miss by 5 or 10 miles (what is MOA for a 5,000 mile shot?) it depends on which direction they miss it could either drop it in your lap or mean you get almost no effect. Seems silly to be waiting to be vaporized with no preparation and all you see is a distant flash in the pan. If you prepare for the worst and you and your preparations get vaporized there is no time for regrets however if you do nothing to increase your chances and nothing happens to you and yours but TEOTWAWKI happens you will have a long time to regret as you starve, freeze, get sick from bad water, or from any number of other things you could have mitigated.
    Now baring issues, from what I am aware Russian ICBMs seem to have a demonstrated .1 mile CEP. How accurate they’d be when the ballon goes up, I don’t know. American ICBMs are better than that.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    11,763
    These days, it's probably a bunch of warheads in the 100s of kT range. Harder to take down all of them, but the end result's the same
    So Russia typically deploys larger nukes than we do. Their ICBMs run with either 400KT or 2MT warheads. The former for MRVs and the later solo warhead ICBMs. Typically 5 warheads a missile.

    The US standard is a 200KT warhead. IIRC it’s either 5 or 6 warheads per missile. There is a lot more space in the missiles, but there are a number of decoy ballutes and stuff like that to give out false radar and IR targets.
     

    SCARCQB

    Get Opp my rawn, Plick!
    Jun 25, 2008
    13,579
    Undisclosed location
    Russia no longer has tactical nukes in its arsenal. They were destroyed decades ago with the treaties that it agreed upon.

    If Russia uses a nuke, they will use a strategic nuclear weapon.

    Russian nuclear doctrine also prohibits the use of nukes unless the existence of Russia is actually imminent .

    Therefore, Russia losing the war in ukraine or a pre emptive nuclear strike on Russia will result in all out nuclear retaliation.

    We should be careful what we wish for.
     

    Kagetsu

    Member
    Feb 4, 2009
    423
    So Russia typically deploys larger nukes than we do. Their ICBMs run with either 400KT or 2MT warheads. The former for MRVs and the later solo warhead ICBMs. Typically 5 warheads a missile.

    The US standard is a 200KT warhead. IIRC it’s either 5 or 6 warheads per missile. There is a lot more space in the missiles, but there are a number of decoy ballutes and stuff like that to give out false radar and IR targets.
    Not after O'bama unilaterally de-mirved our missiles. They have also adopted a "ride it out" policy and will not launch on warning. They seem to expect a limited attack on military targets. They will then negotiate with retaliation on the cities with the lighter weapons from subs. They're believing that the limited military resources will make the global gov'ment possible. They'll need to disarm American citizens before that as we are the last major country without total gun control among the "new world" gov'ments.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    11,763
    Russia no longer has tactical nukes in its arsenal. They were destroyed decades ago with the treaties that it agreed upon.

    If Russia uses a nuke, they will use a strategic nuclear weapon.

    Russian nuclear doctrine also prohibits the use of nukes unless the existence of Russia is actually imminent .

    Therefore, Russia losing the war in ukraine or a pre emptive nuclear strike on Russia will result in all out nuclear retaliation.

    We should be careful what we wish for.
    You really have just a crap ton of misinformation. No, Russia did not destroy their tactical nukes. Of their ~5800 nuclear weapons, ~2000 of them are "tactical" nukes with yields in the 5-50KT range (and it is believed they have some around 1KT).

    The US also has a number of tactical nukes. Without looking it up though it is much smaller, only a few hundred. IIRC they are all B61 Mod something or others now (mod 4? 5?) that are dial a nukes that can go down as low as .3KT and up to I think around 40KT.

    Russia does not forward deploy their tactical nukes and none are "ready to go". It is very much go retrieve the warhead from secure (I HOPE!) storage, and then mount it to the delivery system, and then go launch it. They don't keep ALCMs with tactical nukes sitting in a depot bunker ready to mount on a Bison or anything like that. I'd imagine in half a day or a day they could have some ready to go. Assuming they are functional at all (and they might not be, based on what Russia's military looks like right now).

    Also that is incorrect. Their tactical nuclear weapon policy is significantly more relaxed than any country in the world. Their STATEGIC nuclear weapon policy is as you mentioned. But tactical nukes are under control of the theater commander, NOT the president of Russia (sure Putin could override them, but their doctrine does not require the theater commander to get Putin's okay. I'd be shocked though if they didn't make really sure they asked him even if they did have the authority).

    The biggest issue is Russia, very obviously, no longer possess the military wherewithal to actually use a tactical nuke on the battlefield as anything other than a demonstration weapon. Against an army, nukes are really only destructive at pretty short ranges unless it is troops in the open, or you are willing to use strategic weapons. If you are not directly exposed to the flash, the actual blast overpressure from something like a 10KT nuke in the woods, plains, etc. is really only going to be lethal within about a kilometer. That is a big area, but that is DIRECT exposure. If you are behind a bit of a hill, in the woods so that trees shield you some, in a fox hole, behind a building that doesn't collapse on you, let alone in a bunker (even just a basic trees with some dirt piled on top type) that lethal distance can be a couple of hundred meters instead. Troops in armored vehicles the same, the lethal blast radius against troops in an APC in the open might only be 500-600 meters if they are in the open. In a tank it might only be 300-400 meters.

    The way tactical nuclear weapons, doctrinally, are to be employed is to hit enemy lines with 1 or 2 of them, and then drive your armored forces straight up the middle of that conflagration and then pivot and flank the enemy lines, or immediately take the enemy line in the rear after passing through. Basically, strike them when they are stunned and wounded and before they can regroup at all.

    What are the odds Russian Generals can get their conscripts to storm right into a nuclear blast zone as the mushroom cloud hasn't even completely cooled? Prepared and trained troops, suited up in NBC gear, hatches closed and NBC filters running full blast sure. What Russia has? Well, Chernobyl shows the Russians are dumb. But not THAT dumb.

    At best Russia can do a demonstration strike. They almost certainly do not have the ability to use it to change the course of battle. If Russia hit the Ukranian front lines, or even a rear area with a tactical nuke, it would kill hundreds. It would not likely kill thousands. It might destroy scores of vehicles. It would not destroy many hundreds of tanks.
     
    Last edited:

    SCARCQB

    Get Opp my rawn, Plick!
    Jun 25, 2008
    13,579
    Undisclosed location
    You really have just a crap ton of misinformation. No, Russia did not destroy their tactical nukes. Of their ~5800 nuclear weapons, ~2000 of them are "tactical" nukes with yields in the 5-50KT range (and it is believed they have some around 1KT).

    The US also has a number of tactical nukes. Without looking it up though it is much smaller, only a few hundred. IIRC they are all B61 Mod something or others now (mod 4? 5?) that are dial a nukes that can go down as low as .3KT and up to I think around 40KT.

    Russia does not forward deploy their tactical nukes and none are "ready to go". It is very much go retrieve the warhead from secure (I HOPE!) storage, and then mount it to the delivery system, and then go launch it. They don't keep ALCMs with tactical nukes sitting in a depot bunker ready to mount on a Bison or anything like that. I'd imagine in half a day or a day they could have some ready to go. Assuming they are functional at all (and they might not be, based on what Russia's military looks like right now).

    Also that is incorrect. Their tactical nuclear weapon policy is significantly more relaxed than any country in the world. Their STATEGIC nuclear weapon policy is as you mentioned. But tactical nukes are under control of the theater commander, NOT the president of Russia (sure Putin could override them, but their doctrine does not require the theater commander to get Putin's okay. I'd be shocked though if they didn't make really sure they asked him even if they did have the authority).

    The biggest issue is Russia, very obviously, no longer possess the military wherewithal to actually use a tactical nuke on the battlefield as anything other than a demonstration weapon. Against an army, nukes are really only destructive at pretty short ranges unless it is troops in the open, or you are willing to use strategic weapons. If you are not directly exposed to the flash, the actual blast overpressure from something like a 10KT nuke in the woods, plains, etc. is really only going to be lethal within about a kilometer. That is a big area, but that is DIRECT exposure. If you are behind a bit of a hill, in the woods so that trees shield you some, in a fox hole, behind a building that doesn't collapse on you, let alone in a bunker (even just a basic trees with some dirt piled on top type) that lethal distance can be a couple of hundred meters instead. Troops in armored vehicles the same, the lethal blast radius against troops in an APC in the open might only be 500-600 meters if they are in the open. In a tank it might only be 300-400 meters.

    The way tactical nuclear weapons, doctrinally, are to be employed is to hit enemy lines with 1 or 2 of them, and then drive your armored forces straight up the middle of that conflagration and then pivot and flank the enemy lines, or immediately take the enemy line in the rear after passing through. Basically, strike them when they are stunned and wounded and before they can regroup at all.

    What are the odds Russian Generals can get their conscripts to storm right into a nuclear blast zone as the mushroom cloud hasn't even completely cooled? Prepared and trained troops, suited up in NBC gear, hatches closed and NBC filters running full blast sure. What Russia has? Well, Chernobyl shows the Russians are dumb. But not THAT dumb.

    At best Russia can do a demonstration strike. They almost certainly do not have the ability to use it to change the course of battle. If Russia hit the Ukranian front lines, or even a rear area with a tactical nuke, it would kill hundreds. It would not likely kill thousands. It might destroy scores of vehicles. It would not destroy many hundreds of tanks.
    I’m referring to warheads delivered by short range missiles or delivery means of less than 100 kilotons.

    But the definition of tactical nuke has been changed. Nowadays, even warheads that go beyond 100kt are tactical nukes.
     

    SCARCQB

    Get Opp my rawn, Plick!
    Jun 25, 2008
    13,579
    Undisclosed location
    More crap information.
     

    Attachments

    • A2BFF71E-CCD6-47AE-86D3-B2076C0E4F9E.jpeg
      A2BFF71E-CCD6-47AE-86D3-B2076C0E4F9E.jpeg
      87.4 KB · Views: 47

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    11,763
    I’m referring to warheads delivered by short range missiles or delivery means of less than 100 kilotons.

    But the definition of tactical nuke has been changed. Nowadays, even warheads that go beyond 100kt are tactical nukes.
    *scratches head* I addressed that in my comment. Russia considers warheads of 50kt or less tactical nukes. They have approximately 2000 such warheads for use on short range ballistic missiles, artillery, torpedoes, and air launched cruise missiles that range in yield from 5 to 50kt. And maybe have some under 5kt.

    And no. Absolutely no one consider nukes of 100+ kilotons as tactical.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    264,904
    Messages
    6,818,539
    Members
    31,264
    Latest member
    737ck

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom