War

BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
and there goes the boot.....

www.telegraph.co.uk

Russian spy chief ‘thrown in jail’ as Vladimir Putin ‘turns on security officials’

Sergei Beseda said to have been moved to high-security prison amid concerns over leaks about Russia’s faltering war effort
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Putin purges 150 intelligence agents for Ukraine failures: Report - Washington Examiner

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed about 150 Federal Security Bureau officers, sending some to prison, since Russia's Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, according to a report on Monday.The expelled officers are all members of the Fifth Service division of the FSB, responsible for...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
We know what happened in Syria and Chechyna..past performance is indicative of future results..Putin brought that retired general back..no sense in dragging our feet. Now is the time to act.
Click to expand...
yeah? convince Biden and congress, i'll stand right behind you for moral support. convince NATO, again, i'll be standing right behind you...
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/06/europe/ukraine-russia-war-technology-intl-cmd/index.html

this could be both good and bad...there is no way the russians can deny proof like this, and that may force them into negotiations a lot sooner than they would want...but it could also push putin over the edge, and make him do a few incredibly stupid things, like use chemical weapons in Ukraine, or nuke them with a small yield device...neither of which will sit well with NATO, the EU or the US.
i see NATO becoming involved very soon, and since the US is part of NATO, that means we'll be more directly involved, which makes us a prime target for putin's icbms...while i do not have much faith in the reliability of russian technology, i don't doubt it enough to think we would escape unscathed. if they launched 50 icbms at us, and half fail at launch, that's still 25 city killers coming at us. if we shoot down 90% of them, that is still 2 or 3 that get through...2 or 3 major cities obliterated, millions of deaths, and the inevitable retaliation against russia, which would have consequences for the EU. clouds of fallout blowing in the wind, never know who it will land on, but there's no place for it to land that would be good. the nuclear winter which would follow, impacting food yields for at least a decade...the disruption to the worlds economy, shipping routes, manufacturing, mineral supplies, all impacted severely...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Roger A. Shrubber said:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/06/europe/ukraine-russia-war-technology-intl-cmd/index.html

this could be both good and bad...there is no way the russians can deny proof like this, and that may force them into negotiations a lot sooner than they would want...but it could also push putin over the edge, and make him do a few incredibly stupid things, like use chemical weapons in Ukraine, or nuke them with a small yield device...neither of which will sit well with NATO, the EU or the US.
i see NATO becoming involved very soon, and since the US is part of NATO, that means we'll be more directly involved, which makes us a prime target for putin's icbms...while i do not have much faith in the reliability of russian technology, i don't doubt it enough to think we would escape unscathed. if they launched 50 icbms at us, and half fail at launch, that's still 25 city killers coming at us. if we shoot down 90% of them, that is still 2 or 3 that get through...2 or 3 major cities obliterated, millions of deaths, and the inevitable retaliation against russia, which would have consequences for the EU. clouds of fallout blowing in the wind, never know who it will land on, but there's no place for it to land that would be good. the nuclear winter which would follow, impacting food yields for at least a decade...the disruption to the worlds economy, shipping routes, manufacturing, mineral supplies, all impacted severely...
Click to expand...
If they do that, we walk the B-2s across the land with B-61s set for low yield. There are 0.3 kt and 1.5 kt options, and they are smart bomb accurate. Remove a few dozen strategic targets, with a total radiation load less than Chernobyl. Kinder to the land and people, who are not the enemy.

Then sanitize the oceans of any last Russian sub. Their subs are good, but the US and UK are the world class. Blockade Polyarnyy and thump anything coming and going.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I did a brief search and I believe only Russian officers carry side arms, perhaps some sergeants, I'm not even sure tank crews are issued them. If this is the case, a switchblade 300 drone apparently can do facial recognition and should be able to recognize a sidearm and it's holster... Perhaps a fast efficient way to hunt down Russian officers? They order the atrocities and their troops are paralyzed without them and often out of touch with higher command. Even the drone flying high above like God can spot them using the same method of automatic pattern recognition.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
If they do that, we walk the B-2s across the land with B-61s set for low yield. There are 0.3 kt and 1.5 kt options, and they are smart bomb accurate. Remove a few dozen strategic targets, with a total radiation load less than Chernobyl. Kinder to the land and people, who are not the enemy.

Then sanitize the oceans of any last Russian sub. Their subs are good, but the US and UK are the world class. Blockade Polyarnyy and thump anything coming and going.
Click to expand...
With stealth cruise missiles and precision strikes, it might be possible to take out most of their nuclear forces with conventional weapons, saving nukes for the hard targets. A second strike from a single sub can wipe out their cities, if required. It would be an act of extreme desperation and the point would be to wipe out their nuclear strike capability and save our cities, theirs's too, if it were successful. It would have to be a desperate situation, but the military has planned for it I'm certain of that and on this one they would be running multiple simulations all the time. If they can make a stealth F-35, a submarine launched stealth cruise missile should not be an issue.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
With stealth cruise missiles and precision strikes, it might be possible to take out most of their nuclear forces with conventional weapons, saving nukes for the hard targets. A second strike from a single sub can wipe out their cities, if required. It would be an act of extreme desperation and the point would be to wipe out their nuclear strike capability and save our cities, theirs's too, if it were successful. It would have to be a desperate situation, but the military has planned for it I'm certain of that and on this one they would be running multiple simulations all the time. If they can make a stealth F-35, a submarine launched stealth cruise missile should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
I prefer the B-2s. Eyeballs on the target, immediate BDA and the option of last-second recall. We’re headed for a drone battlefield, but with nukes I want the safety of the bombers.

This is strictly my response to a strategic nuclear attack using their ICBMs If they went counterforce, our response will be in kind.
If they go after urban areas, we gain total air supremacy and grind up their warfighting ability conventionally. With B-52s. If they hit a bomber, then start mercilessly nuking missile fields, airfields, ports.

Either way, destroy their navy except players without nukes. The exception is subs. Take the lot out. We probably have very stealthy torpedoes at this point.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I prefer the B-2s. Eyeballs on the target, immediate BDA and the option of last-second recall. We’re headed for a drone battlefield, but with nukes I want the safety of the bombers.

This is strictly my response to a strategic nuclear attack using their ICBMs If they went counterforce, our response will be in kind.
If they go after urban areas, we gain total air supremacy and grind up their warfighting ability conventionally. With B-52s. If they hit a bomber, then start mercilessly nuking missile fields, airfields, ports.

Either way, destroy their navy except players without nukes. The exception is subs. Take the lot out. We probably have very stealthy torpedoes at this point.
Click to expand...
I imagine they would throw everything they had into Russia to neutralize nuclear threats, after an initial stealth strike, perhaps it would be coupled with a cyber attack on the command and control systems. Stealth bombers and fighters would be part of any plan to hit Russia with as much as we can as quickly as we can to prevent a launch and perhaps a ballistic missile defense system is a good idea too. From my understanding Russia has about 2000 ICBM big nukes on missiles and about 500 of those are at sea in subs and surface vessels, the other 4000 are tactical nukes, mostly in storage. So assuming the attack subs eliminate the Russian subs we would have to deal with around 1500 warheads, but they need to strike western Europe too. If they did strike them first with a stealth attack and say 100 got launched and say the had a 20% failure rate, 8 warheads each on a dozen missiles say. Manageable with an ABM system and perhaps fighters with ABM missiles over northern Canada, with a second line further south.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
I imagine they would throw everything they had into Russia to neutralize nuclear threats, after an initial stealth strike, perhaps it would be coupled with a cyber attack on the command and control systems. Stealth bombers and fighters would be part of any plan to hit Russia with as much as we can as quickly as we can to prevent a launch and perhaps a ballistic missile defense system is a good idea too. From my understanding Russia has about 2000 ICBM big nukes on missiles and about 500 of those are at sea in subs and surface vessels, the other 4000 are tactical nukes, mostly in storage. So assuming the attack subs eliminate the Russian subs we would have to deal with around 1500 warheads, but they need to strike western Europe too. If they did strike them first with a stealth attack and say 100 got launched and say the had a 20% failure rate, 8 warheads each on a dozen missiles say. Manageable with an ABM system and perhaps fighters with ABM missiles over northern Canada, with a second line further south.
Click to expand...
I know you are enamored of unmanned platforms. But if the mission is to punish Russia for launching the big ones, I want command and control to the last instant. Tell me how to abort or recall a SLCM.
 
Friendly_Grower

Friendly_Grower

Well-Known Member
Here is a funny Ha!-Ha! Putin is looking for Moles!

Putin knows now his Ship of State was made of Swiss-Cheese.
Once he put out to Sea to launch his war, he is now suffering the "Leaks."

 
Friendly_Grower

Friendly_Grower

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I know you are enamored of unmanned platforms. But if the mission is to punish Russia for launching the big ones, I want command and control to the last instant. Tell me how to abort or recall a SLCM.
Click to expand...

Are you ready to relax and learn to love the Bomb?
Wasn't there a Movie?

I fantasize that some benevolent force would ruin all Russia's Nukes everywhere all at once.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
I imagine they would throw everything they had into Russia to neutralize nuclear threats, after an initial stealth strike, perhaps it would be coupled with a cyber attack on the command and control systems. Stealth bombers and fighters would be part of any plan to hit Russia with as much as we can as quickly as we can to prevent a launch and perhaps a ballistic missile defense system is a good idea too. From my understanding Russia has about 2000 ICBM big nukes on missiles and about 500 of those are at sea in subs and surface vessels, the other 4000 are tactical nukes, mostly in storage. So assuming the attack subs eliminate the Russian subs we would have to deal with around 1500 warheads, but they need to strike western Europe too. If they did strike them first with a stealth attack and say 100 got launched and say the had a 20% failure rate, 8 warheads each on a dozen missiles say. Manageable with an ABM system and perhaps fighters with ABM missiles over northern Canada, with a second line further south.
Click to expand...
From 3 to 8 is quite the jump. You suggested a launcher failure rate of half before. Going to 20% is a move of the goalposts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top