You know, geetrue, i wonder if this one of those apocalyptic fantasy things that some Christians seem to have strongly on their minds

Given you claim to have worked on boomers in the cold war, I'm surprised you hadn't realised, but the US has what is known as a second strike capability, and the ballistic missile submarines represent the key component of that capability.

The Russians/Soviets have/had the same capability

This is because both sides feared an unannounced first strike. What you call a sneak attack.

The existence of a comprehensive second strike capability was clearly advertised to the other side, because if the other side doesn't know about it, it does not function as a deterrence.

So this is the situation - Russia cannot capture Europe, as you suggest, without defeating the US - OK, i'm with you so far.

But the US cannot be destroyed in a nuclear first strike without Russia being destroyed in a second strike. Russia knows this.

Therefore russia will not attack the US in a first strike, and therefore Russia cannot capture all of Europe

Russia knows this, so therefore whatever Russia's aim is in this game, the eventual capture of Europe is not it.

I hope this makes you feel better:D

THAT, sir, was a GREAT film. Best film of all time, IMO.

The 1959 version was one of the few movies I have ever watched that when it ended, my family just sat there quietly thinking... saying nothing for a few moments.

Wow what a story.... I wonder what I would do?

True, I have the Book (that's what Muslims call the bible), but this is more along the lines, "what if".

What if Putin thought he could win a first strike war with the fear factor of another strike from Russia on the way if America didn't stand down ... they are on a ship building plan with their new oil wealth ... all of the players aren't on the field yet.

Yes, I am aware of America's second strike ability. I was part of that in the late 60's where we would recieve a message from the joint chiefs of staff to test our readiness. I often wondered if they really got out of bed to test our readiness or if they just came to work one morning and decided to push the "this is a test of all submarines on patrol", but anyway yes I know and thanks to the free public information on the internet and the freedom of our country anyone can pre-figure how many ships and aircraft and men the USA has ready at all times.

Just pretend were having coffee together, which I am right now having in the Pacfic Northwest, a good cup of Kona coffee in fact.

What would be left after a first strike capability?

What would be left after we launch against a first strike scenero?

Not much is my answer ... sure Russia would be hurting population wise, military wise I'm not too sure. They have those darn mobile ICBM launchers in reserve of which they probably wouldn't use on a first strike. They have submarines off the east and west coast within striking distance. Hell with a 4,500 mile range they can launch from port, reload and boogie out to sea before we could hit back.

The threat of more war is the fear factor and I hate to bring up this subject (just pretend I didn't), but who would be flying around in Airforce One? Who would have to make that decision to continue figting on or stand down?

You can prefigure a first strike target list just like I can ... all we have left are a few planes on the way to targets inside Russia with batteries of AM's waiting for them. FBM's are nice out at sea, but how many are in ports already demolished from a first strike.

The subs can't resupply themselves, right? We have orders to shoot a few missiles and then make a run for it in case they back track us.

We figured we had 15 minutes in the late 60's when we could only go 25 kts which is very noisey and costly to any listening devices nearby.

I fear a stand down order to protect what life is left in the USA. Colorado would be gone, ICBM's gone, air bases, naval ports, weapon storage places all gone. All US naval fleets are in easy range of the enemy near or on the way to the mother land of Russia.

Hence the question: When would a sneak attack war be over?"

Sure Russia would be hurting, but who in Russia would be left? Putin and his generals and his mind set.

Fear is the weapon of choice ... the weapon they use very well too.

Plus all of this is remote in just a few more years modern weapons would prevent a first strike by either nation.

Plus I liked Dr Strange Love with that guy jumping on the bomb in the B-52 and riding it down better than I did "On the Beach".

Isn't a lot of it, particularly on the Russian side, automated? I know the Russkies have a Dead mans handle, it's possible the US has one too. I'd say that a retaliation was very likely.
Russia would launch a first strike to attempt to knock out silos and SAC airfields, SAC B-52s would scramble, depending on the lead up to the launch would depend on what readiness they were on, with a lot of US assets in Europe decommed it would be a very limited air based responsed.
ICBMs would launch, naturally, use them or lose them. The arc would cross and half an hour later mushrooms would start going up.
Now that's the military phase finished, military bases and command centers are gone or badly damaged, Kneecap is up with either the Pres or VP in. Then there's the slight pause and the leaders can negociate if they wish to prevent it from going to phase two which is what's left launching on cities, that's where the SLBMs and any airbourne SAC bombers come in IIRC. If the US backs down, then it ends there, and if they don't then a second wave of destruction occurs until both sides have nothing left to launch. THEN the war unofficially ends. Both sides will probably skirmish in the battlefield for a while, some tactical nukes being used, NATO will try to drive on Moscow or that mountain the Russkies have, and the Russkies will be trying to stop them, but many soldiers will have probably have had enough by then and tried to find a way home to see if their families are still alive. Then we're in On The Beach territory. :hmm:

I'm starting to get the heebie geebies reading these last two posts :o

:lol:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert EInstein

Not sure how long an all out nukefest would last, maybe days, maybe weeks. Most likely not months though. Kinda depends whose nuking who and is the other guy nuking back.

And generally about nukes, I know everyone is supposed to fear nukes etc. and that they are a kind of joker up the sleeve that some countries have. However lately I've started to think that most of the countries with the nuclear weapons might actually be more or less bluffing. They would not know what exactly would happen if they pushed those buttons. Maybe the missiles would blow up in their silos, who knows. The other guy might be able to shoot them down. Or the missiles wouldn't be that powerful in the end, the effects could be much more limited then they think etc.

Thing is, the so called balance of terror that nukes are supposed to bring is slowly beginning to erode. People are less and less afraid of them all the time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened a long time ago, or so people think. A country gets nukes and says "we will use them", eventually someone will say "well go ahead then". Also, under the guise of nukes being the ultimate weapon it makes the conventional weapons look tame and make their use more acceptable. 'Small, nuke-free wars' might take place more easily.

So I guess I'm saying that although nukes are supposed to bring a kind of sense of peace to the world their influence might actually be the opposite, they erode peoples desire for peace and make small conflicts more common etc. Total disarmament might be the key but so far no dice in that department.

Well, I guess when one has lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation all their lives, the fear wears off somewhat...

What is scarier to me, is not nuclear war, it's a biological war...:shifty:

Putin isnt suicidal, he may have fantasies of being the new Peter the Great and some personality disorders, but im positive that starting a nuclear winter isnt a fantasy of his.

Suicidal is a crazy thought too, uh?

What about these crazy thoughts:

Some of these are over a year old, but take a look at the inside of a mad man (so to speak)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-Europe.html

Quote:

President Vladimir Putin has sent a chilling message to world leaders on the eve of the GB summit with a threat to aim Russian nuclear missiles at European cities for the first time since the Cold War. In comments that seemed calculated to cause consternation and division at Wednesday's meeting in Germany, the Russian leader said that American plans to erect a missile defence shield in Europe had left him with no choice but to retaliate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ins-anger.html

Quote:

Russia is fiercely opposed to the eastward expansion of Nato. George Bush backs NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia despite Putin's anger

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../INJUV6IU3.DTL

Quote:

It doesn't take much to rile Vladimir Putin, the irascible, autocratic Russian leader. But nothing the Bush administration has done in the last seven years has angered Putin more than the proposal to base anti-missile...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Putin...e7&rlz=1I7DKUS

Quote:

Vladimir V. Putin transferred the customs service from the control of ... two of the senators now facing recall, causing Mr. Putin's anger. ...

Sure, his personality raises threats in certain situations. I would still consider Russian theories in geopolitics a bigger threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

I think maybe Israel is a more likely candidate to use nukes than Russia. Hell, even the US might at one point think that rather then looking for volunteers it's cheaper to just nuke the Middle-East.

DEFCON
 

Ah DEFCON, Everybody dies. Great game.