Russia's developing 100 megaton dirty Tsunami Creating submarine drone bomb

[ikalugin]

Oberon - to clarify, Oscar-II->Oscar-III submarines do not carry Status-6 (it is too big for them), only an experimental Oscar-II refit and the purpose built Khabarovsk class does. Maybe the currently desighned Husky class would, but Husky class would be laid down after Yasen-M series is complete.

Skybird - shelters provide a relative advantage after the attack. Together with dispersion pre attack and evacuation post attack they allow the critical personel to survive. Back in the Soviet days those measures extended not only to the critical military and administrative personel, but also to the critical industries. Together with secure strategic reserves, the mobilisation program this would allow post attack recovery. Now those measures are not as extensive, but we are getting that fixed.
In Moscow in particular sheltering and evacuating even general populations is not as difficult as it may at first appear - Moscow has a very extensive system.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Skybird - shelters allow to have a relative advantage after the attack. Together with dispersion pre attack and evacuation post attack they allow the critical personel to survive, back in the Soviet days this program was very extensive - allowing for survival of entire critical industries for rebuilding post attack using the strategic reserve stores. Now it is not as extensive yet it still allows survival of critical administrative and military personel (and various others valuable members of society - ie MSU students, Lenin's library readers, etc) and we are rebuilding this program.

I think you have no clue of the horrors that you claim could be "managed" this way. To me what you say in this whole paragraph, is utmost absurdity.

Allout nuclear war cannot be won. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." You can bet your life and soul on it.

What you say, nevertheless is dangerous, for it creates dangerous illusions. For exmaple that preemptively triggering a nuclear war may be rewarding, since it can be "won". That kind of thinking paves the way to hell.

There is only one scenario where the use of nuclear wepaons is somethign you could get away with: if the other has neither a nuclear arsenal nor biological weapons.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think you have no clue of the horrors that you claim could be "managed" this way. To me what you say in this whole paragraph, is utmost absurdity.

Allout nuclear war cannot be won. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." You can bet your life and soul on it.

What you say, nevertheless is dangerous, for it creates dangerous illusions. For exmaple that preemptively triggering a nuclear war may be rewarding, since it can be "won". That kind of thinking paves the way to hell.

There is only one scenario where the use of nuclear wepaons is somethign you could get away with: if the other has neither a nuclear arsenal nor biological weapons.

There are few simple points here.

First point is that the strategic nuclear arsenal's primary purpose is deterence. This means that their job is to decrease the likelyhood of war between nuclear armed nations particularly in Russia-US(+UK+France) billateral relationship. This leads to the problem strategic stability. It would be irrational for powers that cannot defend themeselves adequately conventionally against agressive foreighn powers to disarm as they would then perish.

The second point is that nuclear weapons are what they are - weapons, military means to achieve political ends. While very efficient in their job of destruction their power is finite and can be rationally accessed.

The third point is that deterence can fail, thus one considers the great yet finite power of the potential attacks and attempts to allow a degree of survival through and after such an attack. This however does not mean that the nuclear exchange is not costly and thus that deterence becomes irrelevant.

However if you do not view nuclear weapons or other WMDs rationally but rather through a quasireligeous prism then sure, you can elect to do other things, for example you won't build shelters and other means to survive and then rebuild.

[Skybird]

I know that a deterrant that bases on MAD is meant to not be used preemptively by both - or any - side. These weapons are no military weapons. Their use against somebody who owns them himself, triggers your own destruction. That is the meaning, the essence and core of the MAD doctrine.

And there you have it. No military weapons. It is unreasonable to dream of an "in case of" scenario where these unusable weapons get used in a major exchange and so one must be prepared for it to survive. There is no preparation for assured mutual destruction, MAD. There is no survival worth to be witnessed.

"The only winning move is not to play."

You could as well argue that one needs to prepare to win one's own defeat, or to survive one's own suicide. And that is why all that nonsense about precious staff and perosnell and oublic shelters, is meaningless, and feeds dangeorus illusions. You fall for this illusion yourself: that a nuclear war with a nuclear armed opponent could be "won".

Or would even be worth to be survived.

This folly was fed by both the US and the USSR during the 50s and 60s ("duck and cover!" ), but already during the 70s at least in the West we started to understand that this was totally misled reasoning. Reagan again started to dream of winnable nuclear wars, but he already had to meet a strong civil movement countering him, and I do not mean the peace movement that was massively infiltrated and controlled by the USSR.

You cannot win nuclear allout exchanges, ikalugin. And even wanting to survive them is not worth it, but means despair and horror. Believe it, its better for you. In hell, the living would envy the dead.

[Oberon]

We must not allow a mineshaft gap!!

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Oberon

We must not allow a mineshaft gap!!

Americans are working on fixing it, but they prefer improving their offensive potential.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Americans are working on fixing it, but they prefer improving their offensive potential.

That's news to us. Did you get this information from the Trump-Putin channel?

[ikalugin]

Skybird, you attribute mystical properties to physical objects - nuclear weapons. I understand the futility of debating a subject matter with a person who expresses irrational behaviour, but I will do this none the less.

The power of nuclear weapons despite being great is finite and can be accessed rationally. That power is great enough to deter any rational adversary from attacking as even 10 percent population losses the USSR suffered in the GPW are too great a cost to bear (not to mention material losses).
However that power is not great enough to assure the total loss of life, especially for protected populations. So it is not a suicide, as suicide implies total and final loss of life by the subject. This means that if there is a chance that deterence may fail and that chance always exists a responsible leader must take measures to ensure survival of the country.

Morever as historic programs show it is quite plausible to both assure general survival after the attack and to both beging rebuilding and maintain military relevant production after the attack.

Because with such measures the attack would not lead to total and final loss of life nor material means to sustain such life I do not see why I should not keep living and working after such an attack. Sure my personal living conditions would be inferior to those I have at the moment, but then I would still have means to improve them through my hard work, so I don't see a problem there.

p.s. Soviet programs were on a qualitevely different level than the "duck and cover" stuff. There were comprehensive plans to not only achieve survival of crtical personel, but also of critical industries, to maintain war production, to initiate post attack rebuilding.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Skybird, you attribute mystical properties to physical objects - nuclear weapons. I understand the futility of debating a subject matter with a person who expresses irrational behaviour, but I will do this none the less.

The power of nuclear weapons despite being great is finite and can be accessed rationally. That power is great enough to deter any rational adversary from attacking as even 10 percent population losses the USSR suffered in the GPW are too great a cost to bear (not to mention material losses).
However that power is not great enough to assure the total loss of life, especially for protected populations. So it is not a suicide, as suicide implies total and final loss of life by the subject. This means that if there is a chance that deterence may fail and that chance always exists a responsible leader must take measures to ensure survival of the country.

Morever as historic programs show it is quite plausible to both assure general survival after the attack and to both beging rebuilding and maintain military relevant production after the attack.

Because with such measures the attack would not lead to total and final loss of life nor material means to sustain such life I do not see why I should not keep living and working after such an attack. Sure my personal living conditions would be inferior to those I have at the moment, but then I would still have means to improve them through my hard work, so I don't see a problem there.

p.s. Soviet programs were on a qualitevely different level than the "duck and cover" stuff. There were comprehensive plans to not only achieve survival of crtical personel, but also of critical industries, to maintain war production, to initiate post attack rebuilding.

And if the party/the state has planned it, it must be good. - You are a hopeless believer of state and its authority. But you call me irrational. Well. Irony surely has some twists and turns build into it.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And if the party/the state has planned it, it must be good. - You are a hopeless believer of state and its authority. But you call me irrational. Well. Irony surely has some twists and turns build into it.

So instead of attacking the nessesity of such a system you attack the fact that it is implimented and provided by the state?

My personal need for such a system is quite well served by the state, as a person affiliated to said state I have the ability to verify the quality of service. You can attack my morality next, but I have repplies to that as well.