Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Russia will "launch" a mock nuclear attack against the
U.S. and Britain during military exercises over the
next week.

Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports that Russia's
strategic bombers and nuclear submarines "will
deliver hypothetical nuclear strikes on the U.S. and
Britain, while locating and destroying aircraft-carrier
groups of the U.S. Navy."

The massive air, sea and land maneuvers are being
conducted in the wake of America's stunning victory
over Iraq, a longtime client state of Russia.

If the mock strikes were real, they would kill 125
million Americans in the first three days of such an
attack, with tens of millions more casualties in the
weeks after.

The paper said the exercises are taking place
because "Russian military leaders have learned a
lesson from the Iraq war, and intend to show the U.S.
and its allies their determination to repel any potential
threat coming from the West."

The Russian military, in plans drawn up at the request
of President Vladimir Putin, argues that the only way
Russia can deal with an escalating regional conflict
with the U.S. would be to employ nuclear weapons.

Though Russia's military has been considerably
downsized since the end of the Cold War and its
conventional forces hold little weight against a
modern equipped army, Russia has continued to
invest heavily in strategic and tactical nuclear
weapons.

Sometime during the '90s, Russia attained nuclear
superiority over the U.S. While Russia's large
strategic nuclear weapons have remained in parity
with the those of the U.S., Russia's tactical nuclear
arsenal has been estimated to include 20,000 to
40,000 weapons.

At the same time Russia has continued its nuclear
buildup, the U.S. has virtually destroyed its arsenal of
tactical nuclear warheads. Under orders from the
Bush administration, the U.S. also has been moving
to further reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal.
Currently, the nation's most modern fleet of ICBM,
the MX missiles, is being destroyed.

The Russian military exercises show a desire by the
Russian military to deal with the huge technological
lead U.S. conventional forces have, demonstrated by
Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the Russian
exercises "will be linked with destroying the U.S.
satellite group in order to neutralize the NAVSTAR
global navigation system, the Keyhole optoelectronic
intelligence satellites, and the Lacross radio-locating
intelligence satellites."

The paper said about these maneuvers: "Under
actual conditions of a war this would 'blind' the
Pentagon and does not let the U.S. use high-precision
weapons against Russian military groups."

So far, the exercises are to include Four Tu-160 and
nine Tu-95MS strategic bombers, 12 Tu-22M3
long-range bombers, and four Il-78 flying tankers will
be involved in the maneuvers on May 17-18.

The maneuvers are of a "global scale," the paper
said.

Major-General Igor Khvorov, commander of the 37th
air army of the High Commander-in-Chief, said that
the official objective of the exercise is to polish
cooperation between long-range aviation, the navy
and other branches of the army in the western,
eastern, northern and southern regions of the Russian
Federation, and over the world's oceans. This
emphasizes the global scale of the impending
maneuvers.

Submarines of the Northern and Pacific fleets will
launch ballistic missiles. Nuclear strategic and
multi-purpose submarines, surface warships of
different types, coastal missile and anti-aircraft units,
and the missile-carrying, pursuit and anti-submarine
aviation will be involved in the exercise.

The paper also noted that Russian warships sent to
the Arabian Sea to take part in an exercise with the
Indian navy will support strategic units. They will find
and destroy U.S. Los Angeles-class submarines and
deliver missile strikes at enemy warships.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/16/102442.shtml
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Moscow's Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports that Russia's
strategic bombers and nuclear submarines "will
deliver hypothetical nuclear strikes on the U.S. and
Britain, while locating and destroying aircraft-carrier
groups of the U.S. Navy."


Wouldn't it be a slice if a few of those hypothetical warheads hypothetically fell in Iraq, Iran, and all those other places where the US fleet are stationned?
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
At the same time Russia has continued its nuclear buildup, the U.S. has virtually destroyed its arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads. Under orders from the Bush administration, the U.S. also has been moving to further reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal. Currently, the nation's most modern fleet of ICBM, the MX missiles, is being destroyed.

:bs:

If anyone has another source for this, i'm interested, 'cause i'm a bit skeptical about it.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
yeah, now that you mention it, the article says "virtually destroyed its arsenal".
 

a13antichrist

New Member
Anyone honestly believing that Russia's nuclear program is as advanced as the US' has got some serious reality programs.
 

RD_151

New Member
If we are decomissioning MX missiles and other formerly state of the art weapons, it's because they are now obsolete. So I have to agree with you a13. I'd like to see another source as well. It seems reasonable though considering recent actions and successes by the US in the Gulf. I think I would be a little worried, and I'd brush up on my defensive strategy as well if I were the Russians. I would also want to make the statement that conventional weapons are useless, because we won't play THAT game if push comes to shove. I think if this is true, it's a smart move by the Russians, one that will ensure we won't try interfering there too.

Like I said in the past, a convential war with the US against Russia will never happen. It won't play out that way, rational or not, MAD or not. Lets just hope it never has to happen. Such an exercize would be a good move to make it clear that the US should never even think about attempting it.
 

RD_151

New Member
That seems to be a pretty right-wing source. I'd be surprised if there are any similar articles out there, except maybe on some other right-wing sites :D
 

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Anyone honestly believing that Russia's nuclear program is as advanced as
the US' has got some serious reality programs.

Does it need to be as advanced as ours to be deadly? I think not. The fact is that that the russian nations probably still have more nuclear weapons than does the us and anyone who thinks that the soviet union is no longer a threat has some serious reality problems. The soviet nation(s) is still the second most deadly nation on earth. Twenty five year old nuclear weapons are still nuclear warheads.
 

Esperanto

New Member
RD_151 said:
That seems to be a pretty right-wing source. I'd be surprised if there are any similar articles out there, except maybe on some other right-wing sites

Right wing? Where did you get that from? I'm right win, and this article still looks like BS. :rolleyes:
 

a13antichrist

New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
Sometime during the '90s, Russia attained nuclear
superiority over the U.S.

The claim is superiority, not greater proliferation. Whether they have more actual warheads than the US is irrelevant if they don't have the technology behind them to make them effective.
As for being a threat, Russia is of course still a military force but they are certainly no threat to the US. Russia has enough problems of its own to worry about without trying to "teach the US a lesson". The very proposal that Russia would consider themselves in a position to impose this sort of "don't forget who's the boss" is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Ethiopians were on the moon before the US. I had assumed the reason you posted this in the first place was because you wanted to illustrte some of the idiocy on the internet and the stuff that some people will believe, rather than that you actually considered it newsworthy information.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Russia & the US are much closer to allies than adversaries these days. Russia, as A13 pointed out, is no longer a major threat to the west and the Soviet Union is no longer existant.

Just war games.

Do we get to hypothetically retaliate?
 

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Russia is of course still a military force but they are certainly no threat to the US.

Terribly sorry a13antichrist but that's the most uninformed comment i've heard in some time. You are simply incorrect. To say that they cannot overtake the US is one thing, but saying that they are no threat whatsoever is pure unadulterated ignorance.
I'f you'd like i can provide you with a few thousand links that you might do a little reading up on the subject.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
I don't think I can run that fast. :retard:
a13antichrist said:
The claim is superiority, not greater proliferation.
I think that's an easy thing to claim. After all, if you have to prove it, virtually everyone will be dead. :shrug:
 

a13antichrist

New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
I'f you'd like i can provide you with a few thousand links that you might do a little reading up on the subject.

Just make sure they don't come from Newsmax.com. And make sure also that they prove the INTENT to attack America, and not just the capacity.

[edit]
In case you're missing my point, I'm not saying Russia don't have the weapons. What I'm pointing out, and as Gonz also mentioned, is that Russia has about as much desire to attack the US as you do to shoot your mother in the foot.
[/edit]
 

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Well no shit but does that mean they're no threat? Of course they don't want to attack us they'd be wiped out. North Korea doesn't want to attack us either but we consider them a threat with 1000th the arsenal that Russia has. Anyway i wouldn't use newsmax to prove any point and it's rare that i use them at all. I posted this mearly because it was an interesting article.
 
Top