Putins's Nuclear threat to the West
- Thread starter HFE Signs
- Start date
Not if some viable ones get airborne first - it is not like Putin will be sat anywhere were it will affect himNot if the 10% faulty ones blow up on launch
Upvote
0
Russian state media has announced the preliminary results of the so-called referendums being held in occupied parts of Ukraine. With about a fifth of votes counted, it is reported that an overwhelming majority have voted in favour of joining Russia:
- 97% in Kherson region
- 98% in Zaporizhzhia
- 98% in “Donetsk People’s Republic”
- 98% in “Luhansk People’s Republic”
Upvote
0
According to who?
Russians counted the votes in the referendum so they can't be trusted.
Americans counted 190,000 soldiers in the Afghan Army when they left, so I don't think I trust their numbers either.
Upvote
0
I found this an interesting read..
www.chathamhouse.org
How likely is the use of nuclear weapons by Russia?
Exploring key questions around Putin issuing what was interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries if they interfere in Ukraine.
Upvote
0
Let’s be clear…
1. If Russia decides to launch ballistic missiles against the UK we have nothing that can stop them in flight. Nothing.
2. In the age of satellite tracking and long-range, land-based missiles, The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are vulnerable, obsolete ships without purpose – unless perhaps, we fall out with Tonga. As one Russian defence minister observed “to us, they are just large, slow-moving targets”.
They are equipped with hugely expensive, high-maintenance, non-stealthy, stealth aircraft whose price greatly exceeds original specification and whose capabilities fall far short.
The ships are doomed to spend their time chugging round the oceans on a series of goodwill visits, or ‘showing the flag’ in bellicose displays that fool no-one. Basically, they are eight billion quid, gin-palaces.
3. When they aren’t broken down, Type 45 destroyers are quite able, but fall foul of the MoD’s obsession with packing every capability into a single unit (like the RAF Typhoon). “We can do more with less” they cry. Quite. But one destroyer can’t be in multiple places at the same time.
In the era of apartheid, when South Africa was subject to arms embargos, it’s forces relied upon indigenous weapons production and were very effective. Why ? As one observer put it “because the generals got the weapons they needed rather than what they wanted.”
If Elizabeth Barrett Browning had worked for the MoD her sonnet would have read… “How can I waste thee ? Let me count the ways.”
1. If Russia decides to launch ballistic missiles against the UK we have nothing that can stop them in flight. Nothing.
2. In the age of satellite tracking and long-range, land-based missiles, The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are vulnerable, obsolete ships without purpose – unless perhaps, we fall out with Tonga. As one Russian defence minister observed “to us, they are just large, slow-moving targets”.
They are equipped with hugely expensive, high-maintenance, non-stealthy, stealth aircraft whose price greatly exceeds original specification and whose capabilities fall far short.
The ships are doomed to spend their time chugging round the oceans on a series of goodwill visits, or ‘showing the flag’ in bellicose displays that fool no-one. Basically, they are eight billion quid, gin-palaces.
3. When they aren’t broken down, Type 45 destroyers are quite able, but fall foul of the MoD’s obsession with packing every capability into a single unit (like the RAF Typhoon). “We can do more with less” they cry. Quite. But one destroyer can’t be in multiple places at the same time.
In the era of apartheid, when South Africa was subject to arms embargos, it’s forces relied upon indigenous weapons production and were very effective. Why ? As one observer put it “because the generals got the weapons they needed rather than what they wanted.”
If Elizabeth Barrett Browning had worked for the MoD her sonnet would have read… “How can I waste thee ? Let me count the ways.”
Upvote
0
I think people are missing that point - it's not that we stop the missiles landing on our turf, it's the fact our reply will be 10 x more devastating than what Russia can muster. Use of nukes on a NATO member would result in complete destruction of vast swathes of earth, there will barely be anything left. Perhaps the southern hemisphere? Australia etc.
Also, the UK doesn't defend itself with its own ships. We have US warships and aircraft operating all around us. Submarines in the North Sea, off Scotland there's usually a NATO air defence warship, a submarine, rapid response jets etc. they cannot do much unless an attack takes place but, the response, would be 'catastrophic' against the aggressor. Hence the problem Putin now has...anything he does will have an equal consequence against his own interests. So, he has some calculations to do on the back of a beer mat.
Upvote
0
Russia and USA "claim" to have roughly the same number of missiles.
Nobody else, including the UK, has enough to make any real difference.
So your first point is wrong.
Secondly, it's based on an assumption of response, this is not guaranteed. Assuming Russia nukes Scotland, will the USA launch an all-out attack on Russia, knowing that this will mean that the USA is wiped out?
Or will they find a way to be "shocked" and "disappointed" and not actually do anything? If they don't do anything, what are we going to do to force them?
The US response to Ukraine has been a bit sparse.
They lost in Afghanistan, hid from Syria, and don't have full control of Iraq after however long its been.
Upvote
0
Ah yes, but they were successful in the ‘hunt for bin Laden’, which only cost thousands of lives, millions in weapons, and quite a long time to find him hiding……
….in his house.
Upvote
0
To be fair, he was hiding in the country next door. The one that is an ally of the USA, that had received more than $30B in funding, as well as help with nuclear weapons.
Upvote
0
Which would completely undermine NATO as an organisation.
The whole essence of the arms race since WW2 (possibly before) has actually relied on the various sides being reasonably balanced in their capabilities, to point point of tacitly trading confidential information (allegedly)
These says NATO is 'our side'
It also relies per the earlier article on Mutually Assured Destruction. And the nervous belief that nobody will be stupid enough to actually do it.
Personally, the more putin waves his nuclear willy, the less credible his thrusts become. But I may be wrong. I'm equally sure that there is no cohesive plan for response (though I'm sure the topic is on the table) - NATO will decide on the spot
Upvote
0
On one hand, you completely undermine Nato
on the other, you completely destroy Nato and kill every American.
America/Russia can't beat each other so all out nuclear war is unlikely. Mutually Assured Destruction works, so far.
But if the bombs don't land on American or Russian soil, then the response from either side can be a lot more muted. Like the chemical weapons attacks in Syria for example.
on the other, you completely destroy Nato and kill every American.
America/Russia can't beat each other so all out nuclear war is unlikely. Mutually Assured Destruction works, so far.
But if the bombs don't land on American or Russian soil, then the response from either side can be a lot more muted. Like the chemical weapons attacks in Syria for example.
Upvote
0
How many actually work though? Let's be honest, if you were in the bunker in Russia, looking at the fire button, knowing exactly how much real maintanance you'd really done, vs what you'd reported to the Kremlin - would you press the button, knowing it's likely to blow up in your face?
Upvote
0
I know this is the picture that gets portrayed by the West / The West’s media outlets. I’ve no reason to think it’s not just propaganda though. I think if we knew the truth we’d come over all unnecessary!
Upvote
0
Even if only 10% of them worked, that'd be enough to obliterate most of Europe. Modern nuclear weapons are at least 20-30 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - each.
Upvote
0
First point is wrong? I think you don't understand the devastating capability of the modern nuclear deterrent. The new generation of missiles are capable of launch by land, sea and air, the UK has over 200 in a variety of locations across the globe. Trident has a blast radius over 5 times greater than what happened in Hiroshima. The UK alone has the capability to kill tens of millions, the US has ten times that capacity but that's why it's the weapon of last resort and used as a deterrent only...so far.
Your other point, I fear, is correct. The reality is that the US is likely to only wish to defend itself and will be uneasy about lobbing nuclear missiles all over the place. It would probably only respond to a direct threat to the US mainland.
The problem for Putin is that one, small nuclear bomb is unlikely to have any great impact on the conflict. Ukraine have already lost thousands of people, so it will only strengthen their resolve and increase international condemnation.
As for things like Syria etc. The US has a long history of underestimating adversaries who don't think like they do. Vietnam, Afghanistan, iraq... they can take land but not hold it, because the US lacks any understanding of nation building and they quickly tire of occupying territory. They're bad at it. They like shock and awe but they don't like setting up infrastructure and they're poor at policing. Russia are the same, they can take swathes of land but lack any structure for humanitarian aid. They just do the violence bit and then it all falls apart because they didn't think about the civilians, then there's an uprising, some more violence and then...gone. Leaving a vacuum for the next fruitcake to take over.
Upvote
0
Yes, it's wrong. The Russians have about 5000 missiles, the Americans have about 5000 missiles. They are evenly matched. Everyone else has a few hundred missiles combined - they don't matter.
As USA and Russia are matched, then the response can't be 10x more devastating unless you assume that Russia holds back 90% of its weapons when attacked by the USA - this seems unlikely.
If the USA had 10x firepower, we wouldn't have mutually assured destruction.
Upvote
0
They do matter. A few hundred nuclear warheads can hit a few hundred targets. Each that is targetted at a major city would kill hundreds of thousand of people. A single nuclear submarine can carry missiles delivering tens of warheads). No country is going to risk devastating, say, its 20 largest cities (assuming more than one warhead each for big cities).
Upvote
0
A couple of points about nuclear weapons….
First, they are not weapons – they are deterrents, and they are called that because their primary purpose, indeed their only purpose, is to stop the other guy from firing his at you or threatening to fire his at you unless you do what he wants.
If they are actually fired, they’ve already failed.
Second, it doesn’t matter how many missiles you have providing you have enough. The UK’s Vanguard class submarines carry 8 missiles each with approximately 40 warheads. Only one submarine is guaranteed to be on station at any time.
Is 40 warheads enough ? For a small, unimportant island like the UK, it’s plenty. Russia could easily reduce our entire island to a charred ruin but in return, a strike on it’s principal military and industrial centres would devastate it’s economic and military power for a generation. Meanwhile, its true enemies circle. We’re not worth it.
Comparing missile numbers is just willie-measuring.
First, they are not weapons – they are deterrents, and they are called that because their primary purpose, indeed their only purpose, is to stop the other guy from firing his at you or threatening to fire his at you unless you do what he wants.
If they are actually fired, they’ve already failed.
Second, it doesn’t matter how many missiles you have providing you have enough. The UK’s Vanguard class submarines carry 8 missiles each with approximately 40 warheads. Only one submarine is guaranteed to be on station at any time.
Is 40 warheads enough ? For a small, unimportant island like the UK, it’s plenty. Russia could easily reduce our entire island to a charred ruin but in return, a strike on it’s principal military and industrial centres would devastate it’s economic and military power for a generation. Meanwhile, its true enemies circle. We’re not worth it.
Comparing missile numbers is just willie-measuring.
Upvote
0
Why the fixation with big numbers and with the US?
5 nukes would destroy Russia as we know it.
The brinkmanship game here isn't Russia vs US, it's Russia vs 'the west' and specifically NATO
All eyes are on NATO
If they don't step up, Putin has won.
If they do, he's ****ed
Upvote
0
Probably before the appreciation of the damage they could cause was evident. You could say that Edward III gives the combatants the right to slaughter prisoners??
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Putin is already *****ed and he probably already knows it, before he could even get a chance to order a nuclear strike I think we will find he has been quietly removed from service (due to health reasons) or got a bullet in the back of the head. Do you really think those around him are going to continue to support a looser and risk the loss of their own elicit wealth.
I also seem to recall the Russian navy showing off their latest state of the art sub when Putin came to power, due to lack of maintenance on the torpedos they had blew the front of the sub off and it sank. The Russians thought this was all done in "secret" but in fact two US subs had been shadowing the whole thing. Russia would not except help to dive on the sub and rescue survivors. The Russians soon realised they never had the ability to perform a resume themselves and in the end had to ask the US for assistance. it was then to late for the survivors.
The point of this story I don't for one minute believe Russia has even half the capabilities they would like us to think, just look how they are being "out gunned" on the battle field right now.
Putin has actually put Russia in the position of showing the whole world how weak the country really is ...... those around him will not let him get away with that, his days are numbered.
Upvote
0
I agree that Putin is in a corner, which in itself is dangerous for everyone
Plan a failed in a matter of days
Plan b looked like it had legs, but is falling apart rapidly.
Plan c appears to be panic, which by its nature is unpredictable
The really big question is who/how many people it actually takes to 'press the button' - a conversation which arose often when Trunp was president of the US
Upvote
0
No I’m not saying that at all, just that these weapons seem to have a 100% success rate track record at getting your own way if you drop them on people.
Upvote
0
If you mean a nuclear strike on NATO cities, that is (hopefully!) true. No one remotely sane wants to destroy the world. However what about attacks on Ukraine?
The Russians have tactical nukes for battlefield use. They hit quite a small area so can be used on military targets. How does NATO react if they take out a naval port, or a military airfield or a concentrated tank column or whatever?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read