DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWV05BOXxUQ

I don't have the transcript to this but the evidence is very disturbing. Putin sent out his old trucks, old tanks, etc. Some generals say Putin wants a nuclear war and has reason to be confident he could win.

Putin has hypersonic missiles. If he were to launch a nuclear warhead on one from one of his submarines, we would not be able to intercept it. He also seems to be better prepared with underground bunkers in the event of nuclear war. The nuclear arsenal in the US is old and quite possibly inferior to what the Russians possess. The other point Dr. Savage makes is that both Russia and China have orbiting space stations that would allow them to attack unimpeded from space.

It's interesting that Napoleon used the playing possum tactic in what I believe was his greatest battle to defeat the Prussians and destroy the Holy Roman Empire.

Michael Savage!!!!!!



Anyone else remember this toothless wonder?

Just when you thought ajax couldn't possibly downgrade from Brietbart.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:02 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWV05BOXxUQ

I don't have the transcript to this but the evidence is very disturbing. Putin sent out his old trucks, old tanks, etc. Some generals say Putin wants a nuclear war and has reason to be confident he could win.

Putin has hypersonic missiles. If he were to launch a nuclear warhead on one from one of his submarines, we would not be able to intercept it. He also seems to be better prepared with underground bunkers in the event of nuclear war. The nuclear arsenal in the US is old and quite possibly inferior to what the Russians possess. The other point Dr. Savage makes is that both Russia and China have orbiting space stations that would allow them to attack unimpeded from space.

It's interesting that Napoleon used the playing possum tactic in what I believe was his greatest battle to defeat the Prussians and destroy the Holy Roman Empire.

The whole system of nuclear weapons is set up to insure that no one can "win" a nuclear war. The U.S. can pick up the launch of any Russian missiles capable of reaching the U.S. at launch, and has sufficient nuclear weapons of its own to destroy Russia. What good are bunkers going to do when your country's infrastructure is destroyed and the land contained with fallout. How are you going to feed people? The quality of nuclear weapons doesn't matter much when you have a metric buttload of them. We have lots of those on our own submarines that Russia would not be able detect in time. As for attacking from space, attack with what? What weapons are these space stations equipped with that represent a threat to the U.S.?

As for hypersonic missles, there's good reason to believe that they represent more hype than threat. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... c-weapons/ Yet, with the military hyping the threat, just as was done with the Star Wars missile defense in the 1980s, we'll likely end up pouring billions, if not trillions, of dollars down a rat hole.

This invasion was structured as a quick strike on critical targets, followed by either replacement of the elected governments with puppet governments and/or acquisition of territory, especially in the east, including giving Russia an open land route to Crimea. Playing possum would be completely antithetical to how the invasion was structured.

And is Dr. Savage Michael savage? What is he a doctor in and is it relevant to strategic analysis of military invasions?

The whole system of nuclear weapons is set up to insure that no one can "win" a nuclear war. The U.S. can pick up the launch of any Russian missiles capable of reaching the U.S. at launch

Not the hypersonic missiles

What good are bunkers going to do when your country's infrastructure is destroyed and the land contained with fallout.

I think Putin figures himself or a few select people can survive it, at least better than his enemies. There's an old saying, "Nobody can suffer like a Russian." That's not saying I think Putin is right in what he's doing. I just have a respect for what he's capable of doing and take him seriously.

This general/military strategist that Michael Savage is quoting says that Putin has localized nuclear weapons that don't have a large fallout area. He could destroy an American city without effecting Europe. Once he demonstrates he's willing to do this, Europe would be reluctant to retaliate lest they get hit with a nuclear weapon as well.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:30 pm

The whole system of nuclear weapons is set up to insure that no one can "win" a nuclear war. The U.S. can pick up the launch of any Russian missiles capable of reaching the U.S. at launch

Not the hypersonic missiles

Raytheon's SPY-6 can detect and track hypersonic missiles.

Here's a Forbe's article about the SPY-6 radar line, from 2019. I think Raytheon began delivering the first version (they are on version 4 or 5 now), to be installed on Navy ships sometime in 2020.

There's also really cool stuff being done with A.I. that can (hopefully) make existing vanilla systems able to detect and track hypersonics (but the integrated infrastructure isn't there yet, from what I understand).


ETA: If we have any electricity/power gurus on the board, and they're bored (and wouldn't mind indulging me), would they mind taking a look at the SPY-6 system overview. Am I calculating it right that it takes over 400 kilowatts to power one of these things?

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:30 pm

The whole system of nuclear weapons is set up to insure that no one can "win" a nuclear war. The U.S. can pick up the launch of any Russian missiles capable of reaching the U.S. at launch

Not the hypersonic missiles

What's the point of having a hypersonic nuclear missile if its range is only 1000 kilometers? Res' point still stands. Russia cannot attack the US without us knowing about it. And there is questionable data about Russia's ability to use hypersonic missiles in the first place. You cannot believe everything Putin brags about.

But then, you rely on Brietbart, Daily Caller and now Savage!

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:02 pm

He also seems to be better prepared with underground bunkers in the event of nuclear war.

Do you mean better prepared to survive it? Survive it for what purpose? Like replenish the radiated Earth ala Noah? Protect amassed wealth that cannot be used for any purpose at all? To be the leader of a global pile of rubble? Create a new world like he's God so he just whips up a healthy forest, atmosphere, water supply, and builds new infrastructure from what exactly?

I fail to see the rationale here.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:02 pm

The nuclear arsenal in the US is old and quite possibly inferior to what the Russians possess.

Actually the opposite is true. Russia has over 6,200 nuclear warheads in total left over from the cold war, but only 1400 are active and ready to go which is about the same number the USA has. Roughly have of our active nuclear arsenal is in nuclear subs, which have a range of 12,000 kilometers and are already much closer to Russia than their subs are to us.

You're letting another discredited moron dictate to you how you should be scared and terrified. If Trump were in office none of this fear mongering would be going on.

Not the hypersonic missiles

who cares? There's enough conventionals to destroy the world a few times over.

You're wrong that Putin wants a nuclear war. If he wanted one, he could have one any time. Of course he doesn't want one. He doesn't have to bait the US into anything to start one. If his main objective was a nuclear strike, it would make more sense to do the strike with no warning, out of nowhere, not to use a failed war as a pretense.

All the bluster shows that he doesn't want one.

It is certain that Russia will survive a nuclear war better than the US, not because of bunkers, but because it's Russia, the largest country in the world and mostly wasteland. He could personally survive in his own private bunker assuming the few support staff he needs don't turn on him. That's been true forever.

The suggestion that Putin is just putting out junk he doesn't care about is laughable. He is using good equipment, the best he has, in many cases. He's also losing real senior military staff at the same time. Don't fall into the trap you have with Trump that Putin is so brilliant that every move he makes was thought 27 steps in advance and exactly what he wanted to do. you conspiracy theorists are experts at calling the plays after the fact.

The risk is whether out of anger and desperation he would use nukes.

He could use a single nuke anywhere in Europe or in the US, and test to see how we respond. A tactical nuke is the most likely risk, because obviously we can't end humanity by launching everything in response.

I don't think China wants to live in a nuclear wasteland. Using a nuke would turn everyone against him.

By the way, those of the school of thought that we should be pushing him harder also believe he's more likely to use a nuke the longer this drags out, rather than if we stand up and slap the crap out of him.

By the way, a similar argument is made by those who are arguing against a no-fly-zone.

Putting up a no-fly-zone is as much a bluff as anything, because now you've got to enforce it. Putting up a no-fly-zone is a similar kind of escalation as threatening a nuke. You're testing to see how the other side reacts -- do they dare cross that line? But you've also put the ball in the court of the opponent, and handing the next move to the other guy.

It would be better to launch a sneak attack if you're going to start WW3, and have the advantage of the first move, then draw a line in the sand almost impossible not to cross that would end with WW3 anyway.