Asante said:

Russia will build 170 of these rockets and will have 124 fully functional, ready to go. Thats 186 megatons as 1240 warheads.

---

It seems like they are only just starting to get all the kinks worked out of the RSM-56 Bulava.

I don't know about today, I'm sure the technology is much more advanced. However, in the 1990's the US had SLBM with a CEP of < 100m. That was 20 years ago.

So basically, yes, you are correct. The Russians could decimate all major US cities. However, the US could just as easily (more easily, most likely) do the same thing to the Russians.

While it would be bad for both countries, if there was anybody left, the Americans would be able to recover from it faster than the Russians could recover from their vodka hangover.

Again, the economy of the state of California alone is larger than the economy of the entire country of Russia

The US is more stable, US has over twice as many people as Russia, the US economy is vastly superior, US infrastructure is superior, US technology is superior, etc.

So while it is true that Russia could destroy the US, the US could destroy Russia just as easily, and the US would recover faster as well.

So basically, all situations end with Russia < USA.

Not only that, but just because Russia says they are going to do something, doesn't mean they are going to go through with it as planned.

Quote:

For one thing, Russia, given its economic problems, probably cannot afford even the weapons that Mr. Putin has pledged to deliver by 2020. Six months ago, he said the country would add 50 ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year, and at least one senior Russian military official has indicated publicly that the Kremlin’s appetite exceeds its wallet.

---

Quote:

He repeated part of that pledge on Tuesday at the military fair, stating that at least 70 percent of all weapons should be modernized by 2020. But there are signs that the money might run out first.

The military budget jumped 32 percent last fall, only to be cut back by over 4 percent this year, according to Russian news reports.

Yuriy Borisov, a deputy defense minister, told the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper this year that the military had underestimated how much it would need to spend to acquire new Armata tanks. Mr. Putin had pledged the government would buy 2,300 by 2020.

“We miscalculated on the Armata,” Mr. Borisov was quoted as saying. “The money allocated for that project turns out to be too little.” Production costs are 250 percent higher than anticipated, he said, without further details.

The official cost is secret, but Russian news reports estimate that the tanks cost more than $7 million apiece. Orders for the T-50, an expensive new fighter jet, are also likely to be reduced.

Mr. Golts noted that although senior Russian officials continued to promise modern weapons, they quietly fiddled with the numbers to be delivered.

---

Asante said:

I'm just saying that just 1 of those rockets coming through is the biggest disaster ever to hit any country in the world short of the friggin Flood. 100x the bomb on Hiroshima packed in 10 heavy warheads which are independently guided to destinations.

---

Asante said:

I'm just saying that just 1 of those rockets coming through is the biggest disaster ever to hit any country in the world short of the friggin Flood. 100x the bomb on Hiroshima packed in 10 heavy warheads which are independently guided to destinations.

---

again. it won't make it.

our newest technology is fully capable of intercepting an ICBM designed decades ago. we have passenger jets outfitted with advanced radar systems and lasers meant for just this sort of thing. Russia can't so much as fart in our airspace without us knowing what they are up to.

Thayendanegea said:

I always thought it was kind of funny when Putin threw a fit a few years back when we wanted to put missile defense batteries in the Balkans somewhere. These are purely defensive and he knows they are effective against his short range and ICBM's.

---

404 said:

Asante said:

I'm just saying that just 1 of those rockets coming through is the biggest disaster ever to hit any country in the world short of the friggin Flood. 100x the bomb on Hiroshima packed in 10 heavy warheads which are independently guided to destinations.

---

again. it won't make it.

our newest technology is fully capable of intercepting an ICBM designed decades ago. we have passenger jets outfitted with advanced radar systems and lasers meant for just this sort of thing. Russia can't so much as fart in our airspace without us knowing what they are up to.

---

Quote:

Russia has also been developing the solid-fueled Bulava RSM-56 submarine-launched ballistic missile. After a series of embarrassing test failures, the Bulava was finally declared operational in October. The Bulava carries up to 10 warheads and has an operational range of 10,000 kilometers.

Borei class nuclear submarine: The Bulava missile is designed for use with the Borei class strategic nuclear submarine. Borei submarines were first conceived in the mid-1980s, but serious work only began in 1996. The project ran up against Russia's financial collapse and was long delayed. The first vessel, the Yury Dolgoruky, was ceremonially launched in 2007 but wasn't accepted into service until 2013.

Two more Boreis are nearing completion and Russia plans to build a total of 10. Work has reportedly begun on a fourth Borei, which may be significantly modified and could be considered a Borei-II type.
The Borei class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine Yury Dolgoruky in 2014The Borei class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine Yury Dolgoruky in 2014

The subs will enable Russia to regularly patrol the far southern hemisphere for the first time in two decades. Boreis run a crew of 107 and are armed with 16 Bulava strategic nuclear missiles (up to 10 warheads each), as well as torpedoes and RPK-2 Viyuga nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

Perhaps keeping in mind the tragic 2008 sinking of the Kursk, Russia's RT television reported all Borei class subs will have a rescue chamber "designed to fit in the whole crew."

---

chopstick said:

The Russians have superior missile and anti-air technology. Unlike the USA, their army is not designed to launch wars against weaker foreign countries, but rather primarily for defense.

---

chopstick said:

and effectively seals off Russian airspace.

---

Quote:

The U.S. defense budget is $612 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries combined.

---

source

source

It is also worth keeping in mind that we probably have no idea what the US military is actually capable of doing.
They most likely have technology beyond what we can even imagine.

In many countries, like North Korea and sometimes Russia, for example, every time they start developing a new weapon the state media goes crazy and leaders tout it as a sign of their power and technological abilities.

This is not really the case with the US military, they keep the real shit super classified and secretive. There is probably technology we have not even seen used that is extremely advanced.

404 said:

You assume russia has the ability to get past our defence network, assuming they would pull such a stunt anyway (they wont)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense

Technology exists to handle ICBM's.

---