Satan 2 - Russia's new "country destroyer" missile

[Blobfish]

We Have Pine Gap in Northern Australia
So Secret run bi the Americans , that even Australians like me cannot see it.
Americans are Wankers


What you provide us Kangas?

Fkn America want your AnswerSKROE

PINE GAP

[Deleted]

You guys are ridiculous. First of all, there wouldn't be just one nuke. Our friendly Americans planned to drop JUST 171 nuclear bombs on our tiny country, which is 14 times smaller than Texas. Our capital city of 500,000 would be hammered by 24 bombs.

[Blobfish]

Cmon Skroe

What you know about PINE GAP


Americans have Target in Aussie

Here is Pine Gap you Yankess.. Making us Aussies a Nuke target
Cmon Yankees you stoopid agresive fucks





[Infracted - Nation Bashing]

[Skroe]

Cmon Skroe

What you know about PINE GAP


Americans have Target in Aussie

Here is Pine Gap you Yankess.. Making us Aussies a Nuke target
Cmon Yankees you stoopid agresive fucks

If you don't like Australia's participation in ECHELON (of which Pine Gap is a component), you are free to change your government and withdraw from it.

Good luck with that.

[Ulmita]

So what makes you think UK doesn't have 1000 missiles stocked away in silos waiting to be unleashed on Moscow, and that UK would be the only one getting wiped out?

I never said this isn't a probable scenario. However, this is not what you argued.
Nuke war is pure nightmare and i don't cherish nor wish such thing. However, due to the shitness of human nature, its what allowed us for such prolonged peace.

[Deleted]

Dude, don't drink and post.

Why? We need more people that aren't part of the part of the circlejerk. Don't say you don't enjoy reading his posts.

[Crispin]

It is obviously an exaggeration to illustrate in an outmost way that a little tiny country 0.4 times the size of Texas, can’t possible survive if it ever exchanged nukes with a power like Russia or the USA.

It is simple logic, something you obviously luck. The brits are literally ants that keep teasing an elephant, aka laughable and suicidal shit at the same time. There will be no winner in case of nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. On the other hand in a UK vs Russia scenario there will be definitely a looser.

Take the following map and put 2000 dots to it and then try to understand what I am saying:



Lastly, the nuclear arsenals of each country in the world ARE ESTIMATES. Aka the nuclear arsenal of Russia IS ESTIMATED BY THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS. There are NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS given FROM ANY COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

- - - Updated - - -




It’s sad that you write this while three posts above I wrote:



I am not sure why I even read your posts anymore.

And in the same post you think that the UK will be the definite looser in a UK vs Russian nuclear war, yet somehow you seem to think that the Americans would do nothing? Do you really belive Russia can nuke the Uk without NATO going apeshit on Russia? I'm guessing you do since you seem willing to argue an impossible scenario.

But thanks for proving what I wrote about you in the same post that you reply to it, you make Gollum seem coherent.

[yetgdhfgh]

MAD

Nobody wins in a nuke shown down except the egotistical prick hiding in a luxurious bunker who pressed the button!

[caervek]

It is simple logic, something you obviously luck. The brits are literally ants that keep teasing an elephant, aka laughable and suicidal shit at the same time. There will be no winner in case of nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. On the other hand in a UK vs Russia scenario there will be definitely a looser.

Two actually, the UK has maintained MAD with Russia for 50 years. You're assuming that because they are much bigger that they would require more warheads to wreck, your mistake is the fact that Russia is already almost entirely wasteland.

Saying the UK isn't a nuclear threat to Russia because in an exchange we could only turn all of their major cities into glass is comical.

[yetgdhfgh]

Two actually, the UK has maintained MAD with Russia for 50 years. You're assuming that because they are much bigger that they would require more warheads to wreck, your mistake is the fact that Russia is already almost entirely wasteland.

Saying the UK isn't a nuclear threat to Russia because in an exchange we could only turn all of their major cities into glass is comical.

One British Submarine can turn every single one of Russians cities into radioactive vapour but we know Russia can return the complement inkind but they know the USA would hit them with over 10k warheads! Plus France would have to hit them because of NATOs doctrine of an attack on one is an attack on all!

[Shadowferal]

It is simple logic, something you obviously luck. The brits are literally ants that keep teasing an elephant, aka laughable and suicidal shit at the same time. There will be no winner in case of nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. On the other hand in a UK vs Russia scenario there will be definitely a looser.

If you think that Russia can let fly nukes at the UK without the US getting involved with their own nukes added to the UK response you're dreaming, and that's not going into what France would add to the mix.

[Kellhound]

It is obviously an exaggeration to illustrate in an outmost way that a little tiny country 0.4 times the size of Texas, can’t possible survive if it ever exchanged nukes with a power like Russia or the USA.

It is simple logic, something you obviously luck. The brits are literally ants that keep teasing an elephant, aka laughable and suicidal shit at the same time. There will be no winner in case of nuclear exchange between USA and Russia. On the other hand in a UK vs Russia scenario there will be definitely a looser.

Take the following map and put 2000 dots to it and then try to understand what I am saying:



Lastly, the nuclear arsenals of each country in the world ARE ESTIMATES. Aka the nuclear arsenal of Russia IS ESTIMATED BY THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS. There are NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS given FROM ANY COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

- - - Updated - - -




It’s sad that you write this while three posts above I wrote:



I am not sure why I even read your posts anymore.

(number of ICBMs X number of warhead) + (number of SLBMs x number of warheads) = max number of missile warheads. Strategic nuclear arms are subject to treaties and verification as well.

While Russia has more warheads and fewer targets than the UK, Russia would still suffer crippling damage from ~200 UK warheads. Thats called a Pyrrhic victory. It also assumes Russia starts it.

- - - Updated - - -

One British Submarine can turn every single one of Russians cities into radioactive vapour but we know Russia can return the complement inkind but they know the USA would hit them with over 10k warheads! Plus France would have to hit them because of NATOs doctrine of an attack on one is an attack on all!

The US only has less than 1600 ballistic missile delivered warheads and less than 600 strategic air delivered warheads in active service. More than enough to destroy Russia, but far from 10,000.

[Deleted]

using nukemap classic
you would need a 9,000,000,000 Kiloton bomb to have 100% fatalities in an area the size of Texas.
Let that sink in for a moment, 9 BILLION Kiloton.

Russia, rattle that saber some more, because no one is taking you seriously.

[Deleted]

using nukemap classic
you would need a 9,000,000,000 Kiloton bomb to have 100% fatalities in an area the size of Texas.
Let that sink in for a moment, 9 BILLION Kiloton.

Russia, rattle that saber some more, because no one is taking you seriously.

Does that tool work for MIRVs?

[Deleted]

Does that tool work for MIRVs?

sadly, not that I can see. Had to go on the assumption of a single weapon, not multiple detonations with overlapping airblasts. That type of scenario would obviously require less power.

[Crispin]

using nukemap classic
you would need a 9,000,000,000 Kiloton bomb to have 100% fatalities in an area the size of Texas.
Let that sink in for a moment, 9 BILLION Kiloton.

Russia, rattle that saber some more, because no one is taking you seriously.

Sadly some naive fools do.

[Deleted]

sadly, not that I can see. Had to go on the assumption of a single weapon, not multiple detonations with overlapping airblasts. That type of scenario would obviously require less power.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The updated version does allow simulated mirvs, however it is limited to 100000 Kiloton blasts. even then it take 39-40 to cover the boarders of texas, let alone the interior. and even then that according to the sim is only for the thermal radiation, not the actual airblast damage which would require, many, many more.

[Crispin]

sadly, not that I can see. Had to go on the assumption of a single weapon, not multiple detonations with overlapping airblasts. That type of scenario would obviously require less power.

It does, just press launch multiple after detonation and then you can remove the marker to place a new one.

[Pengekaer]

Yeah but I guess they have a space-laser cannon by now that we haven't been told about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g77WN6obk4

It's going to wipe out all earth including Russia. That way, noone can question their victory. Right?

[Kellhound]

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The updated version does allow simulated mirvs, however it is limited to 100000 Kiloton blasts. even then it take 39-40 to cover the boarders of texas, let alone the interior. and even then that according to the sim is only for the thermal radiation, not the actual airblast damage which would require, many, many more.

50Mt is the largest single warhead any Russian ICBM could theoretically deliver (though 43Mt is more inline with the best weight to yield actually ever fielded). MIRVs are far smaller, the SS-18 having no larger than 1.3Mt warheads.