If Russia launches a nuke at Kiev, what should the US response be?
- Thread starter funksouljon
- Start date
Might want to listen to the first 10-15 minutes of this.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-pizza-hut-parade-part-13/id1471188269?i=1000472508524
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-pizza-hut-parade-part-13/id1471188269?i=1000472508524
EMP is among the scarier ways that NK could actually retaliate against the U.S. They already have the means, and it doesn't require nearly the same accuracy.We shut down our electrical system for two minutes as we blow this up over the Urals or where P-man is staying.
In a U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Thursday, members of the recently defunded EMP Commission informed congress of the devastation an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack could inflict on the country. In a commissioned report, former EMP Commissions chairman, William Graham, and its former chief of staff, Peter Vincent Pry, referred to North Korea using an EMP as a "doomsday scenario," citing Kim Jong-Un's well-documented threats to turn the U.S. to "ashes."
It could use its demonstrated satellite launcher to carry a nuclear weapon over the South Polar region and detonate it…over the United States to create a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse ... The result could be to shut down the U.S. electric power grid for an indefinite period, leading to the death within a year of up to 90 percent of all Americans.
Nope, just one I still use in the lounge and I'm not sharing bc losers like you can't put politics aside there either.
It's funny you just put anyone who disagrees with you on ignore though. "It has to be all just the same person!"
Comparing Japan in the 40s to Putin's Russia today is mind numbingly stupid. Not even in the same stratosphere. Did Japan have tactical nukes they could respond with?
Yes, it was the best of a lot of bad options at the time but there's a reason it's not been used since. Doing so now would likely mean the end of mankind.
Hard to say. He sure didn't wait long after JB was in office to make his move though. I was more calling out our resident military expert for his predictable partisan response.
hawkeyetraveler
HR All-American
The likelihood of Russia using a city killing nuke is astronomically small. It is much more likely they use a tactical nuke on the battlefield.
If I was NATO I would make it known in the strongest possible terms that even a tactical nuke is a red line:
If I was NATO I would make it known in the strongest possible terms that even a tactical nuke is a red line:
- Immediate dismantling of Russian air defense capabilities in any Ukrainian territory including Crimea
- Move multiple carrier groups into the Black Sea (regardless of Turkey’s possible protest)
- Destruction of the Black Sea fleet and immediate air/missile/drone attacks on all known Russian troop concentrations in Ukraine
- No fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO
- Expedited entry of Ukraine into NATO
- Complete embargo of trade with Russia
- But, NO attacks on Russian territory as defined by pre-Crimea invasion borders
MacArthur wanted to use them, but the rest of the military explained to Congress it was nuts. They didn’t make it public. They let him fade away.
Goldwater didn’t fair well with people thinking he’d entertain nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
A EMP attack would be devastating but I have a hard time believing losing the power grid would kill 90% of Americans. Seems exaggerated...
Definitely the extreme end based on the extreme situation of not having the infrastructure restored, but excess deaths would number in the millions and the economic impact of an EMP would be crippling.
On up to 90% U.S. fatalities from an EMP attack, during a congressional hearing, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett asked me if such high fatalities could result, and I responded: “We don’t have experience with losing the infrastructure in a country with 300 million people, most of whom don’t live in a way that provides for their own food and other needs. We can go back to an era when people did live like that. That would be—10 percent would be 30 million people, and that is probably the range where we could survive as a basically rural economy.” U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing, “Threat Posed By Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack” Committee on Armed Services (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2008), p. 9.
9 Jim Oberg, Space Review
The party of law and order, faith and family values should not talk about double standards.
I know Petraeus suspects that is the response NATO has lined up which is probably the best we have from someone that was likely at one point connected with their thinking.
Hard to say, I think everyone is trying to maintain strategic ambiguity on this one.
First of all, this threat didn't keep us from arming the Afghans, opposing Russian interests in Vietnam, etc. This isn't a new scenario.
If Russia uses a nuke, it will make the direct military aid so far look like a pat on the butt and a "go get 'em". You''ll probably end up with a no fly zone over Ukrainian territory, and Nato pilots and personnel in Ukraine. Russia is already losing the war, but it absolutely seals the deal on any chance Russia has to get out of this with their skin. It probably results in Russia losing their Ukrainian holdings including Crimea.
Long term, the disincentive is even more damning, which is probably US nuclear installations, if not bases, in Ukraine, Poland, and other US allies in the region. In other words, it ends with EXACTLY what Putin started the war claiming Russia needed to prevent.
Putin didn't start this war expecting to lose. He didn't know/think that the Russian army would be so pathetic, the Ukrainians would be so prepared, and the world would be so lined up for Ukraine. He is an evil despot, but I don't think he's in Leroy Jenkins mode, and ready to make a move that will render all his worst case scenario a reality.
If Russia uses a nuke, it will make the direct military aid so far look like a pat on the butt and a "go get 'em". You''ll probably end up with a no fly zone over Ukrainian territory, and Nato pilots and personnel in Ukraine. Russia is already losing the war, but it absolutely seals the deal on any chance Russia has to get out of this with their skin. It probably results in Russia losing their Ukrainian holdings including Crimea.
Long term, the disincentive is even more damning, which is probably US nuclear installations, if not bases, in Ukraine, Poland, and other US allies in the region. In other words, it ends with EXACTLY what Putin started the war claiming Russia needed to prevent.
Putin didn't start this war expecting to lose. He didn't know/think that the Russian army would be so pathetic, the Ukrainians would be so prepared, and the world would be so lined up for Ukraine. He is an evil despot, but I don't think he's in Leroy Jenkins mode, and ready to make a move that will render all his worst case scenario a reality.
This. The first nuclear weapon used won’t be the last. And the resulting escalation will probably be unstoppable.
Predictable pathetic response. "I waste more of my time than you posting on message boards so my opinions count more!"
Latest posts
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-
-