How does one prepare for a nuclear strike? One doesn’t. That’s why I don’t understand the concern. The extra 30 minutes or so from the missile coming from halfway around the globe isn’t going to matter.
It matters in terms of response.
If you intend to retaliate with your own nukes, a 30s warning doesn’t give you any time to make any relevant decisions, much less get to a bunker or say goodbyes or what have you.
This may not be a big strategic consideration if it hits the middle of Wyoming, but if it’s coming to DC, it’s quite different.
There are lots of things that can be done. If possible, POTUS would be evacuated from the White House via helicopter, perhaps get aboard the E-4B NEACP and start getting airborne. 30 minutes is probably too short for that, but if there were some longer warning of imminent launch, like hours in advance, it could be done.
30 minutes is a reasonably long time when it comes to prepping a retaliatory strike and getting the President and Congress out of harm’s way. More importantly, if gives you a little time to evaluate the threat before you react.
The danger of theater missiles is that because your reaction window is so short, you don’t have much time to evaluate threats, and the risk of a mistaken launch goes way up. Everyone has to move to a hair-trigger policy.
And yes, the Cuban missile crisis was a response to American medium-range missiles in Europe, and Kennedy agreed to remove them afterwards.
Today I purchased a small gas/propane generator and a new freezer for our garage to stock up on some food. I’d been planning to do both for some time, but this latest news caused me to finally pull the trigger.
As others have said, it does make a difference in getting political and military leaders to safety, as well as giving time to give a considered retaliatory strike rather than a panicked response.
Nukes aren’t all powerful, and a military base can batten things down, and potentially survive a nearby strike that they wouldn’t have unprepared.
There’s also the possibility of having it called off. If it takes 30 minutes for a nuke to reach its target, there is more opportunity to call your counterpart and negotiate in the hopes that the ICBMs are equipped with termination systems, and they are willing to use them. When the nukes are hitting within a couple minutes of launch, there’s less window there.
And if nothing else, there is a psychological difference between having a gun shoved in your face, and a gun pointed at you from 20 feet away. I don’t see why that’s any different with nukes.
No such thing has ever been installed on an ICMB nor will it ever be. Too much risk of the enemy disabling your offensive capability remotely.
Right. But all of that has to be balanced by the likelihood of them being used or not. If putting the nukes close to the enemy is more likely to trigger a response, better to not put them close, since the option of using the long range ones is still on the table.
Ultimately what it comes down to is that I don’t see a nuclear war as being survivable. Even if the POTUS and all of congress and the top brass survive the initial blasts, that will be of extremely little benefit to the vast majority of us, especially when the enemy has 6,000 nukes.
Wikipedia lists the 150th largest US city at around 175K population. The 300th largest is around 100K. Let’s say Putin splits the nukes 50/50 between Europe and the US + Canada. By the time we’re on the 6,000th nuke, we’re probably talking about small cities with populations in the 10K to 20K range. Even if POTUS survives, what good does that do anyone?
I assume the first test of a attack on annexed territory will be the encirclement of Lyman.
It seems very unlikely Ukraine forces will withdraw and grovel at Putins feet for forgiveness.
Instead Russian forces will get the crap bombed out of them unless they withdraw from Lyman. What happens after that?
Will there be any significant change in Russia’s response?
I wonder whether there are any conventional weapons that Washington has thus far withheld from Ukraine so as not to “escalate” the situation. If so, I wonder whether Putin’s “annexation” today might change the calculus on sending those weapons, and whether they might accelerate the liberation of Ukrainian territory.
Longer range HIMARS have been discussed. I can’t see any reason to withhold them.
Putin has already annexed this territory. Hitting it with short or long range missles isn’t much different.
It would be foolish to attack Russia’s homeland. That would be asking for trouble.
That can’t be. Bigfoot lives in the West, he would obviously fight for Ukraine.
Not exactly the most handsome fellow, is he?
I wonder what China’s real reaction to the annexation will be. Not the official reaction about calling for peace. It seems to me they will not condemn it because of their designs on Taiwan.
I don’t see what good they would do for Ukraine. I think the annexed territory is already within range of what they have.
Absolute shit tons. The most widely discussed being ATACMS missiles for HIMARS/MLRS. F-16s and M1 Abrams tanks are also discussed. Heck, the US could flood Ukraine with Patriot missiles.
Not even close. The Kerch strait is > 300km from Kherson. Also, longer range would allow you to fire from many more places in Ukraine so as to make it harder for Russia to find and destroy HIMARS.
Abrams tanks, F-16s, and F-18s are at the top of the list. Maybe Apache helicopters and Bradley fighting vehicles as well. Yes, it would take a while to train Ukrainians to learn how to use those systems, but that’s not an excuse not to. Send the appropriate number of Ukrainian soldiers and pilots to the US or UK to train on them, and they could be ready for action by next summer.
Sure, but they don’t have to be able to cover every square inch back to the Russian border right now. They just need to be able to reach behind the front lines to supply areas.
I’m not sure they need these either. They already reportedly have more tanks than they started the war with. And the advanced aircraft can’t be used to their best effect until Russian anti aircraft weapons/radar is beat down more than it is now. The learning curve from old Russian aircraft to Western aircraft will be long and steep.
And command posts, and rail hubs, and logistics areas, and barracks, and and and I mean, dropping the Kerch bridge or rendering it unusable would be massive.
Being able to hit more things is better than not being able to. Also, the second point about being safer is still true.
Aircraft with anti-radar weaponry can help with that.
Yes, and if they can force Russia to have those supply areas inside Russia (actual borders, not the BS new annexations), all the better. And as previously pointed out, the farther back from Russian counter-measures, the more time they have to scoot after they shoot.
Mobilizing 300k troops and Putin repeatedly says, Russia will defend its territory with every available resource, can’t be ignored.
Its not just another day at the War office. It seems like Russia’s escalation has to be met in some responsible way. That would include better offensive weapons.
Somebody spray painted the front of the Russian consulate in New York.
Random red paint or is there symbolism there I’m not seeing?
Random seems more likely (not a lot of time to do great art, I’m certain), but the pattern matcher in brain keeps trying to resolve it into something (and there almost looks like there is something there?).