Fallout

[FormarllyKnownAsThorn]

Have you considered medication Serb? Or is this one of those 2 minute hates from the Soviet/Russian/ aka Eurasia Department of Peace?! giggles

Why are you so angry? No one wins a Nuclear 💣exchange. If you want to live in ☢ radioactive ☢ melted permafrost, I guess that is technically a psychotic available option.

Most people in the states won't die from the bombs anyways, a bit with radiation, but most with the supply chain destroyed. You'll be suprised how many people would survive even if Russia had perfect Aim with its 1,458/6,257 against our 1,389/5,550 Nuclear Payloads.​

The United States of America, could easily declare war on Russia for this **** you pulled, putting multiple spies, and owned assets in our government, including a psycho but populist Manchurian Candidate as our last freaking President. We should really strike first, but we are sane, comparatively.

You really don't want what you wish for, keep wishing you just might get it. Tsk Tsk.

[Thorn]

Most of our nukes are on deployed submarines ​, so good luck sinking them with your "growing navy ​​", I guess you could just attempt to nuke the entire oceans, but that is a lot less land targets you could get. ​​

[Serb]

whatever......

[WigIaf]

p.s. Only an American Hollywood-raised clowns can seriously believe that one can ride away from a nuclear blast on an horse!

on Earth you are always riding towards nuclear blasts

[Serb]

Have you considered medication Serb?

I take my medication twice a day, thank you, Mr. Bull****er!

Most people in the states won't die from the bombs anyways, a bit with radiation, but most with the supply chain destroyed. You'll be suprised how many people would survive even if Russia had perfect Aim with its 1,458/6,257 against our 1,389/5,550 Nuclear Payloads.​

You have shown already that you are a piece of sh!t as a conventional force, Mr. Hollywood hero!

What make you think that your obsolete and rusty nuckes and long time abandoned shelters would do better against a new generation of weapons you are a light yares behind?

Non of your obsolete ICBM can travel and manoeuvre at 27 March!
And you don't have a nuclear propelled cruise missile with nuclear warhead and a limitless range and thus unpredictable path to hit its target.
None except us has such technologies.
Good luck with your 50 years old missiles!!!

A cyanide s a good medication for you will be!

(Just like in the movie "On the beach")
​

[Thorn]

What make you think that your obsolete and rusty nuckes and long time abandoned shelters would do better against a new generation of weapons you are a light yares behind?
​

You are correct about our lack of shelters. As far as weapons go we spend 40% of the entire world's military GDP each year, that's more then the next 10 nations combined including all of our enemies...every year! You really think in a situation like that, that we don't have money to upkeep or enhance our nuclear weapons and probably don't have weapons worse then nukes by now. Our Military Industrial Complex is out of control, but it's well funded!

There is a reason why we keep a lot of our Nuclear systems with older launch technology that is controlled better manually so we don't end up nuking ourselfs with North korea hackers or something like skynet. Nukes and even a basic intranet is a bad idea even.

[Geronimo]

You are correct about our lack of shelters. As far as weapons go we spend 40% of the entire world's military GDP each year, that's more then the next 10 nations combined including all of our enemies...every year! You really think in a situation like that, that we don't have money to upkeep or enhance our nuclear weapons and probably don't have weapons worse then nukes by now. Our Military Industrial Complex is out of control, but it's well funded!

There is a reason why we keep a lot of our Nuclear systems with older launch technology that is controlled better manually so we don't end up nuking ourselfs with North korea hackers or something like skynet. Nukes and even a basic intranet is a bad idea even.

I doubt that Serb would claim that Russian nukes are more advanced for having IoT technologies of any kind implemented in them. He believes that while the launch vehicles that Western countries use are unmodified implementations of 40+ year old blueprints he accepts that Russia's currently deployed nukes are all deployed onto recent more cutting-edge designs like hypersonic maneuvering multi-warhead designs (including many decoys) or unlimited range high speed cruise missiles or undetectable huge super torpedoes which he all is certain could not possibly be intercepted or stopped by any technology at all. Furthermore, he believes that Russia has lent these new super technologies to its ABM and SAM capabilities so that he believes Russia could easily intercept and block a large fraction of Western nukes.

I don't buy it either and think these systems have capabilities far inferior of what he's been told but there's no way to really know. Nuclear weapon related secrets tend be a bit tougher to crack than most state secrets. Certainly G.W Bush and his CIA were sincerely convinced that Iraq *did* have a nuclear program and it was all a bluff. I don't doubt that the CIA under Obama, Trump, and Biden would have even greater difficulty accessing Russian nuclear secrets.

[Serb]

You are correct about our lack of shelters. As far as weapons go we spend 40% of the entire world's military GDP each year, that's more then the next 10 nations combined including all of our enemies...every year! You really think in a situation like that, that we don't have money to upkeep or enhance our nuclear weapons and probably don't have weapons worse then nukes by now. Our Military Industrial Complex is out of control, but it's well funded!

You waste absolute majority of your military spendings on MIC corruption and manitenantes of yopur 800+ military bases Worldwide.
Purchasing per parity, you investments in a new weapon systems tens times less than Russia or China.

And your shelters are non existent as most of your nukes.

A rusty pieces of sh!t.

There is a reason why we keep a lot of our Nuclear systems with older launch technology that is controlled better manually so we don't end up nuking ourselfs with North korea hackers or something like skynet. Nukes and even a basic intranet is a bad idea even.

This won't help you against the fatigue of metal and all its possible systems, since your "best" and the most "modern" ICBM has been build almoust an half of a century ago.

They are rusty and obolete! Period!

And when you brking with your rusty obsolete sh!t agaqinst us, we see as just suicide idiots, nothing more!​

[Serb]

If you will ever come even a close to defeat us conventionally, we will simply erase and incinerate your entire collective West WITHIN A MINUTES!


Carve that into your brainless heads!​

[Geronimo]

defeat Russia conventionally? why would it even matter? Do you seriously think they are prepared to occupy a sprawl like Russia? They barely had the patience for a handful for bases in modest sized countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody is going to put together a vast barbarossa sized occupation force to occupy Russia. If Russia were ever "defeated" conventionally Russia would then have the luxury to wait for an invasion that would never come.

A nuclear response on the other hand would surely lead to the death of most Russians and the nuclear winter de-agriculturalization of what's left of Russia afterward would probably lead to the enslavement of most of the surviving Russian refugees in the starvation exodus into new post-apocalyptic civilizations beyond the nuclear winter no growth zones, assuming appreciable numbers of Russian survivors even made it that.far.

[Serb]

I doubt that Serb would claim that Russian nukes are more advanced for having IoT technologies of any kind implemented in them. He believes that while the launch vehicles that Western countries use are unmodified implementations of 40+ year old blueprints

a) Your ICBM's are a 67 years old design, not just 40! The design om Munitemen-3 was started in 1957, the first missile was commisioned in 1962.
b) The most new ICBM of that design has been build and commisioned in 1978 - 46 years ago! The most new one!!! Since that moment you heven't produc a single new missile! Not a single one! Period!
(not ot mention to create a new design)

he accepts that Russia's currently deployed nukes are all deployed onto recent more cutting-edge designs like hypersonic maneuvering multi-warhead designs (including many decoys) or unlimited range high speed cruise missiles or undetectable huge super torpedoes which he all is certain could not possibly be intercepted or stopped by any technology at all. Furthermore, he believes that Russia has lent these new super technologies to its ABM and SAM capabilities so that he believes Russia could easily intercept and block a large fraction of Western nukes.

Of course we are light years ahead of your rusty nuckes, which makes your threats a threats of a gang leader of imbecile thugs with knives with a rusty muskets under their backs, agains a guy with a modern machine gun and a body armor.

You are just begging to be incinirated!

I don't buy it either and think these systems have capabilities far inferior of what he's been told but there's no way to really know. Nuclear weapon related secrets tend be a bit tougher to crack than most state secrets. Certainly G.W Bush and his CIA were sincerely convinced that Iraq *did* have a nuclear program and it was all a bluff. I don't doubt that the CIA under Obama, Trump, and Biden would have even greater difficulty accessing Russian nuclear secrets.
​

What your lies created to invide a sovereign state and kill one million of people there has to do with a modern reality?

Our new toys are already commisioned, have been tested and used (on an oprational level) already!
Our strtategic toys have been launched and your intel have seen it.
You don't have such technologies, period!
And the size of your military budget doesn't mean a thing, since you are so dumb (say hello to your education system) that you can't create even a Mach 5 missile!
While we already have Mach 12 commissioned tactical missiles and Mach 27 strategic ones.
Not to mention that a nuclear propulsion is something you can't even imagine and understand.

You are just a barking suicide clowns!​

[Geronimo]

Development of the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile wasn't abandoned in 1964 because "nobody could imagine or understand" the concept. It was abandoned because the testing was horribly dangerous and it didn't really offer any critical advantage over the ICBMs. Can you imagine a *less* stealthy nuclear warhead delivery system Serb? If anything it would probably be even easier to intercept and destroy on the way to target than those rust bucket ICBMs.

[Serb]

We were doing the same thing with nuclear propulsion earlier than you and have abondoned the idea at the same time, because that level of technology was not sufficient to make such engine effective.
Now it is.
Nuclear propulsion gives cruise missile an unlimited range.
It's like asking what for you need a nuclear subs, if you already have a diesel ones?

Basically it's a perfect stealth first strike weapon. Simple as that.
No to mention we already have a nuclear powered spaceship it's called "Zeus" under construction (which scares your Pentagon as hell).​

[Serb]

You'll dare something against us - that will be your last mistake.

[Geronimo]

We were doing the same thing with nuclear propulsion earlier than you and have abondoned the idea at the same time, because that level of technology was not sufficient to make such engine effective.
Now it is.
Nuclear propulsion gives cruise missile an unlimited range.
It's like asking what for you need a nuclear subs, if you already have a diesel ones?

Basically it's a perfect stealth first strike weapon. Simple as that.
No to mention we already have a nuclear powered spaceship it's called "Zeus" under construction (which scares your Pentagon as hell).​

excuse me??? you're going to "stealth" a flying nuclear reactor? When a sub's nuclear reactor is shielded there is an incredible asset in its buoyancy that can allow all of that weight to minimally encumber the submarine. Without the substantial extra shielding these subs would be about as stealthy as a leaky oil tanker. The inevitable gamma radiation of the reactor is one of the most difficult things to absorb so physics doesn't really leave a lightweight low bulk solution to block it. if you don't block it, your delivery vehicle lights up to gamma ray detectors like a flashing sign. The sky is a really big place and the PRC had some huge balloons seemingly unnoticed up there for a while but if your vehicle emits gamma rays how long will it be able to hide once anyone suspects gamaa ray emitting platforms might be loitering up there? If it is detected before the order to strike what then?

As for Zeus what good really is a nuclear space engine for nuclear attack? it's ideal for reusable interplanetary trips but it's going to be absurdly inefficient for dropping nuclear warheads. If you build any of those the last thing you'd want to do is leave them hanging around low earth orbit waiting for apocalypse day idling their nuclear engines

[Thorn]

Serb, please, please, please, if you are being held to rant at us against your will, just say I hate America, we'll know.