22-10-2018, 09:34 PM
22
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Baba Vanga has also made predictions, but none that indicate WWIII . (so far as I am aware)She predicted 9/11, the Tsunami, the rise of a terrorist group and a Muslim caliphate set up in Rome by 2043.
Lots more but it all depends on how things are interpreted , doesn't it.
Her list for the future is quite impressive, and probably is summing up the way we are going.
https://ancientexplorers.com/blogs/n...th-80-accuracy
https://www.top5s.co.uk/5-shocking-b...hat-came-true/
22-10-2018, 10:26 PM
23
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiNope, we already manufacture our own warheads, we are very good at it.
Attach them to cruise missiles and free-fall bombs and we have our deterrent.
Cruise missiles (like Tomahawk) are a better bet, but even then we are reliant on American products.
Ballistic missiles are still the best option, and have been very difficult or even impossible to stop, even way back in the days of German V2s, and those fired from submarines have the distinct advantage of being untraceable at least until launch.
I believe, and have said so before, that we should be able to design and create our own ballistic missiles for warhead delivery. We did it before in the 1960s (I think) though, admittedly, these were land based and relatively short ranged.
If we have the technology to develop our own nuclear warheads (currently installed in Trident missiles), I'm sure we can develop our own missiles. We even have access to the Trident missiles and, whilst we are not allowed the launch codes, it wouldn't be an enormous step to 'copy' them! The Russians were very good indeed at copying our Western technologies a few decades ago.
Yes, they will cost a lot more than buying American missiles but, if the Americans are not willing to allow us to control ours that we have bought from them, we should do something about it.
22-10-2018, 11:37 PM
24
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Does that mean nuclear missiles ?https://www.plenglish.com/index.php?...y-in-the-world
Lavrov, Bolton Discuss Syria, Strategic Stability in the World
Moscow, Oct 22 (Prensa Latina) Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and White House Counselor for National Security John Bolton discussed on Monday the Syrian conflict, the Afghan crisis, strategic stability and anti-terrorism.
The state of bilateral relations, the situation related to China and the Caucasus were also addressed in the meeting, said the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Bolton offered statements to the Kommersant newspaper, in which he reiterated his anti-Russian rhetoric with the accusations of Moscow's supposed breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
The United States at the moment did not take any decision on whether it will deploy missiles in Europe, in case of an exit from the INF, the spokesperson said. Regarding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start-III), Bolton considered it was too early to make a decision on whether it is necessary to extend that deal, when it expires in 2021. The adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, who announced the possible withdrawal of the INP by his country, is known for his extremist positions and his refusal to limit the United States with disarmament agreements.******
22-10-2018, 11:49 PM
25
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiThere are enough to destroy continents around, but as you say, not used so far.
The ones Trump is now going to build are battlefield tactical nukes, not the huge strategic destroy a city in a blink ones.
Sooner or later one will be used and it won't be in mainland USA.
The original reason for them was, specifically, the fact that NATO was so heavily outnumbered by Russian conventional forces in Europe that the expected scenario was that Russian forces were able to sweep across Europe within only a few days.
Should this have happened, battlefield nuclear weapons would have been fired in order to stop them in their tracks.
Is that scenario what is in Trumps mind?
23-10-2018, 06:00 AM
26
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Yes, but we (or at least the Yanks) have had battlefield nuclear weapons for decades.The original reason for them was, specifically, the fact that NATO was so heavily outnumbered by Russian conventional forces in Europe that the expected scenario was that Russian forces were able to sweep across Europe within only a few days.
Should this have happened, battlefield nuclear weapons would have been fired in order to stop them in their tracks.
Is that scenario what is in Trumps mind?
I have no idea at all what is in Trump's mind.
Battlefield nuclear weapons are for use in Europe, not in the mainland USA.
They are a bit of a misnomer as they are also used to knockout roads and railways and reserves hundreds of miles behind the actual battlefield.
If Putin puts some of his in Syria, they could destroy any USA Carrier Groups in the Med or Persian Gulf.
23-10-2018, 11:10 AM
27
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
Battlefield nuclear weapons are for use in Europe, not in the mainland USA.They are a bit of a misnomer as they are also used to knockout roads and railways and reserves hundreds of miles behind the actual battlefield.
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
If Putin puts some of his in Syria, they could destroy any USA Carrier Groups in the Med or Persian Gulf.
US carrier battle groups are very effective indeed in a conventional conflict, being the most powerful naval assets in the world.
They could even be safe from submarine attack due to their own defence in depth: they include their own hunter-killer submarines which, crucially, are quieter than the Russian ones, and then there are anti-submarine frigates next to be overcome.
However, a single low-yield nuclear missile could destroy the carrier, and quite possibly its close escorts, in a single shot. That would certainly be my major concern as the commander of the battle group.
But then, of course, a nuclear exchange would result and that would quite likely escalate. MAD.
23-10-2018, 11:34 AM
28
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Good. We agree.This is, I believe, a good point.
US carrier battle groups are very effective indeed in a conventional conflict, being the most powerful naval assets in the world.
They could even be safe from submarine attack due to their own defence in depth: they include their own hunter-killer submarines which, crucially, are quieter than the Russian ones, and then there are anti-submarine frigates next to be overcome.
However, a single low-yield nuclear missile could destroy the carrier, and quite possibly its close escorts, in a single shot. That would certainly be my major concern as the commander of the battle group.
But then, of course, a nuclear exchange would result and that would quite likely escalate. MAD.
It is not a given that a military loss would immediately escalate into an all out exchange.
An all out strategic exchange would mean no winners as everything would be destroyed.
23-10-2018, 11:59 AM
29
Re: The World has suddenly got more dangerous.
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiIt is not a given that a military loss would immediately escalate into an all out exchange.
An all out strategic exchange would mean no winners as everything would be destroyed.
Indeed, which is why we have survived for 70 years without another world war.
|
|
