Nuclear strike on America

Linda Roberts2 said:With vacuum bombs, there isn't much left of buildings or people... but with an Atomic bomb, something usually remains.

I wouldn't say that.
Maybe do a little more reading first.

The term "vacuum bomb" is mostly just catchy shorthand used by journalists for what military experts call an FAE or aerosol bomb. They aren't some new invention either; they've been around for fifty years. The Americans used them in Vietnam, and the Russians used them in Afghanistan.

Comparing an FAE to a nuclear weapon is kind of like comparing a firecracker to a massive heavy bomber.
Even the most powerful FAEs barely hit ten tons of force, while thermonuclear weapons are measured in dozens of megatons. We're talking about a difference of millions.

Just because you don't get something doesn't mean it isn't true. This whole argument is built on logical premises. We've had two world wars already, so why couldn't there be a third? We're already seeing the crisis that serves as a prerequisite. If nuclear weapons were used in the second one, why wouldn't they be used in a third? These plans exist. In the most recent scenarios being discussed, the target would be allied nations—specifically those that don't have their own nuclear arsenal but host foreign bases.

Just thinking about how much weaker a vacuum bomb actually is compared to a nuclear strike. www.politika.rs/rubrike/svet/t40814.lt.html

Linda Roberts2 said:The war would unfold in three distinct stages. First, the weaker allies without nuclear capabilities would take the brunt of it. Second, it would move into uninhabited territories, and only in the third stage would cities actually be targeted.

Those "plans" of yours are certainly something.

First, you'd strike meaningless targets that wouldn't change anything, then you'd hit more meaningless targets that wouldn't change anything, and finally, for variety's sake, you'd just go after even more meaningless targets that wouldn't change a thing.

And you claim you "read" this somewhere?

Where exactly? 😕

In some dusty old issue of Mickey's Funhouse you dug up from the attic? 😛

Linda Roberts2 said:Just thinking about how much weaker a vacuum bomb actually is compared to a nuclear strike. www.politika.rs/rubrike/svet/t40814.lt.html

Miroslav Lazanski😂🤣😂

darksurfer4 said:Miroslav Lazanski😂🤣😂

And I guess Lazanski is just parroting whatever Russian sources tell him. According to General Alexander Ruskin, this bomb is basically on par with a nuclear weapon in terms of sheer power and effectiveness.

Look, this only happens if there's some direct military movement coming out of NATO bases toward Russia. It's a long shot, but in some far-off, extreme scenario, maybe. Otherwise? Honestly, who cares what Russia thinks about America? If you ask me, the Russians would actually be all for America joining the EU. Why? Because they’d love nothing more than to see as many countries as possible with weak economies dragging down those massive EU financial funds. It's a perfect way for them to further weaken and destabilize the whole region—including America, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Albania.

It’s entirely possible we could see the EU fall apart. If that happens, I suspect Russia would jump at the chance to expand its influence across Europe. There are even some theories floating around suggesting this entire crisis is being manufactured on purpose to force a massive shift in the global order, but maybe that’s a conversation better suited for another thread.

Its destructive capacity is comparable to even the weakest tactical nuclear weapons, possessing a blast radius of roughly 300 meters.
To get a sense of what happens when we move into the realm of "heavyweight" ordnance, consider this:
http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16/

Linda Roberts2 said:Don't forget when Clinton visited Georgia and promised them NATO protection, only to sit back and watch while the Russians moved in. That's all there is to trusting the West and NATO when the big players get involved!

The Americans didn't care one bit about Georgia until they discovered massive oil reserves, and then suddenly, they were sending in the troops...

Harold Harris5 said:The Americans didn't care one bit about Georgia until they discovered massive oil reserves, and then suddenly, they were sending in the troops...

It’s just funny how those supplies are kept so secret that nobody actually knows they exist—much like those huge US divisions supposedly stationed in Georgia.😂

Bradley Scott2 said:It’s just funny how those supplies are kept so secret that nobody actually knows they exist—much like those huge US divisions supposedly stationed in Georgia.😂

Ehh 🤦

Georgia sits right on the land bridge connecting Russia and Iran, so that's where you need to look if you want to find actual Israeli and US interests—it’s all about the weapons shipments and training. Forget that phantom oil nonsense.

America is facing an immediate nuclear threat, but it's coming from our neighbors. Nothing to worry about, really; radiation's been leaking out of Vinča for a year now anyway...😂

I tried to sound the alarm, but nobody seems to care. I’m actually curious about the coastline near places like Split or Trogir. Honestly, I suspect there are undiscovered archaeological sites tucked away along those shores.

Linda Roberts2 said:I tried to sound the alarm, but nobody seems to care. I’m actually curious about the coastline near places like Split or Trogir. Honestly, I suspect there are undiscovered archaeological sites tucked away along those shores.

To be specific, I mean harbors, ideally ones suitable for warships, that haven't been mapped yet. Buried, essentially. If anyone happens to have some intel on that, I'm happy to help out..

Linda Roberts2 said:I’ve been doing some reading lately about—well, I won't get too far into the weeds here—but the whole situation is quite something. The shadowy machinations behind closed doors—those secret agendas everyone whispers about—are becoming impossible to ignore. In the event of a full-scale nuclear exchange—and let’s be honest, we should all be looking at the current geopolitical chessboard with a healthy dose of dread—the reality is far grimmer than any Hollywood blockbuster would have you believe. We aren't talking about a quick cinematic explosion followed by a dramatic score; we are talking about the absolute dissolution of the modern world as we understand it. If things actually go south between the superpowers, the immediate fallout would render our entire global infrastructure—our banking systems, our power grids, our very supply chains—completely obsolete overnight. You don't just "reboot" civilization after a thermal pulse of that magnitude. It is a total, systemic collapse. One moment you're checking your stocks or grabbing a coffee in downtown Chicago, and the next, the concept of a "society" becomes a quaint, historical relic. It is a terrifyingly blunt instrument of finality. It is quite fascinating, isn't it? The major global powers aren't even bothering to plot direct nuclear strikes against one another—mostly because the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction means everyone ends up in the dirt. Instead, the fallout and the actual physical devastation will be offloaded onto the allied nations—specifically the NATO members that don't possess their own nuclear arsenals. In this grand strategic game, the smaller players are essentially being positioned as the shock absorbers. To put it bluntly, the United States should be extremely wary about allowing foreign military bases on American soil.

Is that you, Putin? 🤣🤣🤣

If things ever get messy, the safest bet would be heading deep into the hills of Northern California...

Harold Harris5 said:If things ever get messy, the safest bet would be heading deep into the hills of Northern California...

🙂 absolutely not...
Based on the military doctrine the OP was trying to explain, those would actually be some of the most dangerous places in the entire country.
If we accept the fact that Russia genuinely wants to hit Americans by attacking countries where both sides are trading missile fire, then following that same logic, an attack on America would target sparsely populated areas that lack any significant military or police presence to offer even basic resistance.
By that same logic, Chicago would probably be the safest place in the country. 🙂

It makes sense, if you've spent your time studying military strategy at the Peyote Academy. 😍

The whole doctrine surrounding nuclear warfare really shifted once the Cold War wrapped up. Originally, the strategy was all about targeting major hubs like Moscow or London, but that idea was pretty much scrapped because the casualties on both sides would have been catastrophic. Plus, you’ve only got about a ten-minute window to find cover. Because of that, the focus has shifted toward hitting NATO allies and Russian territory—specifically targeting military bases within those countries. Beyond just the bases, having a solid missile defense shield is a huge factor in how that conflict might actually play out.

Harold Harris5 said:If things ever get messy, the safest bet would be heading deep into the hills of Northern California...

Basically, you want to stay as far away from military bases, major ports, oil refineries, and critical infrastructure as possible. Honestly, right now, those cheap houses out in the sticks are looking like a pretty good deal.