Ukraine war a 'warmup,' the 'big one is coming' and US behind in nuclear, admiral warns

[former9thward]

"As I assess our level of deterrence against China, the ship is slowly sinking."
US Strategic Command head Admiral Charles Richard


The war in Ukraine is a prelude to greater military challenges to the US in the near future, and America is losing its competitive edge in nuclear weapons capabilities, US Strategic Command head Admiral Charles Richard warned in a speech at the Naval Submarine League's 2022 Annual Symposium & Industry Update on Wednesday, the US Defense Department reported.

"This Ukraine crisis that we're in right now, this is just the warmup," said Richard. "The big one is coming. And it isn't going to be very long before we're going to get tested in ways that we haven't been tested in a long time."

"Our principal competitors continue to expand and diversify their nuclear capabilities, to include novel and destabilizing systems, as well as non-nuclear capabilities that could be used to conduct strategic attacks," said the nuclear posture review. "They have demonstrated little interest in reducing their reliance on nuclear weapons. By contrast, the United States is focused on the timely replacement of legacy fielded systems that are rapidly approaching their end of service life."

China seeks to possess at least 1,000 deliverable warheads by the end of 2030, and Russia intends to deploy 1,550 START treaty-limited warheads on delivery vehicles.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-721579?_ga=2.24309690.1429207738.1667723632-320814913.1667203196&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Ukraine+war+a++warmup%2C++the++big+one+is+coming&utm_campaign=November+6%2C+2022+Day

[relayerbob]

1. Yeah, it's so obvious

20 US HIMARS systems has decimated the Russian forces. We have 450. And this is before out air force comes into play.

No one will use nukes. At least not if they plan to survive.

We need to start building stockpiles of ammo, for sure, but beyond that, it seems he is more interested in his status and stocks than reality.

[HUAJIAO]

2. Who needs 1000-1500 nuclear warheads???

I mean, jesus, 5 or 10 should do the trick....

[EX500rider]

8. Do the trick for what?

If Russia started a nuclear war with us how big do you think the counter-force target list is?

We have all their launch silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles, airbases at which nuclear-armed bombers are stationed, homeports for ballistic missile submarines and command and control installations to hit.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

9. Nuclear strategy is centered around redundancy

So if you have a city with 4 strategic targets, then each target is getting its own warhead. If it's a hardened target, very important, or very large, then multiple might hit it. For example, something like our ICBM silos are hardened, very important, and spread over a wide area, so the Soviets had dozens of warheads targeting them. Since the Soviets couldn't match our icbms in accuracy, they depended on higher yields and more warheads to make sure the job got done. Their line of thinking is if they can't guarantee a direct hit, then 2 or 3 large near misses will do the trick.

[Mr.Bill]

19. Once they are being fired on that scale,

it's all over for both sides anyway. All efforts must be put on not letting it happen at all, and so far that has worked. In an all out nuclear war, none of us will be sitting here saying gee, I'm so glad we stockpiled a few thousand more nuclear weapons.

[HUAJIAO]

22. THANK YOU THANK YOU for understanding my point.

[randr]

3. Prepping for big arms budget

One thing that the Ukrainian war has shown the world is that compared to the United forces of NATO, no one would stand a chance. Any war would be over in days.

[former9thward]

4. Russia has far more nuclear weapons than the U.S. or NATO.

It might be over in days but it would be over for both sides.

[EX500rider]

11. No, when you add UK and France to the US total we are about even.

[pwb]

13. Likely most of Russias nukes would fizzle out at launch.

If half are real at all. They would blow themselves up IMO.

[former9thward]

15. When was the last time the U.S. tested its nuclear weapons?

I was part of a U.S. Air Force audit team in the 1980s and we looked at the nuclear silos in the Dakotas. About 1/3 of them were not launchable due to corrosion.

[pwb]

20. We moved most of that capability to the seas.

I imagine if you checked them others do as well if we still have them. Russia is built up to be way more than it is. IMO.

[Oneironaut]

21. I don't think so, imo, because rockets are one of the only things Russia does well.

We’ve used them to get into space for decades. Their military is utter crap, but, I wouldn’t doubt their ICBMs are fully functional.

[former9thward]

17. I said the U.S. OR NATO.

If you are going to throw in the UK and France with the U.S. then you have to throw in Russian allies such as rapidly expanding China. BTW when was the last time either the UK or France tested a inter-continental ballistic missile? The war would be over in days for BOTH sides.

[EX500rider]

33. Yes and NATO includes the US, UK & French nuclear arsenals.

And China is not such a close ally that they would join any nuclear war so they can get wiped off the map.

[dpibel]

28. 10% is far more?

Last edited Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you dispute the chart in post 11?

Cuz I'm thinking that the difference between 5977 and 5428 is a pretty far stretch for the term "far more."

Especially when you're dealing with weapons where a thousand or so each wreaks all the destruction you can pretty much imagine.

I mean, do you really think there are a thousand meaningful targets in the US? Or even in the US and Europe?

And if your answer is, "You bet!!!" do you additionally believe there are another 4500 after that?

You seriously, honestly, believe that, after the US has fired all 5428 of its nukes, and The Mighty Russkies have blown off 5428 of theirs, it's the last 549 that will make the diff?

Wild shit, man.

[SergeStorms]

5. Exactly what you'd expect...

from someone who's spent their life examining ways to maximize death and destruction on the "enemy".

"Buy us more killing machines, now"!

[Jedi Guy]

12. Russia has revealed themselves to be a paper tiger.

If not for their nuclear capability they'd pretty much be a non-entity in the global balance of power.

China is another matter entirely, and that's what is really being said here. They're a regional power as things stand but they very much want to be a superpower and are taking steps to make that happen. The US-led world order will have to contend with China's global ambitions at some point in the near future.

Pooh-pooh this as "buy us more weapons" if you like, but sooner or later the confrontation will happen. We'd best be ready when the time comes.

[Xolodno]

29. Paper tiger? Are they?

Their entire military's doctrine resolves around defense, not projecting power like we do. So it stands that they will have a a hard time invading another nation. But in the case of Georgia, Syria and help in Libya, they've done quite well...along with other areas in the world. We learned from that....and now, they are learning about our capabilities.

Yes, they didn't bring down Kyiv, but got close. And now, just slogging it out in territories they will probably have acceptance of the new regime.

As for nukes, some here blurt off that they could never leave their silo's. Fine, go to a prime likely nuke target and gamble with your life. I won't. And its no secret, Putin has invested most of the military budget in developing and maintaining its nuke forces...which is why the conventional isn't up to par...and why everyone else takes his threats seriously.

The "paper tiger" narrative has led to a lot of losses, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Pride, is often right before the fall.

[dpibel]

30. I question your grasp of paper tiger

Here's paper tiger:

Paper Tiger: I will fuck you up! You are helpless against me!!

Opponent: [Purses lips and blows slightly]

Paper Tiger: [Falls over]

Not one of the countries you refer to in your last paragraph was remotely a paper tiger.

Not a single one of them pounded its chest and offered to fuck up the USA.

In every case, the assumption was that the USA would fuck up the little pissants and send them packing.

If anything, your misbegotten list is of countries that, by and large, demonstrated the paper tigerness of the USA.

[Xolodno]

32. I have nothing more to say.

Your response, says everything.

[GreenWave]

6. Russia often bluffs and hopes not to get caught.

So corruption runs rampant but not in their nuke industry???

I would check our Admiral's investment portfolio.

[maxrandb]

7. This is pretty standard briefing shit

Whenever we deployed to exercise for war with "Oceania", The JTF Commander never said; "men, this is going to be a breeze, our enemy isn't very competent". We always practiced like we could lose.

[jcgoldie]

14. what a bunch of bullshit

[former9thward]

18. If its BS why does Biden have him as head of the U.S. Strategic Command?

[uponit7771]

23. +1, half of Rus bombs don't work cause they use tridium

[Disaffected]

16. Sounds like another rendition of the missile gap "crisis"

of the 1950s.

[NickB79]

24. The article implies one can "win" a nuclear war

The ensuing nuclear winter from thousands of nuclear warheads incinerating cities and darkening the skies would starve billions. More would die from famine than the actual blasts or radiation poisoning.

If China or Russia launched 1,000 warheads on us, and we didn't fire a SINGLE warhead in retaliation, China and Russia would still lose 90% of their population to starvation alone.

[former9thward]

26. The current Chinese leader, Xi, is a strong follower of Mao Zedong.

A quote from Mao:

“We shouldn’t be afraid of atomic missiles. No matter what kind of war breaks out, conventional or nuclear, we will win… If the imperialists unleash war on us, we may lose more than 300 million people. So what? War is war. The years will pass and we will get to work making more babies than ever before.”

Mao Zedong to Nikita Khrushchev, 1957

https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/quotations-peoples-republic/

He made that quote when China's population was about 600 million. So he was willing to lose at least 50% of the population and it did not bother him.

[dpibel]

31. And you believe he was correct?

You endorse his point of view?

You honestly believe that there could be a nuclear exchange that killed 300 million Chinese people and they'd just get right down to fucking and making another 300 million?

That makes sense to you?

The environmental destruction, the flattening of infrastructure? No problem! We'll just make more babies!!

The only sense to be made of your quoting this is that you believe he was right.

That's some weird shit, dude.

[herding cats]

25. Nah, I'm not buying it.

If anything Ukraine has shown us how the talk doesn't equate to the walk.

Drones are the new, viable player of warfare to my eyes. Not nukes.

[David__77]

27. He should shut up.

…