• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

America vs Russia

Who would survive a nuclear war?

  • America

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Russia

    Votes: 10 14.3%
  • Neither

    Votes: 21 30.0%
  • Chuck Norris

    Votes: 27 38.6%

  • Total voters
    70

Bambi

Member
I thought the train of thought was mutually assured destruction?

Oh, and just to add more to the topic -- how do you think Russia could invade the United States, if plausible?
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
I thought the train of thought was mutually assured destruction?

Oh, and just to add more to the topic -- how do you think Russia could invade the United States, if plausible?

Nuke in the air, basically take out a large populated area and cause a blackout from the EMP, then simply roll in their jets for air superiority and roll in tanks, helos, and troops from ships.
 

shieldswulf

Member
If it came down to a nuclear war than barely anyone would live. would be small pockets of humanity and whatnot but everything else will pretty much be gone. its fairly common knowledge that once the nukes start flying it wont matter who started it. anyone who has a nuke is going to launch it at who they though launched the nuke at them

chuck norris is the exception....he is the man!
 

Aryeonos

Gimme Back My Post Count!
I say russia only because that's what happens in my book but the inner russian circle rapidly conducts underground construction of inter stellar space craft and leaves the majority of it's populace behind. America gets destroyed mostly by the chinese, in their endeavor for world domination. But ultimately leave for space as earth is far to irradiated to be of any use. many humans stay behind on the irradiated earth for many reasons. Allot of which are deserters of their respective armies. But the soldiers soon set aside nationalities for survival. Small underground or sheltered societies form comprised of an amalgam of people, as people search for ways to restore earth or leave it. In space russian chinese european and american forces create new governments and colonize far planets, through the use of wormholes, though each new empire is still at war with one another. the only government to hold is the chinese government with the civilian escapees of russia america and europe forming their own groups.
 

Aryeonos

Gimme Back My Post Count!
Nuke in the air, basically take out a large populated area and cause a blackout from the EMP, then simply roll in their jets for air superiority and roll in tanks, helos, and troops from ships.
the emp is not sufficient to sustain a black out though, and fallout would prevent infantry and mechanized divisions from advancing for up to 48 hours, enough time for evacuations and countermeasures to be placed, though these would be hasty..
 

ToeClaws

PEBKAC exterminator
Haven't you seen Wargames? There is no winner. :p Except Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris doesn't need a missile shield; he just glares at them and the veer off course in fear.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
the emp is not sufficient to sustain a black out though, and fallout would prevent infantry and mechanized divisions from advancing for up to 48 hours, enough time for evacuations and countermeasures to be placed, though these would be hasty..

Yes, actually it is. An emp doesn't simply disable electronics, it will fry them if they're turned on.

And the fallout from one nuke in a air-burst is minimal, fallout occurs from earth being tossed into the air, no earth, no fallout.
Also people -greatly- exaggerate the radiation after a nuke, it's not that great, just being in it causes issues. For instance, the Davy Crockett, a recoiless portable nuclear launch system, once fired and detonated had a 48 hour period you weren't able to go into the area unprotected, then you could walk in fine.

With a larger nuke it would be longer, but you could walk in protected, as well tanks, planes, and some helicopters are protected.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Some people seem to be confusing the potency of nuclear radiation from Nuclear Bombs with Nuclear Meltdowns. You'd need some pretty potent bombs to achieve Chernobyl-level radiation.

Most likely, neither would get out of the scenario intact. But if one did come out on top, I'd have to say Russia. Their nukes aren't quite the same payload as US ones, but they have a quantity-over-quality effect, which means that while they hit softer (as soft as one can with atomics) they can also hit a much larger area.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
Some people seem to be confusing the potency of nuclear radiation from Nuclear Bombs with Nuclear Meltdowns. You'd need some pretty potent bombs to achieve Chernobyl-level radiation.

Most likely, neither would get out of the scenario intact. But if one did come out on top, I'd have to say Russia. Their nukes aren't quite the same payload as US ones, but they have a quantity-over-quality effect, which means that while they hit softer (as soft as one can with atomics) they can also hit a much larger area.

Russia has the largest nukes.
The Tsar/Tzar, look it up. It's here on the wiki for Nuclear Weapons as the largest nuke ever detonated.
Here's a image to show oyu on a scale, just how large it was.
 
Last edited:
Some people seem to be confusing the potency of nuclear radiation from Nuclear Bombs with Nuclear Meltdowns. You'd need some pretty potent bombs to achieve Chernobyl-level radiation.

In either cases the after effects are greatly exaggerated. These days the background radiation in Chernobyl is actually less than in certain other parts of the world(and mind you these other parts are all natural). Yeah they had to clean out some of the more hazardous materials near the reactor but that shows that it can be done.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
They cemented the reactor shut and ALL the equipment they used (suits, helicopters, cementing tools, other tools, etc) doing that to the reactor is laying in a field next to the reactor, radiated and useless. This is because the amount of time these tools were in contact with those massive amounts of radiation.

But you're right, it's a lot lower now.
 

Irreverent

Member
Yes, actually it is. An emp doesn't simply disable electronics, it will fry them if they're turned on.

With a big enough pulse or a focused pulse, you can also fry stuff that isn't turned on by overcoming its ability to disapate the induced flux quickly enough. Solar flares have tripped breakers on backup denergized 18kva lines.


And the fallout from one nuke in a air-burst is minimal, fallout occurs from earth being tossed into the air, no earth, no fallout.

Agreed.

With a larger nuke it would be longer, but you could walk in protected, as well tanks, planes, and some helicopters are protected.

Agreed again, but there are some high gama yield weapons that are designed to induce temporary residual radiation in the hulls of tanks and ships. So called Neutron bombs for example.

The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5-50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase"[12]) lasting days to weeks. Moreover, these victims would likely be aware of their inevitable fate and react accordingly.
ripped from wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

And its not just tanks and ships, you can induce a leathal level of radiation into any large metalic mass.....say cell towers, DMS frames, backup generator engine blocks.

Pitty we can't learn to harnes that engergy release in a more controlled way for something practical.
 

Darkfire27

Member
I think some of you are mixing conventional and nuclear war. After a nuclear exchange between either of these nations (all out mind you, not just hitting strategic targets) both of their militaries, or whats left of them would have trouble just surviving and securing their own territories, let alone a invasion.

Russia might have higher yield nukes, but lets look at the numbers actually operational.
US- 4,075
Russia- 3,081

Then, lets also take into account delivery methods. Second strike capability would factor strongly in a all out exchange, and one of the strongest points of the nuclear weapons triad is Nuclear Submarines. Russia's current plans for their navy intend to reduce the number of ballistic missile subs to ten. The US intends to go to 14. These numbers of course don't take into account the number of other sub classes that carry missiles that could also deliver nukes, such as the tomahawk, but the US has the numerical advantage there too.

The bomber forces of each nation would probably have a big role to play as well. The venerable B-52 can carry a good number of nukes, but the B-1 and B-2 bombers would likely play the largest role. The B-1 is fast and minimally observable, while the B-2 is damn near invisible to radar. Im not sure but I think the number of B-52s in the USAF is about 90. The USAF has 66 B-1s in service, all of which also have Electronic warfare capability. There are 20 B-2s currently in service.

The Russians have the Tu-95, which is a turboprop bomber with significantly less ability to carry weapons then the B-52 as well as being slower, and they have only 64 in service. The Tu-160, a graceful plane in its own right, carries both more weapons and is faster then the B-1, its rough equivalent, but they only have 16 of these in service. And finally we have the Tu-22, of which they have 174 in service. Im not sure, but I think the carrying capacity for this is only around 14,000 Kg. This is a nice plane, but it has a fairly large radar signature.

While both would devastate each other, the US has more weapons available in better condition. Although Russia has more uninhabited land that would probably not be hit, I think the fallout on both nations would prevent that for a good while.

tl;dr- in nuclear war, nobody wins
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
Right, because Russia lists all of their nukes to the public.
And if such a scenario occurred, where they all started at the same time, you're right; but if a realistic one would occur, Russia air bursting a nuke and completely disabling all of the American power grid, then what are they going to do? Launch nukes at every country? Because until an invasion they wouldn't even know; and without power everything would be in chaos.

You're forgetting the simplistic method of delivering a nuke, ICBMs. And no, the North American Missile Defense network won't stop them. It's never stopped anything.
 
Last edited:

John Wolf

The Timber Wolf
Neither, though enough of America might survive in post nuclear shanty towns, intact metro stations and fallout bunkers to turn the world into the PC Game Fallout.

The leading U.S Goverment might survive if it hides in nuclear bunker and Area 51 type complex, though it would probably turn into some Evil Organisation like The Enclave.
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
Granted, I'm no weapons buff and I haven't followed the progress in arms evolution for a while now but from the information available to me Russia has the unrivaled anti-air defense up to date.

I don't have any up to date information I could share, but I might present the following oldies:
The SS-N-22 Sunburn "Moskit", a ramjet powered cruise missle that's nearly impossible to intercept both because it's insanely fast and it's movement towards it's target is completely random, making trajectory calculation based interception useless.
A torpedo version of this missile exists that makes underwater evasive maneuvers useless due to it's sheer speed of movement.

A complex, decentralized mobile active anti-air defense system developed by the ALMAZ-ANTEY corporation.

A documentary for the ancient S-300 anti-air missile system that still rivals what the rest of the world has to offer. A modern version, S-400, while 7 years ahead of time and have only recently deployed, is already technologically obsoleted as well.


On top of that all the equipment - especially defensive - has high set standards and is designed to work even in high radar pollution/jamming/electromagnetic interference from the start. Ever wondered why Russian tech looks so outdated and practically stoneage compared to all the microchip gizmos and CLD screens of today? That is on purpose.


Sure, both nations may have a lot of nukes but how many of them would actually hit the target after they have been launched? How many of them would slip through the nation's anti air defense systems?
From what I know, someone has yet to shoot down the Sunburn in military training operations.

But abstracting from all that, even a single nuke hit would cripple the fragile balance based on mutual fear that the world is in right now, and would mean the end of us all. For example, several nuke hits would cause the ice on the North pole to melt.
 

lilEmber

Small Dragon
They also have Plasma Stealth, and unlike the RAM and slanted plates of the USA's stealth technology, this can be equipped onto anything, regardless of size, and even while that object fires; for instance, if the F22 Raptor fires it has to open up it's armor to reveal the weapons, this means the stealth doesn't work anymore for that period of time.

yak said:
But abstracting from all that, even a single nuke hit would cripple the fragile balance based on mutual fear that the world is in right now, and would mean the end of us all. For example, several nuke hits would cause the ice on the North pole to melt.
That's not true; during the Cold War they had thousands of nukes detonated, underground, above ground, and most were detonated in the outer atmosphere.
Also we've had many nukes detonated above ground, and the temperature didn't rise at all. It might be the equivalent to tens of suns worth of heat, but it's only for an instant.
If every single nuke currently in operation now were to be detonated, then maybe there would be enough heat to cause issues, but the planet would be fine.
 
Last edited:

enzoakavpn

Smoogo Addict
Chuck Norris!!! :D
 

Darkfire27

Member
And America publicizes all of its weapons data too? We can talk theoretics all we want, but those are the numbers publicly available.

Of course, I forgot one advantage the US has on its side, NATO. The whole point of NATO was to deter Soviet Nuclear aggression, and I am willing to bet it would stand by that commitment today with the new Russia.

And if such a scenario occurred, where they all started at the same time, you're right; but if a realistic one would occur, Russia air bursting a nuke and completely disabling all of the American power grid, then what are they going to do? Launch nukes at every country? Because until an invasion they wouldn't even know; and without power everything would be in chaos.

Im no expert, but isn't the chain of command at least somewhat EMP hardened?
 

Bambi

Member
Right, because Russia lists all of their nukes to the public.
And if such a scenario occurred, where they all started at the same time, you're right; but if a realistic one would occur, Russia air bursting a nuke and completely disabling all of the American power grid, then what are they going to do? Launch nukes at every country? Because until an invasion they wouldn't even know; and without power everything would be in chaos.

You're forgetting the simplistic method of delivering a nuke, ICBMs. And no, the North American Missile Defense network won't stop them. It's never stopped anything.
We'd be able to track a launch -- infact, the Nuetron bombs previously mentioned were meant to interdict nuclear missles.

As for the North American Missle Defense network not stopping anything ... orly? Never heard of that. o.o Got any sources?
 

Devious Bane

No faith for this site
Banned
Russia has the largest nukes.
The Tsar/Tzar, look it up. It's here on the wiki for Nuclear Weapons as the largest nuke ever detonated.
Here's a image to show oyu on a scale, just how large it was.
2 problems:
1) It doesn't take a big bomb to make a big explosion
2) "...ever detonated" meaning it is the biggest one on record that has been known to detonate.

Rumor has it, America's bombs are actually much more devastating. As for the records, none have been made about it.
 
Top