Could the US win a Nuclear war with Russia?

Question

During the 60's 70's and 80's, MADD likely prevented nuclear or large scale conventional war. While the risk of such a war with russia is now low, there have been many changes since then that could possibly allow a first strike scenario by the US a hypothetical victory. Such as: reduced capability and readiness in russian early warning systems, large US advantage in Submarine capabiliy possibly allow the US to lauch a fairly large first strike on nuke targets from short range/low altitude, stealth technology capable of launching airborne nuclear weapons. Therotically, combining intel suberfutge, special forces ops at russian installations, subs, stealth, superior sat capability, and perfect timing, would it not be possible to take out a vast majority of russian nuclear retaliatory capability with a first strike? What would the odds be? Also, if not russia, surely we would be capable of taking out most of china's nuke capabilty with such a strike?

Note: I DO NOT advocate this, just pondering the theoretical possibility of it all. Frankly as an American my dream vacation would be to Russia, Moscow, St Petersburg and such.

Answer 1

Here's a simplistic answer to your question: NO ONE can win a nuclear war.

It was a lucky shot that Japan didn't have nuclear weapons to retaliate for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 2

No it would be near impossible. Don't get hung up on special forces strikes, they don't happen like the movies. Rember Iran? That was a special forces op gone terribly wrong, and that was Iran, not Russia or China. Your talking about for the most part disabling 2 huge countries' nuclear capabilities, without the other catching wind? Bottom line, nobody wins a nuclear war, thats why there hasn't been one yet. And I think both sides know that, thats why it has never happened.

Answer 3

The A-bomb at Hiroshima was 1 megaton (1000 tons of TNT)
Little Boy was also 1 megaton, but refined to P-238, so the baom was physically smaller.
We built 50 megaton A-bombs, then the H-bomb was born
! megaton hydrogen is the same as a 50 megaton atom, so the altitude was increased, and the foorprint was the same, devastation much more horrific.
then the size went to 50 megaton hydrogen, or course the protron bomb was created, and the cobalt bomb, called the doomsday devise.

Using a map ifof the U.S. take a compass, using the scale of the map given on the legend do the following:
a0 draw a circle = to 25 miles in diameter, then one at45 miles. The later is the initial fire storm, creating the mushroom.
b) drawaa circle = to 250 miles in diameter and you will see that it would only take around 25 hits on the major population centers to make the entire surface of the U.S. radioactive.

being in a fallout shelter won't help, as it just means a delay in eventually starving to death.

Since the ruskie "claimed to have " over 5600 warheads, the possibility of us or them stpping even 99% of the incoming, means 56 could still make it through.US and them.

The Russian dog rolled over because the military ran the country into bankruptcy...sound familiar?

Now we are sending them foreign aid, so they cancontinue a nuclear testing program!!

We've got to stop playing the role of big brother, and just kick-a... If we're going to be the worlds keeper, lets make them all states or territories so we can control what they do without asking permission from every bleeding heart liberal out there.

P.S> By the way, I just got a picture from a pilot friend of mine from the old days, of the largest cargo plane in the world. it landed in texas to deliver a generator built by a third world contractor who lost the contact against G.E. and Westinghouse.
The plane is russian, and could just as easily been full of nukes...talking about a pre-imptive strike?? We're our own worst enemy.

Answer 4

One problem with that. If we were to be proactive in a scenario like this and make the first strike, we would develop such a political unrest in our nation that you cant even imagine. People complain about the war now, if we took the first step in a nuclear war, American would revolt just because of the innocent people who would die in the strike. Unfortunately most Americans do not understand that sometimes peace is only accomplished by having superior firepower and the will to win. Americans today want peace but are not willing to come out of their comfort zones and work for it, much less risk their lives for it.

Answer 5

hi cory

1) to be successful in destroying a nuclear missle bunker, you need pretty much a direct hit, most of them were designed so that they'd continue being operational despite the world being destroyed 7 X over.

2)Russia might, in this political climate, take a conservative approach and seek confirmation of any launch- because they have had glitches before which made them think an attack was launched. i think i can remember one case where the world narrowly missed WW3 when a launch sequence was started accidentally- even if that were to happen, russia wouldnt be so stupid as to respond- so their good nature could be their undoing

3) Star wars- this is not up and running,

We have A-SAT missles which in 1986 could shoot down satellites at 500KM. The intl space st is 300KM- well within range. dunno about the chinese missile launched recently.

I dunno what the altitude of the NORAD based satellites - if we can shoot down Russia's intelligence satellites first we could have a chance

dick cheney warned that the next pearl harbour will be in space

Edit: The fallout of such a successful strike on Russia, so as to eliminate their entire arsenal would be such to destroy ourselves in the process. Even myself in Australia.

Answer 6

Nuclear war is such a hideous thought that no one in their right mind would ever want one. We have missiles, they have missiles. BOTH of our countries would be BBQ'd. It's a lose-lose situation for both the U.S and Russia.

We would see their missiles launch and we would launch ours. Then it's just a matter of waiting. Anyone who isn't a mile underground or wearing SPF 10 million sun tan lotion is going to have a very bad day.

Answer 7

just a quick reply to the poster re; Germany being close to developing weapons grade plutonium needed for an atomic weapon. You are wrong, even before the destruction of their heavy water plant they were years away from obtaining the right plutonium, even with the plant running at full capacity, constantly, i think it would of taken them at least another 5-6 years. Of course by this point the US had developed the atomic warhead and a succesful way to drop it so there was no chance Germany would of been able to use it as if the war would of still been going on im sure Berlin would of been in place of Hiroshima.

Answer 8

Not lucky, Stu. They weren't really anywhere near making an A-bomb. Germany WAS.

The only winners of a nuclear war are cockroaches.

Answer 9

No one wins in a nuclear holocaust.

Answer 10

no one wins.because after Russia ,other countries will . lounge to at what they believe is a threat.
today China and Iran is our worry.