INF Treaty Violation?

Ha! Do you remember your shameful strike at Shayrat 7 April, 2017? 59 cruise missiles, two soldiers were killed, few barns were damaged and few aircrafts were burned. Flights were resumed few hours later.
If it was one missile with a nuclear warhead - all base was completely demolished. If this missile was hypersonic - enemies has no time for evacuation.
Think about it.
1549320465796.png
 
For the love of Christ........
 
Ok. Even if the missiles are not hacked, HMNB Clyde (with at least two subs) will be eliminated before Brits will understood that war is already in the hot stage. So, they have one or two subs in the well known areas of the Ocean (with previously deployed Poseydons and ambushing Submarines). How many missiles they will able to launch before being eliminated? Hardly more than a half (even if they will not be eliminated before launch). How many warheads will be intercepted by Russian ABD?
So, in the most optimistic (for the UK) scenario cost of Russian agression is one-two cities (like St. Petersburg or Vladivostok) devastated with half of its population killed&wounded. In the most pessimistic scenario the UK can't hurt Russia at all.
I personally have no fear of Russian Nuclear weapons - Its pretty clear that all the fuel tanks are empty because you and your cronies are mixing the fuel with battery acid and antifreeze and have thus imbibed a significant quantity of the national output

Nothing else explains the deluded lunatic rantings
 
Ok. Even if the missiles are not hacked, HMNB Clyde (with at least two subs) will be eliminated before Brits will understood that war is already in the hot stage. So, they have one or two subs in the well known areas of the Ocean (with previously deployed Poseydons and ambushing Submarines). How many missiles they will able to launch before being eliminated? Hardly more than a half (even if they will not be eliminated before launch). How many warheads will be intercepted by Russian ABD?
So, in the most optimistic (for the UK) scenario cost of Russian agression is one-two cities (like St. Petersburg or Vladivostok) devastated with half of its population killed&wounded. In the most pessimistic scenario the UK can't hurt Russia at all.
You need to leave off the vodka my friend. You are dribbling something cruel. And Moscow would be a target of choice.

You shouldn't play poker. You aren't any good at it.
 
France carries out rare simulation of nuclear deterrent strike | Reuters
Nothing (or is it?) to do with the 30+ year INF Treaty failing, but France has run a successful exercise simulating the delivery of a nuke using a Rafale. An 11 hour mission including refuelling:
The 11-hour mission, which included refuelling, tested all phases of an attack mission involving a Rafale warplane.

“These real strikes are scheduled in the life of the weapons’ system,” French air force spokesman Colonel Cyrille Duvivier said. “They are carried out at fairly regular intervals, but remain rare because the real missile, without its warhead, is fired.”

It did not say when the test was carried out, and officials declined to say how often they take place.
A bit on French nukes:
France – Learn About Nuclear Weapons

A bit on the French ALCM: Air-Sol Moyenne Portée - Wikipedia
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
France carries out rare simulation of nuclear deterrent strike | Reuters
Nothing (or is it?) to do with the 30+ year INF Treaty failing, but France has run a successful exercise simulating the delivery of a nuke using a Rafale. An 11 hour mission including refuelling:
There is a big difference in the launching real missiles and missiles without warheads. When France will cancel CTBT and start real drills with a real usage of nuclear weapon - it will be really interesting.
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
And Moscow would be a target of choice.
Moscow's ABD is rather strong, you need more warheads (or better quality) to overhelm it. But even if you'll burn Moscow, you will lost the war, because there will be second nuclear (and may be biological) strike, and then, after significant decreasing of population, there will be landing of the regular Russian forces (with the tactical nuclear weapon).
 
There is a big difference in the launching real missiles and missiles without warheads. When France will cancel CTBT and start real drills with a real usage of nuclear weapon - it will be really interesting.
Forgive me for asking, but what country has actually used Atomic weapons in anger??

Oh right not the Motherland.

The Frogs drill like everybody else.

You ain’t a rocket jockey comrade.
 
Moscow's ABD is rather strong, you need more warheads (or better quality) to overhelm it. But even if you'll burn Moscow, you will lost the war, because there will be second nuclear (and may be biological) strike, and then, after significant decreasing of population, there will be landing of the regular Russian forces (with the tactical nuclear weapon).
What the **** are you on about? I am supposed to be the incoherent drunk on this forum.
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
Forgive me for asking, but what country has actually used Atomic weapons in anger??
I'm sure that it was not 'in anger', but a 'cold-minded decision'.

Oh right not the Motherland.
As far as I know, USA and USSR were the only countries who really used atomic weapons at real infantry drills.
I hope, that practice will be resumed soon.

The Frogs drill like everybody else.
Yes. Like everyone else after CTBT signing.

BTW, they want their own hypersonic weapon.
Now France Wants Hypersonic Missiles by 2021
 
There is a big difference in the launching real missiles and missiles without warheads. When France will cancel CTBT and start real drills with a real usage of nuclear weapon - it will be really interesting.
When did Russia last test a nuke?
 
Moscow's ABD is rather strong, you need more warheads (or better quality) to overhelm it. But even if you'll burn Moscow, you will lost the war, because there will be second nuclear (and may be biological) strike, and then, after significant decreasing of population, there will be landing of the regular Russian forces (with the tactical nuclear weapon).
Are you confirming (again) that Russia has BW?
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
Are you confirming (again) that Russia has BW?
Surely no. BW is "Biological agent" (microbes or toxines) + "Delivery system". Russia have high level microbiological science and many dangerouse bacterias, viruses, other microorganismes and good delivery systems, but not their combinations. But when the total war will be started, it will take very short time to make it.
 
Surely no. BW is "Biological agent" (microbes or toxines) + "Delivery system". Russia have high level microbiological science and many dangerouse bacterias, viruses, other microorganismes and good delivery systems, but not their combinations. But when the total war will be started, it will take very short time to make it.
I don’t doubt it. Your point was “and maybe biological strike” which infers you have BW
 
Moscow's ABD is rather strong, you need more warheads (or better quality) to overhelm it. But even if you'll burn Moscow, you will lost the war, because there will be second nuclear (and may be biological) strike, and then, after significant decreasing of population, there will be landing of the regular Russian forces (with the tactical nuclear weapon).
LOONEY.
 

Grey Fox

On ROPS
On ROPs
I don’t doubt it. Your point was “and maybe biological strike” which infers you have BW
Russia don't have biological weapon. But, in case of necesserity, it can be easily created.
I think, your corrupted government, willing to distract your gullible population from the economic problems (and solve their own problems), will start the third season of 'Russian poisoners' with the higher rank victims and biological weapon. For example - strike of genetically modificated Kemerovo fewer in the Parliament. Most of survivers by a starnge councidence are May's supporters, but she blame Russians (baselessely, as usual).
 

Latest Threads

Top