These States Were Designed to be Sacrificed in case of World War 3

Here’s something for everyone to think about. I’m not divulging any secrets, so I don’t have to worry about the CIA knocking on my door at 2 in the morning. There are 3 ways we can launch a missile. Land, air and sea. It’s referred to as the Nuclear Triad. This would also include ICBM’s. At sea, we are very dangerous with being able to launch a nuke via a sub. Yes, there are other subs out there searching for nuclear subs using sub detection instruments. This is something that countries like North Korea and Iran do not have —-yet. They have little mini subs not big enough to carry weapons the size that we have. The U.S. has the ability to fire missiles of any size from the Triad.

I have said this before here on this forum and I’ll say it again, watching a sub down under launching a missile is a beautiful thing. It really makes me proud to know that our boys are OTJ 24/7. The thing about missiles, no one practices firing missiles at targets. Take the Sidewinder, at a half million dollars each, how many missiles do you want to shoot at an old tank going to the scrap pile? If you answered none, you would be correct.
 
The US currently has 3,750 nuclear weapons spread across the globe, and over and under the sea. I don't know how many more weapons NATO has as its disposal. Assuming that Russia has about the same. I think there are enough weapons to attack everywhere in the US and Russia, without having to divvy them up. It seems the only 'sponge' will be the earth.
 
hearlady said:
What's scarier is many people are moving to these states because they are more rural.
Click to expand...
Yup!
fuzzybuddy said:
The US currently has 3,750 nuclear weapons spread across the globe, and over and under the sea. I don't know how many more weapons NATO has as its disposal. Assuming that Russia has about the same. I think there are enough weapons to attack everywhere in the US and Russia, without having to divvy them up. It seems the only 'sponge' will be the earth.
Click to expand...
Yup, unfortunately.
 
Nathan said:
"These States Were Designed to be Sacrificed in case of World War 3"

Major cities will be more important targets, if L.A. gets nuked, us being 70 miles away won't be safe as the wind blows East from there, to this rural area.
Click to expand...
Yup, I don't think luring the nukes to less populated states will work. The big major cities and states will always be the main target.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
The US currently has 3,750 nuclear weapons spread across the globe, and over and under the sea. I don't know how many more weapons NATO has as its disposal. Assuming that Russia has about the same. I think there are enough weapons to attack everywhere in the US and Russia, without having to divvy them up. It seems the only 'sponge' will be the earth.
Click to expand...
Russia has somewhere around 6000 nuclear weapons, most of any country. I’m hearing that China and Russia are going to be having a get-together coming up. About what, I do not know. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stating that if China sides with Russia, there will be repercussions to pay. My question is what could we possibly do to either of these two countries to make them not to become partners?
 
seadoug said:
Yikes! Very enlightening and frightening. BTW, here's how we stacked up as of 2021.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a think tank that tracks the global nuclear arsenal, Russia possessed 6,255 nuclear warheads as of January 2021, its most recent available data.

That eclipses the US nuclear quiver, which has 5,550.
Click to expand...
5,550 is more than enough to destroy the planet. There's probably a lot of truth to the saying that WW4 will be fought with clubs and stones. Assuming humans survive WW3.

According to a MSN article that's quicker to read/skim than a 19 minute video:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...to-act-as-america-s-nuclear-sponge/ar-AAVea3O

"The ongoing saber-rattling by Vladimir Putin has raised concerns about a nuclear conflict to a level not seen since the 1980s. Nuclear strategists have tried to calm nerves, insisting that the odds of the situation escalating to one that would lead to such a disastrous scenario are remote. Still, António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, acknowledged this week that “the prospect of nuclear war is now back within the realm of possibility.”'

"Those stark statements have caused some Americans to wonder if they’re in a high-target area. While the overall risk of nuclear war is low, and there’s no telling where Putin will strike in the unlikely scenario that he decides to attack the U.S., people in a handful of states are likely feeling a bit more uncomfortable than folks in other parts of the country.

"During the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, government officials began to install intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos in the middle of the country, specifically in sparsely populated areas of northern Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota. These were designed to be the first targets in the event of an attack—a “nuclear sponge” that would draw fire away from more urban areas.

"(Minuteman missile fields were also once located in South Dakota and Missouri but have since been deactivated. Those in the other states remain active.)

"A term like nuclear sponge isn’t reassuring, but the thinking goes like this, as specified by retired General Jim Mattis in his 2017 confirmation hearings for secretary of defense: Because the missiles are buried so deeply in the ground in those areas, enemies would need to commit two, three, or four weapons to take each one out, thus “absorbing” much of the enemy’s arsenal.

"Because the silos are located in sparsely populated areas of the Plains, proponents argue that fewer lives are put at direct risk. But the logic of designating an area as a prime attack zone in a nuclear conflict is puzzling to many—and the concept of a nuclear sponge is one that has drawn criticism for decades. In 1978, Dominic Paolucci, a retired Navy captain who served on the Strat-X team that assessed U.S. strategic options in the 1960s, railed against the strategy saying, “It is madness to use United States real estate as ‘a great sponge to absorb’ Soviet nuclear weapons. The objective of our military forces and strategy should be to reduce the weight of any potential attack on U.S. real estate rather than attracting even more.”

"There are plenty of other arguments to be made today. Nukes, of course, no longer have to be delivered via ICBMs and can be launched from submarines and bombers. And Russia’s arsenal reportedly has more than 1,500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3,000 in reserve. That’s more than enough to strike larger cities in addition to saturating the sponge.

"Despite the criticism, the U.S. appears to be committed to the idea of a nuclear sponge in those five states. The Pentagon plans to spend $264 billion on its next-generation ICBM program, which would upgrade the silos and missiles, and ensure the absorbency of the sponge for decades to come."
 
There has not been a World War since 1945. The end of that war came after the USA used two nuclear bombs on Japan.

I do not believe it is coincidence that no World Wars have occurred since we dropped the bombs. What is different from all other forms of war, is that in Nuclear wars the people shooting the weapons and their leaders are not able to have a firm possibility of survival. If the bomb did not get them the radiation aftermath would.

This never was the case in all prior wars.
 
In 1973 my first husband was in the Air Force and we lived in Kansas. He was on a missile crew and they would go down for 4 days and then have 4 days off. They got put on high alert often enough to be scary. All those were sold and some people using them for underground homes.
 
During the late 60's, the UK was on high alert for an atomic bomb attack. In various parts of the country were underground bunkers, but only the select few knew where they were. My husband was one of them. However, there was no provision made for women and children. We were told to make a den under the stairs!
 
seadoug said:
Yikes! Very enlightening and frightening. BTW, here's how we stacked up as of 2021.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a think tank that tracks the global nuclear arsenal, Russia possessed 6,255 nuclear warheads as of January 2021, its most recent available data.

That eclipses the US nuclear quiver, which has 5,550.
Click to expand...
But Russia's nuke maintenance is very questionable. Most of their nuclear weapons are very old and few are properly tested and maintained. Nuke maintenance in the US stunk too for about a decade, after the military budget was cut, but they're trying to make up for lost time.
 
well I guess the chinese wasted a lot of time and effort trying to locate our missile silos, they just needed to read these posts, thank you very much...will putin nuke the US? be pretty stupid if he did, Nuke ukraine more probable still stupid idea but as I read in the news he is probably crazy anyway and likely to be removed from his position. china? duh!! north korea? a lot better bet! accidental/intentional detonation by facist group also possible.,...,if 100 missiles actually hit their targets and you have 3000 left what do you fire them at?
 
I seem to recall something about our government giving Russia a list of all U.S. infrastructures about the spring of 2021, not for only cyber attacks but "other attacks". Remember that, anyone?

and, if all around me were under nuclear attack, I would not want to be one of the survivors. Would any of you?
When China and Russia merge against the U.S., this attack is a real possibility, but we must not live our lives in fear.
 
Well good-by sweet life. Looks like the missile is headed straight at my house. The plane somehow missed it on 9-11. At least I won't have to envy the dead.
 
Nathan said:
"These States Were Designed to be Sacrificed in case of World War 3"

Major cities will be more important targets, if L.A. gets nuked, us being 70 miles away won't be safe as the wind blows East from there, to this rural area.
Click to expand...
Same here for us if a nuclear blast hits New York City, which is a lot closer than 70 miles. :cautious: Can only pray that nowhere in the U.S. gets nuked.
@Pepper I was thinking the same thing....didn't feel like nor have time to watch. Good to know though @Victoria. Thank you for making us aware.
 
StarSong said:
5,550 is more than enough to destroy the planet. There's probably a lot of truth to the saying that WW4 will be fought with clubs and stones. Assuming humans survive WW3.

According to a MSN article that's quicker to read/skim than a 19 minute video:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...to-act-as-america-s-nuclear-sponge/ar-AAVea3O

"The ongoing saber-rattling by Vladimir Putin has raised concerns about a nuclear conflict to a level not seen since the 1980s. Nuclear strategists have tried to calm nerves, insisting that the odds of the situation escalating to one that would lead to such a disastrous scenario are remote. Still, António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, acknowledged this week that “the prospect of nuclear war is now back within the realm of possibility.”'

"Those stark statements have caused some Americans to wonder if they’re in a high-target area. While the overall risk of nuclear war is low, and there’s no telling where Putin will strike in the unlikely scenario that he decides to attack the U.S., people in a handful of states are likely feeling a bit more uncomfortable than folks in other parts of the country.

"During the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, government officials began to install intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos in the middle of the country, specifically in sparsely populated areas of northern Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota. These were designed to be the first targets in the event of an attack—a “nuclear sponge” that would draw fire away from more urban areas.

"(Minuteman missile fields were also once located in South Dakota and Missouri but have since been deactivated. Those in the other states remain active.)

"A term like nuclear sponge isn’t reassuring, but the thinking goes like this, as specified by retired General Jim Mattis in his 2017 confirmation hearings for secretary of defense: Because the missiles are buried so deeply in the ground in those areas, enemies would need to commit two, three, or four weapons to take each one out, thus “absorbing” much of the enemy’s arsenal.

"Because the silos are located in sparsely populated areas of the Plains, proponents argue that fewer lives are put at direct risk. But the logic of designating an area as a prime attack zone in a nuclear conflict is puzzling to many—and the concept of a nuclear sponge is one that has drawn criticism for decades. In 1978, Dominic Paolucci, a retired Navy captain who served on the Strat-X team that assessed U.S. strategic options in the 1960s, railed against the strategy saying, “It is madness to use United States real estate as ‘a great sponge to absorb’ Soviet nuclear weapons. The objective of our military forces and strategy should be to reduce the weight of any potential attack on U.S. real estate rather than attracting even more.”

"There are plenty of other arguments to be made today. Nukes, of course, no longer have to be delivered via ICBMs and can be launched from submarines and bombers. And Russia’s arsenal reportedly has more than 1,500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3,000 in reserve. That’s more than enough to strike larger cities in addition to saturating the sponge.

"Despite the criticism, the U.S. appears to be committed to the idea of a nuclear sponge in those five states. The Pentagon plans to spend $264 billion on its next-generation ICBM program, which would upgrade the silos and missiles, and ensure the absorbency of the sponge for decades to come."
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's why they have those apocalyptic pictures on the wall of the airport in Colorado?

https://designyoutrust.com/2020/03/...ic-paintings-in-denver-international-airport/
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top