Russia VS NATO scenario

Russia is planning to station nuclear weapons in Belarus. This is the country that borders Ukraine to the north. Previous comments from Rus general are that if the conflict goes nuclear, they will definitely attack London with nuclear weapons. I'm just curious as to what world response will be if they use a nuclear weapon against Kyiv. Attacking London would be suicide for Moscow.

"You don't have to [strike] Washington first it's too far away,' Lt. Gen. Andrey Gurulev told state TV. 'London is next door. London is the main hotbed of all nastiness."\
quote from
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ding-silo.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65077687

https://media.giphy.com/media/lpGTho...ZxM8/giphy.gif

Maybe the kids now a days need to be scared a bit to realize what is going on outside of their TicTok account!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEAMRICO

Maybe the kids now a days need to be scared a bit to realize what is going on outside of their TicTok account!!!!

---

They’ll just change their profile to the flag of whatever country was attacked and put a “stand with X” change jar at the local
Coffee shop.

Attachment 93356

Their missiles can already hit London from where they are already at, not sure what moving them to Belarus does another than give the news another nothing burger story to scare you with.

The range of the missiles they are moving to Belarus have a range of about 350 miles. London is 1300 miles aways from these SRBM (short range ballistic missile). NATO used to have GLCM (ground launched cruise missile) in the UK. These missiles were removed under a treaty with Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interm..._Forces_Treaty

Yeah, they have missiles that will hit London where they are already at.. What does moving missiles to Belarus have to do with that? Just more posturing from Russia. So far they have shown that their systems aren't really all that they proclaimed to be.

They are bluffing. They might have 20 or 30 nukes total they can shoot at nato. Considering how much the oligarchy stole from the Russian state coffers over the last 20 years, the state of their nuclear weapons is probably pretty bad. If they use just one tactical nuke against Ukraine, their whole military will be out of commission within 72h. For every subs they have, we have 2 or 3 ssn trailing them just waiting for a signal to sink them. There are no military scenarios where Putin can win. So he?s playing the political one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthabagah

They are bluffing. They might have 20 or 30 nukes total they can shoot at nato. Considering how much the oligarchy stole from the Russian state coffers over the last 20 years, the state of their nuclear weapons is probably pretty bad. If they use just one tactical nuke against Ukraine, their whole military will be out of commission within 72h. For every subs they have, we have 2 or 3 ssn trailing them just waiting for a signal to sink them. There are no military scenarios where Putin can win. So he?s playing the political one.

---

You fail to realize he doesn't need to win for a lot of the remainder of the world to lose.

https://news.usni.org/2023/03/23/nor...off-u-s-coasts

I’m on a mobile device so I can’t dump the article into my post, but tldr is that they got missile boats off our coasts.

Edit- got to a PC, here's the article

Russia could have its most powerful and quiet nuclear attack submarines on persistent patrols off either U.S. Coast in the next two years, the head of U.S. Northern Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.
In response to questions from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) on the threat of Chinese and Russian cruise missile submarines operating close to the U.S., NORTHCOM commander Gen. Glen VanHerck said that the deployments of the Russian Yasen-class nuclear cruise missile attack boats have been deploying more frequently.
“[The risk is] absolutely increasing. Within the last year, Russia has also placed their [Yasens] in the Pacific,” he said.
“Now not only the Atlantic, but we also have them in the Pacific and it’s just a matter of time – probably a year or two – before that’s a persistent threat, 24 hours a day. … That impact has reduced decision space for a national senior leader in a time of crisis.”
Also known by their NATO reporting name Severodvinsk class, the 13,800-ton Yasen-class attack boats are among the most capable submarines in the world. In particular, the three current boats in the class are capable of a special quiet operations mode that make them difficult to detect in the open ocean. In 2018, the lead boat in the class, Severodvinsk, evaded U.S. efforts to find it for weeks, according to press reports.
Navy officials have told USNI News that the service has become increasingly concerned with the efficacy of the Russian submarine force.
The growing ability of Russian submarines to operate undetected in the Atlantic pushed the Navy to reactivate U.S. 2nd Fleet and create a command for anti-submarine warfare across the Atlantic in 2018.
The Russian Navy has planned to build ten Yasen-class attack boats, with the fourth to commission later this year, according to Russian press reports.
The Russians have also recently delivered two new strategic nuclear submarines.
In January, the Russian Navy commissioned the 24,000-ton Borey-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine Generalissimus Suvorov. In July, the Russian Navy delivered Belgorod – a strategic weapons platform fitted with school bus sized nuclear torpedoes that can be fitted with a 100-megaton nuclear warhead.
VanHerck also emphasized the need for the U.S. to expand its operations in the Arctic, as Russia has modernized its assets in the region and China continues to push farther north.
“Russia has modernized their fleet of icebreakers. They’ve modernized their strategic defense along with their submarine forces. China is sailing into the Arctic under the guise of research [missions] and we know they’re doing military operations, surveying the seabed.”
VanHerck said the U.S. is short of assets in the Arctic as Russia and China continue to expand operations.
“We’re not organized, trained and equipped to operate and respond in the Arctic. Infrastructure is a big concern for me, whether that be runway links, whether that be buildings, whether that be weapons storage, whether that be fuel storage,” he said.
“We need persistence that requires icebreakers. We as a nation are in bad shape regarding icebreakers, and I fully support the Coast Guard’s plan. We need to go faster.”