Should we conduct a live-fire SLBM test?

[sir pball]

Yeah yeah, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and all that - but treaties and agreements generally seem to be worth the paper they're printed on these days.

Might it be worth the sharp reminder to Pooty-Poot that we have fourteen ballistic missile submarines, each carrying 24 of the most advanced ballistic missiles ever developed, each of which carries up to twelve 475-kt nuclear warheads - with the accuracy to drop them into a 300-foot circle?

It would be like Dominic Frigate Bird, but to prove a point.

And, given Pooty's mental state, probably less provocative than boots on the ground.

[LonePirate]

1. No. There is no need to antagonize them into a war with us.

[sir pball]

2. There seems to be no shortage of that desire on here these days

It would be a lot less antagonistic than putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, sadly.

[LonePirate]

23. DU is not even recognizable any more with all of this pro-war and pro-military talk nowadays.

[sir pball]

27. I will admit to hyperbole.

I don't actually want us to light off a Trident-II with a live W88 just to prove how accurate and powerful it is (even if I will admit that would be the coolest thing EVER) - but it would probably, seriously, be less provocative to Pooty than a single NATO boot on the ground in Ukraine.

[WarGamer]

3. Anyone with a brain understands both sides can turn off the planet... permanently.

[sir pball]

5. Yeah, but does Vlad still have a brain or does he need a reminder? nt

[Mariana]

4. Do you suppose that Putin has just forgotten

that we have fourteen ballistic missile submarines, each carrying 24 of the most advanced ballistic missiles ever developed, each of which carries up to twelve 475-kt nuclear warheads - with the accuracy to drop them into a 300-foot circle?

[sir pball]

7. The way he's currently acting?

I'm not so sure.

[Irish_Dem]

11. Putin has an antimissile system around Moscow. I think he feels safe.

[sir pball]

12. Gorgon is good, but probably couldn't overwhelm a saturation strike by two Ohios

It has something like 95% effectiveness - which isn't acceptable when you have 200 warheads inbound.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Putin is most likely in a very secure bunker.

He won't die.

And doesn't care how many Russians die.

Edit to add: The point is that he may feel invincible and safe. Whether that is the reality or not.

[stopdiggin]

35. and here we are - having (seemingly) serious

discussion? About dropping 200 warheads on Moscow?

Yes - "the times they are a changing" ---- -- -- ----

[sir pball]

36. Putin opened the door to nukes

And that ends with a lot more than 200 warheads - that's just two submarines.

US and RUS have about fifteen thousand between us.

[stopdiggin]

37. and you are making it a serious topic of discussion here on DU

Christ on a crutch!

----- --- --- -----

[sir pball]

39. Yep. And many others are advocating for World War Three.

Do you feel there should be any more Western involvement in Ukraine?

For the record, I do, but absent that I think a nuclear test is justified.

[Metaphorical]

13. If it works as well as the Russian tank brigades, I wouldn't be placing my bets on it.

Remember Star Wars? Reagan (and later Bush Sr.) spend billions on developing a space defense shield. Forty years later it's able to stop about one missile in five. I cannot imagine that the Russians have had much better luck than the Americans have in developing an antiballistic shield. Whether Putin believes that it will protect the Kremlin is a different issue.

[Irish_Dem]

15. Yes the point is what he believes, not the reality.

And we know he is most likely in a very secure bunker, so he himself will not die.

And he could care less how many Russians are killed.

Putin is acting like a man who feels invincible. Whether that is actually true or not, that may be how he feels.

[sir pball]

31. Right, and my idea is to snap him back into reality

I guess it's idiotic to think that showing we can land a half-megaton warhead in a soccer field halfway across the world would do that, but I'm feeling a little nutty myself. No more nutty than direct involvement, tho...

[Irish_Dem]

33. So far he has been a very high functioning ruthless sociopath.

He has been able to rise to the highest level of power in his country for a long time. He has been able to greatly damage western democracies, buying off many politicians. In the US he owns half the congress, a past US president, and the media.

So right now he is greatly emboldened.

I think he is hell bent on achieving his dream of shifting global power to his favor, controlling the West, and reviving the Russian Empire. He is not acting irrationally from that standpoint, he is just continuing to put into motion his plan for world dominance. And he has achieved a great deal already.

My point is that the reality for him has been a good one, and he has been quite successful in his goals.

In the past he has always known how far he could go with no pushback. Now he has the world over a barrel, he has terrorized the world into compliance.

I think the question is how do we stop him. I don't know if he can be scared into backing down. I think he might just double or triple down.

I think Biden has some very good intel and has identified Putin's weak areas: Money, power, control issues. These are the areas to hit.

[sir pball]

34. I agree with your "how do we stop him" question

And my proposal was the metaphorical "draw your gun and accurately shoot the three henchmen" theory.

I also agree that money, power, and control are the best ways to hit him - but a very stark reminder that we can pancake the Kremlin with several megatons of nuclear weapons might make his lieutenants turn against him, if nothing else.

[Irish_Dem]

40. I think it is a legitimate question.

I frankly think all options should be on the table, and up for discussion. I don't agree with automatically rejecting this or that option or idea.

It is time to discuss all options since we are facing a potential global catastrophe. And the eradication of a country and its people right in front of our eyes.

I am not against scaring the hell out of Putin. I just don't think scaring him with a bomb threat would work, and may make him more angry and dangerous.

And of course if we level Moscow, Putin will level DC and New York. Putin already knows we can do that, and it doesn't deter him in the least.

Yes good point, it might make the generals nervous. But the problem is that Putin is highly protected by his personal elite guards and I don't know if the generals or inner circle can get to Putin. Hitler's generals tried to kill him on a number of occasions, but were never successful.

I do believe Putin would use low yield nuclear weapons in Ukraine and not blink an eye. He is angry and resolute, Zelensky has humiliated him. I think he could level Ukraine, commit genocide, etc.

So I think he is quite dangerous, so we may need to proceed cautiously until we can figure out what to do. I do think Biden has excellent intel and knows a great deal about what is going on behind the scenes. And is apply great pressure on Putin which he did not expect.

I think Putin fears losing his vast wealth more than he fears a nuclear bomb. He fears losing power and prestige. These are things that scare him more than a bomb, I think.

[sir pball]

45. I agree with your sixth paragraph and that's why I suggested a live test.

I do believe Putin would use low yield nuclear weapons in Ukraine and not blink an eye. He is angry and resolute, Zelensky has humiliated him. I think he could level Ukraine, commit genocide, etc.

Yeah - Putin is absolutely willing to use tactical nukes. Like the guy who's willing to shoot a warning shot at you...and if you move to draw your gun, he'll shoot you as soon as you move.

So you outshoot him - it ain't like some relatively noisy-ass* Akula is chasing every Ohio...but I'd bet my entire paycheck every Red boomer out there has a Virginia in their baffles, with shoot-to-kill orders.

* - the Aklua is about as noisy as the 688I class. Which is very quiet, but also as noisy at pierside as a Seawolf/Virginia is at 20 knots. Our attack subs are SCARY quiet and can track anything in the water.

[Irish_Dem]

46. Yes when he put the boomers on high alert we know what that meant.

I am not a betting person, but I also would bet the ballistic missiles are
in the tube as we speak. And I also think on high alert the commander and XO do not have to show concurrence and go through that protocol.

I think that is waived now and it will only take direct order from Putin.
Then the sub commander just has to turn a key.

I also think the red subs are just off the east coast, that is where they often are anyway. One sub can make a beeline to DC. We know their subs are already in the North Sea and some think they may now be in the English Channel pointed at the capitals of Europe

We would never have time to get our antiballistic missiles in the air.

This might be one reason Biden and the leaders of NATO countries are so afraid.

[relayerbob]

6. To what end?

Why on earth would you even propose such a thing?

[sir pball]

8. Why are many on here agitating for boots on the ground?

That would be far more provocative to Vlad than a mere missile test.

[relayerbob]

9. A live fire test in violation of the nuclear test ban treaties?

Are you nuts?

[sir pball]

10. No less nuts than anyone calling for boots on the ground.

I honestly think my idea is less likely to lead to war than theirs. As I said - treaties these days?

Hell, given that Russia's arsenal is probably about as reliable as a Trabbie these days, it might be a good dick-waving contest. Let Pooty have a Borei try and fire a missile (with advance notice of course, since we have attack subs tailing them) and hope it explodes *if* it makes its target.

[relayerbob]

20. Consider yourself ignored

And who cares who wants "Boots on the ground". This is abolutely the craziest thing I've seen on DU.

[CrackityJones75]

19. I don't know that it is many. A few for sure.

[sir pball]

24. I'll admit it may be a vocal minority, but it's not a minority opinion.

Still - it would be less of a provocation than a single NATO soldier shooting a single Russian soldier.

[Iggo]

16. Would that make you feel better?

[sir pball]

22. I mean, yeah, kinda.

It would be all kinds of rad if nothing else

Seriously though, why is it a *worse* idea than direct involvement?

[Tomconroy]

17. Much more useful to get them planes. Gestures don't count much.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Going to swagger around to look big? Putin has the same lists you have and better. Stupid idea. . nt

[sir pball]

21. And direct involvement is?

Given what Pooty has said that would entail?

I'd rather be a swaggering big-dick cowboy than dead.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Don't stuff words in people's mouths. It is a despicable debating tactic.

You will find nothing where I advocated direct involvement.

Don't stoop to such shitty moves.

[sir pball]

29. Sorry, I was wrong.

I had forgot you don't support direct involvement, there's even a fog of war here. I actually don't support it either, the consequences are too grave.

Unfortunately though, many here do support that position - I'm offering this as a "show of force" counter to that. Like dropping Fat Man in Tokyo Bay instead of on Hiroshima.

[sarisataka]

26. We can skip to the end

As some folks are wanting to run headlong anyway

[sir pball]

28. A test isn't a war; it would be better than direct involvement

As I said upthread, ideally it would spur Pooty to try a test of his own and be humiliated.

What the hell do you think a counterattack from Poland would result in?

[sarisataka]

30. In the last couple days

We canceled a scheduled test to avoid any "misunderstanding". What would an unscheduled test look like?

How would a Russian test humiliate him? Does our sub let it happen? Do we really think it won't lauch? Even if it doesn't who would know?

What if a second missile is launched? Does our sub risk a war by sinking a boomer? Or does it sit and watch what is a Russian nuclear strike on CONUS?


At least a ground attack wouldn't look like a first strike.

[sir pball]

32. We schedule it, on short notice but scheduled nonetheless. "We will be launching on 5/1".

As to your second question - the humiliation would come when the Bulava blows up as usual. Garbage missile, certainly not a deterrent.

For your third question, one would expect the Borei to open one silo door, as per the agreed upon test. They open a second, in the words of Bart Mancuso - blow them straight to Mars. I am sure every Red SSBN has a Virginia in its baffles.

[EndlessWire]

38. Oh, hell no!

Let's say we demonstrate a real, live nuke. Somebody owns the land. Frightening people, for sure.

The only response to such a thing is an instant right back at you, with his choice of "demonstration area" and there you have it, WW3, started by us.

No, no, no, no. We will never launch the first one. Our duty is to distinguish what is real from what is false. If he shoots at a reactor, damages it, and it blows up, what will we do? That sort of reaction, thought through with no surprises. If he shoots one tactical nuke, what will we do?

We will fight back, but we will not initiate any nuke exchange. If he shot at us to demonstrate, we would be justified to shoot back, even if he "missed." You do know that he can hit far distant capitals, right? Hey, I have beloved ones in London. I am worried enough without thinking of the consequences of such a move!

[USALiberal]

41. Once again, another person thinking they know how to run the war. !

[sir pball]

42. Oh no, I'm a crazy drunk amateur

Never said otherwise!

[roamer65]

43. I wouldn't have rescheduled the ICBM test.

I would have let it happen.

Russians only understand force.

[sir pball]

44. Hear hear.

I'd do a test SLBM launch too, realistically. Nothing breaking any treaty, just reminding Vlad we can put a half-megaton warhead spot on any single dome of the Kremlin.

Force should never be the *first* option, but it should always be *an* option.