Nope. We have Mattis, Kelly and MAD. You're right about our SLBM fleet but if it came to all-out nuclear war, Russia's sheer numbers make that irrelevant.
alright, as usual, it's worthless to talk to you. my only mistake was removing you from ignore. I'll fix that now. Shout at me all you want behind the glass, monkey.
Irrelevant to what? Both sides have enough to vaporize every population center in each respective country. Powered-flight to re-entry phase of our Tridents in the Baltics is under 8 minutes.
Russia's ground-launched tech, which is the majority of their arsenal like the SR-28, are liquid fuel based and essentially out of service.
You know I've never understood that. That would mean their missiles truly are defensive, right? Wouldn't we be able to see them fueling?
He's daft! I was reading an old thread and saw that he actually used that word in this forum. Little did I know when I first read your descriptions (internet lurking fag hag and queen of snark herself) how accurate they really were.
The biggest risk I see is not us using them, but the Russians. They can't match us in a conventional conflict.
No, they lacked the tech for solid fuel systems. They leak. They have had silo explosions from sparking of liquid fuels in the boosters. The warheads are hardened. Putin wants us to remove out THAAD installations in the EU and Asia. THAAD is a viable BM defense between boost/powered flight phase to apogee and perhaps re-entry, but that's only 10% of the system. It is essentially UHR radar that can detect silo activity and their missile sleds (mobile launchers).
Irrelevant to preventing us from being nuked. Sorry but we absolutely do not have the capability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. That's ridiculous. And we're not getting into a nuclear war with Russia. Crawl back into your lead lined basement and put your tinfoil hat back on.