Since the recent comments from US Gen. Hyten on no immediate response to a nuclear attack by Russia, I will explain what our option might be. It is well known in military circles that when an enemy has nukes in ICBM missiles, cruise missiles, ships, and submarines - and we cannot intercept it and stop them from being used, the US would use a neutron bomb explosion as near as possible. That type of nuclear bomb would send out high levels of electronic pulses (EMP) and detonate the nukes of the enemy. This means we would not have to intercept a fast missile on contact and explode it before it hits the target. This may be the only defense at this time against the hypersonic fast speed missiles that Russia has developed. Those new missiles by Russia would travel several times faster than our defensive anti-missiles. In a scenario of those weapons being used the US may send up a missile in the general vicinity of where the missile is traveling through and explode a neutron bomb so the EMP blast would detonate the nuclear warhead without having to hit it directly. However, the side effects of that strategy may be an EMP pulse of sufficient size to knock out our own electrical grid in a several hundred square mile area. Experts do not agree on exactly how many EMP nuclear bombs it would require to knock out the entire US electric grid. It varies from one to 6 or more, to achieve full coverage. If the US sends up an EMP nuclear bomb to knock out an incoming nuclear missile it is anyone's guess how much that electronic pulse would affect the US electric grid. It may only affect a remote area in Canada, Alaska or a few US states. It is not an exact science.

If we are attacked by nuclear missiles and we successfully stop them, we would still be in a de facto state of war with Russia, and the nation would be in a panic and instantly under martial law and a state of emergency. Even before it got to that stage it is probable that the US and Russia had sustained major losses on a battlefield somewhere which led to the missile attack. That situation would be on-going and more confrontations could ensue anywhere on the planet. You can be sure the US would be ready to take out the Russian navy including hunting for Russian subs that have nuclear missiles. The entire world would be on edge. It must also be understood that if the Russian leaders had decided to hit us with nukes that they were also ready to absorb our response, and regardless if each side's nukes were effective or not they would be ready to launch more nuclear missiles at a moment's notice. That means once they are committed to using nukes, they are in it to win at all costs. The big question is, even if the US knocks down some missiles, how does a nation back down from that commitment for all out war? To back down could mean suicide for that nation - whether instantly or in a drawn out war after they are weakened. The nation with the longest staying power and ability to wage war after the start of a nuclear war is the one that would survive and win. Both sides may lose millions of people, or it could be lopsided. But the recovery from that war would take generations to get things back to normal again.
In my opinion there may be a higher chance of going to war with China, North Korea and Iran, than with Russia. But, recently the British and US politicians have been making strange bellicose and antagonistic moves in diplomatic and economic areas against the Russians - which may actually telegraph their intentions to go to war with Russia. Let's face it, the Russians are standing in the way of the globalist's agenda for the Middle East. You add that factor with what is going on in Ukraine and you can see a policy of animosity against Russia that can lead to a confrontation and all out war.

We have no say on what happens between our two nations but we can still be caught in the middle of the chaos and aftermath, even if we survive. It behooves us then to be aware of the possibilities and be prepared for anything that happens in the future.

George Eaton