Zone1 Could Humans Survive a Nuclear War Between Nato and Russia?

[Uncensored2008]

No. The radiation of perhaps 14,000 nukes would kill everyone.

That is a LOT of nukes.

Unlikely that more than 40 or 50 could be launched before both sides were destroyed.

Scenario: Russia targets New York, the ICBM detonates on the launch pad and wipes out Novograd. Russia blames USA for unprovoked first strike.

China fires an ICBM and destroys San Francisco, saying they are retaliating for the strike on Novograd,

The USA responds with MOAB's over Moscow and Beijing

Israel nukes Mecca.

China invades Taiwan

The USA hits Shanghai with 3 MOABS

Taiwan repels Chinese invaders

Russia uses a dirty bomb in London after 6 more failed attempts to launch an ICBM.

Britain and France hit St. Petersburg and Minsk with nukes.

Russia sues for peace

South Korea invades the north and reunites the nation.

Hong Kong declares independence.

In that entire timeline, only 5 nukes used.

 

[SavannahMann]

I don't really want to find out.

I think if Russia was to open up its nuclear playbook, they'd most likely start with something low-yield and tactical, if for no other reason to gauge how the world reacts—especially nations such as China and Iran who, if they're not really with them, aren't as vigorously against them. Afterward, there would be a lot of condemnation from NATO and some very strongly worded press releases, and probably some sanctions, but I'm not convinced anyone else would respond in kind.

I don't see a mass-launch, mutually-assured, Wargames-style orgy of destruction, though.

Then you really haven’t thought this through.

Mutually Assured Destruction operates on a simple premise. I hold a gun pointed at your head. You hold one pointed at mine. Your suggestion is that if Russia shoots someone in the foot. With a “small” or tactical Nuke that the world won’t do anything.

The world will respond. They will have to. Either they respond or they surrender to Nuclear Blackmail. Putin would know he would get everything he wanted by popping off a few small Nukes.

The world would respond. They would have to. It becomes a question of use them or lose them. Someone would fire a couple “small” cruise missiles at Russia and a couple mushroom clouds form. Russia has to respond with more. And more.

There is no such thing as a Tactical Nuke. It is an imaginary line. It is the idiocy that imagines that Assault Rifles are something you can define. It doesn’t actually exist.

Generals around the world will be pounding desks. Advisors will be screaming we have to do it. And if by some miracle you are right. The imaginary line holds. That is even worse. Israel would see that a Tactical Nuke is acceptable. Who gets the first one? Syria? Or maybe Iran? Perhaps the French or British or even we transfer control to some Tactical Nukes to Ukraine. So they can respond in kind.

Every border dispute would escalate to Tactical Nukes almost immediately. Because it is just a small one right?

Nope. The world won’t allow that. They will respond. They’ll sink Russian Missile subs. They’ll sink the Russian fleet. They’ll unleash their own militaries for direct action.

When that happens. Russia would respond with more little ones and a few slightly bigger ones wouldn’t they?

One Nuke. No matter how small. One starts a series of escalations that are all but set in stone.

 

[para bellum]

Nuclear winter is not mythical. Neither Carl Sagan nor any other scientist has ever stopped believing it.

No, Dayton3 is correct. "Nuclear Winter" has been dead since the 80's.

The Russian role in the nuclear winter theory - Matt Ridley

A defector says the KGB boasts about starting the now-debunked scare My Times column on the Russian encouragement and perhaps origin of the now discredited theory of “nuclear winter”: So, Russia does appear to interfere in western politics. The FBI has charged 13 Russians with trying to...

www.rationaloptimist.com

As far as humanity- the latest modeling of current stockpiles I have seen, a total nuclear exchange could kill as many as 91 million people. A little over 1% of the global population.

 

[Godboy]

Here's a dirty little secret.

The Russians don't have any functioning nukes.

What a silly thing to say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you really haven’t thought this through.

Mutually Assured Destruction operates on a simple premise. I hold a gun pointed at your head. You hold one pointed at mine. Your suggestion is that if Russia shoots someone in the foot. With a “small” or tactical Nuke that the world won’t do anything.

The world will respond. They will have to. Either they respond or they surrender to Nuclear Blackmail. Putin would know he would get everything he wanted by popping off a few small Nukes.

The world would respond. They would have to. It becomes a question of use them or lose them. Someone would fire a couple “small” cruise missiles at Russia and a couple mushroom clouds form. Russia has to respond with more. And more.

There is no such thing as a Tactical Nuke. It is an imaginary line. It is the idiocy that imagines that Assault Rifles are something you can define. It doesn’t actually exist.

Generals around the world will be pounding desks. Advisors will be screaming we have to do it. And if by some miracle you are right. The imaginary line holds. That is even worse. Israel would see that a Tactical Nuke is acceptable. Who gets the first one? Syria? Or maybe Iran? Perhaps the French or British or even we transfer control to some Tactical Nukes to Ukraine. So they can respond in kind.

Every border dispute would escalate to Tactical Nukes almost immediately. Because it is just a small one right?

Nope. The world won’t allow that. They will respond. They’ll sink Russian Missile subs. They’ll sink the Russian fleet. They’ll unleash their own militaries for direct action.

When that happens. Russia would respond with more little ones and a few slightly bigger ones wouldn’t they?

One Nuke. No matter how small. One starts a series of escalations that are all but set in stone.

Where you are off base is the response.

America has developed non-nuclear ordinance that on hypersonic missiles can do the damage of nukes without the fallout. MOABS + hypersonic = nukes not needed.

And of course our institutions of corrupt learning made sure China had access to the technology, so Beijing has the same weapons. (Julius and Ethyl rode the lightning for giving secrets to Russia, why has the president of Penn State and Boston U not done the same?)

If Russia uses Nukes, we will wipe them out. But our response will not be nuclear - nor will the response from China.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a silly thing to say.

It's a true thing.

The Soviet stockpile is more of a danger to Russia than anyone else. 40 years of deteriorating seals and gaskets....

 

[Godboy]

It's a true thing.

The Soviet stockpile is more of a danger to Russia than anyone else. 40 years of deteriorating seals and gaskets....

You said they dont have any functioning nukes. That is a silly thing to say.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You said they dont have any functioning nukes. That is a silly thing to say.

Yep, and I stand by it.

They have nuclear materials they could use to make dirty bombs.

 

[SavannahMann]

Where you are off base is the response.

America has developed non-nuclear ordinance that on hypersonic missiles can do the damage of nukes without the fallout. MOABS + hypersonic = nukes not needed.

And of course our institutions of corrupt learning made sure China had access to the technology, so Beijing has the same weapons. (Julius and Ethyl rode the lightning for giving secrets to Russia, why has the president of Penn State and Boston U not done the same?)

If Russia uses Nukes, we will wipe them out. But our response will not be nuclear - nor will the response from China.

Any President. Trump, Biden, anyone. And I mean anyone. Any President would face impeachment if they did not respond in kind.

The Right would charge the White House to get Biden if he didn’t respond. Nobody with access to a microphone and camera would be calling on restraint.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any President. Trump, Biden, anyone. And I mean anyone. Any President would face impeachment if they did not respond in kind.

The Right would charge the White House to get Biden if he didn’t respond. Nobody with access to a microphone and camera would be calling on restraint.

Nonsense.

Russia using low yield nukes against Ukraine will not trigger a nuclear response from America.

We have no NEED to to use nukes. We can obliterate Moscow using our high tech conventional weapons - as Iran learned in 2019.

 

[Godboy]

Yep, and I stand by it.

They have nuclear materials they could use to make dirty bombs.

You are dumb for saying that.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nonsense.

Russia using low yield nukes against Ukraine will not trigger a nuclear response from America.

We have no NEED to to use nukes. We can obliterate Moscow using our high tech conventional weapons - as Iran learned in 2019.

You assume people are rational and logical. Nukes are psychological weapons. The response is psychological. It is not sane or logical to have endured seventy years of MAD. It is not logical or sane to spend trillions of dollars on weapons like Nukes. But we aren’t alone in doing so. And your argument that people will respond logically and rationally is dreaming.

If anyone went out to the Press and said we were not going to respond with Nukes but instead conventional weapons. That individual would be torn to shreds by the press.

And even if we didn’t. Putin would fire more. He wouldn’t have anything to lose. We would respond.

Once a single nuke goes off. The endgame is written. The only question is how long we diddle around until the missiles fly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You assume people are rational and logical. Nukes are psychological weapons. The response is psychological. It is not sane or logical to have endured seventy years of MAD. It is not logical or sane to spend trillions of dollars on weapons like Nukes. But we aren’t alone in doing so. And your argument that people will respond logically and rationally is dreaming.

If anyone went out to the Press and said we were not going to respond with Nukes but instead conventional weapons. That individual would be torn to shreds by the press.

And even if we didn’t. Putin would fire more. He wouldn’t have anything to lose. We would respond.

Once a single nuke goes off. The endgame is written. The only question is how long we diddle around until the missiles fly.

Ukraine is not America.

Ukraine is not NATO.

 

[alexa]

Prove it. And please don't babble about some hypothetical hypersonic weapons.

Well you obviously know about their hypersonic weapons. Funnily enough I was listening to some on the tele today saying why Russia was going to win this war and Hypersonic weapons, something you are apparently several years off making is the most important weapons they gave.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well you obviously know about their hypersonic weapons. Funnily enough I was listening to some on the tele today saying why Russia was going to win this war and Hypersonic weapons, something you are apparently several years off making is the most important weapons they gave.

AGM-183A

Air Force Is Buying Eight Of These Missiles That Are Set To Become Its First Hypersonic Weapons

The weapons will usher in capabilities previously only dreamed of and could be operational as early as 2022.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are dumb for saying that.

Your welcome to your opinion. No evidence of any working nuclear weapons out of Russia since 1987.

 

[Godboy]

Your welcome to your opinion. No evidence of any working nuclear weapons out of Russia since 1987.

Well thats not true, but they agreed to stop testing in 1990 and they know that its super easy to tell if a nation does a nuclear test, so they have no choice, but that doesnt mean that they dont have functioning nukes. It would be preposterous to think that they would be building expensive subs to carry nuclear missiles, if they stopped maintaining their nukes. Besides, we already know that Russia has the MOST nukes.

No one in the world shares your weird opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well thats not true, but they agreed to stop testing in 1990 and they know that its super easy to tell if a nation does a nuclear test, so they have no choice, but that doesnt mean that they dont have functioning nukes. It would be preposterous to think that they would be building expensive subs to carry nuclear missiles, if they stopped maintaining their nukes. Besides, we already know that Russia has the MOST nukes.

No one in the world shares your weird opinion.

I'm showing 1987

List of nuclear weapons tests of the Soviet Union

The following is a list of the nuclear weapons tests conducted by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1962, and some remarks on the later tests. The number of tests in each year is shown below in red: Apart from weapons tests (not listed here) there has been: Chagan, January 15, 1965: large...

military-history.fandom.com

 

[Godboy]

I'm showing 1987

List of nuclear weapons tests of the Soviet Union

The following is a list of the nuclear weapons tests conducted by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1962, and some remarks on the later tests. The number of tests in each year is shown below in red: Apart from weapons tests (not listed here) there has been: Chagan, January 15, 1965: large...

military-history.fandom.com

1989 Soviet nuclear tests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[otto105]

What the science says: Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia? - Alliance for Science

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has suggested that he would consider using nuclear weapons if confronted with a NATO military response in Ukraine, or if faced with a direct threat to his person or regime. If the war spreads to a NATO country like Estonia or Poland a direct US-Russia confrontation...

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

It's said that the world is closer to nuclear war now than it was during the Cuban missile crisis. However, on a bright note, that wasn't even close for those of us who have a real understanding of the situation.

But can it be denied that the world is now closer to nuclear war than it's ever been?

Perhaps it's time for the discussion?

I'll put it up on the board, if for no other purpose than to be able to gauge the attitudes of the board's members.

And of course determining whether or not members are more likely to avoid the question?

Pootin is claiming the losers position.


Much like a guy claiming he will hurt himself if a girl leaves him.


His army once thought to be of quality has been exposed as a farce and seemingly only supported by our republic party.