Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even if we take the Wiki number, it remains over 40 years.1989 Soviet nuclear tests - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is nothing to indicate that they DONT have functioning nukes.Even if we take the Wiki number, it remains over 40 years.
There is nothing to indicate that the Russians have working nuclear missiles. It's like the kid left a bunch of guns by his dad who leaves them in the rain for 20 years. At one time they were effective.
If the world let a nuclear weapons state get away with using nuclear weapons in an act of aggression against a non-nuclear weapons state, that would be the end of the NPT. All the nations of the world would develop nuclear weapons.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.
Your scenario goes off the rails at this point. The US would respond with hundreds of nuclear warheads against Russia and hundreds of nuclear warheads against China. Mostly against military targets, but China would lose one of their most important cities.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
America is closer to developing hypersonic missiles than anyone else, but we don't have them yet. And neither does anyone else.America has developed non-nuclear ordinance that on hypersonic missiles can do the damage of nukes without the fallout. MOABS + hypersonic = nukes not needed.
Perhaps, but our response would be forceful and highly significant.Russia using low yield nukes against Ukraine will not trigger a nuclear response from America.
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
thebulletin.org
Russia is further away from developing hypersonic weapons than the US is.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.
There is nothing to indicate that they DONT have functioning nukes.
You make a WILDLY prosterous claim that Russia doesnt have any nukes and your evidence is...?We know North Korea has nukes - how?
We know China has nukes - how?
We know India has nukes - how?
We know Pakistan has nukes - how?
But all the evidence that shows us the above have nukes, isn't there with Russia.
No, the "scientific community" does not support the hypothesis. You sound exactly like a global warming cultist when you make that claim.That is incorrect. The scientific community continues to support nuclear winter to this day.
Nowhere to hide: How a nuclear war would kill you—and almost everyone else.
In a nuclear war, hundreds to thousands of detonations would occur within minutes, resulting in tens to hundreds of millions of people dead or injured in a few days. But a few years after, global climatic changes caused by the many nuclear explosions could be responsible for the death of more...
Why are you so stupid? Did your mother drop you upside down on the concrete floоr when you were a child and you lаnded on your head?Here's a dirty little secret.
The Russians don't have any functioning nukes.
I'm saying that the nukes left behind by the Soviets are no longer functional because of neglect by the Russian federation - pretty much like everything else in Russia.You make a WILDLY prosterous claim that Russia doesnt have any nukes and your evidence is...?
Yes, i know. It is a wildly preposterous claim.I'm saying that the nukes left behind by the Soviets are no longer functional because of neglect by the Russian federation - pretty much like everything else in Russia.
Russia keeps building new ones to replace the ones that go bad.I'm saying that the nukes left behind by the Soviets are no longer functional because of neglect by the Russian federation - pretty much like everything else in Russia.
Better dead than red.Could Humans Survive a Nuclear War Between Nato and Russia?
No.
Therefore, we should all immediately capitulate to whatever Pootin demands.
The fuckin’ Canuck commie Duck has quacked!
Scientists keep putting out studies that support it.No, the "scientific community" does not support the hypothesis.
www.semanticscholar.org
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.nature.com
Science is not a cult.You sound exactly like a global warming cultist when you make that claim.
There is no empirical evidence on the issue at all, either for or against. Much like global warming.There is no empirical evidence to support the 150-180Tg theory,
Also reason to believe it, like various computer models that scientists run.and much reason to dismiss it- e.g. the observed effects of forest fires and vulcanism.
It tells me that they are only interested in direct blast effects.I'm not interested in parsing global warming models and forcing assumptions, so believe what you wish. There is no "nuclear winter" in the US or Russian nuclear doctrine, which should tell you something.
Even if they are right, the fallout from a large nuclear war will still shorten everyone's lives for centuries. And the general societal collapse and loss of transportation networks will still result in a lot of starvation immediately after the war.This was put out by a group from Los Alamos, and addresses one of the studies in your link (they all used the same assumptions from Toon wrt the soot aloft).
More likely Scenario.-- Russia gets defeated ,but NATO crosses the line. So Russia ,in a fit of rage ,launches 1000. Before they land ,the USA counters with a "Full ,retaliatory attack". China ,India ,Israel ,and NATO joins in. And what is left dies of radiation poisoning on the Beaches of Australia. POOF!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.
I'm saying that the nukes left behind by the Soviets are no longer functional because of neglect by the Russian federation - pretty much like everything else in Russia.
