Does having nukes mean a country can do anything it wants?

[maybelooking]

Take out the politics. I wont even mention parties in this post. It would appear that the new doctrine is if a country has nukes, no one can do anything to stop them from killing untold numbers of civilians.

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

If that's the new doctrine, then God help us all going forward. Theres other countries that do, or will soon have the same capability. Theres gonna be a lot more dead civilians in the next decade or two. Count on it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

Actually most countries on the earth are doing something about it, they are just choosing not to start WWIII in the process.

 

[August West]

Having nukes means no one is going to attack you.

 

[occupied]

Nukes+ICBMs make a country invasion proof. It's why I can't blame any nation for wanting them. As a defensive weapon they are worth more than any number of armies.

 

[maybelooking]

Having nukes means no one is going to attack you.

apparently it also means no one is going to defend anyone else against you as well. If a nuke country attacks any other country......that country is on their own.

again, im not advocating anything. Im not suggesting anything. Im just making an observation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Take out the politics. I wont even mention parties in this post. It would appear that the new doctrine is if a country has nukes, no one can do anything to stop them from killing untold numbers of civilians.

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

If that's the new doctrine, then God help us all going forward. Theres other countries that do, or will soon have the same capability. Theres gonna be a lot more dead civilians in the next decade or two. Count on it.

That's why we were against the failed Bill Clinton North Korea and Obama nuke deals.

 

[pknopp]

Having nukes means no one is going to attack you.

Right. It at least makes it far less likely. In a perfect world no one has them. In our far less than perfect world I support all having them so people will stay on their own side of the fence.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Having nukes means no one is going to attack you.

Remember when the democrats made Ukraine give up it's nukes ?

 

[zaangalewa]

Having nukes means no one is going to attack you.

... means no one with a sane mind is going to attack you.

The first serios problem since the invention of nukes was a long time now under control: as less countries as possible should have nukes. Reason for: The number of relations between higher numbers grows drastic. Example: 3 nations have only 3 relations - but 6 nations have 5+4+3+2+1=(5+1)+(4+2)+3=2*6+3=12+3=15 relations. 12 nations have 11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=5*12+6=66 relations and so on. 24 nations => 11*24+12=276 relations. ... The risk for a nuclear war grows in a similiar scheme the more nations are in this overkilling game.

The other problem seems to grow out of control: As many people as possible in a nation who owns nukes should have to decide together whether to use nukes or not. But in the moment it looks like that more than 50% of a population of a country are also able to become totally mad all together.

A short time ago I had been convinced Putin never would use nukes - this opinion changed totally. And I had been convinced Donald Trump will use without any scruple nukes. This opinion did not change.

 

[Likkmee]

Take out the politics. I wont even mention parties in this post. It would appear that the new doctrine is if a country has nukes, no one can do anything to stop them from killing untold numbers of civilians.

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

If that's the new doctrine, then God help us all going forward. Theres other countries that do, or will soon have the same capability. Theres gonna be a lot more dead civilians in the next decade or two. Count on it.

Kewl aint it ?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Take out the politics. I wont even mention parties in this post. It would appear that the new doctrine is if a country has nukes, no one can do anything to stop them from killing untold numbers of civilians.

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

If that's the new doctrine, then God help us all going forward. Theres other countries that do, or will soon have the same capability. Theres gonna be a lot more dead civilians in the next decade or two. Count on it.

Pretty much, yeah. If you have nukes, no one wants to go into war with you, hence the proxy-wars that go on around the globe. Once the nukes start flying, you can literally kiss humans and other life-forms goodbye.
Think about October 30, 1961 and Russia's Tsar Bomba detonation. The Russian's considered detonating a 100 Mt Hydrogen Bomb, but scaled it back to 50 Mt. Detonating from an elevation of 1.8 miles, the thermal radiation radius was 47.8 miles. Had they actually detonated a 100 Mt Hydrogen Bomb, that radiation radius would have doubled. We can be sure that while they never detonated their proposed 100 Mt bomb, they most likely have them. In any case, there are an estimated 13,000 nukes in the world and if nations start tossing them around, well you can forget living.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Russia has a smaller economy than California, but they have 6000 nukes…..therefore, a big fucking stick.

What would 6000 detonated nukes do to the planet? How bout that climate change?

I would call that an ACTUAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT, not this clinate change bullshit.

 

[maybelooking]

Once the nukes start flying, you can literally kiss humans and other life-forms goodbye.

which is why I don't think it will happen.
Not by Putin anyway. Now, Muslim savages......yeah if they get em, life as we know it is over.

 

[maybelooking]

Kewl aint it ?

another one I dont think really has the guts to use them. He's no nuts. He plays the role well though. Obviously just my opinion. I dont know the guy.

 

[JohnDB]

Nuclear weapons vary in function and blast radius.
Some have a somewhat small area of blast but a much larger area of sterilization of all life. (Neutron Bomb)

A MOAB has a large area of detonation...larger than many nuclear weapons. But it's a conventional bomb.

However...one MERV missile has many nuclear bombs on it. It can basically carpet bomb an area with nuclear weapons. A couple of those and there goes the Eastern Seaboard.

 

[Mac-7]

... means no one with a sane mind is going to attack you.

The first serios problem since the invention of nukes was a long time now under control: as less countries as possible should have nukes. Reason for: The number of relations between higher numbers grows drastic. Example: 3 nations have only 3 relations - but 6 nations have 5+4+3+2+1=(5+1)+(4+2)+3=2*6+3=12+3=15 relations. 12 nations have 11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=5*12+6=66 relations and so on. 24 nations => 11*24+12=276 relations. ... The risk for a nuclear war grows in a similiar scheme the more nations are in this overkilling game.

The other problem seems to grow out of control: As many people as possible in a nation who owns nukes should have to decide together whether to use nukes or not. But in the moment it looks like that more than 50% of a population of a country are also able to become totally mad all together.

A short time ago I had been convinced Putin never would use nukes - this opinion changed totally. And I had been convinced Donald Trump will use without any scruple nukes. This opinion did not change.

What a fool

you thought putin was the good guy while trump was a threat to your soft way of life

putin behaved himself while trump was in office

The amazing thing is that russia does not have to USE nukes but merely THREATEN to use them and you fold up like a cheap suit

 

[maybelooking]

The amazing thing is that russia does not have to USE nukes but merely THREATEN to use them and you fold up like a cheap suit

this is what im talking about. once a country realizes just the "threat" even if its empty, of using nukes will keep everyone at bay.......then that country can dominate the entire planet.

 

[JohnDB]

this is what im talking about. once a country realizes just the "threat" even if its empty, of using nukes will keep everyone at bay.......then that country can dominate the entire planet.

Not really...
In the case of N Korea they lack a guidance system and a reliable delivery vehicle...

Anti missile systems are ruling the day right now.

However...the tomahawk, cruise, and other missile systems are capable of "flying below the radar" to deliver nuclear payloads.

I can't remember what Russian systems are called but if I remember correctly China's is called silkworm.

If those things start flying it's the end of the world as we know it.

Currently Iran, Pakistan, and N Korea are the "Rogue States" with nuclear capabilities.

They might not fly far but they can make a huge mess.

 

[Missourian]

We likely had a chance to thwart Russia's invasion of Ukraine before it started... But that would have required a leader with an iron spine... not one constructed entirely of cooked spaghetti like Biden's.

And it wouldn't have been without risks.

But the left has protested every war we've engaged in for 60 years...so in that regard Biden was just making a political calculation to play it safe.

 

[Dalia]

Take out the politics. I wont even mention parties in this post. It would appear that the new doctrine is if a country has nukes, no one can do anything to stop them from killing untold numbers of civilians.

The entire planet is being held hostage while a nuclear power wages war and every other country on earth is scared to death to do anything about it.

If that's the new doctrine, then God help us all going forward. Theres other countries that do, or will soon have the same capability. Theres gonna be a lot more dead civilians in the next decade or two. Count on it.

Yes, it seems that a country with nuclear weapons like Russia can quietly invade and have the green light of NATO only if the red line is not crossed an attack of a NATO country but NATO does not seem to think about the aftermath if Putin wins the war will he goes back to his home in Russia as if nothing had happened and they will all remain again petrified in their corner ? and not prosecute him for the crimes committed in Ukraine? I think they’re all gonna be stuck standing still again because Putin could pull the card of the nuclear weapon again?