Yeah, let's play a game

[kyzr]

There were more than two thousands nuclear explosions on Earth. And almost one thousand of them took place near Las Vegas. Is life in Las Vegas "very difficult" now?

Life is fine in Las Vegas, because those 1,000 explosions were underground. Which would not be the case for WW3.

Why? With all due respect to all religions, converting in one of them without any convincing reason is not what I'm going to do.
If you want to convince me (more or less scientifically), you need to prove those (obviously false) statements:
1) Nuclear war is about nuking cities, not about nuking nukes. (In fact, all reasonable people prefer to defend their own population to killing other people);
2) If a modern city is nuked by a modern bomb - there will be massive fires, not "smoldering in the rubble". (In fact the range of destruction is wider than the range of inflammation);
3) In a modern city all those fires can unite in a firestorm. (In fact, modern cities has wide streets and fire can't spread that easily);
4) This hypothetical firestorm will generate great amount of soot and ash and transport them in higher layers of atmosphere (In fact, higher temperature in the super-duper firestorm will just burn all soot and ash to CO_2 and H_2O);
5) All those particles will be circulating in upper atmosphere for many years (In fact, particles after volcanic eruption fall quite soon);
6) There will be no neither great amount of C_2O nor H_2O (water vapor) which are greenhouse gases, , there will be no "global warming" (nuclear summer) effects. (Burning massive amounts of organic and evaporation of sea water cause exactly this effect);
7) Few years without summer will cause fall of the state and civilisation. (In fact, three years without summer in the beginning of XVII century in Russia, compounded with massive European invasion, indeed caused some social disturbances, and death of roughly 30% of its population, but in few decades problems were solved, Europeans were beaten, and The Great Duchy of Moscow became Russian Empire).
Nuclear winter (or any other hypothetical climatic or ecological shift) it's just "challenge", not "apocalypse". If you are smart, strong and lucky, you'll survive it and even became smarter and stronger.

Not true.
(3) Modern cities are made of glass, steel and concrete, not wood. There would not be "massive fires", just radioactive rubble
(7) You are ignoring the effects of radioactive material in your fairy-tale.

Here's How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

We know that an all-out U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be bad. But how bad, exactly?

time.com

I don't give a shit about Putin and his kids. He is nothing but a face of the brand (like Colonel Sanders is the face of KFC). Not very good face, if you ask my personal opinion.

You go tell him that. If he is just a figurehead he wouldn't be the wealthiest man on earth would he?

With 36:1 exchange rate we can easily continue to eliminate both Ukrainians and their mercenaries.

Actually its ~5 Russians for every Ukrainian.

They will say two things:
1) Right now Chinese nuclear forces are far from being capable to reliably eliminate American nuclear forces by the first counter-force strike, so, there is no need in such inspections (in the logic of New Start treaty).
2) You can't get something for nothing. If you want a treaty with China, you should suggest something in return. And you have nothing to suggest in the matter of nuclear deterrence, because further decreasing of US nuclear arsenal will just increase the imbalance between Russia's increasing nuclear capabilities and America's decreasing.

If you want to push simultaneously Russia and China into submission, you need all the three leverages:
1) R&D Gap - you need to invent or develop some weapons Russia and China don't posses;
2) Production Gap - you need to produce those weapons in the proper amounts;
3) Operational Gap - you need to be able to use those weapons in a not suicidal way.
And, as far as I know, you are not even close.

We're not looking for submission, just parity and MAD. No WW3.

It's still stealing our property. And I believe you'll continue to do it until we coerce you into following Russia-acceptable rules or eliminate you.

It was VZ oil, so its not Russian property.

C'mon. If American regime, some illegitimate dictator, declare "America for [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant] Americans!" and start terror campaign against American Catholics (including Byzantium Catholics) will you meekly go in a gas chamber, will you run away, or will you fight back, defending your Faith, your family and your property? Will you need any "Catholic agitators" to recognise the threat?

We call that a "straw man argument". If this happens then that happens. Your premise won't happen here in the US, we have too many "checks and balances".

A cop who wasn't properly elected and who doesn't obey the law, isn't a cop. He is just a lucky gangster. Or unlucky when the good guys come after him.
And anyway, if Putin was declared as "evil dictator" by your mass media, we should see it as American preparation to attack Russia. And it is another confirmation that Russia should attack America first.

America is not going to attack Russia and start WW3.
Its up to Russia to elect good leaders, if you guys even have real elections?

But Cuba is, as far as I know, 8,5 times lesser than the USA, but with Russian nuclear missiles in it, it is a vital threat to America.

That's why Trump wants to get Cuba in our "sphere-of-influence".

It will be new and beautiful Russia of future. Much larger, much stronger, much smarter and much more comfortable to live. Everyone who before the war had a bicycle will have a car, who had a car will have a yacht and a plane, and who had a plane will have a space ship and an apple garden on Mars.

You can lie to yourself, but not to someone who studies science. Russia as you know it would be destroyed.

Or China will belong to Russia, which is also possible, in which I see the more significant threat to Russia.

Do you know how many Chinese there are? Chinese robots and AI are very advanced.

It was your choice to spread NATO in Eastern Europe and now you are going to pay for this decision.

More threats against a more powerful NATO. Talk all you want.

Only if this deal is mutually acceptable. And, as you said, you are not going to make a mutually acceptable peace deal. So, there will be a war.

Russia won't make a peace deal in Ukraine, so the war continues until it ends...

 

[Zavulon]

Life is fine in Las Vegas, because those 1,000 explosions were underground.

Really? It doesn't seem like an underground explosion to me.

About one hundred of those explosions were atmospheric, surface. It caused some fallouts in Utah and the central part of the USA. Some people say that there was some statistical increase of cancers, but nothing really significant.
And no, counter-value explosions will be mostly aerial, without mention-worth fallouts. Fallouts will be significant in the regions of silo locations, for their elimination we'll need surface bursts.
Something like this (for both conter-force and counter-value strikes):

Three big spots - fallouts from elimination of missiles with two 100kt warhead for every silo. With higher accuracy we might use smaller warheads, which will cause much lesser fallouts.

Which would not be the case for WW3.

In the case of WW3, most of explosions will be aerial. No fallouts.

Not true.
(3) Modern cities are made of glass, steel and concrete, not wood. There would not be "massive fires", just radioactive rubble

Exactly. Does it mean, that you had understood, that nuclear winter won't happen?

(7) You are ignoring the effects of radioactive material in your fairy-tale.

Here's How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

We know that an all-out U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be bad. But how bad, exactly?

time.com

As I already had wrote, it can be more or less ignored in the most of realistic scenarios.

You go tell him that. If he is just a figurehead he wouldn't be the wealthiest man on earth would he?

And who said that he is? Even if he is (which I really doubt) it not like he has a big coffin full of gold coins in the basement of his castle.

Actually its ~5 Russians for every Ukrainian.

We both know that it is plain lie.

We're not looking for submission, just parity and MAD. No WW3.

You say it. But your actions are exactly about preparations to WW3.

It was VZ oil, so its not Russian property.

It is Russian property.

We call that a "straw man argument". If this happens then that happens. Your premise won't happen here in the US, we have too many "checks and balances".

I just said, that people can understand that they are discriminated, abused and genocided even without "foreign agitators".

America is not going to attack Russia and start WW3.

Plain lie.

Its up to Russia to elect good leaders, if you guys even have real elections?

Do you have "real elections"?

That's why Trump wants to get Cuba in our "sphere-of-influence".

And thats why we need Europe in our "safety zone". It's not necessarily to "influence" them, but it is vital to keep them disarmed.

You can lie to yourself, but not to someone who studies science.

Really? Do you study science? What science exactly do you study?

Do you know how many Chinese there are? Chinese robots and AI are very advanced.

So what? Robots are just weapons. They are harmless without humans. And to teach artificial intellect you need, at least, have natural one. And Chinamen are poor soldiers.

More threats against a more powerful NATO. Talk all you want.

Russia won't make a peace deal in Ukraine, so the war continues until it ends...

Yep. The only question is will it be finished with the last Banderlog, with the last Ukrainian, last European or last American?

I prone to think, and you confirmed, that it won't be ended without nuclear strike on the USA.

 

[kyzr]

About one hundred of those explosions were atmospheric, surface. It caused some fallout in Utah and the central part of the USA. Some people say that there was some statistical increase of cancers, but nothing really significant.
And no, counter-value explosions will be mostly aerial, without mention-worth fallout. Fallout will be significant in the regions of silo locations, for their elimination we'll need surface bursts. Something like this (for both counter-force and counter-value strikes):

Ok, so of 928 nuclear devices, 99 were above ground, but were tiny, about 1kt.

Nevada Test Site | Map, Location, Fallout, & History | Britannica

Nevada Test Site (NTS), nuclear testing site operated by the U.S. Department of Energy and located in Nye County, Nevada, that saw a total of 928 nuclear explosive tests between January 1951 and September 1992. The site—containing 28 areas in total—is located 65 miles (105 km) northwest of Las

www.britannica.com

Three big spots - fallout from elimination of missiles with two 100kt warhead for every silo. With higher accuracy we might use smaller warheads, which will cause much lesser fallout.

You keep thinking that you can knock out all the silos, a fatal miscalculation.

In the case of WW3, most of explosions will be aerial. No fallout.

That makes no sense, if the explosion does no damage what good is it?

Exactly. Does it mean, that you had understood, that nuclear winter won't happen?

If a nuclear blast hits a city there is a lot of radioactive dust and debris.

As I already had wrote, it can be more or less ignored in the most of realistic scenarios.

You can't ignore the science with your "assumptions" or "fake science".

Here's How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

We know that an all-out U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be bad. But how bad, exactly?

time.com

"...since most of the research on this topic is classified and focused on military rather than humanitarian impacts."

And who said that Putin is the wealthiest man in the world? Even if he is (which I really doubt) it not like he has a big coffin full of gold coins in the basement of his castle.

Ok, he is about the 7th richest person in the world. So do you think he takes orders from anyone? I don't.

Is Putin secretly one of the world's richest men? Experts estimate a $200 billion net worth | Fortune

The Kremlin says Putin earns just a $140,000 salary. Other experts allege his 20 houses, 8700 cars, and 58 aircrafts suggest a different story.

fortune.com

The 10 Richest People in the World

Learn who the top 10 billionaires in the world are and how they built their wealth.

www.investopedia.com

We both know that it is plain lie, that 5 Russians die for every Ukrainian.

We'll see who runs out of soldiers first, the attackers or the defenders.

You say it. But your actions are exactly about preparations to WW3.

Of course we prepare for WW3, otherwise we'd be speaking Russian or Chinese. That doesn't mean we'd ever start WW3.

It is Russian property.

The ship is, but I'm not sure who owns the sanctioned oil.

Plain lie.

It is a fact that the US would not launch a nuclear weapon first.

Do you have "real elections"?

Generally yes, we do. But in 2020 mail-in ballots may have been "abused" which let stupid Joe Biden win.
So does Russia have free and fair elections?

And thats why we need Europe in our "safety zone". It's not necessarily to "influence" them, but it is vital to keep them disarmed.

Looks to me that the EU doesn't have a "nuclear umbrella". Only the US has the MAD deterrent.

Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Nuclear weapons owned by the United States have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized their storage at allied North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bases on the continent for use against the Soviet Union. Though NATO officially declares...

armscontrolcenter.org

Really? Do you study science? What science exactly do you study?

LOL, just the science that my google searches show me.
I have a degree in engineering so I think I can generally tell the difference between real science and bullshit.

So what? Robots are just weapons. They are harmless without humans. And to teach artificial intellect you need, at least, have natural one. And Chinamen are poor soldiers.

So you never heard of Chinese "Slaughterbots"? Robots can be programmed to kill humans.

Yep. The only question is will it be finished with the last Banderlog, with the last Ukrainian, last European or last American?
I'm prone to think, and you confirmed, that it won't be ended without nuclear strike on the USA.

Wow, I'm much more influential than I realized.
A nuclear strike on the US will end civilization, and are Russians stupid enough to push the button? I don't think so.

 

[Zavulon]

Ok, so of 928 nuclear devices, 99 were above ground, but were tiny, about 1kt.

Nevada Test Site | Map, Location, Fallout, & History | Britannica

Nevada Test Site (NTS), nuclear testing site operated by the U.S. Department of Energy and located in Nye County, Nevada, that saw a total of 928 nuclear explosive tests between January 1951 and September 1992. The site—containing 28 areas in total—is located 65 miles (105 km) northwest of Las

www.britannica.com

It's simply not true. Most of the aerial tests were tens of kilotons. And, say, "shallow underground" (with the largest fallouts, affected most of residentials in the continental USA) "Sedan" test was more than 100 ktons. Of course you can see the difference between "to affect" (to be possible to be found in a lab) and "to harm" and "to kill".

You keep thinking that you can knock out all the silos, a fatal miscalculation.

And you thought that all those ships in Pearl-Harbour were invincible for torpedoes. There are a lot of potential ways to knock them out before the whole system will react. Starting with SLBMs launched from a surface "shadow fleet" ship at suppressed ballistic trajectory and finishing with sabotage of C3I system (technical or human).

That makes no sense, if the explosion does no damage what good is it?

Did you really studied science? Like geometry, physics or something? If we are talking about destruction of soft surface targets (like residential buildings or factories), the maximal destructive effect is achieved if the height of the explosion is one and half times of the diameter of fireball. And and this height of burst, when the soil particles are not involved in the fireball, the radiation is minimal.

If a nuclear blast hits a city there is a lot of radioactive dust and debris.

No. If you want to destroy a city - you make aerial bursts. Much more buildings destroyed, and almost no fallouts.

You can't ignore the science with your "assumptions" or "fake science".

Here's How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

We know that an all-out U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be bad. But how bad, exactly?

time.com

"...since most of the research on this topic is classified and focused on military rather than humanitarian impacts."

C'mon. I don't suggest discussion about any specific and classified heroes and zeroes (even the difference between counter-force and counter-value strikes is not classified). I do suggest discussion about physics, geometry, chemistry and other school-level stuff.
If your model ignore CO_2 and water vapour, its bullshit, not a model.

Ok, he is about the 7th richest person in the world. So do you think he takes orders from anyone? I don't.

In Russia money are sand and power is stone. He didn't inherit those money and his children won't inherit them. He is a part of the system, and he acts (and still alive) only because he is following orders (or advices).

Is Putin secretly one of the world's richest men? Experts estimate a $200 billion net worth | Fortune

The Kremlin says Putin earns just a $140,000 salary. Other experts allege his 20 houses, 8700 cars, and 58 aircrafts suggest a different story.

fortune.com

The 10 Richest People in the World

Learn who the top 10 billionaires in the world are and how they built their wealth.

www.investopedia.com

We'll see who runs out of soldiers first, the attackers or the defenders.

Ukraine is already running out of the soldiers.

Of course we prepare for WW3, otherwise we'd be speaking Russian or Chinese. That doesn't mean we'd ever start WW3.

Of course it mean. You were ready to start a WW3 in the case of "extremely provoking behaviour of Russians".

The ship is, but I'm not sure who owns the sanctioned oil.

If you doubt who owns this oil, we are going to start doubt who owns Alaska.

It is a fact that the US would not launch a nuclear weapon first.

It's not a fact. It's just your wishful thinking.

So does Russia have free and fair elections?

Russia has better than that "circus of freaks" you call "elections", actually, some kind of competition of clowns who will be better servant of the large capitals (actually running America). Russia has "silent revolution" every three years.

Looks to me that the EU doesn't have a "nuclear umbrella". Only the US has the MAD deterrent.

France, Britain and even DPRK have "minimal deterrence". It means that in the case of the Russian (or American) counter-force strike they have, say, 5-10% probability of retaliation that will destroy few cities. It's enough to not attack them "just for lulz", but it definitely not "assured destruction" or even "unacceptable risk". US has good and reliable "second strike capability" with assured capability to kill, by the retaliation strike, one to fifty million Russians. It creates good deterrence, but it is definitely not "assured destruction" either.

Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Nuclear weapons owned by the United States have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized their storage at allied North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bases on the continent for use against the Soviet Union. Though NATO officially declares...

armscontrolcenter.org

LOL, just the science that my google searches show me.

Do you believe in Global Warming theory?

I have a degree in engineering so I think I can generally tell the difference between real science and bullshit.

Actually, you can't. At least, you don't posses even school-level knowledge of geometry, physics and chemistry.

So you never heard of Chinese "Slaughterbots"? Robots can be programmed to kill humans.

Even a simple mine can be "programed" to kill people. It doesn't make "mine" a "soldier". It's just ordnance. One needs human mind to decide how to use mines, drones, missiles, bots or "strategic artificial intelligence".

Wow, I'm much more influential than I realized.

It's not about being "influencial", I think. It's more about calming down my conscience. I mean, when an ordinary person (neither a saint nor a monster) is put in the situation of high moral pressure (like, may be, possibility of killing thousands or millions of personally innocent human beings) he is prone to have doubts. "May be there is another way? May be ordinary Americans, who looks just like us, can peacefully coexist with us? " And at those moment your moral help is pretty invaluable. Every time you say something like "Russians are bloodthristy brainwashed goon, lead by an irrational dictator" I read it like: "Please, kill us all! We can't peacefully coexist with the rest of humanity"

A nuclear strike on the US will end civilization, and are Russians stupid enough to push the button? I don't think so.

Oh, don't be such an egocentric freak. America is just a little part of human civilization, and may be the world will become better without you.

 

[kyzr]

And you thought that all those ships in Pearl-Harbour were invincible for torpedoes. There are a lot of potential ways to knock them out before the whole system will react. Starting with SLBMs launched from a surface "shadow fleet" ship at suppressed ballistic trajectory and finishing with sabotage of C3I system (technical or human).

Assuming you even know where they all are. As I said, there are always "unknown unknowns".

Did you really study science? Like geometry, physics or something? If we are talking about destruction of soft surface targets (like residential buildings or factories), the maximal destructive effect is achieved if the height of the explosion is one and half times of the diameter of fireball. And at this height of burst, when the soil particles are not involved in the fireball, the radiation is minimal.

...half the energy of a nuclear blast is radiation.

No. If you want to destroy a city - you make aerial bursts. Much more buildings destroyed, and almost no fallout.

True. But there is always fallout. Aerial bursts create global fallout, smaller particles that affect the ozone layer, which kills future agriculture.

In Russia money are sand and power is stone. He didn't inherit those money and his children won't inherit them. He is a part of the system, and he acts (and still alive) only because he is following orders (or advice).

Ok, Putin is the primary decision-maker, but there is an "inner circle" of advisors.
Its a dictatorship behind closed doors, not like our messy but open democracy.

Ukraine is already running out of the soldiers.

They have millions left.

Of course it mean. You were ready to start a WW3 in the case of "extremely provoking behaviour of Russians".

We prepare for war to keep the peace. We don't start nuclear wars.

If you doubt who owns this oil, we are going to start doubt who owns Alaska.

Nonsense.

Russia has better than that "circus of freaks" you call "elections", actually, some kind of competition of clowns who will be better servant of the large capitals (actually running America). Russia has "silent revolution" every three years.

True, democrats always have "a circus of freaks" on stage to pick from. Putin has been dictator a lot longer then 3-years

France, Britain and even DPRK have "minimal deterrence". It means that in the case of the Russian (or American) counter-force strike they have, say, 5-10% probability of retaliation that will destroy few cities. It's enough to not attack them "just for lulz", but it definitely not "assured destruction" or even "unacceptable risk". US has good and reliable "second strike capability" with assured capability to kill, by the retaliation strike, one to fifty million Russians. It creates good deterrence, but it is definitely not "assured destruction" either.

As long as our "good deterrence" keeps the peace for another 80 years or more.

Do you believe in Global Warming theory?

yes

Climate change: global temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

Even a simple mine can be "programed" to kill people. It doesn't make "mine" a "soldier". It's just ordnance. One needs human mind to decide how to use mines, drones, missiles, bots or "strategic artificial intelligence".

You are not a fan of AI, Artificial Intelligence. Mines are not "intelligent".
AlphsZero learned chess, and is now the most powerful player on the planet. AI is in its infancy. AI is scarier than nuclear war.

"AlphaZero vs Stockfish – The Game That Broke Human Logic"

When AlphaZero – Google’s AI — played Stockfish in 2017, the world didn’t expect much.But what followed was chess from another dimension. In Game 10, AlphaZero played like a ghost.It gave up pawns, ignored material, and created long-term pressure that no engine had seen before. White: Alphazero...

www.chess.com

It's not about being "influential", I think. It's more about calming down my conscience. I mean, when an ordinary person (neither a saint nor a monster) is put in the situation of high moral pressure (like, may be, possibility of killing thousands or millions of personally innocent human beings) he is prone to have doubts. "May be there is another way? May be ordinary Americans, who looks just like us, can peacefully coexist with us? " And at those moment your moral help is pretty invaluable. Every time you say something like "Russians are blood-thirsty brainwashed goon, lead by an irrational dictator" I read it like: "Please, kill us all! We can't peacefully coexist with the rest of humanity"

If I am president, or anyone in the MAD chain of command, and the US is attacked with nuclear weapons, the time for discussion is over. No moral pressure, no doubts, I push my button as ordered. If you want to peacefully coexist, stop threatening nuclear war and rejoin the community of civilized nations.
I never said anything bad about Russians, Putin yes, he is a dangerous dictator and I hope he "retires" soon.

Oh, don't be such an egocentric freak. America is just a little part of human civilization, and may be the world will become better without you.

Not an ego issue. Not an American issue. More of a humanity issue.

MSN

Would a nuclear war really end civilization? A rundown of the different theories​

 

[BothWings]

there are things happening that we know very little about....and yes that includes both of us...

And since 1947 they are conveniently blamed on Little Green Men from outer space. Probably exactly why they arranged for that mysterious crash in Roswell to happen in the first place. You divided people into toucans. Those who always believe that mysterious lights are ET, and those who stupidly believe that it could only be swamp gas, ball lightning or weather balloons. What it is is big brother playing with his big boy toys.

 

[Zavulon]

Assuming you even know where they all are. As I said, there are always "unknown unknowns".

We know. And, given how transparent and spy-friendly are the USA - there are not too many "unknown unknowns".

View attachment 1223427...half the energy of a nuclear blast is radiation.

Thermal Radiation is ordinary warmth. And the bulk of ionizing radiation (x-ray and gamma-radiation) doesn't cause fallouts. Radiation induced by neutron emission can persist as well as parts of the nuclear bomb itself. But it's not too much. I mean both Hiroshima and Las Vegas are still alive.

True. But there is always fallout. Aerial bursts create global fallout, smaller particles that affect the ozone layer, which kills future agriculture.

Man, there were more than two thousands nuclear bursts worldwide. And the talks about ozone layer had started only in 1980s, and it wasn't about radiation at all. Actually, ionizing radiation produce ozone.

Ok, Putin is the primary decision-maker, but there is an "inner circle" of advisors.

Who told you this? Putin is an old man. He couldn't successfully fight a modern war. He has his own decision-makers. As a person he is hardly a talking head.

Its a dictatorship behind closed doors, not like our messy but open democracy.

There are "society of buffonade" (and you call it "democracy") and "society of masquerade" (and you call it "dictatorship"). But the real process of decision-making has very little with both types of show, and it more or less equal for both systems.

They have millions left.

No. Right now Kievan regime controls some twenty million of total population. It means 2-4 million of mobilisation reserves. At least 1,5 mln they have already lost (by killed, crippled and "missed in action"). Few more years and they won't be able even keep their state.

We prepare for war to keep the peace. We don't start nuclear wars.

Nobody believes you.

Nonsense.

You want take from us - we'll take from you. It's simple.

True, democrats always have "a circus of freaks" on stage to pick from.

As if republicans are somehow different. And anyway it has nothing to do with actual decision-making.

Putin has been dictator a lot longer then 3-years

Trump and Boden are clowns in a buffonade. Putin and Medvedev are masks in a masquerade. But both those shows has nothing to do with actual decision-making.

As long as our "good deterrence" keeps the peace for another 80 years or more.

It can keep peace only if no one is too provocative, both sides follow rules and there is a system of international safety. Only in this situation "good deterrence" is good enough. But now the situation is totally different. Rules are ignored, safeties are removed and you are too provocative. So, now we have both reason and capability to eliminate you and given the alternative scenarios, our possible losses are acceptable.

yes

Climate change: global temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

So, do you believe that CO_2 shouldn't be ignored in discussing of climate problems? And if somebody ignore greenhouse effect of CO_2 and H_2O - his model shouldn't be considered as "practically useful", right?

You are not a fan of AI, Artificial Intelligence. Mines are not "intelligent".

They have one reflex. Stimul - reaction. The simplest example of intellect. Some mines are smarter. Some can even detect a helicopter and launch a MANPAD. Some can recognise certain faces and certain language.

AlphsZero learned chess, and is now the most powerful player on the planet. AI is in its infancy. AI is scarier than nuclear war.

"AlphaZero vs Stockfish – The Game That Broke Human Logic"

When AlphaZero – Google’s AI — played Stockfish in 2017, the world didn’t expect much.But what followed was chess from another dimension. In Game 10, AlphaZero played like a ghost.It gave up pawns, ignored material, and created long-term pressure that no engine had seen before. White: Alphazero...

www.chess.com

We can have both. First step - nuclear war, which will destroy infrastructure in the USA, and then - China and Russia use some kind of Skynet to mop up the rest of American population.

If I am president, or anyone in the MAD chain of command, and the US is attacked with nuclear weapons, the time for discussion is over.

That is exactly why you can't be a POTUS or anyone in the chain of command. American decision-makers believe that it's exactly the time to start negotiations.

No moral pressure, no doubts, I push my button as ordered. If you want to peacefully coexist, stop threatening nuclear war and rejoin the community of civilized nations.

We are civized nation. One can say much more civilized than Americans.

I never said anything bad about Russians, Putin yes, he is a dangerous dictator and I hope he "retires" soon.

By telling this you mean that Russians are "brainwashed goons" and "genetic slaves".

Not an ego issue. Not an American issue. More of a humanity issue.

MSN

Would a nuclear war really end civilization? A rundown of the different theories​

It depends. And what if, a nuclear war is the only way to save civilisation? What if it is the only way to eliminate NATO barbarians?

Some years ago, there was a nice poll - "Is it morally justified to start a war for total annihilation of the USA, if the price of the said elimination would be death of half of Earth population?" Majority voted for "yes".

 

[kyzr]

We know. And, given how transparent and spy-friendly are the USA - there are not too many "unknown unknowns".

LOL. That's why they call them unknowns.

Thermal Radiation is ordinary warmth. And the bulk of ionizing radiation (x-ray and gamma-radiation) doesn't cause fallout. Radiation induced by neutron emission can persist as well as parts of the nuclear bomb itself. But it's not too much. I mean both Hiroshima and Las Vegas are still alive.

True, but they were isolated and not very big. It would take many years to recover from a nuclear war. For example, if we have 400 silos and you use two surface nukes on each that is a lot of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. Not to mention the sub-launched and jet launched missiles. Not to mention the NATO missiles. Nuclear war gets very messy very fast.

Who told you this? Putin is an old man. He couldn't successfully fight a modern war. He has his own decision-makers. As a person he is hardly a talking head.

Putin has his national security priorities, such as no nukes in Ukraine.
If he gets a fair peace deal he won't need to fight a modern war.

There are "society of buffonade" (and you call it "democracy") and "society of masquerade" (and you call it "dictatorship"). But the real process of decision-making has very little with both types of show, and it more or less equal for both systems.

Biden was a terrible president. Trump is much better, but his management style is that of an obnoxious CEO, not a benevolent president.

No. Right now Kiev regime controls some twenty million of total population. It means 2-4 million of mobilisation reserves. At least 1,5 mln they have already lost (by killed, crippled and "missed in action"). Few more years and they won't be able even keep their state.

Ok, we'll see how that prediction holds up over time.

Nobody believes you.

Ok, we don't talk about starting a nuclear war, you do. We don't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, you do. We don't say we can win a nuclear war, you do. We will not use nuclear weapons first, period.

As if republicans are somehow different. And anyway it has nothing to do with actual decision-making.

I like Republican presidents better than democrat presidents. They are very different.

Trump and Biden are clowns in a buffonade. Putin and Medvedev are masks in a masquerade. But both those shows has nothing to do with actual decision-making.

Both presidents bring experts into the situation room and make decisions. The decisions could be very different.

The US "nuclear umbrella" can keep peace only if no one is too provocative, both sides follow rules and there is a system of international safety. Only in this situation "good deterrence" is good enough. But now the situation is totally different. Rules are ignored, safeties are removed and you are too provocative. So, now we have both reason and capability to eliminate you and given the alternative scenarios, our possible losses are acceptable.

See, threatening nuclear war again. No one is attacking Russia.
Russia wants to control Ukraine and Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia.
The fact that Russia keeps threatening nuclear war says that the war in Ukraine is going very badly.

So, do you believe that CO_2 shouldn't be ignored in discussing of climate problems? And if somebody ignore greenhouse effect of CO_2 and H_2O - his model shouldn't be considered as "practically useful", right?

Yep. So why is China lighting up two coal fired powerplants a week? I don't know if they use CO2 scrubbers.

Mines have one reflex. Stimul - reaction. The simplest example of intellect. Some mines are smarter. Some can even detect a helicopter and launch a MANPAD. Some can recognize certain faces and certain language.

Mines aren't intelligent, they are machines. AI has real intellect. Robots are advancing in capability very rapidly.

We can have both. First step - nuclear war, which will destroy infrastructure in the USA, and then - China and Russia use some kind of Skynet to mop up the rest of American population.

After a nuclear war there is no Russia.

That is exactly why you can't be a POTUS or anyone in the chain of command. American decision-makers believe that it's exactly the time to start negotiations.

The American decision maker is the president. If Russia launches the president launches.

We are civilized nation. One can say much more civilized than Americans.

Civilized nations don't threaten nuclear war, or invade their neighbors.

By telling this you mean that Russians are "brainwashed goons" and "genetic slaves".

If you are born into a dictatorship, like Putin's, you work within the system to survive. I'm not calling anyone names.

It depends. And what if, a nuclear war is the only way to save civilisation? What if it is the only way to eliminate NATO barbarians?

That is what we call a "non sequitur". Like "the only way to save the village is to destroy it." NATO countries are more civilized than Russia, except for Bolshoi, and chess players, and........still trying to name a few more but blanking.

Would a nuclear war really end civilization? A rundown of the different theories​

MSN

Some years ago, there was a nice poll - "Is it morally justified to start a war for total annihilation of the USA, if the price of the said elimination would be death of half of Earth population?" Majority voted for "yes".

A Russian poll? Should have said...."half the Earth's population and 95% of Russia's population".
Might not have been so popular.

 

[Zavulon]

LOL. That's why they call them unknowns.

There are "unknows" for "first strike" scenario, but also there are unknows for "no first strike scenario". And unknowns for "no first strike" scenario may be more dangerous.

True, but they were isolated and not very big. It would take many years to recover from a nuclear war.

It would take many years to recover even from a conventional war. Or

For example, if we have 400 silos and you use two surface nukes on each that is a lot of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere.

"Fallouts" by the meaning of the word, is something that already fell on the ground. Yes, some regions of Montana, Wyoming and Dacotas will be restricted for agricultural activity, many thousands will die because of radiation sickness, but, comparing with your other problems it will be a trifle. Anyway, it won't be our problem.

Not to mention the sub-launched and jet launched missiles. Not to mention the NATO missiles. Nuclear war gets very messy very fast.

Or you will accept pretty generous Russian peace offers.

Putin has his national security priorities, such as no nukes in Ukraine.

It's not "Putin's national security priority". It's Russia's security priority. Personal Putin's perk is Germany and his European network. If we destroy Germany - Putin will have one leverage less.

If he gets a fair peace deal he won't need to fight a modern war.

You don't want a fair peace deal. Actually, you can't even think about making fair peace deals with Russians. I mean, you can't make fair peace deals neither with brainwashed goons nor with irrational dictators. You can't "peacefully coexist" with a rabid dog. Fair deal demands recognition of equality, sanity and rationality of both sides.

Biden was a terrible president. Trump is much better, but his management style is that of an obnoxious CEO, not a benevolent president.

And Coca-cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, right? Can you actually taste difference between them?

Ok, we don't talk about starting a nuclear war, you do.

That's your hypocrisy, that's all.

We don't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, you do.

We don't "threaten" anybody. I just explain why nuclear war is practically inevitable. And you, in fact, confirm that it is exactly what are you asking for.

We don't say we can win a nuclear war, you do.

Because we can, and you can't. Not without suffering unacceptable losses.

We will not use nuclear weapons first, period.

Plain lie. Period.

There are your backward (defensive) positions and forward (attacking) positions of your SSBNs.

I like Republican presidents better than democrat presidents. They are very different.

As different as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola.

See, threatening nuclear war again. No one is attacking Russia.

Your proxies attacked Russia and the ships under US flag openly attached a ship under Russian flag. It means two things: America did attack Russia and you are lying.

Russia wants to control Ukraine

Do you want to control your left leg? Ukraine is a part of Russia as your legs are parts of you?

and Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia.

Of course, not. Just Kievan Junta want to sell their compatriots as cannon fodder. A man can live without his left leg, but the leg can't survive without the man.

The fact that Russia keeps threatening nuclear war says that the war in Ukraine is going very badly.

We are not threatening you. You just need to understand why exactly we nuked you. We don't want all those whining about "unprovoked aggression".

Yep.

So, doesn't it mean that "nuclear winter" hypothesis is utter BS, because it totally ignores greenhouse effects?

Mines aren't intelligent, they are machines. AI has real intellect.

C'mon, even many human beings don't posses "real intellect".

Robots are advancing in capability very rapidly.

Robots are tools.

After a nuclear war there is no Russia.

Only if you attack first (and in this case, America will suffer terrible, and, highly likely, unacceptable damage). If we attack first and you refuse our peaceful suggestions - there will be no America. It seems to me, that the only way to achieve reliable peace - is to nuke America and suggest mutually acceptable peace terms.

The American decision maker is the president. If Russia launches the president launches.

Or not launches, if he understand that peace is better than suicide.

Civilized nations don't threaten nuclear war, or invade their neighbors.

Who said it? Russia is the most civilised country in the world.

If you are born into a dictatorship, like Putin's, you work within the system to survive. I'm not calling anyone names.

Actually I was born in Gorbachev's USSR. And, as far as I understand your political narrative, Gorbachev wasn't a dictator.

That is what we call a "non sequitur". Like "the only way to save the village is to destroy it." NATO countries are more civilized than Russia, except for Bolshoi, and chess players, and........still trying to name a few more but blanking.

You see, your narrative about "Western Civilisation, surrounded by evil dictatorships, barbarism and subhumans" is a pretty Nazi thing. You won't survive to the end of the century with such a mindset.

 

[kyzr]

There are "unknowns" for "first strike" scenario, but also there are unknowns for "no first strike scenario". And unknowns for "no first strike" scenario may be more dangerous.

Bad logic. A first strike guarantees a fatal retaliation strike.

"Fallout" by the meaning of the word, is something that already fell on the ground. Yes, some regions of Montana, Wyoming and Dakotas will be restricted for agricultural activity, many thousands will die because of radiation sickness, but, comparing with your other problems it will be a trifle. Anyway, it won't be our problem.

There are two types of nuclear fallout, local and global.

Nuclear fallout - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or you will accept pretty generous Russian peace offers.

Never.

It's not "Putin's national security priority". It's Russia's security priority. Personal Putin's perk is Germany and his European network. If we destroy Germany - Putin will have one leverage less.

I see what Putin sees, the "enemy at the gates" if Ukraine joins NATO and gets offensive missiles close to Russia's border, but that is not what we are negotiating, we just want an independent Ukraine in the EU. No offensive weapons.

You don't want a fair peace deal. Actually, you can't even think about making fair peace deals with Russians. I mean, you can't make fair peace deals neither with brainwashed goons nor with irrational dictators. You can't "peacefully coexist" with a rabid dog. Fair deal demands recognition of equality, sanity and rationality of both sides.

As I said, "peaceful coexistence" needs to be the ultimate goal.
You can do business with the EU and sell energy, or see your economy shrink even smaller.

And Coca-cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, right? Can you actually taste difference between them?

Yes I can, easily. Biden was a horrible president, Trump is a good president.

We don't "threaten" anybody. I just explain why nuclear war is practically inevitable. And you, in fact, confirm that it is exactly what are you asking for. Because we can, and you can't. Not without suffering unacceptable losses.

Nuclear war is not "inevitable", it can be avoided, just look at Ukraine like Poland, or Sweden, or any of the Baltic states. Its just a country on your border. No one can take the losses from a nuclear war.

There are your backward (defensive) positions and forward (attacking) positions of your SSBNs.

Same with Russian offensive and defensive forces. That doesn't mean they need to be used, and give China the planet.

Your proxies attacked Russia and the ships under US flag openly attacked a ship under Russian flag. It means two things: America did attack Russia and you are lying.

Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine did not attack Russia.
The US did not attack a Russian ship, the ship is fine, the sanctioned oil is the issue.

Do you want to control your left leg? Ukraine is a part of Russia as your legs are parts of you.
Of course, not. Just Kiev's Junta want to sell their compatriots as cannon fodder. A man can live without his left leg, but the leg can't survive without the man.

No. Ukraine is an independent country, how many Russian soldiers need to die before Putin understands that?

We are not threatening you. You just need to understand why exactly we nuked you. We don't want all those whining about "unprovoked aggression".

That is a nuclear threat right there, for no reason.

So, doesn't it mean that "nuclear winter" hypothesis is utter BS, because it totally ignores greenhouse effects?

I'm sure that any greenhouse effects are included in the nuclear winter models, if the sky is dark no sunlight gets thru.

Robots are tools.

True, but AI has real intellect, put real AI into a robot and you have a sentient being.

Only if you attack first (and in this case, America will suffer terrible, and, highly likely, unacceptable damage). If we attack first and you refuse our peaceful suggestions - there will be no America. It seems to me, that the only way to achieve reliable peace - is to nuke America and suggest mutually acceptable peace terms.

MAD means both countries are destroyed, by definition. To think otherwise is to deny the truth.

Or not launches, if he understand that peace is better than suicide.

If Russia launches the US launches. Simple fact.

Who said it? Russia is the most civilised country in the world.
Actually I was born in Gorbachev's USSR. And, as far as I understand your political narrative, Gorbachev wasn't a dictator.

True, Gorbachev was not a dictator, he was a good leader who recognized that you can't keep people subjugated by using military force. Putin should be more like him and focus on economic prosperity instead of subjugating free people.

Mikhail Gorbachev - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You see, your narrative about "Western Civilisation, surrounded by evil dictatorships, barbarism and subhumans" is a pretty Nazi thing. You won't survive to the end of the century with such a mindset.

Putin is an evil dictator, he kills his political opponents, he has total control of Russia.
Russia invading Ukraine is barbarism.
Calling anyone "subhuman" is a Nazi thing.
We will both survive as long as neither one of us hits the nuclear launch button.

 

[Zavulon]

Bad logic. A first strike guarantees a fatal retaliation strike.

Actually, no. There are only two things, "guaranteed" by the first strike - you are ready (including ABD and Civil Defense) and the enemy isn't. And it gives very good chances that his retaliation strike will be weakened and disorganised. If you are lucky, there will be no retaliation strike at all.
And last, but not least, with the current levels of nuclear arsenals there is no "fatal" retaliation capability. Even if our first counter-force strike is totally failed, you'll be able to kill fifty million top. And even in this situation you'll prefer Russian alleviation or even unconditional surrender to mutual exchange of counter-value strikes, which will cause death of many millions of Americans.

There are two types of nuclear fallout, local and global.

Nuclear fallout - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And global fallouts are less dangerous than smoking cigarettes and definitely much lesser dangerous than the problems with global trade.

Never.

That's why you can't be decision-maker in the Deep State. Those guys are, usually, more opened to analysis of all possible options.

I see what Putin sees, the "enemy at the gates" if Ukraine joins NATO and gets offensive missiles close to Russia's border, but that is not what we are negotiating, we just want an independent Ukraine in the EU. No offensive weapons.

If so, we need to discuss a treaty of offensive weapons control in Europe. Given, that all previous treaties were violated by you - I don't think that it is a real possibility (at list without some actual American alleviation and rolling back). Second - if by "independent Ukraine" you still mean "regime that discriminate and abuse ethnic Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church" - it's not an option. Discriminated people prone to rebellions and those rebellions will be definitely supported by the Russian Federation which means direct war against the EU (first of all, elimination of French nuclear forces).
And no. You actually don't want peace, and that why you refused even prolongation of New Start treaty.

As I said, "peaceful coexistence" needs to be the ultimate goal.

The problem is, that you don't see and can't see it the "ultimate goal". If you think that Russians are "brainwashed goons" and Putin is an "irrational dictator" you can't actually wish peaceful coexistence with them as you can't actually wish peaceful coexistence with a rabid dog. Only if you really understand and sincerely accept that a) Russian are rational human being who's main goal is self-preservation; b) Russian do have government they more or less agree to have; c) Russians has human rights including the right of speaking and officially using languages they want and practicing religions they want (or not practicising any) and rebel against any government that abuse and discriminate them; d) Russians have right to help each other because collective self-defense is one of the most basic threats of human nature; e) Russians have right to prevent (by diplomatic or military means) deployment of foreign offensive weapons in Eurasia and other potentially dangerous actions of non-friendly countries, endangering them or their allies...
Long story short, if you don't see Russians as equals (and you don't see) peaceful coexistence is impossible.

You can do business with the EU and sell energy, or see your economy shrink even smaller.

The Earth is big. We can sell energy or anything else to anyone who suggest better price and don't sponsor people killing us.

Yes I can, easily. Biden was a horrible president, Trump is a good president.

Both are puppets of the Deep State.

Nuclear war is not "inevitable", it can be avoided, just look at Ukraine like Poland, or Sweden, or any of the Baltic states.

As if Poland or Sweden or Baltic states are not staying in the line for demilitarisation and/or (especially in the case of Baltic Neo-Nazi regimes) in the line of de-nazification. Just first things first.

Its just a country on your border. No one can take the losses from a nuclear war.

Anyone can take the losses from a nuclear war if alternative is total annihilation.

Same with Russian offensive and defensive forces. That doesn't mean they need to be used, and give China the planet.

Of course we make our preparations to attack the USA, now more than anytime before. But is there a need to use them? It is mostly depends on your behaviour and right now your behaviour makes it practically inevitable. And I've explained why.

Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine did not attack Russia.

Ukraine did attack Russia's allies (now regions of Russia) - DPR and LPR, and it was equal to attack Russian Federation itself.

The US did not attack a Russian ship, the ship is fine, the sanctioned oil is the issue.

Of course US state pirates attacked and captured Russian ship. It was open, direct and demonstrative attack and violation of the international law. And your "sanctions" are absolutely illegal in the High Seas.
And it is one of the reasons why the "peaceful coexistence" is impossible.

No. Ukraine is an independent country, how many Russian soldiers need to die before Putin understands that?

No one, "independent" or not has no right to kill Russians. I think that no less than five million (more likely fifty millions) of American civilians should die before American people understands it.

That is a nuclear threat right there, for no reason.

By the very words "for no reasons" you say - "Russians are Untermenchen who can be abused, discriminated, robbed and killed and they have no right to fight back. If they try to defend themselves we'll call them "brainwashed goons lead by irrational dictator" and hire guys to kill more of them".

By denying human nature of Russian people, who, by your words, just killed many thousands of "innocent Ukrainians" just because of a blink of a dictator's imagination, you just marked yourself as Nazies, and give us both moral excuse and practical reason to kill you.
Russians are good people, rational thinking people, and if we kill somebody we do it because we have pretty good reasons.

I'm sure that any greenhouse effects are included in the nuclear winter models, if the sky is dark no sunlight gets thru.

Just read their papers. It is not included. Neither greenhouse gases, nor increased clouds which screen thermal radiation from soil, too. And our planet is big, hypothetical firestorms or even real super-volcanoes can't create "complete darkness".

True, but AI has real intellect, put real AI into a robot and you have a sentient being.

Human beings also have intellect.

MAD means both countries are destroyed, by definition.

MAD is more about advertising, not about actual capabilities.

To think otherwise is to deny the truth.

And the truth is, that even in the "Mad Butcher" scenario - unprovoked, out of blue, all-out, counter-value strike on sleeping Russian cities, the USA can't kill more than 50 mln of Russians. You can calculate it by yourself. In all realistic scenarios (when Americans use part of their nukes against military targets, when Russians have some alert and partly shelter, partly evacuated their cities, and especially when the Russians strike first against American military targets), in all those realistic scenarios you can kill one to twenty million Russians (mostly less valuable).

If Russia launches the US launches. Simple fact.

It is not.

True, Gorbachev was not a dictator, he was a good leader who recognized that you can't keep people subjugated by using military force.

Many people see Gorbachev as a traitor and prefer nuclear war in 1985 to "Perestroika".

Putin should be more like him and focus on economic prosperity instead of subjugating free people.

Economic prosperity is impossible without "subjugation of free people who want to steal your property and kill you". My family lost almost everything when "free people" in Souther Kazakhstan decided that they can do it. And we started all anew in the Russian Federation, where there is law and order and the "Brutal Dictators" like Eltzin and Putin defended basic rights of ordinary people.

Putin is an evil dictator, he kills his political opponents, he has total control of Russia.

No human being can "totally control" more than few other human beings. Sometimes even parents can't "totally control" their children.

Russia invading Ukraine is barbarism.
Calling anyone "subhuman" is a Nazi thing.
We will both survive as long as neither one of us hits the nuclear launch button.

Calling "Russian invasion" in Ukraine "barbarism", meaning that Russians are barbarians and subhumans, is a Nazi thing.
We are good people, and if we kill somebody we do it because we have pretty good reasons to do it.

 

[kyzr]

There are only two things, "guaranteed" by the first strike - you are ready (including ABD and Civil Defense) and the enemy isn't. And it gives very good chances that his retaliation strike will be weakened and disorganised. If you are lucky, there will be no retaliation strike at all.
And last, but not least, with the current levels of nuclear arsenals there is no "fatal" retaliation capability. Even if our first counter-force strike is totally failed, you'll be able to kill fifty million top. And even in this situation you'll prefer Russian alleviation or even unconditional surrender to mutual exchange of counter-value strikes, which will cause death of many millions of Americans.

Science says that over 100 nuclear detonations is bad for the planet's agriculture. Starvation happens.

And global fallout is less dangerous than smoking cigarettes and definitely much less dangerous than the problems with global trade.

Very wrong.

Global Nuclear Effects: Economic and Financial Fallout of Nuclear Use

Despite the high stakes, the economic and financial considerations of nuclear weapons use remain underexplored. This paper examines several decades of research on economic and financial effects of nuclear weapons use, and explores the key gaps in our understanding of effects in today’s...

www.nti.org

That's why you can't be decision-maker in the Deep State. Those guys are, usually, more opened to analysis of all possible options.

The president defines the nuclear response, and the response happens, no negotiations, no hesitation, just devastation on the attacker.

If so, we need to discuss a treaty of offensive weapons control in Europe. Given, that all previous treaties were violated by you - I don't think that it is a real possibility (at list without some actual American alleviation and rolling back). Second - if by "independent Ukraine" you still mean "regime that discriminate and abuse ethnic Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church" - it's not an option. Discriminated people prone to rebellions and those rebellions will be definitely supported by the Russian Federation which means direct war against the EU (first of all, elimination of French nuclear forces).
And no. You actually don't want peace, and that why you refused even prolongation of New Start treaty.

There you go making demands again. If any "Russians" are unhappy in Ukraine they can be deported to Russia.
Any war on a NATO country means war with NATO, a war Russia can't win.

The problem is, that you don't see and can't see it the "ultimate goal". If you think that Russians are "brainwashed goons" and Putin is an "irrational dictator" you can't actually wish peaceful coexistence with them as you can't actually wish peaceful coexistence with a rabid dog. Only if you really understand and sincerely accept that a) Russian are rational human being who's main goal is self-preservation; b) Russian do have government they more or less agree to have; c) Russians has human rights including the right of speaking and officially using languages they want and practicing religions they want (or not practicising any) and rebel against any government that abuse and discriminate them; d) Russians have right to help each other because collective self-defense is one of the most basic threats of human nature; e) Russians have right to prevent (by diplomatic or military means) deployment of foreign offensive weapons in Eurasia and other potentially dangerous actions of non-friendly countries, endangering them or their allies...
Long story short, if you don't see Russians as equals (and you don't see) peaceful coexistence is impossible.

Long story short, when you look up and see most of the civilized world opposing your regime, you need to change regimes.

The Earth is big. We can sell energy or anything else to anyone who suggest better price and don't sponsor people killing us.

Russia can do business with whomever it wants, but the world gets to interfere if it wants to limit Russia's ability to make war.

Both are puppets of the Deep State.

No. Biden was a "hands off manager" so the "deep state" ran the government, but Trump is driving the bus with his Executive Orders.

As if Poland or Sweden or Baltic states are not staying in the line for demilitarisation and/or (especially in the case of Baltic Neo-Nazi regimes) in the line of de-nazification. Just first things first.

Ok, we'll wait to see what war lessons Putin learns from Ukraine before thinking about battling NATO.

Anyone can take the losses from a nuclear war if alternative is total annihilation.

Your "total annihilation" is bullshit. No one is threatening Russia the way Russia is threatening us.

Of course we make our preparations to attack the USA, now more than anytime before. But is there a need to use them? It is mostly depends on your behaviour and right now your behaviour makes it practically inevitable. And I've explained why.

It is what it is. You hit your button we hit ours. Kiss your ass goodbye.

Ukraine did attack Russia's allies (now regions of Russia) - DPR and LPR, and it was equal to attack Russian Federation itself.

They are part of Russia now along with Crimea. Putin should take the win and stop the dying.

Of course US state pirates attacked and captured Russian ship. It was open, direct and demonstrative attack and violation of the international law. And your "sanctions" are absolutely illegal in the High Seas. And it is one of the reasons why the "peaceful coexistence" is impossible.

Peaceful existence can't happen until the war ends.

No one, "independent Ukraine" or not has no right to kill Russians. I think that no less than five million (more likely fifty millions) of American civilians should die before American people understands it.

You push your button, we push ours. There are 143 million Russians, there would be a lot fewer after a nuclear war.

By the very words "for no reasons" you say - "Russians are Untermenchen who can be abused, discriminated, robbed and killed and they have no right to fight back. If they try to defend themselves we'll call them "brainwashed goons lead by irrational dictator" and hire guys to kill more of them".
By denying human nature of Russian people, who, by your words, just killed many thousands of "innocent Ukrainians" just because of a blink of a dictator's imagination, you just marked yourself as Nazis, and give us both moral excuse and practical reason to kill you.
Russians are good people, rational thinking people, and if we kill somebody we do it because we have pretty good reasons.

Russians think that they can take Ukraine by force, but they have been proven wrong for over 4 long and bloody years.
Ukraine does not want to be part of Russia. Get used to that idea, its no different than Sweden or Poland, just a border country.

MAD is more about advertising, not about actual capabilities.

We don't want to test that theory.

And the truth is, that even in the "Mad Butcher" scenario - unprovoked, out of blue, all-out, counter-value strike on sleeping Russian cities, the USA can't kill more than 50 mln of Russians. You can calculate it by yourself. In all realistic scenarios (when Americans use part of their nukes against military targets, when Russians have some alert and partly shelter, partly evacuated their cities, and especially when the Russians strike first against American military targets), in all those realistic scenarios you can kill one to twenty million Russians (mostly less valuable).

Is Russia with no cities Russia? I don't think so.

It is not.

Yes it is a fact that if Russia launches the US launches.

Many people see Gorbachev as a traitor and prefer nuclear war in 1985 to "Perestroika".

They're very stupid people. Yeltsin and Gorbachev peacefully transferred the USSR to a more modern and successful Russia. Putin is throwing those reforms away. If the west wanted to destroy Russia the 1991 and 1993 turmoil would have been the time, but we helped the peaceful transition.

Economic prosperity is impossible without "subjugation of free people who want to steal your property and kill you". My family lost almost everything when "free people" in Southern Kazakhstan decided that they can do it. And we started all anew in the Russian Federation, where there is law and order and the "Brutal Dictators" like Eltzin and Putin defended basic rights of ordinary people.

Yeltsin was not a brutal dictator, he had to put the communist revolt down. You can see that the people supported him.
Its a shame that Russia could not keep its fragile democracy.

No human being can "totally control" more than few other human beings. Sometimes even parents can't "totally control" their children.

Putin is proving otherwise.

Calling "Russian invasion" in Ukraine "barbarism", meaning that Russians are barbarians and subhumans, is a Nazi thing.
We are good people, and if we kill somebody we do it because we have pretty good reasons to do it.

You keep trying to play the "injured party" card, Russia is not the injured party, peaceful Ukraine is.
Saying we called Russians names is not true. We don't use labels like "subhuman", that is a Nazi word.
We just say Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unjustified, and many Russian soldiers are dying for no reason.

 

[Zavulon]

Science says that over 100 nuclear detonations is bad for the planet's agriculture. Starvation happens.

Science doesn't say it. It's just you, misinterpreting one pseudo-scientific article. If those 100 nukes hit forests and fields - there are no nuclear winter. If those nukes hit more or less modern, Nagasaki-type, cities - there will be no nuclear winter, for there will be no firestorms. If those low-yield nukes hit something like Hiroshima-1945 - there might be firestorms, but there will be no soot and ash in atmosphere. They need a hundred of large cities (much larger than Hiroshima-1945), but made of wood and paper and with pretty specific super-firestorm, which burn everything but create a lot of ash and soot. Not that they proved possibility of such super-duper soot-producing firestorms.

What is even more important, they intentionally ignore greenhouse effects of water vapour and CO_2, which makes all their climatic modelling absolutely useless.

And, of course, disruption of trade chains and sea-trading infrastructure will cause much more starvation than any possible climate change can, especially in food and energy importing regions like Afrika or Europe. But do we care about them? If somebody is stupid enough to not have national food reserves - they are going to win a Darwin's prize anyway.

Very wrong.

Global Nuclear Effects: Economic and Financial Fallout of Nuclear Use

Despite the high stakes, the economic and financial considerations of nuclear weapons use remain underexplored. This paper examines several decades of research on economic and financial effects of nuclear weapons use, and explores the key gaps in our understanding of effects in today’s...

www.nti.org

Did you read it by yourself?

Even during First Cold War, when nuclear arsenals were much larger than now, absolute majority of scientists were quite positive about possibility of recovery to the pre-war levels in few years.

The president defines the nuclear response, and the response happens, no negotiations, no hesitation, just devastation on the attacker.

As I said, you just bad informed.

There you go making demands again. If any "Russians" are unhappy in Ukraine they can be deported to Russia.

Or Ukrainian Nazies can be deported to Canada and Argentina.

Any war on a NATO country means war with NATO, a war Russia can't win.

Of course we can, and we will. We just doesn't have another option, because Europe doesn't have other option but to attack Russia and Russians.

Long story short, when you look up and see most of the civilized world opposing your regime, you need to change regimes.

If you think, that the West is something like "civilized world", you should think one more time.

Russia can do business with whomever it wants, but the world gets to interfere if it wants to limit Russia's ability to make war.

The World's majority decided to help Russia, not America. And it is one of the reasons of your current economic crisis.

Ok, we'll wait to see what war lessons Putin learns from Ukraine before thinking about battling NATO.

I can tell you now. We are acting in the logic of "elimination of the threat". More significant is the threat - more motivation we have to eliminate it.

Your "total annihilation" is bullshit. No one is threatening Russia the way Russia is threatening us.

If you think that Russians are not humans and shouldn't have human rights (and this is exactly what do you think), and burning Russians alive is not a crime at all, it's quite obvious that the next step will be sending Russians in the gas chambers.

It is what it is. You hit your button we hit ours. Kiss your ass goodbye.

Of course no. We pull our trigger and you are falling dead without pulling your trigger.

They are part of Russia now along with Crimea. Putin should take the win and stop the dying.

It is not about territory at all. It is about safety of Russian people. Russian people in former Ukraine, in Baltic states, in Russian Federation (targeted by American nukes).

Peaceful existence can't happen until the war ends.

Of course. And the war will be ended only when there will be possibility of the peaceful coexistence.

You push your button, we push ours. There are 143 million Russians, there would be a lot fewer after a nuclear war.

We will survive, you will not. What else would we want?

Russians think that they can take Ukraine by force, but they have been proven wrong for over 4 long and bloody years.

We are not taking neither Ukraine nor NATO by the force (not yet). It's just foreplay.

Ukraine does not want to be part of Russia.

It doesn't matter. They are part of Russia, and they are Russians. By denying their true nature they just increase their own suffering (and suffering of other people). It's like a man, denying that he is a man, and pretending to be a woman. Ugly thing, this transgender ideology, isn't it?. We have even special word for it - "Tarasition" (from popular Ukrainian name Taras and "transition").

Get used to that idea, its no different than Sweden or Poland, just a border country.

Actually we are getting accustomed to the idea that Sweden and Poland are no different than Ukraine. Just another hostile neighbours waiting for being invaded.

We don't want to test that theory.

If you really don't want - just roll back to the safe distance.

Is Russia with no cities Russia? I don't think so.

Russia is Russia anyway. And no, you can't destroy all Russian cities.

Yes it is a fact that if Russia launches the US launches.

Of course no.

You keep trying to play the "injured party" card, Russia is not the injured party, peaceful Ukraine is.
Saying we called Russians names is not true. We don't use labels like "subhuman", that is a Nazi word.

It's not about way you are talking. We are not annoyed by the words or something. It is about the way you are thinking. It's make impossible peaceful coexistence and detterence.

We just say Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unjustified, and many Russian soldiers are dying for no reason.

If you actually think, that Russians are dying for no reason, it means that Russians are not rational players. And the game of deterrence is based on some assumptions: a) the main motivation of all players is self-preservation; b) both sides want to protect their civilians more than kill civilians of other players; c) all players are rational and predictable; d) all sides more or less understand consequences of their actions.

If you actually think that the Russians are not rational, then the deterrece couldn't work at all. And it means that you can't expect Russians not committing collective suicidal mass-murder and attacking you anyway. You think "They actually attacked Ukrainians for absolutely no reason, how can we be sure that they won't attack us? We can't rely on deterrence, because deterrence is a game for rational players only. We should eliminate (or, at least, decrease) the threat while we still can".

And we, knowing that you are thinking this way, have no other option but to eliminate you first. That's how it works.

 

[kyzr]

Science doesn't say it. It's just you, misinterpreting one pseudo-scientific article. If those 100 nukes hit forests and fields - there are no nuclear winter. If those nukes hit more or less modern, Nagasaki-type, cities - there will be no nuclear winter, for there will be no firestorms. If those low-yield nukes hit something like Hiroshima-1945 - there might be firestorms, but there will be no soot and ash in atmosphere. They need a hundred of large cities (much larger than Hiroshima-1945), but made of wood and paper and with pretty specific super-firestorm, which burn everything but create a lot of ash and soot. Not that they proved possibility of such super-duper soot-producing firestorms.

No one knows how many nuclear explosions would occur during a nuclear war.

What is even more important, they intentionally ignore greenhouse effects of water vapour and CO_2, which makes all their climatic modelling absolutely useless.

You have your models, they have their models.

And, of course, disruption of trade chains and sea-trading infrastructure will cause much more starvation than any possible climate change can, especially in food and energy importing regions like Africa or Europe. But do we care about them? If somebody is stupid enough to not have national food reserves - they are going to win a Darwin's prize anyway.

True. Its called a Darwin Award, for stupidity.

Did you read it by yourself?

I'm not an "optimist" when discussing the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Even during First Cold War, when nuclear arsenals were much larger than now, absolute majority of scientists were quite positive about possibility of recovery to the pre-war levels in few years.

Scientists have much better knowledge and computers than in the Cold War days.

As I said, you are just badly informed.

Every president would respond with a nuclear retaliation, that is a simple fact.

Of course we can, and we will. We just don't have another option, because Europe doesn't have other option but to attack Russia and Russians.

NATO won't attack Russia first, but they will defend NATO countries. A war Russia can't win.

If you think, that the West is something like "civilized world", you should think one more time.

We know we are civilized.

The World's majority decided to help Russia, not America. And it is one of the reasons of your current economic crisis.

Who helps Russia? China? North Korea? Two communist countries you can't trust..
We don't have an economic crisis, we have a booming economy.

I can tell you now. We are acting in the logic of "elimination of the threat". More significant the threat, more motivation we have to eliminate it.

Or you piss the threat off by launching first and the threat eliminates you.

If you think that Russians are not humans and shouldn't have human rights (and this is exactly what do you think), and burning Russians alive is not a crime at all, it's quite obvious that the next step will be sending Russians in the gas chambers.

Don't say "you" to me and the USA when you mean some old militia battle in Odessa between pro-Russia and Pro-nationalist factions. Your old complaint doesn't mean anything today, not after Putin bombs Ukrainian civilians.

Of course no. We pull our trigger and you are falling dead without pulling your trigger.

Wrong. Our trigger can't be killed.

It is not about territory at all. It is about safety of Russian people. Russian people in former Ukraine, in Baltic states, in Russian Federation (targeted by American nukes).

Russian people are in Russia.

Of course. And the war will be ended only when there will be possibility of the peaceful coexistence.

Peaceful coexistence means no Russian threats of nuclear war.

We will survive, you will not. What else would we want?

Keep thinking that.

We are not taking neither Ukraine nor NATO by force (not yet). It's just foreplay.

Keep thinking that.

It doesn't matter. They are part of Russia, and they are Russians. By denying their true nature they just increase their own suffering (and suffering of other people). It's like a man, denying that he is a man, and pretending to be a woman. Ugly thing, this transgender ideology, isn't it?. We have even special word for it - "Tarasition" (from popular Ukrainian name Taras and "transition").

Ukraine is not part of Russia. We agree that trannys (transgenders) are ugly. Democrats love trannys.

Actually we are getting accustomed to the idea that Sweden and Poland are no different than Ukraine. Just another hostile neighbours waiting for being invaded.

They will be a lot tougher than Ukraine. Best not to poke the NATO tiger.

If you really don't want to test MAD- just roll back to the safe distance.

We know MAD works, it has for 80 years, no one has been stupid enough to test it.

Russia is Russia anyway. And no, you can't destroy all Russian cities.

Russia won't be recognizable as Russia after a nuclear war.

Of course no.

Yes it is a fact that if Russia launches the US launches.

If you actually think, that Russians are dying for no reason, it means that Russians are not rational players. And the game of deterrence is based on some assumptions: a) the main motivation of all players is self-preservation; b) both sides want to protect their civilians more than kill civilians of other players; c) all players are rational and predictable; d) all sides more or less understand consequences of their actions.
If you actually think that the Russians are not rational, then the deterrence couldn't work at all. And it means that you can't expect Russians not committing collective suicidal mass-murder and attacking you anyway. You think "They actually attacked Ukrainians for absolutely no reason, how can we be sure that they won't attack us? We can't rely on deterrence, because deterrence is a game for rational players only. We should eliminate (or, at least, decrease) the threat while we still can".
And we, knowing that you are thinking this way, have no other option but to eliminate you first. That's how it works.

Very confused logic.
1. You obviously don't know how we think, if you think we would ever launch first. We won't.
2. Not knowing how we think is a very dumb reason to start a nuclear war. We think nuclear war is horrible, so horrible that we will never launch first, but if attacked, we will launch our nuclear retaliation and destroy the attacker. That's how it works.

 

[Zavulon]

No one knows how many nuclear explosions would occur during a nuclear war.

We do know. 500 to 10000. 500 minimal for our counter-force strike and 10000 is maximum we totally have (including tactical nukes)

You have your models, they have their models.

And all modern climatic model can't actually predict anything, especially ignoring such important things as water vapour and CO_2.

I'm not an "optimist" when discussing the aftermath of a nuclear war.

We are not discussing who are personally you. I mean, who cares about opinion of a random rustic guy? We are discussing what American decision-makers (people of better education and better informed) consider.
And, as it was wrote in your article, absolute majority saw 500 1-Mt bursts in the continental US cities as "acceptable losses".

Scientists have much better knowledge and computers than in the Cold War days.

That's why there is no new models. They know, that any modelling will clearly show that "nuclear winter" is a fraud.

Every president would respond with a nuclear retaliation, that is a simple fact.

It's not a fact. It's his decision. He can choose retaliate or don't retaliate. And if retaliate - he can choose how exactly they should retaliate.

NATO won't attack Russia first, but they will defend NATO countries. A war Russia can't win.

We can and we will.

We know we are civilized.

And we know that you are not.

Don't say "you" to me and the USA when you mean some old militia battle in Odessa between pro-Russia and Pro-nationalist factions. Your old complaint doesn't mean anything today, not after Putin bombs Ukrainian civilians.

You hired neo-nazies to kill Russians. And denialism is a form of support. That's all what matters. Ukraine needs to be de-nazified and America needs to be de-nazified. One more reason to nuke the USA.

Wrong. Our trigger can't be killed.

Any trigger can be killed. Sometimes it's just a bit more complicated.

Russian people are in Russia.

No. Russian people are everywhere.

Peaceful coexistence means no Russian threats of nuclear war.

No. Only threat of a nuclear war can make more or less reliable peace. But sometimes (like now) even a threat of a nuclear war can't guarantee peace. And so, instead of empty threats we have to come to actual usage of nukes.

Ukraine is not part of Russia.

Ukraine is a part of Russia (while not part of the Russian Federation yet). Some say that Ukraine is "Russia without Putin".

We agree that trannys (transgenders) are ugly.

So are "Political Ukrainians". They are transgenders. They are Russians, pretending to be Not-Russians. As for me, it is even more ugly than a man, pretending to be a woman.

Democrats love trannys.

So do Republicans. I mean if you say that "transwomen are women" or "Ukrainians are not Russians" you are supporting transgenders.

They will be a lot tougher than Ukraine. Best not to poke the NATO tiger.

C'mon. We don't "poke" tigers. We shoot them.

We know MAD works, it has for 80 years, no one has been stupid enough to test it.

Actually, you barely dodged the bullet as early as in 1962, and since then the system worked because there were rules and weapon control (and you wasn't stupid enough to invade Ukraine and kill Russians). Now there is no more rules and weapon control and there is significant pressure for the final solution of American problem.

Russia won't be recognizable as Russia after a nuclear war.

Why do you think so? Even with suicidal all out nuclear attack against sleeping Russian cities you can't cause more damage than it was during WWI (plus Revolution and Civil War) or WWII.
I mean, post-WWI Soviet Union was very different from the Russian Empire, but it was still definitely recognisable as Russia.

Yes it is a fact that if Russia launches the US launches.

It's not. At least it's what writtern in US nuclear posture.

Very confused logic.
1. You obviously don't know how we think, if you think we would ever launch first. We won't.

You, as a single person, tell it. But your officials and documents said that you can attack first. Actually, you prefer to attack first.

2. Not knowing how we think is a very dumb reason to start a nuclear war. We think nuclear war is horrible, so horrible that we will never launch first, but if attacked, we will launch our nuclear retaliation and destroy the attacker. That's how it works.

I don't know how rustic americans think. But I do know, how your decision-makers think. And your personal opinion is important for me mostly as an another confirmation of the impossibility of the peaceful coexistence.

 

[kyzr]

We do know. 500 to 10000. 500 minimal for our counter-force strike and 10000 is maximum we totally have (including tactical nukes)

400 nukes would see many survivors, but they would all die as the Earth becomes unlivable.
Less that 100 nukes is the practical limit for humans to survive.

And all modern climatic model can't actually predict anything, especially ignoring such important things as water vapour and CO_2.

Climate model are not made by stupid people, I'm sure water vapor is included.

We are not discussing who are personally you. I mean, who cares about opinion of a random rustic guy? We are discussing what American decision-makers (people of better education and better informed) consider.
And, as it was wrote in your article, absolute majority saw 500 1-Mt bursts in the continental US cities as "acceptable losses".

They may be the people that are in the underground shelters designed for long term survivability. Not the average working family.

It's not a fact. It's his decision. He can choose retaliate or don't retaliate. And if retaliate - he can choose how exactly they should retaliate.

I'm sure he would retaliate.
You don't get to nuke the US and think nothing would happen, that's not how MAD works.

You hired neo-nazies to kill Russians. And denialism is a form of support. That's all what matters. Ukraine needs to be de-nazified and America needs to be de-nazified. One more reason to nuke the USA.

Do you have any idea how crazy that Russian propaganda sounds? There are no Nazis, Hitler is dead.

Any trigger can be killed. Sometimes it's just a bit more complicated.

Actually its getting a lot scarier now that the Pentagon is possibly putting AI in the loop of certain decisions.
I hope they always keep humans in the loop or AI machines may decide to kill us all.

No. Russian people are everywhere.

Russian people may be everywhere on holiday with VISAS visiting other countries, but they have no influence outside their Russian border.

No. Only threat of a nuclear war can make more or less reliable peace. But sometimes (like now) even a threat of a nuclear war can't guarantee peace. And so, instead of empty threats we have to come to actual usage of nukes.

Very bad idea. Russia and Putin would regret using nukes first.

Actually, you barely dodged the bullet as early as in 1962, and since then the system worked because there were rules and weapon control (and you wasn't stupid enough to invade Ukraine and kill Russians). Now there is no more rules and weapon control and there is significant pressure for the final solution of American problem.

That would be the final solution to the Russian problem too. Dumb idea.

Why do you think so? Even with suicidal all out nuclear attack against sleeping Russian cities you can't cause more damage than it was during WWI (plus Revolution and Civil War) or WWII. I mean, post-WWI Soviet Union was very different from the Russian Empire, but it was still definitely recognizable as Russia.

There was not highly contaminated radioactive waste in the rubble of WW2.
Our countries would be

It's not. At least it's what written in US nuclear posture.

Then you are reading the wrong protocols

You, as a single person, tell it. But your officials and documents said that you can attack first. Actually, you prefer to attack first.

We won't attack first knowing that the return fire would be devastating (MAD)

I don't know how rustic Americans think. But I do know, how your decision-makers think. And your personal opinion is important for me mostly as an another confirmation of the impossibility of the peaceful coexistence.

Tell Russia not to invade its neighbors and we can peacefully coexist.
If Russia invades its neighbors we will have a serious problem.

 

[Zavulon]

400 nukes would see many survivors, but they would all die as the Earth becomes unlivable.

Of course, no. 400 nukes destroying MM3 siloes will cause significant pollution in Montana, Wyoming and Dacotas, but that's all.
And even the worst theoretically imaginable outcomes of the all-out nuclear wars - "New Ice Age" and "New Eemian Interglacial" (enhanced with pandemics and "insect bursts") won't make the Earth unlivable, while it might hurt a lot of people.

Less that 100 nukes is the practical limit for humans to survive.

It's just your misunderstanding of the pseudo-scientific alarmistic environmentalistic conception. One year without summer (like it was in North Atlantic region back in 1816) or even three years without summer (as it was back in 1601-1603 in Russia) cause problems, but it's definitely not a game changer.

Climate model are not made by stupid people, I'm sure water vapor is included.

That's the difference between gullible American rustic people of small shrewdness and simple credulity and more serious people with an ability of "critical thinking" (I hope it includes American decision-makers from ZOG or any other Deep State). We do read scientific papers. And there is no neither water vapour nor CO_2 in those "nuclear winter" articles.

I'm sure he would retaliate.
You don't get to nuke the US and think nothing would happen, that's not how MAD works.

I don't say that nothing would happen. It will be POTUS decision - to commit suicide or to accept Russian peaceful proposals.

Do you have any idea how crazy that Russian propaganda sounds? There are no Nazis, Hitler is dead.

Hitler was just a typical European politician. Not worst, not best. And it all depends on definitions. If we define Nazies as "bad guys who hate Russians" - there are a lot of them.

Russian people may be everywhere on holiday with VISAS visiting other countries, but they have no influence outside their Russian border.

If you say that Russian Americans (all three millions of them) should not exist or should not have human rights - you are a Nazi, too.

Very bad idea. Russia and Putin would regret using nukes first.

Using nukes first is definitely better than using nukes second.

There was not highly contaminated radioactive waste in the rubble of WW2.
Our countries would be

C'mon. Radiation will fall to acceptable levels (with some restrictions, of course) in first days.

Then you are reading the wrong protocols

Do you have right protocols?

We won't attack first knowing that the return fire would be devastating (MAD)

As I said, your decision-makers suppose to be better informed than you. They know that there will be no "assured destruction" of the USA in any situation. The only question is what level of losses they will see as "unacceptable" in different scenarios. Actually, they did see 500 one megaton bursts over US cities as "survivable" scenario.

Tell Russia not to invade its neighbors and we can peacefully coexist.

Tell NATO to roll back to 1997 borders and we can peacefully coexist.

If Russia invades its neighbors we will have a serious problem.

If America invades Russia's neighbours (like Ukraine or Iran) you will have much more serious problems.

 

[kyzr]

Of course, no. 400 nukes destroying MM3 silos will cause significant pollution in Montana, Wyoming and Dakotas, but that's all.
And even the worst theoretically imaginable outcomes of the all-out nuclear wars - "New Ice Age" and "New Eemian Inter-glacial" (enhanced with pandemics and "insect bursts") won't make the Earth unlivable, while it might hurt a lot of people.

You keep forgetting about Global Fallout.

It's just your misunderstanding of the pseudo-scientific alarmist environmental concept. One year without summer (like it was in North Atlantic region back in 1816) or even three years without summer (as it was back in 1601-1603 in Russia) cause problems, but it's definitely not a game changer.

Lets just say we disagree about the aftermath of a major nuclear war. I don't want humanity and civilization to be brought to the edge of extinction.

That's the difference between gullible American rustic people of small shrewdness and simple credulity and more serious people with an ability of "critical thinking" (I hope it includes American decision-makers from ZOG or any other Deep State). We do read scientific papers. And there is no water vapour nor CO_2 in those "nuclear winter" articles.

You make your models they make their models. A nuclear war is not worth the risk. No one agrees on the science.

NukeSim - Interactive Nuclear Explosion Simulator

Educational nuclear explosion simulator with scientifically accurate effects modeling

www.nukesim.com

I don't say that nothing would happen. It will be POTUS decision - to commit suicide or to accept Russian peaceful proposals.

Easy decision, launch the nukes.

Hitler was just a typical European politician. Not worst, not best. And it all depends on definitions. If we define Nazis as "bad guys who hate Russians" - there are a lot of them.

Russian propaganda can say anything they want, it doesn't mean that Nazis exist.

If you say that Russian Americans (all three millions of them) should not exist or should not have human rights - you are a Nazi, too.

Here in America we all have rights, but we all pledge loyalty to America.

Using nukes first is definitely better than using nukes second.

Not necessarily, it means death and destruction first or second.

C'mon. Radiation will fall to acceptable levels (with some restrictions, of course) in first days.

Not the global fallout.

As I said, your decision-makers suppose to be better informed than you. They know that there will be no "assured destruction" of the USA in any situation. The only question is what level of losses they will see as "unacceptable" in different scenarios. Actually, they did see 500 one megaton bursts over US cities as "survivable" scenario.

We have many shelters to ride out a nuclear war, but living underground for years until the Earth becomes livable is not winning.

Tell NATO to roll back to 1997 borders and we can peacefully coexist.

NATO can't roll back, Russia needs to stop being so demanding.

If America invades Russia's neighbours (like Ukraine or Iran) you will have much more serious problems.

We didn't invade any of Russia's neighbors, that is Russian propaganda.

 

[Zavulon]

You keep forgetting about Global Fallout.

Just ignore it. It won't cause any significant effects.

Lets just say we disagree about the aftermath of a major nuclear war.

As I said, you and American decision-makers disagree. You are not a decision maker and that's why your opinion is simply irrelevant. Both Russian and American decision makers agree that nuclear war, however devastating it might be, is both survivable and winnable.

I don't want humanity and civilization to be brought to the edge of extinction.

Nobody care about your wishes. Sad, but true. Both Russian and American decision makers can play with the bets that high. "Give me freedom or give me death" for Americans and "We don't need world without Russia" for Russians means that both sides prefer total elimination of the world to losing independence.

You make your models they make their models. A nuclear war is not worth the risk. No one agrees on the science.

NukeSim - Interactive Nuclear Explosion Simulator

Educational nuclear explosion simulator with scientifically accurate effects modeling

www.nukesim.com

Of course it worth the risk. And if nobody agrees, it's already not "assured".

Easy decision, launch the nukes.

That's why you are not a decision maker.

Russian propaganda can say anything they want, it doesn't mean that Nazis exist.

Do you mean, that you don't exist? Funny.

Here in America we all have rights, but we all pledge loyalty to America.

Loyalty must be mutual. State suppose to work for people, not people should change themselves for the state. And, by the way, if you say, that Russians should have human rights in America, but should not have human rights in Ukraine or Baltic states - younare still a Nazi.

Not necessarily, it means death and destruction first or second.

Of course no.

Not the global fallout.

Do you think, that there is a different physics for the atmospheric particles?

We have many shelters to ride out a nuclear war, but living underground for years until the Earth becomes livable is not winning.

The Earth will be livable anyway. You'll need to stay in shelters three days top.

NATO can't roll back, Russia needs to stop being so demanding.

Of course you can. You just never really tried. Anyway, we can help them a little.

We didn't invade any of Russia's neighbors, that is Russian propaganda.

Of course you did invade many Russian neighbours (from Finland to Japan). And this is unacceptable.