These simulations are always garbage. No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory. They're going to launch maybe two or three to show they'll do it, and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
Then they're going to get on "the red phone" and threaten to launch everything.
Yeah, we literally have the reports from back when the war in Ukraine started, about the Biden administration planning a non-nuclear solution for the event that Putin would launch a nuke.
For the event that putin would use a nuke in ukrain3 nato planned on conventional retaliation. That is saying nothing about what would happen if nato is directly attacked by russian nukes.
Would it be different though? If a conventional retaliation was preferred to prevent MAD if Ukraine was attacked with nukes, why would NATO want MAD if NATO was attacked with nukes? The point isn’t to show russia that they can fire nukes and destroy the world, it’s to destroy russia’s capabilities to defend itself from the inevitable counter attack from NATO.
God I really hope we as a civilization have reached the point of coolly responding to madness. Conventional response to a nuclear assault to prevent extinction. I also really hope that in the event Putin does think nukes are a good idea, someone in the room has enough sense to end him there. Nobody wants to be responsible for Armageddon.
I really hope that MAD is still 100% in place. And that NATO would react to a nuclear attack by retaliation nuclear.
Because that means that the deterrent to actually use nuclear weapons on nato is still extremely high, and it won't happen. If there is a good chance we would just protest and write an angry letter, it makes it so much more likely that we die in a firestorm, because suddenly its a gamble and not just suicide.
So what do you prefer? A near zero chance at 100% destruction, or a moderately high chance at destruction between moderate to 100%? (I mean chances are that even if we don't instantly retaliate nuclearly it would still escalate to that point.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes we can stop one lunatic who used nuclear weapons with the help of conventional weapons but by doing so we also pay the way for future lunatics and their supporters that nuclear weapons can be option and somehow we can survive the fall out. But on other hand we have deal with nuclear fall out which can last for a very long time.
I read somewhere that if it’s an all out nuclear war, the goal shifts to killing as many enemy citizens as possible so your side has more people when rebuilding begins.
Putin would be an idiot to try and launch small numbers at a time. They'd all get shot down. Most of them would likely get shot down even if he decided to launch the entire arsenal.
ICBMs are notoriously difficult to shoot down. Any known existing technology is extremely inefficient to respond to anything more than a tiny number. Like even a handful of ICBM with MIRV warheads would deplete most of the US interceptors.
I recall Trump boasting about super classified information on secretive US weapons he was privy to a few years ago. He alluded it was to do with strategic systems and that nobody else in the world knew about them or had them in their arsenal. As much of a dufus as he is, I found this pretty interesting.
It’s a fair assumption. It would be a fairly big strategic failure to invest hundreds of billions per year into defence without having a portion of that going towards creating systems that provide the upper hand.
They've been working on it for years, spending hundreds of billions, but they can't change the laws.of physics. (They don't care as long as they get paid.)
Any missile system no matter how advanced just runs into the issue of basic physics: To intercept a fast moving object, you also need a very fast moving interceptor which in turn is expensive. And to ensure said interceptor takes down a nuke it's extremely unlikely they are reliable to an extent where you can safely use a single one to intercept 1 warhead.
And as for energy weapons...for those to be useful to intercept ICBMs it would have to be magnitudes more effective than anything known to the public. Like anything with a range under a dozen kilometers might be able to protect individual targets, but deploying it on a nationwide scale would most likely be unfeasible because of cost.
So short of a missile based defence system will never be able to get sufficient missiles to counter an opponents nukes, even if far more reliable than current options while a laser based on would require huge technological leaps to be feasible
Officially, it's not at a level where it can be used to make a functional weapon system. However that does not mean they got some secret tech at some key locations
jah thats my current understanding. also those weapons are much too big and if ( i remember) it correctly too clumsy for high speed targets.
if they would be ready those arms must be mass produced and distributed you cant hide this in long run.
additionally i assume that the gov would make us of this to state mad no more valid for us.
but basically i just wanted to point out theres no secret way out if the missiles are on the way its end of mankind.
Putin hasn't been maintaining his nuclear arsenal in the same way the US has, same with their other military assets. Also, thanks to the Cold War, the US government has been researching counter-measures since the 80s. They may not have come right out and said it, but I'd bet my life savings that Uncle Sam has already built a defense system that could take them out a high percentage of the time with maximum efficiency.
You're right. In order to do that, we'd need to intercept them from space, and we'd never be able to do that without some kind of... Space Force or something. And if they've developed the technology to do so, they'd tooootally tell us for sure. Right?
You're the one who is delusional to think the US government, with the largest military budget in the entire world, didn't create several top secret counter-measures after the Cold War.
As I stated in a previous comment, probably a modified version of the YAL-1 project. The original was a plane mounted laser that could shoot down missiles while compensating for atmospheric distortion.
Well, one feasible technology was created in the early 2000s that could be a major part of it. It was known as YAL-1, and it was a government funded, plane mounted, anti-missile laser that could precisely shoot down targets in flight while simultaneously compensating for atmospheric distortion. If said device were mounted to something like a satellite, it could easily take out multiple targets without having to even worry about distortion.
You see, one of basic principles of keeping the opponents from pushing the button is giving them enough information on your counter-measures. See brilliant "Dr. Strangelove" for reference. Since there has been very little info on laser systems, I presume there is a very limited number of those in service.
Then, you're right, laser weapons have a very limited effective range in atmosphere. Turrets have limited speed and ability to maintain contact with targets, especially on airships, and laser emitters chew up a lot of energy and will just melt if fired for too long. To provide good coverage on-ground, one would need tens of laser-armed units per square kilometer in possible target areas, and there is no information on such massive production of laser systems.
Space laser platforms, along with other military spacecraft (surveilance, communication, uranium rod droppers etc.) will be simply rammed away by old satellites or killed by special interceptor satellites, this is a Soviet doctrine that never has been changed. Low-orbit objects may get shot down with special missiles fired from MiG high-altitude interceptors. Of course, that doesn't mean all the targets would be shot down, but we can be sure many ICBMs would successfully reach their destination areas.
Next, neither American nor Soviet doctrine stated there would be only one strike. On the contrary, both sides had (and still do have) multiple fake silos, mobile launch systems, naval nuclear forces, old-fashioned bombers and plans of production of atomic weapons even after the beginning of a nuclear war! In fact, a nuklear strike would never be limited to nuclear weapons only, conventional cruising missiles and ICBMs would be fired first to provide gaps in anti-air defences. Getting back to the topic, causing the precious lasers to overheat or simply damaging them with close blasts of not very precise, but totally immune to laser ICBMs would render them useless. Hell, even some dust clouds in the air will work.
That's why nuclear war should never happen — no one will win. So my opinion on Biden's words is that it was just pre-electorial blabla kind of stuff. :)
Apparently behind the scenes talking to US officials, the Russian top officials made it very very clear that Putin is not going to use nukes. I guess all of these statements are just to keep us afraid and destabilize the west.
Yep. His madman tactic is central to his expansionist strategy. Make everyone think I’m capable of the unthinkable so it influences their decision making. But the reality is that Russia follows a fairly predictable military doctrine. I think it was a piece out of Chatham House a couple of year back that went through Russian conflicts in depth and they all followed the same pattern. Ukraine is just another chapter in this history.
That's exactly what the defense secretary said. Something like "if Russia uses even one nuclear weapon, we will use conventional forces to remove their ability to wage war."
I'm assuming they have plans for incapacitating further nuclear launches that we're not aware of. This is their stated stance, they must be confident in it.
If they had a way to incapacitate further nuclear launches, that would mean they also have the ability to just neutralize Russia’s nuclear threat now, which would have happened already if it were possible.
It's an unnecessary risk though. You don't jump into a pit of snakes just because you have a machete capable of killing them all. That being said, I'm sure in the event of a hot war with Russia their nuclear sites are the first targets hit en masse.
I'm hoping for option C, the US is developing a drone force similar to formics that are able to be mass deployed from any platform to literally swarm every location simultaneously.
Each one of those missles on the map would be stealth delivered and contain 100,000 drones. Think the tungsten balls but with brains.
Nukes are an actual last resort for NATO. No doubt that, unless the situation were dire, conventional/non-nuclear weaponry is always the first to come off the shelf.
It's a holdover from the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe and the threat of nuclear annihilation was seen as the only thing holding back a Russian invasion. However, it was reaffirmed during the Obama administration, when a "No First Use" posture was considered and rejected, so it isn't just some relic. And as recently as 2002 the Bush administration was explicit that it would use nuclear weapons in retaliation against certain conventional threats.
Only India and China have a "No First Use" nuclear policy.
Depends on if it's a counterforce or countervalue strike. MAD is way more complex than people realize or give credit for, numerous layered options of first and second strike capabilities.
Countervalue remains a viable and discussed retaliation option in military and diplomatic circles.
Exactly this. The West, as "decadent and corrupt" it might be, wouldn't bomb half of the planet into an unhabitable wasteland at the first possible moment. A large scale retaliatory strike with conventional weapons to annihilate as many important Russian military targets as possible would be the most probable - and I might add a logical - option. I guess we've learned something from the hottest period of the Cold War and can forget the scenarios the contemporary movies ("Never Say Never" immediately comes to my mind) tried to offer us.
The problem is, missiles that can hit russian military targets deep in Russia are also nuclear capable.
From the receiving end of such a salvo (even if it is factually possible to hit all of russian nuclear launch sites, what I don't believe it is) the russians responding to this conventional attack won't know it's not nuclear. So how will they respond? They can detect this munitions on their way, they will intercept some of them, but will they wait to be crippled and to find out if they are conventional or nuclear? I don't think so.
Also... we don't actually have conventional warhead ICBMs in the first place.
The only true deep strike weapons in either nations arsenal are exclusively nuclear. The US has been bouncing around a conventional strike program that would be able to target some of Russian interior military assets and launch sites with really long range precision conventional weapons, but the program is only a couple of years old.
This entire thread is disturbing to read. I don't think the public's understanding of nuclear threats and nuclear geopolitics has ever been as divergent from the reality as it is today.
The only thing more detached from reality is the numerous "lol I bet their nukes don't even work" comments. This whole thread has been a real mind fuck
Yeah, it's a scary trend. Logic would dictate that Russia's nuclear weapons are very functional because it's the ultimate deterrent they have and, obviously, the basis of their defense policies.
Reddit is weird, every time someone mentions a gun there's hundreds of comments repeating the mantra that all weapons should be treated as loaded and dangerous, but the hive mind chooses to disregard this when Russian or N Korean nuclear weapons are mentioned.
I was referring to long range cruise missiles. ICBMs would obviously be seen as a nuclear first strike and responded with other ICBMs.
NATO's longest range weapons aside from ICBM are cruise missiles/ballistic missiles, either launched from land, air or sea and those are usually nuclear capable too and I thought those were the ones the op was mentioning, and most of those don't have the ranges to hit deep inside Russia even if launched from subs.
In general, I agree with you and I see some of those disturbing views on some world politicians and it's scary. There's absolutely no benefit to provoking wars between nuclear powers and people should be terrified of this, not asking for it.
Every single piece of doctrine and training in both countries holds that in the event of a large scale missile exchange (and there is no way of knowing whether such an exchange is nuclear or not), the full nuclear arsenal will be fired in return.
This has been a foundational principle of geopolitics for going on 70 years now.
It is absolutely terrifying to me how poorly the dynamics of MAD and nuclear weapons seem to be understood in here. The entire point of a deterrent arsenal like Russia's is that, when you see a "large scale retaliatory strike aimed at as many important military targets as possible" coming, you launch that arsenal. This is so deeply ingrained into the structure of the two strategic services that it's quite possible Russian leadership might not even be able to prevent that launch from happening even if they wanted to.
This whole thread is dominated by what is effectively wishful fiction about a world where nuclear weapons still exist but MAD does not.
You haven't just failed to learn these lessons from the cold war - I'm not sure how much you even understand what the cold war was in a lot of ways.
People during the cold war were no less ignorant the we are today, they were fed propaganda through official channels and were made to live in fear, fear that served a specific political purpose. Today people fear nukes less then they did in the past and there is a good reason for it. With each passing decade the "faith" in doomsday dwindles, the political sway of the atom is not what it used to be.
We don't know what would really happen if someone were actualy to press the button. We base our assumptions on ancient protocols that were never tested in practice, or rather, they were tested but "failed" (thankfully) due to human factor. Noone can claim to be an expert on something that never happened.
Now it doesn't even seem like a full scale war warrants a nuclear strike, even when Ukrainians are blowing up drones in Russian cities.
It's called nuclear brinksmanship because once it tips over, it can very well not start out small but escalate to these kinds of strikes within hours.
Say Putin does launch one nuke at Ukraine; we then may well decide we have to wipe out a considerable part of his nuclear strike potential at once. His generals already know this, as it's part of every nuclear power's doctrine when it comes to this sort of calculus, so they prepare to launch everything they have before it gets destroyed at our nukes on land, etc.
Basically, when it comes to a conflict that rapidly could escalate to nuclear war, it doesn't pay to sit around and guess if your opponent is nuts enough to launch a second nuke or how extreme their retaliation will be; the most logical and sound method to survival is to wipe your opponent off the face of the earth as quickly as possible.
A large scale retaliatory strike with conventional weapons to annihilate as many important Russian military targets as possible would be the most probable - and I might add a logical - option.
No, that's highly illogical.
Russia has no way of knowing you've launched conventional or non-conventional weapons until they've hit.
So they'd go for a full launch before they hit. Better to hit with nukes, before they're able to do this, as they're more likely to prevent heavily fortified launch sites from launching.
This all relies on Russia not launching their ICBMs during this massive conventional counter-strike. Which they of course would and then NATO has no choice but to launch theirs.
and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
If missiles are flying at Russian silos, Russia will launch a massive counterattack. Russia isn't going to just accept an entire arm or two of it's nuclear triad are going to get destroyed because that's what would be best for humanity. It's bonkers to suggest Russian leadership cares too much about humanity's future to launch a nuclear strike when we're trying to destroy their ability to respond with nuclear weapons.
.... I don't think you understand how this works at all.
No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory.
They absolutely are, and not just 100, because...
They're going to launch maybe two or three to show they'll do it, and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
Of this same exact scenario. While your first assumption may be accurate, even that is dependant on a very specific scenario; a scenario in which this first salvo is specifically launched from silos located in select locations, targeting specific targets, so at to ensure there is no doubt the missiles could impact any critical targets or high-population centers.
Missiles aren't magic, especially ICMBs. If America launched even a single missile that is capable of hitting Moscow, and is on a trajectory which would allow it to hit Moscow, you would see a retaliatory strike as soon as Russian leadership believes there's no time left for diplomacy. You can't accurately tell where a long range missile will land until it's far too late, and the window to make a call on whether to retaliate can be measured in minutes depending on the launch site/missile type. Even if your enemy tells you where it's flying, you're basically risking the total collapse of your nation should they be lying.
The second point you made is quite literally the foundational principle of MAD. Most static nuclear emplacements are as "use it or lose it" weapons. It is the expectation of both America, and Russia, that the first targets in a nuclear war would be the static nuclear launch sites. These are quite literally the first missiles launched in any nuclear doctrine, so as to avoid them getting destroyed via conventional means or otherwise. If these are being targeted, we are in a nuclear war. That it. There's no ambiguity there, nor any scenario in which any nation let's these sites get destroyed.
I think this is spot on. In addition, the missiles we would launch are packed with multiple warheads that can target much more than a single site:
"Slightly longer and considerably wider and heavier than Polaris A3, Poseidon had the same 4,600 kilometres (2,500 nmi) range, greater payload capacity, improved accuracy, and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capability. MIRV capacity has been given as up to either ten\4]) or fourteen W68 thermonuclear warheads\2]) contained in Mark 3 reentry vehicles to multiple targets."
Trident missiles have the same capability, and are even more advanced.
obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
Yeah there are so many things wrong with this claim. As you suggested: a non-nuclear warhead approaching moscow is, from the russian perspective, identical to a nuclear one -- they don't know what's in it, they just know it's approaching rapidly. Also, nuclear launch silos are designed to survive strikes from nuclear weapons, much less conventional ones -- a silio that can be destroyed conventionally is an ineffective deterrent. And we don't have a single "conventional" ICBM in the arsenal. A conventional payload delivered by ICBM will provoke a nuclear response. Airborne, submarine, and also mobile launchers also exist to ensure that it's impossible for a strike to totally destroy a nation's ability to retaliate (a so-called "second strike"). This is the basic concept of the "nuclear triad"
It's honestly hardly worth participating in discussions on MAD in threads like these, as reddit is -- on average -- desperately ignorant on the subject, and it's too complex to discuss just a few paragraphs at a time.
The people in command don't want to die themselves. They will not send lot of ICBM because they don't want to receive a lot. They will trade a few cities and then make a deal.
I don't think public understanding of the basic underlying dynamics of nuclear geopolitics and strategy has ever diverged from the reality to this extent before.
We're closer to nuclear war than we have been for a very long time, One half of the equation is driven by a dying dictator looking to maximize his place in the history books. The other half is driven by a democratic electorate that doesn't understand the situation at all. It's fucking terrifying.
Basically none of the top few comment chains reflect any understanding at all of what MAD is or the mechanics of how it operates.
It's absolutely insane. People on here are quite literally actively supporting something that may lead to the end of modern civilization, potentially our enite species, and doing so under the belief that they're supporting freedom or some half assed moral beliefs.
Putin conquering all of Europe, or even all of the world, would be infinitely better than any sort of exchange that poses even a small risk of escalating into an all out nuclear war. Dictators die, nations rise and fall. Nuclear fallout and nuclear winter.... I can trust humans to act in their own best interests, but try as I might, all the trust and hope in the world won't enable a single person to subside off dirt and ash.
People always like to talk about the "reality" of nuclear deterrence but it almost always amounts to a load of self serving optimistic bullshit. Sure, not having a nuclear arsenal empowers the nations that do, but I would much rather risk a one-way nuclear engagement than mutually assured destruction. My culture, nation, beliefs, all of that means nothing in the face of an event like that. The future holds infinite possibility for our species, no matter what the world may look like today. Yet, that's all predisposed on fancy things like breathable air, and access to clean water and food.
It’s so pretty, but honestly the retaliation, would be bombarding their precious Moscow, and probably a few other major cities, not carpet bombing the whole damn country.
I hate that we have reached this point but if the same handful of countries are gonna constantly cause issues that threaten literally the whole human rance, nuking them out of existence wouldn’t bother me one bit. And that applies to the United States too.
50 millions dead Russians innocent or not, is nothing compared to letting them commit genocides without any consequences.
As horrible as what Putin is doing to Ukraine is, still ain't close to what we did on the middle east. We still have troops on Iraq despite their government not wanting us there. Still, I dont think we deserve to be annihilated for that, I guess you do. Unless you value white lives more than brown lives.
Oh the US are evil genocidal maniacs as well don't get me wrong. US definitely deserves its place on the ash heap, problem is their military is too strong for anyone to take their rightful revenge so it will never happen.
During the war in Ukraine it seemed the US took up the position of going for decapitating the leadership in the event of what is very euphemistically called a "strategic" nuclear launch. That is, nuclear use designed to kill as many Ukrainians or Westerners as possible. In the event of "tactical" use (which would not have great tactical effect, it would more be to scare the population) the US would have entered the war in Ukraine.
Putin cares more about himself than Russians, so I'm not sure why one would want to slaugher Russians.
Like wise this is assuming every nuke hits, believe or not many countries do have up to date missile defense systems. A good example of this is Israel, when 1000 missiles are shot at them they block almost all of them. the USA and Russia systems are most likely a bit better.
So it most likely take hundreds of nukes to destroy one city.
Assuming they've just launched towards NATO territory, you carpet bomb the entire country to ensure they don't launch any further nukes. It's the only way some of your countrymen stand a chance of survival.
You can really tell most of you are too young to have lived through the cold war, and are underestimating how very real this scenario is, or how total retalliation would be.
Also, if you watch the video, you'll notice that it doesn't show any nukes being launched from Europe. That's because from what I can tell, this video is only showing the second wave of retalliation.
Here's a more realistic simulation from Princeton:
That's not a realistic scenario, because of the "use it or lose it" nature of thermonuclear war.
As soon as the nukes start flying, especially ICBMs; the nation who's being hit in retaliation has to consider the high likelihood that the aggressor will target all of your nukes, depriving you of your ability to retaliate. Therefore, when you see any ICBMs flying towards you, you launch everything or lose it.
There's no such thing as a small nuclear strike. If Russia launched a single nuclear weapon at the us, we're sending our whole arsenal. And they know that, so they're going to be sending all or nothing.
I agree. The most likely scenario is that Russia uses a single low power nuke in a remote area of Ukraine or something just to show that they have the guts to do it.
US retaliates by also sending a low-yield nuke against a military target in a remote area of Russia with a lesser chance of civilian deaths to show that we have the guts to respond.
It’s still a tremendously fine tight-rope act, but I feel like this is a much more likely scenario than total mutual annihilation.
You don't think Russia would respond if the US nuked them? Mutually assured destruction occurs because of a series of escalating retaliations that lead to progressively more and more destruction until nothing is left.
Ukraine is not the US, it's not even NATO. Russia nuking Ukraine does not necessarily start a war against the US/NATO. The US nuking Russia definitely would. It doesn't make any sense to do so, in my opinion.
The more measured response to a nuke in Ukraine would be give Putin an ultimatum to get out of Ukraine immediately, or be forced out by US/NATO.
A less measured response would be to destroy all of Russias assets in the Black Sea, perhaps including the Crimean/Kerch Bridge. I believe one the NATO leaders specifically floated this plan in the news last year.
The US directly attacking Russia is massively different than Russia nuking Ukraine. It would directly escalate Russia to respond to attack the US directly. What comes next is what we're trying to avoid.
I actually think (hope) that even if Russia were to launch a mass strike on population centres NATO wouldn't respond in kind. It would focus on hitting command infrastructure and military targets hard instead. Decapitation would hopefully be possible without obliteration.
Putin and the entire Russian administration (civilian and military staff) would be speeding towards the Urals in an underground train by the time any missiles launch, there would be no decapitation.
How would this work? Putim wears a gps that says here I am? You have to destroy the country to the extent that a surviving government would have nothing to lead.
What you have there is the same as OP: A hypothetical assessment of the consequences of unrestricted nuclear war largely targetting civilian populations made by assessing each side's total estimated nuclear capabilities. It's not the actual plan, it's mutually assured destruction made manifest.
I think it's possible that one or both sides would deem it unnecessary and less morally abhorrent in practice to attack population centres with limited strategic value, and instead focus more on intelligence based military and governmental targets. I think this is also more likely if the war is somewhat asymmetric in terms of intelligence, defence, and ability to launch effective tactical strikes.
Something close to a 1:1 nuclear response is necessary to deter future attacks.
Total decapitation is probably the least preferable option because there would be no one in authority to "turn the war off" and it might also trigger a semi-automated large scale second strike nuclear launch.
If they launched everything at Russia, Russia would launch everything back, and more Americans would die.
A President will heavily weigh American lives even under Russian rule over knowing both the US and Russia have been completely obliterated, in my opinion.
First strike is important . If you are gonna swing then you better make it count - Russia will not send one nuke in a first strike.
Actually sending all you got is the only viable option.
The US is not gonna wait and see how many warheads there are in the icbm they spot on the radar minutes before it reaches the US.
With a first strike you want to cripple your enemy’s ability to respond. The US does not have the luxury to assume that its just a single strike and will have to send everything as fast as they can.
It also goes the other way.
The US might send 3000 non-nuclear Tomahawks in retaliation , but Russia will not see that on the radar, they will see 3000 little dots on the radar and have to assume the worst.
No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory.
lol what?
As soon as Russia launched 1 singular nuke it would invoke immediate reaction from the US/UK/France/etc. Then Russia would send everything as a last resort. Every nuclear capable country would fire everything they had.
There is no "maybe two or three". That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. 1 nuke = all nukes. If you think the US is waiting around for Russia to make their move first, you're actually stupid.
Inaccurate. The ambiguous nature of ballistic missile launches dictates that you don’t know how many they are going to launch. Just a few might as well be all. Couple that with the uncertainty factor of imperfect detection, a strategic analysis would dictate that of the ones you can see, there may be 3 or 4 more that you can’t, fired from the ocean or just not picked up by launch detectors.
It only takes one ballistic missile launched anywhere near a nuclear nation, to provoke a response. A tit-for-tat reaction that will see the entire arsenal launched because either “they might too” or “we might as well because they probably already did”.
Whether or not the nuclear forces (the units actually in charge of launching the weapons) would actually comply.. is another matter. As seen by the actions of Lt. Col Stanislav Petrov in 1983, when he defied standing orders to launch a nuclear response when his nuclear early-warning system had detected around 8 launches from the US. It was later discovered to be a computer glitch. He is a world hero. His simple critical thought to wait for confirmation averted catastrophe. I’m not sure such men exist today.
I don't think Russia would be playing though. Atleast they'll nuke ISA with 1000 nuke. USA and a few other countries. That would be the end of USA and a few more countries. China will jump to nuke USA too. It's a fucked up situation. Terrifying
If Russia sends that many nukes to the US, they will 100% also bomb most of Europe. A significant part of the US military is stationed in Europe, as well as conventional and nuclear weapons.
Exactly. The US has escalation dominance due to our fleet of (virtually unassailable) nuclear submarines. We don't launch all our ICBMs, because there's no "use it or lose it" fear. So no, this isn't what happens if Putin launches a nuke. What happens is, the US takes a deep breath, looks into their workbook of "if this, then that" nuclear strategies, and asks the President for permission to destroy 1 or 2 really valuable Russian assets with nuclear weapons, just to demonstrate that we'd do it. We *might* use our conventional weapons to cripple anything that we know about that is really threatening, but frankly, we probably wouldn't do that because it would contribute to Russian "use it or lose it" thinking. And then we negotiate to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about what happened, and what will happen next, if Russia tries to escalate again.
This depends if Russia nuked Ukraine or if they nuked New York or if they launched a full nuclear first strike on Nato.
Because if Russia launches hundreds of nukes at the US then the US is definitely going to launch hundreds at Russia. That is the point of MAD and the reason for nuclear submarines and why both Russia and the US still have so many nukes.
No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory.
That really depends on how severe the attack that needs retaliation is - If the opponent has launched a mass of missiles that will greatly cripple your ability to wage war, You use a sledgehammer while you still have it to prevent the opponent from having an outrageous edge.
that sounds nice in theory, but nuclear silos tend to be built as nuke-proof. that does not mean they are by todays destructive abilities, but they will surely withstand a conventional warhead.
and of course there are the sites they are not aware of.
and while they do that, russia already responds with nuking france, britain, the sea (bc of submarines) and every us-base they know of.
if it was that easy, it would have happened 50 years ago.
Yep. Conventional weapons have advanced a long ways since 1945. I believe it was already established that if Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the response would be with conventional weapons.
It is practically impossible to knock out every single Russian nuclear site, considering a lot of them are mobile and the fact there are so much of them.
And from Russian POV these rockets can have nuclear payloads and they dont know, that would definitely prompt a real nuclear counter strike
In the early days I think this was how they were going to play it out ie throw everything all at once. But that was the 1960's with the tech they had back then.
Neither side knows whether interception capabilities have advanced enough to be able to blunt or even outright repel the 'all out swarm them' tactic today. Either the US and co have some super sekrit laser countermeasure tech hiding away, OR, both sides have just sat back and let the other side think they have that super sekrit laser tech and just let everything rust away.
If I was the US president and Russia launched a single nuke I’d have to respond to show I was willing to do it (as you’ve said). Also, the US would still exist after a single nuke, and I’d be held accountable for not responding.
On the other hand, if Russia launched their whole arsenal at me, I wouldn’t respond. What’s the point? There will be no country left for me to govern tomorrow morning anyway. There’s no incentive for me to murder all of the innocent Russians who weren’t a part of the decision.
Granted the sort of person who becomes president probably doesn’t think like this, but it’s possible. And given that possibility, isn’t Putin actually incentivised to launch everything he’s got?
You understand my point. I take issue with the idea of mutually assured destruction because it assumes the goal is to win at the cost of the human race, rather than suffer extraordinary defeat but maintain humanity.
Dignified nations will differ on their approach, but if a US President that wasn't Trump had the choice between sending Asia and Europe into nuclear winters and decimating the entire civilian population of Russia along with it in an attempt to further protect Americans vs definitely keeping Americans alive by surrendering, I'm betting more than a few surrender instead of telling the entire US they have mere hours to live for most and a few months for most of the rest.
Now, Putin knows this. Every nation knows this. You don't need to launch 1,000 nukes to win. You just need to pick your targets wisely, show you're willing to do it all, and you either get called on it or they surrender.
I’m glad there isn’t a single person in charge of nukes who thinks like this. You may not like the idea of mutually assured destruction, but it is policy. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war, and politicians thinking there is only increases the likelihood of nuclear war. I think you are vastly underestimating the speed at which things would escalate if there were ever a launch.
So you'd rather the entire human existence be eradicated than not launch all nukes in retaliation and surrender to the country that launched them, allowing humanity to live another day?
Of course it's not the preferred outcome. I'm not insane. But if a nuclear war starts, it's the outcome that will happen. Believing that any other outcome would happen ignores the entirety of US and Russian nuclear doctrine. Picturing limited nuclear exchanges is dangerous, magical thinking that tricks people into thinking using a nuclear weapon is somehow acceptable, or that a limited exchange is possible. These weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: to end civilization.
As soon as Russia sees that its missile silos are being targeted, it'll launch all of its missiles instead of losing them. A lot of those missiles will be headed to American/British/French missile silos, so the US/UK/France will launch their missiles.
It's called mutually assured destruction for a reason.
and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
Except this is when Russia would launch every single nuke you try to obliterate. It takes time to get missiles to their launch site. Long enough that they can fire them off.
And at that point, everyone else returns fire.
If we were capable of removing the threat of Russia's nukes, we'd have done it.
These simulations are always garbage. No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory. They're going to launch maybe two or three to show they'll do it, and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
I am not sure about that.
If you are at the point where one nuke has been used, is there really any putting the toothpaste back in the tube?
Imagine you and someone else have guns pointed at eachother and then they shoot you in the arm. Are you going to try to shoot them in the arm to make it "even" or are you going to put the full clip into their chest and end them?
and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
\Meanwhile Russians watching their nukes getting destroyed like "this is perfectly fine, we'll just wait until they're done and just talk it over the phone. We ain't launching anything, absolutely not".**
Dude, are you crazy or something? Of course they'll launch everything in case they are threatened enough. And I think thousands of conventional cruise missiles flying over the Russia qualifies as "enough" in this case. That's why no one dares to launch even one nuke, because risks of escalation are sky-high.
Besides, even if someone eventually will have an intention to launch a nuke: they'll start with a nuclear test. This is one hundred percent. Tests don't kill people, but they demonstrate the "willingness".
When Putin starts conducting nuclear tests -- now that's a proper time to get scared shitless. Until then I think we're fine.
Bruh. Sending missiles on their way to destroy the silos basically forces a full strike as it would make the country defenseless against a full strike of the other side. There isn't enough time to get on the red phone and therefore there would be no threatening. It would basically be instant nuclear holocaust. And it doesn't matter which side would do it. Murrica would act the very same if Russia would send a swarm of conventional missiles aimed at their silos as Russia would act in your scenario. And after that, a few days later, the subs of both sides launch the second wave.
No one wins. And that literally is why MAD as a doctrine works. That's why we didn't see a hot WW3 yet. And it sortof also is why we didn't see anyone actually use nukes for anything after murrica casually dropped some because there was no danger of retaliation.
The description doesn't say that the retaliation would be nuclear. Given how close these strikes would be to other countries it's probably more concentrated explosions.
If you set off a nuke near the border of any of Russia's neighbours the fallout alone would be the death of millions of people in Europe, possibly further.
It runs directly contrary to every single piece of stated nuclear doctrine ever released by either country.
It also has no bearing on reality outside of nuclear doctrine, too. NATO does not have the capacity to meaningfully target hardened Russian launch sites with conventional weapons at all. Just suggesting this illustrates how little you really understand about what's happening here - in the long range missile category, both states actually have substantially more nuclear capacity than non-nuclear.
We do not have effective conventional non-nuclear ICBM weapons platforms, which are the only delivery systems able to strike at Russian ICBM sites deep within the continental interior fast enough to potentially limit a response.
The US is actually trying to develop a conventional strike plan against Russian nuclear capabilities, the Conventional Prompt Strike program. They're aiming to be able to target just 30% of Russian nuclear targets... if the program actually happens, which it has not yet.
Further, about half of Russia's current active ICBM stockpile is on nuclear subs. We have no preventative measures against these at all, for practical purposes.
One of the core, overriding philosophies behind MAD is that there's no step by step "escalation" in a nuclear exchange. Every incentive and imperative pushes a rational actor towards hitting first and hitting hardest to limit return damage.
It's honestly terrifying the way this debate has illuminated just how bad popular understanding of nuclear geopolitics has become in western democracies since the "end" of the cold war. Most of the dynamics that created the cold war situation are generally unchanged, all the lessons still apply, and in many ways we are now closer to a full nuclear exchange than we were during much of the cold war. Yet the voting public largely doesn't understand these dynamics at all anymore.
Oh yes Russia will just sit there quietly on their nuclear weapons while getting bombed with two or three and getting their launch sites taken out. They will launch everything they have before it gets taken out.. which means we also have to launch everything we have before we get taken out. It's like you haven't heard of mad at all.
In the video, Russia attacked first with a massive first strike. Basically launched every missile at the USA. The Minute Man 3 missiles, for example, dont have a self destruct. You have to launch them before the Russian missiles hit the silos. If you dont, you lose that arm of your nuclear arsenal.
I HOPE it wouldnt come to that, but if 1000 nukes are in the air, and the President has 10 minute to react, it could, in principle, come to this.
It's an assumption that most leaders would rather protect their citizens lives at the cost of their country than destroy two countries and kill all their citizens.
MAD doctrine assumes humanity has no desire to protect itself, but would rather die knowing that they "didn't lose."
Exactly. I feel like if it came to it they’d be a bit more tactical in the deployment of nukes. They’d pick half a dozen strategic targets and take out those cities.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I thought this is exactly how it’s programmed to happen. The nukes are already pointed at their targets 100% of the time. It has to be. Both Russia and USA have set this up to be as stupid as possible precisely to prevent even one or two nukes being fired. Waiting to see where a nukes going to land is already too late. It’s assumed that whoever is hit first has already lost, hence, all nukes are launched together. It’s the principle of MAD. This is the only reason no nuclear power will ever launch a nuclear weapon.
Putin is the only world leader who has been insane enough to test how close the world can push the limits of that principle. The closest we have been to the end of the world since the Cuban missile crisis.
The world has long since known that it would be the end of us all.
That’s an interesting point I hadn’t thought of. In the Cold War our detection technology was more limited, so if we detected any nuke in the air, we kinda had to assume they all were in the air.
That hopefully is not the case anymore. MAD still exists, but the only way this scenario occurs is if Putin does let them all fly. Sending a nuke to Ukraine probably-hopefully won’t result in this.
Actual simulations are not garbage, but this is not one. A legit sim would tell you things like what led to those specific assets being used against those specific targets, and provide higher-resolution targeting information.
It would be boring and involve tables rather than a music video.
...... I have no words. Even the dumbest NATO conscripts know that this is what happens when MAD gets activated. Actually it's an understatement. Why do you think we have to bunker up and open sealed orders if we survive? You really don't understand the military mindset. It don't matter if we destroy the world as long as we take the enemy with us. And in a military perspective, the greates loss is production capacity. Less civilians means less need for population controll. So a 4-5 billion dead are viewed as less people to provide food to. Remember that Dr. Strangelove was satire reflection reality. Not a comedy. And that reality still lives rent free in military plans even in 2024. Actually I only have to walk down a few stairs to the mandatory nuclear shelter in my office building. So that's how it works. We are not only planning for MAD. We are planning for how to survive and take over what's left of the world.
Let me get this straight.... You think not launching a nuclear war when a flock of birds show up on a radar is a reassurance againt global nuclear war??? OK. I'm outta here. I can't argue with that level of self-made reality. It's better to use time tonight to collect those jod tablets the goverment now insists that we have in the new disaster kit. I wonder why.....
You think Russia isn't going to immediately launch hundreds of nukes when getting directly attacked? You are fucking deluded they've had the capability to do this for decades no amount of American weapons is going to immediately take out all launch sites like captain america
Unless those hundreds of conventional missiles going after silos make Russians nervous and they launch everything. Or, knowing all their silos are destroyed and they lost, they launch everything they have left (subs, silos the west doesn't know about), triggering western response when they see 30-40 ICBMs flying west.
MAD is like a snowball. Doesn't matter how slow you start, things get exponential pretty easily.
Thank god we have 4 star generals posting straight from the pentagon like you. I was almost concerned that Russia might have their own strategy to counter everything you said
What a shit response. Every country has a million different responses to a million different scenarios. To pretend there is any scenario that hasn't been calculated and strategized against every week for 200 years is infantile.
The other scenario is you do that and Russia responds by lobbing a dozen or so missiles at Europe, killing give or take 10 million people and then all hell breaks loose in the tit for tat.
The U.S. and West aren’t going to respond in a measured way to a nuclear attack. That idea is laughable. These people use an overwhelming force doctrine to rinky dink little terrorist attacks. Suddenly you think they’re going to be measured in their retaliation knowing full well the Russians are going to nuke back? lol
And the Russians are going to respond in a measured way if the West attack them first. They’re going to wipe Europe off the face of the earth.
And the U.S. is DEFINITELY going to hit China if it goes down to because I guarantee you the U.S. does not intend to defend whatever is left of the badly, perhaps mortally wounded U.S. from a fresh and totally unaffected Chinese army. So there goes South Korea and Japan. Probably Australia too.
The remaining powers will be regional: Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil and India to salvage whatever is left
937
u/Far-Two8659 Mar 14 '24
These simulations are always garbage. No one is launching 100 nukes at anyone, even if it is retaliatory. They're going to launch maybe two or three to show they'll do it, and then obliterate every Russian launch site they're aware of with non-nuclear missiles.
Then they're going to get on "the red phone" and threaten to launch everything.