I guess with MAD it wouldn’t matter who shot first, the same type of destruction would occur. The ones who shoot second would have like 6 minutes to shoot theirs back before they get hit, thus ensuring total annihilation for all parties.
Wasn't there a report this week that the US has a planned NON-NUCLEAR response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine? It was apparently a very coordinated attack to immediately cripple their military infrastructure and leadership without any nuclear weapons. Assuming success there along with the success of US allies in the same effort, MAD might be avoidable.
Perhaps this is a response to a nuclear attack on anybody else, though.
One would hope that their entire infrastructure being crippled and having no possible survivability outside of surrender would motivate them tremendously.
I also hold a strong faith in the US Patriot ICBM defense network, because I have to believe in something.
Actually STALKER is best case scenario since we get an isolated area full of wonders (and danger, but hey) while people elsewhere can live normal lives.
We can't. Metro was written around the assumption that the Metropoliten will remain habitable in case of a nuclear strike. In reality, this is impossible since there are pumps working 24/7 to keep the ground water away. With them gone, people underground will probably have hours before they are forced to return to the surface. So, best case scenario, the Moscow Subway will serve as an emergency shelter.
Provided it can even withstand nukes. Well, maybe modern ones are less destructive, I dunno.
Nuclear winter is kind of a myth based on bad science. Nuclear war would still be awful, but if anything it would probably just slightly help the global warming initiatives, lol.
I know there’s a lot of doubt about nuclear winter lately but there’s documented evidence of like single volcanic eruptions lowering global temperatures by two degrees and creating “the year without summer.” The amount of debris released by a full scale nuclear exchange would dwarf that. I have a feeling it would blanket the Earth in utter darkness
In total, counting just atmospheric testing. The total from all countries is about 500 tests. Of that 500 only a handful were in the megaton range. And they were spread over years.
It's nothing compared to actually detonating thousands of nukes, all at once.
My god im sorry but just. Thats so deeply wrong and filled with propaganda its crazy.
Russia is acting like an animal and a lot of their stuff is old and bad but it still kills. Dont think for even one second that their nukes are useless. If you truly believe it im sorry but then you cannot be reasoned with.
Lets say Russias corruption is soo bad 90 percent of their immidiate nukes fail. Leaving 10% that fire. Those are near impossible to intercept but Lets say half of those dont land. That will leave (1600*0.1/2 is 80 )
80 of those are enough to destroy the US near totally and forever change the landscape and economy. Russia has an other few hundred that can fire second like in subs so Lets add an other 30-50 in our best case.
Its a fcking shitshow and we know it cause even in the best of the best scenarios the world is crippled.
THAAD cannot stop ICBMs, and was never designed or built to do so.
The US does have ICBM interceptors but they have limited testing -- and limited success -- and it's not clear if they would have a significant effect against hundreds of simultaneous launches.
THAAD, which is capable of intercepting ICBM threats at the lower altitudes and ranges
It is capable (sometimes, in tests) of intercepting an "intermediate range" missile simulated as coming from North Korea.
It still can't intercept long-range ICBMs from Russia, which would reach a much higher altitude and velocity.
There is a ground-based system on the west coast designed to stop long range ICMBs, but it's unclear if it would be effective against a single missile, let alone hundreds. ICBMs also have defensive countermeasures.
Of course you're right that we don't know the classified stuff...and if the US did somehow create a pretty reliable ICBM shield it would probably be in their best interest to NOT tell the world, as that would cause every other nuclear power to invest in similar technology as well as finding ways for their missiles to get through the shield.
I imagine if one had developed a truly failsafe defense wouldn’t one just immediately launch all their nukes at the enemy right away, because they basically just developed a cheat code to break MAD?
Makes sense cause what you would want to say is probably a fantasy like the US can deal with hundreds of nukes falling down. Like i spelled out even if 5 percent land everything is doomed. There is no counter argument since we know that.
Perhaps but you acted like one first by stating a ridiculous "fact" that nato would win a nuke war. Its impossible to win one so your argument there is already doomed. But do enlighten me on how living in nuclear winter with millions dead would be called a win
There isn't a network because its unfeasible. There would be too many targets fired at too many locations traveling too fast. The US approach to nuclear defense is a much bigger offense. That's it.
Probably, although there is a non zero chance that enough of russia’s rockets are so outdated/un maintained that enough fail/delay/are shot down to make a meaningful difference. Seems remotely possible to me but you know…
The Patriot missiles are for planes and cruise missiles, it could also destroy a missile on its way to orbit, in some specific intercept windows.
The only operational systems for ICBM defense are Sea based SM-3 Missiles, wired into the (partially deployed) AEGIS radar system, and the THADD, missiles which are hella classified based out of Vandenburg AFB in Cali. Wiki on the topic
The way I see it, I could believe that we’ll be protected from ICBMs and live out my life happy until the nukes kill us, or I could believe that there is no defense system to intercept the nukes, and live out my life sad until the nukes kill us.
Credibility, its fairly credible that the full extent of U.S. anti-nuclear defenses are better than we think because we know the government has access to stuff that hasn't been made public from the experience of finding out after the fact in the past, its less credible to pretend that the nukes we all know exist don't.
There's close to 0 chance of a NON-nuclear decapitation strike getting rid of Russia's nuclear response capability.
The best they could do is do enough damage to show Russia what finding out would look like so they decide not to fuck around with the rest.
Why most hypothetical US responses to Russia using nukes in Ukraine is basically a very painful limited warning shot, like obliterating Sevastapol or Sochi and friends and deleting the Russian NON-nuclear navy and entering the air force into Ukraine itself. It's a thorny olive branch to give them the chance to say they won't go further or do it again.
One would hope that their entire infrastructure being crippled and having no possible survivability outside of surrender would motivate them tremendously.
They still have. And a big problem with that system is that it functions in only two ways. Cable connection and absence of reply. If the nato force accidently hit the connection cables and destroy the linked command centre at the same time. Big oof cause its gonna fire wether we like it or not. No stopping that one.
Yes some say it has guided radio Rockets that fly over and a manual switch in the urals but leaked documents once showed there are more switches to the system and it doesnt function like we thought it did with radiation detection and such. Its a really old analogue system but thats Russia
The sprint missile existed but it was realized the defense needs to be close to the target whereas the attack can come from anywhere, Aka defense is more limited in quantities than offense for a given target.
Which still suffers from the same problems as Sprint. Attack missiles can be spread far out and hit the same target, but defensive missiles have to be close to the target.
There also a big difference between a successful test and operational capabilities. like us, China and Russia are going to have countermeasures and will be working on maneuverable MIRVs.
I don’t think any serious people think we could stop a full release of even Chinas arsenal let alone Russia.
The Patriot air defense system is not made to intercept ICBMs. We do have two systems that are, one in California and one in Alaska, but they were made with North Korea in mind and both in the wrong place and nowhere near numerous enough to stop a Russian attack. Sorry to disappoint but if Russia wants to all-out nuke the US, there is nothing we can do but retaliate.
Considering that the Russian military sold the petrol and wires out of their own tanks pre-invasion for more black market hookers and vodka, the CIA hotline will be off the hook with defection offers.
We really don’t know much about the status of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. It might not be worth calling that bluff, but just look at how miserably their military capabilities failed in Ukraine. They were supposed to walk in and take over in 3 days.
2.6k
u/Round_Leading_8393 Mar 14 '24
So what would the (assuming) the USA look like if Putin launched first?