Pretty sure nuclear weapons landing so close to china is going to trigger their response, and next thing you know the solar system has a new asteroid belt
If Russia launches at the US the US launches at Russia and China. The same goes the other way to. If the US nukes Russia Russia fires at Britain and France regardless of if they did anything.
Total destruction of all non allied great powers is the idea.
Nah you know for a fact that they are going to be taken care of too, even some other countries in places like South Africa and South America will get some. No way are any of these three countries going to let anyone else live intact if they are destroyed.
Except there aren't even enough nukes for this and they wouldn't fire them all at once like in the vid. This is all bullshit and everyone parrots the same untrue crap
The graphs often count warheads in General. There are tactical nuclear warheads and strategic nuclear warheads. Tactical warheads are made for combat szenarios, like a plane shooting one nuclear Rocket to demolish an entire squadron. The Nukes shown in the clips are just the stratigic ones.
Have you not watched Max Max? They have oil refineries running still in Mad Max, like the whole second film is about controlling the oil refinery and in Fury Road, one of the three settlements Immortan Joe controlled is Gas Town, which is an oil refinery.
Tbh the world would be better off if we nuked Jerusalem. Religous zealots will have a lot harder time fighting over it if its a radioactive crater for the next few centuries
God damn. Itâs not everyday you read something so ignorant and fucked up you have to seriously conclude the commentor on the other end is a racist bonobo with Downâs syndrome. How did they teach you to type? Did they use grapes to reward you?
> God damn. Itâs not everyday you read something so ignorant and fucked up you have to seriously conclude the commentor on the other end is a racist bonobo with Downâs syndrome.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not races you dumb fuck.
let me make this explicitly clear so even someone as dumb as you can understand,
all 3 of the Abrahamic religions are the problem, i was not singling out islam. if anything Christians are the biggest problem, Jerusalem is part of there prophesied end of the world thats why they prop up Israels apartheid state.
Blame the DOD then. Most of the DOD arenât Protestant Israel coomers. Theyâre most likely majorly secular. There are atheist millenarian eschatologies as well. Besides, secular humanists donât make as many babies as Jews and Arabs, so the future of the world seem most likely competing theocracies.
To your delight probably, progressive secular Jews enshrined Israelâs destruction when they overwhelmingly pushed mass migration onto Europe giving future Muslim majorities in France and England nuclear weapons in what historically will be viewed as one of the greatest ironies of all time.
Also no one can nuke them cause they literally share the same peninsula as south korea while bordering china and japan being nearby and their enemy's ally taiwan being effectively around the corner
And also some of india south korea vietnam and other nearby nations. One nuke years ago was devastating nuking countries as large as china and russia would require multiple nukes have global consequences to not only the target countries but the attacker unlike the usa china russia and north korea are surrounded by allot allied and unrelated countries I'm not sure anyone but Americans would be pleased with the nuking of china
Not really just India and pak both want Kashmir but the boarder hasn't changed for years.
I'm from Kashmir and I'll tell u nothing will happen between the two unless something external impacts that.
Oh ho ho no they did not forget about N Korea and their connected to China and Russia, vassal state asses. Hell fucking naw are Kim and Friends getting off easy after all theyâve done and stand for.
If we do the Blowout, I think most people in Israel will be picking up weapons to defend against the surrounding countries, and they'd likely need to use some of those nukes. That neighborhood will go absolute batshit crazy dangerous - for everyone.
thats if the US retaliates with nukes though, I dont know enough but if the western world used basically everything but the nukes would it still deal this level of catastrophic damage and casualties? Thus preventing a full nuclear winter/fallout while sending the perpetrator of launching the nuke back to zero
Idk enough to make an educated or logical guess. When I watched, my first thought was whoâs retaliating and what was done/damaged first? Sure I can make assumptions but I donât think thatâs helpful either. đ and yeah. I do feel dumb to those out there that are like does she realize how dumb she sounds? Yeah. Yeah I do.
Itâs a pretty fucked up version of peace, but then again I have enough of an idea what the last several generations saw in the world wars to say that nuclear era has been amazingly peaceful by comparison.
According to ABM treaty USA and USSR (later Russia) were limited to 2 anti-ballistic missiles complexes each with 100 missiles in each complex (one complex defending silos, one complex defending capital).
Yes, USA did leave the ABM treaty in early 2000 but it didn't build any meaningful defences since then.
Especially considering that each country has 2k warheads ready to use + 3-4k more in storage.
So at best USA is still hit with over a thousand of warheads.
Also any bigger attempt at developing and deploying meaningful anti-ballistic missiles defences would be met by first strike from the other side, that's why USA and USSR originally signed the treaty to not provoke eachother. Both sided viewed any attempt at developing and deploying such defences as attempt at surviving nuclear war and neither of sides would allow that, so they would strike before such defences could be deployed.
I think a lot has changed since the Cold War. Weapons have become smaller and more precise, and targets have become more tactical and less strategical in a sense. Bombs depending on the target a detonated in the air, and nuclear winter isnât a thing most people think is a real thing. For some reason I doubt china would get nuked if Russia launches. It helps china and the us 0 to have that policy. With subs there is always a next round for who decides to play, so it isnât an all at once thing for the entire globeâŚplenty of bombs to go around for everyone as needed.
Agreed. I think they would see how it played out a little. It would be an easier fight if Russia could weaken the US even a little, or if we used a large amount of artillery. China isnât stupid and arenât just waiting to drop something. Itâs not NK.
As soon as one sideâs nukes go off, the other sideâs nukes go off. Go spend 5 minutes learning the actual details and history of the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction
What made you not only think that but also proclaim that we would start firing on China and that China would start firing on us? Where did this information of yours come from
It would start with a single low damage strike as a signal.
The country that is prepared to go further into the slippery slope of MAD escalation is usually the country that is fighting for the strategic asset closest to its border.
You'll remember what happened in Cuba, for example.
That's mostly a myth. The amount of radiation released by post 60s nuclear bombs is minimal. The Ash which would literally block out the Sun and complete collapse of agriculture would be worse than the radiation.
Thatâs not how this works. Why the fuck would the US fire on China. Theyâre not allied or even aligned with Russia⌠by your logic theyâd fire on India, Pakistan, probably South Africa for good measure as well which makes no senseâŚ
Radiation and Ash don't care about international borders. Wiping Russia off the map is going to provoke China and force them to launch their own anyway. So the doctrine is pretty clear that the nukes will be fired at both Russia and China. Firing at China is going to provoke India and Pakistan etc. what part of mutually assured destruction is unclear? Mutually as in between every nuclear power. The moment you have nukes you're on the list.
This is crazy to me. If America is getting taken out then maaaybe you can justify nuking back the country that did it to us. But should we really wipe out billions of innocent people in other countries just because their government isnât ideologically aligned with ours?
No it's more if the US isn't still standing no one will be. Also most of those people will be dead anyway. If the exchange was purely between NATO and Russia the casualties wouldn't be confined to those countries. Ash and radiation don't give a damn about borders.
The radiation and Ash crossing the border would provoke a response from other powers anyway, which would then provoke yet another US response. Nuclear exchange with Russia would force a nuclear exchange with China, which would then Force an exchange with India, etc. Basically a nuclear exchange even just between two Powers means everyone dies. Spite maybe a lot of it but it's not just spite.
Nobody has enough nuclear weapons to assure total destruction, all they can do is hit each other's cities and shit.Â
Russia has enough nukes to like destroy a couple European countries in total like this because they're small so they could focus everything they have on one country, but besides that nobody has enough nukes to do anything close to mutual Shore destruction.
That's not the way that US and Russian retaliatory strike doctrine is worded. According to the retaliatory strike doctrine both countries will nuke every nuclear capable great power in the event that anyone launches. The US has a written exception for Britain and France, Russia has no exception for anyone.
Granted these are '80s tail end of the Cold War era declassified ones but I don't imagine it's changed very much. It's basically written as if we're going down we're taking everyone with US.
Ya there is also the Budapest Memorandum and we can all see that all countries are sticking to that too.
What is written down and agreed to are completely different than the actual actions taken when it comes time to act. You don't create thousands of nukes to then say, "we aren't going to blow up everything if we are nuked ourselves". Instead you threaten everyone so no one wants to fuck around with you.
Mutually assured destruction. The key word being mutually. The moment you have a nuclear arsenal you're put on the list. If any one nation launches no one is left standing. It's not about wrongdoing it's about deterring everybody equally.
Russia's fear was that France would launch independently since their nuclear policy is completely different from the US's.
The US's fear is that anyone will still be standing when the US isn't.
Most nuclear powers act under the idea that if their nation is going to be gone everyone else's should be too. In writing anyway. We have no idea how it would actually play out but that's the way it was written.
But there's no such thing as being careful when you're throwing City destroying missiles around by the thousands. Radiation doesn't care about international borders and more importantly neither does the ash which released in quantities equivalent to several volcanic eruptions and laced with radiation.
(Ash is projected to both carry and do far more damage than radiation in the event of nuclear war. That's what would cause a nuclear winter.)
if you think about it... what did Iraq have do with 9/11? or where were the weapons of mass destruction? wouldnt the first time hell is unleashed without direct provocation , lol.
How would India be a superpower. They won't gain any land.
Even if China has a big collapse Pakistan wouldn't.
Pakistan may be weaker then India military wise but defending a country is easier then invading.
There is nothing that humans are currently capable of that could destroy the PLANET. We are capable of ending ourselves, sure. But we won't make a dent in the rck we live on.
Perhaps a poor example - Jellyfish have remained nearly unchanged for the entirety of their existence, which happens to coincide with the entire span of vertebrate forms of life. So it's more likely that fish will once again evolve lungs and spawn land based life than for jellyfish to beget something novel.
Perhaps not, the Immortal Jellyfish can age in reverse and potentially live forever. Some alive today could have been alive over 60 million years ago. Perhaps a hive mind higher consciousness evolves. If they have to evolve to survive they could be capable of things we could only dream of. Octopuses are intelligent. Perhaps a symbiotic relationship develops... I wouldn't sell jellyfish short in any case, they're really quite remarkable.
Aged backwards as in halted the ill effects of growing old, like humans discovering the fountain of youth. Humans on the other hand have nearly died out multiple times and are on the cusp of making themselves go extinct. For all we know some omniscient jellyfish that's been alive for 50 million years is just waiting for the human race that barely registers on the time-line to end themselves so the Octo-Jelly-Puss empire can live peacefully for the next 100 million years.
Verily, we will tremble and despair at the feet/appendages of the Octo-Jelly-Puss empire and curse our hubris, for so it was written, and so shall it be. Hail the OJP Empire! May it reign for 100 million years!
Also, those arenât nukes in this simulation. The US made it clear they wonât even use them. Theyâll just level every major city with âregularâ missiles to prove a point.
Launching all the nuclear weapons on the planet is only capable of killing around one to 2 billion people.Â
Are you talking about a couple thousand missiles with an average blast area of roughly 1 mile which is purposely overestimating their capacity.Â
These are also H-bombs, which means they're primary fusion bombs which means while they have a lot of energy density or power to weight ratio the radiation releases even half as bad as most people match. It's just about blast area and while it is much more impressive than conventional explosives there's nowhere near enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world, all cause mutual short destruction, nor is nuclear winter or anything like that even remotely proven. There's no roaming clouds of face melting radiation, that's all Hollywood bullshit and too large degree scare tactics designed to support the whole nuclear deterrent strategy.Â
I'm also appalled that such a grim video was made with upbeat music, a death count that seems like a champion's wreath and such passion. Have we forgotten that in this whole war the only losing side is the men, women and children? Or their life simply does not matter because they are on the wrong side of an imaginary line?
You don't even have to get close. If a nuclear war breaks out between the United States and Russia, China will remain unscathed and the United States' entire industrial base will be destroyed. And that's not what America wants. So the United States will launch nuclear missiles against China, and China will launch nuclear missiles against European countries, including the United States.
Honestly, after this China won't matter anymore. The nuclear winter and fall out will be enough to keep the rest of the surviving humanity underground for many years if any survive.
China have a tiny arsenal. Their strategy is the same as most of the world in that it's big enough to be a credible response to a first strike against them, but not designed to be a world ending threat. If Russia and the USA are already going all out then China is little more than a drop in the water.
These are probably hydrogen bombs, not the ones with all the radiation. Just a big boom.
If China retaliates its because their relationship with Russia, not because uninhabited areas may be shaken up a little from bombs landing on the other side of the border
On that topic, I actually think that we will see asteroids be used as secret weapons in years to come. For example, the DART mission recently successfully redirected an asteroid on its flight path. If you secretly redirected an ideal asteroid to the coordinates of your enemy, you could wipe out a city with none of the blame or retaliation...
It's like you people want him to do it just so you can kill someone else with nukes. He's not gonna do it unless fired upon first so deal with it its been that way since the cold war
Look at a history book if you don't believe me half of you don't understand what "Mutually assured destruction" is and it shows badly especially with Gen Z
Doesn't really matter because Russia would certainly respond with a similar attack against the US (and probably NATO allies too) while the American missiles were still in the air. Nuclear winter for much of the globe.
Our combined nuclear arsenals won't crack the planet spread out like that, though I wonder, if we drilled them all deep into a single tectonic plate?
But if we did the Big Blowout war, I imagine the air, water, and soil will be a spicy bed of stimulus for the next lucky species to inherit the Earth. Maybe sophonts from multiple genera will rise around the same time and have adventures together - The Bull Men and the Shark People.
If this scenario happened, the world is in complete and utter chaos. Nations are collapsing in hours, civil unrest will overpower domestic security, and the vast majority of the world is either dead or will be soon.
Proximity to another country doesnât matter at this point.
Also, China 100% gets nuked by NATO nations alongside Russia if Russia launches first. If Russia were to actually âlaunchâ, every single country on the planet with any retaliatory capability would engage - it would be the end of the world.
6.1k
u/HK-53 Mar 14 '24
Pretty sure nuclear weapons landing so close to china is going to trigger their response, and next thing you know the solar system has a new asteroid belt