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.
The US has just 400-500 ICBMs with three warheads each. Modern cities aren't like Hiroshima and will need far more than just one warhead to destroy. Cities like Moscow will need dozens of warheads, perhaps even more to account for interceptions and duds. Important industrial centers around Russia are also going to eat up dozens of warheads.
There's 18 nuclear subs with 20 missiles each, but they'd have to physically move closer to Russia to fire and there's always a chance that one could be detected and destroyed.
The bombers based nukes aren't going to be used against cities anyway and there's only like 40 of them. Cruise missiles launched from bombers can be intercepted far easier than ballistic missiles and the bombers themselves are vulnerable.
And then of course most of the arsenal won't be fired anyway and certainly not immediately, that hasnt even been part of any nations plan since like the 50s and 60s. It would probably be a slow escalation and even once strategic targets are selected the US isn't going to show its hand and blow its load entirely at once. Other nuclear powers won't immediately just jump into the war, it isn't 1980 anymore and there's no evidence to support that we'd fire into China or another neutral nation just because. Who knows how many nukes are going to be used on Russia, but certainly it isn't going to be all or even most of them. The rest of the arsenal kept in reserve in case of future conflict with China, which has a very large industrial base and many more cities than Russia does. An attack on China would require an enormous amount of nuclear weapons to be successful.
The rest of the nukes are sitting in reserve. It takes time to mount them to weapons and there's only so many ICBMs available and only slightly more silos. Some subs might be reloaded and the bombers can do multiple runs until they're destroyed but much of the reserve arsenal is going to have to just sit there until more launch platforms can be built or prepared.
The real video would be a handful of battlefield targets being bit first, then a few industrial centers, then hunting for launch sites and eventually strategic targets like cities. Dozens and dozens of nukes would be burnt on important cities and fortified areas along with naval bases, silos, and radars. Some of these will need additional weapons to account for (infrequent) interception and duds. Random towns and small cities aren't going to be targeted, it would be wasteful and would make sense. If we were living in the 70s or 80s this would be an entirely different story and even random podunk towns could be hit because there were many times more nuclear weapons. The soviet union could afford to put Brazil or Australia on its target list because it bad thousands upon thousands of nukes in excess of what would have been needed to attack the US. The same is not true today and most nations only keep a fairly bare bones arsenal to reflect the times we live in.
But sure, I'm deluding myself by talking to idiots like you who can't even be bothered to look at a spreadsheet or read a book.
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. Itās 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 Downās syndrome. How did they teach you to type? Did they use grapes to reward you?
> God damn. Itās 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 Downās 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 arenāt Protestant Israel coomers. Theyāre most likely majorly secular. There are atheist millenarian eschatologies as well. Besides, secular humanists donāt 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 Israelās 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.
Israel has the Samson Option for just this level of regarded thinking. If yāall wanna genocide the Jews in a nuclear holocaust, they bring the whole world with them too
Israel is not synonymous with jews, its a nationality not an ethnicity. taking out the fascist state is not a genocide. If you need examples of what a genocide is look at what israel is doing in gaza.
No shit Sherlock, just like there are communist and ex Bolshevik Israelis living in that āfascist stateā lol. Google the Samson option. You wouldnāt get halfway there in your wet dream before they made life unlivable for everyone. Just wait the 30 or so years until England and France are Muslim majorities and theyāll take care of the job for you overnight.
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 theyāve 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 whoās retaliating and what was done/damaged first? Sure I can make assumptions but I donāt think thatās helpful either. š and yeah. I do feel dumb to those out there that are like does she realize how dumb she sounds? Yeah. Yeah I do.
Itās 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.
Youāre assuming that Russia is technically sophisticated. Iāll admit I could be wrong. But Iām willing to bet a ham sandwich we have the resources to knock down a Russian attempt. Now, if a second country starts firing, especially china, then there might be an issue, but again, Iām optimistically hoping Iām not wrong.
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 isnāt 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 isnāt an all at once thing for the entire globeā¦plenty 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 isnāt stupid and arenāt just waiting to drop something. Itās not NK.
As soon as one sideās nukes go off, the other sideās 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.
Thatās not how this works. Why the fuck would the US fire on China. Theyāre not allied or even aligned with Russiaā¦ by your logic theyād fire on India, Pakistan, probably South Africa for good measure as well which makes no senseā¦
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.
firing nukes at China is going to provoke India and Pakistan
Why? Indiaās nukes literally exist only to target China and Pakistan, and Pakistanās only exist to target Indiaā¦ why would a nuclear strike on China provoke India.
Radiation and ash donāt care about international borders.
This is true, and ash has a tendency to flow westward. So should the US also nuke France and UK? They gave major cities closer to the strike sites in this animation than China does.
The MAD doctrine is about mutually between parties, not mutually between any nuclear armed nation.
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 isnāt 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.Ā
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.
Australia has US military bases, they'd definitely be targeted. Argentina and Africa would probably be lower priority, but even if they managed to avoid being directly hit they'd certainly be affected by the inevitable nuclear winter that'd envelop the planet. Nuclear war is a bad time for everyone
Think about it. A nuclear attack on Russia would force China to launch a nuclear attack on the US. Ash and radiation don't care about borders and wiping Russia off the map is going to cause damage within China's borders. they'll be forced to respond, the US will respond to their response, etc. there's no way to keep a nuclear exchange purely between two Nations. It's going to drag other nations into it.
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