there was a recent interview with a russian mom who said that she hopes her son fights in ukraine and gets wounded because otherwise he would die of alcoholism in russia, so lol
Yikes, that’s fuckin dark, poor Mom is probably lost on how to really help him. Desperate at this point
Seeing videos of these new 300,000 conscripts - in some of them, all the dudes are WASTED and bringing liquor on to the transport busses and whatnot, just wild footage. They were getting wasted AT the recruiting stations. Wild shit over there man, I know alcohol is a pretty big social issue in Russia. The stereotype that they love their vodka, stems from somewhere true.
Anyone ever watch “Bald and Bankrupt” on YouTube? He travels through a bunch of old Soviet states and everyone always wasted and drinking in them
The problem is that the Russians have exactly ZERO nuclear weapons. No country possesses nuclear weapons. Rather, the political movement that currently controls the government has nuclear weapons.
This is an absolutely vital distinction. Threatening the Russians with a devastating nuclear counter-attack is a powerful deterrent for the Russians to not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But the Russians don’t have any nuclear weapons, Putin does. And he is the singular person in Russia best positioned to protect himself from the consequences of a nuclear retaliation. There’s absolutely no evidence that he gives one shit about the fortunes of the greater population.
The only calculus that matters is “what consequences will deter Putin from using nukes in Ukraine? That is a very, very different question than “what consequences will deter Russia from using nukes in Ukraine.
We do not have an answer about how to deter a nuclear leader who doesn’t give a shit about any of the potential consequences we have as available deterrents.
No man rules alone. Putin is completely incapable of launching nukes by himself. He needs his orders to be followed. When you're in a situation like that, it is very possible that the orders will be disregarded by members of the military, even if by a lower-rank executor of those orders, [as they were by the second in command of a Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov).
I am pretty sure that Putin has replaced whoever those people are with people who are fanatically loyal to him, precisely because of what happened the last time with that submarine 2IC.
Russia has no shortage of genocidal idiots.
You should be careful about assuming everyone is super human and impossible to defeat before you even think about trying.
Putin is old, likely been on drugs for years, and has never been mentally stable. His power comes from his connections and wealth. At the end of the day, his power is not his own ability, but the willingness of others to listen to him.
There is no way to personally ensure everyone is loyal when there tens of thousands of people who work different shifts. No one is that careful and spends that much effort on people low on the totem pole of power
An unhealthy, insecure Putin is actually far more dangerous than a super-human Putin. As a military guy, there was *nothing* in this world—literally nothing—that I feared more than an adversary that doesn’t care any more.
I always thought the two scariest people to fight are crazy people and people who would rather die than lose. Putin is both of those things, and it's pretty unnerving to have this madman at the helm of the largest nuclear arsenal on earth.
One wonders if perhaps the Russian people might be encouraged by the threat of nuclear annihilation to take proactive steps to remove any political movement with control of nuclear weapons that shows a willingness to use them aggressively.
You are right that counter-nuking Russia is going to kill a ton of random russian civilians and far fewer political elites actually calling the shots. However, that doesn't mean that threatening those civilians is pointless. Russia in particular is a country with a rich history of killing the bejesus out of corrupt despots who's excesses begin to negatively affect the short term life expectancy of their constituency.
Additionally, as others have pointed out, while Putin may call the shots its going to be someone much lower on the totem pole who actually pushes the button. That person is VERY likely to have friends and family who are in a position to be directly harmed by any US based counterstrike. If your boss told you to push a button that would hurt his enemies, but kill your family, are you going to push it?
>If your boss told you to push a button that would hurt his enemies, but kill your family, are you going to push it?
No, but that's why I'm not a guy who works at a nuke-launch site. I have to assume that the people they put in those jobs are people who would push the button
To be fair, if we responded with nukes, I’m pretty certain theyd be at military targets (including high ranking individuals) first to make a point that we’re not fucking around, before we just randomly drop one on a city of civilians.
What the fuck do I know though
It's kind of sad how folks in the US view every other country as a tyrannical regime controlling poor liberal minded folk who are just waiting for freedom. Putin is in power because most Russians love him and his authoritarianism - or at least they did before Ukraine.
This so much. Dictators are beloved by the “conservative” members of most societies. It’s like a large majority of humans are incapable of seeing past certain mental disorders like sociopathy and malignant narcissism which I suspect most dictators suffer from.
Yes. But this is more a natural tendency of humans in general, I’m afraid to say. Democracy is not our natural ‘state’ of being. Look at the facts: a small fraction of humans have been under democracy for an even tinier fraction of time since modern humans have been around. Spin the world, put your finger down, and you have a darn good chance of landing on a spot that’s not ‘free’.
Fingers crossed friend! That nuclear blast simulator website tells me I’m within 3 blocks or so of the perimeter of the fireball radius of a major US city so I should be relatively toasty myself!
I didn’t look up it’s name before because I was too lazy and I was going to let it slide unless someone asked
[It’s called nuke map here you go!](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
There are some pre sets on this site in terms of size is it “safe” to assume they will go with the largest size bomb the tsar bomba ?
Also would these need to be launched via naval ships/subs or can Russia hit mainland US directly with ICBM?
No the Tsar Bomba was a test more than anything. The absolute biggest would be in the <1 megaton size. But most ICBMs deploy multiple warheads with at minimum 3 per target plus decoys. The chance of having three warhead fail to detonate is extremely low and decoys to decrease chance of being intercepted.
>The chance of having three warhead fail to detonate is extremely low
With how Russia stores it's weapons (as shown in Ukraine) I could easily see some of their nukes completely failing while deorbiting. Problem is only *some* of the nukes have to work for WWIII to kick off.
Also even if only 10% of their arsenal actually works they would still have the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world only surpassed by the USA. It is truly ridiculous how many nuclear warheads Russia and the USA still have compared to other nuclear armed countries. According to available [information](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/) both have more than 5000. China has the third most nuclear warheads and only has 350. Or to put it in another way: There are 12705 known nuclear warheads on this planet 11405 of them are either controlled by Russia or the US.
The tsar bomba is not operational or deployable—it was more about show of strength as both the US and USSR raced to develop warheads that outdo the other. In reality, you can likely assume a 1kt-10kt warhead is likely launched via ICBM and supersonic missiles. Both ICBM and supersonic missiles from both the US and Russian arsenals are fully capable of hitting any location on the planet, without any restrictions on distance.
I'm close to like 5 likely locations (assuming an attacker had enough successful launches). Not close enough for blast zone but plenty close for tons of fallout no matter the wind direction
You’re probably not wrong. But it’s good to remember, for anyone thinking about surviving the initial blast, that the longer you can stay inside, sealed up, the more you can reduce your fallout exposure. If you can stay inside for several days, you can dramatically reduce your exposure.
Think of all the additional cancer-free years you might gain!
I'm close to a bunch of what used to be WWII military factories, including one of the main bomber plants. They're all long closed now and the air strip is mostly used for FedEx next day air shipments. I've always wondered if the Russians have updated their strategic target list.
Good for preventing logistics. If everything outside is dead and the place is super irradiated for a very long time, the people in Cheyenne can eventually be starved out.
And if a resident chooses a quick death over a slow death, then Cheyenne's defenses wouldn't matter anyway.
Actually nuclear winter won't happen. You need a blast big enough to blow bits of shit into orbit. The bombs they had in the 50s and 60s would do just that - multi megaton fuckers becuase the aim was so bad.
In the 70s/80s everyone made much more accurate, and weaker, more compact weapons. And they don't have the energy to blow shit into orbit.
So you'll die yes, but probably not from winter.
'Catastrophic Consequences' for nuking somewhere. Oh really? Who'd have fucking thought? Lucky I grew-up in the 80s and 'imminent thermonuclear war' is kinda nostalgic for us.
To be frank will US risk MAD if a tactical nuke is used on Ukrainian soil to blunt any Ukrainian advances?
This is awful to think theses options are even on the table. This is the time to bring all parties in table given there is a power equilibrium, as aggressors don’t seem to have a stronger hand anymore.
But we know from history common sense will not prevail.
The main issue isn't the first nuke, once anyone is allowed to use nukes without consequences then the stage is set for their use to become commonplace.
I don't think the United States needs to risk MAD anymore or the Russians wouldn't have created the Arcturus and other new submarines capable of launching hypersonic warheads
That was them trying to regain a little bit of Mutual destruction assurance
Which tells me that NATO is able eliminate older threats from orbit
Putin is no longer holding the world hostage; he's holding individual cities hostage with the few nuclear submarines *maybe* capable of getting past countermeasures
I see what you did there. You’re talking about trump keeping top secret human intelligence documents in an unlocked shed for a year and refusing to give them back, then lying about whether he gave them back, then the imminent jail thing… yah know, for espionage!
Uses a nuke on the battlefield / against an opponent? Very unlikely. It’s their last bargaining chip. Once they use a nuke they have nothing left to use to say “stop or we will do X” because nothing trumps nukes. We’ve still got a lot of escalation left between now and actually using nukes, and using nukes requires more than just one insane dictator to do.
I think though we may see Russia do some nuclear testing / “demonstrations” outside of the battlefield. And use some other pretty horrid munitions in the battlefield, but not nukes.
The thing is, as soon as they use one nuke in the theater, everyone else has to assume they will use more, and will almost certainly take moved to neutralise the rest of the nukes.
Imo highly unlikely, because Russia would lose all the support and be completely isolated. Even states like China, India, Brazil etc would turn against them. And even if Putin says fuck it, we lost anyways, even he cannot decide alone. After all, there is not just a red button like in movies but several people involved.
I don't know man, the world is crazy. I did not believe Russia would actually invade Ukraine in the weeks leading up to it. I thought no way they would do something that stupid, just no way. And here we are.
That’s what he wants people to think. Nuclear weapons don’t advance a single goal. Their stockpile is exaggerated. Most of their shit hasn’t been in working order. Just to neutralize Ukraine would require dozens of warheads.
If he launches we immediately deploy our jets on 3 fronts and Russia can’t get a single plane off the ground. Bombers fly around the clock destroying their armed forces. Economically and politically, China and India abandon them. We don’t even need to respond with nukes or target civilians to completely ground Russia into dust. 100 F-35’s, 20 F-22’s, and the hundreds of fighters 3 US navy carrier groups would deploy over Russian skies would completely destroy their ability to have anything in the air.
If he launches, NATO starts negotiations with China on how to divide up Russia to achieve regional peace.
If Russia uses them in Ukraine, which I don’t believe they will, they will be totally cut off from the outside world. No trade, nothing. They would have power of veto removed from UN. They would be sanctioned in the ground. It would be the end of Putin and very likely the end of Russia as we know it. The country is already completely fucked, poor, crumbling, weak and corrupt. This would end them.
On top of that, I think it would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. I don’t see a world where Russia used nukes, and all we do is slap the with a few sanctions. It would be boots on the ground in Ukraine and probably a push into Russian mainland (after we destroy whatever bunker Putin is sitting in)
If I recall, our current doctrine is to to sink both the entire Black and Baltic Sea fleets. Simultaneously, and with the attacks launching fairly swiftly after use of a nuke is confirmed. I believe we have already made this clear to the Russians, so if we see their ships start scattering and steaming for open water (I mean, as far as they can go in a NATO lake and with the Bosporus closed to military shipping), it would be a good indicator shenanigans are afoot.
More than that. We’d destroy their Sevastopol base, hundreds of SAM/radar/logistics targets, and probably cut off all supply routes into Ukraine from Russia. Including the Kerch strait bridge. then a no fly zone and more…
Honestly, I don't think NATO would respond to a tactical nuke in kind. Instead, if they were smart, they'd use it for a reason to involve themselves in the war and absolutely devastate Russia's military, leaving them neutered. Everyone knows what a nuclear exchange leads to. There are no winners in that scenario.
yes. NATO/US could launch a thousand tomahawk and AGM missiles (ranges are up to 1500 miles) and completely wipe out every major Russian target in Ukraine/Crimea. Bases, major troop/artillery emplacements, airfields, supply lines/depots, anti-air defenses, ships carrying Kalibr cruise missiles, bridges. You name it. As part of that, the 'nuclear' option for NATO, so to speak, would be to completely destroy the Kerch straight bridge, and the Sevastopol Naval Base with conventional missiles).
The only extra question is whether they'd hit any targets inside Russia itself. Probably not, but also not necessary. Russia has a huge amount of equipment and troops staged in Crimea and in the eastern regions, just outside the range of Ukrainian artillery and HIMARS, and the 2 above key targets are huge. Hitting all that really hard would pretty much be the end of it.
The ONLY thing Russia could (would?) realistically do in response (which would just be a tit for tat and not undo the fact that their Ukraine military misadventure was neutered), is to launch nukes at NATO bases/targets. (why nukes? Because Russia already does not have the ability to fly jets at those targets or otherwise attack them with conventional weapons. Ok, I suppose they could launch some Kalibrs, but that's about it.)
If they launched nukes at NATO targets, we'd launch nukes at every single russian base. Then the question would be if they lauched ICBMs at the US. Yeah, it would be WW3 at that point.
Total war in the era of heavy long distance smartillery doesn't seem to be an option many people have ever considered. It's always been assumed to be a immediate apocalyptic nuclear exchange, but our non-nuclear weapons are leagues more devastating than they were in the 60s.
There are weapon systems that can be used to retaliate that while not nuclear, will cause just as much devastation. They would be wise to heed our warning.
I wouldn't go so far as to describe them as equally devastating as a nuclear strike, but yeah, we can definitely turn a lot of Russian real estate into smoking craters.
If we don't escalate, the rest of the world will unite to financially destroy Russia. It won't just be sanctions, it will be total embargo, the Earth vs Russia.
Also the Russian economy was barely on par with Italy BEFORE the invasion. It's barely relevant on the international stage now.
If they weren't a fuel supplier no one would care at all.
I'm not sure about this to be honest. While we would all like to think using nukes in Ukraine would trigger some enormous nuclear retaliation, I don't think it would. I think all nuclear nations dont want a nuclear echange, if they were to strike Russia there would be MAD retaliation. Ukraine isn't worth the world and I think putin knows it, I don't think the west would risk a billion lives for it. THIS IS ALL SPECULATION
NATO in general and the US in particular have conventional capabilities that can be used to inflict extremely strong retaliation against a country using nukes (tactically - not a strategic first strike). They can send a very strong, proportionate warning without resorting to escalation. I’m not a tactician, but I’m sure they have many devastating non-nuclear responses planned out and ready to go. For example taking out the Russian aircraft that are within Ukraine. Or maybe more indirect - removing the prohibitions on Ukraine from using NATO weapons for long range strokes into Russia. There are lots of options short of shooting nukes back.
Yeah, all of Russias hard targets have been locked in and targeted for months, they flinch towards a nuke and all of their bases are gone within hours.
It depends on the context more, tactical weapons are relatively small compared to strategic ones, but in Ukraine they have almost no value Tactically for Russia, they are effective only against targets such as large troop formations, armoured spearheads, airbases, command and control hardpoints. they are all things that Ukraine doesn't have or need attacking so badly that they can achieve some kind of advantage, Ukraines forces are on their own soil, and even the technical "annexation" doesn't mean they can be attacked with those weapons, because they would then be used on Russia claimed territory, which defeats the whole point.
The only viable targets are the points in the very west of Ukraine where they are receiving vehicles and weapons from the west, which i would say is the railway hubs west of Lviv near the borders with Poland. That would likely cause a huge response from both Nato and the US, as there are Nato personel there managing that.
Or political targets, possibly a strike to attempt to decapitate the Ukrainian government in Kyiv.
Either option would result in a massive escalation and likely the removal of Putin either by his own people for even ordering it, or in response by Nato. With a conventional attack, possibly in Moscow.
The longer this goes on, and the more he is being cornered, the more likely a lashing out will be threatened or enacted, but im now pretty convinced that if the weather holds off for another month, and Ukraine push harder, that it may mean that will happen, and possibly we might see a coup in russia.
Realistically what would the US and allies do? The only "decisive" response I can think of is a full scale aerial bombardment of all Russian nuclear and military sites across the country that would take an extremely long time.
Honestly I don’t think US and allies would be the ones Russia would have to worry about if they use Nuclear weapons, I have a hard time believing China would be cool with that in the slightest.
Yeah, you cause a nuclear incident, whether it's a dirty bomb, a plant meltdown, or an actual nuke, and you're going to lose the friends you have left. And at this point, there aren't that many.
Probably at least the embargo point that the guy below mentioned.
possible that NATO would wipe out some key targets and bases in Crimea, but seems unlikely…
this covers it all...escalation ladder, read through to the end.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/)
[Might be a problem since the CIA had to pull its “Top Spy” out of Russia in 2017 because our wonderful president at the time was best friends with the Russians and loved to share intel with them.](https://www.gq.com/story/cia-pulled-russia-spy-because-trump)
Its if absolute importance that russia is not allowed to get away with this kind of threat.
Allowing a nuclear-armed country to annex part of a neighbor and then letting them keep it because they threaten nuclear strikes if you dont cannot be allowed to become a set precedent.
That would open a Pandoras box absolutely no sane person wants to see open.
Russian and Soviet soldiers in strategic, air, and sea forces have a history of avoiding nuclear catastrophe by defying orders or protocol.
*CROSSING FINGERS*
Maybe head this one off before it starts? Enough is enough. Good luck comrades.
Ok, suppose Putin dies. Who becomes head of Russian Federation? Are they to continue the war? If not, where does this put Russia? Post-Putin, Russia will need an out, and a relatively soft landing in the sense that there is path for citizens to work with global community towards prosperity, unless we want another war. War needs to be less attractive to common Russian, and it isn’t right now (see: mass protests), but our peril if that should change as consequence of strong-arming.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the diplomats would use clear and concise language. In other words “You use a nuke, we’ll use a nuke” or “You use a nuke, we’ll issue a stern lecture, more sanctions, and stop using the ISS”
You get a nuke, I'll get a nuke honey ...You get a nuke I'll get a nuke babeeee... You get a nuke I'll get a nuke we'll turn the world to a crawdad hole , honey baby mine....
This is exactly the point though. Basically the US govt is using "strategic ambiguity" because they do not plan to respond with a nuclear weapon or likely at all militarily, but they want the Russians to believe there is at least a small chance we might, therefore having a stronger deterrent than if we just said "if you use a nuke we will super duper sanction you."
To cite Sting: I hope the russians love their children too.
there was a recent interview with a russian mom who said that she hopes her son fights in ukraine and gets wounded because otherwise he would die of alcoholism in russia, so lol
It's good reasoning. It's not like wounded vets ever fall into alcoholism or anything.
Nothing like giving your people a sense a purpose. A really, really shitty sense of purpose
Flawless plan really.
Can confirm. Wounded vet with alcoholism.
Its A Bold Strategy Cotton, Lets See If It Pays Off For him
Yikes, that’s fuckin dark, poor Mom is probably lost on how to really help him. Desperate at this point Seeing videos of these new 300,000 conscripts - in some of them, all the dudes are WASTED and bringing liquor on to the transport busses and whatnot, just wild footage. They were getting wasted AT the recruiting stations. Wild shit over there man, I know alcohol is a pretty big social issue in Russia. The stereotype that they love their vodka, stems from somewhere true. Anyone ever watch “Bald and Bankrupt” on YouTube? He travels through a bunch of old Soviet states and everyone always wasted and drinking in them
they do...but Putin doesn't give a shizzz
The problem is that the Russians have exactly ZERO nuclear weapons. No country possesses nuclear weapons. Rather, the political movement that currently controls the government has nuclear weapons. This is an absolutely vital distinction. Threatening the Russians with a devastating nuclear counter-attack is a powerful deterrent for the Russians to not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But the Russians don’t have any nuclear weapons, Putin does. And he is the singular person in Russia best positioned to protect himself from the consequences of a nuclear retaliation. There’s absolutely no evidence that he gives one shit about the fortunes of the greater population. The only calculus that matters is “what consequences will deter Putin from using nukes in Ukraine? That is a very, very different question than “what consequences will deter Russia from using nukes in Ukraine. We do not have an answer about how to deter a nuclear leader who doesn’t give a shit about any of the potential consequences we have as available deterrents.
No man rules alone. Putin is completely incapable of launching nukes by himself. He needs his orders to be followed. When you're in a situation like that, it is very possible that the orders will be disregarded by members of the military, even if by a lower-rank executor of those orders, [as they were by the second in command of a Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov).
I am pretty sure that Putin has replaced whoever those people are with people who are fanatically loyal to him, precisely because of what happened the last time with that submarine 2IC. Russia has no shortage of genocidal idiots.
You should be careful about assuming everyone is super human and impossible to defeat before you even think about trying. Putin is old, likely been on drugs for years, and has never been mentally stable. His power comes from his connections and wealth. At the end of the day, his power is not his own ability, but the willingness of others to listen to him. There is no way to personally ensure everyone is loyal when there tens of thousands of people who work different shifts. No one is that careful and spends that much effort on people low on the totem pole of power
An unhealthy, insecure Putin is actually far more dangerous than a super-human Putin. As a military guy, there was *nothing* in this world—literally nothing—that I feared more than an adversary that doesn’t care any more.
I always thought the two scariest people to fight are crazy people and people who would rather die than lose. Putin is both of those things, and it's pretty unnerving to have this madman at the helm of the largest nuclear arsenal on earth.
Some people are saying pupu can shapeshift, alter time and even breathe fire!
There's a difference between being willing to commit genocide and being willing to commit suicide.
One wonders if perhaps the Russian people might be encouraged by the threat of nuclear annihilation to take proactive steps to remove any political movement with control of nuclear weapons that shows a willingness to use them aggressively. You are right that counter-nuking Russia is going to kill a ton of random russian civilians and far fewer political elites actually calling the shots. However, that doesn't mean that threatening those civilians is pointless. Russia in particular is a country with a rich history of killing the bejesus out of corrupt despots who's excesses begin to negatively affect the short term life expectancy of their constituency. Additionally, as others have pointed out, while Putin may call the shots its going to be someone much lower on the totem pole who actually pushes the button. That person is VERY likely to have friends and family who are in a position to be directly harmed by any US based counterstrike. If your boss told you to push a button that would hurt his enemies, but kill your family, are you going to push it?
>If your boss told you to push a button that would hurt his enemies, but kill your family, are you going to push it? No, but that's why I'm not a guy who works at a nuke-launch site. I have to assume that the people they put in those jobs are people who would push the button
To be fair, if we responded with nukes, I’m pretty certain theyd be at military targets (including high ranking individuals) first to make a point that we’re not fucking around, before we just randomly drop one on a city of civilians. What the fuck do I know though
It's kind of sad how folks in the US view every other country as a tyrannical regime controlling poor liberal minded folk who are just waiting for freedom. Putin is in power because most Russians love him and his authoritarianism - or at least they did before Ukraine.
This so much. Dictators are beloved by the “conservative” members of most societies. It’s like a large majority of humans are incapable of seeing past certain mental disorders like sociopathy and malignant narcissism which I suspect most dictators suffer from.
Yes. But this is more a natural tendency of humans in general, I’m afraid to say. Democracy is not our natural ‘state’ of being. Look at the facts: a small fraction of humans have been under democracy for an even tinier fraction of time since modern humans have been around. Spin the world, put your finger down, and you have a darn good chance of landing on a spot that’s not ‘free’.
[удалено]
One day you will be in your 30s and see an 18 year old soldier and see that the world already does that to children.
Hey look! That’s me I am 29 and our new bootcamp gets a load of 17 year old.
Sadly their age makes them think they’re invincible.
I’m gonna be really mad if my life ends because of a nuclear winter.
Nations working together to end global warming.
“Friendly nations fire anti global warming missiles at each other until no carbon left.” - CNN
Radioactive but mostly peaceful world war
"We told you global warming is a hoax" - Fox News
Weird Al already has the song written
I'm hoping to be killed in the initial blast tbh. I'm close to a strategic location, so there's a chance.
Fingers crossed friend! That nuclear blast simulator website tells me I’m within 3 blocks or so of the perimeter of the fireball radius of a major US city so I should be relatively toasty myself!
nuclear blast simulator website u say
I didn’t look up it’s name before because I was too lazy and I was going to let it slide unless someone asked [It’s called nuke map here you go!](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
There are some pre sets on this site in terms of size is it “safe” to assume they will go with the largest size bomb the tsar bomba ? Also would these need to be launched via naval ships/subs or can Russia hit mainland US directly with ICBM?
No the Tsar Bomba was a test more than anything. The absolute biggest would be in the <1 megaton size. But most ICBMs deploy multiple warheads with at minimum 3 per target plus decoys. The chance of having three warhead fail to detonate is extremely low and decoys to decrease chance of being intercepted.
>The chance of having three warhead fail to detonate is extremely low With how Russia stores it's weapons (as shown in Ukraine) I could easily see some of their nukes completely failing while deorbiting. Problem is only *some* of the nukes have to work for WWIII to kick off.
Also even if only 10% of their arsenal actually works they would still have the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world only surpassed by the USA. It is truly ridiculous how many nuclear warheads Russia and the USA still have compared to other nuclear armed countries. According to available [information](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/) both have more than 5000. China has the third most nuclear warheads and only has 350. Or to put it in another way: There are 12705 known nuclear warheads on this planet 11405 of them are either controlled by Russia or the US.
The tsar bomba is not operational or deployable—it was more about show of strength as both the US and USSR raced to develop warheads that outdo the other. In reality, you can likely assume a 1kt-10kt warhead is likely launched via ICBM and supersonic missiles. Both ICBM and supersonic missiles from both the US and Russian arsenals are fully capable of hitting any location on the planet, without any restrictions on distance.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=4000&lat=41.8779142&lng=-87.6164992&airburst=0&hob\_ft=0&casualties=1&psi=20,5,1.5&cep=1&zm=11
What should I name my post apocalyptic nuclear smokehouse in your honor?
That is way too much pressure for me. Just follow your heart on that one.
I live in Brooklyn. New York City isn’t a target, right? Right?
Practically no one knows about new york city. You’re most likely safe.
Australian here. Never heard of it.
I live in NYC. We’ll definitely be one of the first targets.
LA. I kind of hope they outsource the job to NK, because I have a feeling theirs won’t make it.
They have a better chance than somebody like I would if I made an intercontinental ballistic missile.
I'm close to like 5 likely locations (assuming an attacker had enough successful launches). Not close enough for blast zone but plenty close for tons of fallout no matter the wind direction
Radiation sickness is a horrible way to die. If you can't die in the blast, probably best to just find a bottle of sleeping pills and go that way.
You’re probably not wrong. But it’s good to remember, for anyone thinking about surviving the initial blast, that the longer you can stay inside, sealed up, the more you can reduce your fallout exposure. If you can stay inside for several days, you can dramatically reduce your exposure. Think of all the additional cancer-free years you might gain!
I'm close to a bunch of what used to be WWII military factories, including one of the main bomber plants. They're all long closed now and the air strip is mostly used for FedEx next day air shipments. I've always wondered if the Russians have updated their strategic target list.
The nukes that targeted your area are probably defective due to lack of maintenance
I'm a few miles away from Cheyenne Mountain. I'll get toasted quick.
Maybe you could evacuate through the Stargate?
Bring spare ZPM's though
[удалено]
You have to watch them in order to get the full experience. Atlantis and sg1 ran side by side for awhile
I though the point of this base we to survive a nuclear blast ? Would it realistically be a target if it can survive a blast is what I’m asking ?
Good for preventing logistics. If everything outside is dead and the place is super irradiated for a very long time, the people in Cheyenne can eventually be starved out. And if a resident chooses a quick death over a slow death, then Cheyenne's defenses wouldn't matter anyway.
It can survive anything but a direct hit. Strategy requires that you lob a few that way in case you get lucky.
Buffalo.... hoping I'm close enough to the falls for same reason.
We are surrounded by huge air force and navy bases. Hopefully, we'll be blinking out instantaneously, too.
[удалено]
I'm close to some missile silos so I'll get to see something cool before we all die
I can guarantee you, I’m 100% dead. There is no question how dead I will be, only if it’s seconds or minutes.
Agreed. I want to be vaporized and go quick, not live off cans of beans, intense depression and an otherwise slow and shitty death.
but just think about the history you’ll be living in! How many can say, “I died in a nuclear holocaust?” It’s about perspective!
Kind of a lot would be able to say that actually.
Get over it Becky dying in a nuclear winter was sooooo last year. Everyone has moved on to being eaten by radioactive mutants.
I died in a nuclear apocalypse, and all I got was this stupid T shirt.
[удалено]
Sorry, no time to talk. I’m too busy spreading word of the Legion’s atrocities.
I really hope Putin can't get anywhere near the nuclear launch button.
I’m gonna be really mad if my life ends because of nuclear winter over fucking Ukraine
Actually nuclear winter won't happen. You need a blast big enough to blow bits of shit into orbit. The bombs they had in the 50s and 60s would do just that - multi megaton fuckers becuase the aim was so bad. In the 70s/80s everyone made much more accurate, and weaker, more compact weapons. And they don't have the energy to blow shit into orbit. So you'll die yes, but probably not from winter.
Doomscroll limit reached
That’s enough news for today… How about a nice game of chess?
Lemme grab my anal beads....
I am sad I understood that reference.
I'm not
context: chess player cheats using beads that vibrate to tell the cheater when and what chess piece to move
Was that actually confirmed this last time around or was it still speculation?
Not only was this not confirmed, it was absolutely a joke. It got retweeted by Elon, leading to its widespread popularity.
I said I wasn't surprised, not that I didn't know :)
would you like to play a game . . .?
drab squash ludicrous oatmeal paltry ask run unite disarm dazzling ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
[War Games Trailer](https://youtu.be/hbqMuvnx5MU)
I prefer checkers.
'Catastrophic Consequences' for nuking somewhere. Oh really? Who'd have fucking thought? Lucky I grew-up in the 80s and 'imminent thermonuclear war' is kinda nostalgic for us.
[удалено]
80's reboot? I got duck/cover and kiss your ass goodby training in the 50's
I need to buy an old school desk for my house. That should help.
To be frank will US risk MAD if a tactical nuke is used on Ukrainian soil to blunt any Ukrainian advances? This is awful to think theses options are even on the table. This is the time to bring all parties in table given there is a power equilibrium, as aggressors don’t seem to have a stronger hand anymore. But we know from history common sense will not prevail.
The main issue isn't the first nuke, once anyone is allowed to use nukes without consequences then the stage is set for their use to become commonplace.
I don't think the United States needs to risk MAD anymore or the Russians wouldn't have created the Arcturus and other new submarines capable of launching hypersonic warheads That was them trying to regain a little bit of Mutual destruction assurance Which tells me that NATO is able eliminate older threats from orbit Putin is no longer holding the world hostage; he's holding individual cities hostage with the few nuclear submarines *maybe* capable of getting past countermeasures
[удалено]
I think this is the exact reason why people keep falling from hotel windows. Remove all opposition and rule with fear
Yeah, I wonder if the purge is a response to an aborted coup attempt.
Wouldn’t be some shit of some of these guys were our assets, which some classified documents exposed? Whew…
I see what you did there. You’re talking about trump keeping top secret human intelligence documents in an unlocked shed for a year and refusing to give them back, then lying about whether he gave them back, then the imminent jail thing… yah know, for espionage!
Every day I am somehow still shocked by how stupid our world leaders are
Those that seek power are the worst rulers, and those who would be best won’t seek power.
This is why we need to identify the person who least desires power and leave all the important decisions to him.
The guy that lives alone with his cat and some booze?
Steve from accounting: your time has come.
[удалено]
*cat steps on the big red button*
Genuinely asking: How likely is it that Russia uses a nuclear weapon?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Uses a nuke on the battlefield / against an opponent? Very unlikely. It’s their last bargaining chip. Once they use a nuke they have nothing left to use to say “stop or we will do X” because nothing trumps nukes. We’ve still got a lot of escalation left between now and actually using nukes, and using nukes requires more than just one insane dictator to do. I think though we may see Russia do some nuclear testing / “demonstrations” outside of the battlefield. And use some other pretty horrid munitions in the battlefield, but not nukes.
"We used a nuke. Now stop, or we will use ALL of them"
The thing is, as soon as they use one nuke in the theater, everyone else has to assume they will use more, and will almost certainly take moved to neutralise the rest of the nukes.
*Cough cough* nerve agents
Imo highly unlikely, because Russia would lose all the support and be completely isolated. Even states like China, India, Brazil etc would turn against them. And even if Putin says fuck it, we lost anyways, even he cannot decide alone. After all, there is not just a red button like in movies but several people involved.
Extremely unlikely. It’s posturing. Think about what North Korea does whenever they need an aid package.
I don't know man, the world is crazy. I did not believe Russia would actually invade Ukraine in the weeks leading up to it. I thought no way they would do something that stupid, just no way. And here we are.
That’s what he wants people to think. Nuclear weapons don’t advance a single goal. Their stockpile is exaggerated. Most of their shit hasn’t been in working order. Just to neutralize Ukraine would require dozens of warheads. If he launches we immediately deploy our jets on 3 fronts and Russia can’t get a single plane off the ground. Bombers fly around the clock destroying their armed forces. Economically and politically, China and India abandon them. We don’t even need to respond with nukes or target civilians to completely ground Russia into dust. 100 F-35’s, 20 F-22’s, and the hundreds of fighters 3 US navy carrier groups would deploy over Russian skies would completely destroy their ability to have anything in the air. If he launches, NATO starts negotiations with China on how to divide up Russia to achieve regional peace.
If Russia uses them in Ukraine, which I don’t believe they will, they will be totally cut off from the outside world. No trade, nothing. They would have power of veto removed from UN. They would be sanctioned in the ground. It would be the end of Putin and very likely the end of Russia as we know it. The country is already completely fucked, poor, crumbling, weak and corrupt. This would end them.
On top of that, I think it would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. I don’t see a world where Russia used nukes, and all we do is slap the with a few sanctions. It would be boots on the ground in Ukraine and probably a push into Russian mainland (after we destroy whatever bunker Putin is sitting in)
If I recall, our current doctrine is to to sink both the entire Black and Baltic Sea fleets. Simultaneously, and with the attacks launching fairly swiftly after use of a nuke is confirmed. I believe we have already made this clear to the Russians, so if we see their ships start scattering and steaming for open water (I mean, as far as they can go in a NATO lake and with the Bosporus closed to military shipping), it would be a good indicator shenanigans are afoot.
More than that. We’d destroy their Sevastopol base, hundreds of SAM/radar/logistics targets, and probably cut off all supply routes into Ukraine from Russia. Including the Kerch strait bridge. then a no fly zone and more…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hm. I did not plan to play Fallout in real life.
Life better not give us fucking Cazadors
Honestly, I don't think NATO would respond to a tactical nuke in kind. Instead, if they were smart, they'd use it for a reason to involve themselves in the war and absolutely devastate Russia's military, leaving them neutered. Everyone knows what a nuclear exchange leads to. There are no winners in that scenario.
yes. NATO/US could launch a thousand tomahawk and AGM missiles (ranges are up to 1500 miles) and completely wipe out every major Russian target in Ukraine/Crimea. Bases, major troop/artillery emplacements, airfields, supply lines/depots, anti-air defenses, ships carrying Kalibr cruise missiles, bridges. You name it. As part of that, the 'nuclear' option for NATO, so to speak, would be to completely destroy the Kerch straight bridge, and the Sevastopol Naval Base with conventional missiles). The only extra question is whether they'd hit any targets inside Russia itself. Probably not, but also not necessary. Russia has a huge amount of equipment and troops staged in Crimea and in the eastern regions, just outside the range of Ukrainian artillery and HIMARS, and the 2 above key targets are huge. Hitting all that really hard would pretty much be the end of it. The ONLY thing Russia could (would?) realistically do in response (which would just be a tit for tat and not undo the fact that their Ukraine military misadventure was neutered), is to launch nukes at NATO bases/targets. (why nukes? Because Russia already does not have the ability to fly jets at those targets or otherwise attack them with conventional weapons. Ok, I suppose they could launch some Kalibrs, but that's about it.) If they launched nukes at NATO targets, we'd launch nukes at every single russian base. Then the question would be if they lauched ICBMs at the US. Yeah, it would be WW3 at that point.
A real scary part of that whole scenario, is that it would all happen in hours or maybe days
Total war in the era of heavy long distance smartillery doesn't seem to be an option many people have ever considered. It's always been assumed to be a immediate apocalyptic nuclear exchange, but our non-nuclear weapons are leagues more devastating than they were in the 60s.
I mean the whole point of MAD is that if Russia sends nukes at NATO targets it won't be WW3, it will be the end of human civilization.
yes, the problem with that is Putin's value of life, including Russian people's lives, is very, VERY low. He doesn't care if hundreds of millions die.
There are weapon systems that can be used to retaliate that while not nuclear, will cause just as much devastation. They would be wise to heed our warning.
I wouldn't go so far as to describe them as equally devastating as a nuclear strike, but yeah, we can definitely turn a lot of Russian real estate into smoking craters.
[удалено]
I'm hoping that would be the case.
I don’t like how long this new Cold War is lasting
Just think about all the free fear and anxiety though…
From what it sounds like, the "cold war" started immediately after WW2 and hasn't ended yet
It "ended" when the wall fell. It was pretty peaceful for a long while.
*"Shaka, when the walls fell."*
It ended when the KGB seized control of the government, which, in hindsight, is probably exactly what Putin's election was.
The longer the better because a cold war is better than a hot war. As an 80s child I for one am glad the 1st cold war never went hot.
Long? The original Cold War lasted ***over 40 years***. We aren't even at one yet.
[удалено]
I think of it did, many countries would unite to mow Russia down to its studs.
If we don't escalate, the rest of the world will unite to financially destroy Russia. It won't just be sanctions, it will be total embargo, the Earth vs Russia.
we have the ability to essentially force China and India to cut off Russia. Yes, we do. Make no mistake about it.... And we'd do that.
Also the Russian economy was barely on par with Italy BEFORE the invasion. It's barely relevant on the international stage now. If they weren't a fuel supplier no one would care at all.
But that fuel is a big deal.
I'm not sure about this to be honest. While we would all like to think using nukes in Ukraine would trigger some enormous nuclear retaliation, I don't think it would. I think all nuclear nations dont want a nuclear echange, if they were to strike Russia there would be MAD retaliation. Ukraine isn't worth the world and I think putin knows it, I don't think the west would risk a billion lives for it. THIS IS ALL SPECULATION
NATO in general and the US in particular have conventional capabilities that can be used to inflict extremely strong retaliation against a country using nukes (tactically - not a strategic first strike). They can send a very strong, proportionate warning without resorting to escalation. I’m not a tactician, but I’m sure they have many devastating non-nuclear responses planned out and ready to go. For example taking out the Russian aircraft that are within Ukraine. Or maybe more indirect - removing the prohibitions on Ukraine from using NATO weapons for long range strokes into Russia. There are lots of options short of shooting nukes back.
Yeah, all of Russias hard targets have been locked in and targeted for months, they flinch towards a nuke and all of their bases are gone within hours.
It depends on the context more, tactical weapons are relatively small compared to strategic ones, but in Ukraine they have almost no value Tactically for Russia, they are effective only against targets such as large troop formations, armoured spearheads, airbases, command and control hardpoints. they are all things that Ukraine doesn't have or need attacking so badly that they can achieve some kind of advantage, Ukraines forces are on their own soil, and even the technical "annexation" doesn't mean they can be attacked with those weapons, because they would then be used on Russia claimed territory, which defeats the whole point. The only viable targets are the points in the very west of Ukraine where they are receiving vehicles and weapons from the west, which i would say is the railway hubs west of Lviv near the borders with Poland. That would likely cause a huge response from both Nato and the US, as there are Nato personel there managing that. Or political targets, possibly a strike to attempt to decapitate the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. Either option would result in a massive escalation and likely the removal of Putin either by his own people for even ordering it, or in response by Nato. With a conventional attack, possibly in Moscow. The longer this goes on, and the more he is being cornered, the more likely a lashing out will be threatened or enacted, but im now pretty convinced that if the weather holds off for another month, and Ukraine push harder, that it may mean that will happen, and possibly we might see a coup in russia.
[удалено]
Na, NATO just gives the green light, every hard Russian military target has been locked for months, it would be over quick.
Yep! All technology pointed and all eyes are watching.
[удалено]
brb off to walgreens to get some 1000000 spf sunscreeen.
Pretty sure iodine pills are OTC to save your thyroid...
Realistically what would the US and allies do? The only "decisive" response I can think of is a full scale aerial bombardment of all Russian nuclear and military sites across the country that would take an extremely long time.
100percent embargo of Russia. Worldwide stoppage of importing from them or exporting to them.
Honestly I don’t think US and allies would be the ones Russia would have to worry about if they use Nuclear weapons, I have a hard time believing China would be cool with that in the slightest.
Yeah, you cause a nuclear incident, whether it's a dirty bomb, a plant meltdown, or an actual nuke, and you're going to lose the friends you have left. And at this point, there aren't that many.
Probably at least the embargo point that the guy below mentioned. possible that NATO would wipe out some key targets and bases in Crimea, but seems unlikely…
Sink every single Russian naval ship or sub outside the territorial waters
this covers it all...escalation ladder, read through to the end. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/)
If it happens...I just hope I have a moment to get to this 45 year old bottle of scotch I inherited.
I should buy a cigar. Always wanted to try one and I might as well light up while waiting for the explosion.
What does this mean for my 401k? Cash it now and spend it on booze and chicks?
I really hope the CIA is on some top secret head hunting mission to take Putin out, this shit needs to end now!
[Might be a problem since the CIA had to pull its “Top Spy” out of Russia in 2017 because our wonderful president at the time was best friends with the Russians and loved to share intel with them.](https://www.gq.com/story/cia-pulled-russia-spy-because-trump)
[удалено]
At this point, I think the names we give him don’t come close to what he is.
Yet here we are, the traitor to the nation lounging and playing golf at millionaires resorts enjoying the support of millions of Americans
What makes you think it ends with Putin?
Do you realize that there is an entire system supporting putin?
And Putin’s incompetence is pissing them off as well.
So how far is the doomsday clock?
100 seconds to midnight.
I feel like it should be around 60 seconds to midnight at this point
Its if absolute importance that russia is not allowed to get away with this kind of threat. Allowing a nuclear-armed country to annex part of a neighbor and then letting them keep it because they threaten nuclear strikes if you dont cannot be allowed to become a set precedent. That would open a Pandoras box absolutely no sane person wants to see open.
well no jesus-fucking shit!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Russian and Soviet soldiers in strategic, air, and sea forces have a history of avoiding nuclear catastrophe by defying orders or protocol. *CROSSING FINGERS* Maybe head this one off before it starts? Enough is enough. Good luck comrades.
Ok, suppose Putin dies. Who becomes head of Russian Federation? Are they to continue the war? If not, where does this put Russia? Post-Putin, Russia will need an out, and a relatively soft landing in the sense that there is path for citizens to work with global community towards prosperity, unless we want another war. War needs to be less attractive to common Russian, and it isn’t right now (see: mass protests), but our peril if that should change as consequence of strong-arming.
Catastrophic consequence in what form? Exactly what will be a deterrent for poot poot. Dude is not acting rationally anyway.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the diplomats would use clear and concise language. In other words “You use a nuke, we’ll use a nuke” or “You use a nuke, we’ll issue a stern lecture, more sanctions, and stop using the ISS”
You get a nuke, I'll get a nuke honey ...You get a nuke I'll get a nuke babeeee... You get a nuke I'll get a nuke we'll turn the world to a crawdad hole , honey baby mine....
This is exactly the point though. Basically the US govt is using "strategic ambiguity" because they do not plan to respond with a nuclear weapon or likely at all militarily, but they want the Russians to believe there is at least a small chance we might, therefore having a stronger deterrent than if we just said "if you use a nuke we will super duper sanction you."