Russia knows that it cannot use its nukes. If Russia launched a nuclear attack on a NATO country, it would just take two hits on Russia to effectively end the country. Russia is largely a rural country. Most of Russia's government and commerce are concentrated in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Then, there are about a dozen medium sized cities with a million to 1.5 mil people. If Russia strikes NATO with nuclear weapons, the response just has to take out Moscow and St. Petersburg and then Russia will effectively cease to exist and will revert to a few dozen provinces with no central government. The only way Russia could possibly avoid a counter strike is to launch a massive attack against every NATO nuclear power. But that kind of attack would trigger a nuclear winter and radiation from strikes on Western Europe would end up on Russian soil, poisoning crops and causing cancer across western Russia.
The scenario you neglected to cover, or failed to comprehend, is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In such a scenario, Russia would not be using nukes for tit-for-tat hits on a NATO country. Rather, all their silos would be ‘emptied’, prompted by the final decision “if I can’t win, then nobody can!” Effectively, the world as we know it, would end within minutes.
Isn't MAD the doctrine that prevents this? The argument is that total world destruction is far beyond the decision window of any nuclear power, thus a strategic first strike on many civilian targets is prevented because counter-destruction is assured.
The scenario you neglected to cover, or failed to comprehend, is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In such a scenario, Russia would not be using nukes for tit-for-tat hits on a NATO country. Rather, all their silos would be ‘emptied’, prompted by the final decision “if I can’t win, then nobody can!” Effectively, the world as we know it, would end within minutes.
Isn't MAD the doctrine that prevents this? The argument is that total world destruction is far beyond the decision window of any nuclear power, thus a strategic first strike on many civilian targets is prevented because counter-destruction is assured.
It's worked so far....
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
My response to Roy was specifically with regard to his point that Putin is deterred due to fallout. If a human decision were eventually made to “send all bombs”, then he is not deterred at that point, for there would be no concern about fallout.
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
My response to Roy was specifically with regard to his point that Putin is deterred due to fallout. If a human decision were eventually made to “send all bombs”, then he is not deterred at that point, for there would be no concern about fallout.
True. Only in the situation where Putin lacks the capability of true MAD deterrence does that work. Unlikely their nuclear systems have degraded that much.
Isn't MAD the doctrine that prevents this? The argument is that total world destruction is far beyond the decision window of any nuclear power, thus a strategic first strike on many civilian targets is prevented because counter-destruction is assured.
It's worked so far....
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
My response to Roy was specifically with regard to his point that Putin is deterred due to fallout. If a human decision were eventually made to “send all bombs”, then he is not deterred at that point, for there would be no concern about fallout.
I included the term ‘human’ in front of decision, but if humans are not in the loop, and/or it is left to computers and AI, then the problem of deterrence is compounded.
I spend all last night researching where in the US would be the likely first target of a nuke and how much an effective bomb shelter would cost to build. I know this probably isn't healthy but this guy has 6,000 nukes and I don't trust the Media that he's "bluffing."
I seem to recall that a few weeks ago you posted that you are only 16 years old? ..... Just live your life, you have more important things to worry about than this.
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
My response to Roy was specifically with regard to his point that Putin is deterred due to fallout. If a human decision were eventually made to “send all bombs”, then he is not deterred at that point, for there would be no concern about fallout.
True. Only in the situation where Putin lacks the capability of true MAD deterrence does that work. Unlikely their nuclear systems have degraded that much.
Harambe is now a nuclear expert. Seriously go eat a bag of dix. Like a 50 gallon sized bag of monkey pox infected dix.
I spend all last night researching where in the US would be the likely first target of a nuke and how much an effective bomb shelter would cost to build. I know this probably isn't healthy but this guy has 6,000 nukes and I don't trust the Media that he's "bluffing."
I seem to recall that a few weeks ago you posted that you are only 16 years old? ..... Just live your life, you have more important things to worry about than this.
Fear of nuclear war and age share an inverse relationship.
I spend all last night researching where in the US would be the likely first target of a nuke and how much an effective bomb shelter would cost to build. I know this probably isn't healthy but this guy has 6,000 nukes and I don't trust the Media that he's "bluffing."
I truly don’t care about a nuclear war strike possibility. Death is hardly terrifying, surviving a strike injured and/or sick by radiation is, but the likelihood of a strike on US soil that maims but doesn’t kill me seems small enough to not be worth worrying about.
Russia knows that it cannot use its nukes. If Russia launched a nuclear attack on a NATO country, it would just take two hits on Russia to effectively end the country. Russia is largely a rural country. Most of Russia's government and commerce are concentrated in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Then, there are about a dozen medium sized cities with a million to 1.5 mil people. If Russia strikes NATO with nuclear weapons, the response just has to take out Moscow and St. Petersburg and then Russia will effectively cease to exist and will revert to a few dozen provinces with no central government. The only way Russia could possibly avoid a counter strike is to launch a massive attack against every NATO nuclear power. But that kind of attack would trigger a nuclear winter and radiation from strikes on Western Europe would end up on Russian soil, poisoning crops and causing cancer across western Russia.
There is the question of how operational Russia"s nuclear arsenal is. The uranium gun type weapons are fairly predictable, yet relatively low yield. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the cost, expertise, and funding of maintenance programs for the nuclear stockpile is a question. It is one thing to have a successful explosion, quite another to have a deliverable weapon of the type that comes to mind visualizing the horror of nuclear war. The cost of doing computer simulations, etc to verify integrity of a nations nuclear stockpile could be prohibitive to a country like Russia. To remain functional, nuclear weapons have plastic and rubber components which need regular maintenance and should be evaluated and replaced as needed. Plutonium weapons are a very delicate weapon in which a plutonium core is compressed, via concentric explosion, inducing fission. The conditions to start an explosive chain reaction are so precise that there is always concern that if the core changes slightly the compression might not go in a predictable manner. Over time, the plutonium core loses mass and energy by emitting tiny particles through a process known as radioactive decay, and impurities build up in the core. To what extent this becomes a problem is probably well known in the US, where we spend a great deal of money evaluating this
All very true and good insights to the vagaries of nuclear warfare (by the way, which applies to the US also). That said, the official pronouncements of our intelligence agencies over the past few decades have been somewhat imprecise, to put it lightly.
I lived through The Cold War and the Soviet nuclear threat. Here are my tips:
1. Live your life! You never know when your last day is going to happen.
2. Don't worry about "surviving" an all out nuclear war. The dead will be the fortunate ones. If you build a foolproof bomb shelter, stock it right, and manage to emerge a year later, there will be nothing to emerge to.
3. If you live in a major target area, it will be over in a literal flash. When the sirens blare, grab a good stiff drink, smoke a big ol' spliff, or make love to someone you truly care for. Go out on a high note.
I spend all last night researching where in the US would be the likely first target of a nuke and how much an effective bomb shelter would cost to build. I know this probably isn't healthy but this guy has 6,000 nukes and I don't trust the Media that he's "bluffing."
Isn't MAD the doctrine that prevents this? The argument is that total world destruction is far beyond the decision window of any nuclear power, thus a strategic first strike on many civilian targets is prevented because counter-destruction is assured.
It's worked so far....
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
My response to Roy was specifically with regard to his point that Putin is deterred due to fallout. If a human decision were eventually made to “send all bombs”, then he is not deterred at that point, for there would be no concern about fallout.
When he entered Ukraine, he did not use nuclear weapons. So, what is your point?
Russia knows that it cannot use its nukes. If Russia launched a nuclear attack on a NATO country, it would just take two hits on Russia to effectively end the country. Russia is largely a rural country. Most of Russia's government and commerce are concentrated in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Then, there are about a dozen medium sized cities with a million to 1.5 mil people. If Russia strikes NATO with nuclear weapons, the response just has to take out Moscow and St. Petersburg and then Russia will effectively cease to exist and will revert to a few dozen provinces with no central government. The only way Russia could possibly avoid a counter strike is to launch a massive attack against every NATO nuclear power. But that kind of attack would trigger a nuclear winter and radiation from strikes on Western Europe would end up on Russian soil, poisoning crops and causing cancer across western Russia.
People like you are gambling with the lives of billions of citizens of the world. People like you believe you can provoke Russia over and over again. People like you believe Russia will quietly suffer a defeat and just suck it up and take it.
* I was astonished January, 2022 U.S. was willing to risk WW3 by providing numerous weapons to Ukraine.
* I was scared for the world when U.S. in February began acting as real time Forward Observers. U.S. used U.S. most modern technology to point out Russian targets. Posters on another thread attempted to state to me that pointing out targets is not an Act of War. Believe that if you want to.
* On CNN online this week I read that Biden is considering giving Ukraine U.S. tanks.
How much do you believe Russia will tolerate before Russia fights with everything they have? If U.S. tanks are 5K from Moscow will you still be on here stating Russia will not go all out? You know what going all out for Russia would mean. You gamblers are really disturbing me.
Putin was well aware of the MAD doctrine, as well, when he entered Ukraine.
MAD no longer applies. Does anyone REALLY think is competent enough to go through the launch code procedure in under 3 minutes? Both Russia and China realize this is their golden opportunity to do whatever they want, including destroying the USA before it can even respond.