Nuclear Bomb

[Kyrok]

Many people feel we're closer to the use of a nuclear bomb than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Putin might decide to use a low yield bomb to break a stalemate in some part of Ukraine, or after warning NATO to stop sending military aid, or to make sure the world knows he has no limits.

In all probability, it would be a very low yield nuke, something like 300 tons to one kiloton.

That would destroy a couple city blocks, kill a few hundred to a few thousand, and communicate a geopolitical message.

Maybe Putin issues the ultimatum: not one more piece of military equipment shall be sent to Ukraine.

But should he use a nuke of any size, it's hard to see how NATO then doesn't commit to destroying Russia's C&C, or maybe boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Anyhow, if the war continues for a few more weeks and Russia fails to make much headway, I can see escalation to tactical nukes, and maybe strategic nukes.

How does that make you feel? Personally, I find it relaxing. It makes me feel like I can stop worrying and stop regretting. Stop living in the past and stop getting all twisted up about still trying to find my way to a future I want.

I can just chill. If nuclear war is coming, if the norms of today will soon be shattered, then I can rest. Yes, rest a failure. But rest with my dog beside me. Feeling our love. And that then becomes enough.

 

[nullpointer]

I'd worry about mutually assured destruction still not being enough to get rid of me. I don't have enough bottlecaps saved up

 

[Deleted member 8975]

I think he will absolutely use a tactical nuke if this war is still going on by Xmas. I don't think there will be MAD though. It will be like WW2. Bombs get dropped. Everyone is horrified but 0 action because hypocrisy.

 

[Dysgenic Pup]

I'm stocking up on Stimpaks just in case.

 

[DeutscheKartoffel]

I want Russia and China nuked.

Authoritarian regimes must be down one way or another.
End the problems once and for all.
Cancers to mankind.

 

[Grav]

I doubt any nuke would fly unless NATO starts sticking more of it's nose in it. Nukes are really only good against static (airbases, ports, cities) or very large targets (massive troop concentrations). By the time Russia is bogged down and fighting a guerilla war in Ukraine any big targets will have already been hit. The risk is not worth the reward. A strike on NATO would still just trigger a conventional response as I don't believe European leaders would be cool with signing on to launching of nukes. Hell, Germany is "now" funding its conventional military after decades of not keeping up with NATO required levels and the UK is nothing to scare Putin. The US, being distanced from Russia, would be more inclined to drop some "canned sunshine" but then only if US troops were being killed, and we're a far step from that. So in the end I think unless there's a direct involvement by NATO (this includes planes being give or tanks) Russia's nukes sit silent. With that though once those take off there's not much to stop them, and many screaming to get more involved seem to think they can be. Having lived with the idea of Soviet missiles aimed this way, and being on the edge of the immediate hit on the nearest large city I'm not phased by it. We did "tuck and cover" in grade school and everyone thinks "tornado sirens" are for tornadoes, nope they sound when there's incoming rockets. If anything I'd move closer to the impact to get vaporized in the initial hits.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

How does that make you feel? Personally, I find it relaxing.

Wow, screw you, dude
(I'm just kidding, please don't get mad)

It makes me feel like I can stop worrying and stop regretting. Stop living in the past and stop getting all twisted up about still trying to find my way to a future I want.

I can just chill. If nuclear war is coming, if the norms of today will soon be shattered, then I can rest. Yes, rest a failure. But rest with my dog beside me. Feeling our love. And that then becomes enough.

You don't need a nuclear war in order to stop regretting and doubting yourself. If you could do it in case of a major crisis, you can also do it right now and come out better off. We don't need to set the world on fire to make our internal turmoil pointless - life is fairly pointless to begin with. If you find your peace it doesn't matter if you're "a failure" or "a success", it makes no difference.
What obstacle to inner piece do you have that is so big you need a nuke to resolve it?

Also, I want to point out - correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you're in Ukraine. And in the scenario you're describing Ukraine is nuked with tactical or strategic nukes - okay, but what difference it would make to you personally if you're too far away to be directly affected anyway?

 

[DeutscheKartoffel]

You don't need a nuclear war in order to stop regretting and doubting yourself. If you could do it in case of a major crisis, you can also do it right now and come out better off. We don't need to set the world on fire to make our internal turmoil pointless - life is fairly pointless to begin with. If you find your peace it doesn't matter if you're "a failure" or "a success", it makes no difference.
What obstacle to inner piece do you have that is so big you need a nuke to resolve it?

Also, I want to point out - correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you're in Ukraine. And in the scenario you're describing Ukraine is nuked with tactical or strategic nukes - okay, but what difference it would make to you personally if you're too far away to be directly affected anyway?

If Russia and China gets nuked, all my suffering under decades of tyranny gets written off in an instant.
Vengeance is bitter sweet.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

If Russia and China gets nuked, all my suffering under decades of tyranny gets written off in an instant.
Vengeance is bitter sweet.

I can understand your motivation, but that scenario, for better or worse, is very unlikely. Especially in case of China that seems to be pretty smart and cautious with their foreign policy based on what I've seen so far.

 

[CreatifUsrnam]

This is terrifying. Death by nuke is usually very not peaceful. A (relatively) small amount of people are instantly vaporized by the fireball, but most people are further out and die very slowly from godawful burns and radiation. If nuclear war breaks out, a lot of people are in for a very bad time.

Also, I want to point out - correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you're in Ukraine. And in the scenario you're describing Ukraine is nuked with tactical or strategic nukes - okay, but what difference it would make to you personally if you're too far away to be directly affected anyway?

You don't need to be in Ukraine to worry about nukes. If someone in power is dumb enough to start a nuclear war, they have a lot of power and could easily choose to destroy everything if they wanted to. In my opinion, it's not very likely for someone in power to nuke Ukraine, and spare everyone else.

One nuke is enough to completely destroy one city. There are about 15 thousand nukes in the world, most of which are owned by the US and Russia (two countries which should definitely not be trusted with that). For comparison, there are only about 500 cities with a population of >1 million people. Any decent sized city in the world could become a target if/when a nuclear war spirals out of control.

No real point to this discussion. Most of us (I assume) do not have access to nukes. I just have nothing better to do.

Nuke megathread, anyone?

 

[GrumpyFrog]

If someone in power is dumb enough to start a nuclear war, they have a lot of power and could easily choose to destroy everything if they wanted to. In my opinion, it's not very likely for someone in power to nuke Ukraine, and spare everyone else.

Well, USA didn't go on to destroy the rest of the world after nuking Japan, right? Tactical nuclear weapons are intended to finish a war (and kind of finish the country you're fighting with), not to bring about the end of humanity. Yes, there are people in power that could destroy everything if they wanted to - but the question is, why would they want it? There is a big difference between destroying the enemy and destroying the whole world, the former makes much more sense, and the latter goes way beyond stupidity and recklessness right into the realm of absolute insanity.
To further reassure you, it is not possible for one person to unleash nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the comfort of their bunker without letting anyone know. The order will go down a chain of command consisting of multiple people. And even if one person in power has completely lost it and their underlings are terrifyed of them to death, at the point where the entire world is about to be destroyed by nukes any fear of their glorious leader's wrath that the military has will probably be dwarfed by the fear of nuclear annihilation, and at the very least the order will not be executed, with a bonus possibility of the Kingslayer showing up and realising that this is probably their cue to stab the Mad King in the back. After all, there is a reason why Cold War went on as long as it did but still didn't result in a nuclear Armaggedon.

 

[Sunset Limited]

Before America attacked Iraq, Saddam said "I will sell my oil in euros". I think this is one of the most important reasons for the attack. Does anyone remember what Putin said recently? "I will sell oil in rubles". If a trade pact is formed in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US dollar will rapidly depreciate. Russia and China are giving signals of this. This would be a financial disaster for America. In that case, America would have no choice but to fight. Then we can see nuclear war.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

Before America attacked Iraq, Saddam said "I will sell my oil in euros". I think this is one of the most important reasons for the attack. Does anyone remember what Putin said recently? "I will sell oil in rubles". If a trade pact is formed in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US dollar will rapidly depreciate. Russia and China are giving signals of this. This would be a financial disaster for America. In that case, America would have no choice but to fight. Then we can see nuclear war.

I really don't think US government is bonkers enough to start a nuclear war because Russia stopped selling oil in dollars. Same reason why Russia might nuke Ukraine but not a NATO country - it's much easier to make a decision to attack someone who realistically cannot fight back.
Also, no one really wants Russia's rubles right now when they are rapidly deprecating already.

 

[Chiisai]

Before America attacked Iraq, Saddam said "I will sell my oil in euros". I think this is one of the most important reasons for the attack. Does anyone remember what Putin said recently? "I will sell oil in rubles". If a trade pact is formed in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US dollar will rapidly depreciate. Russia and China are giving signals of this. This would be a financial disaster for America. In that case, America would have no choice but to fight. Then we can see nuclear war.

True. Glad someone else is seeing the pattern. And today's covid outbreak and war going on follows the same pattern with 2003's SARS outbreak and Iraq war.

 

[Sunset Limited]

True. Glad someone else is seeing the pattern. And today's covid outbreak and war going on follows the same pattern with 2003's SARS outbreak and Iraq war.

Most of the world's raw materials are in Asia. If a trade pact is established in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, it will mean the end of the road for countries such as America, Europe, Canada and Australia. Because China and Russia will not supply raw materials to these countries. China is already partially doing this right now. NATO countries are getting worse financially. America became so aggressive because it saw this situation. America can no longer control the world. China is very strong. A new trade network is being established in Asia.

 

[Chiisai]

Most of the world's raw materials are in Asia. If a trade pact is established in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, it will mean the end of the road for countries such as America, Europe, Canada and Australia. Because China and Russia will not supply raw materials to these countries. China is already partially doing this right now. NATO countries are getting worse financially. America became so aggressive because it saw this situation. America can no longer control the world. China is very strong. A new trade network is being established in Asia.

It'll be a hegemonic shift for sure.

 

[Sunset Limited]

It'll be a hegemonic shift for sure.

Yes, because America controls the whole world with dollars. That means leaving America out of the game.

 

[Tortured_empath]

Yes Kyrok, I will say I don't think your analysis of Russia will come true but I must say I agree with you on the other part. I could not commit suicide. But morbidly enough the thought of armageddon comforts me. I remember you from back when you where here in 2019. I'm sad to see you still have a reason to be here but glad to see you alive and kicking.

 

[Grav]

The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) were already looking at moving away from the IMF. I've read a little about Russia and China along with India dealing in their national currencies and eventually China becoming the standard.

On Doomsday - The Soviets actually came up with a big ship that would sail the world and using it's massive array of sensors pick up on higher levels of radiation than normal. At a certain threshold it would interpret these levels as a war had started and automatically launched the Soviet's missiles. The project was not put into place but not because of some love of humanity.

There's an interesting booklet about the US govt response to mass nuclear war and it has some interesting tidbits. Like the national parks being used for refugees and the Post Office tasked with a "census" of sorts since they would know where houses are/were. Maybe this weekend's viewing will be Dr. Strangelove.

 

[walt]

I certainly wouldn't call myself a military expert, but I know a few veterans who served in different parts of different armies across the world.
Missileers, Tank crewmen, Sailors, and Pilots.
From what I learned over the years with in-depth discussions from these men and women, MAD comes up a lot. Like, a lot.

A lot of these veterans served during the Cold War, I've met some who served during the Vietnam era, and the edge of the Cold War, when things began to really pick up pace and modernize. And MAD was one of the highest stakes principles of the Cold War. One missile launch, one nuke, one bomber, one submarine. Doesn't matter. Once a nuclear missile or bomb leaves a bay, all of the other nuclear-capable countries fire retaliatory strikes within minutes, because there is no margin for error.

So, what does this have to do with Putin and Ukraine?

Well, Putin's basically a relic of the now dissolved Soviet Union. I won't get into politics, don't worry, but here is the problem; Putin wants to restore Soviet Glory.
A lot of people confuse this for "He wants to restore communism!" No, he's a mobster, a murderer, and capitalist war-profiteer. He loves capitalism, whether he admits it or not.

Putin believes that the west has failed at guiding eastern Europe after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and he believes it is his job and his duty to restore the former state. It is clear in all his rhetoric, his actions, his words. Nationalist rallies, military parades, militarization efforts above the well-being of his citizens. But unfortunately, a lot of the news agencies were busy with other things instead of educating the public on what the hell Putin's motivations are.

"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself." - Vladimir Putin

So, what does all of this mean? It means that Putin is still stuck in a Soviet mentality. He misses the Soviet Union, he is stuck in the old ways and has slowly become a dictator, as with many former Soviet leaders. He is doing exactly what he did with Georgia to Ukraine. Recognize people's republics, establish security, and commit to "protective special operations". Right now, he is likely approaching a stalemate, though. It is clear that Russian troops were not as well-prepared as we initially thought. Many images show spetsnaz without proper sights, soldiers without necessary equipment, armored columns moving outside of normal combined warfare doctrine principles. And Putin is becoming increasingly furious at this fact and has rapidly increased his power structures and scaled up war crimes and bombardments.

To answer your question, knowing all of this about Putin, about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and the partial military and strategic failures in Ukraine, do I think he will deploy a nuke?

No.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Most of the world's raw materials are in Asia. If a trade pact is established in Asia and the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, it will mean the end of the road for countries such as America, Europe, Canada and Australia. Because China and Russia will not supply raw materials to these countries. China is already partially doing this right now. NATO countries are getting worse financially. America became so aggressive because it saw this situation. America can no longer control the world. China is very strong. A new trade network is being established in Asia.

Hrm. I'd have to disagree. China is strong because they play the long game, yes, while America has largely made stupid short-term slipups in oh, the past 40 years or so.

Is China "very strong" though? No, I don't think so. We are quickly approaching an equal in match for power with China, but military they still amount to a joke.

When's the last time you've seen China sail a naval fleet off the coast of California? Well, never. And how often does America do this to China in the South China Sea? All the time. It's called "Projection of Power".

So long as this culture persists, it is clear who really is on top.

Times are shifting, I will agree with you on that, the times of America being the global hegemon is gone, that doesn't mean it can't come back, I think it's wrong to assume that it won't or definitely will.

I recommend Kraut's video "Trump's Biggest Failure" on YouTube. Whether or not you side with his politics doesn't matter, it is a damn good video, and has way less to do with Trump, and more to do with China's history, and how it will relate to a new cold war which is coming quickly.

 

[jakaranda3]

Before nuclear, russia will go chemical. - because it preserverves the infrastructure.

 

[Grav]

Chemical weapons have a taboo factor that nukes don't, plus they are a messy weapon. If Russian troops don't have the right gear, which was always suspected back in the 80s, current actions since 1990 have shown they don't have it now nor the training and conscript troops are the last ones you want to mess around with NBC attacks. It would most likely cause the Russian army more harm than the Ukranians and it would put Putin in a spot he can't come back from; if Russia pulled back to the "disputed" zones Putin could probably deal his way out and get back to some kind of normalcy.

The problem with the US military is it's too expensive to fight and is more for show than use. Lose a couple of billion dollar jets, or 1 carrier, and you have problems. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't peer nations so it was just people and small arms being used up, not ships, jets, and rarely big ticket armor. Gulf 1 was a dumping ground of Tomahawks at $mil/per. Can't sustain those expenditures in the long run and this isn't 1942 where the US can just whip up ships with enough idle hands. While China's military is not up to par with the US they have more desire to use it and goals with which to apply it to. They also have the drive to surpass US capabilities while the US is relying more and more on tech to keep the edge. China has shown a capacity to learn the basics then move beyond much like Japan does. An example is plastic models (although this applies to many other areas): initially their kits were a joke and considered trash but now most mfg are moving to Chinese producers and their output is considered first-rate and has replaced US and many European makers. US strategy has no direction other than get money and keep consumer complaints down. Sailing around China probably has little threat to them and it's hard to keep allies interested in it (Australia). I am curious to see what happens in the US when a Chinese battle group makes a tour to the eastern side of the Pacific.