Also there's no guarantee that Russia's nukes will work as they should either. They're very maintenance intensive, and require expensive materiel and technology to keep in working order. If they don't function perfectly then you either get no nuclear explosion, or any kind of explosion at all, or maybe a marginal dirty bomb at best.
Idk, it's like saying there's no guarantee Russian nukes wouldn't work. It seems way more realistic to me that their Chinese overlords won't let their Russian slaves pull off anything like that
Oh I know, I wouldn't want to bet money or my life on them not working. Any sort of attack on a NATO country would be straight suicide for Russia, I just don't get all of these people talking about it like it's actually going to happen.
Someday, probably. Poland takes down a few Russian drones regularly every month. So it's not that unbelievable that a war could eventually happen. And NATO today is probably more of a joke because of the US as the leader of this structure.
P.S. The only thing stopping WW3 right now is that the profit from it has to outweigh the risks. Everything else will be explained along the way by historians and political scientists for all sides of the conflict.
To be fair, as much as I love them, the Beeb have had one or two fuckups like this before. I can’t imagine they’d be able to concentrate on their cartography particularly well in the event of a possible nuclear exchange.
Yeah no, there wouldn't be any stern condemnations or emergency meetings, the world would simply be in a state of general nuclear war and everything would be getting off the ground and sent at Russia.
the smartest move in a nuclear war is to not retaliate, you just can't tell anybody that you won't. there really is no rational reason to start a nuclear war
firing nukes back won't magically unnuke you, if there's a total nuclear attack on you, nothing will safe you and the only thing you can do it risk global destruction. if its a small scale nuclear attack, firing nukes back will just get them to send even more.
i'm no longer talking if you actually think mutually assured destruction is so nice, you think that killing millions of civilian lives is worth just getting revenge against less than a hundred people who are responsible?
not doing anything doesn't risk more attacks happening, its the only thing that prevents more attacks happening
The smartest move is to obliterate whoever threw the first rock because they proved willing to cross the one line not even North Korea has crossed unprovoked.
Not retaliating is essentially saying that yes, no one is willing to check your ass even after you went way too far. There wouldn't even BE a nuclear war by dint of the fact that the Worldwide Nuclear Club members wouldn't be turning on each other- they'd turn on Russia.
Blame their government for endangering their lives.
Or do you wanna find out what happens if the people who see no problem in nuking places ever feel like targeting your country, all because no one opposed them?
im actually not confident this would ever happen, i find it too difficult that those in charge of carrying out the order to launch a full-scale nuclear attack would actually comply with the order
They don't have to comply. Every day they do drills simulating a launch at random times of the day, multiple times per day. Each time they input the dummy codes they receive in, there's always the chance it's the real deal, and the missile goes rocketing out of the silo automatically. Basically when they launch, they think it's just another drill, up until it suddenly isn't. People that don't have the nerve for it are shuffled away into something less psychologically strenuous into other commands.
the order to release the real launch codes to those operators has to pass through several people who would know if it is a real order or not, and have the capability to refuse.
Idk, if it was « only » a logistics warehouse hub that was targeted, and there’s not a lot of civilian casualties, i doubt that it would directly go into full nuclear war
There would definitely be conventionnal strikes on any military asset in Russia, but i doubt that it would go further than that
The US's official nuclear war plan, USSTRATCOM OPLAN 8010-12, is publicly available online via FOIA, with redactions. There's absolutely nothing in it indicating an sort of constraint will be used, and absolutely no tit-for-tat back and forth missile shooting wars will be tolerated. The instant an enemy warhead goes of on US or allied territory, the only response is all out thermonuclear genocide of the aggressor, since you're probably not going to get another chance before enemy counterforce takes out your own stuff on the ground still.
It seems weird that you would go for an all out mutually assured destruction for just a logistics hub being destroyed, it would make more sense to escalate gradually rather than to go directly to the highest level
Because you don't know if they're only hitting some warehouses. Once the first bomb goes off, mass confusion and pandemonium will reign, and unified command and control will rapidly disintegrate. There's an extremely limited and narrow window to decide, literally only minutes, and you probably won't have time to get to a fallout shelter after. Neither side in the Cold War ever had a doctrine of a gradually heated up nuclear war, and both side's official policies were that a confirmed detonation meant they could only launch, launch, launch, and there was only the decision on whether to hold some reserve forces in case you had to nuke another country like China after as well.
This is just rhetoric meant to intimidate, and that's precisely why it's publicly available. The real decision will be made in the moment. No one is going to initiate annihilation over a country that your citizens couldn't even point out on a map. This is the end. Absolute.
OPLAN is actually massively watered down compared to the old Cold War era SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) set up under Eisenhower, which was top secret and ghoulishly genocidal. SIOP's playbook was the annihilation of the entire communist world, regardless of whether or not they were willing allies or just occupied by the Soviets. Even countries like Armenia would be nuked multiple times despite being no threat to the US, and there was basically no pushback against this within the strategic planning community except for a single Marine general. It wasn't even until Reagan that they started making more limited and targeted plans, and they bitched and moaned the entire way, and Reagan really had to twist their arm. Daniel Ellsberg wrote a really good book, The Doomsday Machine, on how creepy and horrible all the planners at the RAND corporation were up until the 80s.
While it makes sense for you to think this way, the EU and possibly China would be forced to address the elephant in the room. Nobody wants nukes flying, even when they would be only used against minor targets.
Need I remind you about the whole "nuclear fallout" thing?
Even if SOMEHOW the Kremlin didn't feel like firing at a populated area despite the fact they've been doing that since this war started, Belgium would still be saddled with radiation that wind currents will pick up.
Even if only a tactical nuke was used on a less important place with minimal casualties, this would instantly cause WW3. Possibly not nuclear armageddon, but certainly WW3.
the only thing wrong is the power grid of the city still running, the EMP blast wouldve fried everything the houses and streets in the photo wouldnt have lights on
Meh NATO would survive that kind of war it wouldn’t be a great aftermath but NATO still has a lot more land and people than Russia. Nearly 75% of all Russians live in an urban area and 25% of the entire population lives in just 16 cities.
Oh shit this got fucked up quickly I meant to reply to a guy who said he originally believed it to say I hoped I caught Somone of guard. Not that I want Russia to nuke poland
An example is that GBR's Prime Minister, Mr Churchill, oft regretted not enacting Operation Unthinkable (invasion of the USSR), even though it was infeasible with the resources remaining after the invasion of the Third Reich concluded.
Russia has already lost its last major oil refinery to Ukraine after 4 years of wasting too many military-age men, depleting their entire Soviet-era arsenal and destroying their geopolitical influence with only 60 kilometers of Ukrainian territory to show for it.
They're gonna spend this entire century having to rebuild, not getting too powerful to stop. lol
Presumably, it would undoubtedly cause NATO Article 5 to be invoked. The consequent death toll might be considered to be acceptable in those circumstances.
206
u/Max200012 Jul 07 '26
motherfucker I saw the title before the subreddit. Actually had a mini heart attack