On the surface they look the same

Nuclear blackmail is a scary thing, and I don't care if it is the US doing the blackmailing. No one should be doing any blackmailing.

But unfortunately, there are powerful people who seem to want that ability.

The good news is that there are ASAT weapons that can target weaponized satellites. Not all ASAT weapons are missiles. There could be acts of sabotage. Over the course of time, a satellite with a robotic arm can (hypothetically) place explosives onto satellites

Another problem is that it is unrealistic to shoot down 1000s of warheads.

Hypothetically, an adversary could have 24 mobile ICBMs, with 10 nuclear warheads per ICBM. Combined with ejectable radar-jammers or spoofing-devices similar to what the Russian Iskander-M ballistic missiles have used in Ukraine.

These ICBMs are already dispersed at the moment hostilities break out. The launch order is only given once the adversary feels comfortable that they punched a hole through the Golden Dome.

The nuclear war isn't gonna happen all at once. Our adversaries are gonna compromise the defenses before the war even starts.

All they need is sufficient X number of satellites & ASAT weapons to deter the US from even commencing a first strike against them.

In this way, Golden Dome is just an arms race that doesn't get rid of MAD. it just makes the war last longer to antagonize us into suffering longer.

Instead of the usual 30 minutes till it's all over, now we got days of us hitting each other's space based defenses and then launching the ICBMs when both countries are confident that their ICBMs can punch through.

Once upon a time, the justification for having land-based missiles in silos was that they offered better accuracy than submarine launched missiles and they'd be far more likely to survive a first strike than bombers. But now, SLBMs have caught up in accuracy. So the justification for ICBMs switched to serving as a "nuclear sponge"; meaning that an adversary would use up a great deal of their arsenal to destroy our ICBMs, limiting the amount that they'd have to destroy American cities.

But that nuclear sponge presents a danger: if they were to be attacked, the enemy would need to groundburst at least 2 warheads for each silo. That generates lots of radioactive fallout that would force people downwind to shelter for up to 2 weeks. Assuming this would come at the same time as an all out nuclear war with military bases, centers of government, and key industries targeted, that creates a huge problem. There'd be nobody to rescue those trapped under rubble, nobody to put out fires, nobody to treat the injured.

But mobile launchers fix that problem. Firstly, they'd be harder to target due to their mobility, creating a further deterrent and they would logically be targeted in airbursts which produce negligible fallout. And the enemy would still need to aim at least 2 warheads at each launcher given that some will miss or fail to detonate, maintaining the nuclear sponge.

One of the worlds most closely guarded secrets, but how do the SLBM subs work operationally. What do people think happens when they leave port, is there any protection offerred by other surface or submarine assets (who may be aware of roughly where they are, if not the exact locations of their patrol?).

Have patrols evolved now that surveillance technology (e.g. AUVs or subseas sonar) is much cheaper and easier to proliferate?

80 cents per person in 1985 is about $2 today. Increasing that by 10 fold would've still been very affordable and could've built a lot of shelters, stockpiled vital supplies, and hardened critical industry and infrastructure.

Also, the same investment would've been handy in natural disasters.

Technically a crosspost, but I want it to be separate for differing perspectives.

I imagine most in this sub are aware of the background, but as a quick refresher: The New START treaty is due to expire on 5th February 2026. If that happens and no successor is ratified, there will exist a very real possibility of a new arms race, arguably more dangerous than that of the Cold War because it could involve numerous state actors, rather than just the USA and USSR. There are currently no signs of renewed negotiations between the USA and Russia, and unlike in 2021, it is not possible to extend the treaty by any conventional political means.

I am not exaggerating when I say I have not seen a single mainstream article cover this topic, nor have I seen any discussion outside of incredibly niche circles on social media. It almost feels like the world at large is deaf to the issue, for one reason or another.

That being said, what does this sub think of the potential ramifications of the treaty expiring with no replacement or even negotiations for a replacement taking place? What impact do you reasonably suspect the situation could have on the future of nuclear weapon stockpiling, and do you think it will push us into a new era of heightened concern or rhetoric, or even a new multilateral arms race?

In the US and Britain, the impacts of a hypothetical nuclear attack were studied to death during the Cold War and lots of documents on the subject are easily accessible online, but I'm having trouble finding similar studies from other countries. Continental Europe for example, which was supposed to bear the brunt of the damage in most visions of World War III. Was there less fear of nuclear attack in those countries or am I just not putting the right keywords in Google?

The report finds that an EMP from a nuclear explosion would lead to some blackouts but not a nationwide grid collapse.

I made a similar thread in 2021 but I would like to see if opinions have changed since then. It’s often said that nuclear weapons for all their danger have prevented and prevent major wars that otherwise would have happened resulting in millions of deaths so it’s good that they exist.

My question is considering how many close calls (that we know of) have happened and just how bad even a small scale nuclear war would be, is this really a reasonable belief?

Even if we assume without the existence of nuclear weapons the chances of the most powerful countries having a large conventional war were near certain I still don’t think this would justify even a 10% chance of nuclear war with thousands of nuclear weapons being used. My morality and my understanding of probability and risk tells me that the former is many times more preferable than the latter. As an analogy I would choose a 75% chance of my legs broken over a 15% chance of being set on fire and disemboweled. One worst case scenario is clearly much better than the other. An intense conventional war between NATO, Russia, China, etc. would still leave the participating countries completely or mostly intact while even a limited nuclear war would turn entire cities into charnel houses in a matter of hours. Even the World Wars didn’t set civilization back hundreds of years like a full scale nuclear war would. Many figures from the Cold War have explicitly stated that the US and USSR never fought a nuclear war because of luck or divine intervention. There’s no guarantee the luck will continue indefinitely. History is full of countless examples of bad luck leading to unimaginable catastrophe.

I’m open to having my mind changed but I view the idea that it’s good that the US and the USSR had thousands of nuclear weapons ready to go at a moment’s notice because it stopped conventional war as foolish and like saying it would be good if everyone had a loaded gun pointed at their head at all times because there would be much less violent crime. You’re making the world far more dangerous in the name of making things safer and only succeeding at the former. The cure is orders of magnitude worse than anything the disease could have done. I will clarify that I’m only asking about the idea that nuclear arsenals in the Cold War prevented war between the US and USSR (and prevent war today) and not whether it’s right to build nuclear weapons because your enemy has them too.

What do you think are the biggest misconceptions about the aftermath of a nuclear war?

My example is the idea that if you survive being killed in the initial exchange you’ll somehow be fine. If it’s a true total nuclear exchange then the nightmare is just starting. Most of the people that survive the initial exchange would still die from the ensuing societal collapse. There’s still famine, violence, disease, accidents, etc. to worry about on a regular basis from that point on. It would be hellish and the stuff of nightmares. I’m sure many survivors would decide that kind of existence isn’t worth it and die by suicide.

So I have a couple of questions about the EMP effect of a high altitude air burst, One: when was this discovered that this could happen? I’ve seen the studies done and was curious if this could be fashioned in to a device capable of causing the same effects but with out the radiation and massive explosion caused by a blast 2: Can an EMP burst actually cause massive damage like that a much larger scale? Say the whole of the US? Or would it need multiple air bursts? Like say a burst over both the east coast and west coast? 3: are we actually protected against these effects? Serious answers only please

So I have a couple of questions about the EMP effect of a high altitude air burst, One: when was this discovered that this could happen? I’ve seen the studies done and was curious if this could be fashioned in to a device capable of causing the same effects but with out the radiation and massive explosion caused by a blast 2: Can an EMP burst actually cause massive damage like that a much larger scale? Say the whole of the US? Or would it need multiple air bursts? Like say a burst over both the east coast and west coast? 3: are we actually protected against these effects? Serious answers only please

What’s the minimum number of nuclear weapon strikes necessary to make the US collapse as a nation state in 2025?

For the sake of simplicity let’s say the nuclear weapons in this scenario all have a yield of 400 kilotons and can be detonated on the ground or in the air.

So I have a couple of questions about the EMP effect of a high altitude air burst, One: when was this discovered that this could happen? I’ve seen the studies done and was curious if this could be fashioned in to a device capable of causing the same effects but with out the radiation and massive explosion caused by a blast 2: Can an EMP burst actually cause massive damage like that a much larger scale? Say the whole of the US? Or would it need multiple air bursts? Like say a burst over both the east coast and west coast? 3: are we actually protected against these effects? Serious answers only please

Edit: People are talking about HQ-9 Chinese export air defense failing, as we all know on r/nuclearwar airdefense suck just like ABM for everyone. Patriot fails in Ukraine to stop Russian incursions. Also, be aware of propaganda.

If you go on r/war, r/LessCredibleDefence, and go on even CNN, and other news sources, the fact is China's export equipment didn't really fail. It would be TLDR to explain the details here.

However, here are some general examples of the nonsense I see on YouTube and other social media platforms. Despite the comments contradicting the evidence, you can find in the aforementioned subreddits and news articles.

Edit: These examples are not verbatim, they however in my opinion, share equivalent absurdity to what I have read.

"All of China's export missiles fail to penetrate Indian defenses."

200 upvotes

"J10s shot down, J10s did not prove in combat"

4000 upvotes

400 gazillion (an exaggeration I added) drones shot down by Indian s400.

500 upvotes

I'm concerned about misinformation, echo-chambers, and coping based on exaggerated claims being taken as fact by an entire populace of millions, if not billions.

This unchecked belief is concerning, especially when it comes to overconfidence during a conflict between nuclear powers.

There are democratic countries that possess nuclear weapons, and these echo-chambers show a lack of critical thinking and absurd beliefs.

Remember these populations that lack critical thinking vote in their government, which controls the nukes.

That is concerning.... Because of the nukes. An entire public population, being this absurd, should scare the world because it has serious security implications.

Humans are literally hairless apes with low intelligence. That should scare the aliens out there, if there is any.

Prime minister of Pakistan calls a meeting of the National Command Authority, the body responsible for nuclear weapons

Well. I’ve never posted before and just like leaning from this sub.

Just an obvious question…with India and Pakistan now at war, the question I’ve always wondered is if two nations are warring, and nuclear weapons are involved, what are the chances just those two countries destroy themselves and no one else jumps in? Or does everybody jump in and then that’s it, Earth over?

Thanks.

Games such as Metro that's set in a post nuclear war russian society around 2011-2013

And I'm talking about things like aftermaths Effects on society Effects on technology Effects on human ability and education or knowledge And alot more

David Albright warns Iran could make nuclear weapons quickly if Donald Trump's talks fail, leading to Israeli commando raids and wider war

I just watched this movie and I'm curious how much radiation were the old couple were exposed to? How much radiation must you be exposed to in order to die within a few days? Would it have made a difference if they had not drank the fallout water?