'Russia is now at war with NATO and the West'

[Revoltingest]

Only for Boris Johnson. And since everyone is steering clear of him right now, collateral damage is minimal.

Aye, Revoltistan would be safe.
Still, many locals there would die.
And even Brits deserve to live.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some problems with that statement....
- Nukes aren't nearly that capable.
- More weapons are launched than necessary
because an unknown number will be destroyed
before reaching the target.
- There are many targets, eg, cities,
manufacturing areas, military installations,
missile silos.
- Aged warheads are unreliable, but can still
pose a threat with repurposing as dirty bombs
to make areas off-limits for many decades.

In a nuclear war, it's likely that Russia would
lose, but no one would win.

I didn't mean demolishing every single part of a country; not even Tsar Bomba was powerful enough for that. I meant wiping out critical targets with the practical effect being destruction of the country. Imagine complete destruction of major cities or vital military bases. That would be crippling.

But even then, would hundreds of nukes be any different from thousands? I have no idea whether defense systems could intercept 100 or 200 nukes, but as I said, one lands and it's over. I agree there would be no winners in such a war.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Aye, Revoltistan would be safe.
Still, many locals there would die.
And even Brits deserve to live.

It's a difficult situation, to be sure, but I am confident that any one, two or three of my British revolutionary brothers and sisters would be happy to die if it meant we got a hilarious photo of Boris Johnson trying to run away from a guided missile.

 

[sun rise]

no one would win.

It's not just the blast and radiation but the disruption that would be a killer. How many are a few days away from starving if the food distribution infrastructure was severely disrupted and that applies to the electrical grid as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not just the blast and radiation but the disruption that would be a killer. How many are a few days away from starving if the food distribution infrastructure was severely disrupted and that applies to the electrical grid as well.

Aye, deaths directly from nuclear bombs
would be eclipsed by secondary effects
in our highly integrated economies.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

- More weapons are launched than necessary
because an unknown number will be destroyed
before reaching the target.

Well, I imagine they would use a lot of decoys. And as well, aren't the hypersonics not able to be intercepted - or even detected?

Aye, deaths directly from nuclear bombs
would be eclipsed by secondary effects
in our highly integrated economies.

The grimmest thought to me, might be what the ash situation would look like. I mean, if an entire city, god forbid, was turned into radioactive particulate ash, well that ash surely would spread in many directions for thousands of miles. These things just can't be used

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I imagine they would use a lot of decoys. And as well, aren't the hypersonics not able to be intercepted - or even detected?

I doubt Russia's ability to have produced
many hypersonic missiles. Nonetheless,
our sub-hypersonic missiles are still quite
capable of a high percentage hitting their
targets.

The grimmest thought to me, might be what the ash situation would look like. I mean, if an entire city, god forbid, was turned into radioactive particulate ash, well that ash surely would spread in many directions for thousands of miles. These things just can't be used

That is indeed one of the problems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think we'd spend money on sub-hunter planes, or all these nuclear command and control planes, if we didn't think they had this kind of stuff.

I think I didn't say that they don't have such stuff.
What I'm saying is that I doubt that all of it is in good operational condition.

Before their Ukraine invasion, most also thought they had a formidable army and that Ukraine would bite the dust quite fast.
But as it turned out, a lot of the funds didn't seem to have made it towards the allocated places, resulting in old, worn and bad state equipment, poorly trained soldiers and incompetent officers and commanders.

Why would nukes be any different?
I seriously doubt that all 6000 of them are in good operational condition. And that goes for delivery systems also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never seen the point in comparing sizes of nuclear arsenals either; I think maintenance and operability are the only practically relevant factors. What is the difference between 100 nukes and 10,000? Does any country think it could keep launching or receiving them like hand grenades? Just one or two high-yield nukes could destroy an entire country, let alone several or more warheads. Once one goes flying, it's over.

Idd.

Both the US and Russia have been throwing away money to make and maintain such an arsenal for so long. It is indeed completely insane.

The only difference in having just 100 instead of 5000 is that the 100 are a lot cheaper and thus better funded to protect and maintain them, lol

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think I didn't say that they don't have such stuff.
What I'm saying is that I doubt that all of it is in good operational condition.

Who knows even what they have, or what we have for that matter. It depends on where a country throws the funds. They got hypersonic missiles, which I'm not even sure that we have, and mobile-nuke launchers, and I also thought they had the largest actual nuke. The boast about a submarine that can make a nuclear tsunami, though I'm not sure if that one is real. Maybe some stuff they got has rusted out, but I'm not sure what the point your making is exactly.

Before their Ukraine invasion, most also thought they had a formidable army and that Ukraine would bite the dust quite fast.

well how long do you think this is going to go on for. It seems kind of hard to tell who is winning at this time

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe some stuff they got has rusted out, but I'm not sure what the point your making is exactly.

That the russian army as well as its equipment has become unreliable due to massive diversion of funds through corruption and general mismanagement.

well how long do you think this is going to go on for. It seems kind of hard to tell who is winning at this time

Which is exactly the point.
If the russian army and material was as good as people expected and / or believed it to be, then it would have steamrolled over ukraine in a matter of days. Weeks tops.
Instead, it's been embarrassment after embarrassment.

In reality, almost one year into the conflict, it seems hard to tell who's winning. And that, in and of itself, is already a loss for Russia.

And the root cause for this, is my point: a mismanaged army coupled with a corrupt elite resulting in unreliable soldiers and material.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Which is exactly the point.
If the russian army and material was as good as people expected and / or believed it to be, then it would have steamrolled over ukraine in a matter of days. Weeks tops.
Instead, it's been embarrassment after embarrassment.

They got armed, and trained up an army, so they were able to hold out, unlike in 2014. I guess the truth is though, any army usually puts up a good fight when defending home territory, when moral builds over not getting conquered, and when they know the area. Usually what happens, is that the defenders turn to guerilla war, and just do that until the bigger force leaves

But the nuclear problem is a whole different animal. A couple of them might fall apart, but even if that amounts to 10% out of thousands, then that is still really not worth thinking about differently, in my opinion.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Who knows even what they have, or what we have for that matter. It depends on where a country throws the funds. They got hypersonic missiles, which I'm not even sure that we have, and mobile-nuke launchers, and I also thought they had the largest actual nuke. The boast about a submarine that can make a nuclear tsunami, though I'm not sure if that one is real. Maybe some stuff they got has rusted out, but I'm not sure what the point your making is exactly.



well how long do you think this is going to go on for. It seems kind of hard to tell who is winning at this time

Nuclear stockpiles have decreased dramatically, but Russia has about 48% of the world's stockpile, the US about 40%. This is the closest to parity since 1977.

 

[lukethethird]

'Russia is now at war with NATO and the West'

Is Washington and it's NATO lackies helping Ukraine or using Ukraine?