Why America can't really win a nuclear war with Russia

[74x12]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

Unlike that famous altruist, Vlad Putin, eh.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

I've never considered bunkers practical.
When one emerges from them into a radioactive
landscape with no industry or farming. This brief
respite from the bombs going off will confer no
real advantage.

 

[74x12]

Unlike that famous altruist, Vlad Putin, eh.

I've never considered bunkers practical.
When one emerges from them into a radioactive
landscape with no industry or farming. This brief
respite from the bombs going off will confer no
real advantage.

So just give up? I think if you store enough resources it will be feasible. I mean we're talking about colonising Mars but we can't colonize a radioactive earth? I think it is not too difficult.

Anyway the bunkers would be definite last resort. No doubt about that.

 

[74x12]

Unlike that famous altruist, Vlad Putin, eh.

I've never considered bunkers practical.
When one emerges from them into a radioactive
landscape with no industry or farming. This brief
respite from the bombs going off will confer no
real advantage.

Another thing to consider is that many nuclear weapons are designed to be used as "airburst" attacks so they don't really release that much radiation into the ground. They rely more on heat and shock waves to flatten and burn cities. The really posionous nuclear attacks are the ones which actually impact the ground or detonate close to the ground.

So although you could see a lot of fallout; it's not necessarily as much.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

I don't disagree but I think things are too far gone now and there is no more control by the people themselves anymore.

The only 'people' now are the corporations as people. Not us.

I think its a hopeless cause for us common folks.

Only recourse is the surviving elite will have nobody to work for them so they will have to roll up their own sleeves themselves. My only regret is I wouldn't be there to see them wail and moan In the radioactive wasteland.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is no long term defence against nuclear war. Sooner rather than later, you run out of food and water, as well as all other supplies.
Though some will undoubtedly survive, civilisation as we know it, will come to an end.
Government will have no one to govern, and no way of enforcing anything.
Technology will grind to a halt. And need to re-emerge from a much lower level.

 

[Revoltingest]

So just give up?

Nah.
But I don't find it worth taking precautions
as extensive as creating a bunker.

I think if you store enough resources it will be feasible. I mean we're talking about colonising Mars but we can't colonize a radioactive earth? I think it is not too difficult.

Colonizing Mars in this century or even the next
is the stupidest idea since mint chocolate covered
pig chuckles.
Urban Dictionary: chuckle

 

[Revoltingest]

Another thing to consider is that many nuclear weapons are designed to be used as "airburst" attacks so they don't really release that much radiation into the ground. They rely more on heat and shock waves to flatten and burn cities. The really posionous nuclear attacks are the ones which actually impact the ground or detonate close to the ground.

So although you could see a lot of fallout; it's not necessarily as much.

With such fallout, the bunker wouldn't offer the
long term protection needed. My defense against
your scenario is to live someplace that isn't worth
bombing.

 

[JustGeorge]

In a nuclear war, nobody wins...

Win or lose a battle, sure. But the long term damage, environmentally, socially, and most of all, the loss of dear innocent lives... there are clearly no winners.

There are real people out there. People's sons and daughters. People's mothers and fathers. Grandparents, friends, even beloved pets. Ecosystems destroyed. Healthcare disasters for decades(or longer).

I don't care what side thinks they came out on top. They didn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a nuclear war, nobody wins...

Win or lose a battle, sure. But the long term damage, environmentally, socially, and most of all, the loss of dear innocent lives... there are clearly no winners.

There are real people out there. People's sons and daughters. People's mothers and fathers. Grandparents, friends, even beloved pets. Ecosystems destroyed. Healthcare disasters for decades(or longer).

I don't care what side thinks they came out on top. They didn't.

No winners...true dat.
One side just loses more than the other.

 

[Nakosis]

The models are eerily specific. In the 4,400 warhead/150 Tg soot nuclear war scenario, averaged over the subsequent five years, China sees a reduction in food calories of 97.2 percent, France by 97.5 percent, Russia by 99.7 percent, the UK by 99.5 percent and the US by 98.9 percent. In all these countries, virtually everyone who survived the initial blasts would subsequently starve.

It was this shared understanding of the consequences of nuclear Armageddon that led to the 1985 statement by then US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This statement was reaffirmed by Presidents Biden and Putin as recently as January 2022. Even as war rages in Ukraine it remains as true now as it was then.
What the science says: Could humans survive a nuclear war between NATO and Russia? - Alliance for Science

Ones assumes even political leaders have family they care about and love.
So while the human race may survive, very few would. No guarantee your family/children would.
I think this mutual threat of annihilation is the only deterrent against the start of a nuclear war.

 

[metis]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

If a full-scale nuclear war were to break out, I want to catch the first bomb.

 

[metis]

@ChristineM , before I die, could you arrange for me to have a mushroom crepe with a wine-enhanced bechamel sauce and with a "generous" glass of Bordeaux??? Whatta way to go!!!

 

[Stevicus]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

The only way that I know of to "win" a nuclear war is to launch a completely surprise attack and give the enemy so little warning so as to not be able to launch a counterstrike before they're annihilated. It's a huge gamble, though.

Of course, even if it's successful, it would still lead to a great deal of fallout and global environmental damage so that even the "winner" would be an eventual loser in such a war. It would be a pyrrhic victory, at best, involving mass murder on an unprecedented scale and extensive environmental damage to the global ecosystem.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM , before I die, could you arrange for me to have a mushroom crepe with a wine-enhanced bechamel sauce and with a "generous" glass of Bordeaux??? Whatta way to go!!!

With cepes mushroom and I'd choose a monbazillac, a sweet white from Bergerac.

 

[The Hammer]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US governme
nt. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

I'm just surprised no one knew this... I could have sworn this was public knowledge.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If you smile at me, I will understand
'Cause that is something
Everybody everywhere does in the same language
I can see by your coat, my friend
You're from the other side
There's just one thing I got to know
Can you tell me please, who won?
Say, can I have some of your purple berries?
Yes, I've been eating them for six or seven weeks now
Haven't got sick once
Probably keep us both alive

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

without provisions for the continuity of the United States' government, the USA would cease to be the USA for the foreseeable future.

Even with continuity of government, there's a very high probability that the USA would cease to be the USA for the foreseeable future.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No marigolds in the promised land
There's a hole in the ground
Where they used to grow
Any man left on the Rio Grande
Is the king of the world
King of the world, as far as I know

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To sum it all up it's called "Continuity of Government."

This is the policy that is codified in law by the US government. The policy is simple. That the government of America must go on at all costs. So they put the government ahead of the welfare of the people.

You don't have bunkers or anything to defend you in major American cities in case of bombing. You're all slated as collateral damage. So America can absorb a nuclear first strike and then strike back against Russia but the people of America will be ashes already.

On the other hand Russia has in place in major cities like Moscow bunkers designed to house all the people possible. So the Russians actually care more about their people than American political and military elites do. Yet they have way less money than us and still make it happen.

So I think Americans cheering on WW3 are being very stupid to be honest. You cheer on your own destruction so your ruling elites can survive and maybe they'll be able to avenge your deaths on Russia ... maybe not. Maybe all their plans fail. Either way; you'll be dead.

So don't be an American idiot like that song says ... instead be a smart American.

What we need is to return to government "for and by the people" instead of "government for the government".

It's all backwards.

Instead of spending so much on new ships and planes that allow our rulers to have force projection around the world. Why don't we take that defense budget and put bunkers in every major city and make sure we have the best missile defense system and the best defenses available for the people against WMDs like chemical and biological attacks? And we should harden the grid against EMP attacks. That's what our defense budget could feasibly do if we really had government for and by the people.

We already have the very best ships and planes and helicopters etc. in the world that money can possibly buy. Yet they keep making new and better ones like we're only competing with ourselves or something. No one can really touch us in those areas but it all means nothing if we just let our cities be nuked into oblivion.

This is how you know your defense budget and military are for the rulers and not for you. Probably so they can start another war with another little country that doesn't want to do business and make them more money. So wake up.

There, that's my rant. I think it's our duty as Americans to call out nonsense like this. If I'm wrong let me know. Anyone know this topic?

That's socialism! People should build their own bunkers. Only those that show they WANT to survive by putting time and money in a bunker deserve it. All that stuff about "providing for the general welfare" crap was snuck into Constitution by FDR when no one was looking.