• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I've even considered the question of whether it's ethical to even fire back after you know the enemy has launched.

I've been thinking about what you wrote here, and I have come to the conclusion that it's really not. It's both pointless, and overly destructive. There is more hope in hoping that the population of the country that survived, (if nuclear winter doesn't end their country) looks objectively at the destruction that nukes cause, and then they decide to then dismantle them.

There's also another scenario: what the if the first-striker only does a few limited strikes, and demands a stand-down? Retaliation from the attacked country only results in another strike. What then?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
True, there's absolutely nothing ethical about nuclear war. I've even considered the question of whether it's ethical to even fire back after you know the enemy has launched.
They'd never launch their entire inventory.
Firing back can cripple further offensive launches.
And there's vengeance.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
They'd never launch their entire inventory.
Firing back can cripple further offensive launches.
And there's vengeance.

they can probably fire back and forth dozens of times, if each side can distribute command to either an aerial or naval command ship. So I guess my question is, in such a grim scenario, does it not become ethical for one side to eventually stand-down, and not retaliate? If they retaliate at all? (which it seems that either side certainly would, russia may even do so with A.I. technology, with their supposed 'dead-hand' system, if that actually exists)
 

Sedim Haba

Outa here... bye-bye!
Chernobyl shows that mammals survive.
You wouldn't want to eat them, but live
lives on....civilization, perhaps not so much.

That's only considering the fallout, and the northern hemisphere would be just deadly toxic with that.
No, I was considering the Nuclear Winter that follows, even the southern hemisphere and oceans
are not safe from that. Depends on conditions we simply don't have the data for, AFAIK.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's only considering the fallout, and the northern hemisphere would be just deadly toxic with that.
No, I was considering the Nuclear Winter that follows, even the southern hemisphere and oceans
are not safe from that. Depends on conditions we simply don't have the data for, AFAIK.
Life would survive, even some humans.
But it would be a long & miserable recovery.
 

Sedim Haba

Outa here... bye-bye!
they can probably fire back and forth dozens of times, if each side can distribute command to either an aerial or naval command ship. So I guess my question is, in such a grim scenario, does it not become ethical for one side to eventually stand-down, and not retaliate? If they retaliate at all? (which it seems that either side certainly would, russia may even do so with A.I. technology, with their supposed 'dead-hand' system, if that actually exists)
If 'PLAN A" is accurate, it seems that there will be multiple waves. Nothing remains or is held back.

Most disturbing is 'THE COUNTERVALUE PLAN" @ 3:15

 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I wish it was that simple; then no one would ever try it.

As things are now I wouldn't worry. As long as both sides are on high alert I don't expect anything to happen. The only time anyone has a chance of winning nuclear war is to strike at the most unexpected and opportune moment.

Putin has already threatened nuclear war in deterrence of non-nuclear actions.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Putin has already threatened nuclear war in deterrence of non-nuclear actions.
Yet recently Russia backed down a little bit on the nuclear threats. Saying they will not use nuclear weapons unless there is an existenstial threat to Russia itself.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yet recently Russia backed down a little bit on the nuclear threats. Saying they will not use nuclear weapons unless there is an existenstial threat to Russia itself.
With Putin, even giving him the stink eye might
be interpreted as an existential threat.
That man just ain't right in the head.
 

Mock Turtle

Trump: The USA Brexit!
Premium Member
Yet recently Russia backed down a little bit on the nuclear threats. Saying they will not use nuclear weapons unless there is an existenstial threat to Russia itself.
But what does that mean? If the boundaries of what Putin sees as Russia are questioned? Great! :oops:
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
But what does that mean? If the boundaries of what Putin sees as Russia are questioned? Great! :oops:
In my opinion it just means they're backing down a little bit. That's probably good. But also means that Russia will be likely to hold a long term grudge.
 

Mock Turtle

Trump: The USA Brexit!
Premium Member
In my opinion it just means they're backing down a little bit. That's probably good. But also means that Russia will be likely to hold a long term grudge.
Well no change there - as to grudges - since this has been so for all my life, at least from what I have seen, and is possibly why Russia has refused to progress when so many other countries have achieved so much. Russians, or so many of them, appear to take pleasure in wallowing in their self-made misery.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Yet recently Russia backed down a little bit on the nuclear threats. Saying they will not use nuclear weapons unless there is an existenstial threat to Russia itself.

Actually, they stepped up their threat to use nuclear weapons by suggesting that the current situation may constitute an existential threat to Russia that would justify their use, but it is interesting that you read it that way.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Actually, they stepped up their threat to use nuclear weapons by suggesting that the current situation may constitute an existential threat to Russia that would justify their use, but it is interesting that you read it that way.
From what I understand; only if NATO intervenes.
 
Top