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

[Ponder This]

From what I understand; only if NATO intervenes.

The Russian threat of nukes is not confined to actions of NATO, but even if that's the case, Russia's threat to use nukes is still unjustified.

 

[74x12]

From this article it looks like Germany is starting to get the picture. Still nothing from my America though. No surprise I guess. We seem to want to destroy ourselves more than our enemies do. More self hatred in America than even in Germany?

Ukraine war pushes Germany to strengthen its bunker infrastructure

 

[Watchmen]

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 think you’re making up quite a bit. In any event, neither the US or Russia would win a nuclear war. Both countries account for 90% of the world’s nukes and have significant second strike capabilities. It’s mutually assured destruction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 think you're wrong because you view this in much too simplistic naive terms.
If there is a nuclear exchange between the ruskies and the yankies, it's not going to be 1 or two bombs.
It's going to be hundreds. The entirety of the US and the entirety of Russia is going down the tubes.

Even the "continuity of government" is a sham. If Russia launches first, the American bombs will be underway before any russian bomb reaches its destination. Most of those who manage to get to bunkers (they will NOT have much time to get there), will be trapped there anyway, with rubble and debris blocking their way out. Those that do get out, will find themselves in a barren wasteland and eventually die from hunger, thirst, fallout, civil unrest,.....

There will be no more US and no more Russia when the dust settles.
"survivors" are going to wish to were dead. And they'll get their wish soon enough anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm..
That's a tricky one.
Are both US and Russia right to have so many nuclear missiles?
I don't know .. where does it all end?

They say "nuclear deterrent" .. looks more like poker to me.

I think it's ridiculous.
History turned out this way that both had an arsenal with as reason "the others have them too".
It's unfortunate that it turned out that way, but it is what it is.

The big question for me has always been "why so many?".

What can you do with 10.000 nukes that you can't do with 1000?
What use does it have to have an arsenal that can destroy the entire world a 100 times over?
Isn't once enough to serve the purpose it is supposed to serve?

It's completely senseless.

And what I get really depressed about........... is thinking about all the good and productive things that could have been done with the money that has been poured into it, and continues to be poured into it.

That amount of money better spend, and nobody in this world would have to be hungry.
Nobody in this world would have to die from the common flu.
Etc.


So in a very real way, you could say that children in Africa are starving, because some head honcho's insist on being able to destroy the world a hundred times over.

How do you defend such nonsense policy?

 

[Suave]

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

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

Please let us consider the human colonization of Mars as being the ultimate solution for eluding the existential threat of nuclear conflict upon Earth!

Furthermore, there should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

Deployment of a magnetic shield at the Langrangian point 1 from Mars where this could protect against solar stripping of the Martian atmosphere might be the first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost less than one half trillion dollars yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than some few thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there could be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". Please let us agree to favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please let us consider the human colonization of Mars as being the ultimate solution for eluding the existential threat of nuclear conflict upon Earth!

Furthermore, there should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

Deployment of a magnetic shield at the Langrangian point 1 from Mars where this could protect against solar stripping of the Martian atmosphere might be the first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost less than one half trillion dollars yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than some few thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there could be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". Please let us agree to favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

I see some impracticalities there.
But I won't be going into them.
The Moon is a better candidate for colonization.
- Far closer.
- Lower gravity.
- Plenty of cheese.

 

[Suave]

I see some impracticalities there.
But I won't be going into them.
The Moon is a better candidate for colonization.
- Far closer.
- Lower gravity.
- Plenty of cheese.

What about the lunar weak gravity failing atmospheric retention? What about the moon's lack of water in contrast to there being plenty of subterranean Martian H2O? Furthermore, what about Space-Ex becoming a publicly traded company profiting it's shareholders more on endeavoring Mars than profiting on lunar transport? For the love of humanity, please let us realize that it is Mars or bust!

 

[Revoltingest]

What about the lunar weak gravity failing atmospheric retention? What about the moon's lack of water in contrast to there being plenty of subterranean Martian H2O? Furthermore, what about Space-Ex becoming a publicly traded company profiting it's shareholders more on endeavoring Mars than profiting on lunar transport? For the love of humanity, please let us realize that it is Mars or bust!

Neither Mars nor Moon would retain a significant & breathable
atmosphere. But low gravity makes travel to & from easier.
Moon might have more water than you think.
Space-Ex has had no success with Mars yet.

 

[Suave]

Neither Mars nor Moon would retain a significant & breathable
atmosphere. But low gravity makes travel to & from easier.
Moon might have more water than you think.
Space-Ex has had no success with Mars yet.

I recall Elon Musk having little success with mass producing Tesla electric cars five years ago. Yet here we are now as Tesla shareholders of a company worth nearly a trillion dollars producing over a million electric vehicles annually. Likewise, I am equally confident Elon Musk and company can engineer economically feasible interplanetary spacecraft travelling to Mars. The Martian atmosphere can in theory be transformed from a thin carbon dioxide dominated atmosphere into a denser oxygenated atmosphere via photosynthesis by lichen.

 

[Revoltingest]

I recall Elon Musk having little success with mass producing Tesla electric cars five years ago. Yet here we are now as Tesla shareholders of a company worth nearly a trillion dollars producing over a million electric vehicles annually.

Producing cars is a wee bit easier than sending people
to live on Mars. Success at one thing doesn't mean
that all things are possible.

Likewise, I am equally confident Elon Musk and company can engineer economically feasible interplanetary spacecraft travelling to Mars. The Martian atmosphere can in theory be transformed from a thin carbon dioxide dominated atmosphere into a denser oxygenated atmosphere via photosynthesis by lichen.

The energy required to create a magnetosphere is
far far beyond any known or envisioned technology.

Not that Musk has had his failures, eg, his submarine
to rescue the Thai kids stuck underwater in a cave.
His proposal was ignorant & even idiotic.

 

[Shaul]

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.

Wouldn’t anyplace you live be not worth bombing?

 

[Shaul]

“Cute” false dichotomy. We could, of course, plan for both continuity of the government and maximizing civil defense. Funny how anti-military proponents were first and foremost in favor of dismantling U.S. civil defenses. Now they use a lacking of them to attack our military. The U.S. ability to project our military to and from anyplace in the world is one of the key reasons a global nuclear conflagration has not happened. The Russians know that they could never eliminate all U.S. military power since it is dispersed all around the world. While their is confined to their own territory. Hence they understand and choose not to attack us.

 

[Shaul]

Here is an incredibly large boring machine. These things dig through solid rock. We think that they have better ones than these. These are just commercially available tunneling machines. Evidence is that the US government (and other governments of the world) have more advanced ones they use to make their own underground bases and tunnel systems.

But even these ones could dig out underground bunkers for major cities.

It doesn’t looking boring to me. Indeed it looks kind of interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn’t anyplace you live be not worth bombing?

I do tend to lower property values.
But even my powers would fail in NYC, LA, or DC.

 

[Suave]

Producing cars is a wee bit easier than sending people
to live on Mars. Success at one thing doesn't mean
that all things are possible.

The energy required to create a magnetosphere is
far far beyond any known or envisioned technology.

Not that Musk has had his failures, eg, his submarine
to rescue the Thai kids stuck underwater in a cave.
His proposal was ignorant & even idiotic.

Scientists have proposed the ionization of particles emitted by the Martian moon of Phobos and accelerating the flow of these ionized particles in order to generate a magnetic field shielding the Martian atmosphere from being stripped away by solar radiation, Such a Martian magnetosphere would require roughly 100.000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, which is comparable to the total amount of electricity consumed by everybody on Earth last year.

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars - ScienceDirect

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars
lR.A.BamfordaB.J.KellettaJ.L.GreenbC.DongcV.AirapetiandR.Binghamae

 

[Revoltingest]

Scientists have proposed the ionization of particles emitted by the Martian moon of Phobos and accelerating these in order to generate a magnetic field shielding the Martian atmosphere from being stripped away by solar radiation, Such a Martian magnetosphere would require roughly 100.000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, which is comparable to the total amount of electricity consumed by everybody on Earth last year.

How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars - ScienceDirect

That's an awful lot of juice.
And I know that from contractor's estimates
& final bill that it will be at least triple that.

 

[Suave]

That's an awful lot of juice.
And I know that from contractor's estimates
& final bill that it will be at least triple that.

I did not realize the multi trillion dollar price of forming and generating a Martian magnetosphere; but nevertheless, we should still be more than willing to have the world's wealthiest taxpayers compliant with trillions of their taxed dollars being spent yearly on terraforming Mars in order to save humanity from the existential threat of nuclear conflict and global warming.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did not realize the multi trillion dollar price of forming and generating a Martian magnetosphere; but nevertheless, we should still be more than willing to have the world's wealthiest taxpayers compliant with trillions of their taxed dollars being spent yearly on terraforming Mars in order to save humanity from the existential threat of nuclear conflict and global warming.

Why do you think the threat of nuclear war
wouldn't extend to Mars?
Global warming won't end humanity...just
raise sea levels. Wouldn't money spent to
inhabit Mars be better spent here to end GW?

 

[Suave]

Why do you think the threat of nuclear war
wouldn't extend to Mars?
Global warming won't end humanity...just
raise sea levels. Wouldn't money spent to
inhabit Mars be better spent here to end GW?

Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, which all space faring nations have signed, prohibits nuclear weapons in outer space; limiting the use of Mars to peaceful purposes.

Outer Space Treaty (unoosa.org)