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

[Sedim Haba]

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

AFAIK, only Lichen and insects will be left. Earth started out from much humbler beginnings, but will it have time to heal and evolve higher life before the sun goes red giant?

 

[Revoltingest]

AFAIK, only Lichen and insects will be left.

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

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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

There is a thread on that in the political debates section, where I commented

 

[Ponder This]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[74x12]

But what does that mean? If the boundaries of what Putin sees as Russia are questioned? Great!

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]

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Let's try the reverse. Threaten nucular war if he continues.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Let's try the reverse. Threaten nucular war if he continues.

Not helpful..

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not helpful..

It works for Putin.

 

[Ponder This]

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]

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.