Russia amps up nuclear threat.
You must log in or register to comment.
- Use tactical nukes in Ukraine
- get sanctioned out of existence/bombed back to the Paleolithic era
- ???
- Profit
I believe the idea is:
- Mention nukes and grab everyone’s attention
- Run social media campaign (“oh noes, <insert undesirable politician or ideology> is leading us into war with nuclear power, they bad”)
- Have bought politicians and lobbyists push to reduce sanctions or block additional sanctions
- Profit.
.
But increasingly, I see step 2 fail and people simply hate the guy more for his destructive megalomania, as they should.
He won’t just fling nukes to Ukraine. If he’s going to do that he’s going for much more. He also doesn’t care if 95% of the world suffer from the nuclear fallout
“Nuclear fallout” in modern nukes is isolated to the area they hit. As such, modern nukes aren’t going to irradiate the atmosphere that would lead to a Fallout video-game style world.
What they will do is kill a f*** ton of people and thermally destroy a specific area REALLY hard. If you’re in the blast radius, you won’t even know it. You’ll be dead from the shockwave so fast you’ll have literally less than a second of confusion before you get turned into meat mist.
And who says Russia will use “modern” nukes?
We’ve already seen rusty museum pieces on the front line in this conflict.
Is that true? :o I thought the way nukes irradiated the atmosphere was through all the dust and shit thrown up during the explosion being blown around by wind currents? Has that changed with new nukes?
More worried about this triggering an ice age and subsequent global failure of what crops remain.
when you say modern nukes, do you mean simply H-bombs/thermonuclear/fusion bombs?
That and also bombs designed to detonate near the surface with an initially downward explosive force.
We know how the last “military drills” went. Better to launch some preemptive strikes on those positions, before they can fire them towards Ukraine.
i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid
It also wouldn’t be very smart to shoot at potentially armed nukes, tbh.
It’s actually pretty difficult to detonate a nuke by shooting at it, if that’s what you’re getting at.
A certain set of things has to happen in a very specific order with tight timings (milliseconds) in order for it to actually explode.
Hence all the incidents in the US of accidentally dropped nukes on domestic territory and no boom boom.
Nukes need high explosives. The most modern ones use extremely stable explosives but some of the Cold War era accidents in the US often did go boom but not BOOOOOOOM.
Still bad exploding weapons-grade radioactive material. Thankfully not as bad as a nuclear explosion.
Pardon me sir, but I did say “boom boom” which is roughly equivalent to one “BOOOOOOOM”, assuming we’re using the metric system.
If we’re you’re using imperial boom scale, then frankly you disgust me.
Sending a fissile bullet into a fissile shell to activate a hydrogen payload is certainly a delicate mechanism, but to take so much as a 1% chance of detonating a nuclear warhead that otherwise wouldn’t have gone off, escalating nuclear war across the entire earth, is a bad idea and you will never convince me otherwise.
Its not 1%.
It’s not even 0.01%
You could try it once a second for the rest of your life, and it still wouldn’t go off.
You’d just damage it at the most. Maybe trigger a safety system which will need to be reset before it can be armed again.
Nobody is saying it’s a good idea, it’s just a complete non issue.
Bullshit, keep telling yourself that.
Oh, okay then. Yeah sure, I made it up. It’s a 90% chance and we’ve just been exceptionally lucky.
And the west will take another year to respond.
What, exactly, would your response be?
There need to be clear consequences for breaking the taboo before he does it, otherwise he’ll do it.
He has shown how little he cares for what others think of his breaking of taboos.
Again, what would your response be? How exactly do you punish a nuclear nation?
I’m not sure and I think there are people with more expertise who will come up with better solutions but I do feel like a tactical nuke is his trump card so I expect him to play it if things go worse for him given their comparatively low yield and very high shock value.
I think if a response was laid out to him in advance he might be less likely to cross that line. As it stands he can more or less choose to use a tactical nuke on Ukrainian soil knowing that much hand wringing will follow.
One example might be to say that Ukraine will be given a tactical nuke for use at their discretion on the battlefield for each one he uses. It would certainly cause pause for thought whether or not it was even followed through on.
If you think a nuke being dropped won’t warrant an immediate military response, you’re a moron.
I don’t think there’s any need for the name calling. I was engaging with you in good faith despite the differing viewpoints.
Yes, I believe a small yield tactical nuke in the kiloton range, possibly in the arse end of nowhere, would not elicit an immediate military response because they haven’t said up front the response it would elicit. The West has shown itself to be absolutely afraid of escalation which other potential adversaries are taking careful note of.
Putin is desperate to hold on to power and this war that has cost untold number of Russian lives is the first thing that has shown any sign of potentially costing him that power. So sure, I think a 30KT tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere to change the conversation could happen.
If NATO had been clear about the response if he does I believe he’d be less likely to do it, but they haven’t and it stinks of not wanting to upset him along with every other weak arsed decision they’ve made out of a misplaced fear to not antagonise him.
Since you’ve been asking me what the response would be, what do you think the response would be by the West to a small yield tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere?
