You're a genuine idiot if you me not believing nuclear war means the end of the world is the same thing as thinking nuclear war is a joke.
It would end civilization as we know it at the very least, and kill billions.
Nuclear weapons can end the world though. Just because some people will survive doesn't mean the world as we know it won't be over.
There are a few cobalt bombs and slam jet prototypes lingering around but those are exceedingly rare, otherwise no we cant irradiate the planet with the entire arsenal because of not only the sheer size of the earth but also because nature doesn't give a shit and goes where it wants to regardless of your radiation. radioactive fallout is a non issue when it comes to Nuclear bombs in general now quit yer fear mongerin'.
On the first part, they kinda do since its impossible to predict what side the nuke will come from, and be fired far far closer to its target, leaving very little if none at all time to intercept.
I think the world as we know it would end after nuclear war, even though perhaps not the end of humanity or life or anything of that kind. Also naturally the earth wont even care if she could. Couple thousands nukes is nothing compared to the bombardment of comets and meteors our earth already survived.
the concept of nuclear winter was deliberately blown out of proportion by Sagan and co. to terrify world leaders. rightly so, because overhyped or not, i'd rather not test that theory.
i still want a complete and comprehensive counter-argument from you regarding this stuff though. people seem to have gotten the illusion that you don't think nuclear war to be much more serious than a conventional war, and i suspect that's quite not what you meant.
okay! let me detonate a nuke with your hometown downwind from ground zero. no need to seek shelter or anything, since it's a total non-issue. i'll make it a ground burst too, to create even more non-issue fallout!
Please point to where I said it would not be more serious that a conventional war. You're not the first person to have thrown that around so I've gone from annoyed at the statement to slightly confused how more than one person could make that error.
you never did and i know that. the "end of the world" thing is the part that's causing confusion on both sides of the argument, posters may have the impression that you're downplaying the nuclear threat too much. "the end of the world" is a somewhat vague term and everyone seems to have their own ideas regarding what you or they mean by it, so elaboration would be good for the whole debate.
a few parts per billion wont really harm anybody here or there, we used to detonate a couple nukes a day right by urban city centers and although cancer was likely an issue life went on and the denizens ate, slept, drank, and worked just the same.
On your note about groundbursts, that is a massive waste of damage potential, airbursts are industry standard because the shock waves and pressures generated are what do all the heavy lifting, a groundburst subverts a lot of this potential energy by having it dissipate in the ground, the creation of the fireball is what causes the damage, not the fireball itself.
Secondly the only bunkers capable of surviving a nuke are under mountains so far deep it doesn't matter what you do, nothing is going to work. Fallout is again, the last thing to think about when a nuke goes off. The only way to irradiate an area effectively is with a SLAM jet and even the U.S. wasn't crazy enough to build them.
For a war between Russia and the US something like 500 million for a counter-value attack (i.e cities) primarily from immediate weapons effects and 50 million for a counter-force attack (aimed at suppressing enemy nuclear response) mostly from fallout though a lot would also come from blast.
Civilian Causalities from "Limited" Nuclear Attacks on the USSR (page 182 of International Security Vol. 12, No. 3 (Winter, 1987-1988)) gives a rundown of Russian (Soviet) fatal casualties from a counter-force attack using 4100 warheads totally about 850 Mt yield at somewhere between 15.5m and 32.2m people of which about 2/3rds would be fallout casualties.
The Effects of Nuclear War (1979) in Chapter 4, page 85 calculated 14m with an upper limit of 22m for a counter-force attack against the US. The report does not calculate a counter-value attack against the USSR, but does calculate such an attack on the US on page 94 and 95. They predict about ~150m casualties for an out-of-the-blue attack, dropping to ~50m with some forewarning to allow preparation. It's late so I'm not going to dig up another report for Russia but it's safe to assume Russia would suffer a slightly higher death toll due to their higher level of population centralisation. A similar assumption could be made for Europe during a counter-value attack.
While the population has increased, these numbers are probably lower now than they were during the Cold War as the number of nuclear weapons has dropped a lot.
It will be the bloodiest day in human history, will in the space of hours dwarf every other conflict in history combined and will utterly change the geopolitical landscape, but it won't end humanity or send the world back to the stone age.
If I am wrong I am willing to learn, enlighten me.
Airbursts aren't industry standard because - while they're good at destroying soft targets like cities, radar sites, mobile ICBMs etc - thaey can't apply the 5000+ PSI to the ground required to destroy hardened targets like silos or command centres. It's also quite easy to survive and airburst. Even a simple slit trench will increase your survivability while more elaborate things like reinforced shelters in basements with strong doors will increase your survivability even further. While in a scenario where everyone only uses airbursts the fallout would be pretty minimal (you can estimate the global increase in background radiation from the 300 or so megatonnes detoanted during testing in 1950s and 60s - it will only be a few percent), that's not a very realistic assumption. Anyone downwind of a nuclear silo field either needs to leave quickly or spend several weeks in a good shelter to not die from the fallout.
Has there been a Russian government in the last 50 years that has been as predatory on NATO as Putin's has? It seems like the Soviet governments of the past have had the diplomatic grace NOT to fuck with America and Europe outside of proxy wars like Afghanistan, Korea, or Viet Nam
This might be worse than "Why the fuck are you blaming the father?"
As i see it, it's more of result of how Cold War ended. Western governments also had, as you said, "diplomatic grace" not to fuck with Soviet Union, because, well, we actually were extremely strong back then. As international diplomacy usually require both sides to agree, unless of course, one side is overwhelmingly strong, so, NATO agreed not to actively try to fuck up Soviet Union, and we agreed to do the same in exchange. After Soviet Union fell, we lost most of our power, and with it, leverage over our Western "friends", when their became even bigger. From my perspective, perspective of Russian citizen, most of our current hostilities come from the fact that our government feels cornered, and with West demanding we do things as they say, it's not surprising that common people think the same. I frequently see here, on facepunch, people being afraid about Russia planning to take over world, but, there is literally no way we could do that. Our country is unable to pursue offensive war, especially against enemy like NATO. Defensive war, yes, we probably can handle that, but definitely not "Taking over The World", as western press loves to say
I'm afraid of Russia taking over the world politically, diplomatically, and through espionage/psyops. I have no illusions that Russia will ever nuke Brussels
Some context to the conflict is also the accords made with the Russian government concerning the fall of the wall, and how those accords are blatantly denied to have ever existed by nato
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/russia-ukraine-nato-crisis/nato-enlargement-russia/en/index.htm
Even though documents now in the public domain state the following between diplomats and statesmen.
On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with
Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which
was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO
membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us,
however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And
because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher
added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned,
this also applies in general."
Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."
NATO's Eastward Expansion
Does this justify everything Putin has done? heck no, but the rhetoric clearly colours his motivations. He brings it up in speeches, and to understand ones enemy is to know its next move.
Someone will take over the world, eventually. After Soviet Union fell, US almost did it, as there was no one who could say no to them, and not having "Democracy" bringed to them. Now, as you managet to elect complete moron as your president, you losing your influence, and fast. Honestly, no matter how our government tries to demonize west, I actually more afraid of China taking over. Not by force, but through diplomatic and economic means. They actually tried to take our land when sino-soviet split happened, and now we just give it to them almost for free. Being American puppet is more preferable, than being Chinese one, though i prefer us being independent
It doesn't have to be a choice between American supremacy, Russian supremacy, and Chinese supremacy. With proper, functioning democracy, we aren't left with despots who can invade other countries unchecked. While the current American president is a real asshole, he has yet to invade another country. If Russia and China had free, untampered elections, there wouldn't be 3 gigantic superpowers trying to muscle each other out. You don't see America invading smaller western European countries or murdering the journalists who criticize their government (though I'm afraid we're heading down that path) because the natural inclination of democracies is that democracies don't fight each other
USA doesn't invade western european countries because it didn't need to, as they agree on lot of stuff anyway. For example, what if US want to squash "terrorists" somewhere in middle-east? Other NATO members happy to support, even though they claim that NATO is defensive alliance, so they have no obligations to help. What i want to say, that US have so much influence over european politics, that they don't even need to say anything. After WW2 it's was US who rebuilt devastated Europe, it was US who was protecting them from "Red Menace", so obviously, European countries let US to decide on some things. Same with Eastern Europe, Soviet occupation wasn't all that good, and is was for too fucking long. Of course, when Soviet Union union fell, and US got to be victorious in Cold War, it's no surprise that new governents decided to lick their savior ass. As for 1990s, yes, Russia had something that looked like democracy. And one of the worst crisises it ever had. Russia was ruled by mafia and gangs, government wasn't doing anything, both police and army was too weak to keep basic order. Yes, we got democracy and capitalism, but no one even tried to explain how we supposed to work with that. West was so happy with it's victory, that they failed to realise one simply thing - after hundreds, if not thousands years of tyrants, we had no fucking idea how to live with new and shiny democratic order. Such a transition should span several generations, and we switched from authoritarian government to democratic in less than a couple decades. How about next time when we will be fucked again, you actually will try to help, instead of sitting on your high moral horse and gloating about victory, when people here lost pretty much everything they believed into? And even if both China and Russia was democratic, i doubt our relations would be good enough. I'm afraid, wanting to be on top of every one else is part of our, human, nature, and how one country or another organised will not change that.
You put "terrorists" in quotations as if we weren't attacked by terrorists on 9/11, and as if the United States wasn't defending itself?
And now the government is the criminal organization which robs people.
You fucked yourselves, we had nothing to do with decades of the Soviets mismanaging their economy and throwing people into Gulags. It's the responsibility of YOUR people, not America or England, to hold democracy in high regard and defend it.
But I'm not here to talk about world history, I just want to say that IF Russia had a functioning democracy, the world would be less tumultuous; Putin would not be in a position to arbitrarily annex and invade other countries, he wouldn't be able to murder journalists who criticize him, attack civilians in the UK with nerve agents and polonium, or interfere in foreign elections. If Russia had a functioning democracy, Russia would be seen as less of a villain on the world stage.
You put "terrorists" in quotations as if we weren't attacked by
terrorists on 9/11, and as if the United States wasn't defending itself?
Actually, have no issue with that one. You blow something on foreign soil, you get missile up your ass, simple as that. It's more about current state of affairs in middle-east, as that is more of a proxy war now, than attempt to destroy real terrorists, minus ISIS of course, those guys are indeniably evil.
And now the government is the criminal organization which robs people.
And what are you offering to do with that? Besides starting another bloody civil war, as we kinda tried other methods already
You fucked yourselves, we had nothing to do with decades of the Soviets
mismanaging their economy and throwing people into Gulags. It's the
responsibility of YOUR people, not America or England, to hold democracy
in high regard and defend it.
Isn't that was a point of Cold War for West? To get rid of commies, to set up a democratic, capitalist government? You proclaimed yourselves as a victors, and isn't it a responsibility of victorious side, to help losers rebuild themselves? To not get in "Won the War, lost the Peace" situation? I thought it's one of the most important things in ideological wars, like that. Or it was just about crushing Russia and ensuring that it will never get powerful again? If so, then i have no complaints.
But I'm not here to talk about world history, I just want to say that IF
Russia had a functioning democracy, the world would be less tumultuous;
Putin would not be in a position to arbitrarily annex and invade other
countries, he wouldn't be able to murder journalists who criticize him,
attack civilians in the UK with nerve agents and polonium, or interfere
in foreign elections. If Russia had a functioning democracy, Russia
would be seen as less of a villain on the world stage.
I actually hate Putin and his cronies, I don't support annexation of Crimea, I see murders of journalist and political opponents as needlessly brutal and stupid decision, and so on. But our opposition is bunch of cry babies, who unable to compromise on simpliest things, and spends more time on throwing shit in each other, than to do something helpful. We actually sometimes get somewhat good politicians from opposition side, but as it's leaders is total idiots, they don't usually get high enough to matter.
What I am trying to say, democracy don't just not worked out here, it actually backfired on us spectaculary. People pretty much used to be ruled by one guy, and not having much decision making in how country works, life quality is still higher than in Soviet Union, and much, much higher than in 90s, so, don't expect it here really. On intervening in elections, one fun thing, there is rumors, that Yeltsin, first president of Russia, was helped by the West. If thats correct, then current situation with Trump is amusingly ironic, as it's thanks to that guy we have Putin now
No, it was to defend ourselves and our allies from Russian and other Communist encroachment expansion. We didn't seek to overthrow the Soviet Union, the Soviets did that to themselves.
I don't know who you're talking about, but we saw the fall of the soviet union as a victory for the oppressed people of Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other former soviet bloc countries over dictatorship. Sure America "won" because we didn't end up nuked into oblivion by the end of it but we weren't rooting for the downfall of communism because we didn't like the name of it. Communism was an existential thread to the security of western europe, and represented the most oppressive system of government EVER known to mankind, murdering millions and oppressing half a continent under Russian military occupation for more than half a century. It wasn't really "America" or "NATO" that "won" at the end of the cold war: the downfall of the soviet union was a victory for all of mankind.
It was about Russian no longer crushing millions of Europeans. You make Russia sound like the victim of the cold war, when it was the smaller countries which Russia colonized like Poland, Hungary, Czech republic and Ukraine which were the victims of the cold war and Russian communism.
Highlight the section of the post you want to quote and click "reply"
IIRC Soviet High Command thought same, but other way. Occupation of Eastern Europe was to create a buffer in case of another invasion from west, as Stalin didn't trusted Allies, and, considering things like Operation Unthinkable existed, not without reason. Fortunately, that one was quickly abandoned, and later both sides got enough nukes, so any invasion, Soviet or Allied, would've been suicide.
On this one: Western governments openly disliked idea of communism even before WW2, and before crimes of Soviet regime were known, Cold War era Red Scare wasn't first one, though, far-left, as a far-right, not very pleasant people, so can't judge West on that
And it would be a perfect pretext for a war, which easily can be used by more radical people in our government to grab power for themselves. Right now our gov is a bunch of greedy assholes. And if something like that would happen, they quickly will be replaced by bloodthirsty assholes. Pick what you prefer more.
So, you say that russians never suffered under Soviet rule? Under Russian Empire? Under whatever Russia was called before that? Everyone had it as bad as the others, we had no major racial prejudice, here everyone was a slave, and if you got to power, slaver, regardless of your ethnicity, religion, or other things. Stalin, for example, was georgian, not russian. First person who built something resembling a organised realm in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus territory was a viking for fucks sake.
On that communist thing, why everyone still think that whatever Soviet Union created was communism? Modern european countries much closer to real thing than Soviet Union, China, or North Korea ever was.
Little more on your "Democracy = Friends" thought, being undemocratic doesn't stopped Saudi Arabia or Turkey from becoming major US allies, Turkey even a part of NATO, again, as i think, it's not about how our countries governed, it's more about there is being not enough space in sandbox for all of the big kids to play. Because Soviet Union and Allies actually agreed on how they want to divide Europe between themselves, hostilities was contained to those little places on the edges of their respective spheres of influence, now results of Yalta conference is irrelevant, and there is new big boy (China), so tensions raising again.
And after all, having a common enemy is too useful of a tool for uniting people, so it will be used by governments, democratic or not, for a long, long time.
Tl;dr: our government is fucking awful, your not really much better, thanks to international politics being hypocritical as fuck, and no one care about common people
On thread topic: like we didn't have better uses for that money. That one guy (or girl, correct me, if i wrong) here who think that MAD is good thing, IS right, but only in part. We have more than enough nukes for that, no need for new ones, and missile defence systems are useless against full scale attacks, so having them not that of a big deal on a full picture
p.s.
thanks
Yes, i strongly believe MAD is the best thing that came out of the end of WW2 and caused our current stability. There were no good guys in the cold war, only players and pawns.
https://i.imgur.com/VoOaE4M.jpg
I don’t even understand how that makes sense, let alone it be funny or whatever.
What contribution are you making here?
About as much a contribution as you, i'd suspect.
‘I’m so glad that after the war, we’re not able to hold the world up on a plate balanced on a needle.’
Also literally ‘both sides’ argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
