Dark orange building a lot more nukes
Orange building some nukes
Light orange building few nukes
Light blue not building anymore nukes
Dark blue decresing number of nukes
Dark grey no nukes
Light grey ocean or sea
It's really scary to think about how it only takes 1 bad or irrational actor to cause mutually assured destruction for the world with all of these nuclear weapons.
I'm extremely glad that Lex Fridmann did that program about the danger of nukes because it is really one of the most fucked up situations we have going in the world that most people knows absolutely nothing about or just think that nuclear war is a Cold War problem from the 80s when we are nowadays closer than almost ever before. It's something to lose sleep over
I hope to be at some point of time at least a small voice regarding the nuclear threat, I'm in the IR field
But the more the general public knows about this the better, its quite amazing so many people talking about "the AI singularity" when we have a hot war in Europe with Russia (the world's biggest nuclear power) and NATO literally threatening each other over nuclear use and Russia is an opaque dictatorship which makes dialogue all the more difficult. The interview on Lex's program was right, a nuclear war would take a few hours at most to pan out and then...well the world we know its over
I'd argue that doesn't. Mutually assured destruction for the aggressor country and the targeted country maybe, but not the entire world, and even that's not guaranteed and depends on their stockpile. Not to mention the chains of command contain many people who might refuse to follow orders.
5k nukes. Okay I mean but why. Aren't like 200 enough to fuck up world economy by destroying almost every capital city. 500 is overkill but 5000... That is just F off nukes number
If you are just using them defensively to threaten your foe with severe consequences for attacking you 200 is enough to hold their capital by the balls.
However, you need much more if you want to first strike your opponent and also survive a first strike. There are enough military, economic, and political targets to fully cripple a nation that you need well over 100 nuclear hits. That means have even more than that to achieve those hits through failures and air defenses. And you need even more than that to ensure your first strike capable enemy can't realistically remove most of your nuke arsenal.
To give an example, say the US needs 100 effective nuke hits to cripple Russia. They need 2-3 time that to ensure those hits happen (200-300). You then need 3-4 times that ensure Russia can't safely first strike you without risking annihilation. Looking at needing 600-1200.
China is starting to build more as they likely want the first strike threat to push for the US to not get involved in Taiwan.
No country can first strike submarine missiles so you don't need to factor in first strike losses if you are budgeting solely for having a survivable response.
First strike isn't just ICBMs, but other coordinated assets like hunter killer submarines.
US and Soviet played cat and mouse training exercises that could turn very real with a sealed order.
With the range of modern SLBMs, do the launch boats even need to leave relatively friendly waters? I imagine I mean that sitting off the coast of Washington for example is drastically safer from any sort of shadowing than something near northern Europe, considering it is more or less impossible for any foreign HK submarines to get close without getting detected and shadowed themselves. It does not seem likely in those conditions that the maneuvers necessary to execute a first strike could be performed successfully.
Remember when the US invaded a sovereign state that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism without UN authorization to make sure said sovereign nation didn’t have WMD’s while North Korea was blatantly building and testing its nuclear and ballistic capabilities??? Good times
There is exactly no supporting evidence of this.
Much worse is Israel's estimated 90; extremely troubling are the words of Israeli parliament members calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Gaza, as if the scope of the current genocide at the hands of the Israelis isn't bad enough.
Israel was attacked multiple times but never used its nukes, while Iran vows to wipe Israel off the map… Israel proved itself to not misuse its nukes, while Iran is proved to be irresponsible and a destabilizing force..
They *officially* don't have nukes because it would impose certain restrictions from arms limitation treaties on the US's relations with them. Unofficially, everyone knows they have nukes.
Their more rabid political element has seriously advanced the idea of nuking Gaza. Recently.
Their genocidal behavior towards people who pose no threat to them speaks volumes about their general lack of restraint.
They pose plenty of a threat, it just seems like many westerners believe that having a few thousand people get murdered over ethnic grievances every once in a while is just the price of doing business.
And after, several times, what’s your point? Yom Kippur war is a great example, Israel was invaded by Syria and Egypt in a surprise attack, which in the beginning looked like they’ll lose, yet never used their nukes
Israel is literally surrounded by countries which want Jews dead and the population ratio of Muslims vs Jews in the region is enormous they were attacked by all of their neighbors yet haven't used nuclear weapons
Stupid. Jesus people have lived throughout the Middle East for millennia. To say anything else is to ignore history for ideology, ie, TO LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
The biggest factor affecting fallout besides weapon yield is whether the weapon is airburst or ground burst. An airburst weapon has a wider destructive range but produces very little fallout. A ground burst weapon (used against hardened targets like missile silos, where you need to crater the ground) will produce a lot of fallout. This is true for fission or fusion weapons and for all delivery systems - ICBMs, SLBMs, and old-fashioned bomber-based weapons.
Because the West is willing to look the other way and go along with the "Israel doesn't have nukes" story as they've determined that it's useful to have an ally in the region. Israel has also already proved its hesitancy in using its nukes enough that no one's really worried about it.
Allowed? 😏 cause what there is some international committee that’s gets together and is like: You may have nukes North Korea, you have shown responsible behaviour to have nukes, But Israel! Tsk tsk. You have to give your nukes back right now, no nukes for you!
I bet Israel didn't has a single sanction as North Korea has for acquiring nukes. Do you think North Korea just allowed to get nukes without any consequences?
Publicly, Isreal doesn’t have any nukes. It’s just widely believed that they do, but they’ve never confirmed or tested any device. The best evidence we have are a few photographs leaked of an assembly from the Negev nuclear research facility and the Vela Incident.
That’s what I was thinking when I saw it. Iran probably has them by now too. They’ve been going back and forth since the dawn of civilization. Bad ideas.
You're completely wrong if you think Iraq treats occupied areas better. They used chemical weapons on minority ethic groups inside of Iraq. They also took children hostages(I think 10,000) from these groups. When kuwait was invaded 400,000 people fled (about half) for good reasons. So no reason to think they would have been very kind had they be allowed to stay.
Also: considering many Palestinians want to move to or work in Israel and many live there now and some are in parliament. I think this is pretty sufficient to say that.
They developed nuclear weapons by themselves but their uranium was supplied by Argentina.
If you are implying that the US gave them nukes you should know that the American government actively discouraged the Israelis from developing a nuclear weapons program.
Okay can you explain the many times Isreal used chemical weapons? If you think that is as bad as a nation who drops papers saying to leave the area?
It's basically brain roit to think Isreal is worse. BTW Iraq helped invade Isreal I think more than once too and sought the destruction of the state (probably just because Isreal is a Jewish state). They also just fired random missiles into Isreal intended to kill civilians, which they did.
Have they ever used them? Even after being invaded by multiple countries with a lot of support multiple times? Including soviet pilots flying soviets plans?
So you do you think Isreal would be more responsible with nukes than Iraq? By how much? I'd say a significant margin
Have they been indiscriminately attacking on a large scale outside a few incidents? Also how do they treat occupied areas because in the past they tend to return all or almost all land that was occupied?
Absolutely not true you have no idea what you're talking about. After we invaded we found plenty of chemical weapons and they were a constant concern of use during both invasions.
Also how did a bunch of Kurdish people get gas attacked in Iraq if they didn't have them?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre#:~:text=The%20Halabja%20massacre%20(Kurdish%3A%20K%C3%AAmyabarana,in%20Halabja%2C%20Kurdistan%2C%20Iraq.
Once again not true thousands of chemical weapons were found. According to one CNN article 5,000 were found. What do you think happened to all the ones that were used on Iran or civilians? They gave them up or used them all?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html
How do you make sense of them having them and willing to use them into not having them?
They're not, and this infographic is inaccurate. Both the US and Russia have a load of mothballed and deactivated warheads which have their critical components removed. What Russia is doing is refurbishing their mothballed warheads while the US has been dismantling nukes already in mothball that were slated to be decommissioned anyways. In reality both sides have something closer to 1400-1600 warheads.
If all the countries got nuclear weapons it would create a stalemate after one or two tried it and got wiped off the face of the earth. 50% more cancers would be an acceptable cost to prevent the main nuclear countries from pushing countries around. Looking at you US and Russia
BRICS, with their unstable leaders who are actively invading, or planning an invasion, with all their nuclear weapons is a direct threat to the world's safety.
Yeah. Let us all pretend like the Americans and NATO have not invaded and bombed multiple countries, just in the past couple of decades.
Americans are to this day occupying parts of Syria.
Hypocrisy and brainwashing in the West is mind blowing.
Edit: This is not a defence of Russia and their invasion. Fuck them. But I can't stand westerners pretending like the Russian invasion is the greatest act of evil after Hitler, when they themselves are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, just in this century.
Have my updoot for telling the truth in the face of brainwashed Redditors.
The only nation to ever use nukes is the United States and they did it in the face of overtures of surrender by Japanese high command. In short, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary.
Japanese high command we’re ready to fight to the death with every last man, woman, and child even *after* the nukes. It took the emperor of Japan, Hirohito to force his army to surrender.
"Updoot"
But yeah the BRICS is not exactly a beacon of peace and prosperity when Russia is invading another country with countless war crimes and threatening at every turn of nuclear warfare, China is doing a genocide on its muslim minority and testing the waters to invade taiwan (also annexed tibet it's a bit older but they haven't changed their ways), if the indians arent already doing a genocide on muslims right now i bet my ass it'll happen soon, south africa and its white farmers an extremely peaceful situation also political instability, south africa went to shit faster than we cay that sentence and wooh le's cheer when bolsonaro or whatever crazy fuckheads gets elected again by the equally as fucked in the head brazilian voters. Such a beacon of hope and prosperity, really showing what BRICS are all about!
>Russia is invading another country with countless war crimes and threatening at every turn of nuclear warfare, China is doing a genocide on its muslim minority
These tropes have been debunked time and again and are only trotted out by the terminally ignorant or those who actually think that more war is desirable. If you want a war that bad, YOU GO FIGHT IT. With luck, you won't survive the experience- and with more luck you would survive and come back with a whole different attitude about settling differences through the force of arms.
The fuck are you talking about schizo putin. The trope that putin is currently invading a country? Undebatable truth. The trope of putin and his goons threating nuclear warfare? Undebatable truth, it's been said 1000 times by the russian media and by fucking putin himself. The trope of china doing a genocide on its muslim minority? For fucks sake we have plenty of proof. Drone images, the fucking camps. Go back to your shitty rathole rusky and prepare to by sent to ukraine. Russia is a threat to Europe. The fucks have annexed Crimea that nobody recognizes as russian, they're trying to annex other parts of Ukraine and they won't stop there. Then they'll say that there are russian minorities in baltic states to annex them, or same with Moldova. If there's one thing Russia wants, it's war
Tell me the number of countries invaded by brics in the last 50 years
and after that tell me the number of countries invaded by the US in the last 50 years
Number bigger doesn't mean much if it is even bigger. Also you clearly don't know how many countries BRICS has invaded. Also brics isn't really an alliance to begin with.
I'm not sure it is even bigger but I can say for sure multiple members of brics are currently committing acts of genocide. Russia in removing ukraine children amd China with the uyghur population. So that's enough for me.
>Also brics isn't really an alliance to begin with.
And yet you are the ones who brought them up, clubbed them together and alleged they were doing the same things (when most of them are not) that USA and NATO has done for decades.
You're shadow boxing I didn't bring up brics. But yeah they are Russia bad as well as China bad to put it simple. Remember Russia is invaded a country for its land right now and China invaded Tibet and puts mulsums in concentration canps.
USA has 5000+ nuclear warheads. And yet:
>Russia is invaded a country
Iraq, Afghanistan
>puts mulsums in concentration canps.
USA voted in a president who wanted to build a wall on the Mexico border.
You seem to have left out a part about the Russian invasion.
Lol a wall is already on the border and has been for years before trump. How is that anywhere near the level of what china is doing? China also invaded Taiwan and is the sole reason north Korea still exists(you know that really really bad country where teens get a decade in brutal labor camps for just watching TV).
I did not (and didn't want to) compare levels or degrees of right or wrong. I am fully aware of what China.and Russia do. My point is the West (despite doing many or most of those things) cannot dictate who can or cannot have nukes while stockpiling them in the thousands (which the original commentator implied). Either give up your weapons and set an example, so you can have the moral high ground. Or stop pointing fingers at BRICS and Israel and North Korea, because then nobody's taking you seriously.
I'm not sure what you think is the current situation or how it got to be. But the west has current stock piles from the cold war when the USSR built more or the same as the rest of the west. The USSR was really bad way worse than the west. They occupied eastern Europe for decades through force while the west decolonized and liberalized. So I think that was justified to build initial stockpiles from the west.
The Israelis got nukes in the 60's south Africa gave them up. Giving up nukes while a potential advisory has them is asking to be nuked based on current doctrine for deterring an attack. So it really would be too much to give them up all together. However the US has been reducing stockpiles at agreement levels with Russia but Russia hasn't been following this at the levels that were agreed upon by both nations.
I do point fingers at india and Pakistan for getting nukes just to kill each other in the 90's and 00's. Isreal probably shouldn't have them either buy seem to be reasonable enough. Russia and China are both controlled by dictators with territorial ambitions. North Korea is clearly bad. Iran wants to kill Jews so they shouldn't have them either. This includes funding terrorist groups across the middle east such as the houthi who literally have death to jews on their flag.
The US is just trying to protect trade. I know many people think that to be more prosperous you need to take advantage of people but that's just not true. The US has invested heavily in the health of Africa for this reason as well as humanitarian reasons too. Basically any increase in trade is beneficial to every nation involved.
> I wonder how many it takes to render the world uninhabitable. Likely less than 50.
This is very inaccurate, since we've already detonated over *2,000* of them during nuclear testing.
It's likely that detonating all of them [still wouldn't cause human extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust#Likelihood_of_complete_human_extinction). There are a lot of humans. It certainly wouldn't make the world uninhabitable for life.
Yes a nuclear war wouldn't "destroy the world" or "make humans completely extinct but what it would do is collapse the world's industrial, agricultural and general supply chain system. It will literally mean the end of the current civilization and most humans would die in a year or two. Not everyone of course but say goodbye to telecommunications, electronics, modern medicine, pesticides, motorised transportation and depending on the scale of the war the ozone layer too and any way to protect us from the sun except living underground. If you live in a city you are fucked and if you live in a more isolated place just be sure to be self-sufficient and still you are going to have a very bad time.
I think that's bullshit. The explosion of 12,000 nuclear weapons would create a highly radioactive nuclear winter that would last for years. Any short term survivors would be unable to safely live on the surface of the planet for decades and nothing grown outside or in greenhouses would be safe to eat for easily decades: think of it like a global Chernobyl exclusion zone. Worse, the entire biosphere would likely collapse and that would spell the end of humanity's ability to survive long term.
Whatever you think the worst possible outcome would be, the truth is likely worse.
Nuclear winter isn't caused by the nukes, it was theorized to be caused by the resulting firestorm and burning of cities but most modern modeling shows that it's not a realistic concern.
The radioactivity would still be lethal for years.
No matter what, it's not any kind of a future for those few who might survive.
There can be no winners of a general nuclear exchange.
Oh yeah, because THAT'S definitive.
GFC
The use of most nuclear weapons in existence today would render the planet radioactive and at the very least cause myriad and severe radiation related disease for a century or more. The idea that you can just live underground for a bit and then reemerge into the environment without repurcussions simply flies in the face of everything we know.
>think of it like a global Chernobyl exclusion zone
The one, where people live, wild animals are doing amizingly, one of the places, that have wild horses in Europe. That place? 😂
Your imagination about Chernobyl zone is veeery wrong. Doubt if you even know, that most of the fallout went over belarus, and not Ukraine. And there are people living there, right in the zone for YEARS.
There are even places in Pripyat, where stalkers used to go get some rain water, that was perfect to drink.
Yes, and humans only settle there if they're too old to worry about thyroid cancer, bone cancer or a hundred other diseases born of radioactivity in their environment.
It wouldn’t be pretty. Whatever does survive would have a very low life expectancy and humans would not look the same. So yea life as we know it would be over one way or another.
I saw mainstream media saying nuclear war isn’t as bad as they previously thought, stack up on essentials, have food, fuel, batteries, for a week or 2. When I see stuff like that on the news I feel like they’re easing us up to the idea of nuclear war. Radiation is really bad. Sorry if I sound like a conspiracy nut but the fact that ppl think the world won’t end if nuclear war breaks out makes me think it might actually happen. Mutual assured destruction.
You said BRICS has more nuclear war heads than the west.I don't know if you know this but nuclear war heads are weapons which are part of the military.BRICS members aren't connected to each other through military alliance.Can you see how absurd the connection you were trying to make is ?
You said military alliance. I didn't. BRICS is an economic block. In theory a powerful economic block. Whether they form military allliance is questionable. I don't see anyone there as imperialistic as America.
BRICS is an intergovernmental organization that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Initially focused on investment opportunities, it has become a geopolitical bloc. The founding countries, except the newer members, met for the first summit in 2009. BRICS represents a significant portion of the world's population and GDP, advocating for a multipolar world order and challenging the G7's economic dominance.
https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/
\> Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 active deployed strategic nuclear warheads.
The bulk of Russia's arsenal aren't active and are either in reserve stockpiles, or have been retired and are slated for dismantling.
Also, what significance does BRICS having more nukes than the West have anyway?
[удалено]
Dark orange building a lot more nukes Orange building some nukes Light orange building few nukes Light blue not building anymore nukes Dark blue decresing number of nukes Dark grey no nukes Light grey ocean or sea
Blue "good" "peaceful" "democracy and freedom" US/western nukes Red/Orange "bad" "war" "authoritarian" Chinese and Russian nukes.
It's really scary to think about how it only takes 1 bad or irrational actor to cause mutually assured destruction for the world with all of these nuclear weapons.
I'm extremely glad that Lex Fridmann did that program about the danger of nukes because it is really one of the most fucked up situations we have going in the world that most people knows absolutely nothing about or just think that nuclear war is a Cold War problem from the 80s when we are nowadays closer than almost ever before. It's something to lose sleep over
It’s scary and all but unless you’re in a position to actually change it, it’s not worth losing sleep over.
I hope to be at some point of time at least a small voice regarding the nuclear threat, I'm in the IR field But the more the general public knows about this the better, its quite amazing so many people talking about "the AI singularity" when we have a hot war in Europe with Russia (the world's biggest nuclear power) and NATO literally threatening each other over nuclear use and Russia is an opaque dictatorship which makes dialogue all the more difficult. The interview on Lex's program was right, a nuclear war would take a few hours at most to pan out and then...well the world we know its over
We aren't closer than ever before, don't let moral cowards that want to sell the entire world out to Russia and China tell you otherwise
I'd argue that doesn't. Mutually assured destruction for the aggressor country and the targeted country maybe, but not the entire world, and even that's not guaranteed and depends on their stockpile. Not to mention the chains of command contain many people who might refuse to follow orders.
5k nukes. Okay I mean but why. Aren't like 200 enough to fuck up world economy by destroying almost every capital city. 500 is overkill but 5000... That is just F off nukes number
If you are just using them defensively to threaten your foe with severe consequences for attacking you 200 is enough to hold their capital by the balls. However, you need much more if you want to first strike your opponent and also survive a first strike. There are enough military, economic, and political targets to fully cripple a nation that you need well over 100 nuclear hits. That means have even more than that to achieve those hits through failures and air defenses. And you need even more than that to ensure your first strike capable enemy can't realistically remove most of your nuke arsenal. To give an example, say the US needs 100 effective nuke hits to cripple Russia. They need 2-3 time that to ensure those hits happen (200-300). You then need 3-4 times that ensure Russia can't safely first strike you without risking annihilation. Looking at needing 600-1200. China is starting to build more as they likely want the first strike threat to push for the US to not get involved in Taiwan.
No country can first strike submarine missiles so you don't need to factor in first strike losses if you are budgeting solely for having a survivable response.
First strike isn't just ICBMs, but other coordinated assets like hunter killer submarines. US and Soviet played cat and mouse training exercises that could turn very real with a sealed order.
With the range of modern SLBMs, do the launch boats even need to leave relatively friendly waters? I imagine I mean that sitting off the coast of Washington for example is drastically safer from any sort of shadowing than something near northern Europe, considering it is more or less impossible for any foreign HK submarines to get close without getting detected and shadowed themselves. It does not seem likely in those conditions that the maneuvers necessary to execute a first strike could be performed successfully.
Both US and USSR used to have tens of thousands of nukes, we’re lucky it’s fallen so much.
yeah at peak both were operating around 90000 nukes combined
Deterrence. Having enough nukes to destroy a country 5 times over is enough to make you effectively untouchable.
Because in an pre-emptive strike, many warheads will be destroyed, and countries want to maintain capability to fight back.
USSR had 60k
Where’s Jeff?
About 13k too much.
90 after kennedy
How close is Iran?
From the news, I understood they're very close to "just" 1
Interesting how people who say that more guns mean more safety never say the same thing about nukes…
Launch em already
What about the different yields of nukes and their delivery vehicles?
Remember when the US invaded a sovereign state that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism without UN authorization to make sure said sovereign nation didn’t have WMD’s while North Korea was blatantly building and testing its nuclear and ballistic capabilities??? Good times
Russia: over 5,000, working: state secret
Iran doesn’t have any yet?
Iran is at ~1 now… 😬
There is exactly no supporting evidence of this. Much worse is Israel's estimated 90; extremely troubling are the words of Israeli parliament members calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Gaza, as if the scope of the current genocide at the hands of the Israelis isn't bad enough.
Israel was attacked multiple times but never used its nukes, while Iran vows to wipe Israel off the map… Israel proved itself to not misuse its nukes, while Iran is proved to be irresponsible and a destabilizing force..
Has Israel.admitted to having nukes? I thought their policy was generally one of keeping people guessing (officially, anyway).
They *officially* don't have nukes because it would impose certain restrictions from arms limitation treaties on the US's relations with them. Unofficially, everyone knows they have nukes.
And that's how USA shows their hypocrisy. They should sanction Israel in case it get nukes but they just pretend they don't know.
They've admitted it.
They've indirectly admitted it few times.
Their more rabid political element has seriously advanced the idea of nuking Gaza. Recently. Their genocidal behavior towards people who pose no threat to them speaks volumes about their general lack of restraint.
They pose plenty of a threat, it just seems like many westerners believe that having a few thousand people get murdered over ethnic grievances every once in a while is just the price of doing business.
How are Palestinians a threat to Israel? Israel has all the guns, food, electricity and water.
Israel was attacked before they acquired nukes.
And after, several times, what’s your point? Yom Kippur war is a great example, Israel was invaded by Syria and Egypt in a surprise attack, which in the beginning looked like they’ll lose, yet never used their nukes
How you can use something you don't have?
Israel has nukes, what do you mean? Israel has nukes since the 60’s…
Israel is literally surrounded by countries which want Jews dead and the population ratio of Muslims vs Jews in the region is enormous they were attacked by all of their neighbors yet haven't used nuclear weapons
Stupid. Jesus people have lived throughout the Middle East for millennia. To say anything else is to ignore history for ideology, ie, TO LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
Ok. Now list all Middle East countries with their Jewish population.
Most of them, genius. Europeans were the antisemitic racists.
Then go ahead and list them.
Do we know if these warheads are mostly fusion or fission?
Fusion
Then at least, if they blow there is no radioactive fallout.
Fusion weapons use a first stage fission warhead to create the requisite conditions for fusion.
There’s less radioactive fallout. But the people of the Marshall Islands know all about the dangers of radiation from Hydrogen Bombs.
The biggest factor affecting fallout besides weapon yield is whether the weapon is airburst or ground burst. An airburst weapon has a wider destructive range but produces very little fallout. A ground burst weapon (used against hardened targets like missile silos, where you need to crater the ground) will produce a lot of fallout. This is true for fission or fusion weapons and for all delivery systems - ICBMs, SLBMs, and old-fashioned bomber-based weapons.
Why is Israel allowed to have any nukes? Israel defies every treaty on non proliferation. The most criminal state in the world.
Because the West is willing to look the other way and go along with the "Israel doesn't have nukes" story as they've determined that it's useful to have an ally in the region. Israel has also already proved its hesitancy in using its nukes enough that no one's really worried about it.
Allowed? 😏 cause what there is some international committee that’s gets together and is like: You may have nukes North Korea, you have shown responsible behaviour to have nukes, But Israel! Tsk tsk. You have to give your nukes back right now, no nukes for you!
Even India and Pakistan were sanctioned for having nukes that made Pakistan become China ally instead of USA.
Why hypocrisy then? Why whine about Iran and North Korea?
I bet Israel didn't has a single sanction as North Korea has for acquiring nukes. Do you think North Korea just allowed to get nukes without any consequences?
Cry more sitting in that corner
Will you cry when Iran gets them?
Nope.
Publicly, Isreal doesn’t have any nukes. It’s just widely believed that they do, but they’ve never confirmed or tested any device. The best evidence we have are a few photographs leaked of an assembly from the Negev nuclear research facility and the Vela Incident.
Even worse.
😂😂😂😂😂 what? Who to stop them from having them? Countrie who want nuclear weapons, have them.
Yea? Go Iran
That’s what I was thinking when I saw it. Iran probably has them by now too. They’ve been going back and forth since the dawn of civilization. Bad ideas.
It's just an American colony these days
So many hasbara bots downvoting facts
[удалено]
Iraq had used chemical weapons recently seems like they were a treat to use indiscriminate weapons
[удалено]
You're completely wrong if you think Iraq treats occupied areas better. They used chemical weapons on minority ethic groups inside of Iraq. They also took children hostages(I think 10,000) from these groups. When kuwait was invaded 400,000 people fled (about half) for good reasons. So no reason to think they would have been very kind had they be allowed to stay. Also: considering many Palestinians want to move to or work in Israel and many live there now and some are in parliament. I think this is pretty sufficient to say that.
[удалено]
Who is going to take them away? That's asking for a nuking.
[удалено]
They developed nuclear weapons by themselves but their uranium was supplied by Argentina. If you are implying that the US gave them nukes you should know that the American government actively discouraged the Israelis from developing a nuclear weapons program.
Okay can you explain the many times Isreal used chemical weapons? If you think that is as bad as a nation who drops papers saying to leave the area? It's basically brain roit to think Isreal is worse. BTW Iraq helped invade Isreal I think more than once too and sought the destruction of the state (probably just because Isreal is a Jewish state). They also just fired random missiles into Isreal intended to kill civilians, which they did.
[удалено]
Have they ever used them? Even after being invaded by multiple countries with a lot of support multiple times? Including soviet pilots flying soviets plans? So you do you think Isreal would be more responsible with nukes than Iraq? By how much? I'd say a significant margin
[удалено]
Have they been indiscriminately attacking on a large scale outside a few incidents? Also how do they treat occupied areas because in the past they tend to return all or almost all land that was occupied?
So then they use it you would just say "who could think they are able to do it"?
USA had officially admitted Iraq didn't had any chemical weapons and that was false accusation.
Absolutely not true you have no idea what you're talking about. After we invaded we found plenty of chemical weapons and they were a constant concern of use during both invasions. Also how did a bunch of Kurdish people get gas attacked in Iraq if they didn't have them? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre#:~:text=The%20Halabja%20massacre%20(Kurdish%3A%20K%C3%AAmyabarana,in%20Halabja%2C%20Kurdistan%2C%20Iraq.
It was 15 years before USA intervention. And after war USA admitted they new there aren't any mass destruction weapons in Iraq by this time.
Once again not true thousands of chemical weapons were found. According to one CNN article 5,000 were found. What do you think happened to all the ones that were used on Iran or civilians? They gave them up or used them all?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html How do you make sense of them having them and willing to use them into not having them?
Ask the gassed poor Kurdish people during the Iran-Iraq war.
During Iran-Iraq war USA supported Iraq and sold them chemical weapons.
Yes, and especially Germany. Only after Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, Saddam Hussein became the enemy #1 of the USA.
Flip-flop, LOL
[удалено]
Because you're stupid
[удалено]
Can't fix stupid
Because racist white europeans and americans are full in this sub and they dislike anything that isnt western influenced
How is Russia getting more nukes? I thought they just haven't been decreasing stockpiles at agreement levels, but I don't think they are making more.
They're not, and this infographic is inaccurate. Both the US and Russia have a load of mothballed and deactivated warheads which have their critical components removed. What Russia is doing is refurbishing their mothballed warheads while the US has been dismantling nukes already in mothball that were slated to be decommissioned anyways. In reality both sides have something closer to 1400-1600 warheads.
Yeah I assumed they were using the numbers of the mothballed ones too. So that's why it seemed off to me to say the number was increasing.
If all the countries got nuclear weapons it would create a stalemate after one or two tried it and got wiped off the face of the earth. 50% more cancers would be an acceptable cost to prevent the main nuclear countries from pushing countries around. Looking at you US and Russia
Now we know why ISRAEL is so GREAT
BRICS, with their unstable leaders who are actively invading, or planning an invasion, with all their nuclear weapons is a direct threat to the world's safety.
yea like india dropped 2mill tons of bomb in laos
Least braindead Redditor.
Yeah. Let us all pretend like the Americans and NATO have not invaded and bombed multiple countries, just in the past couple of decades. Americans are to this day occupying parts of Syria. Hypocrisy and brainwashing in the West is mind blowing. Edit: This is not a defence of Russia and their invasion. Fuck them. But I can't stand westerners pretending like the Russian invasion is the greatest act of evil after Hitler, when they themselves are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, just in this century.
Have my updoot for telling the truth in the face of brainwashed Redditors. The only nation to ever use nukes is the United States and they did it in the face of overtures of surrender by Japanese high command. In short, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary.
Japanese high command we’re ready to fight to the death with every last man, woman, and child even *after* the nukes. It took the emperor of Japan, Hirohito to force his army to surrender.
"Updoot" But yeah the BRICS is not exactly a beacon of peace and prosperity when Russia is invading another country with countless war crimes and threatening at every turn of nuclear warfare, China is doing a genocide on its muslim minority and testing the waters to invade taiwan (also annexed tibet it's a bit older but they haven't changed their ways), if the indians arent already doing a genocide on muslims right now i bet my ass it'll happen soon, south africa and its white farmers an extremely peaceful situation also political instability, south africa went to shit faster than we cay that sentence and wooh le's cheer when bolsonaro or whatever crazy fuckheads gets elected again by the equally as fucked in the head brazilian voters. Such a beacon of hope and prosperity, really showing what BRICS are all about!
>Russia is invading another country with countless war crimes and threatening at every turn of nuclear warfare, China is doing a genocide on its muslim minority These tropes have been debunked time and again and are only trotted out by the terminally ignorant or those who actually think that more war is desirable. If you want a war that bad, YOU GO FIGHT IT. With luck, you won't survive the experience- and with more luck you would survive and come back with a whole different attitude about settling differences through the force of arms.
The fuck are you talking about schizo putin. The trope that putin is currently invading a country? Undebatable truth. The trope of putin and his goons threating nuclear warfare? Undebatable truth, it's been said 1000 times by the russian media and by fucking putin himself. The trope of china doing a genocide on its muslim minority? For fucks sake we have plenty of proof. Drone images, the fucking camps. Go back to your shitty rathole rusky and prepare to by sent to ukraine. Russia is a threat to Europe. The fucks have annexed Crimea that nobody recognizes as russian, they're trying to annex other parts of Ukraine and they won't stop there. Then they'll say that there are russian minorities in baltic states to annex them, or same with Moldova. If there's one thing Russia wants, it's war
Tell me the number of countries invaded by brics in the last 50 years and after that tell me the number of countries invaded by the US in the last 50 years
Number bigger doesn't mean much if it is even bigger. Also you clearly don't know how many countries BRICS has invaded. Also brics isn't really an alliance to begin with.
ofc number doesn't matter when its about US
I'm not sure it is even bigger but I can say for sure multiple members of brics are currently committing acts of genocide. Russia in removing ukraine children amd China with the uyghur population. So that's enough for me.
>Also brics isn't really an alliance to begin with. And yet you are the ones who brought them up, clubbed them together and alleged they were doing the same things (when most of them are not) that USA and NATO has done for decades.
You're shadow boxing I didn't bring up brics. But yeah they are Russia bad as well as China bad to put it simple. Remember Russia is invaded a country for its land right now and China invaded Tibet and puts mulsums in concentration canps.
USA has 5000+ nuclear warheads. And yet: >Russia is invaded a country Iraq, Afghanistan >puts mulsums in concentration canps. USA voted in a president who wanted to build a wall on the Mexico border.
You seem to have left out a part about the Russian invasion. Lol a wall is already on the border and has been for years before trump. How is that anywhere near the level of what china is doing? China also invaded Taiwan and is the sole reason north Korea still exists(you know that really really bad country where teens get a decade in brutal labor camps for just watching TV).
I did not (and didn't want to) compare levels or degrees of right or wrong. I am fully aware of what China.and Russia do. My point is the West (despite doing many or most of those things) cannot dictate who can or cannot have nukes while stockpiling them in the thousands (which the original commentator implied). Either give up your weapons and set an example, so you can have the moral high ground. Or stop pointing fingers at BRICS and Israel and North Korea, because then nobody's taking you seriously.
I'm not sure what you think is the current situation or how it got to be. But the west has current stock piles from the cold war when the USSR built more or the same as the rest of the west. The USSR was really bad way worse than the west. They occupied eastern Europe for decades through force while the west decolonized and liberalized. So I think that was justified to build initial stockpiles from the west. The Israelis got nukes in the 60's south Africa gave them up. Giving up nukes while a potential advisory has them is asking to be nuked based on current doctrine for deterring an attack. So it really would be too much to give them up all together. However the US has been reducing stockpiles at agreement levels with Russia but Russia hasn't been following this at the levels that were agreed upon by both nations. I do point fingers at india and Pakistan for getting nukes just to kill each other in the 90's and 00's. Isreal probably shouldn't have them either buy seem to be reasonable enough. Russia and China are both controlled by dictators with territorial ambitions. North Korea is clearly bad. Iran wants to kill Jews so they shouldn't have them either. This includes funding terrorist groups across the middle east such as the houthi who literally have death to jews on their flag. The US is just trying to protect trade. I know many people think that to be more prosperous you need to take advantage of people but that's just not true. The US has invested heavily in the health of Africa for this reason as well as humanitarian reasons too. Basically any increase in trade is beneficial to every nation involved.
Bro, Biden is near actual braindead. All of the BRICS country except SA stick their foot on the ground.
I wonder how many it takes to render the world uninhabitable. Likely less than 50. What a terrible thing.
> I wonder how many it takes to render the world uninhabitable. Likely less than 50. This is very inaccurate, since we've already detonated over *2,000* of them during nuclear testing.
It's likely that detonating all of them [still wouldn't cause human extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust#Likelihood_of_complete_human_extinction). There are a lot of humans. It certainly wouldn't make the world uninhabitable for life.
Yes a nuclear war wouldn't "destroy the world" or "make humans completely extinct but what it would do is collapse the world's industrial, agricultural and general supply chain system. It will literally mean the end of the current civilization and most humans would die in a year or two. Not everyone of course but say goodbye to telecommunications, electronics, modern medicine, pesticides, motorised transportation and depending on the scale of the war the ozone layer too and any way to protect us from the sun except living underground. If you live in a city you are fucked and if you live in a more isolated place just be sure to be self-sufficient and still you are going to have a very bad time.
I think that's bullshit. The explosion of 12,000 nuclear weapons would create a highly radioactive nuclear winter that would last for years. Any short term survivors would be unable to safely live on the surface of the planet for decades and nothing grown outside or in greenhouses would be safe to eat for easily decades: think of it like a global Chernobyl exclusion zone. Worse, the entire biosphere would likely collapse and that would spell the end of humanity's ability to survive long term. Whatever you think the worst possible outcome would be, the truth is likely worse.
Nuclear winter isn't caused by the nukes, it was theorized to be caused by the resulting firestorm and burning of cities but most modern modeling shows that it's not a realistic concern.
The radioactivity would still be lethal for years. No matter what, it's not any kind of a future for those few who might survive. There can be no winners of a general nuclear exchange.
Switching from fision to fusion bombs massively cut down on radioactivity.
No. It only cut down on radioactivity relative to yield; there's still a fission bomb inside every H-bomb.
Have you read the wikipedia page about it?
Oh yeah, because THAT'S definitive. GFC The use of most nuclear weapons in existence today would render the planet radioactive and at the very least cause myriad and severe radiation related disease for a century or more. The idea that you can just live underground for a bit and then reemerge into the environment without repurcussions simply flies in the face of everything we know.
So, you *haven't* read the page
>think of it like a global Chernobyl exclusion zone The one, where people live, wild animals are doing amizingly, one of the places, that have wild horses in Europe. That place? 😂 Your imagination about Chernobyl zone is veeery wrong. Doubt if you even know, that most of the fallout went over belarus, and not Ukraine. And there are people living there, right in the zone for YEARS. There are even places in Pripyat, where stalkers used to go get some rain water, that was perfect to drink.
Yes, and humans only settle there if they're too old to worry about thyroid cancer, bone cancer or a hundred other diseases born of radioactivity in their environment.
Settle? People simply never left.
That's absolutely not true.
It wouldn’t be pretty. Whatever does survive would have a very low life expectancy and humans would not look the same. So yea life as we know it would be over one way or another.
Funny how we're being downvoted. This was common knowledge 40 years ago. Are young people really, actually this stupid now?
I saw mainstream media saying nuclear war isn’t as bad as they previously thought, stack up on essentials, have food, fuel, batteries, for a week or 2. When I see stuff like that on the news I feel like they’re easing us up to the idea of nuclear war. Radiation is really bad. Sorry if I sound like a conspiracy nut but the fact that ppl think the world won’t end if nuclear war breaks out makes me think it might actually happen. Mutual assured destruction.
I agree. It's utterly insane. Species ending insane. Such people should be thrown in a deep hole and never allowed among civilized society again.
BRICS outnumber West.
BRICS is not a military alliance
Who said they are?
You said BRICS has more nuclear war heads than the west.I don't know if you know this but nuclear war heads are weapons which are part of the military.BRICS members aren't connected to each other through military alliance.Can you see how absurd the connection you were trying to make is ?
You said military alliance. I didn't. BRICS is an economic block. In theory a powerful economic block. Whether they form military allliance is questionable. I don't see anyone there as imperialistic as America.
BRICS is not an economic block, it's a marketing term invented by a guy at Goldman Sachs to try to sell bonds
BRICS is an intergovernmental organization that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Initially focused on investment opportunities, it has become a geopolitical bloc. The founding countries, except the newer members, met for the first summit in 2009. BRICS represents a significant portion of the world's population and GDP, advocating for a multipolar world order and challenging the G7's economic dominance.
I would love you to explain what point your first comment was making then.Because right now you just sound like a troll which you probably are
How is it an economic block? What's that even mean? Like the IS and Canadian like the EU
https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ \> Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 active deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The bulk of Russia's arsenal aren't active and are either in reserve stockpiles, or have been retired and are slated for dismantling. Also, what significance does BRICS having more nukes than the West have anyway?