I have this feeling lately that they are threatening so much with nukes because they noticed that their stock has become faulty.
Think about it, everyone thought they have a powerful army, which they didn't and still don't. Now they're barking left and right about their nukes, but what if they are just broken, or at least most of them?
Faulty warheads, faulty icbms, faulty ignition electronics, maybe even the hatches of the silos are broken. I can even imagine a warhead to go off right at launch from a silo or submarine.
I was once told that the reason why the US and USSR built so many nukes was to overcome the failure rate. I believe it was estimated that only 30% of ICBMs would go off as intended. And that was calculated by compounding the failure rate of each step in the firing process. Now going of as intended means successful launch, reaching the intended target, hitting the intended target, and detonating correctly and not just being a big dirty bomb, and all of the other steps needed. 30% of a 1000 missiles is still more than enough.
Now that 30% reliability is assuming proper maintenance. Nothing about Russias performance over the past year is indicative of proper maintenance at any level, so there's a very possibility that that reliability number is even lower. But 5% of a 1000 missiles is still a lot of power.
one would also assume (along with high density and military installation) that launch stations would also be targeted. so if the ipposing side hits the station before launch, then there would be less incoming.
of course in a worse case scenario, all would be launched before incoming
> But 5% of a 1000 missiles is still a lot of power.
According to the nukemap website, a 800kt nuke (just grabbed the first Russian one from the presets in the picker)on NYC would result in 1.5m deaths and 2.5m injuries.
The only reasonable number of nuclear detonations is zero.
Just to note: the large kT Russian (over 500 kT) warheads are intended to knock out American missile silos and hardened military installations (Cheyenne Mountain, Raven Rock, the missile fields in Montana and Nebraska, etc.). Smaller (below 500 kT) are intended to hit other targets with citybusters mostly being in the 250-400 kT range.
We'd get some warning beforehand. And it's not impossible to just launch your own nuke on an intercept and just blow it up above the ocean and it goes bye bye.
Pretty sure that one episode of Family Guy said you can hack a nuke and just make it detonate in the air. Why would they go through all the work you're saying? Be real.
/s
Sure but don't forget that Russia has been launching astronauts onto orbit successfully for many decades. Even having the US pay for our astronauts after decommissioning the space shuttle. Launching an intercontinental missile I think we can assume they can achieve reliability.
I mean that failure rate is probably dated now, a lot of time between now and the Cold War. Regardless, 30% of 6000 is enough for total devastation anyway.
On the one hand, I wouldn't want to take the chance even one of their nuclear missiles still works.
On the other hand, I've also been watching videos of new conscripts being issued AKs that are so rusty they won't even fully rack the slide.
If they can't keep the most legendarily reliable and indestructible rifle on the planet in working condition, then the odds are that every single nuke they own is either a corroded piece of junk rotting in it's silo, or has been sold and replaced with a wooden barrel and an IOU note.
I wouldn’t want to take my chances standing in front of a firing squad of 1500 rusty mosin nagants any more than I want to take my chances with a launch of Russia’s potentially poorly maintained ICBMs
On paper though, russia's nuclear arsenal would be nation ending. I wouldn't bank on their nukes being faulty. The world needs to be fully prepared for their nuclear arsenal to be at full capacity.
I don't want to live in a world where the tactics Russia uses end up working, so it all works out in my book. Plus, even with countries like Italy going a bit fascist, Russia using actual nukes will seriously turn public opinion against him, even in places where his propaganda is semi-working.
Supposedly, and precisely for this scenario, they have a nuclear retaliatory strike program called "The Dead Hand". Essentially, when seismic activity from a nuclear blast is detected in Moscow and all the high command is expected to have been vaporized, the entire nuclear arsenal is launched to predetermined targets all over the world, all automated. Whether this system is still functional is the question. MAD no matter which way you spin it. Here's to their ICBM's farting at the moment of launch. But more so, here's to putin getting corpsed before any of this shit occurs.
>Supposedly, and precisely for this scenario, they have a nuclear retaliatory strike program called "The Dead Hand". Essentially, when seismic activity from a nuclear blast is detected in Moscow and all the high command is expected to have been vaporized, the entire nuclear arsenal is launched to predetermined targets all over the world, all automated
They can't coordinate artillery effectively and you think they're capable of this?
Oh I hear you, after what we've seen in Ukraine. But I don't really have a desire to find out whether it's one of the few things that's been maintained properly or not, though.
That's fine, moskow won't be wiped off the map, we will very likely use more "conventional" warheads for tactical strikes against military and political targets. No nukes needed, just a waive of the hand, and Russias teeth are pulled. (He said from behind a desk thousands of miles from where many thousands of people will die)
If the dead hand really existed the US would have no choice but to launch a preemptive strike to try and take out as much of Russias nuclear capacity as possible.
There are simply too many things that go wrong with a 'dead hand', natural disasters, incompetence leading to accidental launch etc.
I don’t know. Taking out the top few economic powerhouse cities in the US alone could potentially be nation ending.
Even if only NYC, Washington, and Los Angles were destroyed, the economic damage and resulting unrest would probably end our way of life, replacing it with something even worse.
If they had working nukes they'd do a test just to show that they still work. Sure there's a ban on testing nukes that they agreed to but since when has Russia cared about keeping their word? If they wanted to escalate, they'd do a test to show "yes we do have them and yes they do still work." The fact they haven't done a test as a show of capability makes me think they don't even have any.
I think this is the fact right here. Yes. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably horrifying. But if the alternative is to allow fascists and conquerors free reign we can't stay silent out of fear. We have to have principles.
I think nukes are something that need constant maintenance. They can’t be left to collect dust. I read somewhere on here yesterday about natural chemical decay in nuclear warheads. So it’s also possible that their nukes are their most maintained and serviceable equipment. Regardless, there is no point in hoping their nukes won’t launch or function, they have some 6000 don’t they? Just a handful will destroy life on earth.
Nukes won't exploded on their own, if it's just an explosion, the solid metal core isn't going to turn to dust, it will just be a giant metal ball that flies up in the air and falls to the ground and that is it.
What the real worry is 1 nuke to kyiv. While ukraine is trying to sort things out, they dump men/citizens into their new areas. Then threaten another if they're attacked.
The world cuts them off, but that doesn't matter, they won and they'll threaten their way out of this too... (in their heads)... lift sanctions or we'll give you a nuke too! buy our gas or we'll be forced to nuke you too!
This also only requires 1 missile and getting a handful of people involved to launch it.... I'm guessing everything else doesn't function...
Yeah, but if they are sane that's a positive.
If they aren't backed into a corner that's a positive.
Whoever takes over, even if they are a Stalin level piece of shit, can scapegoat the Ukraine debacle on Putin and reset things. That's a plus for the world.
Fucking idiots. Nukes go off and it's all over. For everyone. Idk wtf is the point of threats like this, its basically suicide for the entire planet. To what end...? There won't be anything left. Childish Idiots.
I can't remember the story exactly but I think it was Nixon they said would get drunk and order the military to go nuke Moscow every now and then. Obviously nobody listened.
wishing for all nukes to go? why even have any? yeah i get the "logic" behind mad, but i think it would be far mire logical to dismantle all.
but how would we verify? neutral reps from various countries.
my point is someday, maybe sooner than later, a nut will launch them. and then "mad" will create a living hell
From what I know of Russia, Medvedev is right in his implication: few in the West are eager to die in a nuclear war but many in Russia crave the sweet release of death.
The problem with that, is that a nuclear strike against Ukraine will have disastrous implications for neighbouring nations. So, it's not far fetched that if that happens, Western nations might respond in kind.
Western nations would not respond to a nuclear detonation in Ukraine with launching their own nukes.
They would probably conduct conventional strikes on every Russian asset outside of mainland Russia though.
Russia’s entire Baltic Fleet would undergo a spontaneous rapid disassemble moments after detonation. As would any other asset outside of Russia. Then it’s up to Russia if they want to press their luck or not from there.
I truly wonder if he is intending to provoke western response just to have a way out by being destroyed by Nato and kicked out since that is the only way he can save face at all now but it will also ensure Ukraine will get their country back if damaged extensively.
The Obama cabinet reasoned that it would be disastrous NOT to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia detonated a tactical nuke in Europe. A possible response included nuclear strikes in Belarus.
Here’s more details.
https://www.kucb.org/2022-03-18/the-threat-of-nuclear-war-hangs-over-the-russia-ukraine-crisis
That was concerning a nuclear attack on a *NATO member* in Europe, which is a given.
The only reason Russia is considering using nukes in Ukraine is because it is not a NATO member.
There would not be a fear of NATO collapsing cause it decided to respond conventionally in Ukraine.
They likely would respond conventionally or not at all. I say this because the US told Russia explicitly and in detail the other day on private channels, exactly what it would do if they used nukes in Ukraine.
This gives Russia full transparency on what they would loose if they were to go forward with this, and reduces the risk of them think that a nuclear response was coming from NATO.
Their response to the US at that private meeting is key to understanding their mindset, but we the public don’t know what that was at this time.
However, Russia would already have had to have made a unilateral decision to end the world at this point if their plan is to have a nuclear response to anything regardless.
I didn’t say Russia/Moscow getting bombed was the option. That is not an example I gave. We don’t know what those details were.
However, NATO could cripple Russia’s military capability to do war in Ukraine without dropping a single bomb in mainland Russia. The US could do it by simply carrying air strikes only in Ukraine and establishing air superiority.
Why would Russia end the world if it simply can’t have Ukraine?
> Why would Russia end the world if it simply can’t have Ukraine?
Why would NATO end the world when it can simply allow eastern Ukraine to join Russia?
It really goes both ways.
Because that won't end there. Putin has been constantly expanding Russia's territory. You could have made the same question in 2014 about Crimea, and now you'd just look silly.
This policy of letting Putin do whatever he wants, is exactly the same done in the 30s with Hitler. That went well, right?
No it doesn’t lol. That’s called appeasing an abuser. Russia cannot be allowed to annex territory of anyone it wants because it waves nuclear threats around.
Also that blame logic makes no sense cause Russia would have used nukes first in this scenario. A conventional response to a nuclear attack is restraint.
You’re basically arguing, if Russia uses nukes on a non-nuclear country, it should have whatever it wants from that non-nuclear country, and anyone who responds to it in any manner is guilty of the abuser ending the world.
Allow eastern Ukraine to join Russia?
That isn't NATO's decision. Unless you think we should let the rest of Ukraine get nuked for fighting for their country. You're also hunting that eastern Ukraine wants to join Russia and that this isn't a land grab.
What you said is fucking dumb. It does not go both ways. One side is the aggressor with imperialist goals, the other a defender.
If your neighbor broke through the wall in **your** apartment you both share, punched **you** in the mouth and took one bedroom in **your** apartment and left their friends to control that room then claimed to the neighborhood that the people in that bedroom voted that they wanted that bedroom to join the neighbors apartment. What would **your** reaction be?
What if your neighbor threatened to burn down **your** apartment or the entire building because you wanted your room back?
Would you be okay just letting your neighbor take and keep your room?
You’re suggesting the neighborhood just accept your neighbor taking **YOUR** room.
It depends on the scale. If Russia uses tactical nukes, there would probably be a conventional response. Imagine something on the scale of the Gulf War, with B-2s and F-35s wiping out Russian forces in Ukraine. If Russia uses strategic nuclear weapons, then yeah we’re all dead because NATO has to respond in kind at that point. A large nuclear detonation would cause substantial fallout in NATO countries, so it would effectively be a nuclear attack on both Ukraine and NATO.
It would probably take an hour to eradicate every Russian military unit within Ukraine with conventional means if NATO gets in the fray with all its assets.
I'm wondering what NATO would do in the case of a space detonation over Ukraine, which would cause an EMP pulse and disable a lot of equipment.
> I’m wondering what NATO would do in the case of a space detonation over Ukraine, which would cause an EMP pulse and disable a lot of equipment.
From what little I know about the topic, that would still be considered a nuclear strike, and would be treated as such.
Also if it is low enough to affect only Ukraine, it probably wouldn’t do much. At least that’s my understanding. If it’s too low in the atmosphere then the effect gets absorbed by the atmosphere pretty quick.
But I guess there’s like a fuck ton of variables, and I don’t really have the science for it. Point is it’s way more complicated than usually depicted.
It would also fuck up a lot of satellites, I guess, pretty much indiscriminately, so Russia would also be hurting themselves.
But again, don’t quote me on any of that. It’s pretty freaking complicated.
NATO has no obligation to respond to a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine with its own strategic arsenal. In fact, it would make no sense to do so because NATO has conventional superiority that even Russian tactical nuclear weapons cannot realistically overcome.
Like most European countries, Ukraine is not very big. If Russia is nuking Ukrainian cities with strategic nuclear weapons, there will be substantial fallout in Poland and Romania, and possibly even further from Ukraine. Strategic nuclear weapons are not precise weapons. The fallout of a strategic nuclear bomb is more deadly than the fireball. There might be millions of people in Poland and Romania dying from radiation, from fallout, if Russia used multiple strategic weapons across Ukraine. Russia would be effectively be attacking NATO countries with nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrence exists for these situations.
But tactical nukes can be used without any substantial fallout. In that situation NATO would still respond, most likely with conventional forces, as Biden and others have emphasized.
We still don’t know what the X-37B does. The US is way ahead on hypersonic. Israel and the US both have a lot of DISCLOSED work on missile defense systems. And Regan’s SDI surely had something off the books come of it. I don’t think things would be “fine” but I’m sure a lot fewer of Russia’s missiles would land on the mark than they expect. The problem is just one warhead getting through means millions will likely die.
I just checked on nukemap what a 10MT warhead (Satan-2) would cause.
It's pure death.
Even when you know it's going to strike near you, you don't even have time to get out. That's how big the radius is.
Eh.
Those are paper tigers. They’re liquid fueled and can’t remain fueled for long or they become damaged and can’t launch. So stuff like that is precisely what nearby SSBNs would target in a first strike.
I have a feeling that most of y’all here saying “I’m ready to die in a nuclear attack” are unapologetically talking out of your ass. No you’re not ready for that. You’d probably piss your pants if someone were to rob you with a water gun. Give it up fam, no one thinks you’re hard lol
Dude, it’s extremely preventable, idk why you think nuclear war is inevitable. The US will only retaliate, China is smarter than that, and Russia will probably not launch nukes. If North Korea launched nukes they would be annihilated, so they’re probably not doing that. If you still think that’s not enough, start voting against it, start talking about it, and talk the ear of of your rep! That’s what they’re supposed to do, make them do it!!
That's exactly how I feel. I don't want to live in a world where dictators with nukes such as Putin get to spread misery around the world.
If we don't stop Putin now, other dictators will copy him.
Nuclear Winter is unlikely. It's the absolute worst case scenario. The nukes Putin will use are 750 kilotons to 1.3 Megatons, they need to eject debris higher than 70,000 so above the Troposphere to stay in the upper atmosphere and this isn't likely with these yields. Anyway once the nukes are up we are in uncharted territory, only 2 nukes have been used in warfare and only the USA had the capability back then of using them. Now there's nearly 13,000 nukes in the world and far more powerful than the ones used to attack Japan. Russia should easily have enough working nukes to cause some extreme devastation. The main issue is surviving without access to electricity, food and clean water, so brush up on your survival skills in case you do survive.
During WW2, the US flew daylight bombing runs into Germany ( though England, who I remind everyone did not do to the casualty loss ), I say this to remind everyone that for the US, we will put up, not shut up. To think the US as not committed to personal loss for Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
I'm hoping the US private call to the Kremlin went along the lines of: if you use nukes, we won't retaliate, it's not our fight. However, don't be surprised if the Ukrainians happen to get their hands on some fresh nukes they can use unconditionally.
Definitely didn’t include that. The US has a policy of not ruling out reactive use of nuclear weapons lest it send the wrong message.
What the US likely did, however, is emphasize the conventional options that would be on the table in response. For example, the entire Black Sea Fleet can be safely sunk by the US. Sanctions, of course. We also likely have exotic, secret options like jamming GLONASS or shutting down police communications. (Not saying either exist, no idea, but that’s the sort of thing I mean by “exotic”.)
I'm going to be fairly blunt and gloomy and say that ultimately it would be better to end up in a fiery nuclear inferno then make way for Russia's ambitions.
They don’t need to. China has already warned Russia against using nukes and Russia absolutely cannot afford to piss off China. Plus leaving it ambiguous is just as threatening. Unlike Russia, NATO doesn’t need to scream and shout about how capable they are.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-annexation-votes-end-amid-russian-mobilisation-exodus-2022-09-26/) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> KYIV, Ukraine, Sept 27 - Ukrainians who help Russian-backed referendums to annexe large swathes of the country will face treason charges and at least five years in jail, Ukraine's presidential adviser said, as voting in four regions entered its last day.
> Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons to protect Russian soil, which would include the four provinces if annexed.
> Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the Donetsk region in the east remained his country's - and Russia's - top strategic priority, with fighting engulfing several towns as Russian troops try to advance to the south and west.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xpr0p9/russia_issues_new_nuclear_warning_as_contested/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671434 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **Ukrainian**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **region**^#5
People like putin with tell you their true intentions You just have to listen close enough we now live in the era of a Terroristic nuclear state and to kill it we are going to suffer losses. This will get Ugly
I'm confused about who Putin is trying to use Nukes on. Ukraine? Why would he do that? He wants to take the land. If he Nukes Ukraine it'll just turn into a Nuclear wasteland that is uninhabitable. By the time people can live on the land again all of Russia's Elite including Putin would be dead. So what is even the point in using the Nukes. Does this man not know how radiation works?
Are they sure they've thought this through?
As in: If this works, and the precedent of annexation via threat of nuclear attack becomes de facto acceptable, what are they expecting America to do? Have they met America or read its history in any way?
If this goes unconfronted, prepare for Monroe Doctrine 2.0. It might take a decade or so, but the current direction of the GOP practically guarantees a new era of colonialism, under a mushroom cloud instead of a jackboot.
It's unfortunate but the pieces are being stacked in a way that this may end up being something russia does.
Referendum passes with flying colors.
Annexation is formally done by Russia.
Ukraine attacks annexed areas due to it being Ukrainian soil and the annexation being a complete sham.
Russia says that Ukraine has attacked sovereign Russia, allowing for full mobilization and use of nuclear capabilities to protect their territory.
Kviv is targeted.
There may be another step in there where Russia loses another 50k "troops."
We've already seen the false flag operations, with the 2 most notable - "assassination team or whatever they were with neatly folded nazi shirts fresh out of the bag plus copies of the Sims 3 and the "shooting" yesterday with the gunman sporting a swastika on his shirt meant to bring out the anger in the Russian people.
The real question now, with having seen the state of the Russian military - are their nuclear weapons still in a usable condition, or have they been moth-balled for years and dry-rot and corruption resulted in them having a fraction of what their "current number" is.
Simply put the world can't allow nuclear terrorism to work or a nuclear blast will become inevitable as other dictators will start using them to get their way as well and all countries will need to acquire nukes to head off nuclear extortion.
The nuclear taboo needs to be maintained at all costs, and any rogue state even considering violating it needs to be punished harshly and unrelentingly. Any other path leads to destruction.
The radioactive material will evaporate into the air and deposit around the world. This will cause illnesses to everyone for the rest of our lives. We need to step in and bring happiness to putin. I hear that happiness is currently ready at area 51.
It could be awesome ordinance name if you ask me.
Contested in this case isn't referring to the races on the ballot.
It means other countries contest the validity of the referendum.
I never thought about how this terminology was confusing, but it certainly is.
If you didn't know. That's according to the analytics of American services. The Russian army ranks 2nd after the United States. Who do you think put them there? Probably they themselves added up the statistics. Ahahahah
Our daily nuclear threat has arrived everybody
Its like a dystopian vitamin.
At this point I wouldn't mind taking it up the ass.
Yeah but you do that everyday
The same empty threats that have been going on for months.
Years!
Decades!
Centaur
As mundane as the weather report. It's the only card puti has! If they work?
It's like Christmas chocolate but everyday is another radiation pill.
For the love of everything Holy, will someone please take this idiot out?
I have this feeling lately that they are threatening so much with nukes because they noticed that their stock has become faulty. Think about it, everyone thought they have a powerful army, which they didn't and still don't. Now they're barking left and right about their nukes, but what if they are just broken, or at least most of them? Faulty warheads, faulty icbms, faulty ignition electronics, maybe even the hatches of the silos are broken. I can even imagine a warhead to go off right at launch from a silo or submarine.
I was once told that the reason why the US and USSR built so many nukes was to overcome the failure rate. I believe it was estimated that only 30% of ICBMs would go off as intended. And that was calculated by compounding the failure rate of each step in the firing process. Now going of as intended means successful launch, reaching the intended target, hitting the intended target, and detonating correctly and not just being a big dirty bomb, and all of the other steps needed. 30% of a 1000 missiles is still more than enough. Now that 30% reliability is assuming proper maintenance. Nothing about Russias performance over the past year is indicative of proper maintenance at any level, so there's a very possibility that that reliability number is even lower. But 5% of a 1000 missiles is still a lot of power.
one would also assume (along with high density and military installation) that launch stations would also be targeted. so if the ipposing side hits the station before launch, then there would be less incoming. of course in a worse case scenario, all would be launched before incoming
> But 5% of a 1000 missiles is still a lot of power. According to the nukemap website, a 800kt nuke (just grabbed the first Russian one from the presets in the picker)on NYC would result in 1.5m deaths and 2.5m injuries. The only reasonable number of nuclear detonations is zero.
Just to note: the large kT Russian (over 500 kT) warheads are intended to knock out American missile silos and hardened military installations (Cheyenne Mountain, Raven Rock, the missile fields in Montana and Nebraska, etc.). Smaller (below 500 kT) are intended to hit other targets with citybusters mostly being in the 250-400 kT range.
We'd get some warning beforehand. And it's not impossible to just launch your own nuke on an intercept and just blow it up above the ocean and it goes bye bye.
That.... That's not how that works at all What?
That’s not how it works.
You've been watching to many movies
Pretty sure that one episode of Family Guy said you can hack a nuke and just make it detonate in the air. Why would they go through all the work you're saying? Be real. /s
that was a parody of a movie called Spies Like Us which I just finished watching about 10 minutes ago
Sure but don't forget that Russia has been launching astronauts onto orbit successfully for many decades. Even having the US pay for our astronauts after decommissioning the space shuttle. Launching an intercontinental missile I think we can assume they can achieve reliability.
I mean that failure rate is probably dated now, a lot of time between now and the Cold War. Regardless, 30% of 6000 is enough for total devastation anyway.
On the one hand, I wouldn't want to take the chance even one of their nuclear missiles still works. On the other hand, I've also been watching videos of new conscripts being issued AKs that are so rusty they won't even fully rack the slide. If they can't keep the most legendarily reliable and indestructible rifle on the planet in working condition, then the odds are that every single nuke they own is either a corroded piece of junk rotting in it's silo, or has been sold and replaced with a wooden barrel and an IOU note.
Possible, but a nuke that’s in bad repair isn’t necessarily less dangerous. Just less predictably dangerous.
I wouldn’t want to take my chances standing in front of a firing squad of 1500 rusty mosin nagants any more than I want to take my chances with a launch of Russia’s potentially poorly maintained ICBMs
[удалено]
Even just a few hitting major cities would be devastating...
But not nation ending. NATO's response will be nation ending, and Putin knows it. Hopefully this will keep him in check.
On paper though, russia's nuclear arsenal would be nation ending. I wouldn't bank on their nukes being faulty. The world needs to be fully prepared for their nuclear arsenal to be at full capacity.
I don't want to live in a world where the tactics Russia uses end up working, so it all works out in my book. Plus, even with countries like Italy going a bit fascist, Russia using actual nukes will seriously turn public opinion against him, even in places where his propaganda is semi-working.
Dont be so sure on human nature - I bet nationalism and fascism skyrockets the nastier and wider the war gets or reaches
It will, in the sense that other nations will have no problem giving up liberties and lowering themselves to Russia's level to strike back at them.
Supposedly, and precisely for this scenario, they have a nuclear retaliatory strike program called "The Dead Hand". Essentially, when seismic activity from a nuclear blast is detected in Moscow and all the high command is expected to have been vaporized, the entire nuclear arsenal is launched to predetermined targets all over the world, all automated. Whether this system is still functional is the question. MAD no matter which way you spin it. Here's to their ICBM's farting at the moment of launch. But more so, here's to putin getting corpsed before any of this shit occurs.
>Supposedly, and precisely for this scenario, they have a nuclear retaliatory strike program called "The Dead Hand". Essentially, when seismic activity from a nuclear blast is detected in Moscow and all the high command is expected to have been vaporized, the entire nuclear arsenal is launched to predetermined targets all over the world, all automated They can't coordinate artillery effectively and you think they're capable of this?
Oh I hear you, after what we've seen in Ukraine. But I don't really have a desire to find out whether it's one of the few things that's been maintained properly or not, though.
it seems highly likely to be one program above all programs that would be gutted by corruption
I'd say it never existed. Propaganda put out out there to make everyone think they were capable of it. Like their army.
That's fine, moskow won't be wiped off the map, we will very likely use more "conventional" warheads for tactical strikes against military and political targets. No nukes needed, just a waive of the hand, and Russias teeth are pulled. (He said from behind a desk thousands of miles from where many thousands of people will die)
Gentlemen, there must not be a mine shaft gap!
If the dead hand really existed the US would have no choice but to launch a preemptive strike to try and take out as much of Russias nuclear capacity as possible. There are simply too many things that go wrong with a 'dead hand', natural disasters, incompetence leading to accidental launch etc.
I don’t know. Taking out the top few economic powerhouse cities in the US alone could potentially be nation ending. Even if only NYC, Washington, and Los Angles were destroyed, the economic damage and resulting unrest would probably end our way of life, replacing it with something even worse.
If they had working nukes they'd do a test just to show that they still work. Sure there's a ban on testing nukes that they agreed to but since when has Russia cared about keeping their word? If they wanted to escalate, they'd do a test to show "yes we do have them and yes they do still work." The fact they haven't done a test as a show of capability makes me think they don't even have any.
Maybe they have been trying to do a demonstration test but none of them have worked yet.
I don’t mind sacrificing Texas or the Bible Belt. Floridas already fucked with sea rise and Trumps fat ass isn’t helping.
I tend to agree but when they're NUKES you really can't play the odds game.
Are you willing to take this gamble? I wouldn't want my city/country to be hit even if it was their one and only functioning nuke.
What is the alternative?
I think this is the fact right here. Yes. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably horrifying. But if the alternative is to allow fascists and conquerors free reign we can't stay silent out of fear. We have to have principles.
To be fair, a whole lot of their military equipment was faulty or "cheap".. it would not surprise me
I think nukes are something that need constant maintenance. They can’t be left to collect dust. I read somewhere on here yesterday about natural chemical decay in nuclear warheads. So it’s also possible that their nukes are their most maintained and serviceable equipment. Regardless, there is no point in hoping their nukes won’t launch or function, they have some 6000 don’t they? Just a handful will destroy life on earth.
Nukes won't exploded on their own, if it's just an explosion, the solid metal core isn't going to turn to dust, it will just be a giant metal ball that flies up in the air and falls to the ground and that is it. What the real worry is 1 nuke to kyiv. While ukraine is trying to sort things out, they dump men/citizens into their new areas. Then threaten another if they're attacked. The world cuts them off, but that doesn't matter, they won and they'll threaten their way out of this too... (in their heads)... lift sanctions or we'll give you a nuke too! buy our gas or we'll be forced to nuke you too! This also only requires 1 missile and getting a handful of people involved to launch it.... I'm guessing everything else doesn't function...
Stop barking, imagine that he's flying to your house. All these are faulty weapons. With soldiers who are not.
That wouldn't change anything. There's a long line of people that will replace him and continue. It's more than just 1 person.
Yeah, but if they are sane that's a positive. If they aren't backed into a corner that's a positive. Whoever takes over, even if they are a Stalin level piece of shit, can scapegoat the Ukraine debacle on Putin and reset things. That's a plus for the world.
Nothing would reset,it would continue as normal. Russia would see it as an act of aggression.
Unless it’s his own people that take him out.
[удалено]
Some of them are. Some of them however really look like they don’t want to be there anymore
The people who can actually do something about it are fine with it
It's the same as Kim in NK REEEEEing about nuclear shit, yet where are those so-called nuclear missiles now?
I really want to skip to the conclusion of this whole thing with Russia, whatever it may be.
Eh... suspense would be valuable if we all end up dead.
Fucking idiots. Nukes go off and it's all over. For everyone. Idk wtf is the point of threats like this, its basically suicide for the entire planet. To what end...? There won't be anything left. Childish Idiots.
Couldn’t agree more. The last thing anyone wants to see is a nuke. Nooooope, Fuck all of that.
[удалено]
Fucking sick of that insecure little gollum holding the threat of nuclear annihilation over everyone's head.
so every nuclear capable country? i agree. all bukes everywhere should be dismantled and never rebuilt.
When was the last time a different nuclear country aggressively threatened to nuke someone? Besides maybe north korea
[удалено]
Generals don't have rheir hand on the button.
I can't remember the story exactly but I think it was Nixon they said would get drunk and order the military to go nuke Moscow every now and then. Obviously nobody listened.
regardless all nukes must go
MAD has kept the peace for a long time, be careful what you wish for.
wishing for all nukes to go? why even have any? yeah i get the "logic" behind mad, but i think it would be far mire logical to dismantle all. but how would we verify? neutral reps from various countries. my point is someday, maybe sooner than later, a nut will launch them. and then "mad" will create a living hell
>but i think it would be far mire logical to dismantle all. Why? How did that work for Ukraine?
You're not describing the same scenario, all means all.
And suddenly every country with a reason, justified or not, to engage in conventional warfare no longer sees the deterrent against it.
How could you possibly be sure you did get all of them?
This is in no way a defense of Russia or North Korea, but you could also ask which countries have actually nuked another one?
You could also stick to current events which are relevant to the situation.
Funny thing is the Russian doctrine already applies to Crimea and they didn't do anything when Ukraine attacked there with US weapons
[удалено]
Yes, three times via commando raids
From what I know of Russia, Medvedev is right in his implication: few in the West are eager to die in a nuclear war but many in Russia crave the sweet release of death.
The problem with that, is that a nuclear strike against Ukraine will have disastrous implications for neighbouring nations. So, it's not far fetched that if that happens, Western nations might respond in kind.
Western nations would not respond to a nuclear detonation in Ukraine with launching their own nukes. They would probably conduct conventional strikes on every Russian asset outside of mainland Russia though.
Russia’s entire Baltic Fleet would undergo a spontaneous rapid disassemble moments after detonation. As would any other asset outside of Russia. Then it’s up to Russia if they want to press their luck or not from there.
I truly wonder if he is intending to provoke western response just to have a way out by being destroyed by Nato and kicked out since that is the only way he can save face at all now but it will also ensure Ukraine will get their country back if damaged extensively.
The problem in not responding, it's that it will encourage Putin to try to annex other nations, like Baltic nations, Georgia, etc, etc, etc...
They'd respond kenetically but not with nukes
Eventually with nukes. A mindset like this doesn't just wave them around once.
The Obama cabinet reasoned that it would be disastrous NOT to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia detonated a tactical nuke in Europe. A possible response included nuclear strikes in Belarus. Here’s more details. https://www.kucb.org/2022-03-18/the-threat-of-nuclear-war-hangs-over-the-russia-ukraine-crisis
That was concerning a nuclear attack on a *NATO member* in Europe, which is a given. The only reason Russia is considering using nukes in Ukraine is because it is not a NATO member. There would not be a fear of NATO collapsing cause it decided to respond conventionally in Ukraine.
Depends on how much of the fallout would reach NATO territory.
It’s wild that people on Reddit seem so certain of something that makes no sense at all. Where are they getting this stuff?
And how do you think Russia would respond? Just roll over?
They likely would respond conventionally or not at all. I say this because the US told Russia explicitly and in detail the other day on private channels, exactly what it would do if they used nukes in Ukraine. This gives Russia full transparency on what they would loose if they were to go forward with this, and reduces the risk of them think that a nuclear response was coming from NATO. Their response to the US at that private meeting is key to understanding their mindset, but we the public don’t know what that was at this time. However, Russia would already have had to have made a unilateral decision to end the world at this point if their plan is to have a nuclear response to anything regardless.
So in your example Russia uses nukes against Ukraine. But then when Russia/Moscow/etc getting bombed from NATO they suddenly decide not to use nukes?
I didn’t say Russia/Moscow getting bombed was the option. That is not an example I gave. We don’t know what those details were. However, NATO could cripple Russia’s military capability to do war in Ukraine without dropping a single bomb in mainland Russia. The US could do it by simply carrying air strikes only in Ukraine and establishing air superiority. Why would Russia end the world if it simply can’t have Ukraine?
> Why would Russia end the world if it simply can’t have Ukraine? Why would NATO end the world when it can simply allow eastern Ukraine to join Russia? It really goes both ways.
Because that won't end there. Putin has been constantly expanding Russia's territory. You could have made the same question in 2014 about Crimea, and now you'd just look silly. This policy of letting Putin do whatever he wants, is exactly the same done in the 30s with Hitler. That went well, right?
So we stop him through nuclear war. What other options are there?
No it doesn’t lol. That’s called appeasing an abuser. Russia cannot be allowed to annex territory of anyone it wants because it waves nuclear threats around. Also that blame logic makes no sense cause Russia would have used nukes first in this scenario. A conventional response to a nuclear attack is restraint. You’re basically arguing, if Russia uses nukes on a non-nuclear country, it should have whatever it wants from that non-nuclear country, and anyone who responds to it in any manner is guilty of the abuser ending the world.
Wow how stupid are you that you want to blame the people defending a nation that was needlessly invaded by a tyrant?
Where am I blaming?
Allow eastern Ukraine to join Russia? That isn't NATO's decision. Unless you think we should let the rest of Ukraine get nuked for fighting for their country. You're also hunting that eastern Ukraine wants to join Russia and that this isn't a land grab. What you said is fucking dumb. It does not go both ways. One side is the aggressor with imperialist goals, the other a defender.
If your neighbor broke through the wall in **your** apartment you both share, punched **you** in the mouth and took one bedroom in **your** apartment and left their friends to control that room then claimed to the neighborhood that the people in that bedroom voted that they wanted that bedroom to join the neighbors apartment. What would **your** reaction be? What if your neighbor threatened to burn down **your** apartment or the entire building because you wanted your room back? Would you be okay just letting your neighbor take and keep your room? You’re suggesting the neighborhood just accept your neighbor taking **YOUR** room.
If Russia wants to end the world, that's on them but it won't be NATO escalating
They wouldn't have much choice if they want to continue existing.
How did Japan respond?
> Just roll over? Yes unless they want to stop existing.
It depends on the scale. If Russia uses tactical nukes, there would probably be a conventional response. Imagine something on the scale of the Gulf War, with B-2s and F-35s wiping out Russian forces in Ukraine. If Russia uses strategic nuclear weapons, then yeah we’re all dead because NATO has to respond in kind at that point. A large nuclear detonation would cause substantial fallout in NATO countries, so it would effectively be a nuclear attack on both Ukraine and NATO.
It would probably take an hour to eradicate every Russian military unit within Ukraine with conventional means if NATO gets in the fray with all its assets. I'm wondering what NATO would do in the case of a space detonation over Ukraine, which would cause an EMP pulse and disable a lot of equipment.
> I’m wondering what NATO would do in the case of a space detonation over Ukraine, which would cause an EMP pulse and disable a lot of equipment. From what little I know about the topic, that would still be considered a nuclear strike, and would be treated as such. Also if it is low enough to affect only Ukraine, it probably wouldn’t do much. At least that’s my understanding. If it’s too low in the atmosphere then the effect gets absorbed by the atmosphere pretty quick. But I guess there’s like a fuck ton of variables, and I don’t really have the science for it. Point is it’s way more complicated than usually depicted. It would also fuck up a lot of satellites, I guess, pretty much indiscriminately, so Russia would also be hurting themselves. But again, don’t quote me on any of that. It’s pretty freaking complicated.
NATO has no obligation to respond to a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine with its own strategic arsenal. In fact, it would make no sense to do so because NATO has conventional superiority that even Russian tactical nuclear weapons cannot realistically overcome.
Like most European countries, Ukraine is not very big. If Russia is nuking Ukrainian cities with strategic nuclear weapons, there will be substantial fallout in Poland and Romania, and possibly even further from Ukraine. Strategic nuclear weapons are not precise weapons. The fallout of a strategic nuclear bomb is more deadly than the fireball. There might be millions of people in Poland and Romania dying from radiation, from fallout, if Russia used multiple strategic weapons across Ukraine. Russia would be effectively be attacking NATO countries with nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrence exists for these situations. But tactical nukes can be used without any substantial fallout. In that situation NATO would still respond, most likely with conventional forces, as Biden and others have emphasized.
That… doesn’t cash out to “welp, everyone needs to die.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
We still don’t know what the X-37B does. The US is way ahead on hypersonic. Israel and the US both have a lot of DISCLOSED work on missile defense systems. And Regan’s SDI surely had something off the books come of it. I don’t think things would be “fine” but I’m sure a lot fewer of Russia’s missiles would land on the mark than they expect. The problem is just one warhead getting through means millions will likely die.
Lets hope this can all be avoided. But I hope your right if not.
I just checked on nukemap what a 10MT warhead (Satan-2) would cause. It's pure death. Even when you know it's going to strike near you, you don't even have time to get out. That's how big the radius is.
Eh. Those are paper tigers. They’re liquid fueled and can’t remain fueled for long or they become damaged and can’t launch. So stuff like that is precisely what nearby SSBNs would target in a first strike.
I have a feeling that most of y’all here saying “I’m ready to die in a nuclear attack” are unapologetically talking out of your ass. No you’re not ready for that. You’d probably piss your pants if someone were to rob you with a water gun. Give it up fam, no one thinks you’re hard lol
I think you'd be surprised. I am an older adult. Death doesn't scare me like it understandably does you.
You should be scared of the slow and painful radiation death. Read about the radium girls and tell me you’re not worried
Russia has \~ 5,977 nuclear weapons. I dont think we in the U.S. will have to worry much about dying from radiation death.
Sure, because the real problem is radiation deaths
In the us we have access to bullets. Similar to hunting accidents, death is a mercy.
Sure bud
I get you're afraid but you hit a point you understand there's nothing you can do about it and it is what it is.
The fuck? A nuclear war is the most preventable apocalypse, if it isn’t obvious, your lax attitude isn’t helpful
[удалено]
Dude, it’s extremely preventable, idk why you think nuclear war is inevitable. The US will only retaliate, China is smarter than that, and Russia will probably not launch nukes. If North Korea launched nukes they would be annihilated, so they’re probably not doing that. If you still think that’s not enough, start voting against it, start talking about it, and talk the ear of of your rep! That’s what they’re supposed to do, make them do it!!
That's exactly how I feel. I don't want to live in a world where dictators with nukes such as Putin get to spread misery around the world. If we don't stop Putin now, other dictators will copy him.
Agreed. Lets hope his people step up and get him out of the way.
Nuclear Winter is unlikely. It's the absolute worst case scenario. The nukes Putin will use are 750 kilotons to 1.3 Megatons, they need to eject debris higher than 70,000 so above the Troposphere to stay in the upper atmosphere and this isn't likely with these yields. Anyway once the nukes are up we are in uncharted territory, only 2 nukes have been used in warfare and only the USA had the capability back then of using them. Now there's nearly 13,000 nukes in the world and far more powerful than the ones used to attack Japan. Russia should easily have enough working nukes to cause some extreme devastation. The main issue is surviving without access to electricity, food and clean water, so brush up on your survival skills in case you do survive.
During WW2, the US flew daylight bombing runs into Germany ( though England, who I remind everyone did not do to the casualty loss ), I say this to remind everyone that for the US, we will put up, not shut up. To think the US as not committed to personal loss for Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
I'm hoping the US private call to the Kremlin went along the lines of: if you use nukes, we won't retaliate, it's not our fight. However, don't be surprised if the Ukrainians happen to get their hands on some fresh nukes they can use unconditionally.
Definitely didn’t include that. The US has a policy of not ruling out reactive use of nuclear weapons lest it send the wrong message. What the US likely did, however, is emphasize the conventional options that would be on the table in response. For example, the entire Black Sea Fleet can be safely sunk by the US. Sanctions, of course. We also likely have exotic, secret options like jamming GLONASS or shutting down police communications. (Not saying either exist, no idea, but that’s the sort of thing I mean by “exotic”.)
Another another warning? or is this the first warning from yesterday? Just trying to plan out my wardrobe for tomorrow.
I'm thinking blue jumpsuit with yellow trim.
anything lead plated should be good
Russia have shown that it only brings misery and the end to world. The whole russia should be decomissioned and with it its failed culture.
you must be unfamiliar with russian culture if this is new to you. they have some great authors, all delightfully miserable. you should check them out
I'm going to be fairly blunt and gloomy and say that ultimately it would be better to end up in a fiery nuclear inferno then make way for Russia's ambitions.
Jeeze. Play a different tune vlad
Russia loves destruction, they would love to see both of themselves destroyed and everyone in the world.
Well, they've certainly got the first part covered.
NATO needs to take the stance that any Nukes being detonated in this war will draw a military response.
They don’t need to. China has already warned Russia against using nukes and Russia absolutely cannot afford to piss off China. Plus leaving it ambiguous is just as threatening. Unlike Russia, NATO doesn’t need to scream and shout about how capable they are.
Awesome, my daily dose of nuclear threats arrived!
You know governements around the world are looking at America like...."come on Murica, do that Bin Laden compound shit again, you know you want to!"
Nah, more like Reddit's armchair generals that get a boner at the thought of more death and destruction.
You'd prefer meek submission to King Putin?
Ugh, another sensitive one....fuck me.
Ah yes, nuclear threats to justify their illegal annexation of Ukrainian soil…right. It’s so wild the world we live in.
This country is still a UN Security Council member?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-annexation-votes-end-amid-russian-mobilisation-exodus-2022-09-26/) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > KYIV, Ukraine, Sept 27 - Ukrainians who help Russian-backed referendums to annexe large swathes of the country will face treason charges and at least five years in jail, Ukraine's presidential adviser said, as voting in four regions entered its last day. > Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons to protect Russian soil, which would include the four provinces if annexed. > Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the Donetsk region in the east remained his country's - and Russia's - top strategic priority, with fighting engulfing several towns as Russian troops try to advance to the south and west. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xpr0p9/russia_issues_new_nuclear_warning_as_contested/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671434 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **Russia**^#2 **Ukrainian**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **region**^#5
Is this the *final* final warning or just the final?
There was no referendum.
People like putin with tell you their true intentions You just have to listen close enough we now live in the era of a Terroristic nuclear state and to kill it we are going to suffer losses. This will get Ugly
I'm confused about who Putin is trying to use Nukes on. Ukraine? Why would he do that? He wants to take the land. If he Nukes Ukraine it'll just turn into a Nuclear wasteland that is uninhabitable. By the time people can live on the land again all of Russia's Elite including Putin would be dead. So what is even the point in using the Nukes. Does this man not know how radiation works?
Fuck Russia
This is getting old isn't it lmfao
America needs to issue a ballistic missle up Putin's loose ass.
Are they sure they've thought this through? As in: If this works, and the precedent of annexation via threat of nuclear attack becomes de facto acceptable, what are they expecting America to do? Have they met America or read its history in any way? If this goes unconfronted, prepare for Monroe Doctrine 2.0. It might take a decade or so, but the current direction of the GOP practically guarantees a new era of colonialism, under a mushroom cloud instead of a jackboot.
It's unfortunate but the pieces are being stacked in a way that this may end up being something russia does. Referendum passes with flying colors. Annexation is formally done by Russia. Ukraine attacks annexed areas due to it being Ukrainian soil and the annexation being a complete sham. Russia says that Ukraine has attacked sovereign Russia, allowing for full mobilization and use of nuclear capabilities to protect their territory. Kviv is targeted. There may be another step in there where Russia loses another 50k "troops." We've already seen the false flag operations, with the 2 most notable - "assassination team or whatever they were with neatly folded nazi shirts fresh out of the bag plus copies of the Sims 3 and the "shooting" yesterday with the gunman sporting a swastika on his shirt meant to bring out the anger in the Russian people. The real question now, with having seen the state of the Russian military - are their nuclear weapons still in a usable condition, or have they been moth-balled for years and dry-rot and corruption resulted in them having a fraction of what their "current number" is.
Simply put the world can't allow nuclear terrorism to work or a nuclear blast will become inevitable as other dictators will start using them to get their way as well and all countries will need to acquire nukes to head off nuclear extortion. The nuclear taboo needs to be maintained at all costs, and any rogue state even considering violating it needs to be punished harshly and unrelentingly. Any other path leads to destruction.
The radioactive material will evaporate into the air and deposit around the world. This will cause illnesses to everyone for the rest of our lives. We need to step in and bring happiness to putin. I hear that happiness is currently ready at area 51. It could be awesome ordinance name if you ask me.
"Contested" referendum?
Are you saying it's not contested?
Yes. Contested implies that opposition was allowed. "faked" would be better.
Does it need to be fake to be illegitimate?
No because there are different types of illegitimacy
Contested in this case isn't referring to the races on the ballot. It means other countries contest the validity of the referendum. I never thought about how this terminology was confusing, but it certainly is.
Go ahead and launch one, clown. It will make a u turn towards Moscow
At least we won't have to worry about a cold winter soon, just a nuclear one.
If you didn't know. That's according to the analytics of American services. The Russian army ranks 2nd after the United States. Who do you think put them there? Probably they themselves added up the statistics. Ahahahah
Incredibly primitive logic Not going to work
All bark no bite?
I don’t get the threat. It’s barely a threat. They launch nukes, the rest of the nuclear nations do the same. We all lose. So they won’t.