|
pencilhands posted:The good news is I live in a city large enough that I’m pretty sure I would just be vaporized instantly. Inshallah
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I've been asking that same question in the other parts of Internet. What would have been the most horrible consequence if Russia would not have started the invasion? It must have been something really terrible because Russia chose war. Putin would probably be underwater for the next re-election, can't have that 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Putin would probably be underwater for the next re-election, can't have that That's cute, you think the elections matter when he jails his opponents, controls the media, uses the duma as a rubber stamp, and just has people straight up faking ballets during counting on camera. It ain't the election he's afraid of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:That's cute, you think the elections matter when he jails his opponents, controls the media, uses the duma as a rubber stamp, and just has people straight up faking ballets during counting on camera. Oh no, but it's more  to fake/suppress and doesn't look good
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’ve been lurking this thread and read the whole thing now, been thinking about it a lot. I wanna know goons, how worried should the average person be about nuclear war actually becoming a reality? We've got another thread for this kind of question. edit: oh wait its this thread. It is no longer a "not gonna happen, don't be stupid lol" kind of worry, but it is still very, very unlikely. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Oct 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the risk of nuclear war is at the highest it has ever been. But somehow we're not certain it will be the planet ending thermonuclear war, unlike how it was for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
fnox posted:I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the risk of nuclear war is at the highest it has ever been. But somehow we're not certain it will be the planet ending thermonuclear war, unlike how it was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. agreed. i think if putin pushed the button and blew up kyiv or warsaw or paris or a virginia suburb. russia would become more isolated then north korea and putin would probably be dead in a couple months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:agreed. i think if putin pushed the button and blew up kyiv or warsaw or paris or a virginia suburb. russia would become more isolated then north korea and putin would probably be dead in a couple months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Isolated eh? If by that you mean Russia would continue to exist but only on another plane of existence, then you're right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I've been asking that same question in the other parts of Internet. What would have been the most horrible consequence if Russia would not have started the invasion? It must have been something really terrible because Russia chose war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
fnox posted:I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the risk of nuclear war is at the highest it has ever been. But somehow we're not certain it will be the planet ending thermonuclear war, unlike how it was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Intentional nuclear war, at any rate. From what we know, the closest shaves we've historically had have been various human interventions to automated systems suggesting to one side or the other that the enemy has launched, proceed with thermonuclear war [ ] y [ ] n? So far, people have opted for n. But a "limited" nuclear exchange is worrisome in a different way, since it sends a bad message if the 'international community' doesn't retaliate to someone lobbing just one or two nukes onto any target.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
I suspect Putin and his circle of advisors thought that NATO wouldn't interfere because Russia still had enough nukes to flatten Europe. But then the sanctions and military aid kinda called his bluff after Ukrainian resistance against the half-assed invasion was way more effective than anticipated. I also think that Putin wanted to incorporate large parts of Ukraine into the Russian federation as a prestigious end to his reign as Russian leader. He's got to realize he won't live forever and wants to be remembered in the history books as someone who made Russia great, following the collapse of the USSR. Launching some nukes and ending history isn't going to be on the table for him. Maybe he'd consider it if he's personally being cornered, but at that point the people actually manning the missile launch systems won't have much reason to follow him anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
fnox posted:I don't think its an exaggeration to say that the risk of nuclear war is at the highest it has ever been. But somehow we're not certain it will be the planet ending thermonuclear war, unlike how it was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bullshit. There have been points where one or more nations had their nuclear football out with the keys in. This is just more saber rattling like happened constantly during the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
Able AA-11 "Archer" '22
Volmarias fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Good article on the Russian biological weapons program, for your daily dose of Clancychat. https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/the-russian-biological-weapons-program-in-2022/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
With talk of Kherson being a trap. Is the thought Russia might use a low yield nuke on the 'evacuated' city?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:With talk of Kherson being a trap. Is the thought Russia might use a low yield nuke on the 'evacuated' city? Not really, its just now that Ukraine had some high-profile success with breaking through and rushing after fleeing Russians a couple times, they tried to manufacture something that appeared to be the same situation, but they weren't stupid enough to fall for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:agreed. i think if putin pushed the button and blew up kyiv or warsaw or paris or a virginia suburb. russia would become more isolated then north korea and putin would probably be dead in a couple months. there is no world in which russia launches nukes at the west and humanity exists by the next day there probably isn't a world in which russia launches nukes at not-the-west and humanity exists by the next day
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:there is no world in which russia launches nukes at the west and humanity exists by the next day It's what we deserve
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
There isn't also a world where russia nukes anything preemptively. Or if there is, it's not worth worrying about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:there is no world in which russia launches nukes at the west and humanity exists by the next day My understanding is that this is not really in line with current scientific understanding. For one thing, a full scale nuclear war between the west and Russia likely wouldn't even directly kill the populations of the countries involved, let alone the global south. The bigger issue is nuclear winter and the resulting global famine, but (a) it's not really clear that a prolonged nuclear winter would occur and (b) even if it did, the resulting global famine is almost certainly not gonna cause human extinction. Like, don't get me wrong, nuclear war is a really bad thing, and no individual has particularly great odds of surviving it. But I think it's important to stick to the facts when describing its effects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Like, don't get me wrong, nuclear war is a really bad thing, and no individual has particularly great odds of surviving it. But I think it's important to stick to the facts when describing its effects. Yeah and its not like we didn't bounce back the last time the Vimana's rained god-lightning from the skies!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:My understanding is that this is not really in line with current scientific understanding. For one thing, a full scale nuclear war between the west and Russia likely wouldn't even directly kill the populations of the countries involved, let alone the global south. The bigger issue is nuclear winter and the resulting global famine, but (a) it's not really clear that a prolonged nuclear winter would occur and (b) even if it did, the resulting global famine is almost certainly not gonna cause human extinction. I think the effects are generally well understood enough to conclude it probably results in the end of civilization as we know it, if not the almost total extinction of the human race. It’s not really controversial to claim it would be the end of the world as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
qhat posted:I think the effects are generally well understood enough to conclude it probably results in the end of civilization as we know it, if not the almost total extinction of the human race. It’s not really controversial to claim it would be the end of the world as we know it. I don’t think there is really a reason for the nuclear powers to lob nukes at the south (some strategic facilities in Australia aside) and nuclear winter may not have a significant impact below the equator. On a humanity scale it will be end of days but I expect that large parts of South America, Pacific Islands, NZ, most of Australia, would carry on to some degree. The resulting humanitarian and refugee crisis would be unprecedented though. I don’t expect anyone would attack Africa but the situation in so many countries there is already precarious enough that minor weather or geopolitical impacts would possibly tip the scales to full on collapse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 09:37
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:I don’t think there is really a reason for the nuclear powers to lob nukes at the south (some strategic facilities in Australia aside) and nuclear winter may not have a significant impact below the equator. Well a few strategic facilities in Australia would be one at each capital city, so you only need a half dozen to cripple the country. Though if they only hit Canberra it would improve things. The resulting tidal wave of refugee's would result in a lot of sunk ships too. And not from natural causes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:I don’t think there is really a reason for the nuclear powers to lob nukes at the south (some strategic facilities in Australia aside) and nuclear winter may not have a significant impact below the equator. The societies that didn't receive hits are just going to collapse anyway, we could expect multi-decade civil wars below and above the equator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 11:15
|
|
|
qhat posted:I think the effects are generally well understood enough to conclude it probably results in the end of civilization as we know it, if not the almost total extinction of the human race. It’s not really controversial to claim it would be the end of the world as we know it. Eh, we'd probably get knocked back to a early-mid 20th century tech level and a human population hovering about the billion mark. I'd give it well under a hundred years until we had PlayStations again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
What about Nintendo Switch
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Well a few strategic facilities in Australia would be one at each capital city, so you only need a half dozen to cripple the country. Though if they only hit Canberra it would improve things. The strategic targets I was thinking of are the shared US/AUS installations that would support the US capability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Credible climatological research on nuclear winter is just so all over the place that you can't really say whether nuclear war is a good thing or a bad thing. The uncertainties on level of dust, its persistence, etc, are all really huge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:The strategic targets I was thinking of are the shared US/AUS installations that would support the US capability. Well there’s pine gap…and lots of ports and air ports that in or next to cities. Marines next to Darwin too. Can’t think of any other. Though skipping Canberra would possibly work as well as hitting other targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Well there’s pine gap…and lots of ports and air ports that in or next to cities. Marines next to Darwin too. Can’t think of any other. Theres a naval communication station in the middle of northwest named after a Prime Minister who went for a swim at the beach and never came back. It's the most powerful transmission station in the southern hemisphere. But if Oz gets nuked and they spare Canberra they'll have a lot of pissed off Aussies to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Climatological concerns aside, either Russia or the United States individually has enough nukes to hit every major population centre on the planet, including their own, a few times over with like 30 minutes notice. If you think they won’t launch every nuke they have at every non objectively friendly target, you’re naive. There are no models for what happens when you explode 6000 nukes in the atmosphere at the same time because the closest disasters energy wise that has ever occurred occurred millions of years ago and have already caused massive extinctions on a global scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
Since there are over 10000 cities on the planet a lot of those nukes would have to be able bomb multible targets at once in order to hit every population center on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 11:05
|
|
|
Modern estimates put the number of nukes in the world just south of 13,000 so you theoretically could hit every city. You wouldn't, but you could. The thing about nukes is if one country launches, everyone pretty much has to launch everything at their predetermined targets because you don't know until too late whether that nuke is heading for you or over you. So a nuclear exchange isn't just US vs Russia, France, India, Pakistan, the UK, and China all probably get in on the party as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Modern estimates put the number of nukes in the world just south of 13,000 so you theoretically could hit every city. You wouldn't, but you could. Wait, so you think if France detects a nuclear launch in India heading towards Pakistani military bases, they are going to respond by firing at Beijing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Modern estimates put the number of nukes in the world just south of 13,000 so you theoretically could hit every city. You wouldn't, but you could.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
and then there's the Israeli "Samson Option": if it looks like your country is about to fall, throw nukes at anything and everything within reach out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
What are the odds that Russian nukes, like lot of things in Russia, exist only on paper and in reality they are either unusable or sold to parts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
Szarrukin posted:What are the odds that Russian nukes, like lot of things in Russia, exist only on paper and in reality they are either unusable or sold to parts? They have like six thousand, do you really want to take that chance with even one of them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 02:33
|
|
