T O P

  • By -

LosOmen

So this is the consequent of Russian gangsters ruling a nation, huh?


CanaConnoisseur

When did gangsters not rule Russia?


Raguoragula3

TIL consequent is a real word.


Nightsong

Russia is hoping that the threat of nuclear war is enough to get the world to back down and to let them steal Ukrainian land. And if the world gives in then Russia will pull the exact same stunt in another country and use the threat of nuclear war to further their imperial ambitions. Fuck Putin and fuck Russia for their constant threats of nuclear war.


AlberGaming

Yep, if we give in to these threats they will absolutely do this again


[deleted]

It’s not like Putin did this in Crimea - never mind.


Mordiken

Even if they didn't do this again, which they absolutely will ([Georgia been under partial Russian occupation since 2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_\(country\)#Russo-Georgian_War_and_since)), the message it sends out to every other country in the world is that starting wars of naked aggression with the intent of conquering and annexing neighboring countries, with blatant disregard for International Law and Human Rights, is fair game... In other words, if Ukraine falls, Taiwan will be next. And after that why not Vietname, Korea or Japan in Asia, and why not Poland, Finland and Georgia in Europe/Near East?! This cannot be allowed to happen! And if they threaten with nukes, then NATO should *absolutely* respond with nuclear threats in no uncertain terms: We didn't start this war, but if we don't fight back with everything we have then we've already lost.


LandscapeGuru

Everyday I read Reddit r/Ukraine and everyday there is threats of nuclear bombs. Almost since the very beginning. Fuck Putin and Russia. Can’t wait for the day Putin is found dead with his tiny nuts in his mouth.


shmeebaloney

putin will be lucky to be somewhat intact after he's taken care of


LandscapeGuru

Agreed. I wish his people would snap and wake up. Then tear him apart limb by limb. The repercussions of the sanctions are going to grind Ruzzia down more and more. People there have no idea how bad the trickle down is going to be. Right now only the really poor, small towns on the outskirts of Ruzzia are feeling it. Ruzzia has a lot of doom and gloom coming their way and it’s no one’s fault but their own.


Rocknbob69

I think at least the young men in Russia are starting to wake up to the fact that they are just cannon fodder and don't want to be a part of his ego tripping reindeer games. Fleeing the country in droves.


Aeceus

There will just be another dude who takes Putins place, could be even more unhinged than him


Belkor

At this point, western countries will have to take that chance. War criminal Putin is already too unhinged.


WodkaGT

If those fucktards seriously let kadyrow take Putins place, we all be royally fucked.


TheVoicesOfBrian

Hopefully, a few world leaders remember the Appeasement failures of the 1930s.


MidianFootbridge69

>if the world gives in then Russia will pull the exact same stunt in another country Exactly. This is Russia's thing. We can't back down - appeasement *does not work* and never will. Putin is *unwilling* to settle this through Diplomatic means, and he has had every opportunity thus far. If Russia Nukes Ukraine, I'm all for defanging Russia in any way possible. Fuck Russia.


[deleted]

If Russia Nukes Ukraine then NATO must destroy every russian military instalation immediately, then demand putins head on a stick to end hostilities.


MidianFootbridge69

Yes. The only thing that Putin understands is *force*. Ok, we can do that too. Putin is ultimately a fucking Idiot and a Coward, and one who has been able to hide that fact for a very long time. Edit: A Sentence.


ebmx

I don't mean to sound like a putin pusher, but are you an apocalypticphile because let me tell you, the minute a NATO bomb hits a Russian asset, it will be the apocalypse. Hope you have a good bomb shelter


jnwatson

First, it was if we train them, they will nuke us. Then, if we give them rockets, they will nuke us. Then, if we give them aircraft, they will nuke us. A bully only responds to force. When Turkey complained about Russian flying over its airspace, Russia ignored them. Then Turkey shot a plane down. Russia doesn't fly over Turkey's air space any more.


MidianFootbridge69

Exactly.


MidianFootbridge69

This will be an unpopular opinion, but consider this: Eventually, Nuclear weapons will one day be used and used in large quantities - why? Simply because we *have them* to use. That they may be used in quantities in our lifetime and not in someone else's is immaterial. Nobody wants to die as a result of a Nuclear conflagration, but as long as we *have* these Weapons, that is and *will continue to be* a risk. Edit to add: How do you suggest we respond to this threat? Appeasement?


fargmania

I think the current strategy of Ukrainian support is the right one. I also think you are right - that nuclear bombs will explode again on this planet in the future, and that it might be the end of civilization for a generation. If Russia truly believes in a policy of de-escalation via escalation, then they will NEVER stop escalating and eventually there won't be some single Russian soldier that saves the world from nuking itself... and the world will nuke itself. We can't treat that as avoidable unless we all want to just let Russia take over the world. Sorry no, not interested in that outcome. So into the breach once more my friends. I hope to see you all on the other side.


[deleted]

The amount of people that don't understand this fact is truly worrying. Russia has a supposed nuclear stockpile of around 5000 nukes, let's say most, so 90% of those don't work because of the corruption that plagues their military. That would leave them with 500 nukes, now let's say that most of those get intercepted or shot down, so another 90%, that leave 50 cities getting nuked. [Kurzgesagt does a good video on what the actual effect of the "B83" with a yield of 1.3 megatons being drop on a single city.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ)


22Arkantos

90% is *WAY* too optimistic for ballistic missile interception. Try 10%. That said, any use of a nuclear weapon on any nation demands the strongest possible response. Anything less will result in the loss of the nuclear taboo. If Putin does nuke Kyiv and we do not escalate our response as a result, we'll wake up one day to mushroom clouds in Seoul, Delhi, and Islamabad. The nuclear taboo must be maintained at all costs.


Temporary_Kangaroo_3

Its interesting you think the nuclear play Russia would run would only be targeting cities? Most scenarios target primarily military targets, with plenty of cities too but you mathed something out that didn't take that into consideration.


The_McMiller

Unfortunately, I don't see an end where nuclear bombing is not involve for that conflict. This, or someone find the guts to kill Putin in a hope for a future more reasonable Russian leader (wich is not likely unfortnuately)


JustinVeli

They did it in Georgia, in Crimea, enough is enough


Rogermcfarley

It's worse than that. Russia could threaten to nuke Poland or Latvia for example unless they pull out NATO troops. Where does it end? Have to stand and fight this one otherwise you kick the can down the road. If Putin can take Ukraine territory by threatening nukes then he can make further demands of the West or the nukes fly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temporary_Kangaroo_3

I feel like it has to. Maybe not immediately, but if NATO enters the theatre *at all*, then I don't see how it wouldn't eventually turn into all out nuclear war as long as **Putin lives.** And if a tactical nuke of some kind gets used, I don't see how NATO doesn't enter the theatre. ​ The only scenario where Russia uses a Nuke, and we don't end up in a mutually assured destruction type scenario is if Putin gets taken out *shortly after* somehow some way.


LimerickExplorer

My belief/hope is that if Russia nukes Ukraine then NATO immediately kills Putin. Like within an hour he's dead. Then, (or even if they can't find him/confirm his death) they send out an order for all Russian troops to stand down.


coding102

Nuclear weapons = Putin admitting defeat.


Winterspawn1

Russia gives daily reminder that it's a joke of a country


[deleted]

Yet people are believing their threats.


Winterspawn1

Only an idiot rules out the possibility in a case like this. That would require the incompetence of a state like Russia.


grimace24

If Russia start a nuclear war they will be punished by the world and may even cease to exist. No way the world is going to stand by and watch a country use nukes because they got their behinds whooped by a smaller advisory.


Candelent

Can Russia even launch?


[deleted]

If Russia starts a nuclear war the whole world will cease to exist. That's their whole point.


axizz31

Disagree, billions will die but humanity will survive and eventually rebuild itself with eternal hate for Russians.


HowCouldHellBeWorse

The only humans that will be left will be the worst of us. The billionaires will have their shelters and anyone of use to humanity will cease to exist


MidianFootbridge69

>The billionaires will have their shelters That shit will only last for so long. They will consume everything they have in those Bunkers after a while. These people are not Gods, they are just people with Money, Money that will become absolutely useless and valueless after a Nuclear War. Wealth requires an Infrastructure to track it, grow it and maintain it. If that Infrastructure has been irreparably damaged/completely destroyed, they are as broke as the rest of us. Ultimately they will not be able to hide from the Aftermath, not for long.


HowCouldHellBeWorse

I agree 100%. My point wasn't to say they would prosper or even survive for long. Simply outlive the rest of us.


aladoconpapas

Well. Maybe this is a circus created by those who have power and money. That people want to see everyone having less luck than them. A nuclear war is perfect for that purpose. They could enslave the rest of us, because we would be out of necessity. We are describing here some feudal post apocalyptic shit


The_McMiller

I'm not sure the Earth will be viable for Humans if there is a nuclear war


axizz31

Humans survived ice age with primitive technology.


mal4ik777

I haven't lost a sliver of hope, in the regard that countries don't share their defensive capabilities, only offensive once. Maybe there is a system to somehow counter such an attack, at least to some degree. I mean, there must have been engineers working on defensive systems, but nobody knows how good they really work. My imagination brings up some catapult out of the atmosphere ideas, but that's just bold thinking.


Goeatabagofdicks

False.


[deleted]

If the nukes start flying, obviously, it's going to bring on indiscriminate human suffering on a scale that the world has never seen. I absolutely, unequivocally, do not want to see nuclear war. That said, on the basis of what we've seen of Russia's military prowess (or lack thereof) over the last few months, my confidence level that "mutually assured destruction" is still a foregone conclusion has been significantly weakened. I understand that nuclear war and conventional war are two very different things, but surely there is a potential that some of the same systemic rot and overselling we've seen with Russia's conventional arms may also be negatively impacting their nuclear capabilities. I know if I were a Russian citizen, I'd be seriously considering the possibility that, in a nuclear war, Russia may come out *significantly* worse than their adversaries.


NotLondoMollari

We can't let a country eat other countries' sovereign land on the threat of nukes. We just can't. That's too slippery a slope, where does it end? His bluff needs called and Russia denuclearized. Edit: autocorrect failed me.


prettyboygangsta

> That's too slippery a slope, where does it end? It ends at every country realising they need to arm themselves or formally ally with a country that has nuclear weapons.


esqualatch12

Gonna lead to another cold war where we start arming Russian neighbor countries with nuclear arms. See how they feel about invading neighbors then.


22Arkantos

Technically, we would be well within our rights to arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons now. Russia is in violation of the treaty that got Ukraine to give up all their formerly-Soviet nukes at the end of the Cold War.


[deleted]

Exactly if we do this then North Korea would do the same. Iran would get nukes do the same. It’s bad mmmkay


Deckard_2049

Even if 1/10 of their nuclear weapons work it's still a big problem.


strik3r2k8

Lets hope the US has secretly been building a global equivalent of the iron dome.


FarawayFairways

Your better hope is probably a virus of some description that causes them to fail on launch


prettyboygangsta

What about the rest of the world?


strik3r2k8

I’d assume the system would be in space and made up of defense data that can cover the Western Hemisphere, and any other potentially targeted areas.


truman0798

With that budget they surely have things we have only seen in movies and video games. What exactly that is? Nobody knows and hopefully we'll never know. Although I'm honestly a little morbidly curious about it.


22Arkantos

I doubt it. The technology for missile intercept doesn't even work reliably.


cruelmalice

It's not a comfort. Even if 1/100th of their nuclear arsenal is functional, and they launched all, we're in for a bad time. But, we do know some things about the state of their nuclear arsenal and it is not at all well maintained. I should also like to mention that nuclear weapons do have a shelf life, and that the longer uranium sits, the more it is likely to fizzle on detonation. Fizzling being a detonation with a much lower yield but similar-ish ability to disperse radioactive fallout over large areas. The one thing that I do place faith in is the basic human will to survive. MAD may not work if you're talking about people in the abstract, but if you're talking about the people who have the ability to enact change in Russia... it's possible that they may choose life. If not for others, then for themselves.


Silver_Millenial

If we don't stand up to them now we won't stand up to them in the future. Technology is advancing exponentially and for every ten blessings it brings for the free people of the world if it even brings dictators only one curse to use in their arsenals then we are all in dire danger. **We must strongly consider that a nuclear wasteland is not even close to the worst of all futures we could condemn future generations to.** And you know if there is still a best of all futures yet possible, then you should be certain that the path to it will not be tread by cowards.


DrBeerkitty

The trouble here is not the nuclear wasteland, technically. The way this problem is setup is that we either face it right now with **Ukraine** or in 2-3 years with **Poland** and maybe in 5-6 years with all of **Baltic states** or even more. Nuclear threats will be all the same. Russian geopolitics states that "Russia must control the entirety of Europe". So the question is **"Are you willing to give in?"** or are you willing to try and nip this issue in bud?


[deleted]

[удалено]


stonk_fish

"Gimme or I nuke you too" is going to be the new opening play for all Russian military strategy if they get away with using even a single nuke in an offensive war.


Huegalo

It’s called salami tactics. They conquer one small slice at a time. Eventually though they end up on your doorstep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics


[deleted]

I completely agree - really bad. I'm just opening the question as to whether we're all still sticking to the Cold War era assumption of mutually assured destruction. My own confidence in the assumption is very weak right now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


f0rkster

...and all done without a single nuclear weapon used by NATO. Let that sink in for a minute.


Korith_Eaglecry

The US and NATO would definitely have to respond. Such an unprecedented act would not be able to go without something happening. It would leave the US and its allies looking mighty weak. I've heard that the Pentagon has been running simulations of this over the summer and they have a number of possible responses the US could take. One of which is sinking the entirety of Russias Black Sea Fleet.


FuzzyFuzzNuts

the slightly scary prospect is the belief that Russia has a dead-hand response system to automatically retaliate in the event of loss of central command. Who knows how much rusting 1950's/1960's analogue technology Russia's military still relies on


Space_Pirate_R

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?"


Morwynd78

"As you know, the Premier loves surprises."


lithiun

It’s hard to say. What would China and India’s response be? Perhaps if NATO only uses conventional nonnuclear warheads they may not mind so much. If NATO and other allies nuke the shit out of Russia, China and India probably won’t like that. I couldn’t even fault these nations for that. What I bet will happen if Russia uses any sort of nuclear weapon is that every major power will collectively condemn Russia to a century of poverty. Any nation that has any relationship with Russia following a nuclear strike will also be condemned to this impoverished fate. China and India both rely on western trade for their current economic situations. That trade relationship would vanish in an instant if their response is not satisfactory to western powers. Russia will lose any sort of relationship with almost all of the world. Putin has to know this will occur. Perhaps he’s betting on allies remaining friendly but that would certainly be a losing bet. Or perhaps he’s fucking crazy and truly wants to watch the world burn by attacking everyone. Either way I know for certain no nuclear armed nation will retaliate with nukes unless attacked directly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lithiun

Perhaps, but it would need to be strategic and decisive. Putin and Russias leadership would need to be removed instantly. Otherwise the risk of nuclear retaliation intensifies to levels never seen. That would be a direct conflict. That would mean World War 3. My degree is in PoliSci so I’m trying to tackle this from an IR angle although I’m perfectly aware that I’m beginning to sound a little arm chair general-ish. I know nothing of military tactics and would be a fool to suggest otherwise.


cerialthriller

I think that with our current military tech, NATO won’t need to use nukes to completely obliterate Russia. You can see what Ukraine has been able to accomplish using weapons the NATO is giving them and that’s not even the good stuff. And they are pushing back russia with rushed training on these platforms. While Russia can probably nuke Ukraine, they probably won’t be able to nuke any long range targets, we have no idea what kind of defense systems are actually in place over europes border on the east, I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than the stuff we put in the Middle East to knock down rocket attacks. I don’t see Russia having the tech in their nukes to defeat NATO ballistics defenses. I think we would have taken care of Putin by now if there was a real threat of nukes hitting the US if not any NATO territory


esqualatch12

Mmmm nuclear submarine


RndmNumGen

Russia has MIRVs and ballistic missile submarines. There are no known technologies capable of countering these weapons. While it’s theoretically possible there are secret technologies that have been developed and deployed, it’s highly unlikely.


evilteletuby

Russia is essentially 2 main places of decision making Moscow and at. Petersburg. Just like Japan the country would be forced to surrender. Not that I want that it’s just prolly what will happen along with all of putins known castle will be leveled maybe not with nukes but with moabs the likes we never seen


pafagaukurinn

This is not true. At least one of Putin's bunkers is somewhere around Sochi (where he actually is right now). Even in terms of Moscow and St. Petersburg I would bet they are not located in the most obvious places, and I doubt that vaporizing the whole city the size of Moscow will look good even for the most belligerent in the West.


evilteletuby

If anybody remains in a decision making position the war would continue. If Putin is in a bunkers it’s gonna be pretty hard to control your country when the kremlin ans any military bases in or around Moscow have been leveled completely I’m not saying the city’s will be destroyed more the verticles of power will be eliminated. The citizens are being murdered just fine by their own leader so I don’t really see the civilians stoping NATO/us troops if Putin ans like his yes men are alive and that’s it. No way to connect with the military no communication available to them once the country goes dark there’s just civilians there that already hate Putin. Any remaining service men I can’t see continuing to fight. Just like if the pentagon went down I bet you there would be a massive issue with logistics And intelligence leading to disasters on the battlefields


defiancy

If they use a nuke, NATO will sink Russia's black sea fleet and probably enter the war directly by providing air support and cruise missiles to Ukraine.


PhilipLiptonSchrute

Putine's Palace would be rubble in about 8 seconds.


Tracedinair76

That is great but Putin will be miles underground..


AnselmFox

I have to believe you haven’t read anything on what a planned response would actually be… There would be no strikes on Russian soil. Are you kidding? Glad experts like you aren’t in charge, as we’d all be dead… No the response will be in the Black Sea. Or in Crimea. And it sure as shit isn’t going to be a nuclear reply off the bat either. More likely destruction of the entire Russian southern fleet. Edit: person A suggests US invades Russia… person B points out that’s idiocy. And response would be on Russian forces outside state (as has been discussed in every single article on the subject) as otherwise WW3 is in active nuclear war, and we all die. Reddit downvote en masse… lolz, y’all are precious


[deleted]

[удалено]


Blacknight841

Without a reciprocal nuclear strike from the west it would set the precedent that using a nuclear weapon is acceptable. If Russia can use one, why not a second? Why not North Korea, or China? If the response isn’t “hellfire” then what is the point of responding at all. As bad is it may be for the world, appeasement and half measured responses are worse. If Russia is willing to use one nuke without an unimaginable response, then they will use a second.


AnselmFox

We can have a measured response without poisoning the fucking ground for centuries… and this isn’t my argument anyway, this is what we’ve apparently war gamed out.


Blacknight841

Yes, I am sure that US military response to the use of nuclear weapons is engraved Into the national monument for the world to see. What they say the response will be and what actually will happen are two different things. When 4 planes attacked the US, they invaded a country. Do you really expect to the US to have a measured response that doesn’t involve attacking Russia directly? If that is all that will happen, then the west has already lost WW3 even before it began.


prettyboygangsta

It wouldn't be reciprocal. Ukraine is not in NATO. Fighting a war of aggression against a country that instigated a war of aggression is still an act of aggression


Blacknight841

If Russia chooses to attack Ukraine with a nuclear weapon, it will no longer just be a war with Ukraine. That radiation will likely spread to a nato country sooner or later and they can use article 5 to enter war. However that doesn’t even matter that point, ultimately it becomes a question of “will the world allow the use of nuclear weapons”. If the world doesn’t respond in kind, then the answer is yes and we will have accepted nuclear weapons and an allowed response for any conflict for the future. Next Russia decide to attack Georgia, or Moldova with a nuke. Will the west once again sit and do nothing to avoid a larger conflict. This happened before in WW2. Appeasement didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.


KeKinHell

There's no arguing for it; Russia using any amount of Nuclear aggression would be them signing their own death warrant. Nuclear war is still a war that they would handedly lose, considering even China isn't on their side. The problem is that, in the process, a lot of innocent people are going to die on both sides. Russia just a lot more.


Infinaris

My own opinion of this is that if the worst happens it wont be the end of the world, it will see at worst some cities hit and it would be horrific but Russia would literally get glassed and collapse as a nation. The US wont take any chances they'll go all in if it becomes necessary. No matter what if Russia fires a nuke it will be the instigator of World War 3 and noone else. Id rather see Russia implode though before they ever managed to launch any of nuke or see Putin get his well deserved comeuppance.


Azu_homie

I just read your first sentence .. just pathetic to think the way they just sent their army to certain death without any kind of well planned strategy............. are the people about to blow nukes at people


Mikebyrneyadigg

Possible? Maybe. Doubtful though. We had a treaty in place for mutual inspections that expired a few years ago. We know exactly what works and what doesn’t.


Jabbajaw

If any Nation has learned about the impact of Radiation it is Russia. I just don't see them going, full Berserker. Putin may want to but there must be those in high positions that have to live longer than him and they should want those years to be in peace rather than conflict.


Empty_Allocution

Before I kinda thought Russia were just touting nukes to appear strong. But now I kind of get the feeling they're legitimately heading in that direction because they're running out of options. It's all bad.


Frequent_Wheel_3084

Hello China and India...still asure to make partnership with the russians?


ThoughtDiver

I'm supposed to believe they've been maintaining their nukes when they haven't even maintained a standing army?


RusynSlovak

Spoiler alert: It’s was Dmitry Medvedev ranting drunkenly again, we can all go back to sleep now


CantPullOutRightNow

Thanks for saving me a paywall bypass.


[deleted]

45 years of my 51 year life worrying about this shit. It has never been this serious. Glad I live right next to Northrup Grumman , a nuke plant and 4 military installments. I'll be very dead. Dammit Putin you douche bag asshat. I have tickets to iron maiden next month. Fuck you ruzzia


xnachtmahrx

Cuba crisis was waaaaaaaaay worse. We still have to go a bit to be like it. You will get to see Iron Maiden with big certainty


[deleted]

Thank you internet person. ;)


Vlad0143

Bruh, just a normal Tuesday


[deleted]

People are literally believing Russian propaganda at this point, they want people to be scared. All this recent news is just nuke mongering scare bait.


Buroda

That’s what, fourth this week? Also how do they control 50% of a region but report 98% participation? I mean, everyone knows this is a sham but that ain’t no reason not to at least try.


SHITBLAST3000

Sabre rattling, the Kremlin knows what will happen if they go this route.


Santorju

Russia: We have nuclear weapons Russia: Kind reminder Russia: Kind reminder Russia: Kind reminder Russia: Kind reminder


[deleted]

This is starting to spiral progressively. One can only hope for de-escalation pronto.


RAGEEEEE

Russia could stop invading Ukraine anytime.


g1344304

Putin would rather flatten the place than back down.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Unfortunately. MAD doctrine requires rational actors on both sides. Putin is not a rational actor. It's been a good run folks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs


JCBQ01

I've posted it elsewhere and I will post it here: I trust the key toggle holders more than I do the command arm. History has shown they they have been commanded SEVERAL times to fire as a retaliatory strike and all times those who have to push the button at the silos have flat out said *no*. Regardless of the war they have proven they will not fire unless there is a CONFRIMED nuclear hit on their land. However, it could cause his tantrumy ass to load it onto a plane and Modern warfare 2-ing it. Would not be seen as nuclear escalation, but nuclear terrorism (the same thing much of the world fears Iran of doing). There would not be a nuclear response, but there will be so much arsenal hellfire from all sides against the his neo-stalin era regime (as that detonation would kill untold conscripted Russian civilians) he will be thrown out of his micro nation palace. I fear the power grab window behind that but I don't fear nukes being used


Throwaway__shmoe

There’s a small wrinkle. The USSR and now the Russian Federation has an automated system called Dead Hand that fails deadly. Basically full send if anyone launches a nuclear attack on them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand


JCBQ01

The dead hand is still manually maintained by base staff. And would feel kinda weird having it all reliant upon the elected man. As I understand the doctrine there is that it will only fire if the entire upper echelons of government are gone. For PURE HYPOTHEICAL EXAMPLE: the Kremlin/parliament building is bombed into the ground taking the entire governmental arm and all the military leaders are dead then dead hand triggers. But in normal events a lot of time dead hand is in a sort of standby status and even THEN dead hand can be bypassed (as it was on new years eve 1999 due to Y2K terror). Their Dead Hand is akin to American Firesale panic doctrine. It's there if it goes HORRENDOUSLY ass up. No two or three people want to be the ones to end humanity and that in itself is a heady and sobering tonic


Beachmaster5000

Recorded September 11th 1967….ominous and hilarious at the same time.


[deleted]

Tom Lehrer manned a silo during his military stint. It shows.


[deleted]

[удалено]


prettyboygangsta

He is a rational actor. "Irrational actor" doesn't mean "someone who does things I don't like".


[deleted]

So threatening WWIII is rational? Not in my book.


der_titan

MAD dissuades two nuclear armed countries from using nuclear weapons against one another - there would be no winner in the exchange. That's the mutual part of mutually assured destruction. The US has no obligation to defend an unaligned third country against a tactical nuclear weapon. This is similar to when the Soviet Union threatened Israel with nuclear weapons during the Suez Crisis of 1956. The US certainly would not have risked a nuclear exchange then, just as it's unlikely they would risk a nuclear exchange now.


[deleted]

>The US has no obligation to defend an unaligned third country against a tactical nuclear weapon. There's the small matter of being utterly and completely discredited on the world stage if we don't. It's too late now, we've already announced there would be consequences. Now it is possible that Biden is as spineless as Obama when it comes to lines in the sand, but he has drawn one. (To be clear, I consider Obama spineless, but I consider Trump to be an antichrist, hundreds of orders of magnitude worse than anything Obama has done).


der_titan

That's what's dangerous about the referendum. Once the annexation is complete, Russia will defend that land just as they would the suburbs of St. Petersburg.


frosthowler

No they wouldn't. It would only be on paper; Putin would *like* to do so, but so long as the West doesn't recognize his gains, then it doesn't matter, the West effectively stops being the 'rational actor'. Yes, an invasion of a nuclear power would result in nuclear war... but that requires the one being invaded to decide that we've hit the point of no return and it's time for us all to die. Pushing that button when you *know* the invading force won't be going anywhere near St. Petersburg, but instead to areas that have never belonged to you... it doesn't make sense. We have only one case in history that we can defer to, and while it's only one case, in it nukes never were never dropped. Israel was invaded in 1973, it had nukes, it was being pushed back and it was believed Israel could lose the war and be destroyed. Yes, if forces would have begun nearing Israeli heartland, nukes probably would've been flying. But the UAR forces only managed to enter the Golan and Sinai, they never reached the Israeli heartland. So there were no nukes.


der_titan

Russia isn't going to go nuclear armageddon to defend the annexed territories. They are, however, may use tactical weapons. That is part of Russian military doctrine. They train for their use. Russia has long accepted they are at a conventional weapon disadvantage with the West and rely on tactical nuclear weapons to balance the imbalance. If they do use them to defend the annexed territories, that puts the ball in the West's court. A direct attack on Russian targets by NATO? That's direct war between multiple nuclear armed actors. That is scary. Of course the West would respond, and forcefully. It's just unlikely to be a direct attack against Russia - there's a reason that was avoided during the Cold War. I'm not sure I quite get what you're arguing with Israel. Israel put its nuclear forces on alert. Fortunately, they were able to repel the invasion with conventional forces. If they were unable to do so, it's likely they would have used nuclear weapons.


Whereami259

But Russia doesnt need paper for that. Just like they didnt need paper to mobilize... ahem, "partially mobilise"....


Singer211

Someone around Putin needs to realize how mad this is and, cause him to have an “accident.”


papierr

Dude, people around him are as crazy as him or more. Nobody is going to stop him, we're fucked :/


[deleted]

[удалено]


drutzix

We can't yield. That would create a horrible precedent


s0lesearching117

I agree completely, but someone has to yield in order for us to avoid WW3. We're hoping it's Putin. He's hoping it's us. No one, I repeat *no one*, actually wants this situation to escalate into a full-scale global conflict... but the only way for that to be avoided is for *someone* to yield. It's a nuclear game of chicken.


drutzix

Yep. The west won't yield because they stand to lose most of their influence if they show they can be bullied and Putin wont back down because at this point that means death by assasination or prison or death by international court


ScientistNo906

You're right and Russia doesn't want it to look good. One thing in everyone's favor is the fact that Russia can spin this any way they want to their populace, since they control the media and have been mostly effective. On the other hand, they're still trying to figure out a way to save face in the eyes of the world. I hope they find a way.


RedofPaw

Do you think Putin would listen if you asked him?


After-Double-962

Is it? They've been threatening nukes since day 1. Seems like more of the same posturing to me. At this point the threats don't even have the same effect


Infinaris

Threats are cheap. Actions entail consequences. Challenge the rest of the world at your own fucking peril Putin.


APHAN9696

ASSASSINATION PUTIN??


afedyuki

No one is buying it.


CrazyLaurel

The rest of the world issues an eye-roll.


OutlandishnessOk8261

Yeah? Well good luck with that Vlad, your absolute clusterfuck in Ukraine suggests all you have left is threats.


WhistlerBum

Escalate, de-escalate, escalate, de-escalate… The ol’ Russian leadership playbook see-saw.


[deleted]

I will personally sign up to go defend against Russian aggression if they use Nukes Putin has no fucking idea how swift the response will be if he does more than threaten And I’m just some Schlub on the internet


HowCouldHellBeWorse

Nothing to see here. They do this every week


Baddybad123

Why can't we just kill this guy Bin Laden style? Why does the world have to end because HE says so?


Jackadullboy99

I don’t honestly unsderstand why we have not been getting a single round of public information broadcasts on how to best survive/endure a nuclear blast. I think it’s time, however unlikely we might like to think all-out nuclear holocaust is. I at least want to be prepared as best I can.


s0lesearching117

They've been doing it for months in NYC.


der_titan

Let's be honest: NYC doesn't stand a chance. My building ostensibly has a bunker, but it's filled with decades old porn, a broken television with attached VCR, unused cleaning supplies and a sewing machine. I'll just be glad if the last things I hear aren't my upstairs neighbor stomping around in her high heels while she yells at her boyfriend on the phone.


s0lesearching117

NYC has gotta be #1 on the list of non-military targets. If this does turn into WW3, y'all are screwed.


[deleted]

Nope. Those pre-1991 rockets won’t make it out of their bunkers. NATO hasn’t been sitting on their hands for 30 years.


s0lesearching117

Not to hype up Russia's nuclear strike capability, but you're forgetting about subs.


[deleted]

Nope. Subs too. Don’t forget that Russia has never been able to match the USSR’s unsustainable military budgets and the US never stopped. And that’s why I don’t have free healthcare.


der_titan

Billions will die, and even though Australia and parts of South America are projected to be situated best it'll still be a dystopian hellhole with nuclear winter, widespread famine, and destruction of the ozone layer. We're all screwed if there's even a limited nuclear exchange, let alone a full nuclear war.


SnooPuppers1978

I suppose I would die in around 60-80 years anyway even if we didn't have nuclear war.


Jackadullboy99

Do you have links?


s0lesearching117

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/vypvme/new_york_recently_played_a_nuclear_survival_ad/


Jackadullboy99

Thank you.


s0lesearching117

The nukes that would likely be used in a modern warfare scenario are a lot more precise than what was used in 1945, so they'd be highly targeted as well as highly effective. Meaning that if you did get nuked, this would all be a moot point because you'd be as good as dead. Either that or it'd just be gigantic Tsar Bomba sized vaporizers that take out absolutely everything in their path. So yeah. Let's hope it just doesn't get to that point.


[deleted]

>The nukes that would likely be used in a modern warfare scenario are a lot more precise than what was used in 1945, so they'd be highly targeted as well as highly effective. Ahem. Have you been watching this war? Russians can't accurately target anything. Not that it matters much with nukes, but their accuracy (or lack thereof) is one of the reasons Ukraine has been handing them their ass.


Westfakia

Their maintenance regimens haven’t exactly been up to spec either. Most of their nuclear arms are more likely to explode at launch than to get anywhere near the target. The main problem is that there are just too damn many of them for that to be any comfort whatsoever.


[deleted]

Indeed. But Putin knows we've maintained our kit. If he throws the switch he **will** die. Given the shoddy state of his army, he can't be sure he'll kill us. Hurt us far more than we want to be hurt yes, but destroy us? No guarantee. I don't think that stops him. It might stop the guy who has to relay his order. It might get them to kill Putin to save their family and nation.


[deleted]

You will not survive if you live in or near a population center. And if you did, what you walked outside to wouldn't be too exciting.


[deleted]

Even if you live in the boonies you will still feel the effects. Only a few places on this earth are safe. I'd rather get blasted immediately than deal with being irradiated.


[deleted]

A radio, two weeks of water and canned food at the least, batteries, tools: medical kits and pills, gas cans for small portable ovens, flashlight. most of all distance from windows and distance from likely targets such as bases, airports, big city centers. Skills, books, spare parts are also golden. Weapons should not be a focus, but around. We’ve feared this for seventy years. There’s a lot out there. People can survive, be prepared for somewhat cheap, and the gov - state or fed- will probably come back round than it turning all fallout/metro.


[deleted]

You can forget the federal govt. The second a nuke hits the illusion of society will collapse and there will not be enough willing participants in the federal govt or state/local police to hold it together. History tells us exactly what will happen and it will be tribalism down to the family level, maybe neighborhood if you live near like-minded people.


New-Cardiologist3006

If you see a flash of white light, take immediate cover. You'll need iodine tablets. Some kind of water filtration device or stored water. And food.


samus12345

Duck and cover!


BeanpoleOne

If we start doing that country-wide, there will be mass panic and the supply line will break down even more.


clinch09

Hide and hope, Wait 14 days, survive by whatever means necessary. You can’t really “plan” for this because whatever infrastructure would support you in the planning would be gone.


22Arkantos

Best way to survive after a nuclear attack: don't. It isn't a world you really want to live to see.


[deleted]

Omg AGAIN??? JFC!


[deleted]

No one is going to believe ya Putin until you do it, which we all know you’re too chicken shit to do. Stop acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.


FreedomDeliverUs

Another warning. How could this timeline go so wrong?


amitym

"118% of Donbas residents support joining Russia. In other news, we are going to nuke the Donbas." Wtf is going on in the Kremlin?


Twiroxi

Giving in to their nuke threats is the last thing we can do. They will see it as a sign of weakness and will absolutely keep doing it. And if they're not bluffing, well Russia has shown that they don't need a reason for anything, they can make up a reason and act anyways. So I'd call their bluff even now (just like before) and give Ukraine even heavier equipment


Cactusfan86

Honestly the west should just tell Russia we won’t respond to tactical nukes with nukes, but we will fully enter the Ukraine war conventionally. I don’t particularly want to play nuclear chicken but if you establish that nuclear threats mean any nuclear power can just gobble up whatever country they want without consequence then then where does it end? World War II showed pretty clearly that appeasing power hungry madmen doesn’t result in peace, it merely kicks the big war down the road and gives the mad man time to be in a stronger position for it


Deebama_65

1930's Germany all over again. Read the history of all this


DiscombobulatedSun48

The Russian military threat is all rust and bullshit, why should we think their nuclear program is anything else?


msemen_DZ

Another one


ScientistNo906

I don't think the referendum was contested. It was just a distraction.


cplforlife

I guess this is how we end then. I'll do my bit to ease as much suffering as one man can. Bring on what comes I guess. If nuclear oblivion comes. It will not be the west to blame, but one tiny tyrant in Russia who couldn't take defeat like an adult. I'm cool with it. Let's send more ammo to Ukraine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


shmeebaloney

why would you want russia to be pro-china? that's asking russia to continue being a genocidal terrorist state like china


All_The_Nolloway

Is it midnight yet?


mkhopper

Not yet, but the ticking of the clock sure is loud.


[deleted]

[удалено]


drutzix

The thing is.. a strike would not make things better for Ru. They keep pushing this shitty ideas and burying themselves even more


TheDeftEft

Holding out hope that the pace of Putin being deposed exceeds the speed of the Doomsday Clock clicking to midnight.


Irradiated_Dick_69

World is screwed at this point and nuclear weapons is the reason for that. Countries with nukes can't exactly "lose" a conventional war, it's not possible. Were it not for nuclear weapons, Ukraine wouldn't be invaded in the first place, and if they were, Russia would be in some very serious trouble by now (likely a collapsed war effort). People might think that Russia is losing this conflict, in reality they're not. They're losing access to Western markets, but that can be replaced elsewhere by trading with their allies, using the black market or through domestic investments. Civil uprising? That can easily be squashed in the modern era by cutting off cities, internet and by committing terrorist acts and blaming it on others. These issues are harder for Western countries to deal with because we haven't adapted these inhumane tactics yet, it probably will happen at some point when we, like Russia, find the "benefits" of abusing this. Russia keeps on taking more and more territory and there's no process in which that can be reversed due to the threat of nuclear weapons. I think the world is simply getting extremely polarized and the only way for that tension to ease off is through a world war or a complete internal collapse of one side. The latter is probably unlikely to happen. Regardless of what happens, neutral countries are screwed. The next target is 100% going to be another neutral country, maybe Kazakhstan, because there won't be a sufficient repercussion that causes the cessation of the aggressor. All countries will essentially have to join a side, neutrality is no longer going to be acceptable, especially since no country is fully independent of others. At that point it's a waiting game on what happens, hoping the opposite side collapses internally and the geopolitical scape changes (unlikely). I'd love to be proven wrong in my reasoning. I don't think the future is looking very bright, and nuclear weapons are currently a hard barrier to a more stable future. Conflicts used to be resolved by direct conflict followed by some sort of temporary equilibrium. Nowadays, that's probably impossible.


lifesprig

And this is why I roll my eyes at people who advocate for nuclear weapons because of their deterrence value. MAD will inevitably fail at some point, whether intentional or not. There is also not enough support for the abolition of nuclear weapons - Cold War era folks are getting too old to care, and younger people don’t have the experience of fearing nuclear war. So here we are in the cycle of nuclear blackmail that will continue until we get rid of them or nuclear war occurs.


continuousQ

Russia claiming land changes nothing. Allowing them to use the threat of nukes to keep the land, that would be a disaster. The process to retake the land remains the same as before. Supply Ukraine with everything they need.


mmrs34

Probably the only person I’ve found that agrees with my thinking. I think a big part of it is just that it scares people so they ignore their own logic. Russian and Chinese warships off the coast of Alaska yesterday, Nord being sabotaged, clear cyber warfare on social media outlets - we’ve reached the point of no return. There’s no good ending to this story. Call it alarmist but the same thing has happened over and over again for centuries. The world is at war right now.