So am I the only one sitting here wondering if the US is gonna nuke Iran first, or if Russia is gonna nuke Ukraine first? Because I feel like we’re just speeding right toward both of those things right now.
This whole ordeal has me wondering if the nukes still even work on all sides. The whole world is just corrupt and stupid now, nobody even believes in capitalism or communism.
Sadly nukes are not exactly all that complicated to build. The hard part is making the uranium and designing it the first time. Once you know how and have the stuff to make it it’s pretty easy to just pump them out. That’s why we’ve got so many of the damn things.
The US does not actually dislike the “oil crisis” the US oil companies were in deep debt prior to the Iran war and were barely breaking even on their oil. This was has been a massive windfall for them. It’s a political problem for Trump yes, but the actual power players in the US (rich) love it.
A tactical nuke on Kiev would not destroy the value of Ukraine. You are too Fallout brained. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They’re perfectly normal cities today.
Yes - shortages and perceived shortages give corporations something to blame high prices on. Bad times are fine as long as they can blame somebody else. They tried to blame the 2009 financial meltdown on “irresponsible borrowers”.
A tactical nuke on Kiev would not destroy the value of Ukraine
I agree: the Chernobyl disaster was radiologically worse than a modern nuclear weapon.
I’d raise the problem with using a tactical nuke is the consequences of breaking the nuclear taboo is normalizing use of tactical nukes, and outside of a few morons and sociopaths nobody wants to live in that world.
I guess the bright side would be the “not totally insane or stupid” countries teaming up against a common enemy to do anything possible to remove the people responsible from power. You’d find some extremely well trained and equipped “rebels” hunting heads.
I think the nuclear taboo was always a myth. It’s always been the case that there were 2 groups of countries (since nukes existed). 1 group had nukes, but could also generally get their way conventionally. Another group either didn’t have nukes but couldn’t defend themselves conventionally, or had nukes and just hid behind their nuclear shield. Like the DPRK using nukes to keep the US at bay.
So the fact no nukes every got used was mostly due to the fact that the big interventionist military powers didn’t NEED their nukes to win. Unless they were facing a country that also has nukes. In which case MAD applies.
But now there’s countries that are beating nuclear powers conventionally, while also not having nukes, and not even being backed by a nuclear power (like how the USSR was there to back the Vietnamese).
Then the extra factor is that nukes aren’t all that useful in most cases. They’re too big. Too destructive. Not precision weapons. But the wars being fought now are less and less about precision. And more about just destroying the enemy entirely.
So the way I look at it isn’t as “breaking the nuclear taboo” since I generally don’t think world leaders care about stuff like that. I look at it as the conditions that motivate or demotivate a nuclear strike happening are changing.
It’s unlikely either will, nuclear systems in North countries retaliate on launch to predetermined locations. We’re aimed at each other and either doing anything means massive retaliation because you cannot tell destination until terminal phase and depending on what weapons system it is even terminal can be skewed by large amounts.
“on launch” is for specific ICBM systems we know have nuclear warheads in them and monitor by satelite. That is not what would be used here. Automated systems cannot tell the difference between a bomber carrying a nuke and one carrying a conventional warhead. They cannot tell the difference between a normal ballistic missile and one carrying a small nuke. Until it goes off and people notice. There is no automated counter launch for that scenario as we would not even know its a nuke until it goes off. And if it already went off we clearly know where it was going. Iran, Ukraine, Russia, and the US launch missles at eachother constantly. All they need to do is stick a nuke in one of them.
You seriously believe that the US is going to risk New York and DC over Kiev? If Russia wiped Kiev off the map then NATO would be puffing up its chest and throwing a fit sure, but they’re not gonna nuke Russia over it because then they’d get nuked.
The logic is the same for other nuclear nations. What exactly would nuking Russia help if it gets the nuked too? I firmly believe we will enter a period where anyone that doesn’t have a nuke is fair game to be nuked, but nuclear powers are untouchable.
The damage is done retaliation isn’t about logic it’s about hurting everyone else more than you’re hurt yourself so if anyone comes out on top it’s you.
That’s only for ICBMs. Nukes could be delivered by plane or cruise missile that don’t have the uncertainty related to destination. They would most likely be indistinguishable from a conventional warhead until they detonate.
The problem is the detonation there are sniffers and imagers all over Europe that look for specific radiation and a double pulse. Some theories include a suspicion that those systems start the retaliation timer if they aren’t stopped it goes automatically and can’t be stopped once it starts.
I’m trying really hard not to look at the big pattern because it gives me panic attacks whenever I do it. I can say, as someone that’s pretty good at this stuff, both Putin and Trump are unpredictable due to their detachment from reality and that they’ve surrounded themselves with yes men. Like Stalin and Hitler were. Anything could happen.
If I were in the ucraniana planning, I’d have a deterrent prepared for that. Like tens of thousands of drones with napalm, it doesn’t matter if their shot down they’d do a mess anyway.
So am I the only one sitting here wondering if the US is gonna nuke Iran first, or if Russia is gonna nuke Ukraine first? Because I feel like we’re just speeding right toward both of those things right now.
This whole ordeal has me wondering if the nukes still even work on all sides. The whole world is just corrupt and stupid now, nobody even believes in capitalism or communism.
Sadly nukes are not exactly all that complicated to build. The hard part is making the uranium and designing it the first time. Once you know how and have the stuff to make it it’s pretty easy to just pump them out. That’s why we’ve got so many of the damn things.
the US and russia had mutual checks in place before the war escalated. so it’s very likely that at least a decent number are working well enough
Nuking Iran will make the oil crisis permanent.
Nuking Ukraine would kill the value of Ukraine.
Yes - shortages and perceived shortages give corporations something to blame high prices on. Bad times are fine as long as they can blame somebody else. They tried to blame the 2009 financial meltdown on “irresponsible borrowers”.
I agree: the Chernobyl disaster was radiologically worse than a modern nuclear weapon.
I’d raise the problem with using a tactical nuke is the consequences of breaking the nuclear taboo is normalizing use of tactical nukes, and outside of a few morons and sociopaths nobody wants to live in that world.
I guess the bright side would be the “not totally insane or stupid” countries teaming up against a common enemy to do anything possible to remove the people responsible from power. You’d find some extremely well trained and equipped “rebels” hunting heads.
I think the nuclear taboo was always a myth. It’s always been the case that there were 2 groups of countries (since nukes existed). 1 group had nukes, but could also generally get their way conventionally. Another group either didn’t have nukes but couldn’t defend themselves conventionally, or had nukes and just hid behind their nuclear shield. Like the DPRK using nukes to keep the US at bay.
So the fact no nukes every got used was mostly due to the fact that the big interventionist military powers didn’t NEED their nukes to win. Unless they were facing a country that also has nukes. In which case MAD applies.
But now there’s countries that are beating nuclear powers conventionally, while also not having nukes, and not even being backed by a nuclear power (like how the USSR was there to back the Vietnamese).
Then the extra factor is that nukes aren’t all that useful in most cases. They’re too big. Too destructive. Not precision weapons. But the wars being fought now are less and less about precision. And more about just destroying the enemy entirely.
So the way I look at it isn’t as “breaking the nuclear taboo” since I generally don’t think world leaders care about stuff like that. I look at it as the conditions that motivate or demotivate a nuclear strike happening are changing.
oh yeah. “Perfectly Normal”.
It’s unlikely either will, nuclear systems in North countries retaliate on launch to predetermined locations. We’re aimed at each other and either doing anything means massive retaliation because you cannot tell destination until terminal phase and depending on what weapons system it is even terminal can be skewed by large amounts.
“on launch” is for specific ICBM systems we know have nuclear warheads in them and monitor by satelite. That is not what would be used here. Automated systems cannot tell the difference between a bomber carrying a nuke and one carrying a conventional warhead. They cannot tell the difference between a normal ballistic missile and one carrying a small nuke. Until it goes off and people notice. There is no automated counter launch for that scenario as we would not even know its a nuke until it goes off. And if it already went off we clearly know where it was going. Iran, Ukraine, Russia, and the US launch missles at eachother constantly. All they need to do is stick a nuke in one of them.
If it already went off regardless of where there’s zero reason not to retaliate and the policy is specifically not to wait.
Hell announced nuclear tests have came very very close to starting a nuclear Holocaust.
You seriously believe that the US is going to risk New York and DC over Kiev? If Russia wiped Kiev off the map then NATO would be puffing up its chest and throwing a fit sure, but they’re not gonna nuke Russia over it because then they’d get nuked.
I thiink the system is antiquated and the people in charge of it conventional and obstinate. Listen to the behind the bastards on it.
You discount other nuclear nations that would be well within the fallout as well.
The logic is the same for other nuclear nations. What exactly would nuking Russia help if it gets the nuked too? I firmly believe we will enter a period where anyone that doesn’t have a nuke is fair game to be nuked, but nuclear powers are untouchable.
The damage is done retaliation isn’t about logic it’s about hurting everyone else more than you’re hurt yourself so if anyone comes out on top it’s you.
That’s only for ICBMs. Nukes could be delivered by plane or cruise missile that don’t have the uncertainty related to destination. They would most likely be indistinguishable from a conventional warhead until they detonate.
The problem is the detonation there are sniffers and imagers all over Europe that look for specific radiation and a double pulse. Some theories include a suspicion that those systems start the retaliation timer if they aren’t stopped it goes automatically and can’t be stopped once it starts.
Plot twist: The US will nuke Ukraine
I’m trying really hard not to look at the big pattern because it gives me panic attacks whenever I do it. I can say, as someone that’s pretty good at this stuff, both Putin and Trump are unpredictable due to their detachment from reality and that they’ve surrounded themselves with yes men. Like Stalin and Hitler were. Anything could happen.
If I were in the ucraniana planning, I’d have a deterrent prepared for that. Like tens of thousands of drones with napalm, it doesn’t matter if their shot down they’d do a mess anyway.
We got the drone distributor over here.