6 ms·

Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times. Unless you live hundreds

Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times. Unless you live hundreds of miles from the nearest town I’d think it’s safe to assume you’d be dead, if not from a detonation from the onset radiation and / or climate catastrophe following the nuclear fallout

outworlder 5y ago
How many of those are MIRVs?
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  technically none because the count of 6000 nukes is the number of warheads not delivery vehicles.
gnulinux 5y ago
This is assuming Russia is only targeting US. Note that in an all-out nuclear warfare scenario, Europe will be inevitably involved too. I doubt Russia would want to spend all their arsenal on a single combatant, that'd essentially ensure other nuclear states such as France/UK to attack them
m0zzie 5y ago
> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times. Having 6000 nukes ≠ 6000 nukes with operational readiness. If nuclear war were to break out, it is extremely unlikely that they could successfully use more than 1000 of those. Not that that should make anyone feel any better about the situation, because even 1 nuke is too many.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes But closer to 1500 operationally deployed, and if they should launch any significant number of them, a substantial portion of the rest of the operationally deployed nukes in the world will be landing in Russia targeted and destroying any capacity they have to use any they have that weren't ready and deployed in the first strike. Which is why if they use any significant number, even as a first strike, it will largely be for a counterforce strike doing the same thing to other nuclear powers, because who wants to be in a bunker without usable nukes when the guys you just nuked are in their bunker with usable nukes.
omdv 5y ago
As Ukrainian, who was very (pleasantly) surprised at ineptitude of Russian military I changed my mind about nuclear war recently... Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but even before the war I had the arguments with some of my friends that modern Russia cannot produce anything at a modern world class level. How it can be possible if they pay 40k RUB to Senior Engineers working in military or space organizations, while you can get 90k RUB working as a "Sales Consultant" in electronics store. Add to this the record levels of corruption; inept leadership being assigned because of their political affiliation, rather than knowledge and experience (just check Rogozin) and you will find hard not to agree with me. This incompetence manifests itself at all levels - starting from glorious leader Putin, who managed to convert pro-Russian Ukraine into the "NATO state" in less than 20 years; secret agents, who cannot kill a person without leaving a radioactive trace throughout the whole country and the success of "military operation" we see now. Anyhow, obviously I'd prefer not to test my assumptions, but I believe that Russia has no hypersonic missiles - they planned to have it in production in summer, 2022 and we know what it means in Kremlin-speak. So far it's all cartoons, like their new 5th-gen aircrafts and MBTs. And I am quite confident that the vast majority of their warheads and missiles are long gone...
- lostmsu 5y ago
  The problem is that once you have rocket engines and refined uranium, a nuke is a blunt weapon, that is relatively easy to wield. Probably even a specially trained monkey can do that.

outworlder 5y ago

How many of those are MIRVs?

thereddaikon 5y ago
technically none because the count of 6000 nukes is the number of warheads not delivery vehicles.

gnulinux 5y ago

This is assuming Russia is only targeting US. Note that in an all-out nuclear warfare scenario, Europe will be inevitably involved too. I doubt Russia would want to spend all their arsenal on a single combatant, that'd essentially ensure other nuclear states such as France/UK to attack them

m0zzie 5y ago

> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes so they could definitely afford to hit every major metro area in the west potentially dozens of times. Having 6000 nukes ≠ 6000 nukes with operational readiness. If nuclear war were to break out, it is extremely unlikely that they could successfully use more than 1000 of those. Not that that should make anyone feel any better about the situation, because even 1 nuke is too many.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Well Russia has about 6000 nukes But closer to 1500 operationally deployed, and if they should launch any significant number of them, a substantial portion of the rest of the operationally deployed nukes in the world will be landing in Russia targeted and destroying any capacity they have to use any they have that weren't ready and deployed in the first strike. Which is why if they use any significant number, even as a first strike, it will largely be for a counterforce strike doing the same thing to other nuclear powers, because who wants to be in a bunker without usable nukes when the guys you just nuked are in their bunker with usable nukes.

omdv 5y ago

As Ukrainian, who was very (pleasantly) surprised at ineptitude of Russian military I changed my mind about nuclear war recently... Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but even before the war I had the arguments with some of my friends that modern Russia cannot produce anything at a modern world class level. How it can be possible if they pay 40k RUB to Senior Engineers working in military or space organizations, while you can get 90k RUB working as a "Sales Consultant" in electronics store. Add to this the record levels of corruption; inept leadership being assigned because of their political affiliation, rather than knowledge and experience (just check Rogozin) and you will find hard not to agree with me. This incompetence manifests itself at all levels - starting from glorious leader Putin, who managed to convert pro-Russian Ukraine into the "NATO state" in less than 20 years; secret agents, who cannot kill a person without leaving a radioactive trace throughout the whole country and the success of "military operation" we see now. Anyhow, obviously I'd prefer not to test my assumptions, but I believe that Russia has no hypersonic missiles - they planned to have it in production in summer, 2022 and we know what it means in Kremlin-speak. So far it's all cartoons, like their new 5th-gen aircrafts and MBTs. And I am quite confident that the vast majority of their warheads and missiles are long gone...

lostmsu 5y ago
The problem is that once you have rocket engines and refined uranium, a nuke is a blunt weapon, that is relatively easy to wield. Probably even a specially trained monkey can do that.