4 ms·

Enough? Enough for what? This is not mutually assured destruction. If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some d

Enough? Enough for what? This is not mutually assured destruction. If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process.

charliea0 3y ago
More like a duel where one person has a revolver and the other a bazuka. Getting shot is better than exploding, but still very bad.
roughly 3y ago
Where do you live, out of curiosity?
DennisP 3y ago
Yes but Russian leadership doesn't necessarily believe that the nukes don't work. If they do a massive launch then we'll probably take at least some damage, and if we massively retaliate then we'll conduct a risky experiment to see who's right about nuclear winter.
rl3 3y ago
>If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. I don't know, losing for example New York City would be kind of rough. In reality probably every major US city. Your analogy doesn't quite check out.
FalconSensei 3y ago
> If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process. But nuking Russia is still bad since it would cause trouble (nuclear winter for example?) for other countries/whole world
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ivalm 3y ago
If it kills just 100k americans that's a cost too high to pay.
- hh3k0 3y ago
  The GQP‘s ongoing downplaying of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has already killed more than 1 million Americans, has proven that a large part of the US electorate disagrees with you.
  - ivalm 3y ago
    I think it’s less easy to ignore 1 mil American deaths if it’s from a sudden explosion. Also, covid did have huge economic and cultural ramifications.
mikewarot 3y ago
The debris thrown up into the stratosphere from our weapons detonating in Russia would likely be enough to start a nuclear winter, not to mention the fallout making everything in the northern hemisphere a lot more radioactive. Any large exchange of thermonuclear weapons is going to break most supply chains and lead to a great simplification of society and the deaths of at least 90% of the population in the process as industrial farming stops being a thing.
- shaky-carrousel 3y ago
  The exchange on the Russian side would be minimal, if any. On the US side, it'll only need to target major cities to be effective. Destroying Moscow and Saint Petersburg would be more than enough. They could use neutron bombs, as they are cleaner, if they still have.
  - inawarminister 3y ago
    Destroying Moscow and St. Petersburg might be worth losing Paris, London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles; but it certainly wouldn't worth losing Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, and other centers of the worlds history. The others also has a vote, you know.
    - pbak 3y ago
      Still, I'd rather not have to move my ski season to the sides of Mount Golgotha near Jerusalem - that glowing snow might still be radioactive after all.

charliea0 3y ago

More like a duel where one person has a revolver and the other a bazuka. Getting shot is better than exploding, but still very bad.

roughly 3y ago

Where do you live, out of curiosity?

DennisP 3y ago

Yes but Russian leadership doesn't necessarily believe that the nukes don't work. If they do a massive launch then we'll probably take at least some damage, and if we massively retaliate then we'll conduct a risky experiment to see who's right about nuclear winter.

rl3 3y ago

>If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. I don't know, losing for example New York City would be kind of rough. In reality probably every major US city. Your analogy doesn't quite check out.

FalconSensei 3y ago

> If Russia and the US engage, this is a madman shooting a tank with a 9mm. It may cause some damage, but he's going to be obliterated in the process. But nuking Russia is still bad since it would cause trouble (nuclear winter for example?) for other countries/whole world

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ivalm 3y ago

If it kills just 100k americans that's a cost too high to pay.

hh3k0 3y ago
The GQP‘s ongoing downplaying of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has already killed more than 1 million Americans, has proven that a large part of the US electorate disagrees with you.
- ivalm 3y ago
  I think it’s less easy to ignore 1 mil American deaths if it’s from a sudden explosion. Also, covid did have huge economic and cultural ramifications.

mikewarot 3y ago

The debris thrown up into the stratosphere from our weapons detonating in Russia would likely be enough to start a nuclear winter, not to mention the fallout making everything in the northern hemisphere a lot more radioactive. Any large exchange of thermonuclear weapons is going to break most supply chains and lead to a great simplification of society and the deaths of at least 90% of the population in the process as industrial farming stops being a thing.

shaky-carrousel 3y ago
The exchange on the Russian side would be minimal, if any. On the US side, it'll only need to target major cities to be effective. Destroying Moscow and Saint Petersburg would be more than enough. They could use neutron bombs, as they are cleaner, if they still have.
- inawarminister 3y ago
  Destroying Moscow and St. Petersburg might be worth losing Paris, London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles; but it certainly wouldn't worth losing Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, and other centers of the worlds history. The others also has a vote, you know.
  - pbak 3y ago
    Still, I'd rather not have to move my ski season to the sides of Mount Golgotha near Jerusalem - that glowing snow might still be radioactive after all.