This graph showing the number of nukes by country over the last 70 years is fascinating. Hopefully we can somehow get this to the aliens so they can see we sort of tried before blowing each other all up.
3 Likes
Aliens would see that and be like, “So what would it take to destroy the world for humanity, like 100K or so?”
They’d do a spit take at the answer.
A nuclear power plant being attacked is one of the scenarios for legitimately wondering if what happens in Europe stays in Europe.
So seriously though, assuming only one nule available, whats the most likely US target? NY? DC? SF?
I don’t think anyone has a clue. Depends on the motivation. Is it to inflict damage, strike fear, show seriousness of intent to launch more? Seems like those would all be different targets.
Hell if you want to strike fear, hit a small city like Des Moines. Then no one would feel safe except ranchers in Nevada.
Replying here to stop clogging the main thread.
You’ve taken the position some have argued - which is essentially that we should let Russia take Ukraine to avoid the possibility of nuclear war - and somehow decided that means we shouldn’t respond if Russia launches some sort of nuclear first strike.
We are absolutely going to respond in some way if Russia or anybody else ever launches a nuclear attack, anywhere. So is every other nuclear power. This has been understood as long as more than one country has possessed nuclear weapons. I don’t know exactly what that response will be, and it may not be nuclear, but it probably will be, and it will be severe no matter what.
It really doesn’t matter because the second they launch the first nuke humanity is over.
1 Like
Moving over from the other thread:
I think some people equate a US declaration of war on Russia with the nuclear annihilation of the world. For those folks, I think they’d prefer all of the following to the rendering of planet earth uninhabitable (at least, I know I’d prefer all of these):
Tactical nuke strike to Ukraine goes unanswered in kind
The subjugation of the Ukrainian people by Vladimir Putin
The subjugation of the US by Vladimir Putin
Would there be a way to wage war with Russia without triggering global thermonuclear holocaust? I certainly hope so…I think we’d all prefer that to Vlad conquering the world.
Gonna repost this here since it spawned the current discussion. It’s worth reading in full.
1 Like
Ok I’m fine with that. But the details matter, because any severe response is taking on the risk of global thermonuclear war - which some seem to be arguing is a non-starter. No one has come back and said, “Well NATO shouldn’t attack, but we should do XYZ.”
So if someone has an appropriate response that doesn’t increase the risk of nuclear war, or increases it the appropriate amount, I’m all ears. The “we can’t risk nuclear war” crowd seems to get silent when it comes to details of what we should do in the event Putin uses nukes.
Agreed. So maybe, hear me out here, we should let the Russians know the consequences of using a nuke will mean they can never win the war, and risk destroying the world. Just like we let them know the consequences of attacking a NATO country.
What I’m trying to say is we really really really don’t want the nuclear taboo to be broken.
They already know that. It sure as shit isn’t any sense of morality holding them back.
I personally don’t really care about the shoulda coulda woulda discussions. I’m only interested in the probably gonnas. And the US/NATO is probably gonna respond to a nuclear strike with an equivalent counterstrike. And after that there’s a really good chance we all die.
2 Likes
I read it. It’s a great article. It also agrees with my central premise that breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe, and should be avoided if at all possible.
Ok sure. NATO wipes the floor (which is mentioned as a potential response in the article) vs. tit-for-tat. Whatever the response is, we both agree that should be clear up front to Russia in this specific instance.
Not sure why you’re arguing with me and not the people who think letting Putin use a tactical nuke to defeat Ukraine is an unpleasant but acceptable outcome.
1 Like
I have no idea how you can think Russia does not already know this. They. Already. Know. Everybody already knows. It is very very very known.
And for like the 10th time, to the best of my knowledge nobody has said what you keep insisting they have said about not responding to a Russian nuclear strike.
I understand your point that whatever our response is is well communicated to the Russians. I was wrong for pontificating about that like it was even a question.
But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the posters in the other thread who said it’s not worth risking nuclear war to respond to a Putin tactical nuke with a NATO all out attack, because we can’t risk nuclear war. Do you honestly think those same posters are ok with responding to a Putin tactical nuke with another nuke? Like that doesn’t risk all out nuclear war as much if not more?
Come on man. I’m just connecting the most basic dots. Anyone is perfectly free to tell me exactly which dot I got wrong instead of just saying “I didn’t say that!” If the only logical conclusion of your position is X, it doesn’t matter if you never actually say X out loud. See: Jordan Peterson’s whole shtick.
My sense is basically the entire foreign policy and international relations community is all on the same page here. There are unwritten rules that have basically kept the developed world somewhat safe after WWII. Of course it’s possible Putin just completely loses his mind but he absolutely knows if he nukes anyone humanity is over. This “make sure he knows” stuff is just silly.
Dunno, I’ve seen it posited that we might have to let a “Tactical Nuke” slide and I certainly see some logic in that. My understanding is that a Tactical Nuke is a really small nuke that is roughly equivalent in destructive ability to the biggest conventional bombs.
Is it completely ridiculous to suggest a “ok dude, keep your $200 billion but go away” deal for this asshole?