-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nuclear war, even a small one, would have devasting consequences for everybody on Earth
- Thread starter Boss Mog
- Start date
Banjo64
cumsessed
What would their motive be?
You do realize that there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of above ground atomic tests, RIGHT?
www.armscontrol.org
Granted, location matters, but nukes are not as devastating as you might think and a "limited nuclear war" is a distinct possible thing.
The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association
Granted, location matters, but nukes are not as devastating as you might think and a "limited nuclear war" is a distinct possible thing.
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
After these last two years, fuck it, just launch em.
Boss Mog
Member
Putin put his nuclear force on high alert and an official stated after the tough sanctions imposed on Russia: "Why would Russia care what happens to a World that doesn't want Russia in it?". But this thread isn't about the war in Ukraine, there's a thread for that, it's about nuclear war in general and its consequences, it's just much more relevant right now because of the conflict in Ukraine though.
Spaceman292
Banned
I think everyone knew that
Boss Mog
Member
You do realize that there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of above ground atomic tests, RIGHT?
The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association
Granted, location matters, but nukes are not as devastating as you might think and a "limited nuclear war" is a distinct possible thing.
Tests aren't representative of actual cities being attacked by nuclear weapons though. Most of the tests were done in the 50s 60s 70s with much weaker weapons than today's; testing slowed down after that.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Banned
Banjo64
cumsessed
OK? Do you not think this might be posturing? If he intended to strike with nuclear weapons, why would he concede a strategic advantage by announcing this to the world?
This wasn’t an official as far as I know, but a demented old toss pot propaganda-ist who hosts a TV show.
Agree on that mate but we are where we are. The cats out of the bag. Sadly we all just have to hold on to our little boys and pray no one insane actually ever finds a way in to power of a nuclear state.
SirKicksalot
Member
Nuclear winter is the latest and biggest scare in the series that started with "nukes will ignite the atmosphere".
There was no firestorm in Nagasaki. There was no nuclear winter when a Siberian forest the size of modern Germany burned in 1915, while WW1 was raging.
There was no firestorm in Nagasaki. There was no nuclear winter when a Siberian forest the size of modern Germany burned in 1915, while WW1 was raging.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Keep in mind that the system Putin brought online is physically disconnected in times of peace as an additional safety layer. Removing that safety obviously isn’t a good thing in times like this, but it doesn’t really make me worried about a first strike. He knows if he does that he’s a dead man.
What’s most worrisome is the possibility of an accidental “retaliatory” strike based on false information. That’s how we’ve come incredibly close to annihilation in the past
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Putin's billionaire oligarch buddies can't be billionaire oligarchs in a nuclear wasteland. They aren't going to let him fire nukes which would result in Russia being nuked. He'll have an unfortunate fall from a 16th story window before that happens.
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
Whoa whoa whoa, wait. If it means I get a chance of a v8 interceptor i'm down with it. Not really fussed about Tina Turner, but the car? Why not?Wait, nuclear war is bad? Really?
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
This whole thing has been an embarrassment to him. It's a shit show from the top down, their economy is fucked, the soldiers have no idea where they're going or why, citizens are leaving the country.
If he doesn't pack it in he's going to get removed from power one way or another because again, his billionaire buddies just lost a fuck ton of any money they had in Rubles for an invasion Putin thought would be over in 2 days.
op slept through sixth grade history class and wants to lecture an internet forum that nukes make big explosions
lmao
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
Dont know why you're all tripping anyway, you own a fridge dont you? (Sucks if you dont, we'll rebuild society in you memory)
Boss Mog
Member
No that's not it at all. Most people think it's not a big deal if they are not near the blast zone. You have a guy here saying "they did thousands of tests, it's fine, it's no big deal", meanwhile the expert in the tedtalk of my OP says otherwise, who should we listen to?
I know this, but desperate men do desperate things, if he feels he's going to die he may try to take the world with him, who knows, i hope not and i hope Russians would refuse any such orders if they're able to.
Prison Mike
Banned
op projecting his own lack of paying attention in elementary school history on the rest of the forum
dude watches one youtube video on nukes and now thinks he is ready to educate others
lmao
we learned about mutual assured destruction when we were eleven
lol lmao
Boss Mog
Member
You always have to be an antagonistic prick don't you? I try to respond politely but you double down on being an asshole for no reason other than being an asshole. If you know that good for you, you can move on then.
Only when people say some seriously dumb shit. To hell with the history part, every 7 year old that watched Terminator 2 for the first time was probably scared to death from the film’s rather graphic nuke sequence.
You went on an internet forum and thought it would be a good idea to tell everyone that nukes are very dangerous to humans. You might be out of touch.
Boss Mog
Member
I learned about nukes when i was kid but it didn't feel that real because the world was mostly at peace, it was the stuff of hollywood movies, but this is the closest we've been to potential nuclear war, with threats being made, in my lifetime, so yeah forgive me if I wanted to look at the possible outcomes of such a war and make a thread to discuss it. You can try to justify your responses however you want in your head but the way I see it is that some people are just pricks who constantly try to put others down to make themselves feel better about themselves, I learned that when i was a kid too. I'd like to end our discussion here but we both know that you won't be able to resist replying because people like you always want the last word, but hey maybe you'll prove me wrong which would be great.
Boss Mog
Member
We can only hope.
8bitpill
Member
This threat has been there since nuclear weapons have been created.
I get the concern due to the whole world focusing on those two countries right now, but you can't live in a constant state of fear. For example look how it effected people growing up during the cold war.
I get the concern due to the whole world focusing on those two countries right now, but you can't live in a constant state of fear. For example look how it effected people growing up during the cold war.
Last edited:
Richard Packer
Member
I miss the politics forum. It was always good for a laugh.
AgraSantos
Neo Member
The most fearsome consequence would be Godzilla.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
It'll be fine. I highly doubt Russia is about to launch nukes or start up the 'dead hand' system. Everyone relax.
Oh, and if you don't know about dead hand then have a look at the below. Interesting and terrifying in equal measure.
en.wikipedia.org
Oh, and if you don't know about dead hand then have a look at the below. Interesting and terrifying in equal measure.
Dead Hand - Wikipedia
But is the objective to destroy the city? I don't think Putin wants to level Kyiv, he WANTS that city intact and working, just working for him. So tactical nukes are for massed troop concentrations, airfields, hardened fortifications, ports, stuff like that. With the advent of smart munitions the need to either carpet bomb an area or hit it with a nuke has gone WAAAAY down, not that Russia seems to have a lot of that smart munitions either. You could set off quite a few lower yield nucular weapons in an area the size of Texas/Ukraine and it wouldn't impact the area much TBH.
High yield ballistic missiles and the like are for MAD, they have little to no use in actual warfare outside of a possible first strike to take out another nations entire strike capability (missile fields, airfields, political centers, etc) but the ballistic missile sub fleet renders that capability moot since you can't possibly get all the subs on patrol (well, at least not a fleet the size of the US).
In an era with instant communications, I think tactical nukes are actually MORE likely to be used, because the user can broadcast their intent and the deployment in real time so no one freaks out about the launch and detonation to cascade into a global nuclear war. So they become an area denial weapon or a known threat to a specific response (you cross this river in force and you can expect a 10KT nuke). Such an exchange would be locally damaging but for the rest of us it's just another chernobyl/fukushima type event.
I wonder if there is a way to neutralize an ICBM using a tech to neutralize the nuclear reaction inside the missile. For example, when the missile is near, you launch this flare-like/jamming bomb with a long range, so when the missile goes through this "cloud", the nuclear reaction is deactivated and even if they hit the target, it's like a dirty bomb.
ok don't laugh at me.
ok don't laugh at me.
Last edited:
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
You do realize that there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of above ground atomic tests, RIGHT?
The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association
Granted, location matters, but nukes are not as devastating as you might think and a "limited nuclear war" is a distinct possible thing.
Did any of these actually have the plutonium or radiation?
If you could disrupt the precise detonation of the fissile material you could do something kinda like that. I'm not sure how ALL nuclear weapons work but for the old school fission/fusion bombs they rely on a very specific blast to compress the fissile material together and trigger the explosion. So I imagine a LOT of effort goes into making sure this process is highly shock resistant and unable to be thwarted via external electromagnetic interference, making it very hard to "break" the explosion. Not to mention that ballistic missiles are moving very fast in the end terminal arc making physical interception very difficult in the first place (which is why a lot of the anti-missile focus is on the earlier stages when the missile is still accelerating or farther away and hasn't deployed the individual warheads yet).
Physical damage to a nuke is still bad, but not necessarily catastrophic (depending on your POV, if it was YOU who lost it, oh well..)
From wiki:
On 5 February 1958, during a training mission flown by a B-47, a Mark 15 nuclear bomb, also known as the Tybee Bomb, was lost off the coast of Tybee Island near Savannah, Georgia. The bomb was thought by the Department of Energy to lie buried under several feet of silt at the bottom of Wassaw Sound.[71]
On 17 January 1966, a fatal collision occurred between a B-52G and a KC-135 Stratotanker over Palomares, Spain. The conventional explosives in two of the Mk28-type hydrogen bombs detonated upon impact with the ground, dispersing plutonium over nearby farms. A third bomb landed intact near Palomares while the fourth fell 12 miles (19 km) off the coast into the Mediterranean sea.[72]
On 21 January 1968, a B-52G, with four B28FI thermonuclear bombs aboard as part of Operation Chrome Dome, crashed on the ice of the North Star Bay while attempting an emergency landing at Thule Air Base in Greenland.[73] The resulting fire caused extensive radioactive contamination.[74] Personnel involved in the cleanup failed to recover all the debris from three of the bombs, and one bomb was not recovered.[75]
BlackOlivesMatter
Banned
Big if true
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
I don't know that anyone would be foolish enough to use a Nuke. I always thought the biggest Nuke threat came not from nation states but from Terrorist organizations trying to destroy the west. An organization setting up and making a small nuclear device and setting it off in a city like NY London or Paris. A nation state setting off a Nuke would destroy themselves in eyes of the world and be cut off from the world economically. If NK used a nuke, the world would remove them from power.
BossLackey
Gold Member
Using a nuke on a NATO country is instant suicide. It's that simple.
There really isn't any incentive to launch a nuclear weapon.
There really isn't any incentive to launch a nuclear weapon.
darrylgorn
Member
Which is why we don't have to worry about nuclear war actually happening.
Last edited:
Halo is Back
Member
Thanks for this groundbreaking information which no one has ever thought of.
bender
What time is it?
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
The war time version of the jealous boyfriend who kills his girlfriend because she wants to break up with him and “if I can’t have her, nobody can”
Russia: “if we can’t exist on earth the way we want, then nobody can”
Get some fucking adults in the Kremlin FFS.
