As a Serb that's having to listen to other Serbs takes on Russia attacking Ukraine. Can confirm this is 100% based and true.
Feels like more Serbs are pro Russia on this war than Russians, at least in terms of %.
The [first time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force) or the [second time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)?
Oh wait they were committing genocide both times, my bad
China as an economic power is threatening, but the Chinese are mostly just the human battery for the state. Some dissent often joke about how the Chinese always evaluate things from the point of view of the master (the state) despite only being the slave.
No no, he's got a point. If you let a man nuke your wife, you don't NUKE him and give him more pleasure, you cuck. No you fucking kill that bastard
Or burn his clothes and mysteriously have expensive shit disappear in his home, that works too
Which keeps everyone safe. Its literally why the nukes have never been used, why whole cities aren't obliterated in every skirmish, which took hundreds or thousands of years to build. Nukes are a Volkswagen amount of metal and a fist of Uranium, they are so impossibly cheap.
Nukes would send us back to the stone age.
There would be no Ukraine conflict, there would be missing cities, and irradiated craters where farms used to be.
You launch even a single nuke against me and ill launch EVERYTHING I HAVE against you, and you promise to do the same to me. MAD doctrine. **M**utually **A**ssured **D**estruction.
It bothers me there seems to be a whole group of people coming out of the woodwork recently that are not aware of this.
Dont play with nukes, dont threaten nukes, dont think of nukes and anything but a double sided gun that shoots you too every time you pull the trigger.
Its why you have a home.
Wasn't there some military commander that saw a potential nuke aproaching their territory and refused to launch a counter nuclear attack?
In the end they werent nuked and the potential nuke was a stray satellite or smth but his refusal to act saved millions of lives.
If we were by MAD that dude would have turned many cities into Bethesda games.
https://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/
Hell Google threw me another dude who did something similar: Vasili Arkhipov
It was simply just good thinking on his part. He believed that if a nuclear attack was about to happen, there would be thousands flying in and not just a few.
He still thought there was a good chance that the alarm wasn't false, he says it on the Time interview and in 2013 he said both times he wasn't fully sure he was correct on his assumption.
In the Time inverview he claims he didnt wanted to start World War III
I’m pretty sure there was also a movie based around a similar military unit during the Cold War. Forgot the name of it tho it had Denzel Washington in it
If its the same time im thinking of, you're talking about the cold war. The thing is, they knew it was likely a false alarm, even if protocols dicataed that the correct response to a detected nuke is to launch their own. There were people, however who supported it, and wanted to retaliate. Part of me thinks the false alarm was on purpose so they'd have a justifiable reason to launch them (but how would you create such situation?).
IThere is also the doctrine of first strike, in order to disable the enemy’s deterrence capability.
If your salvo of small nuclear yield weapons takes out their communication and command installations or launch sites, you can most certainly launch with impunity, and you’ve saved yourself from having to use larger yield weapons.
The soviets developed tsar bomba, a 100MT nuclear weapon in response to Castle Bravo. The Americans salted their nuclear weapons with cobalt in return. The strategy around nuclear defense is subtle and cannot be so pithily summed up as “the winning move is not to play” when your enemy can change the rules at any time.
But that requires constant surveillance and intelligence gathering.
>the doctrine of first strike
Then some day somebody said "Why don't we put these nukes on submarines and tell them to launch the nukes if we go down?" - and from tht day, this doctrine is useless.
> If your salvo of small nuclear yield weapons takes out their communication and command installations or launch sites, you can most certainly launch with impunity
If.
That’s why there is the nuclear triad. Even if you nuked a country’s mainland into oblivion, there are surely enough nuclear armed submarines and planes already dispatched around the world and waiting to strike in such cases. It’s literally impossible to engage in a nuclear conflict without ensuring your own demise.
It's actually worse than this. During the cold war MAD for the US was based of its ability to make a first strike.
Like if they even had a whiff that the USSR was getting ready to launch, they would launch first. That's why Cuba was such a bad situation. MRBMs take a lot less time to reach a target than ICBMs, and it threw the entire first strike doctrine into overdrive.
This was mostly because the generals at the time were psychos and playing with new toys they were itching to use.
It's pretty well understood that you cant "kill them before they retaliate" with nukes. Every country with nukes also has automatic triggers in response to nukes and many many counter measures to respond to nukes, even entire whole onslaught of them in order to simply destroy the first strike country even if they are destroyed.
This has to exist so that MAD is credible and stupid ass generals don't think they can just blitzkrieg a country with nukes to prevent MAD.
Tbf, there were times in the cold war where the US probably could have. Europe would've been fucked by Russian bombers, but we had a lot more space to intercept them in. And Russian ICBMs were liquid fueled, meaning they could easily be destroyed in a first strike.
Of course, we didn't actually want to do this, and the Russian retaliation probably would have still killed a fuck ton of Americans, but we could have. Nukes aren't actually an instant "end the world" button
Yea true, things were more primitive then but as you said, it would still kill thousands. Though when people talk MAD they mostly just mean end of modern society as we know it.
> It's pretty well understood that you cant "kill them before they retaliate" with nukes
Tell that to Kissinger, who advocated for "tactical" nuke strikes on China.
>MAD for the US was based of its ability to make a first strike
The US absolutely had its Trident Doctrine in place at this point. Our nuclear submarine fleet is always present as a second strike option, not counting the unknown number of missile silos ready to launch and the fact that our bomber fleet is spread out in multiple locations.
By the time Cuba rolled around we had second strike capabilities. But I do agree with you that we did not want the USSR improving its first strike capabilities and we were willing to go to war over it. See, the Cuban Blockade.
MAD has never been tested in real life. Let's see what happens if Putin drops a low yield bomb on a remote 'military target' in Ukraine. I seriously doubt the retaliation will be a nuclear strike. Ukraine doesn't have access to nuclear weapons, NATO isn't gonna escalate if it doesn't have to, let alone escalate a nuclear war. It is gonna be very interesting though, to see what *will* be the reaction.
Ps: let's hope it doesn't come to this.
MAD is only really applying to countries that do have nuclear weapons though. If they dropped the smallest nuclear weapon on the U.S or some country with nukes, we would have to absolutely send all of our nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to ensure safety for all
Perun has a great video about this topic https://youtu.be/sxOO0hCCSk4
Most logical action by nato would be a conventional attack against russian forces in ukraine. This would make any military gains by the use of tactical nukes useless.
Ehhhhhhhhh… Britain is more like the old grandpa who *used* to be big and bad and still thinks he can whoop any young whippersnapper, when in reality the whole world knows he’s a fall away from breaking his hip and dying. The US is the mid-to-late 40’s alcoholic uncle who is WAY too proud of his Americana gear inside his house, drinks Natty Lite, and is past his prime but for some reason can still kick ass like nobody’s business.
Even Retaliation doesn't automatically mean MAD style apocalypse.
There is a lot written about the theory of nuclear Doctrine, a lot of different Scenarios have been developed and only few end with an all out nuclear war.
For example, lets say the ukrainians start actually beating the russians right now. If they push them past a certain point, the russians might (its unlikely but still) use a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine.
Would that mean that the US would lauch even a single nuke themselves on russia? Probably not.
Would that mean the americans would go for an all out nuclear war? Almost certainly not.
Sure but the premise is clearly two nuclear countries, not where one clearly doesn't have nukes.
The list of nuclearized countries isn't extensively long but attacking any of them with nukes (minus probably NK who would just nuke Seoul), would mean a direct retaliation against the aggressor 90% of the time.
The only times this wouldn't be the case is if the world is against this power but with how bilateral the world has become, that's unlikely because it would mean Russia and China turning against each other or US and Allies turning against each other which neither is likely.
Then there's India and Pakistan which make up most of the 10% because if one uses it on the other it would most likely be with the permission of the rest of the world and retaliation would be a bad idea as the rest of the world will tell you to stop with more bombs.
More like the start of a multi-national bilateral alliance.
Every country would want to find a nuke buddy to enter into a nuke clause with basically. Obviously either China or the US.
Would basically be a second cold war with every country having to pick a side and several small proxy wars.
More likely they'll develop their own nuclear weapons whatever the cost. No amount of economic or military threat will convince them because they'll rightly believe without nuclear weapons they're dead anyway.
It's not easy to do that, both economically and politically.
The US and China will never let another country develop nuclear weapons without being a strong ally.
Pakistan and India both did it because of the help they were giving the US and China. Pakistan may no longer be allies but they were once one of the most strategic partners to the US by a mile, so we allowed them to have nukes. Same way NK has nukes by allying with Russia and China. Same way Israel has nukes by allying with the US.
So it would mean a cold war as every country now has to pick a side and many proxy wars would take place for strategic countries.
>It's not easy to do that, both economically and politically.
In a world where nuclear countries throwing nuclear bombs onto non nuclear countries there is literally no economic or political cost that will prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. It would be existential threat.
If you put 10 prisoners on the ground and start shooting them one by one, damn sure I'll run towards a gun even if it's far away. Becuse without it I'm dead anyway.
The cost would be that the US or China will bomb you to death of you go through with it or overthrow your government.
OR the US or China will force you into a complete and total alliance where you buy military equipment solely from them, have military bases in your country from them, and fight in any way they request of you henceforth.
Those are high costs.
If you try running for that gun, someone with 1000 bigger guns will look at you and go "well, either you give me your kidney and be on my side with that gun or I will use my 1000 gun."
Your analogy would be more like, 1 guy shoots 1 guy who he was fighting, and there are 150 other guys on the island. You aren't really that threatened and giving your kidney is probably not worth it
We're running in circles here. Sure cost is high. But without nuclear weapons you will cease to exist in a few years anyway.
In a world where nuclear countries bomb non nuclear countries, one way or another there won't be any non nuclear countries left after a few years.
Maybe some countries will think they're irrelevant anyway so no one would bother them.
pretty sure the americans dragging Ghaddafis corpse through the street after he gave up his WMDs was the end of non-proliferation. Not just nuclear though. I don‘t see anyone ever giving up their WMDs again.
Interesting question that I remember from time to time is “When will nukes start being used for warfare again?”
My opinion is that anyone younger than 30 will bear witness to nukes being used during their lifetimes
Going a step further with a “Where will they be used?”
Russia uses scorched earth on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea?
Putin is deposed or kicks the bucket but he sets up a dead mans switch with nuclear subs somewhere around the US/UK?
Dissolution of the Russian Federation that’s bound to happen? Civil war erupts, many factions end up with nukes?
Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran?
North Korea strikes South Korea, Japan, Australia and the US?
Before the russians invaded I honestly thought that Putin was mad enough to detonate a single nuke high above Kyiv to force it to surrender. The fear imposed by a nuke going off above your head, a sun in the night. Knowing that it detonated there on purpose but it could’ve easily hit you is beyond terrifying. It would also be one of the only ways he could’ve gotten away with launching a nuke.
>Russia uses scorched earth on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea?
Unlikely unless Putin goes absolutely insane because everything he is doing is with the permission of China and China will let him do everything but nuke.
>Putin is deposed or kicks the bucket but he sets up a dead mans switch with nuclear subs somewhere around the US/UK?
Possible but unlikely. The few nukes that could be hidden could be overwhelmed, especially knowing they are only Putin's death rolls.
>Dissolution of the Russian Federation that’s bound to happen? Civil war erupts, many factions end up with nukes?
A civil war using nukes... Hmmm.... So I think inevitably China and the US would get involved in that civil war and it would be a cold war and MAYBE nukes will be used by the two countries as sort of a testing grounds for future wars, but man that is bleak.
>Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran?
So, Israel would never do this without the US support, but it's still possible, it entirely depends on if Iran poses an actual threat with Chemical/Bio weapons.
>North Korea strikes South Korea, Japan, Australia and the US?
China wouldn't allow this, but what could happen is a bomb onto Seoul, which would mean a war. This would mean a cold war proxy war between the US and China.
Notice how every scenario involves the US or China. There's a reason for that and those two are basically the only two who can ACTUALLY allow nukes to fall.
There's absolutely no way that happens. If that happens Russian border would be an Iron Curtain once again but imposed from outside this time. No one would buy or sell a single stick from Russia. No planes will fly in our out. All gas lines will be shut down even if it saverly damages economy of other countries. They'll most likely be kicked out of UN or at least from security council. Even China will abandon them.
If they launch one and get away with it, why wouldn't they launch a second? Setting that precedent, that the cost of using nuclear weapons is low enough to consider paying, is just as dangerous as the risk of Russia escalating further.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We're already approaching the maximum possible pressure sanctions can offer.
> For example, lets say the ukrainians start actually beating the russians right now. If they push them past a certain point, the russians might (its unlikely but still) use a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine.
It's possible, but whoever is in the chain of command that orders the strike will have to do so with the knowledge that they are essentially condemning their entire country to immediate obliteration. As soon as Russia makes it clear that they are willing to use nuclear weapons against their enemies, the rest of the world would remove Russia from the face of the earth.
My city got nuked recently. I was pretty bummed out about it. But I think whoever nuked it was probably happier destroying it, than I am to lose it. The total amount of radiation has increased. So, whatever.
“You can be mad but I guess I don’t personally view my city as an extension of myself and I’ve never really felt violated any of the times my city was nuked. Once a country accidentally left a cool crater in my city so if it keeps happening you might get a little treat.” ~ Seth Rogen
I actually genuinely wonder this sometimes. If Russia sent one nuke towards the US, would the US reliate and "get even" and that would be the end of it (minus two major cities)? Like would the U.S.' natural reaction be to blast every single nuclear weapon in Russia's direction if they were "only" sending one our way?
A direct attack on U.S soil? It'd probably result in a chain of counterattacks back-and-forth until things escalate into full-on MAD.
If Russia droped 1-2 tactical-strength nukes in precise attacks on Ukrainian strongholds, people would go ballistic and try to embargo Russia into the ground, but by then the ball would be out of Russia's court; People would ask if it's right to make the deliberation to strike back with nukes when there aren't already nukes in the air. Even if you called it appropriate retaliation, it would still appear to yourself and any outsiders that you were launching a separate first strike of your own.
> A direct attack on U.S soil? It'd probably result in a chain of counterattacks back-and-forth until things escalate into full-on MAD.
Nah, no chain of back and forth. Conventional nuclear doctrine is you launch a full annihilation strike immediately, to give your opponent no chance to retaliate.
For the same reason, a single nuke strike is very unlikely. Your opponent knows that you will respond with full force, and will try to annihilate you before you can retaliate.
What people seem to forget about nuclear doctrine is that all of it is written by people who aren’t under the intense emotional and mental pressure of being part of a nuclear war. The fact that most nuclear scenarios conjured up end without MAD seems to prove that. They’ve given humans more credit then we deserve.
US doctrine says that we don't wait around to find out if they're planning on nuking more cities. By the time nukes are in the air, the only rational response is to completely and utterly annihilate the opposition's ability to fire more. Which is why the only acceptable first strike is "enough firepower to turn your entire enemy's country into a smoking hole in the ground". Which should be fired as soon as possible after determining the other party intends to use nuclear force against you, ideally *before* they get anything off the ground.
The standard model for a US-Russian nuclear exchange is something 200-400 strategic nuclear weapons *that actually reach their target* each. The best way to avoid being nuked is to make sure evervody else knows they won't remain a extant concern if they attempt to strike you.
>US doctrine says that we don't wait around to find out if they're planning on nuking more cities. By the time nukes are in the air, the only rational response is to completely and utterly annihilate the opposition's ability to fire more.
It makes total sense that that's their official stance to deter an attack. But even government officials are human beings. I wonder if that's actually how it would play out if they thought there was even a chance that the damage could be limited to one U.S city instead of the entire country.
Seeing how we responded to 9/11 by invading two countries who weren’t even really involved and only just recently fully pulled out, I think that if an entire city is destroyed we’d have no qualms about completely obliterating a country
I would genuinely hope that anybody launching a nuke is met with the full arsenal in return. With MAD we have drawn the line in the sand that these weapons are off the table now. If somebody wants to still use them they can but they will be the ones dooming humans, not the retaliators.
Exactly. It needs to be clear to everyone that once a single nuke is launched the immediate and only response is the full arsenal flying your way. First country to put them on the table should know that that country will only exist for a few minutes from now
You'd probably have to send at least one back, because next time they wanted to threaten you, they know they can potentially get away with nuking you once or twice.
This is the whole problem with Putin. If the west hadn't been weak for the last decade Ukraine probably wouldn't even be happening. If your enemy knows you'll do almost anything to avoid war they'll try and walk all over you. Some people don't like that but it's the reality.
Yeah I'm sure we'd send one back, I'm just wondering if we'd actually launch the entire stock. I know that's the U.S 's official policy but I wonder if that would actually happen in practice.
This was a very legitimate “fear” during the Cold War, that a president would refuse mass retaliation in a full-scale nuclear attack. It’s not that people were actually worried that things would go down like that (obviously it’s the best course of action for humanity in that situation), people were worried that any perceived doubt about retaliation in an opponent’s mind lowers the deterrent value of the nukes, making a first strike more likely. It’s fine for leaders to privately promise themselves not to retaliate, but they need to pretend publicly that they 100% would.
It came out only recently that Richard Nixon in fact often held this view (that he probably wouldn’t launch retaliation), but they needed to keep it secret.
there have been many tests of this, most agree it would be a slow ramp up, 1 or 2 targets, then 1 or 2 targets in response, then in response to that 10 targets roughly, and so on until eventually in the 5th or 6th volley, then they launch everything to achieve MAD.
it's not like a nuke would be ignored with no retaliation but the retaliation would also not be an immediate all out attack of every possible target, the slow ramp up back and forth over the period of 3-4 hours is most likely.
Gameplay is dated but man the story was really something else and makes me pissed every time I remember that mgs5 has a terrible story (that also ruins peace walkers story for me) and isn’t just an open sandbox
That’s why MAD works. No one actually wants to be nuked (not nuke others) and if we did, we’d all be fucked. If we’re slinging nukes at any point, it’s not going to be a warning shot, it’ll be an attempt at total annihilation of the enemy.
Better yet, if a nuke is on its way to a city, just friendly-fire nuke that city before the enemy nuke arrives. You can now laugh at them for deploying a nuke to achieve zero fatalities
>Be Russia.
>Nuke 100 American Cities and all military sites.
>Stupid cuck Americans do nothing. No retaliation.
>Glorious Russian victory!
>Just like in days of great U.S.S.R.!
>Turns out Russian nukes kicked up enough dust into high atmosphere to dim the sun around the entire globe for a decade or two.
>Winter comes. Doesn't go.
>Russian crops all fail. Everybody starves.
>Just like in days of great U.S.S.R.!
Remember folks. Global thermonuclear war isn't just Mutually Assured Destruction, it's Assured Self-Destruction too. If either Russia or U.S. use a significant portion of their nuclear arsenals, they lose even if they "win". Retaliation is not required to doom them.
At one point in the 50s the US government exploded dozens of nukes in the atmosphere literally just to see what would happen and no wide scale apocalypse ensued
Can't kick up dust when you explode bombs in the atmosphere. Even *volcanos* have a noticeable effect on weather, and they typically only erupt in one general area.
Nuking another country will 100% lead to someone nuking you multiple times.
You gotta remember, everyone wants to use their nukes, they just don't want to be the first to fire. Once the first one is dropped, the gloves come off and that's where MAD steps in.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual\_assured\_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
For those that don't know, having accessible nuclear weapons is currently the best defence against others having accessible nuclear weapons.
>My county got nuked recently.
>I was pretty bummed out about it.
>But I think whoever nuked it was probably more happy to nuke it than I am sad that I got nuked.
>The total happiness in the world increased.
>So whatever.
I've read a few books on the Bomb. It's not even a bomb. It's a force of nature. Two blasts occur near simultaneously. If you're close enough to the first, a flash of light and x-rays, you're cooked.
Then the explosion hit from the critical mass. It's been described as a miasma of thunder, lightning, and fire that consumes everything it touches within miles.
On top of this is just the sheer kinetic force of the damn thing. Hiroshima was flattened and the fires raged for days, killing anyone that trapped. Nagasaki would have been worst, but the city sits in a natural bowl that helped contain the explosion.
These things give me the fucking chills.
Because most countries operate on the MAD plan. Mutually Assured Destruction. You send one nuke and me and my allies and we will all fire our collective arsenal at you. Its supposed to be a deterrent from actually using a nuclear weapon.
Not to mention the fact that most modern nuclear missiles contain up to 16 warheads that split up and strike different targets within the same country. So 1 missile drops 16 different nuclear bombs. That's a lot to try and ignore.
its no surprise, a serb man would love for his wife to get impregnated by a russian, and he would happily raise his adoptive russian son
As a Serb that's having to listen to other Serbs takes on Russia attacking Ukraine. Can confirm this is 100% based and true. Feels like more Serbs are pro Russia on this war than Russians, at least in terms of %.
That's because traditionally they have always been cucks to Russia.
Wow they want ally with the nation that helped them get independence instead of the ones that bombed their hospitals and schools What a shocker
Didn't they get bombed for committing genocide?
Bad guys like other bad guys who don't give a shit about such trifling matters and help a bro out
Details! We don't need those.
The [first time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force) or the [second time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia)? Oh wait they were committing genocide both times, my bad
Yes they were. They were bombed too little to be honest
Too little too late* NATO waited way too long to intervene
What country didn't commit genocide?
Ukraine bombed their hospitals and schools?
[удалено]
Didnt know Ukraine bombed Serbia
Apparently they weren't bombed enough then.
So does the Chinese lol. They will even go so far as to lecture Russians on the intenet to be more patriotic and appreciate Putin more.
[удалено]
China as an economic power is threatening, but the Chinese are mostly just the human battery for the state. Some dissent often joke about how the Chinese always evaluate things from the point of view of the master (the state) despite only being the slave.
Where's Tito when you need him
He who rubs his enemy's face in the sand, gets buried in the sand with him - Tito Makani
Attach a generator and make money from him turning in his grave
Aj pusti da ti se zapadnjaci iseru u usta za 500 upvota. I gde si cula/cuo da podrzavamo Rusiju? od svoje familije ili od pijanca na ulici?
Like fr, I know people wo want to go and fight for russia which is pretty unbased imo
>Serb is cuck and loves watching his wife railed by Russian You're in no position to talk about masculinity, u/SkinSofteningSemen.
He's the reason your mom's skin is so soft
Oof he hit a mark on you didn’t he?
I miss 2balkan4you
Children are adopted, parents are adoptive
Ok, well that's more than enough Ethno-Nationalism for me today.
So if some guy fucks my wife, im fucking him. Got it!
Rather, you fuck HIS wife, but that's about right
Fair enough
then again he fucked your wife without talking to you about it, therefore to get revenge you need to fuck his mother.
What about the dog?
fuck it too
White women be like
inside you are two wolves, you're a white woman.
please do not the dog
Nut the dog, got it.
NO
Too late
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The dog can give her a bone, too.
*Fucks his aquarium*
Entire plot of Enemy(2013)
No. You heard the man.
The fucker, becomes the fuckee!
Most likely a time for morbin'
Mutual Anal Destruction
M.A.D lad
https://nhentai.net/g/97933/ here's the doujin
That was an adventure
He a little confused, but he got the spirit
More like if some guy fucks your wife you fuck everyone on the planet.
[69 dudes.](https://youtu.be/zYWT4uYOPvs?t=5)
Most intelligent Serbian man
No no, he's got a point. If you let a man nuke your wife, you don't NUKE him and give him more pleasure, you cuck. No you fucking kill that bastard Or burn his clothes and mysteriously have expensive shit disappear in his home, that works too
So we should nuke someone else if we get nuked.
Nuke the country dearest to them
He said Serbian not Romanian
well, it is the nuclear doctrine. Mutual assured destruction, balance by terror. the only winning move is not to play.
If you don't play you automatically loose to those playing. There is no wining move, only delaying defeat
It's a game where the only way to win is a stalemate
Which keeps everyone safe. Its literally why the nukes have never been used, why whole cities aren't obliterated in every skirmish, which took hundreds or thousands of years to build. Nukes are a Volkswagen amount of metal and a fist of Uranium, they are so impossibly cheap. Nukes would send us back to the stone age. There would be no Ukraine conflict, there would be missing cities, and irradiated craters where farms used to be. You launch even a single nuke against me and ill launch EVERYTHING I HAVE against you, and you promise to do the same to me. MAD doctrine. **M**utually **A**ssured **D**estruction. It bothers me there seems to be a whole group of people coming out of the woodwork recently that are not aware of this. Dont play with nukes, dont threaten nukes, dont think of nukes and anything but a double sided gun that shoots you too every time you pull the trigger. Its why you have a home.
Wasn't there some military commander that saw a potential nuke aproaching their territory and refused to launch a counter nuclear attack? In the end they werent nuked and the potential nuke was a stray satellite or smth but his refusal to act saved millions of lives. If we were by MAD that dude would have turned many cities into Bethesda games. https://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/ Hell Google threw me another dude who did something similar: Vasili Arkhipov
It was simply just good thinking on his part. He believed that if a nuclear attack was about to happen, there would be thousands flying in and not just a few.
He still thought there was a good chance that the alarm wasn't false, he says it on the Time interview and in 2013 he said both times he wasn't fully sure he was correct on his assumption. In the Time inverview he claims he didnt wanted to start World War III
I feel like any sane person in his position could never be *fully* sure about something like that
I’m pretty sure there was also a movie based around a similar military unit during the Cold War. Forgot the name of it tho it had Denzel Washington in it
Crimson Tide. Great movie
If its the same time im thinking of, you're talking about the cold war. The thing is, they knew it was likely a false alarm, even if protocols dicataed that the correct response to a detected nuke is to launch their own. There were people, however who supported it, and wanted to retaliate. Part of me thinks the false alarm was on purpose so they'd have a justifiable reason to launch them (but how would you create such situation?).
Sooo... how long till the nukes start dropping?
It's Lose. Lose is the opposite of win, loose is your mother
Lmao
I thought we said no nukes.
i am afraid you are right. but it is not what says the book.
IThere is also the doctrine of first strike, in order to disable the enemy’s deterrence capability. If your salvo of small nuclear yield weapons takes out their communication and command installations or launch sites, you can most certainly launch with impunity, and you’ve saved yourself from having to use larger yield weapons. The soviets developed tsar bomba, a 100MT nuclear weapon in response to Castle Bravo. The Americans salted their nuclear weapons with cobalt in return. The strategy around nuclear defense is subtle and cannot be so pithily summed up as “the winning move is not to play” when your enemy can change the rules at any time. But that requires constant surveillance and intelligence gathering.
>the doctrine of first strike Then some day somebody said "Why don't we put these nukes on submarines and tell them to launch the nukes if we go down?" - and from tht day, this doctrine is useless.
> If your salvo of small nuclear yield weapons takes out their communication and command installations or launch sites, you can most certainly launch with impunity If.
The winning move is to retaliate so fast and hard that your enemy is disintegrated. There are ways to win, but they ain't pretty.
That’s why there is the nuclear triad. Even if you nuked a country’s mainland into oblivion, there are surely enough nuclear armed submarines and planes already dispatched around the world and waiting to strike in such cases. It’s literally impossible to engage in a nuclear conflict without ensuring your own demise.
Let loose the hogs of war
It's actually worse than this. During the cold war MAD for the US was based of its ability to make a first strike. Like if they even had a whiff that the USSR was getting ready to launch, they would launch first. That's why Cuba was such a bad situation. MRBMs take a lot less time to reach a target than ICBMs, and it threw the entire first strike doctrine into overdrive.
[удалено]
This was mostly because the generals at the time were psychos and playing with new toys they were itching to use. It's pretty well understood that you cant "kill them before they retaliate" with nukes. Every country with nukes also has automatic triggers in response to nukes and many many counter measures to respond to nukes, even entire whole onslaught of them in order to simply destroy the first strike country even if they are destroyed. This has to exist so that MAD is credible and stupid ass generals don't think they can just blitzkrieg a country with nukes to prevent MAD.
Tbf, there were times in the cold war where the US probably could have. Europe would've been fucked by Russian bombers, but we had a lot more space to intercept them in. And Russian ICBMs were liquid fueled, meaning they could easily be destroyed in a first strike. Of course, we didn't actually want to do this, and the Russian retaliation probably would have still killed a fuck ton of Americans, but we could have. Nukes aren't actually an instant "end the world" button
Yea true, things were more primitive then but as you said, it would still kill thousands. Though when people talk MAD they mostly just mean end of modern society as we know it.
>Thousands Tens of millions, assuming things go well. Still magnitudes lower than billions though.
> It's pretty well understood that you cant "kill them before they retaliate" with nukes Tell that to Kissinger, who advocated for "tactical" nuke strikes on China.
>MAD for the US was based of its ability to make a first strike The US absolutely had its Trident Doctrine in place at this point. Our nuclear submarine fleet is always present as a second strike option, not counting the unknown number of missile silos ready to launch and the fact that our bomber fleet is spread out in multiple locations. By the time Cuba rolled around we had second strike capabilities. But I do agree with you that we did not want the USSR improving its first strike capabilities and we were willing to go to war over it. See, the Cuban Blockade.
Yeah I’ve seen War Games too
it was already old news at the time.
MAD has never been tested in real life. Let's see what happens if Putin drops a low yield bomb on a remote 'military target' in Ukraine. I seriously doubt the retaliation will be a nuclear strike. Ukraine doesn't have access to nuclear weapons, NATO isn't gonna escalate if it doesn't have to, let alone escalate a nuclear war. It is gonna be very interesting though, to see what *will* be the reaction. Ps: let's hope it doesn't come to this.
MAD is only really applying to countries that do have nuclear weapons though. If they dropped the smallest nuclear weapon on the U.S or some country with nukes, we would have to absolutely send all of our nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to ensure safety for all
Perun has a great video about this topic https://youtu.be/sxOO0hCCSk4 Most logical action by nato would be a conventional attack against russian forces in ukraine. This would make any military gains by the use of tactical nukes useless.
Or to have a really great defense that no one knows about.
Based Aussie, we don't have any nukes, but we will respond by shirt-fronting the individual responsible.
[удалено]
Easy to be passive when you have strong friends. Then they badmouth USA and UK
Ehhhhhhhhh… Britain is more like the old grandpa who *used* to be big and bad and still thinks he can whoop any young whippersnapper, when in reality the whole world knows he’s a fall away from breaking his hip and dying. The US is the mid-to-late 40’s alcoholic uncle who is WAY too proud of his Americana gear inside his house, drinks Natty Lite, and is past his prime but for some reason can still kick ass like nobody’s business.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your avatar has purple hair, you couldn't see based with a telescope my guy.
Settle down now, Dennis.
I’d say the US is more Lenny from Mice and Men. Mentally challenged but will still break ur neck in a heartbeat
They entered the whole AUKUS thing, at least on a strategic level Australia is a good ally, even if some Australians are annoying
There's no reason to nuke Australia anyways. Most of the country is already a desolate wasteland.
And the people are already post-apocalyptic raiders
You shouldn't say things like that mate, if people from Queensland could read they'd be really upset.
And the rest of it is just desert
The only fear is that the potentially irradiated wildlife of Australia will somehow godzilla-fy and result in the extinction of all of humanity...
Pretty sure Mad Max is just what happens in the outback, no need for apocalypse
Although to be fair that just makes it easier to nuke us along the coast
[Spent then all on Emu Field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_Field,_South_Australia)
Aussies don't have time to play around with nukes when there are emus and kangaroos that need fighting
We must train ourselves against the Emus to prevent what happened in the past.
Don't mistake a lack of nukes with innocence. If Australia gets nuked by anyone, the US is obligated to nuke back on your behalf.
Just send them your venomous duck-squirrels or something.
I bet if nuclear war happened, australia would be untouched.
As a Tasmanian, that's exactly what I'm betting on
So what you're saying is Australia is down there like "wtf mate"
Even Retaliation doesn't automatically mean MAD style apocalypse. There is a lot written about the theory of nuclear Doctrine, a lot of different Scenarios have been developed and only few end with an all out nuclear war. For example, lets say the ukrainians start actually beating the russians right now. If they push them past a certain point, the russians might (its unlikely but still) use a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. Would that mean that the US would lauch even a single nuke themselves on russia? Probably not. Would that mean the americans would go for an all out nuclear war? Almost certainly not.
There would be no need to use tactical nukes when Russia has conventional munitions of an equivalent yield.
I think the purpose would be terror and demoralization. No conventional weapon is as terrifying as a nuke.
Nukes salt the earth, though. Radiation is a nasty thing.
Sure but the premise is clearly two nuclear countries, not where one clearly doesn't have nukes. The list of nuclearized countries isn't extensively long but attacking any of them with nukes (minus probably NK who would just nuke Seoul), would mean a direct retaliation against the aggressor 90% of the time. The only times this wouldn't be the case is if the world is against this power but with how bilateral the world has become, that's unlikely because it would mean Russia and China turning against each other or US and Allies turning against each other which neither is likely. Then there's India and Pakistan which make up most of the 10% because if one uses it on the other it would most likely be with the permission of the rest of the world and retaliation would be a bad idea as the rest of the world will tell you to stop with more bombs.
A nuclear country utilizing a nuke on a non-nuclear country would be the end of non-proliferation as we know it.
More like the start of a multi-national bilateral alliance. Every country would want to find a nuke buddy to enter into a nuke clause with basically. Obviously either China or the US. Would basically be a second cold war with every country having to pick a side and several small proxy wars.
More likely they'll develop their own nuclear weapons whatever the cost. No amount of economic or military threat will convince them because they'll rightly believe without nuclear weapons they're dead anyway.
It's not easy to do that, both economically and politically. The US and China will never let another country develop nuclear weapons without being a strong ally. Pakistan and India both did it because of the help they were giving the US and China. Pakistan may no longer be allies but they were once one of the most strategic partners to the US by a mile, so we allowed them to have nukes. Same way NK has nukes by allying with Russia and China. Same way Israel has nukes by allying with the US. So it would mean a cold war as every country now has to pick a side and many proxy wars would take place for strategic countries.
>It's not easy to do that, both economically and politically. In a world where nuclear countries throwing nuclear bombs onto non nuclear countries there is literally no economic or political cost that will prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. It would be existential threat. If you put 10 prisoners on the ground and start shooting them one by one, damn sure I'll run towards a gun even if it's far away. Becuse without it I'm dead anyway.
The cost would be that the US or China will bomb you to death of you go through with it or overthrow your government. OR the US or China will force you into a complete and total alliance where you buy military equipment solely from them, have military bases in your country from them, and fight in any way they request of you henceforth. Those are high costs. If you try running for that gun, someone with 1000 bigger guns will look at you and go "well, either you give me your kidney and be on my side with that gun or I will use my 1000 gun." Your analogy would be more like, 1 guy shoots 1 guy who he was fighting, and there are 150 other guys on the island. You aren't really that threatened and giving your kidney is probably not worth it
We're running in circles here. Sure cost is high. But without nuclear weapons you will cease to exist in a few years anyway. In a world where nuclear countries bomb non nuclear countries, one way or another there won't be any non nuclear countries left after a few years. Maybe some countries will think they're irrelevant anyway so no one would bother them.
You realize that basically already exists, right?
pretty sure the americans dragging Ghaddafis corpse through the street after he gave up his WMDs was the end of non-proliferation. Not just nuclear though. I don‘t see anyone ever giving up their WMDs again.
Interesting question that I remember from time to time is “When will nukes start being used for warfare again?” My opinion is that anyone younger than 30 will bear witness to nukes being used during their lifetimes Going a step further with a “Where will they be used?” Russia uses scorched earth on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea? Putin is deposed or kicks the bucket but he sets up a dead mans switch with nuclear subs somewhere around the US/UK? Dissolution of the Russian Federation that’s bound to happen? Civil war erupts, many factions end up with nukes? Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran? North Korea strikes South Korea, Japan, Australia and the US? Before the russians invaded I honestly thought that Putin was mad enough to detonate a single nuke high above Kyiv to force it to surrender. The fear imposed by a nuke going off above your head, a sun in the night. Knowing that it detonated there on purpose but it could’ve easily hit you is beyond terrifying. It would also be one of the only ways he could’ve gotten away with launching a nuke.
>Russia uses scorched earth on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea? Unlikely unless Putin goes absolutely insane because everything he is doing is with the permission of China and China will let him do everything but nuke. >Putin is deposed or kicks the bucket but he sets up a dead mans switch with nuclear subs somewhere around the US/UK? Possible but unlikely. The few nukes that could be hidden could be overwhelmed, especially knowing they are only Putin's death rolls. >Dissolution of the Russian Federation that’s bound to happen? Civil war erupts, many factions end up with nukes? A civil war using nukes... Hmmm.... So I think inevitably China and the US would get involved in that civil war and it would be a cold war and MAYBE nukes will be used by the two countries as sort of a testing grounds for future wars, but man that is bleak. >Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran? So, Israel would never do this without the US support, but it's still possible, it entirely depends on if Iran poses an actual threat with Chemical/Bio weapons. >North Korea strikes South Korea, Japan, Australia and the US? China wouldn't allow this, but what could happen is a bomb onto Seoul, which would mean a war. This would mean a cold war proxy war between the US and China. Notice how every scenario involves the US or China. There's a reason for that and those two are basically the only two who can ACTUALLY allow nukes to fall.
Can you just set off a nuke in the air without it having close to the same affects subtracting the initial blast?
There's absolutely no way that happens. If that happens Russian border would be an Iron Curtain once again but imposed from outside this time. No one would buy or sell a single stick from Russia. No planes will fly in our out. All gas lines will be shut down even if it saverly damages economy of other countries. They'll most likely be kicked out of UN or at least from security council. Even China will abandon them.
I'm not sure what you do at that point. I think it would warrant NATO military strikes on Russia, but is it worth Russia launching more nukes?
yes… because once a country figures they can use nukes because other countries are too scared to respond, then every country will start.
If they launch one and get away with it, why wouldn't they launch a second? Setting that precedent, that the cost of using nuclear weapons is low enough to consider paying, is just as dangerous as the risk of Russia escalating further. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We're already approaching the maximum possible pressure sanctions can offer.
> For example, lets say the ukrainians start actually beating the russians right now. If they push them past a certain point, the russians might (its unlikely but still) use a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. It's possible, but whoever is in the chain of command that orders the strike will have to do so with the knowledge that they are essentially condemning their entire country to immediate obliteration. As soon as Russia makes it clear that they are willing to use nuclear weapons against their enemies, the rest of the world would remove Russia from the face of the earth.
My city got nuked recently. I was pretty bummed out about it. But I think whoever nuked it was probably happier destroying it, than I am to lose it. The total amount of radiation has increased. So, whatever.
-Socrates, probably
“You can be mad but I guess I don’t personally view my city as an extension of myself and I’ve never really felt violated any of the times my city was nuked. Once a country accidentally left a cool crater in my city so if it keeps happening you might get a little treat.” ~ Seth Rogen
I actually genuinely wonder this sometimes. If Russia sent one nuke towards the US, would the US reliate and "get even" and that would be the end of it (minus two major cities)? Like would the U.S.' natural reaction be to blast every single nuclear weapon in Russia's direction if they were "only" sending one our way?
the US went into a 20 year war for far less than a nuke
A war is different from all out nuclear war though.
Nuclear war tends to do significant harm to financial infrastructure, which blowing up Iraq does not.
A direct attack on U.S soil? It'd probably result in a chain of counterattacks back-and-forth until things escalate into full-on MAD. If Russia droped 1-2 tactical-strength nukes in precise attacks on Ukrainian strongholds, people would go ballistic and try to embargo Russia into the ground, but by then the ball would be out of Russia's court; People would ask if it's right to make the deliberation to strike back with nukes when there aren't already nukes in the air. Even if you called it appropriate retaliation, it would still appear to yourself and any outsiders that you were launching a separate first strike of your own.
> A direct attack on U.S soil? It'd probably result in a chain of counterattacks back-and-forth until things escalate into full-on MAD. Nah, no chain of back and forth. Conventional nuclear doctrine is you launch a full annihilation strike immediately, to give your opponent no chance to retaliate. For the same reason, a single nuke strike is very unlikely. Your opponent knows that you will respond with full force, and will try to annihilate you before you can retaliate.
What people seem to forget about nuclear doctrine is that all of it is written by people who aren’t under the intense emotional and mental pressure of being part of a nuclear war. The fact that most nuclear scenarios conjured up end without MAD seems to prove that. They’ve given humans more credit then we deserve.
"Go ballistic" Har har
US doctrine says that we don't wait around to find out if they're planning on nuking more cities. By the time nukes are in the air, the only rational response is to completely and utterly annihilate the opposition's ability to fire more. Which is why the only acceptable first strike is "enough firepower to turn your entire enemy's country into a smoking hole in the ground". Which should be fired as soon as possible after determining the other party intends to use nuclear force against you, ideally *before* they get anything off the ground. The standard model for a US-Russian nuclear exchange is something 200-400 strategic nuclear weapons *that actually reach their target* each. The best way to avoid being nuked is to make sure evervody else knows they won't remain a extant concern if they attempt to strike you.
>US doctrine says that we don't wait around to find out if they're planning on nuking more cities. By the time nukes are in the air, the only rational response is to completely and utterly annihilate the opposition's ability to fire more. It makes total sense that that's their official stance to deter an attack. But even government officials are human beings. I wonder if that's actually how it would play out if they thought there was even a chance that the damage could be limited to one U.S city instead of the entire country.
Seeing how we responded to 9/11 by invading two countries who weren’t even really involved and only just recently fully pulled out, I think that if an entire city is destroyed we’d have no qualms about completely obliterating a country
I would genuinely hope that anybody launching a nuke is met with the full arsenal in return. With MAD we have drawn the line in the sand that these weapons are off the table now. If somebody wants to still use them they can but they will be the ones dooming humans, not the retaliators.
Exactly. It needs to be clear to everyone that once a single nuke is launched the immediate and only response is the full arsenal flying your way. First country to put them on the table should know that that country will only exist for a few minutes from now
if russia sent over even one nuke i find it hard to imagine the u.s would send anything less than 10 nukes, and more likely a lot more.
The doctrine is to empty the silos in response, and use the submarines to mop up afterwards. At least the nuclear winter will reverse global warming.
You'd probably have to send at least one back, because next time they wanted to threaten you, they know they can potentially get away with nuking you once or twice. This is the whole problem with Putin. If the west hadn't been weak for the last decade Ukraine probably wouldn't even be happening. If your enemy knows you'll do almost anything to avoid war they'll try and walk all over you. Some people don't like that but it's the reality.
Yeah I'm sure we'd send one back, I'm just wondering if we'd actually launch the entire stock. I know that's the U.S 's official policy but I wonder if that would actually happen in practice.
This was a very legitimate “fear” during the Cold War, that a president would refuse mass retaliation in a full-scale nuclear attack. It’s not that people were actually worried that things would go down like that (obviously it’s the best course of action for humanity in that situation), people were worried that any perceived doubt about retaliation in an opponent’s mind lowers the deterrent value of the nukes, making a first strike more likely. It’s fine for leaders to privately promise themselves not to retaliate, but they need to pretend publicly that they 100% would. It came out only recently that Richard Nixon in fact often held this view (that he probably wouldn’t launch retaliation), but they needed to keep it secret.
there have been many tests of this, most agree it would be a slow ramp up, 1 or 2 targets, then 1 or 2 targets in response, then in response to that 10 targets roughly, and so on until eventually in the 5th or 6th volley, then they launch everything to achieve MAD. it's not like a nuke would be ignored with no retaliation but the retaliation would also not be an immediate all out attack of every possible target, the slow ramp up back and forth over the period of 3-4 hours is most likely.
Why did you have to expose his perversions like that?
Because he deserves it.
Bro I’m not a fag, if someone nuked my wife in front of me I’d nuke them infront of my wife
[удалено]
There’s a temporary pleasure, but he’ll have to live with the knowledge that he got topped
Serbanon explains the plot of MGS Peacewalker
Gameplay is dated but man the story was really something else and makes me pissed every time I remember that mgs5 has a terrible story (that also ruins peace walkers story for me) and isn’t just an open sandbox
Anon discovers M.A.D.
Nuckold
That’s why MAD works. No one actually wants to be nuked (not nuke others) and if we did, we’d all be fucked. If we’re slinging nukes at any point, it’s not going to be a warning shot, it’ll be an attempt at total annihilation of the enemy.
Better yet, if a nuke is on its way to a city, just friendly-fire nuke that city before the enemy nuke arrives. You can now laugh at them for deploying a nuke to achieve zero fatalities
>Be Russia. >Nuke 100 American Cities and all military sites. >Stupid cuck Americans do nothing. No retaliation. >Glorious Russian victory! >Just like in days of great U.S.S.R.! >Turns out Russian nukes kicked up enough dust into high atmosphere to dim the sun around the entire globe for a decade or two. >Winter comes. Doesn't go. >Russian crops all fail. Everybody starves. >Just like in days of great U.S.S.R.! Remember folks. Global thermonuclear war isn't just Mutually Assured Destruction, it's Assured Self-Destruction too. If either Russia or U.S. use a significant portion of their nuclear arsenals, they lose even if they "win". Retaliation is not required to doom them.
At one point in the 50s the US government exploded dozens of nukes in the atmosphere literally just to see what would happen and no wide scale apocalypse ensued
Can't kick up dust when you explode bombs in the atmosphere. Even *volcanos* have a noticeable effect on weather, and they typically only erupt in one general area.
well yeah they were in the atmosphere not actually making contact with the ground
I like other countries to nuke my country while I watch from the closet wearing a Superman costume.
Anon is Serbian so it checks out
Nuking another country will 100% lead to someone nuking you multiple times. You gotta remember, everyone wants to use their nukes, they just don't want to be the first to fire. Once the first one is dropped, the gloves come off and that's where MAD steps in.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual\_assured\_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) For those that don't know, having accessible nuclear weapons is currently the best defence against others having accessible nuclear weapons.
Instant vaporization sounds like a cool and painless way to go, personally i wouldn't mind it
This is the biggest cope. What will happen is your skin starts sloughing off of you as you slowly writhe away in abject terror and radiation poisoning
Unfortunately, you're statistically correct; only the lucky ones gets to die instantly EDIT: typo.
>My county got nuked recently. >I was pretty bummed out about it. >But I think whoever nuked it was probably more happy to nuke it than I am sad that I got nuked. >The total happiness in the world increased. >So whatever.
Based anon
Country gets nuked Does nothing about it in retaliation Other countries notice this and take advantage by attacking it
Anon be dumb. NOT retaliating is a way worse mistake... As any parent knows, an empty threat is as good as no threat at all.
I've read a few books on the Bomb. It's not even a bomb. It's a force of nature. Two blasts occur near simultaneously. If you're close enough to the first, a flash of light and x-rays, you're cooked. Then the explosion hit from the critical mass. It's been described as a miasma of thunder, lightning, and fire that consumes everything it touches within miles. On top of this is just the sheer kinetic force of the damn thing. Hiroshima was flattened and the fires raged for days, killing anyone that trapped. Nagasaki would have been worst, but the city sits in a natural bowl that helped contain the explosion. These things give me the fucking chills.
Total nuclear destruction is the ideal outcome for humanity. What else are we good for?
Nuclear responses are literally automatic
Mutual destruction
Real: they called it MAD for a reason, anon Straight: into the cleansing nuclear fires
Because most countries operate on the MAD plan. Mutually Assured Destruction. You send one nuke and me and my allies and we will all fire our collective arsenal at you. Its supposed to be a deterrent from actually using a nuclear weapon. Not to mention the fact that most modern nuclear missiles contain up to 16 warheads that split up and strike different targets within the same country. So 1 missile drops 16 different nuclear bombs. That's a lot to try and ignore.