General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs a nuclear war winnable?
There has been discussion of the capability of the US nuclear arsenal compared to Russia. It has been put forth that much of Russia's weaponry may not be functional.
Given the necessity of stopping expansionist tyrants as soon as possible and the apparent superiority of NATO nuclear weapons, should the risk of escalating to a nuclear war no longer be a reason for the US/NATO to avoid confrontation?
Has it reached the point where the US and its allies would win a nuclear exchange?
49 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes- we can win a clear victory in a war with nuclear weapons | |
0 (0%) |
|
We could win the war but the number of casualties would outweigh the benefit of any victory | |
3 (6%) |
|
Win or lose, The risks posed by the return of fascism are worth risking the human race | |
0 (0%) |
|
No we would lose such a war and be in a worse situation | |
1 (2%) |
|
Everyone would lose | |
45 (92%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
bottomofthehill
(8,364 posts)Wait till you see what a couple thermonuclear devices do to climate change.
EX500rider
(10,891 posts)NickB79
(19,297 posts)Nuclear winter would dissipate in a few years after the dust settled. Not long enough to cause true glaciation.
Then the CO2 from the decaying bodies, burned forests and cities would kick in, and temps would spike way higher than today. It's posited that this is what did in the dinosaurs, a one-two punch of extreme cold followed by extreme heat.
Model35mech
(1,594 posts)In my childhood the US and Russia were atmospheric testing the damned things. The evidence of which will be in my bones and teeth as long as those skeletal remains last. But, other than radioactive precipitation we were told not to eat, there really wasn't really other meteorological effect from in blasts.
Multiplying trace meteorological impact times a couple seems like it would be unlikely to bring about nuclear winter
A 'couple' of them probably wouldn't win anyone a war, either. But it very might result in runaway exchanges the lead to majority of the world's nukes being detonated.
Pulverizing civilization in the northern hemisphere with 11,000 of them would be another thing entirely.
Indeed, it would be M.A.D.
NickB79
(19,297 posts)All silos emptied.
tirebiter
(2,539 posts)Celerity
(43,734 posts)doublethink
(6,823 posts)FUCK NO to nuclear war. WTF?
RockRaven
(15,076 posts)Like several dozen would do it. And they wouldn't be using them one at a time like in WWII.
Whoever starts a nuclear war is killing ~2/3 of the world's population, if not more.
Doodley
(9,176 posts)Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Much smaller than Hiroshima. Then we'll have to see how the US responds.
Response to Tomconroy (Reply #6)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
Celerity
(43,734 posts)sprinkleeninow
(20,268 posts)I just familiarized myself with tactical nuclear weaponry.
If *he* orders this, that will be a catalyst for how to respond. Say your prayers, everyone.
Solly Mack
(90,800 posts)Gore1FL
(21,165 posts)...would solve climate change.
Midnight Writer
(21,845 posts)You don't think we paid trillions of dollars to defense contractors for some worthless boondoggle, do you?
WarGamer
(12,506 posts)About tasting ash?
Stunningly appropriate.
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)I am finding the increasing dismissiveness of expanding the war to a nuclear level very disturbing.
I also believe in not beating around the bush and asking the question outright. Who will be brave enough to step up and stand by their opinion?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,356 posts)I dont know if they are bored or just dont have anything to live for - or both.
WarGamer
(12,506 posts)DBoon
(22,424 posts).. he didn't know what weapons would be used in WW III, but WW IV would be fought with rocks and spears?
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,512 posts)K&R.
Xolodno
(6,410 posts)...is disturbing.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,927 posts)about nuclear war. Probably the best of them is Alas, Babylon, by Pat Frank, published in 1959. I understand it has never been out of print since then. I would have read it fairly early on, and have re-read it any number of times over the years. Actually, I should re-read it again.
Apparently, it has been turned into a film twice, which I only just now discovered when I googled Alas, Babylon. Interesting. I had no idea.
here's the thing I most want to share, is that writers of hard science fiction, hard science fiction not fantasy or vampires or such, tend to be VERY grounded in real science, and mostly get things right, especially the technology.
Anyway, Alas, Babylon is well worth reading.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,941 posts)Volaris
(10,278 posts)I get it's a deadly serious topic, but where's my Gen X Movie Solution at lol?!?!
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)For which I sincerely apologize
Volaris
(10,278 posts)niyad
(113,860 posts)the last lines in a novel called, "Triumph", by philip wylie, back in the early '60's. The novel takes place after WWIII has been started by accident, and alternates between dtailing the lives of a group of people in a millionaire's bomb shelter deep inside a mountain, and the horrors of the war around the world. For several hundrred pages, we are witness to the death and destruction. The group is finally rescued, and the last sentences are quoted above.
"Who won the war?" "We did. Not that it matters."
MurrayDelph
(5,304 posts)Are you a cockroach? Then, no.
former9thward
(32,136 posts)Calculating
(2,957 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 1, 2022, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)
Maybe not end the human race bad, but the world will never be the same. Most major cities across the world will be destroyed and billions will die from hunger and radiation.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)roamer65
(36,748 posts)Make them a nuclear state overnight.
How many nuclear states have been invaded? Very few, if any.
That would be the end of this war when Putler realizes that he will get one right back.
MAD works.
Bettie
(16,145 posts)This time, he gets Ukraine, because "I'll use nuclear weapons"!
Next time, he gets Poland, because "I'll use nuclear weapons"!
France, Germany, all of Europe, because "I'll USE THEM!"
China, the US, Canada? "I'll DO IT!"
Where does it end? Should the entire world just throw up their hands and tell Putin he's now the supreme ruler of Earth because he has nuclear weapons and might use them?
If fear is the only driver of policy, then there's no point in resisting, is there? Eventually, he'll threaten everyone and we'll all give in.
So, yeah, I guess no one wins in a nuclear war or if there's a crazy man threatening nuclear war...either way, he wins and we lose.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)They keep the peace when sane, rational leaders have them. MAD and all that. The problem of course is if you get a crazy person running a nuclear armed country and he doesn't care so long as he can either win or make everybody lose. There are no good answers in such a case, you gotta just say no and hope he doesn't push that button.
Bettie
(16,145 posts)and, oddly, Russia, in the Budapest Memorandum, said that in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons, they would receive protection.
Well, Russia has broken that agreement, attacking them, first taking Crimea, then, when they got away with it with virtually no consequences, they decided to go for more.
The US and the UK are living up to their ends of the deal. Putin wouldn't have attacked if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons.
I don't know the answer, but I do know that saying "Fine, Putin, you can take whatever you want as long as you declare that you want to to destroy the world" isn't it. Turning our backs on Ukraine would be a mistake and would embolden Putin and people like him to threaten nuclear war any time they want something.
Iggo
(47,591 posts)Diraven
(551 posts)Even if we could decisively win a nuclear war, many millions of Americans would die, along with probably just about single person in Russia (current population 144 millions). Is that really worth it to say we beat Putin once and for all?
Calculating
(2,957 posts)It's always seemed absolutely insane that some crazy man on the other side of the world has the power to kill us all by pushing a button, but that's the world we live in. Nukes never should have been made, and once the horrors were discovered they all should have been destroyed. Unfortunately, there will always be bad guys who want a "we all lose" button in case they can't win.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Would you like to play a game
(Yes, Im being snarky. Its gallows humor. Sue me)
AntivaxHunters
(3,234 posts)The winds of war are beginning to blow very hard.
A nuclear war is pretty fucked up & nobody wins. We're all dead folk. Literally.
I think I'll pass on any of that.
Fuck war.
DFW
(54,502 posts)Even when Chernobyl blew up nearly 40 years ago, mushrooms from the forest were exhibiting high radiation levels here in Germany for a long time after the explosion, and the populace was warned not only not to eat them, but not even to go hiking in the woods for months afterward. The number of thyroid cancer cases exploded in number. And this was from a power plant many hundreds of miles to the east, the direction in which the winds generally blow. After vaporizing London, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Madrid and Rome, there would be no central government, no currency, no transportation, no food, and virtually no medical facilities available to handle all the gruesome effects of the radiation, which would be a slow, agonizing death sentence for all not vaporized in the initial attack. MAYBE Putin would spare non-aligned places like Amsterdam or Zürich, but these places are so close to cities that WOULD be bombed, their radiation levels would exceed what is deemed survivable several dozen times over. It would probably be a great time to find yourself vacationing on New Zealand's South Island, but who knows for how long?