Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Jessicka]

Clearly, the western countries should have conquered the world and spread Managed Democracy ! Sounds familiar ?

As oppose to the fascist regimes we actually set up in Russia, South America and the Middle East?

[Kralljin]

It's number of nukes and whether or not the nation is hostile terrorist nation. Not just random few nukes anywhere. There's one country that fits the bill. I'm sure you can guess which one it is.

Huh?

Should we revisit this discussion if China invades Taiwan?

[Azadina]

Huh?

Should we revisit this discussion if China invades Taiwan?

Probably. Not sure if China has enough warheads to be the same kind of world ending threat though.

[Gabriel]

Guys, stop giving me blue balls with all the talk about nukes. Pls.

[Specialka]

As oppose to the fascist regimes we actually set up in Russia, South America and the Middle East?

And here I thought imperialism or colonialism was bad.

[Jessicka]

Probably. Not sure if China has enough warheads to be the same kind of world ending threat though.

Only needs about a hundred to cause sufficiently catastrophic climactic damage to effectively end civilisation in fairly swift order.

[The Stormbringer]

Only needs about a hundred to cause sufficiently catastrophic climactic damage to effectively end civilisation in fairly swift order.

Yeah... some people are fine with the biosphere surviving and life continuing on, but humanity being completely fucked, I guess? Because while pockets of humanity would definitely survive, modern civilization as we know it could absolutely be demolished with just a hundred nukes.

[Azadina]

Only needs about a hundred to cause sufficiently catastrophic climactic damage to effectively end civilisation in fairly swift order.

Is this one of those nuclear winter myths? I don't subscribe to it.

[Jessicka]

Is this one of those nuclear winter myths? I don't subscribe to it.

A science denier huh? Here, on the internet, created by scientists?

Unfortunately I don’t think the science cares whether you believe in it or not.

[Mayhem]

Russia had just beaten the Germans on the Eastern front by throwing men at them and committing atrocities along the way. The Allies were in no position to continue into that sort of war. We didn't even have nukes until '45, the Germans were beaten a full year before Japan.

I mean they got tons of equipment from the Allies to do so, it wasn't just Russia alone.

In the final tally, America sent its Russian ally the following military equipment:

400,000 jeeps and trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks

[DarkTZeratul]

A science denier huh? Here, on the internet, created by scientists?

Unfortunately I don’t think the science cares whether you believe in it or not.

I'm fairly certain "we can wipe out humanity with only 100 nukes" barely qualifies as science to begin with. Humanity is considerably more resilient than that. Not to say it wouldn't fuck shit up but good, but causing our own extinction? Hardly. Especially when you consider that we've set off some two thousand nuclear weapons globally in tests. Hell, The United States blew up more than 400 nuclear weapons in the 60s alone (and the USSR a further 200+ in that same decade).

[Sunseeker]

I'm fairly certain "we can wipe out humanity with only 100 nukes" barely qualifies as science to begin with. Humanity is considerably more resilient than that. Not to say it wouldn't fuck shit up but good, but causing our own extinction? Hardly. Especially when you consider that we've set up some two thousand nuclear weapons globally in tests. Hell, The United States blew up more than 400 nuclear weapons in the 60s alone.

I don't know why people use "extinction" like it is some kind of meaningful bar for anything. The usage of "several hundred" nuclear weapons, particularly as part of an actual war in populated areas would:
Kill billions of people.
Devastate the environment(as many cities are built in environmentally rich areas)
Destroy the global economy.
Drastically reduce our technological level.
Have disastrous impacts on the environment as a whole.
Have lasting consequences for the world and humanity.

Would it kill every human? Would humanity become extinct? No. But it would destroy most of what we recognize as "human civilization".

So arguing over "would nuclear war end humanity" is stupid. If you don't think it would be disastrous and result in the deaths of countless billions, then buddy, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Jessicka]

I'm fairly certain "we can wipe out humanity with only 100 nukes" barely qualifies as science to begin with. Humanity is considerably more resilient than that. Not to say it wouldn't fuck shit up but good, but causing our own extinction? Hardly. Especially when you consider that we've set off some two thousand nuclear weapons globally in tests. Hell, The United States blew up more than 400 nuclear weapons in the 60s alone (and the USSR a further 200+ in that same decade).

Did I say wiping out humanity?

Where the nukes are detonated make a huge difference, testing took place in deserts and remote islands. Detonations in temperate regions would create a lot more ash, burn forests and destroy agriculture. The destruction of infrastructure too would make governance impossible. That’s why I said end civilisation, and it would be a slow and very painful end.

[Elder Millennial]

I mean they got tons of equipment from the Allies to do so, it wasn't just Russia alone.

In the final tally, America sent its Russian ally the following military equipment:

400,000 jeeps and trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks

Millions of tons of ammunition, millions of tons of chemicals, millions of tons of food, millions of tons of fuel etc.

[Azadina]

Did I say wiping out humanity?

Where the nukes are detonated make a huge difference, testing took place in deserts and remote islands. Detonations in temperate regions would create a lot more ash, burn forests and destroy agriculture. The destruction of infrastructure too would make governance impossible. That’s why I said end civilisation, and it would be a slow and very painful end.

Only needs about a hundred to cause sufficiently catastrophic climactic damage to effectively end civilisation in fairly swift order.

Is it slow and painful or is it fairly swift? Is it also caused by society breaking down, or the climactic damage you claimed at first, which I questioned specifically.

[Jessicka]

Is it slow and painful or is it fairly swift? Is it also caused by society breaking down, or the climactic damage you claimed at first, which I questioned specifically.

The initial damage effects would obviously be swift; losing governance, communication, food, water, and other essential supplies etc. It would very quickly ‘feel’ like the end of the world. Then probably years of continued irrecoverable decline as the mess made of the environment hits home.

Quick then slow.

[Azadina]

The initial damage effects would obviously be swift; losing governance, communication, food, water, and other essential supplies etc. It would very quickly ‘feel’ like the end of the world. Then probably years of continued irrecoverable decline as the mess made of the environment hits home.

Quick then slow.

Let's not forget that the amount of 100 lobbed around evenly would make for 1 boom for under half the countries on earth. There's 200 and some countries, so not even one for each. But let's for the sake of argument say that half the countries just got single city blown up. The loss of lives while tragic, how would you convince the surviving 99% of said countries to just give up and die too? Or, ok, if you blew up my city, that'd "only" leave 98% of the country alive and kicking.

Honestly, I think you might be overestimating the power of nukes, like them having hundreds of miles of flaming inferno from impact or something.

[zealo]

Yep. If I remember correctly, soviets didn't get nukes until 49. That would have ment 4 years of time to demolish them, and guide them to humanity.

It wasn't done, and the results are massive nuclear terrorist state. Danger to the whole world decade after another. Are you seriously arguing that THIS is indeed the best outcome?

That following the biggest war in human history up with another war of equal proportions right afterwards would have been a good idea is certainly a take.

[Jessicka]

Let's not forget that the amount of 100 lobbed around evenly would make for 1 boom for under half the countries on earth. There's 200 and some countries, so not even one for each. But let's for the sake of argument say that half the countries just got single city blown up. The loss of lives while tragic, how would you convince the surviving 99% of said countries to just give up and die too? Or, ok, if you blew up my city, that'd "only" leave 98% of the country alive and kicking.

Honestly, I think you might be overestimating the power of nukes, like them having hundreds of miles of flaming inferno from impact or something.

The whole point and problem is that they wouldn’t be nice and evenly spaced. They’d hit where people and important things are, which also happen to be where ecologically and environmentally important things to us are.

[Iphie]

The whole point and problem is that they wouldn’t be nice and evenly spaced. They’d hit where people and important things are, which also happen to be where ecologically and environmentally important things to us are.

Depends, there's a reason why command centers and nuke facilities in the US aren't near population centers but rather in the Rockies and flyover states. (mind you I don't think it's a great idea to blow up a lot of nukes near Yellowstone.