Author

Topic: First nukes since WW2 / How many kilotons & where? (Read 88 times)

newbie
Activity: 115
Merit: 0
September 11, 2024, 11:57:42 AM
#9
More than half of Russia's nuclear weapons are definitely not combat-ready, they have been standing and rotting for decades. Even what is shown on TV is just a show-off, missiles are launched in ideal conditions, not in combat. In fact, it's going to get worse.

It is very significant that Russia recently arrested top generals for corruption.

In China and Russia now any top person can be arrested for corruption.

By contrast in the UK and U.S. top people know that there is no chance of being arrested because it is they who control the investigators. Look at the Fat Leonard scandal which is the only recent case of even mid level corruption being pursued.

Your point also ignores the underlying Russian history. Russians still alive do know war and will paint themselves dirty if necessary to win. The U.S. only knows war from the experience of being heavily armed with expensive weapons shooting at primitive armies without technology. Russian weakness is usually their version of a bluff.
newbie
Activity: 115
Merit: 0
but now is the first time that all sides profit from a nuclear escalation.
There is no profit in a nuclear war!

Quote
My guess = a Polish site holding weapons waiting to be transferred.
There is no reason whatsoever to use nuke on a target that can be easily destroyed using conventional and cheaper weapons. For example a handful of Shahed-136 loitering munitions is more than enough to destroy a weapons storage 2000-3000 km away.

If the two sides go nuclear, they use it on each other's decision making centers (among other things). Meaning Russia would hit Washington DC with its nukes not a weapons storage facility in Poland!

1) Tremendous profit in all war. The trick is to make the profit sustainable.

2) You are ignoring the choreographed aspect of modern war. There are powerful transnational groups which have enough influence over all sides that war is no longer random. There are many reasons nukes are likely to be used imminently, not least because they might slow the use of much more dangerous weapons like bio weapons and ethnic genetic weapons which can be used to eliminate entire ethnicities. Nukes are a cheap way to hypnotize people into ignoring more deadly things.

100 years ago a country might have attacked an enemy nerve center but today there is an etiquette dictated by forementioned choreography i.e., by transnationalists.
newbie
Activity: 115
Merit: 0
I see the conflict in Ukraine de-escalating, so a nuclear attack is getting unlikely. Russia also has a no first strike policy in nuclear.
In the case of Russia is still collectively threatened, the first targets would be within Ukraine or probably Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. [1]Even though Poland might sound the fiercer opposer of Russia, they (hopefully) know their limits.
I see more chances of Pakistan, Israel or France using nukes first.
[2]Pakistan is a failing state and if it falls for the Islamic extremist, a nuclear strike could happen against India, Israel or western targets. A strike on India or Israel would initiate a nuclear war. Israel and France too are on demise and failing nations and government can take extreme measures to save themselves.

[1] Poland would be a target because they are fronting for the UK. Russia has a federation mindset while the UK is still overtly colonial. An attack on Poland would feed the less capable Western strategists while increasing support from the global south for Russia.

[2] Pakistan is one of the less globalist countries even if many of their top military are overtly employed by the U.S. An important thing about nukes is that those who respect tribal identities will be slower to fire. The U.S. nuked Japan then tried to terrify other Asian type peoples by nuking the Bikini / Marshall islands and through terror campaigns like Project Chariot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chariot

Pakistan got the bomb through a scientist who offered a simple recipe for an 'islamic bomb' as a more or less defensive thing. Pakistan would hesitate even in the most extreme situation to use nukes.
newbie
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
I get up in the morning every day with the thought - if only there was no nuclear war, it's very scary in the movies. Grin
newbie
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
No one will use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are just psychology.
jr. member
Activity: 49
Merit: 1
More than half of Russia's nuclear weapons are definitely not combat-ready, they have been standing and rotting for decades. Even what is shown on TV is just a show-off, missiles are launched in ideal conditions, not in combat. In fact, it's going to get worse.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
but now is the first time that all sides profit from a nuclear escalation.
There is no profit in a nuclear war!

Quote
My guess = a Polish site holding weapons waiting to be transferred.
There is no reason whatsoever to use nuke on a target that can be easily destroyed using conventional and cheaper weapons. For example a handful of Shahed-136 loitering munitions is more than enough to destroy a weapons storage 2000-3000 km away.

If the two sides go nuclear, they use it on each other's decision making centers (among other things). Meaning Russia would hit Washington DC with its nukes not a weapons storage facility in Poland!
full member
Activity: 953
Merit: 105
I see the conflict in Ukraine de-escalating, so a nuclear attack is getting unlikely. Russia also has a no first strike policy in nuclear.
In the case of Russia is still collectively threatened, the first targets would be within Ukraine or probably Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. Even though Poland might sound the fiercer opposer of Russia, they (hopefully) know their limits.
I see more chances of Pakistan, Israel or France using nukes first.
Pakistan is a failing state and if it falls for the Islamic extremist, a nuclear strike could happen against India, Israel or western targets. A strike on India or Israel would initiate a nuclear war. Israel and France too are on demise and failing nations and government can take extreme measures to save themselves.
newbie
Activity: 115
Merit: 0
There have been a few times since ww2 that nukes were threatened, but now is the first time that all sides profit from a nuclear escalation.

Western economies are showing red flags, slowing in a way that is most easily solved by a war.

The West is also eager to centralize their economies to become more competitive towards China. Easier during war.

Russia knows that the West needs it to lead with nukes, and they know that the longer they wait the more they will pay.

1) Putin said in a recent interview that Russia's tactical nukes are 70 kilotons, equal to 140 million pounds of tnt. But if he leads with a much smaller nuke there will be a lot more room to escalate.

How many kt will the first Russian nuke be?


My guess = less than 5kt

2) The conflict in Europe now has been choreographed to mirror ww2 in some ways, except there is some mystery over which side is playing the villain. An attack on Poland would be the closest to a ww2 escalation, and it would let European leaders pretend that the villain has shifted East.

Where will the first strike be?

My guess = a Polish site holding weapons waiting to be transferred.
Jump to: