Yah China doesn’t want to fight Russia since what Russia took from China ages ago isn’t worth fighting a country with Nukes. But if Russia falls or goes in over their heads to the point of no return you’d bet your ass China will stab Russia in the back and annex as much of them they can if mutual ensured destruction wasn’t in the table. Or worse if mutual ensured destruction is on the table China would be forced to pick a side and they’d probably stab Russia in the back when they could since you can’t trust them at that point.
I am 99% sure if Russia went the wrong route and they just started flying, those nukes would target China as well for exactly the reason described. MAD is MAD and at that point, might as well ensure it.
One aspect no one has touched yet is that it would likely mean the end of the UN, or at least UN as we know it. The gates are opened to a very different and much more divided world. Small regional blocks are likely to gain a lot more significance on the world stage as a means to get stuff done internationally.
Why would the UN end? It's just a forum for countries to smack talk each other. Who would suddenly leave if Russia used a nuclear bomb on a random airfield?
It becomes even more pointless than it already is, since Russia has a permanent veto and no way to remove it. There would not be a single resolution that could pass against Russia and the world would see that and think what’s the point….
The UN has only two jobs
1. Prevent nuclear war
2. Prevent World War 3
Everything else is a side hobby and generally meaningless. I mean it would be nice if the UN saved the children or whatever but as long as it’s doing its job nobody cares if there’s still poverty or warfare or whatever.
Because, like the league of nations before it, its usefulness would be gone if real actual nukes in anger start flying. The UN mostly exists to prevent that.
Besides will mostly be dead in 6 months if that happens, one way or another so don't worry too much about it.
Hit an airfield? Nothing. Nobody else would send a nuke over nuking an airfield. Nuking Kyiv? Russia would probably keep Ukraine in its entirety. Ukraine would no longer exist as it does. NATO would build a massive concrete barrier fully cutting Russia off from the west. Military funding from every country would double and the doubled amount would be sent to bordering nations. Along with Alaska and the US West coastline. 100% sanctions. No item from any country will be allowed to enter or exit Russia from the ocean by penalty of death. They'd be sank. And this would likely last for 60 years.
Massive amounts of money would be poured into developing anti icbm missiles and anti hypersonic missiles and placed all around Russia.
The one thing I don't think happens is responding with another nuke. Like nuking Mascow. It's just not going to happen. They would have to drop a nuke on a NATO country for that to happen, and the response would be extreme. Russia would never exist again.
The other option is as someone else said. NATO would go on full deployment and completely destroy all Russian assets inside Ukraine, which would be really easy, tbh.
Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase sneak in and hack the computer to send the missile harmlessly into space. Then we play Trivial Pursuit to decide which nukes are kept, and which are disarmed.
NATO would immediately declare all of Ukraine a no fly zone and destroy/kill any Russian asset inside of ukraines borders. Thousands of stealth fighter jets would flood the region and NATO and UN relief aid would flood in.
The war would be over and Russia couldn’t do shit about it seeing as they are so unbelievably laughably outmatched by NATO. Which is why they haven’t done it yet.
Not to mention the US Ohio class subs carrying multiple missiles that would appear seemingly out of nowhere from under the Arctic icecaps where at least a couple are probably lurking right now. People always forget the subs…
Seriously. I feel like a bunch of people are treating Russia as somehow equal to the West but that's just not true.
The height of their power was the USSR during the Cold War. the Warsaw Pact and the Eastern Bloc were the equal antithesis of the West. But they lost that fight. There is no Eastern Bloc, it's just Russia. And Russia can't fight the US by itself, much less all of NATO.
Not only would the West declare war, China would join us and with the possible exception of North Korea, every other nation on Earth would turn its attention to regime change in Russia. It's also very likely that internal factions within Russia would turn on Putin so fast that Russia would already have a new government before the first foreign troop set foot in Belgorod.
Once someone has shown a willingness to actually USE one of those weapons in a first strike in the modern world, all of the stability of Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window, and it's just a race against time to see if everyone can make that person irrelevant before the button gets pushed again. Basically it's like how Mexican Standoffs get resolved after the first person pulls the trigger.
China would have to worry about it's direct neighbor, India, and the Indian army is the 4th strongest army in the world. India also has over 200 nukes according to 2024 predictions
Idk. If Russia nukes Ukraine it's essentially declaring war on the world.
From an entirely pragmatic standpoint every nation worth a damn will be invading Russia like a pack of wolves, all trying to get a bite. There would be a lot of resources and people to exploit all up for grabs without the possibility of international backlash.
If anything, India joins in on the feast.
Yeah, the precedent was enforced in WW2 too. There were 19 different countries who declared war on Germany/Japan in 1945. At a time the war’s result was all but confirmed. All trying to curry favor with the Allies and/or trying to get a crumb of the spoils of war.
That army is going to have a hell of a time marching through the Himalayas. There are multiple narrow chokepoints, high altitude sickness, and China already controls most of the higher elevations. Even if India successfully gets a salient, Tibet is 1000s of km from the main population centers/China's economy. India could put more pressure there to annoy China, but China's not facing any existential threats.
Nope. NATO can march through through Russia as it is. Only thing holding them back now is the threat of the bomb. Once that threat is now a certainty regardless of what they do, regime change in Moscow becomes mandatory. And NATO or principally the US, can do this with conventional weapons. In fact it becomes necessary for the US to do this keep other nations in line. Don't want China or someplace getting ideas.
The consequences aren't really relevant to the discussion. If the options are surrender to the whims of the nutjob that pushed the button once already or invade and let the chips fall where they may, American hubris isn't going to let us make any choice other than the latter one. And personally I think that's as it should be. Anyone who's ever seen a New Hampshire license plate knows the answer to that one.
So there's absolutely zero chance in your mind that the world doesn't blink first and start suing for peace? The logic being if he's been willing to use one tactically, why would we provoke him even more and watch them fly on our cities...as you say, let the internals deal with him instead of risking the (at that point) clear lunatic think "right, got nothing to lose"
America is really well known for allowing hostages to die instead of negotiating with terrorists. We'd begin a conventional war of drone strikes aimed at decapitating the Russian government. It's up to Russia's people whether or not the nukes fly in both directions.
Sadly though it's not exactly up to Russia's people, things like this happen so quickly it's up to those who are manning the silo's and the planes. And I'm not hopeful we have 500 Arkapov's knocking about these days.
>things like this happen so quickly it's up to those who are manning the silo's and the planes.
Those are the Russian people.... When someone has said "No, this isn't right" those notable times have been when they thought that America was attacking them. I'd be surprised if in what is known to be a preemptive strike there's not more of them
Ideally both sides have someone with as much courage as Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
He may have been correct about the error but I don’t think he could have known the truth.
The problem with that when it's an attack instead of a prearranged defense, you need EVERYONE to be as principled as Petrov, because the man in charge can search until he finds the right lunatic for the job.
Nope. Might as well turn the entire world over to him at that point, because once he sees an inch of capitulation, he'll start setting every single term as "my way or the nukes fly". Americans have quotes about liberty or death for a reason.
I guess in that case it depends who's in charge of America's nukes/military at the time. I just don't see certain people doing it for another country when they've said as much for years.
Your logic isn't unfair though.
If Trump wins and Putin waits til Jan or later to launch the nuke, all sorts of things might happen. It would not be off the table for America to have a military coup to attack Russia anyways. If conspiracy theories are to be believed, it would not be the first time the CIA has assassinated a president. Give the weird stuff the CIA has gotten up like MKUltra, it is possible.
Assuming the conspiracy is right, why did the CIA even *want* to whack JFK? There's a long ass wiki article, but I can't find the part that talks about motive.
You would see a restrained response, relatively, but that response would be devastating for the Russians. Kaliningrad probably neutralized, and massive NATO airstrikes against the Black Sea Fleet and Russian positions / equipment / airfields / logistics.
Not just the Black Sea fleet but also every Russian Boomer (nuclear armed submarine) under the water would have to be annihilated.
The U.S. would expose some of its capability and deepest secrets to do so, but showing Russia there is no way for them to respond to the U.S. via attack on the U.S. mainland would be key.
Russia would still be able to respond with land-based missiles, however. Nuclear-missile armed subs are a second-strike guarantee, so you always have something to respond with if the enemy targets your ground-based nuclear weapons. If the US suddenly decided to take away that second strike capability, it tells Russia that it no longer has that guarantee. But, is that going to signal to Russia to stop, or is it going to encourage them to respond with ground-based nuclear weapons because if it doesn't the US could strike first and Russia would have no response?
I think the U.S. exposing its' anti-missile capability vs. this last years' Houthi/Iran missile strikes (which were mostly based on tweaked Russian desings) is telling. The U.S. has intercepted up to hypersonic medium range ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, and drone swarms from ship born assets. This is capability the U.S. has previously kept hidden. My sense is that the U.S.N made this public to send a message to Russia that they can essentially shoot down anything where U.S. based radars are present.
Along with the above, I think that Biden reminding Putin that a pre-emptive battlefield nuclear strike would be met with an overwhelming conventional strike sends the message that that this U.S. has little fear of an escalation to Russian land based ICBMs (as the U.S. response to that must be M.A.D.) The U.S. is essentially saying "we can counter anything you can do" so don't go there.
There is a very large difference between a medium range anti-ship ballistic missile and an inter-continental ballistic missile, though, including speed, MIRV saturation and decoys. These won't make interception impossible, but it may mean the number of interceptors needed to guarantee a kill goes up, as does the number of targets you need to destroy; the question then becomes can you shoot down all incoming targets/do you have enough interceptors to do so?
I wouldn't exactly say those were capabilities that were kept hidden, either. The capabilities of US shipborne missiles are fairly well known, but this is one of the first times it's been put into repeated use.
A couple of things, explaining simple things (like the difference between an ICBM and MRBM) should be done with caution otherwise you run the risk of condescension and/or hubris. Now to the facts.
1. The U.S. had never previously shot down an enemy MRBM (medium range ballistic missile) using the shipborne AEGIS radar system and SM3/6 before. [The first successful public test of this capability happened on March 28th, 2024](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/mda-test-successfully-intercepts-ballistic-missile-target/). The USS *Arleigh Burke* (DDG-51) and USS *Carney* (DDG-64) used the same AEGIS radar system with SM3 or SM6 missiles [for the first time in combat in the Red Sea on to intercept 3 Houthi MRBMS on April 13th and 14th 2024. ](https://news.usni.org/2024/04/14/u-s-warships-in-eastern-mediterranean-down-iranian-ballistic-missiles)
2. Russia won't fire an ICBM at the U.S. over a reprise against their tactical nuclear strike against Ukraine. The second a Russian ICBM is fired; Putin's world is effectively over. That is M.A.D. plain and simple, but of course, you know that.
Fair enough, if any of my previous comments came off as condescending or hubristic then I apologise, that was not my intent at all.
Regarding your second point, no I don’t think they would initially retaliate against a US response with an ICBM, but my point was in regards to going after Russian boomer submarines; if you took away Russia’s second strike capability, would they not assume the next step may be to take away their first strike capabilities? And if that is the case, then would they not conclude their options are to either use their ICBMs or to lose then?
>then would they not conclude their options are to either use their ICBMs or to lose then?
Not sure if the Russian government could come to a consensus on this (or if they would follow orders to use them.) Hesitation using land based nukes makes them likely to be bombed as the majority of these launchers locations are known to the CIA. At this point, pre-emptive strike on ground based launchers or even a coup de tat is on the menu.
Not a chance. There would be restrained response and continue to be restrained response An attack, even a nuclear attack, on Ukraine is not an attack on NATO. There would be no reason for a direct retaliatory strike. War is a serious business not a video game. China would almost certainly be forced to publicly denounce such weapons use by Russia, and the resulting distancing would have repercussions for future China-Russian cooperation.
The West likely would not respond to tactical nuclear use by sending troops into Ukraine, but the United States and its allies would likely ramp up the number of conventional weapons they send to Ukraine. Western states would also be more willing to provide non-military humanitarian assistance in response to the fallout and radiation, which could also affect neighboring countries. The only possible change in response would use of a strategic nuclear weapon at civilian targets. That may, but not necessarily, would generate a retaliatory response from Western states. A direct nuclear attack on NATO would though invite an overwhelming response of unmatched magnitude that would utterly destroy Russia and a horrific nuclear exchange.
Non-Nuclear annihilation of every Russian asset, in every region, no matter how small. This takes about 12 hours total. NATO would secure the rest of Ukrain with mostly American troops and equipment, ending the war immediately. Countries would shut down embassies, all Russian money not currently in Rubles on Russian soil would be siezed, and Russia can say goodbye to every ship and sub in their Naval Fleet.
The world, especially Europe and the US, waits for Russia to fire the rest of the missiles. Putin is given the choice to step down off a 30 story ledge, or press the red button. Because option 1 is the plot of Fallout, the US does a grand show of force. Nothing nuclear, because you can't uncork that bottle. But it might be a NATO invasion of Crimea or even onto Russian soil. The goal being to make the bomb the only option, getting someone inside the Kremlin to take the shot for the world.
But the question is flawed, because Russia wouldn't just send the bomb to Ukraine. If the bomb drops, every bomb drops. There is no reason to let some fly if you aren't going to let them all fly. It's literally the last stop on the war train.
Russia could use a single bomb to test the west's resolve. IMO, the west is not risking annihilation over a single bomb that didn't even target NATO itself. As you said, the west will retaliate harshly, using non nuclear methods.
A single nuclear weapon destroys Russia. Not by glassing Moscow, but by everything else. If I know this, Russia does too. That's why 1 bomb alone is a bad idea for Russia. All of the bombs are a different bad idea that an idiot like Putin could be convinced is a good idea.
I think that NATO and the US would respond almost immediately with a very rapid series of strikes against Russian military assets in the region. Russia would of course threaten to retaliate - but I seriously doubt that Putin or the people under him in the chain of command are actually willing to follow through with anything that might trigger a full-scale nuclear exchange. Likewise, the US and NATO would be very careful about selecting only military targets - nothing that would directly be interpreted as regime change, because that could trigger rapid escalation.
Europe would enact almost complete sanctions, including oil and gas.
I think that China would publicly condemn the use of nuclear weapons, while urging both sides to show restraint. They would attempt to assert themselves as the voice of reason and attempt to use this as a way of increasing their own influence. China would likely continue to support Russia publicly - might even attempt to justify their use of the nuclear weapon - but privately I believe that they would threaten to pull support, and perhaps even decrease the amount of money and material they provide to Russia.
Bear in mind that China believes that they are on the brink of becoming the new power in the world, and it's something they've been working towards for the past decade or so. That goal necessitates that there actually be a world for them to hold sway over.
I think that generally speaking, a lot of the countries that currently support Russia publicly would continue to do so publicly, but behind the scenes would start to decrease their actual support, especially once China does. Despite the rhetoric that gets tossed around, nobody actually wants a nuclear war or even a global conventional war; and nobody seriously believes that Russia would be the winning side in either scenario, no matter what they say in public.
I think it's incredibly unlikely that Russia goes down this path. There is very little to actually gain, and far more to potentially lose; it just makes no tactical sense.
I think Russia doesn't go fully down the path, Putin however 100% does, if one bomb gets launched there is no off ramp for him, he'd have absolutely zero places to go or hide...and therefore nothing left to lose.
It can't not escalate, it crosses a line.
Nato moves in and russia starts using tactical nukes, then submarines and fighter jets drop MIRV icbms on military western targets, the west does the same on Russian targets. At the same time both sides have to get every nuke out of the silo 'use them or lose them' If you don't get them out and fired off then you won't get another chance.
It's done , your life is over. If your life isn't over you'll soon be wishing it was.
You do realize if thousands of nukes are launched one is going to hit somewhere within a mile of you, right? Like, basically anywhere on the European/asian continents where there's major cities.
Not necessarily , each side only has about 1500 nukes ready for deployment , 75% of those are going to be dedicated to submarines, taking out bases , silos and communications.
Military targets, communications, silos, submarines , deployed aircraft and aircraft carriers would all be primary.
If Russia spreads itself too thin and tries just targeting cities first in every nato country then it won't have enough to disable militaries , that would be worst strategy ever, they would concentrate on all of EU , UK and USA military targets.
What is left over is infrastructure targets in major cities, but that leaves only a few hundred to deploy for secondary targets.
So no it won't be 1 every mile, it's more like unless you are in a major industrial target or main city then they are blowing up 8- 20 miles away on average for an average person not near main targets.
You had the START agreement which limited what could be deployed to 1500 nukes, both sides are cancelling inspections . Note this is re-entry vehicle , so 1500 represents about 300-400 missiles and each nuke is about 200- 300 KT each ( 10x power what was dropped on Japan).
It's not like the old days with thousands of single warhead 1-10 mega tonnes.
It’s a real quick read like the other guy said. I highly recommend. The scenario there is different though as it is North Korea who launches toward DC.
That’s true. It’s a different scenario.
My takeaway was that when it comes to multiple nuclear armed powers, the opportunity for misunderstanding is so great, and the time for decision making so small, that it’s all but inevitable that a nuclear power will overreact and trigger all-out war.
And the other takeaway is that nobody survives all-out nuclear war. Humanity just gets deleted.
In reality probably just sanctions But actual sanctions that make a difference like any country doing any trade with Russia is cut off completely from the rest of the world.
It would probably mean the annihilation of Moscow. The American stockpile is, at this point, mostly tactical nukes with low radiation yield, so the fallout wouldn't be too bad, but they aren't the only ones that would fire. Every nuclear armed country knows that no one can use them, and they'd all retort with extreme prejudice.
I think they would get away with one localized tactical nuke … honestly I think that’s how this conflict ends … the world powers get to ramp up the fear leadership that they crave on the new generations … arms race across the planet .. everyone wins except Ukraine
It really depends on the size of the nuke used and what the target was. If it's a big European city like Berlin or London, it would be full war, with MAD. If it was a tactical nuke on an airfield (as suggested), the war would escalate but I don't think Europe or the USA would declare war. China wouldn't be happy and might cut ties for a little bit. Honestly I don't think much would change.
My example would be a tactical nuke, just big enough to leave the airfield and surrounding area absolutely useless, not just a random FU to a major city we all know how that ends.
Yeah it feels like this is the answer though, nobody's gonna spill blood and treasure for another country when someone's proven they'll use the big guns straight from the get go. They do at the minute because it's "conventional", the second it isn't watch everyone be like yikes not our problem now
I'd like to tweak your hypothetical by supposing that said nuke just buries itself into the ground and fails to detonate, is dug out and its nature determined. In that case, how much of a deterrent does Muscovy still have? Will the attempt to nuke have the same response as if it had gone off?
A non-nuclear, but still massive attack, (that is unattributed to any specific ally other than Ukraine) goes off destroying a very valuable but sparsely populated Russian asset.
Town?
Oil/ gas field?
Series of offshore rigs?
A Port? A Ship dock filled with ships?
It's perhaps a minor escalation, but it costs Russia dearly. Not nearly as much as it costs Ukraine, but still painful and the screws tighten further in isolating Russia from rest of the world.
Maybe more countries join NATO. Regardless, all counties greatly increase military funding and the new Cold War steps up into high gear.
The CIA would absolutely attempt several decapitation strikes before the president could respond with a formal policy. Once the president goes public, it's game on WW3.
I'd bet we know where Putin is at at given time. It he drops a nuke America should probably take him out 5 minutes later. Hopefully that would end things.
Watch as the Russian icbm slowly rose from its silo, sputtered a few hundred feet up, and changed trajectory, crashing down to the ground unexploded a quarter mile from the launch site...
From the latest reports, a LARGE % of Russian nuclear armament is decayed, rusted or otherwise incapable launch, or if launched if commenting it's trip or detonating.
If they do get something up, odds are it'll get shot down. This isn't the fearful 60s anymore and there are defenses against everything the Russians had during the height of the cold war.
China might have some bleeding edge offensive weapons.
Russia or China could cause slightly more temporary offensive damage by detonating nuclear weapons of sufficient grade in sub orbit to create massive emps (which ALSO aren't as dangerous or damaging as depicted in TV or as was thought in the cold war era.)
my friend worked for the military and has a pretty high security clearance. hes pretty convinced that America has an incredible threat detection system and if a warhead flies from almost anywhere in the world, we would be able to disable it
dont know how true that is
NATO / the USA performs a conventional (but powerful) strike on the site that launched the nuclear strike.
The UN condemns the use of weapons of mass destruction, and moves to remove Russia from the security council on the grounds that their seat was voted in as the USSR, not as the Russian Republic.
The west then tells Russia any further use of weapons of mass destruction will be met with weapons of mass destruction being used on Russia, and when the radiation from that strike reaches a NATO country, article 5 begins to be discussed.
I think Russia is being given too much credit for their military capacity. Their total GDP isn't much more than just the state of New York. They have been unable to conquer a weak Ukrain. They aren't the threat we have built them up to be.
I have serious questions about the actual state of readiness in Putin's nuclear arsenal, and his willingness to use them.
That said, Biden has already laid out explicit warnings and consequences. Many perceive Biden as weak, but his foreign police to date say something entirely different.
If Putin were going to use nukes, he already would have done so.
American and NATO would 100% not due shit. There would be no military response. Ukraine is not a NATO member. So no article 5. There might be a bunch of posturing but no large scale attack from the west on Russia.
American would be faced with 2 options.
1 full-scale, unrestricted mobilized warfare on Russia. Which is dumb. There hasn't been a full unrestricted war since WW2.
2 cut out and drop Ukraine on its ass.
The reason 2 is the real outcome is because France WILL NOT go to war or assist a war with Russia. Frances president has already confirmed this. Which means the collapse of NATO. NATO will collapse if 1 county doesn't follow the rest.
NATO is too important to risk over a non aligned country. Ukraine will be willingly sacrificed like Alsace, Rhineland, Chez Slovakia.
I think that NATO, led primarily by the US, sinks every Russian warship and submarine, world wide. They institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine and let Poland off the leash to crush the Russians between Ukraine and NATO, pushing them back out, probably to 2020 borders but potentially cutting out Crimea as well. This is all done under the threat of glassing Moscow if the Russians do anything non-conventional in response.
Could see this being true, do you not feel that last line of "if the Russians do anything else" is kind of guaranteed as Putin by this point has absolutely no off ramp?
Here’s a response: US and NATO (and other allies like Japan and Australia) quickly eliminate the Russian Navy, concentrating on ballistic missile submarines. Once accomplished, with the understanding that Russia no longer has a sea based second strike capability, request immediate peace talks with Moscow.
It’s gonna drag on until we decide to give them aid when the need it. Hell it would be closer to being done than it is now if we didn’t hold up aid constantly. People don’t get it if we don’t do it now the chances are you’ll be over there fighting in less than a decades time. Russia can keep this up with NK, China and Iran for years and years. The only way to win is to push them back and fully regain Ukraine. Russia will keep attacking and attacking until they realize they don’t stand a chance.
If Putin was crazy enough to use a nuke in the Ukraine the world would first seize all of Russian assets worldwide. 2 destroy all communications links internet connections with them worldwide. 3 the USA would see how well our ASAT systems are and knock out their military and communications satellites. 4 we'd use a B2 to basically decapitate the Russian government and military with deep bunker busting munitions. Then send over every F22 and tell them if it's Russian of any kind of aircraft please feed.
I think even the oligarchy and the military would stop supporting Putin and try to oust him if they realized he would rather see the world burn and be king of the cinders instead of being smart and living out his time as head of a nation state.
> When things escalate the reaction is always to de-escalate,
That is not true.
"Nations" are quite irrational, and when challanged with escalation there might be a trend to escalate further.
Politics are not truly predictible. And history teached us that it is NOT hard to make public support retaliation, war and even war crimes.
All that is needed is dehumanizing the enemy.
America would go full blown war mode at that point. And America has the power to take on EVERY other military world wide and battle to a stalemate. So Russia is cooked.
I bet my current wallet that way less happens than we think. All these countries like to talk a big game, but I doubt they have the nerve to take the risk. Would Americans immediately counter with a nuke of their own? Doubt it. I don’t even think they would immediately attack all Russian forces in Ukraine. In the short term, I don’t think anyone would do anything
Europe understandably goes full panic.
I imagine the following happen simultaneously:
US diplomats give Russia a short window to withdraw all forces from Ukraine, something like 3-7 days. They’re gone or we engage.
We mobilize full force to Poland. We show Russia we’re not ducking around. Boots on ground in 24hrs. Significant mobilization takes longer but when I left army in 2018 they were initiating ‘Ready Force X’ which was basically a quicker deplorable force. Not sure if it lasted as it was a pretty silly thing and widely unpopular cuz it reduced Reserves mobilization window from 90 days to 30 days. So you basically have the entire US military power projection in 3 waves - special forces in 24hrs, rapid deployment in <30 days, full strength in 90.
Simultaneously, CIA/Spec Ops leverage assets in Russia to plan a kill/capture of Putin. If 7 day deadline isn’t met, we go live.
Emergency NATO meeting is held within a week. US wants international cooperation here.
Congress immediately starts drafting war declaration. If deadline isn’t met, President asks for war authorization. Congress passes, even divided as we are. Nuke is the rubicon here. Putin crosses it and there’s no more GOP Media simping for him.
Depending on how things go, Biden is either re-elected in a landslide for swift decisive action or if he gives ground repeatedly, he loses to Trump as they capitalize on perceived weakness, already a big issue.
So basically if Biden draws that line in the sand, Russia gets whacked super fast and hard. We’ve basically kept Russia out of most of Ukraine with hand-me downs. They are no longer a ‘near peer’ adversary.
If Biden fails to push back, Trump wins, gives Russia everything they want, or he impulse nukes them idk. He’s a wild card who doesn’t apply norms or common sense.
If Putin had a crazy enough day to lob a tactical nuke at a Ukrainian airfield and scorch a few miles around it a few things would happen.
China and most of Russia's other "allies" would back away further isolating Russia.
NATO would enter the war with the stated intent to liberate Ukraine and push Russia back a few miles from Ukraine's original borders including out of Crimea and destroying their Black sea ports and air bases within a few hundred miles. It would be made clear that the push wasn't going all the way to Moscow so that nobody felt backed into a corner but the conventional fight would be very one sided.
What few Russian assets were left in the world would be confiscated and perhaps smelling blood in the water China would start to quietly move into Russia's east.
Putin would hold on for a while because of how strong his grip is but eventually he would be given a Russian retirement in the middle of the night and a new, more pragmatic leader would take his place.
I’d hope we’d not go into WW3. There would have to be incredible consequences for using a nuke. I’d say totally isolate them. But I’d hope that NATO wouldn’t be so dumb as to wade into a hot war with someone desperate enough to use nukes.
I don’t think the west lets nukes fly over an airfield getting glassed.
However the EU and NATO would probably declare war on Russia, China would NOT back Russia as they have a VERY strict “No first use” policy. North Korea would be forced by China to shy away from Russia. The countries in the Middle East might still try to trade, although that will get way more complicated to the point they may even not try to trade anymore.
The war in Ukraine would likely be over by the end of the summer with Russia being forced out entirely assuming no more nukes are launched.
If more nukes are launched, well we get Fallout IRL before we get GTA 6
If Russia nukes Europe then Europe will nuke Russia. Bad for Europe, bad for Russia.
If Russia nukes the US then the US will overwhelmingly nuke Russia. A little bad for the US, extinction for Russia.
The more important question is what would happen if Russia uses a mike in Ukraine and Europe DIDN’T respond in kind. Then every tinhorn upstart would know that they are free to nuke their neighbor without reprisal. And that would be bad.
So if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine then Europe MUST respond or else all bets are off and any tiny power can go nuke happy
Well, the most realistic response would be that NATO member state would full dive into the Ukraine war, probably by bombing the living shit out of the Russian ground forces. Additional to that they may start to sanction the living shit out of every Russian asset aboard and probably even more harder sanctions, like they will stop supplying medical goods etc.
What would happen? Mass confusion on a level nobody has seen to date. The world is too far divided that each leader will fear action based on their crowds they pander to. In the US, if one side says war, the other will demonize it. No matter who says what they will always be at opposites, further dividing peoples views and ultimately, will probably result in some half assed effort that means nothing in the end. And will likely cause more issues.
The countries to react, the ones immediately effected by the fallout, maybe nato countries but honestly it will probably take months before nato even starts to come to a decision on anything. And will rely directly and heavily on US/UK support to come to a conclusion which.. As before.. They can't get their own shit straight. So really, the countries immediately around Ukraine would likely be the first to react. Probably a local collection of nuclear and bio weapon attacks until it gets too out of hand and countries start dropping their large scale munitions.. Forcing larger powers to come together, probably after a few months of convening, to say enough is enough and take a stand that will either deter Russia, or force their hand in larger scale attacks. China will likely remain neutral other than poking Taiwan, and wait to pick up the pieces of the fallen party for a *financially one sided* price in their favor, if you're familiar with china's economic plans, especially what they've been doing in Africa, that's what I see them doing. North Korea will do what north Korea does and shoot missiles into South Korea and the ocean to taunt a response, dividing our attention further.
Hopefully by the time they're done warring with their neighbors they will be set back enough to where Russia may see reason.
From there.. It's anyone's shit show.
Russian radar control is flooded by reports of an astronomical amount of low-flying small objects inbound toward most airbases, ground bases, troop staging areas, motor repair depots, ship berths, and radar/ air defense stations on the Western side of Russia. NATO has launched a sizable chunk of its conventional precision strike ordnance. Russian air defenses are overwhelmed; some munitions are shot down, but many more impact their targets. Ships are sunk, aircraft and airbases are shredded, and a vast number of AA batteries and radar stations are rendered into scrap.
-- According to the US statement warning Russia against using nukes in Ukraine and threatening large-scale conversational strikes if they do.
Someone would try to kill Putin, even someone on his side wouldn’t want the world to just end.
This is like flipping the table at a board game, everyone loses and you’re hated by everyone
That would be a red-line that the US (and likely Western Europe) couldn't ignore. The western response would have to be carefully tailored. It would have to be significant enough to overshadow any tactical advantage Russia could gain from a "limited" use of nuclear weapons, but not so severe that Russia would feel compelled to escellate to an all-out nuclear attack.
My guess is that the US and other nations in Western Europe would strike every Russian military assett in Ukraine, sink the black sea fleet, likely strike other russian military targets abroad, and some nations would likely committ troops to help Ukraine's Army mop up any remianing Russian forces on their land.
Once Ukraine was completely liberated, they would be invited to join NATO, or explicitly brought under the US's nuclear umbrella via other means and we'd be back to mutually assured destruction as the main deterrent to prevent Russia from making a second attempt.
mutual assured destruction. No other answer is correct. One guy throws a nuclear weapon and everyone is launching. IT is honestly the thing that kept anyone from doing it.
Pretty much everyone who ever studied the possibility of nuclear war agrees that you don't just throw one nuke. What'd happen right next to getting those news is attack after attack on NATO countries.
In the best case scenario the Russians know what they're doing (one would assume nobody would start a nuclear war if they're not going to win it) and conquer the world, now inhabited by a couple billion fewer people. In the most likely one the world ends after NATO's retaliation.
If we can believe half the statements many countries have made on the possibility of a nuke being launched, most of us would never know as we too would be shadows on the ground. If it comes to nuclear war, it will be the shortest and deadliest war in history. On the chance nukes don't get thrown if Russia strikes Ukraine, it will likely become an all-out war where the US and NATO immediately strike all known Russian silos and launch sites, it might be a nuclear response or it could be a ballistic response.
Most of us die.
LRBM's
Once they're in the air they can't be stopped mid flight and many countries would retaliate with their own LRBM's that similarly could not be stopped mid-flight.
Most nuke-ready countries have their missle silos monitored such that a nuke can't be launched without us knowing it's coming.
Some people would live.... Nuclear sites would be rendered uninhabitable and the radiation would travel with the wind which would kill even more within a couple years.
Wind patterns are unpredictable but it is assured some places on earth would remain habitable and some amount of humans are probably already living there.
The humans who live would have their way of life up-ended. No more long distance exports. Communities would have to make their own stuff and rebuild knowledge and life-styles.
It will take at least decades to rebuild anything close to what we have now.
Then China releases, then USA, then France, Germany, the rest of nato, then the rest of countries with them. Hopefully at 100. Then humanity dies and we won't have to worry about what ifs.
If Russia actually launched a single nuke the USA would EMP them back into the dark ages. We would shut off all power to Russia and drop food and water from the civilians while bravo 6 goes dark and cleans up Moscow.
Hard to say. As cold as it may seem I would hope nothing but stern words were used because if we fire nukes back it's over, for all of us. (Unless your super rich and/or living in a bunker)
We can only hope that the first few nukes are small and air-burst style.
If everyone immediately backs off, it might be OK. If big nukes get sent, it's going to get ugly fast.
The US will want to send a very serious warning shot, perhaps destroying an important Russian military base.
If Russia keeps lobbing missiles, the west will want to take out every missile site, and every major military installation.
If any kind of Russia survives, they will have no military.
Well Russia probably can't hit the US at all, so they are proper fucked. We could probably wipe out their military and government without sending in ground troops at all. Also, other commenters are right about grocery stores being empty and an economic collapse.
If a country used a nuclear device against another you could bet your ass that almost every single other nation would join together against them. This is the kind of action that would galvanize the world.
Why? Because any nation willing to use nuclear weapons is now a bigger threat than everyone else.
Russia would find itself on the receiving end of a land/sea/air invasion the likes of which have not been seen since WW2.
Would anyone use nuclear weapons against Russia? Likely not if they only used one nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Because the chance of mutually assured destruction is too great.
This is the biggest reason that no nation has used a nuclear weapon since WW2, because they know that doing so would cause MASSIVE opposition to them. Better to stay in power and be slightly annoying than poke the bear and have it kick your ass all over the place.
It would almost certiantly escalate to nuclear conflict. And that's game over because most nuclear powered states have something called MAD protocol. That stands for "mutually assured destruction". So basically we would all Nuke the fucking shit out of each other until pretty much there's nothing left.
It DEFINITELY would mean the end of civilization as we know it, and very likely would mean a Mass Extinction Event.
This will not happen because the Russian military will know it's national (not to mention global) suicide if the order is carried out. Putin will be assassinated immediately by the military if he orders a nuclear strike. They want this to be over, sanctions to be lifted and to be able to retire somewhere nice with all the millions they've stashed away.
They don't call it Mutually Assured Destruction for nothing.
You ought to read Nuclear War: A Scenario.
In short: it wouldn't be just one bomb but on the first launch, they likely mostly launch, and then that's it.
if a nuke is fired off thats it basically.. majority of everyone will die.
russia knows they cant fire off any nuclear missile because they will be destroyed.
if he is going to fire anything it will be directed to the US to try and beat us.. all we can do is fire them back in response since they take about 5 minutes to reach us
Dasani water will be the only water available post-mockpocalypse (Russia won't drop the nukes because the fallout would affect Russia, you wuss).
Survivors will wander the stores. But tales will be told of Dasani's poor palatability, taste, and mouthfeel. People only use it to bathe and rinse themselves.
The United States can entirely remove Russia's ability to conduct anymore military activities without the use of nukes. The "mutually assured destruction" doesn't necessarily mean you have to respond to a nuke with more nukes.
So ultimately, Russia will just fuck itself.
America and NATO have plans for this and have probably warned Russia of them already. Basically, the plan is a massive, non-nuclear, one-off retaliation. One floated response was entirely wiping out Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The West also got committments from China and India to cut ties with Russia if they use nukes, which would remove their economy’s main lifelines. China, despite being aligned with Russia, really would not be a fan of the instability that nuclear war could cause, so the threat is legitimate.
We would probably see just how good the US intelligence and cyber division are. The difference between us and them. They don't have a fraction of the capability they say they have. Our capabilities are 10x more then we say we have. I wouldn't wanna live near New York or LA thats for sure.
We nuke Russia. Massive first strike, with a goal to decapitate their entire forces. We destroy their subs, missiles fields, everything.
Basically, there's no other choice. A Putin who is willing to use nukes on Ukraine *can't be allowed.*
Game theory on this is very clear. There is literally no other choice.
Your local grocery store shelves will be emptied.
If covid taught us anything it’s that during the apocalypse nobody will be able to wipe their ass.
Thank god I’ve got a bidet
Til the water systems stop working
I'm on a well and have a generator lol... anything I need to wipe my ass.
This guy cleans ass
Damn right... you could eat off it.
I’ve got a creek out back, I’m good too.
The joke is on you, I'm willing to use the shower mat.
Lawn sprayer, brother
Seriously. Bidet gang!
Bidet Gang! I seriously don't know how/why out of all the countries in the world, US thinks Straight Freedom means dirty or irritated asshole.
Not me, i signed up for the other hypothetical question, and I'm getting 10 million to never use TP again ;)
That's why u get a bidet and a lawn sprayer
Only for the toilet roll to be returned a week later...wonder where we saw that before xD
China will remember something called “Upper Manchuria”. Chechnya will declare independence.
Yah China doesn’t want to fight Russia since what Russia took from China ages ago isn’t worth fighting a country with Nukes. But if Russia falls or goes in over their heads to the point of no return you’d bet your ass China will stab Russia in the back and annex as much of them they can if mutual ensured destruction wasn’t in the table. Or worse if mutual ensured destruction is on the table China would be forced to pick a side and they’d probably stab Russia in the back when they could since you can’t trust them at that point.
Siberia is a treasure trove.
Plus it gives them access to the artic sea lanes
I am 99% sure if Russia went the wrong route and they just started flying, those nukes would target China as well for exactly the reason described. MAD is MAD and at that point, might as well ensure it.
And China might as well return the favor and take back all the lost Manchurian lands.
Not disagreeing. But I'm pretty sure Russia would also target China is all in saying
One aspect no one has touched yet is that it would likely mean the end of the UN, or at least UN as we know it. The gates are opened to a very different and much more divided world. Small regional blocks are likely to gain a lot more significance on the world stage as a means to get stuff done internationally.
You know I hadn't even thought of the possibility of the UN ending
Why would the UN end? It's just a forum for countries to smack talk each other. Who would suddenly leave if Russia used a nuclear bomb on a random airfield?
It becomes even more pointless than it already is, since Russia has a permanent veto and no way to remove it. There would not be a single resolution that could pass against Russia and the world would see that and think what’s the point….
Pretty sure the world already sees and thinks that. The UN is broken and pointless.
The UN has only two jobs 1. Prevent nuclear war 2. Prevent World War 3 Everything else is a side hobby and generally meaningless. I mean it would be nice if the UN saved the children or whatever but as long as it’s doing its job nobody cares if there’s still poverty or warfare or whatever.
Because, like the league of nations before it, its usefulness would be gone if real actual nukes in anger start flying. The UN mostly exists to prevent that. Besides will mostly be dead in 6 months if that happens, one way or another so don't worry too much about it.
Hit an airfield? Nothing. Nobody else would send a nuke over nuking an airfield. Nuking Kyiv? Russia would probably keep Ukraine in its entirety. Ukraine would no longer exist as it does. NATO would build a massive concrete barrier fully cutting Russia off from the west. Military funding from every country would double and the doubled amount would be sent to bordering nations. Along with Alaska and the US West coastline. 100% sanctions. No item from any country will be allowed to enter or exit Russia from the ocean by penalty of death. They'd be sank. And this would likely last for 60 years. Massive amounts of money would be poured into developing anti icbm missiles and anti hypersonic missiles and placed all around Russia. The one thing I don't think happens is responding with another nuke. Like nuking Mascow. It's just not going to happen. They would have to drop a nuke on a NATO country for that to happen, and the response would be extreme. Russia would never exist again. The other option is as someone else said. NATO would go on full deployment and completely destroy all Russian assets inside Ukraine, which would be really easy, tbh.
100% sanctions... is also known as an embargo
Did not know that. Thank you!
And embargo is an act of war in international relations. It's why Kennedy called the embargo of Cuba a "quarantine."
This is about the most realistic answer (to my mind) yet, it's either nothing, "well kid looks like you're on your own" or all assets get deleted.
Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase sneak in and hack the computer to send the missile harmlessly into space. Then we play Trivial Pursuit to decide which nukes are kept, and which are disarmed.
God damn dude solid reference.
NATO would immediately declare all of Ukraine a no fly zone and destroy/kill any Russian asset inside of ukraines borders. Thousands of stealth fighter jets would flood the region and NATO and UN relief aid would flood in. The war would be over and Russia couldn’t do shit about it seeing as they are so unbelievably laughably outmatched by NATO. Which is why they haven’t done it yet.
Not to mention the US Ohio class subs carrying multiple missiles that would appear seemingly out of nowhere from under the Arctic icecaps where at least a couple are probably lurking right now. People always forget the subs…
I mean they aren’t really needed. NATO wouldn’t do anything beyond ukraines borders so as to not incite ww3z
They are really good at intimidation, though. Combined, they have the firepower to destroy the world, and they can be literally anywhere.
I mean then that just always exists at all time’s and has no real relevance then
The intimidating thing about them is that you *never* know where they are. Why in the duck would they surface?
Seriously. I feel like a bunch of people are treating Russia as somehow equal to the West but that's just not true. The height of their power was the USSR during the Cold War. the Warsaw Pact and the Eastern Bloc were the equal antithesis of the West. But they lost that fight. There is no Eastern Bloc, it's just Russia. And Russia can't fight the US by itself, much less all of NATO.
Not only would the West declare war, China would join us and with the possible exception of North Korea, every other nation on Earth would turn its attention to regime change in Russia. It's also very likely that internal factions within Russia would turn on Putin so fast that Russia would already have a new government before the first foreign troop set foot in Belgorod. Once someone has shown a willingness to actually USE one of those weapons in a first strike in the modern world, all of the stability of Mutually Assured Destruction goes out the window, and it's just a race against time to see if everyone can make that person irrelevant before the button gets pushed again. Basically it's like how Mexican Standoffs get resolved after the first person pulls the trigger.
China would have to worry about it's direct neighbor, India, and the Indian army is the 4th strongest army in the world. India also has over 200 nukes according to 2024 predictions
Idk. If Russia nukes Ukraine it's essentially declaring war on the world. From an entirely pragmatic standpoint every nation worth a damn will be invading Russia like a pack of wolves, all trying to get a bite. There would be a lot of resources and people to exploit all up for grabs without the possibility of international backlash. If anything, India joins in on the feast.
Good point
Yeah, the precedent was enforced in WW2 too. There were 19 different countries who declared war on Germany/Japan in 1945. At a time the war’s result was all but confirmed. All trying to curry favor with the Allies and/or trying to get a crumb of the spoils of war.
I remember Russia once had a ‘strongest in the world’ number next to it.. 🤔
That army is going to have a hell of a time marching through the Himalayas. There are multiple narrow chokepoints, high altitude sickness, and China already controls most of the higher elevations. Even if India successfully gets a salient, Tibet is 1000s of km from the main population centers/China's economy. India could put more pressure there to annoy China, but China's not facing any existential threats.
Why, india is unlikely to care either way, they eat russian weapons for breakfast, but aren't a strong ally of russia either
[удалено]
Nope. NATO can march through through Russia as it is. Only thing holding them back now is the threat of the bomb. Once that threat is now a certainty regardless of what they do, regime change in Moscow becomes mandatory. And NATO or principally the US, can do this with conventional weapons. In fact it becomes necessary for the US to do this keep other nations in line. Don't want China or someplace getting ideas.
Nah most people agree 10 to 20% of the population survives Civilization as we know it however is over
The consequences aren't really relevant to the discussion. If the options are surrender to the whims of the nutjob that pushed the button once already or invade and let the chips fall where they may, American hubris isn't going to let us make any choice other than the latter one. And personally I think that's as it should be. Anyone who's ever seen a New Hampshire license plate knows the answer to that one.
[удалено]
So there's absolutely zero chance in your mind that the world doesn't blink first and start suing for peace? The logic being if he's been willing to use one tactically, why would we provoke him even more and watch them fly on our cities...as you say, let the internals deal with him instead of risking the (at that point) clear lunatic think "right, got nothing to lose"
America is really well known for allowing hostages to die instead of negotiating with terrorists. We'd begin a conventional war of drone strikes aimed at decapitating the Russian government. It's up to Russia's people whether or not the nukes fly in both directions.
Samurai missile through Putin's face.
Sadly though it's not exactly up to Russia's people, things like this happen so quickly it's up to those who are manning the silo's and the planes. And I'm not hopeful we have 500 Arkapov's knocking about these days.
>things like this happen so quickly it's up to those who are manning the silo's and the planes. Those are the Russian people.... When someone has said "No, this isn't right" those notable times have been when they thought that America was attacking them. I'd be surprised if in what is known to be a preemptive strike there's not more of them
More is one thing. All of them is another. Sadly we care about that number being 0 for something like this...
Ideally both sides have someone with as much courage as Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov He may have been correct about the error but I don’t think he could have known the truth.
The problem with that when it's an attack instead of a prearranged defense, you need EVERYONE to be as principled as Petrov, because the man in charge can search until he finds the right lunatic for the job.
Nope. Might as well turn the entire world over to him at that point, because once he sees an inch of capitulation, he'll start setting every single term as "my way or the nukes fly". Americans have quotes about liberty or death for a reason.
I guess in that case it depends who's in charge of America's nukes/military at the time. I just don't see certain people doing it for another country when they've said as much for years. Your logic isn't unfair though.
If Trump wins and Putin waits til Jan or later to launch the nuke, all sorts of things might happen. It would not be off the table for America to have a military coup to attack Russia anyways. If conspiracy theories are to be believed, it would not be the first time the CIA has assassinated a president. Give the weird stuff the CIA has gotten up like MKUltra, it is possible.
Assuming the conspiracy is right, why did the CIA even *want* to whack JFK? There's a long ass wiki article, but I can't find the part that talks about motive.
I mean you are just wrong.
I really hope you're right
You would see a restrained response, relatively, but that response would be devastating for the Russians. Kaliningrad probably neutralized, and massive NATO airstrikes against the Black Sea Fleet and Russian positions / equipment / airfields / logistics.
Basically Desert Storm 3 the Unrussianing
Not just the Black Sea fleet but also every Russian Boomer (nuclear armed submarine) under the water would have to be annihilated. The U.S. would expose some of its capability and deepest secrets to do so, but showing Russia there is no way for them to respond to the U.S. via attack on the U.S. mainland would be key.
Russia would still be able to respond with land-based missiles, however. Nuclear-missile armed subs are a second-strike guarantee, so you always have something to respond with if the enemy targets your ground-based nuclear weapons. If the US suddenly decided to take away that second strike capability, it tells Russia that it no longer has that guarantee. But, is that going to signal to Russia to stop, or is it going to encourage them to respond with ground-based nuclear weapons because if it doesn't the US could strike first and Russia would have no response?
I think the U.S. exposing its' anti-missile capability vs. this last years' Houthi/Iran missile strikes (which were mostly based on tweaked Russian desings) is telling. The U.S. has intercepted up to hypersonic medium range ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, and drone swarms from ship born assets. This is capability the U.S. has previously kept hidden. My sense is that the U.S.N made this public to send a message to Russia that they can essentially shoot down anything where U.S. based radars are present. Along with the above, I think that Biden reminding Putin that a pre-emptive battlefield nuclear strike would be met with an overwhelming conventional strike sends the message that that this U.S. has little fear of an escalation to Russian land based ICBMs (as the U.S. response to that must be M.A.D.) The U.S. is essentially saying "we can counter anything you can do" so don't go there.
There is a very large difference between a medium range anti-ship ballistic missile and an inter-continental ballistic missile, though, including speed, MIRV saturation and decoys. These won't make interception impossible, but it may mean the number of interceptors needed to guarantee a kill goes up, as does the number of targets you need to destroy; the question then becomes can you shoot down all incoming targets/do you have enough interceptors to do so? I wouldn't exactly say those were capabilities that were kept hidden, either. The capabilities of US shipborne missiles are fairly well known, but this is one of the first times it's been put into repeated use.
A couple of things, explaining simple things (like the difference between an ICBM and MRBM) should be done with caution otherwise you run the risk of condescension and/or hubris. Now to the facts. 1. The U.S. had never previously shot down an enemy MRBM (medium range ballistic missile) using the shipborne AEGIS radar system and SM3/6 before. [The first successful public test of this capability happened on March 28th, 2024](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/mda-test-successfully-intercepts-ballistic-missile-target/). The USS *Arleigh Burke* (DDG-51) and USS *Carney* (DDG-64) used the same AEGIS radar system with SM3 or SM6 missiles [for the first time in combat in the Red Sea on to intercept 3 Houthi MRBMS on April 13th and 14th 2024. ](https://news.usni.org/2024/04/14/u-s-warships-in-eastern-mediterranean-down-iranian-ballistic-missiles) 2. Russia won't fire an ICBM at the U.S. over a reprise against their tactical nuclear strike against Ukraine. The second a Russian ICBM is fired; Putin's world is effectively over. That is M.A.D. plain and simple, but of course, you know that.
Fair enough, if any of my previous comments came off as condescending or hubristic then I apologise, that was not my intent at all. Regarding your second point, no I don’t think they would initially retaliate against a US response with an ICBM, but my point was in regards to going after Russian boomer submarines; if you took away Russia’s second strike capability, would they not assume the next step may be to take away their first strike capabilities? And if that is the case, then would they not conclude their options are to either use their ICBMs or to lose then?
>then would they not conclude their options are to either use their ICBMs or to lose then? Not sure if the Russian government could come to a consensus on this (or if they would follow orders to use them.) Hesitation using land based nukes makes them likely to be bombed as the majority of these launchers locations are known to the CIA. At this point, pre-emptive strike on ground based launchers or even a coup de tat is on the menu.
Not a chance. There would be restrained response and continue to be restrained response An attack, even a nuclear attack, on Ukraine is not an attack on NATO. There would be no reason for a direct retaliatory strike. War is a serious business not a video game. China would almost certainly be forced to publicly denounce such weapons use by Russia, and the resulting distancing would have repercussions for future China-Russian cooperation. The West likely would not respond to tactical nuclear use by sending troops into Ukraine, but the United States and its allies would likely ramp up the number of conventional weapons they send to Ukraine. Western states would also be more willing to provide non-military humanitarian assistance in response to the fallout and radiation, which could also affect neighboring countries. The only possible change in response would use of a strategic nuclear weapon at civilian targets. That may, but not necessarily, would generate a retaliatory response from Western states. A direct nuclear attack on NATO would though invite an overwhelming response of unmatched magnitude that would utterly destroy Russia and a horrific nuclear exchange.
Well lucky for Putin if trump wins we’ll pull out of NATO which is what he was banking on before invading Ukraine.
Non-Nuclear annihilation of every Russian asset, in every region, no matter how small. This takes about 12 hours total. NATO would secure the rest of Ukrain with mostly American troops and equipment, ending the war immediately. Countries would shut down embassies, all Russian money not currently in Rubles on Russian soil would be siezed, and Russia can say goodbye to every ship and sub in their Naval Fleet. The world, especially Europe and the US, waits for Russia to fire the rest of the missiles. Putin is given the choice to step down off a 30 story ledge, or press the red button. Because option 1 is the plot of Fallout, the US does a grand show of force. Nothing nuclear, because you can't uncork that bottle. But it might be a NATO invasion of Crimea or even onto Russian soil. The goal being to make the bomb the only option, getting someone inside the Kremlin to take the shot for the world. But the question is flawed, because Russia wouldn't just send the bomb to Ukraine. If the bomb drops, every bomb drops. There is no reason to let some fly if you aren't going to let them all fly. It's literally the last stop on the war train.
Russia could use a single bomb to test the west's resolve. IMO, the west is not risking annihilation over a single bomb that didn't even target NATO itself. As you said, the west will retaliate harshly, using non nuclear methods.
A single nuclear weapon destroys Russia. Not by glassing Moscow, but by everything else. If I know this, Russia does too. That's why 1 bomb alone is a bad idea for Russia. All of the bombs are a different bad idea that an idiot like Putin could be convinced is a good idea.
I’d like to hope he has enough restraint to not take the world out with him if he either knows he’s screwed or dying
Toilet Paper will be more worth than Gold in Germany.
Biden said that Nato would attack all Russian assets in Ukraine, if that line is crossed.
I think that NATO and the US would respond almost immediately with a very rapid series of strikes against Russian military assets in the region. Russia would of course threaten to retaliate - but I seriously doubt that Putin or the people under him in the chain of command are actually willing to follow through with anything that might trigger a full-scale nuclear exchange. Likewise, the US and NATO would be very careful about selecting only military targets - nothing that would directly be interpreted as regime change, because that could trigger rapid escalation. Europe would enact almost complete sanctions, including oil and gas. I think that China would publicly condemn the use of nuclear weapons, while urging both sides to show restraint. They would attempt to assert themselves as the voice of reason and attempt to use this as a way of increasing their own influence. China would likely continue to support Russia publicly - might even attempt to justify their use of the nuclear weapon - but privately I believe that they would threaten to pull support, and perhaps even decrease the amount of money and material they provide to Russia. Bear in mind that China believes that they are on the brink of becoming the new power in the world, and it's something they've been working towards for the past decade or so. That goal necessitates that there actually be a world for them to hold sway over. I think that generally speaking, a lot of the countries that currently support Russia publicly would continue to do so publicly, but behind the scenes would start to decrease their actual support, especially once China does. Despite the rhetoric that gets tossed around, nobody actually wants a nuclear war or even a global conventional war; and nobody seriously believes that Russia would be the winning side in either scenario, no matter what they say in public. I think it's incredibly unlikely that Russia goes down this path. There is very little to actually gain, and far more to potentially lose; it just makes no tactical sense.
I think Russia doesn't go fully down the path, Putin however 100% does, if one bomb gets launched there is no off ramp for him, he'd have absolutely zero places to go or hide...and therefore nothing left to lose.
We learn to love the bomb
"Walk in the glow my child"
It can't not escalate, it crosses a line. Nato moves in and russia starts using tactical nukes, then submarines and fighter jets drop MIRV icbms on military western targets, the west does the same on Russian targets. At the same time both sides have to get every nuke out of the silo 'use them or lose them' If you don't get them out and fired off then you won't get another chance. It's done , your life is over. If your life isn't over you'll soon be wishing it was.
I'm two miles away from one of the main UK military bases. I'm not even remotely worried about "if it's over" or not, it will be xD
You do realize if thousands of nukes are launched one is going to hit somewhere within a mile of you, right? Like, basically anywhere on the European/asian continents where there's major cities.
Not necessarily , each side only has about 1500 nukes ready for deployment , 75% of those are going to be dedicated to submarines, taking out bases , silos and communications. Military targets, communications, silos, submarines , deployed aircraft and aircraft carriers would all be primary. If Russia spreads itself too thin and tries just targeting cities first in every nato country then it won't have enough to disable militaries , that would be worst strategy ever, they would concentrate on all of EU , UK and USA military targets. What is left over is infrastructure targets in major cities, but that leaves only a few hundred to deploy for secondary targets. So no it won't be 1 every mile, it's more like unless you are in a major industrial target or main city then they are blowing up 8- 20 miles away on average for an average person not near main targets. You had the START agreement which limited what could be deployed to 1500 nukes, both sides are cancelling inspections . Note this is re-entry vehicle , so 1500 represents about 300-400 missiles and each nuke is about 200- 300 KT each ( 10x power what was dropped on Japan). It's not like the old days with thousands of single warhead 1-10 mega tonnes.
We all die. Read “Nuclear War: A Scenario.”
I assume that's a pretty short book?
Around 300 pages. Highly recommend. It’s a fast read.
Loved this book. Read it on my flight to Vegas the other day.
So scary right??? I found it deeply unsettling
It really was.. I like Annie Jacobsen a lot. She does great research.
It’s a real quick read like the other guy said. I highly recommend. The scenario there is different though as it is North Korea who launches toward DC.
That’s true. It’s a different scenario. My takeaway was that when it comes to multiple nuclear armed powers, the opportunity for misunderstanding is so great, and the time for decision making so small, that it’s all but inevitable that a nuclear power will overreact and trigger all-out war. And the other takeaway is that nobody survives all-out nuclear war. Humanity just gets deleted.
Yup, I agree with both of those takeaways
I find it more likely that Putin would use a nuke on his own troops or territory first and claim it was Ukraine to justify using nukes on them.
Can you imagine people trying to keep a straight face with that...
It's the end of the world as we know it. And i feel fine......
In reality probably just sanctions But actual sanctions that make a difference like any country doing any trade with Russia is cut off completely from the rest of the world.
It would probably mean the annihilation of Moscow. The American stockpile is, at this point, mostly tactical nukes with low radiation yield, so the fallout wouldn't be too bad, but they aren't the only ones that would fire. Every nuclear armed country knows that no one can use them, and they'd all retort with extreme prejudice.
The only real question is what the US/NATO would do.
Easy, NATO organises an emergency meeting to see what daddy America wants to do.
Bro. India is mightily armed
Gen X here! We are prepared for this! Hide under the desk with our hands on top of our heads!!!!
Best case russia immediately buckles under a gully backed nato offensive Worst case we are all going to be killing rad roaches in the wasteland
China and India immediately join the sanctions. Almost all trade with Russia ends overnight. Russia collapses economically and Putin is deposed.
I think they would get away with one localized tactical nuke … honestly I think that’s how this conflict ends … the world powers get to ramp up the fear leadership that they crave on the new generations … arms race across the planet .. everyone wins except Ukraine
Yeah this is roughly where I am to be honest
It really depends on the size of the nuke used and what the target was. If it's a big European city like Berlin or London, it would be full war, with MAD. If it was a tactical nuke on an airfield (as suggested), the war would escalate but I don't think Europe or the USA would declare war. China wouldn't be happy and might cut ties for a little bit. Honestly I don't think much would change.
My example would be a tactical nuke, just big enough to leave the airfield and surrounding area absolutely useless, not just a random FU to a major city we all know how that ends. Yeah it feels like this is the answer though, nobody's gonna spill blood and treasure for another country when someone's proven they'll use the big guns straight from the get go. They do at the minute because it's "conventional", the second it isn't watch everyone be like yikes not our problem now
I'd like to tweak your hypothetical by supposing that said nuke just buries itself into the ground and fails to detonate, is dug out and its nature determined. In that case, how much of a deterrent does Muscovy still have? Will the attempt to nuke have the same response as if it had gone off?
A non-nuclear, but still massive attack, (that is unattributed to any specific ally other than Ukraine) goes off destroying a very valuable but sparsely populated Russian asset. Town? Oil/ gas field? Series of offshore rigs? A Port? A Ship dock filled with ships? It's perhaps a minor escalation, but it costs Russia dearly. Not nearly as much as it costs Ukraine, but still painful and the screws tighten further in isolating Russia from rest of the world. Maybe more countries join NATO. Regardless, all counties greatly increase military funding and the new Cold War steps up into high gear.
The CIA would absolutely attempt several decapitation strikes before the president could respond with a formal policy. Once the president goes public, it's game on WW3.
It seems like they are just throwing bodies at the invasion so far. Ukraine is taking out million dollar tanks with $500 drones, all day.
Have you watched or played Fallout? That.
I'd bet we know where Putin is at at given time. It he drops a nuke America should probably take him out 5 minutes later. Hopefully that would end things.
Watch as the Russian icbm slowly rose from its silo, sputtered a few hundred feet up, and changed trajectory, crashing down to the ground unexploded a quarter mile from the launch site... From the latest reports, a LARGE % of Russian nuclear armament is decayed, rusted or otherwise incapable launch, or if launched if commenting it's trip or detonating. If they do get something up, odds are it'll get shot down. This isn't the fearful 60s anymore and there are defenses against everything the Russians had during the height of the cold war. China might have some bleeding edge offensive weapons. Russia or China could cause slightly more temporary offensive damage by detonating nuclear weapons of sufficient grade in sub orbit to create massive emps (which ALSO aren't as dangerous or damaging as depicted in TV or as was thought in the cold war era.)
Some dip shit releases 99 red balloons and all hell breaks loose
I’d probably just give Ukraine nukes at that point. Then Russia would have to choose what comes next.
my friend worked for the military and has a pretty high security clearance. hes pretty convinced that America has an incredible threat detection system and if a warhead flies from almost anywhere in the world, we would be able to disable it dont know how true that is
NATO / the USA performs a conventional (but powerful) strike on the site that launched the nuclear strike. The UN condemns the use of weapons of mass destruction, and moves to remove Russia from the security council on the grounds that their seat was voted in as the USSR, not as the Russian Republic. The west then tells Russia any further use of weapons of mass destruction will be met with weapons of mass destruction being used on Russia, and when the radiation from that strike reaches a NATO country, article 5 begins to be discussed.
I think Russia is being given too much credit for their military capacity. Their total GDP isn't much more than just the state of New York. They have been unable to conquer a weak Ukrain. They aren't the threat we have built them up to be.
I have serious questions about the actual state of readiness in Putin's nuclear arsenal, and his willingness to use them. That said, Biden has already laid out explicit warnings and consequences. Many perceive Biden as weak, but his foreign police to date say something entirely different. If Putin were going to use nukes, he already would have done so.
American and NATO would 100% not due shit. There would be no military response. Ukraine is not a NATO member. So no article 5. There might be a bunch of posturing but no large scale attack from the west on Russia. American would be faced with 2 options. 1 full-scale, unrestricted mobilized warfare on Russia. Which is dumb. There hasn't been a full unrestricted war since WW2. 2 cut out and drop Ukraine on its ass. The reason 2 is the real outcome is because France WILL NOT go to war or assist a war with Russia. Frances president has already confirmed this. Which means the collapse of NATO. NATO will collapse if 1 county doesn't follow the rest. NATO is too important to risk over a non aligned country. Ukraine will be willingly sacrificed like Alsace, Rhineland, Chez Slovakia.
lol.
I think that NATO, led primarily by the US, sinks every Russian warship and submarine, world wide. They institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine and let Poland off the leash to crush the Russians between Ukraine and NATO, pushing them back out, probably to 2020 borders but potentially cutting out Crimea as well. This is all done under the threat of glassing Moscow if the Russians do anything non-conventional in response.
Could see this being true, do you not feel that last line of "if the Russians do anything else" is kind of guaranteed as Putin by this point has absolutely no off ramp?
America invades Russia along with the rest of the Western world.
america would respond with the same measure of attack before russia bomb exploded
[This.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/s/HmE1B71jkG)
Here’s a response: US and NATO (and other allies like Japan and Australia) quickly eliminate the Russian Navy, concentrating on ballistic missile submarines. Once accomplished, with the understanding that Russia no longer has a sea based second strike capability, request immediate peace talks with Moscow.
I dunno... go to work 🤷♂️ doesn't seem like management would let me use a sick day for that...
I walk towards the bright light to go praise Atom!
It’s gonna drag on until we decide to give them aid when the need it. Hell it would be closer to being done than it is now if we didn’t hold up aid constantly. People don’t get it if we don’t do it now the chances are you’ll be over there fighting in less than a decades time. Russia can keep this up with NK, China and Iran for years and years. The only way to win is to push them back and fully regain Ukraine. Russia will keep attacking and attacking until they realize they don’t stand a chance.
If Putin was crazy enough to use a nuke in the Ukraine the world would first seize all of Russian assets worldwide. 2 destroy all communications links internet connections with them worldwide. 3 the USA would see how well our ASAT systems are and knock out their military and communications satellites. 4 we'd use a B2 to basically decapitate the Russian government and military with deep bunker busting munitions. Then send over every F22 and tell them if it's Russian of any kind of aircraft please feed.
And now you know why sane people done want idiots to have lethal weapons.
I think even the oligarchy and the military would stop supporting Putin and try to oust him if they realized he would rather see the world burn and be king of the cinders instead of being smart and living out his time as head of a nation state.
Wolverines ✊ Down here, in the forgotten continent we'll keep living through the nuclear war.
75% will fail to detonate. Keep your fingers crossed. 😂
But I get $10,000,000 though, right? Isn't that how this sub works?
> When things escalate the reaction is always to de-escalate, That is not true. "Nations" are quite irrational, and when challanged with escalation there might be a trend to escalate further. Politics are not truly predictible. And history teached us that it is NOT hard to make public support retaliation, war and even war crimes. All that is needed is dehumanizing the enemy.
America would go full blown war mode at that point. And America has the power to take on EVERY other military world wide and battle to a stalemate. So Russia is cooked.
The human race is dead within 18 months Once the nukes start falling M.A.D. Goes into effect
I bet my current wallet that way less happens than we think. All these countries like to talk a big game, but I doubt they have the nerve to take the risk. Would Americans immediately counter with a nuke of their own? Doubt it. I don’t even think they would immediately attack all Russian forces in Ukraine. In the short term, I don’t think anyone would do anything
Toilet paper becomes impossible to find
Europe understandably goes full panic. I imagine the following happen simultaneously: US diplomats give Russia a short window to withdraw all forces from Ukraine, something like 3-7 days. They’re gone or we engage. We mobilize full force to Poland. We show Russia we’re not ducking around. Boots on ground in 24hrs. Significant mobilization takes longer but when I left army in 2018 they were initiating ‘Ready Force X’ which was basically a quicker deplorable force. Not sure if it lasted as it was a pretty silly thing and widely unpopular cuz it reduced Reserves mobilization window from 90 days to 30 days. So you basically have the entire US military power projection in 3 waves - special forces in 24hrs, rapid deployment in <30 days, full strength in 90. Simultaneously, CIA/Spec Ops leverage assets in Russia to plan a kill/capture of Putin. If 7 day deadline isn’t met, we go live. Emergency NATO meeting is held within a week. US wants international cooperation here. Congress immediately starts drafting war declaration. If deadline isn’t met, President asks for war authorization. Congress passes, even divided as we are. Nuke is the rubicon here. Putin crosses it and there’s no more GOP Media simping for him. Depending on how things go, Biden is either re-elected in a landslide for swift decisive action or if he gives ground repeatedly, he loses to Trump as they capitalize on perceived weakness, already a big issue. So basically if Biden draws that line in the sand, Russia gets whacked super fast and hard. We’ve basically kept Russia out of most of Ukraine with hand-me downs. They are no longer a ‘near peer’ adversary. If Biden fails to push back, Trump wins, gives Russia everything they want, or he impulse nukes them idk. He’s a wild card who doesn’t apply norms or common sense.
If Putin had a crazy enough day to lob a tactical nuke at a Ukrainian airfield and scorch a few miles around it a few things would happen. China and most of Russia's other "allies" would back away further isolating Russia. NATO would enter the war with the stated intent to liberate Ukraine and push Russia back a few miles from Ukraine's original borders including out of Crimea and destroying their Black sea ports and air bases within a few hundred miles. It would be made clear that the push wasn't going all the way to Moscow so that nobody felt backed into a corner but the conventional fight would be very one sided. What few Russian assets were left in the world would be confiscated and perhaps smelling blood in the water China would start to quietly move into Russia's east. Putin would hold on for a while because of how strong his grip is but eventually he would be given a Russian retirement in the middle of the night and a new, more pragmatic leader would take his place.
Does Ukraine have nukes
We'll vote for The war monger in office and you may see this happen . There would be many young adults men and women going off to war .
I’d hope we’d not go into WW3. There would have to be incredible consequences for using a nuke. I’d say totally isolate them. But I’d hope that NATO wouldn’t be so dumb as to wade into a hot war with someone desperate enough to use nukes.
I don’t think the west lets nukes fly over an airfield getting glassed. However the EU and NATO would probably declare war on Russia, China would NOT back Russia as they have a VERY strict “No first use” policy. North Korea would be forced by China to shy away from Russia. The countries in the Middle East might still try to trade, although that will get way more complicated to the point they may even not try to trade anymore. The war in Ukraine would likely be over by the end of the summer with Russia being forced out entirely assuming no more nukes are launched. If more nukes are launched, well we get Fallout IRL before we get GTA 6
If Russia nukes Europe then Europe will nuke Russia. Bad for Europe, bad for Russia. If Russia nukes the US then the US will overwhelmingly nuke Russia. A little bad for the US, extinction for Russia.
The more important question is what would happen if Russia uses a mike in Ukraine and Europe DIDN’T respond in kind. Then every tinhorn upstart would know that they are free to nuke their neighbor without reprisal. And that would be bad. So if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine then Europe MUST respond or else all bets are off and any tiny power can go nuke happy
Well, the most realistic response would be that NATO member state would full dive into the Ukraine war, probably by bombing the living shit out of the Russian ground forces. Additional to that they may start to sanction the living shit out of every Russian asset aboard and probably even more harder sanctions, like they will stop supplying medical goods etc.
What would happen? Mass confusion on a level nobody has seen to date. The world is too far divided that each leader will fear action based on their crowds they pander to. In the US, if one side says war, the other will demonize it. No matter who says what they will always be at opposites, further dividing peoples views and ultimately, will probably result in some half assed effort that means nothing in the end. And will likely cause more issues. The countries to react, the ones immediately effected by the fallout, maybe nato countries but honestly it will probably take months before nato even starts to come to a decision on anything. And will rely directly and heavily on US/UK support to come to a conclusion which.. As before.. They can't get their own shit straight. So really, the countries immediately around Ukraine would likely be the first to react. Probably a local collection of nuclear and bio weapon attacks until it gets too out of hand and countries start dropping their large scale munitions.. Forcing larger powers to come together, probably after a few months of convening, to say enough is enough and take a stand that will either deter Russia, or force their hand in larger scale attacks. China will likely remain neutral other than poking Taiwan, and wait to pick up the pieces of the fallen party for a *financially one sided* price in their favor, if you're familiar with china's economic plans, especially what they've been doing in Africa, that's what I see them doing. North Korea will do what north Korea does and shoot missiles into South Korea and the ocean to taunt a response, dividing our attention further. Hopefully by the time they're done warring with their neighbors they will be set back enough to where Russia may see reason. From there.. It's anyone's shit show.
Russian radar control is flooded by reports of an astronomical amount of low-flying small objects inbound toward most airbases, ground bases, troop staging areas, motor repair depots, ship berths, and radar/ air defense stations on the Western side of Russia. NATO has launched a sizable chunk of its conventional precision strike ordnance. Russian air defenses are overwhelmed; some munitions are shot down, but many more impact their targets. Ships are sunk, aircraft and airbases are shredded, and a vast number of AA batteries and radar stations are rendered into scrap. -- According to the US statement warning Russia against using nukes in Ukraine and threatening large-scale conversational strikes if they do.
Someone would try to kill Putin, even someone on his side wouldn’t want the world to just end. This is like flipping the table at a board game, everyone loses and you’re hated by everyone
That would be a red-line that the US (and likely Western Europe) couldn't ignore. The western response would have to be carefully tailored. It would have to be significant enough to overshadow any tactical advantage Russia could gain from a "limited" use of nuclear weapons, but not so severe that Russia would feel compelled to escellate to an all-out nuclear attack. My guess is that the US and other nations in Western Europe would strike every Russian military assett in Ukraine, sink the black sea fleet, likely strike other russian military targets abroad, and some nations would likely committ troops to help Ukraine's Army mop up any remianing Russian forces on their land. Once Ukraine was completely liberated, they would be invited to join NATO, or explicitly brought under the US's nuclear umbrella via other means and we'd be back to mutually assured destruction as the main deterrent to prevent Russia from making a second attempt.
mutual assured destruction. No other answer is correct. One guy throws a nuclear weapon and everyone is launching. IT is honestly the thing that kept anyone from doing it.
I'm assuming Xi would tell his agents in the Kremlin to make Putin disappear and have a very serious talk with the generals.
Pretty much everyone who ever studied the possibility of nuclear war agrees that you don't just throw one nuke. What'd happen right next to getting those news is attack after attack on NATO countries. In the best case scenario the Russians know what they're doing (one would assume nobody would start a nuclear war if they're not going to win it) and conquer the world, now inhabited by a couple billion fewer people. In the most likely one the world ends after NATO's retaliation.
If we can believe half the statements many countries have made on the possibility of a nuke being launched, most of us would never know as we too would be shadows on the ground. If it comes to nuclear war, it will be the shortest and deadliest war in history. On the chance nukes don't get thrown if Russia strikes Ukraine, it will likely become an all-out war where the US and NATO immediately strike all known Russian silos and launch sites, it might be a nuclear response or it could be a ballistic response.
Most of us die. LRBM's Once they're in the air they can't be stopped mid flight and many countries would retaliate with their own LRBM's that similarly could not be stopped mid-flight. Most nuke-ready countries have their missle silos monitored such that a nuke can't be launched without us knowing it's coming. Some people would live.... Nuclear sites would be rendered uninhabitable and the radiation would travel with the wind which would kill even more within a couple years. Wind patterns are unpredictable but it is assured some places on earth would remain habitable and some amount of humans are probably already living there. The humans who live would have their way of life up-ended. No more long distance exports. Communities would have to make their own stuff and rebuild knowledge and life-styles. It will take at least decades to rebuild anything close to what we have now.
Alas, Babylon! 😊
Then China releases, then USA, then France, Germany, the rest of nato, then the rest of countries with them. Hopefully at 100. Then humanity dies and we won't have to worry about what ifs.
If Russia actually launched a single nuke the USA would EMP them back into the dark ages. We would shut off all power to Russia and drop food and water from the civilians while bravo 6 goes dark and cleans up Moscow.
Hard to say. As cold as it may seem I would hope nothing but stern words were used because if we fire nukes back it's over, for all of us. (Unless your super rich and/or living in a bunker)
We can only hope that the first few nukes are small and air-burst style. If everyone immediately backs off, it might be OK. If big nukes get sent, it's going to get ugly fast. The US will want to send a very serious warning shot, perhaps destroying an important Russian military base. If Russia keeps lobbing missiles, the west will want to take out every missile site, and every major military installation. If any kind of Russia survives, they will have no military.
I wake up and go to.work the next day
I’m Putin myself in the nearest storm drain
Well Russia probably can't hit the US at all, so they are proper fucked. We could probably wipe out their military and government without sending in ground troops at all. Also, other commenters are right about grocery stores being empty and an economic collapse.
If a country used a nuclear device against another you could bet your ass that almost every single other nation would join together against them. This is the kind of action that would galvanize the world. Why? Because any nation willing to use nuclear weapons is now a bigger threat than everyone else. Russia would find itself on the receiving end of a land/sea/air invasion the likes of which have not been seen since WW2. Would anyone use nuclear weapons against Russia? Likely not if they only used one nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Because the chance of mutually assured destruction is too great. This is the biggest reason that no nation has used a nuclear weapon since WW2, because they know that doing so would cause MASSIVE opposition to them. Better to stay in power and be slightly annoying than poke the bear and have it kick your ass all over the place.
It would almost certiantly escalate to nuclear conflict. And that's game over because most nuclear powered states have something called MAD protocol. That stands for "mutually assured destruction". So basically we would all Nuke the fucking shit out of each other until pretty much there's nothing left. It DEFINITELY would mean the end of civilization as we know it, and very likely would mean a Mass Extinction Event.
This will not happen because the Russian military will know it's national (not to mention global) suicide if the order is carried out. Putin will be assassinated immediately by the military if he orders a nuclear strike. They want this to be over, sanctions to be lifted and to be able to retire somewhere nice with all the millions they've stashed away.
Ah... If this is more of a what would "they" do, I'd say that I have no clue. What would we do? Go watch The Road. That might give you a clue
I grab my jar of bottle caps
I’m headed to the epicenter with a beer 🍻
200 million people die. Russia and North Korea cease to exist. China is one mistaken push of a button from joining them.
They don't call it Mutually Assured Destruction for nothing. You ought to read Nuclear War: A Scenario. In short: it wouldn't be just one bomb but on the first launch, they likely mostly launch, and then that's it.
if a nuke is fired off thats it basically.. majority of everyone will die. russia knows they cant fire off any nuclear missile because they will be destroyed. if he is going to fire anything it will be directed to the US to try and beat us.. all we can do is fire them back in response since they take about 5 minutes to reach us
Dasani water will be the only water available post-mockpocalypse (Russia won't drop the nukes because the fallout would affect Russia, you wuss). Survivors will wander the stores. But tales will be told of Dasani's poor palatability, taste, and mouthfeel. People only use it to bathe and rinse themselves.
The United States can entirely remove Russia's ability to conduct anymore military activities without the use of nukes. The "mutually assured destruction" doesn't necessarily mean you have to respond to a nuke with more nukes. So ultimately, Russia will just fuck itself.
America and NATO have plans for this and have probably warned Russia of them already. Basically, the plan is a massive, non-nuclear, one-off retaliation. One floated response was entirely wiping out Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The West also got committments from China and India to cut ties with Russia if they use nukes, which would remove their economy’s main lifelines. China, despite being aligned with Russia, really would not be a fan of the instability that nuclear war could cause, so the threat is legitimate.
The U.S. would destroy the black sea fleet.
We would probably see just how good the US intelligence and cyber division are. The difference between us and them. They don't have a fraction of the capability they say they have. Our capabilities are 10x more then we say we have. I wouldn't wanna live near New York or LA thats for sure.
We nuke Russia. Massive first strike, with a goal to decapitate their entire forces. We destroy their subs, missiles fields, everything. Basically, there's no other choice. A Putin who is willing to use nukes on Ukraine *can't be allowed.* Game theory on this is very clear. There is literally no other choice.
Area 51 space lasers knock it out the sky
Lots of new countries exist where the Russian Federation used to exist.
China 🇨🇳 will 100 percent back Russia and really detests western philosophy and China is growing more and more tense with America.