I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction. Instead, it was likely that most of the west's missiles would be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before they could get to their targets, while the reverse was not true.
Such a war would also likely extend the west's dominance by ~50 years or more if the replacement government in Russia was a pro-US one.
This is the dumbest thing that I've read this year. In multiple respects. I'd be dying to know where you get your daily news from. Because I have a friend thats thinks like you. He reads a lot of 9gag. Called me once in the middle of the night a year ago because "Putin was about to nuke us". We traced the source of his fear back to a fake news article dubbing over random Russian TV excerpts with vile subtitles. He's otherwise considered sane and a family man.
Also: We're debating a lie. OP is a liar. How dumb can you be?
Care to elaborate on why? It seems overly hopeful, not to mention somewhat dangerous to just assume western missile superiority, but it could also be true. It’s not like MAD is a law of physics.
Edit: when I replied, the parent poster consisted of one sentence claiming the idea to be dumb, with zero substantive refutations. They have since elaborated in their original post.
You are aware you're using the word "hopeful" in a sentence that's exploring the killing of hundreds of millions humans for a perceived personal gain.
Do you think such thinking is justified because of the Ukraine war? I suggest you start reading UN reports of actual observers on the ground and stop reading propaganda intended for halfwits.
I also suggest you read the analysis of us military experts on the subject hypersonic missiles. This whole thread is vile nonsense.
Feels like Reddit. Getting downvoted because I'm ridiculing the idea of preemptively nuking hundreds of million of people because "they're our enemy". A shameful display for mostly US engineers. Of course without replies. People who think genocide is a good idea usually aren't that good at expressing themselves.
I feel your pain. On here, when it comes to anything to do with the Russia or China, it's best you stay quiet. You are dealing with most propagandized community when it comes to world affairs.
Remaining quiet around people joking about genocide would follow me around in my conscience. Also fearing downvotes is like an admission to defeat. Besides - all it took for the patriots to shit up the place was one lie: "I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction." The lie is now the most upvoted comment in this thread.
What happened to you HN? Did you ban all the smart ones and let the redditards in?
The most scary thing is that they are living in an echo chamber. The world around us is becoming more dangerous at an unprecented pace, conversations that were wrongly pushed to the dinner table are starting to come out in full view.
The HN community will be in shock when it finally hits on them that they too will be affected by what is happening across the ocean. The belief of unlimited superiority is blinding the fact that other people are now more willing to do harm than previously imagined.
You mean the next gen jets that cannot fly in harsh weather conditions and are solely designed to make money? You know the ones that are only being used simbolically in patrol missions over europe while the old F-16s fly actual combat missions? Or the US hypersonic missiles which disintegrate on test flights?
So yes, the fact the majority of people on this forum are engineers who seem to support the made up idea that the US can win a nuclear war against Russia, does shed a negative light on them. But then again so do many other things. But it's mainly the fact that the majority seems to read this comment as me propagating the idea that Russia would win. Us vs. them, right?
The F16 is not supposed to fly in thunderstorm just like the F35. These are just precautions and Lockheed cleared the F35 for rain/thunderstorms back in 2015 after checking the inerting systems.
> exploring the killing of hundreds of millions humans for a perceived personal gain.
Nobody here is suggesting the US conduct a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia, or that it would be a good thing for humanity. The argument is merely that if a nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason) the US now appears to have an edge over Russia.
> if a nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason) the US now appears to have an edge over Russia
What does that mean? Are you not aware that even a relatively small amount of 10 average modern strategic nuclear weapons is enough to trigger a 100year nuclear winter? US and Russia have a combined number of 10k+ of them. I thought there were engineers on this forum. Saying what the OP did would get you fired in my company same as saying what you did. Not for the ideological implications, but because of the complete lack of critical thinking. Are you getting any of this?
I am sympathetic to stance here, no one is claiming nuclear war would be anything other than catastrophic. But the question at hand here, and to which your charged reaction is causing you to miss, is whether or not such an analysis about western missile superiority could be true or not.
> whether or not such an analysis about western missile superiority could be true or not
I'll go with US military experts saying Russia has a clear edge in missile tech and the fact that 10k nukes kill the Earth 1000 times over. What you're saying is simply insane.
The fact you're completely omitting my points made, means you're one of the people one cannot reach with reason. You'll cheer for your team and kill the enemy, no matter what that means exactly.
If you write "I saw an analysis recently..." it's best to link to or at least describe the source of the analysis, otherwise the rest of us are just left with completely unsourced hearsay
>Instead, it was likely that most of the west's missiles would be able to disable most of Russia's weapons before they could get to their targets, while the reverse was not true.
How is disabling most of Russia's nuclear missiles OK? How will wiping out a few of North America's urban centers ensure western dominance?
Who made this analysis? The "Real American Association Against the Degenerate Urban Elites" or something?
No one made the analysis as there was no analysis. This is propaganda. Unclear whether OP is a tool or gets paid to stir up hate against an ethnic group. One can look up legitimate military analysis of US vs. Russian missile capabilities and get mostly opposite opinions to what OP is spreading. US lacks hypersonic capabilities or the capability of intercepting such weapons, while both countries have reliable retaliation strike capability with hidden nuclear subs. What OP is suggesting is complete lunacy and a simple lie. It's horrifying not more people are picking up on this.
Now imagine this circlejerk on reddit. Realize what an effect it has on young people seeing hundreds of comments agreeing with such a lunatic perspective, while all others are censored or didn't dare posting in the first place. We're about to solve the Fermi paradox.
I wouldn't put the fate of humanity as a potential price for testing a hypothesis. I prefer trying to test the theory that we can produce a (Micro) black hole at CERN (Because it will not do what you think it will). That is an old and safe theory.
Disabling most is insufficient. All it takes is a few ICBMs hitting NY, LA, etc., and the calculation already becomes nonsensical. It would be intriguing, however, if it becomes possible in the future to intercept ICBMs during the launch phase using some kind of new technology. Even then, though, you would need to ensure a 100% success rate.
Major US cities being destroyed is pretty bad but not MAD bad. The rest of the US will still be around long enough to decimate Russia or China. MAD means both sides get wiped out completley not some horrible killing of 50mil people happened.
I.E.: if they fire first, firing back does not mean everyone dies.
Congratulations to the integrated #NNSA team on successfully executing Shot A of their Physics Experiment 1 series @NNSANevada. Our talented workforce reduces global nuclear threats by continually improving detection of underground nuclear explosive tests.
Right after we calculate how many days a person can hold his breath underwater. The idea itself is so ridiculous and vile, it makes HN look like a bunch of children.
It's not ridiculous, and obviously it's not so simple, which is why it's a good nerd snipe. Obviously we shouldn't be nonchalant about engaging in thermonuclear warfare (and none of the armchair strategists get to decide this anyways), but it's worth going through the thought experiment. It's informative if nothing else, and if you can't see why then maybe you should try engaging in more "ridiculous" thought experiments.
The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019, and Russia did so on the following day in response. The United States formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.
How does the IRBM ban relate to this article? What in this article is false propaganda?
The article identifies the US' actions as another potentially destabilizing step in an atmosphere of mistrust. It identifies that the US has not worked to ensure that 3rd party (Independent) have the capacity to verify claims of non nuclear tests.
The title is a lie as it implies the Russians pulled out of the agreement first. Unfortunately I'm stating the obvious. This means your question wasn't sincere as your reception of the answer most likely wont be. Be aware that it's titles that shape opinions as most people won't read past them.
So I am trying to be sincere. The agreement you're referring to is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? And the title you're referring to is the original link to Bloomberg that says US runs tests after Russia "spurns treaty".
I want to understand:
* Is there a connection between the discussion about the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the linked IRBM treaty wiki article? I'm just wondering how you are connecting these different things together.
* With respect to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty alone, what would be the truthful statement? Is the lie that America never ratified the treaty to begin with (and therefore could never actually withdraw), while Russia did ratify the treaty, and therefore was the only party that could withdraw? So the lie is that the headline creates a sense of cause and effect (Russia withdraws from the treaty, therefore America was right to respond with a partial test)?
I'd agree that the current HN headline might be misleading that way. The current Bloomberg headline "Atomic Arms Fears Grow After US Test, Russia Spurns Treaty" I feel is actually quite neutral.
The idea of surviving a nuclear war is analogous to a “who can stay in a tub of boiling water for the longest” contest. You might win the contest but you’re sure as hell still going to die.
The nuclear winter that follows a nuclear war will bring humanity back to the Stone Age. We really need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of “surviving a nuclear war”.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
- Albert Einstein
52 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadSuch a war would also likely extend the west's dominance by ~50 years or more if the replacement government in Russia was a pro-US one.
Could this be the start of testing that out?
Also: We're debating a lie. OP is a liar. How dumb can you be?
Edit: when I replied, the parent poster consisted of one sentence claiming the idea to be dumb, with zero substantive refutations. They have since elaborated in their original post.
Do you think such thinking is justified because of the Ukraine war? I suggest you start reading UN reports of actual observers on the ground and stop reading propaganda intended for halfwits.
I also suggest you read the analysis of us military experts on the subject hypersonic missiles. This whole thread is vile nonsense.
PS. The downvotes don't put food on your table.
Remaining quiet around people joking about genocide would follow me around in my conscience. Also fearing downvotes is like an admission to defeat. Besides - all it took for the patriots to shit up the place was one lie: "I saw an analysis recently that suggested a nuclear war between the west and Russia would no longer end in mutually assured destruction." The lie is now the most upvoted comment in this thread.
What happened to you HN? Did you ban all the smart ones and let the redditards in?
The HN community will be in shock when it finally hits on them that they too will be affected by what is happening across the ocean. The belief of unlimited superiority is blinding the fact that other people are now more willing to do harm than previously imagined.
Who do you think built the US military?
So yes, the fact the majority of people on this forum are engineers who seem to support the made up idea that the US can win a nuclear war against Russia, does shed a negative light on them. But then again so do many other things. But it's mainly the fact that the majority seems to read this comment as me propagating the idea that Russia would win. Us vs. them, right?
Nobody here is suggesting the US conduct a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia, or that it would be a good thing for humanity. The argument is merely that if a nuclear war was to break our (for whatever reason) the US now appears to have an edge over Russia.
What does that mean? Are you not aware that even a relatively small amount of 10 average modern strategic nuclear weapons is enough to trigger a 100year nuclear winter? US and Russia have a combined number of 10k+ of them. I thought there were engineers on this forum. Saying what the OP did would get you fired in my company same as saying what you did. Not for the ideological implications, but because of the complete lack of critical thinking. Are you getting any of this?
I'll go with US military experts saying Russia has a clear edge in missile tech and the fact that 10k nukes kill the Earth 1000 times over. What you're saying is simply insane.
The fact you're completely omitting my points made, means you're one of the people one cannot reach with reason. You'll cheer for your team and kill the enemy, no matter what that means exactly.
How is disabling most of Russia's nuclear missiles OK? How will wiping out a few of North America's urban centers ensure western dominance?
Who made this analysis? The "Real American Association Against the Degenerate Urban Elites" or something?
Now imagine this circlejerk on reddit. Realize what an effect it has on young people seeing hundreds of comments agreeing with such a lunatic perspective, while all others are censored or didn't dare posting in the first place. We're about to solve the Fermi paradox.
This was largely the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) in the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
It seems as though the program has been resumed lately.
I.E.: if they fire first, firing back does not mean everyone dies.
https://archive.md/EoqWY
https://twitter.com/NNSAHruby/status/1714730603860390023All it can do is issue a warning: 'you have 8 minutes to say your prayers'.
Security indeed.
When they happen, there's a lot more time than 8 minutes remaining.
eg: The India tests, the immediately following Pakistan tests, the more recent North Korean tests, etc.
The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019, and Russia did so on the following day in response. The United States formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.
The article identifies the US' actions as another potentially destabilizing step in an atmosphere of mistrust. It identifies that the US has not worked to ensure that 3rd party (Independent) have the capacity to verify claims of non nuclear tests.
I want to understand:
* Is there a connection between the discussion about the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the linked IRBM treaty wiki article? I'm just wondering how you are connecting these different things together.
* With respect to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty alone, what would be the truthful statement? Is the lie that America never ratified the treaty to begin with (and therefore could never actually withdraw), while Russia did ratify the treaty, and therefore was the only party that could withdraw? So the lie is that the headline creates a sense of cause and effect (Russia withdraws from the treaty, therefore America was right to respond with a partial test)?
I'd agree that the current HN headline might be misleading that way. The current Bloomberg headline "Atomic Arms Fears Grow After US Test, Russia Spurns Treaty" I feel is actually quite neutral.
The nuclear winter that follows a nuclear war will bring humanity back to the Stone Age. We really need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of “surviving a nuclear war”.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein
https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclea...