Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Nukes can also have an EMP effect when detonated in the atmosphere, which is devastating to enemy communications and electronics for miles.

Can't get that with conventional bombs.

I'm not sure that NK is that far off the Stone Age, if they were ever to be bombed there. But something that causes problems in America (see Starfish Prime, as creating unintended self-inflicted damage 900 miles away) or Eurasia or across the some other civilised part of the world (not forgetting the impact on LEO satellite systems from the world over, including the ISS and its residents!) would be somewhat disrupting and cause for international complaints at the highest levels.

[Frumple]

Yeah... will note it again, so far as I've noticed if we're going to see nukes out of any non-minor actors, it's almost certainly going to be small yield (i.e. approaching that MOAB) and probably aimed specifically at military or insurgent targets. This, I wouldn't actually dismiss as a possibility, with the only likely candidates being russia or the US.

Russia potentially thinks it can get away with it (and they just might, with those qualifiers) and very well may be in a position to think it's worth the risk, particularly if the US and EU et al ramp things up in response to russian agitation or aggression.

The US, well, the US currently has the GOP at the head, and chunks of them have been courting the use of tactical scale nukes for at least a year or two now -- and trump has not exactly set himself staunchly against the possibility, not that it would have meant jack all if he had. Add on how much trouble the white house has been having on the administrative front and what that (and GOP and/or trump inclinations) is not terribly unlikely to mean regarding foreign relations, and the possibility of them deciding to drop a small one on, say, the development infrastructure of a thoroughly alienated Iran that's decided trumpian fuckery has gone far enough to say to hell with their agreements on their nuclear developments, is... not as small as I would like. Or something along those lines where the (near entirely) GOP aligned hawks decide to MOAB someone to similar effect, with shit breaking down from there.

[Sergarr]

Does Russia have ABM capability on par with the USA?

No. It only has some upgraded Cold War era ABM system around Moscow. Supposedly it's able to intercept up to 72 nuclear warheads. But whenever those claims are anywhere close to reality, no one knows.

[EnigmaticHat]

So if nuclear war breaks out and the defense system works at its best possible ability, everyone in Moscow and the surrounding area will still die.

[Max™]

Which, weirdly enough, is good.

We don't want a positive outcome of any nuclear exchange to ever be remotely plausible.

[martinuzz]

Nukes themselves are really cheap.

How would you measure this? Maintenence? Opportunity cost? Market value?

Let's hope no one gets nervous enough to try a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US.

I strongly doubt that this is the case. There are five legal nuclear powers. Three (America, UK, and France) can be ignored. That leaves us with two: China, and Russia. Based on news reports, China is actually surprisingly happy with Trump thus far, showing himself as a man they can deal with. They talk in terms of money, which Trump understands. I'd be more concerned he tries to sell out the Koreans or something, honestly. The Chinese are adept at soft power, and have shown themselves to be reasonable, if increasingly assertive in their backyard and across the globe. China and Trump will not get into a nuclear standoff unless North Korea falls. Russia is interesting because no one knows what's going on between DC and Moscow. From a practical POV, however, Putin likes deniability. Nuclear exchange is not deniable. And given NATO on the Russian border, surely he's mindful of the risks of direct military confrontation.

There are also the illegal nuclear powers. India seems unlikely to do so out of the blue. Pakistan seems unlikely for similar reasons, as well as the fact that if they use a nuclear weapon, India is likely to respond (same goes if India uses it). Either way, Pakistan is not actually able to launch a strike against the US, because it's range is limited. Wikipedia states that their limit is 2750 km, which isn't enough to hit Hanoi, let alone Los Angeles. There's Israel, but... it's Israel. Israel is not going to nuke its patron. Either way, Israel needs to conserve its nuclear weapons to maintain the ability to use the Samson Option, which would become a very pressing issue if they attacked the US. Finally, there is North Korea. North Korea is probably not able to launch a nuclear strike against the US at this time (certainly not reliably), and has closer targets anyway.

Given the US operates ABMs, I'm not immediately concerned. It's everyone else who should be concerned.

Since when are Pakistan and India no longer nuclear powers?

EDIT: sry, didn't read the second paragraph yet, was responding to the statement that there's only 5 legal nuclear powers.

[Sheb]

Nukes themselves are really cheap.

How would you measure this? Maintenence? Opportunity cost? Market value?

Let's hope no one gets nervous enough to try a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US.

I strongly doubt that this is the case. There are five legal nuclear powers. Three (America, UK, and France) can be ignored. That leaves us with two: China, and Russia. Based on news reports, China is actually surprisingly happy with Trump thus far, showing himself as a man they can deal with. They talk in terms of money, which Trump understands. I'd be more concerned he tries to sell out the Koreans or something, honestly. The Chinese are adept at soft power, and have shown themselves to be reasonable, if increasingly assertive in their backyard and across the globe. China and Trump will not get into a nuclear standoff unless North Korea falls. Russia is interesting because no one knows what's going on between DC and Moscow. From a practical POV, however, Putin likes deniability. Nuclear exchange is not deniable. And given NATO on the Russian border, surely he's mindful of the risks of direct military confrontation.

There are also the illegal nuclear powers. India seems unlikely to do so out of the blue. Pakistan seems unlikely for similar reasons, as well as the fact that if they use a nuclear weapon, India is likely to respond (same goes if India uses it). Either way, Pakistan is not actually able to launch a strike against the US, because it's range is limited. Wikipedia states that their limit is 2750 km, which isn't enough to hit Hanoi, let alone Los Angeles. There's Israel, but... it's Israel. Israel is not going to nuke its patron. Either way, Israel needs to conserve its nuclear weapons to maintain the ability to use the Samson Option, which would become a very pressing issue if they attacked the US. Finally, there is North Korea. North Korea is probably not able to launch a nuclear strike against the US at this time (certainly not reliably), and has closer targets anyway.

Given the US operates ABMs, I'm not immediately concerned. It's everyone else who should be concerned.

Since when are Pakistan and India no longer nuclear powers?

EDIT: sry, didn't read the second paragraph yet, was responding to the statement that there's only 5 legal nuclear powers.

[martinuzz]

The Afghan government has made it known that the MOAB killed 36 IS fighters, and was carried out with their knowledge and consent. No civilians are reported to be killed.

[EnigmaticHat]

Now I'm just imagining what kind of hell would break lose if Israel preemptively nuked the US.  That would truly be one country against the world.

The actual nuking itself would probably be pretty easy, they could just put a nuke in a diplomatic bag and walk it onto capital hill in a lobbyist's pockets.  Just tell them to put it with the rest of the moneybags and then walk away.

[martinuzz]

I don't think they'd nuke Israel back. The nuclear fallout would piss off too many arab 'allies' (plus the Mediterranean part of the EU). They'd probably carpetbomb it with MOABs.

[Antioch]

The Afghan government has made it known that the MOAB killed 36 IS fighters, and was carried out with their knowledge and consent. No civilians are reported to be killed.

M.M.M.Monsterkill

[Neonivek]

I don't think they'd nuke Israel back. The nuclear fallout would piss off too many arab 'allies' (plus the Mediterranean part of the EU). They'd probably carpetbomb it with MOABs.

The other issue is that... Israel is still a holy city to Arabs.

It would be like if the Vatican turned out to be an evil empire... You coooouuuld nuke it... but you would still piss people off for more reasons then just using a nuke.

---

I am reminded of this hilariously incompetent show where someone was trying to definitively prove Jesus existed in order to discredit the Muslims...

Who... believe in Jesus... if anything it is kind of giving them more legitimacy.

Never mind that him actually being a living person doesn't mean anything...

[smjjames]

Jerusalem is also a holy city to Christians, so, nuking it would piss off the entire world.

[Starver]

Jerusalem is also a holy city to Christians, so, nuking it would piss off the entire world.

[smjjames]

Jerusalem is also a holy city to Christians, so, nuking it would piss off the entire world.

India has muslims too you know (though that image may be from SE Asia rather than India). The very act of using a nuke would still anger and shock the world to varying degrees.

Also, I oughta change the thread title.... edit: Ka-ding! New thread title!

edit: This is interesting, VP Mike Pence is headed to South Korea this Saturday. I imagine that Trump might not want to do anything while Pence is there, unless they can be absolutely sure of getting him out of potential harms way quickly.