Nuclear strike on America

Linda Roberts2 said:I was reading up on secret contingency plans for nuclear war. It's pretty wild that major powers don't actually plan direct nuclear strikes against one another because of the whole mutual retaliation thing.

You probably read some nonsense written by someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about—likely just some amateur journalist.
For twenty-five years, opposing superpowers have been drafting attack strategies (and counter-attack responses) specifically targeted at one another. They've mapped out everything from limited tactical nuclear strikes and neutron bombs to full-scale total war. They even bring in teams of psychologists, sociologists, and various other experts to try and predict how the other side would react to any given move.

Attacking third-party countries or alliance members that don't host nuclear weapons and aren't strategically vital isn't even part of the equation.

The fallout would hit the allied nations—specifically NATO members without their own nuclear arsenal. In my opinion, America should never allow a NATO base on its soil.

Under nuclear doctrine, an attack on a NATO base would trigger a nuclear counterstrike against the enemy's own bases.

smiley said:Honestly, why do you even need a link? Your word is gospel to us.
It seems everyone else is a suspect, but you’re the only one anyone trusts. I'm being dead serious here.

Mirror posted this at the start of the year. Just try searching for it. In exercise 3WW, they actually look into authorization for nuclear strikes against allied nations. A nuclear strike on Russia wasn't even part of the drill, mostly because they were terrified of a counterstrike. Under an earlier version of the plan, the idea was to hit Moscow and Saint Petersburg with nukes to force a total surrender.

Linda Roberts2 said:Mirror posted this at the start of the year. Just try searching for it. In exercise 3WW, they actually look into authorization for nuclear strikes against allied nations. A nuclear strike on Russia wasn't even part of the drill, mostly because they were terrified of a counterstrike. Under an earlier version of the plan, the idea was to hit Moscow and Saint Petersburg with nukes to force a total surrender.

Look, if we ever get to a full-scale nuclear exchange, everyone loses—it’s that simple. Russia, China, Iran, South Korea, and the West; nobody walks away from that. A nuclear war isn't going to happen. Honestly, I suspect some of those smaller, more desperate countries might actually welcome a global conflict—because, let's be real, what good is it to rule over a graveyard? But I have a feeling they'll be waiting a long time for that day to come.

If we’re talking about an actual war, this scenario would probably become inevitable sooner or later. I honestly don't see what Russia, the USA, or China would actually have to lose if a handful of nuclear powers decided to target third-party nations instead. We saw how it worked with Japan—nobody really gave a damn back then.

Linda Roberts2 said:If we’re talking about an actual war, this scenario would probably become inevitable sooner or later. I honestly don't see what Russia, the USA, or China would actually have to lose if a handful of nuclear powers decided to target third-party nations instead. We saw how it worked with Japan—nobody really gave a damn back then.

Radiation doesn't stay put—it spreads—and frankly, Russia wouldn't want to deal with a Europe sitting in ruins, mostly because Russia relies on Europe to survive. Europe is a massive customer and consumer of Russian energy. On the flip side, Europe exports all sorts of tech back to Russia—think metallurgy, construction, medical supplies, transport, and so on. Everyone has skin in the game here; they're all tied together by mutual interest.

Regarding Japan—they could have just signed the surrender papers to avoid the bombs. Besides, we've got 13 million Chinese people who were wiped out in a genocide at the hands of Japan, yet who's actually bringing them up or mourning them now?

What kind of logic is that? Saying radiation from maybe 20 bombs won't destroy the planet... I mean, look at how little anyone actually cares about the economy during wartime. We saw exactly how that played out with Nazi Germany, where the Allies just kept leveling everything pointlessly toward the end of the war. Besides, Russia is sitting on vacuum bombs now that are arguably even more devastating than atomic weapons.

You guys are actually insane if you think you have any idea what you're talking about with taste like that... lol

Linda Roberts2 said:What kind of logic is that? Saying radiation from maybe 20 bombs won't destroy the planet... I mean, look at how little anyone actually cares about the economy during wartime. We saw exactly how that played out with Nazi Germany, where the Allies just kept leveling everything pointlessly toward the end of the war. Besides, Russia is sitting on vacuum bombs now that are arguably even more devastating than atomic weapons.

Sure, it might not destroy the whole world, but that area isn't going to be livable for decades, minimum. And let's be real—if Russia drops atomic bombs on Europe, they’re getting them right back from Europe and the USA. You've got the United Kingdom and France as nuclear powers here. Even if you just toss a tactical nuke into Europe, that radiation doesn't stay put—it drifts into whatever neighboring country is nearby. Even a "neutral" nation would be forced to join the fray because they'd be catching the fallout too. You can't just start throwing rocks into a crowd without hitting people you weren't aiming for. Europe is a pretty crowded neighborhood.

Vacuum bombs aren't more destructive than nukes—they simply can't be. Nuclear weaponry remains the king of the hill. Vacuum bombs are arguably the most powerful non-nuclear option out there, but the West has those in their arsenal, too.

You don't actually need massive amounts of radiation at the moment of detonation to cause devastation; there are thermonuclear weapons designed specifically with low radiation yields that instead pack an absolutely monstrous amount of blast and thermal energy..............

darksurfer4 said:You don't actually need massive amounts of radiation at the moment of detonation to cause devastation; there are thermonuclear weapons designed specifically with low radiation yields that instead pack an absolutely monstrous amount of blast and thermal energy..............

Sure, that's possible, but do you honestly think a strike on America wouldn't turn things "hot" in Canada, Canada, or even those clumsy neighbors to the east who keep poking at Russian nuclear capabilities? They don't seem to grasp that they'll end up as "the glowing ones" too if everything hits the fan. Besides, if a northern nuke goes off anywhere in Europe, all of NATO is going to be up and running in a heartbeat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCaKiVsQd9w

Linda Roberts2 said:What kind of logic is that? Saying radiation from maybe 20 bombs won't destroy the planet... I mean, look at how little anyone actually cares about the economy during wartime. We saw exactly how that played out with Nazi Germany, where the Allies just kept leveling everything pointlessly toward the end of the war. Besides, Russia is sitting on vacuum bombs now that are arguably even more devastating than atomic weapons.

🤦
I think you might be mixing up science fiction with reality.

Linda Roberts2 said:It makes sense. Russia definitely won't target London, because then Moscow would be hit right back. But who cares about some small place like America that can't even fight back? I guess NATO might try to grab a naval base in America, which any smart government would probably welcome.

Giving an airbase like Zemunik over to NATO... man, people are just clueless about this stuff...

Bradley Scott2 said:🤦
I think you might be mixing up science fiction with reality.

With vacuum bombs, there isn't much left of buildings or people... but with an Atomic bomb, something usually remains.

Linda Roberts2 said:Mirror posted this at the start of the year. Just try searching for it. In exercise 3WW, they actually look into authorization for nuclear strikes against allied nations. A nuclear strike on Russia wasn't even part of the drill, mostly because they were terrified of a counterstrike. Under an earlier version of the plan, the idea was to hit Moscow and Saint Petersburg with nukes to force a total surrender.

Oh sure, if Mirror published it at the start of the year, then it must be gospel truth. Case closed, nothing left to argue about.🤣
Better start digging some bunkers and stocking up on canned goods, folks.

slysurfer14 said:Giving an airbase like Zemunik over to NATO... man, people are just clueless about this stuff...

It isn't fear, per se—it's more like a necessary level of caution. I mean, any major superpower is going to do absolutely everything in its power to prevent a war from breaking out on its own soil.

A nuclear war isn't actually a realistic threat for smaller nations. For those who aren't aware—back in the 50s, Americans tested their most powerful thermonuclear device, "BRAVO," out in the Pacific. It reportedly hit about 15 megatons; they said just 50 more of those would threaten the entire world. Later, the Russians tested their "Tsar Bomba" in the Arctic, which reached a massive 56 megatons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit, if I recall correctly, by atomic bombs in the 20-kiloton range—those are atomic, which are far weaker than thermonuclear weapons. Russia holds the largest nuclear arsenal; if someone were to destroy Russia, it would be enough for them to detonate their potential right on their own soil—then there wouldn't be any life left on Earth. The same applies to the USA. Ever since the Soviet tests (before a moratorium was agreed upon in the late 50s), about 100,000 square kilometers of territory in Kazakhstan remains contaminated—roughly the size of Texas—and life won't be possible there for centuries. No one plays games with nuclear war. Why would anyone attack a place like Mexico or America, when their military and economic capacities are so marginal? Mexico is even militarily neutral.

Linda Roberts2 said:What kind of logic is that? Saying radiation from maybe 20 bombs won't destroy the planet... I mean, look at how little anyone actually cares about the economy during wartime. We saw exactly how that played out with Nazi Germany, where the Allies just kept leveling everything pointlessly toward the end of the war. Besides, Russia is sitting on vacuum bombs now that are arguably even more devastating than atomic weapons.

To me, that's clear proof that they actually *do* care about the economy. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Dresden suffered such catastrophic damage? It’s worth noting that when the Germans realized the situation was hopeless, they actually sold off industrial assets to Westerners for pennies—just so those same interests wouldn't be targeted by bombings later on.

So they won't use nukes because they want to "save the planet"? Give me a break. In a real war, people use every dirty trick in the book. I honestly don't doubt for a second that Nazi Germany would have dropped atomic bombs on the USSR and the Allies if they'd actually had them in their arsenal. We just got lucky that the atomic bomb wasn't developed until the very end of the conflict. Besides, even without nukes, there's more than enough conventional weaponry out there to wipe the world off the map.

The real value of nuclear weapons lies in crippling an enemy's industrial capacity, not in trying to wipe out military forces or pulling off some grand first strike.
If Russia decided to drop nukes on America, it wouldn't do a damn thing to NATO's manufacturing power. It would just be a massive, overkill waste of firepower on a region where they can't even touch NATO's actual military strength. Even as a first strike, it’s useless because NATO doesn't have any major command centers or critical infrastructure sitting in America. Honestly, even if NATO did set up a base there, I doubt it would even become a target for the Russ; NATO bases can be tiny operations with maybe ten people in them.
For America to actually become a legitimate target worth hitting, you'd need to see something substantial—like a massive NATO installation with hundreds of personnel, a major depot for military hardware or even nukes, a NATO-controlled airbase, or perhaps a significant naval facility or shipyard.
When it comes to Russia targeting weaker NATO members, there are plenty of countries closer to the action—think Poland, Romania, or Bulgaria—that could be hit with conventional airstrikes or missiles. They’d get the exact same result without all the unnecessary nuclear controversy.