>Crisis happens
>"What are you gonna do? Nuke us? You won't do shit, it's the same I'm gonna nook for the last 60 years"
>Does just that - launches a nuke

what happens then? You know sooner or later someone is gonna kick the table and unleash nuclear weapon exchange, the only question is, how big of a exchange its gonna be

General Nuclear Weapons Thread

>>64062229 (OP)
>saar this time it will be for real we are not of fucking saar

>>64062249
I'm pretty sure India and Pakistan are safe, I'm more worried about China/North Korea

It will happen one day

>>64062229 (OP)
Fuck ya
mudda

>>64062229 (OP)
>predict the future for me, for free
fuck you. this crystal ball was expensive. get your own you brokedick nigga

>Anon talks about nukes
>Orange Man suddenly posts about nukes
who was in the wrong here?

>what happens then?
You either die a quick death or a long slow painful death

>>64062620
>a long slow painful death
That's just called life.

the general consensus has always been that it escalates very quickly after the initial tactical release; the slight pause is to get all strategic assets ready to go, not just those deployed. the tactical release doesn't stop, rather both go in harmony until most 1st world nations are non-functional.

>>64062756
You're right. Let me rephrase what he said: you either die instantly or within 6 months.

>>64062229 (OP)
haven't thinktanks around the world basically said that any use of nuclear weapons against another country would eventually, and always escalate into total nuclear war?

I'm struggling to think how you could nuke a country. Once somebody does it, a bunch of countries are just going to be thinking they're justified in using one themselves.

>>64062229 (OP)
>what happens then?
America tells you to cut that shit out or else. If a senile democratic is in office it's a bluff, if a republican is prepare to get democratized.

>>64062229 (OP)
>nukes
Call me when you fucks start dropping singularities.

>>64065065
A "terrorist" attack wouldn't see nuclear retaliation.

>>64065065
there's lots of scenarios where nukes can be used or limited exchanges occur. it's just that most people focus on a nato versus russia/china fight, which is where limited doesn't really exist and everyone involved loses.

humanity won't go extinct because of it, that's for sure

>>64062229 (OP)
>You know sooner or later someone is gonna kick the table and unleash nuclear weapon exchange
First off: no, you fucking retard. There is nothing inevitable about it at all.

Second:
>what happens then
There is no general answer. It depends 100% on specifics at that point, there is nothing automatic, it's not a video game. Various players will evaluate what will give them the best chances within the limits of their abilities which are themselves shifting around over time (right now the US is in a worse position with a dementia ridden old man president and clownshow administration that hates expertise, but in 4-8 years might be doing better again).

Like, if it's Russia chimping out then it might well make sense to immediately first strike them depending on if intelligence indicates most/all of their nukes are still in the depots and silos. Obviously all good and upstanding civilized people of the world want every Russian exterminated anyway, but putting aside the moral aspect in favor of nuking Russia the very solid chance of preventing any further significant usage from them is a practical argument in favor. In contrast if it was a competent opponent it could make sense to put in more effort to keep from fully climbing the ladder.

>>64066089
unless some of those doomsday biological weapons get out. while they won't kill everyone, i can see most of humanity dying out from them.

>>64062260
The first country that will launch a nuke since 1945, not for test reasons but on a target, won't be North Korea, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran. It will be France.
Don't ask how I know this.

>>64066130
>First off: no, you fucking retard. There is nothing inevitable about it at all.
wow you're a literal retard, you think nukes will sit in silos forever?

>>64066166
>you think nukes will sit in silos forever?
Yes, until obsoleted. Prove me wrong, oh right you can't.

If anyone tries to nuke the US they will get immediate retaliation. US has subs holding a metaphorical gun to every major players head at all times, and the Russians had to get rid of theirs.

>>64066180
If you push someone too far, he will use the nukes, I'm thinking North Korea for example, there's a very hight potential for thing to go nuclear there.

>>64066187
North Korea is on a very small leash from China and any attempt to do so will result in them getting invaded and destroyed on all side. What you fail to understand is that anyone who uses a nuke for a target will instantly become a pariah on the world stage, unless it is for a World War. If we are in a World War then it doesn't really matter about "OH NO THEY ARE GETTING REEEEEAL ANGRY" anymore.

Zelenski just NUKED Russia (probably with some anglosaxo flying device). Why is the colective west allowing this?

>>64066315
>Posts what is very obviously NOT a nuclear detonation.

Nuclear war is probably the best thing that could ever happen for humanity. And I don't mean that in an edgelord misanthrope way, I mean that emptying the world's nuclear arsenals would lead to a world much better than having to constantly cope with the arms races and endless grey-zone warfare brought about by their existence.

>>64066315
That's at least two kiloborisjohnsons

WARCRIME

>>64066344
Naw man, we'll just start the next arms race while being surrounded by cancer dust.

>>64066344
There are plenty of countries in the world that are perfectly capable of building nukes that are held back by various non-proliferation treaties (and ideological reasons). In the event that the current nuclear powers are destroyed they would simply be replaced by a new set.

>>64062229 (OP)
earth is too large to get blanketed by nukes
nuclear winter is fantasy

>>64066344
I guess I just mean that things would be less fake and gay

>>64066158
I bow to Jvpiter's might....

>>64065065
Thinktards are there to fuck bitches and get money. Not actually think about anything.

>>64066158
Isn't it because their nuclear doctrine is retarded and they think they can just nuke someone once as a "final warning" like that shit won't instantly escalate to all hell?

>>64066357
What if you only targeted urban areas? How many people could you realistically kill, and how well do you think different countries would cope with that? Could the survivors maintain things like food supply and fuel supply, or would there be mass famine?
Both the previous World Wars were fairly apocalyptic events for the countries they were fought in, and they didn't have any nuclear weapons at all. I don't think the next one is going to be any prettier.

>>64062229 (OP)
Israel will definitely use the Samson Option on Europe and America if it feels they aren't being supported enough.

>>64066492
see >>64065513
And that's what the ASMP-A is for. Obviously if shots are fired from a submarine, that's the end of all, and France will never do that, as for any other country, it's for a last MAD resort. But other scenarios exist. Stop thinking in a "mutual destruction is the only outcome" way, because it's not true. At least now not when nuclear submarines are NOT involved. If they are, obviously that's MAD at play.
France has to defend a lot of overseas territories. Unless you're the motherfucking US of A, no country on earth can do that with regular forces.
Now if someone decides to send its fleet to FR Polynesia or New Caledonia or whatever islands, an ASMP-A can greet the incoming fleet with a nice firework on very short notice, quicker than any defending fleet and regular submarine can come on the area. Whether the firework happens on the fleet itself or a dozens of kilometers away (more probable) so we can finally get nuclear explosion footage in 4K, is not my call to make, but its sends a message that France won't back off either all while the defending fleet comes. From there, it's the enemies' call. Either they're the ones triggering full nuclear war and MAD, or they return home.
Simple, effective.
>hurr durr it doesn't work that way
It does. You don't risk complete annihilation of your capital and cities just because your navy got to film a nice 4K footage of a nuclear detonation in the middle of nowhere, just for a bunch of islands. If you do, you can't be reasoned with in the first place for being dumb enough to attack a nuclear country, so let's not waste time.
>hurr durr France wouldn't risk it either, nobody cares about overseas territories
Want to bet on that? Your call, and, well, that's what the ASMP-A is for (sic). The funniest scenario would be how nobody dares to annihilate each other through nuclear submarines while other ASMP-A are used to welcome and grind the incoming fleet. Having multiple tools at hands is always useful.

>>64066610
that's just tactical nuclear release. the issue is that they'll keep on being used by all sides as soon as one is fired, which then leads to strategic. no one is going to back down if they have their own nukes in sufficient numbers. russia's escalate to deescalate is a similar "warning shot", which will just lead to escalation.

>>64062229 (OP)
>what happens then?
i live in new york city so i'll just get vaporized, good luck everyone!

>>64066738
>the issue is that they'll keep on being used by all sides as soon as one is fired,
True enough, but in this very scenario, there are more nukes than fleets, by an order of magnitude. After that, indeed it becomes strategic if the invader wants to go that way, but it's its call.

>>64066789
where these warning shots do come in handy is if you're purely defensive and someone is invading you in numbers you can't fight off conventionally. this has the chance of forcing the enemy to back off.

>>64066315
bad B8. Your orcish overlords should train you better

>>64062229 (OP)
>You know sooner or later someone is gonna kick the table and unleash nuclear weapon exchange
>He states unironically, 70yrs worth of "nothing ever happens" into the pax atomica
Nukes were the best thing that ever happened to people, without nukes we would be on WW6 by now. I unironically love nukes. People have been worrying about "much nuclear Armageddon" the whole time and it's never happened. It never will happen. Any nuclear exchange will be a single bomb or non ICBM missile being used, this will immediately end the conflict as there is nothing to be gained by continuing. There will almost certainly be no nuclear response, if there is then it will be gravity bombs or low range missiles because the entire world's eyes will be on the situation, prepared to preemptively ICBM both parties because nobody is waiting to find out where those missiles are headed. Everybody should have nukes, it's the humane stance to take.

>>64066166
They need expensive maintenance, most will probably degrade before anyone thinks to actually use them because they don't make it into the budget few a few lean years in a row.

>>64066837
I can totally see this happening, I wonder if China has this idea for US fleet once the Taiwan scenario happens

>>64066967
Politicans scare with nukes all the time for decades, they believe nukes will never be used. Look at all the „I’m gonna n00k memes. But, all it takes is one ballsy leader to say „launch”, someone who doesn’t want to be seen as yet another bitch saying empty words.

Then others wont even have a choice but to launch their shit

>>64062260
what on earth does china have to gain from launching nukes? they're not stupid enough to get glassed over taiwan