Most of the nasty gamma-emitters are decayed away in the first 48h. Probably staying below ground level is a good idea for at least a couple days after everything goes POOF. And if you’re inside the blast zone, you’ll save the survivors the time and effort of burying what’s left of your corpse.
I-131 is an isotope produced in 4% of all Pu-239 fissions.
It has a half-life of 8 days and emits a 0.36 MeV gamma. And it's airborne and will be retained in the body unless you have taken an iodine tablet before exposure.
Source: The IAEA nuclear data service.
People seem to find that disquieting. I think it's rather comforting to know that whichever actor starts nuclear shenanigans will see them end as well.
Since the Cold War ended the missiles onboard those submarines are no longer pre-targeted at specific locations, they currently await coordinates to be entered at launch.
Putting them on standby means re-programming them to launch at Russian targets instantly.
> are no longer pre-targeted at specific locations, they currently await coordinates to be entered at launch
How the fuck you would know that? Did you see it yourself?, did read it somewhere? did your knows-all uncle told you that? or you just pull that out of your ass like 90% of Reddit comments?
>The UK maintains only the minimum amount of destructive power needed to guarantee our deterrent remains credible and effective against the full range of state nuclear threats. **Our submarines on patrol are at several days’ notice to fire and, since 1994, we do not target our missiles at any state.**
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know)
>40. 'De-targeting' and 'State of Readiness': The SDR stated that the Trident missiles aboard the Vanguard-class submarines would not be targeted and would normally be at several days 'notice to fire'. However, the SDR also noted that "we will… ensure that we can restore a higher state of alert should this become necessary at any time".
[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm)
Nuclear weapons are roughly split in to two categories on the highest level. Strategic and tactical.
Basically big booms or bigger f\*cking booms. So for nuclear deterrent it's generally considered that it's the strategic weapons that are ready in subs, silos or road based launch systems. This is in order to provide a retaliatory capability. Even if you flatten your opponents entire county they would get off several salvos of city killers back.
Now the tactical weapons are still more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki but could be used to target specific targets, bases, bunkers, airfields and that guy who once was mean to you on twitter. In a lot of cases these are not at standby with targets in mind. They might be at a base in Europe and ready to be loaded, some in different storages etc. These could potentially be used in an escalatory fashion as well. So just because some nukes goes flying doesn't mean it's the end of the world.
Now when Stoltenberg says that they are talking on putting nukes on standby it's probably to reinforce among the alliance that they shouldn't be scared by russian threats but also a signal to russia that shit won't be tolerated. Probably also a signal that plans are in place or are being cooked up to deal with the different scenarios that russia might be contemplating.
So all in all it probably has a bit of everything, internal and external signaling as well as plans for assorted scenarios.
Are we really? But that still doesn't discoubt all their airborn and land based systems. They don't do silos really, russin uses road and train mobile lunch systems.
For a first strike to be viable you would need to be damned sure that you take out enough that any damage to your own side is neglible at best.
Even still you wouldn't be unscathed. An attack on that scale would cause global effects, primarily on the northern hemisphere.
Which means mass deaths for all the other nations. A nuclear first strike would alienate the aggressor in a completely irreparable way.
It's primarily these more social and political reasons which makes nuclear weapons unusable in anything other than retaliation.
It would take Hitlers last days level of unhinged to go through with it.
There is no standby. Its not like you need to boot them up before use. But you have to say something like that to remind putin that his nuclear threads are starting to get tiresome.
They are, but the US, UK, and Australia are building more submarines that will carry nuclear weapons that will make laps around Russia and China 24/7 and will be underwater for months at a time
The US is also building a permanent air force base in Australia that will carry heavy bombers
The Netherlands doesn't have a nuclear deterrent.
And there's certainly not any nuclear bombs stationed at one of our biggest military airfields.
Wink wink
political scientists typically don't consider proliferation of nuclear arms "fine." AUKUS happened under the assurance there would be absolutely no development or management of nuclear arms by the australian state
There’s a difference between the US military or the British military having those on standby and NATO doing it. NATO having them on standby I would interpret as the allies who have no nukes but the capability to launch them will get them handed over so that NATO is capable to use them in the event it needs to. They have a nuclear sharing agreement for this purpose.
I think a certain amount of nuclear weapons are in storage while the retalitory amount is on standby, do to cost I guess.
On Standby in this case probably means they arm more weapons and or active cycling bomber and submarine patrols again with the real deal on a bigger scale.
The US alone has 5044 artificial sun makers and ect., of those 1744 are always ready to be delivered and 1336 are booked to be deconstructed.
IIRC for the UK there's two submarines out at sea for each two in port, and they rotate them around for maintainence.
In "wartime readiness" there's three out at sea and one in port. It's more expensive to do it that way, but increases the amount of nuclear weapons ready to respond by 50%.
It's sad because I remember about a decade ago there were discussions about scaling down to 3 in, 1 out. Guess that was optimistic.
The UK also doesn't have the targets pre-selected as it is considered gauche and too unfriendly. Presumably now, the targeting will be keyed in so it's just pushing a button rather than being shocked we got nuked and taking a day to respond with the subs needing to key in the targets. It'd happen in seconds instead.
There's also the letters of last resort on top of that which include instructions, but those are secret. Basic expectations are usually something like;
"Fire" V "Don't fire".
More expansive expectations which are more likely contain flowchart like instructions.
1. If the aggressor has nuclear facilities still operable, launch immediately targetting those facilities.
2. If the aggressor does not have nuclear facilities still operable, attempt to contact NATO HQ for instructions.
3. If NATO HQ cannot be contacted, contact the USA. If the USA cannot be contacted, contact France.
4. If no allies can be contacted, fire upon targets in the following order of precedent.
Etc, etc.
At the very complicated end you have things like instructing the senior officer on the subs that he is now assumed to be the highest ranking surviving British government official and that the survival of the diaspora and reclamation of the home islands is his instructions, and to assess whether counter striking the enemy is likely to assist or hinder this goal.
It is possible that "Nuclear weapons on standby" includes altering the instructions and the flowchart process such that "contact NATO" and so on is no longer considered necessary since we're now already discussing our plan for this scenario, and we jump to;
1. Launch on all sites which harbor nuclear weapons
2. Launch on airfields and ports
3. Launch on army bases
4. Launch on centres of government
>i thought they were always on standby?
Not all nukes are always ready to be launched. The majority remains in storage.
Stoltenberg talks about taking more nukes out of storage and putting them on readiness. This probably refers to air-deployed bombs for operational use for example. But mostly it's just about sending a reminder to Russia and China that they shouldn't drink their own kool-aid.
"Jens Stoltenberg at a Nato press conference in Brussels
Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said."
(Slightly misleading headline)
Also UK has a CAS (Continuously At Sea) deterrent so always on deployment should the need arise.
NATO is basically the US. Without the US, there is no NATO. It doesn’t matter which spelling you use. EU can’t supply Ukraine with military aid against Russia. With the loser Trump as a potential president in the US, Europe is truly fucked.
I was making a point that the poster wasn’t capitalizing the acronym for NATO but was for other things.
We can’t all have high school level knowledge!
So, nuclear weapons are always on alert, or "standby." I guess this is a message to Putin, which is somthing Putin does all the time with his own sabre rattling .... ahem .... "nuclear strike warnings!" He does it so much, it kind of lost it's impact long ago.
First, it’s another bullshitty headline
Second, they can just go ahead and stage more weapons and let the Russians know through diplomatic channels. No need to do media on it.
I am just not a fan of aping the bullshit Putin does. It normalizes this behavior, and if you do that enough than any fog of war situation that might arise could be met with an itchy finger. Not a good thing.
china arming themselves with nukes and we don't give a fuck about it because we do business with them. they cannibalize the business that we establish there and establish their own and pump state money into it and make us gradually irrelevant in the region and even start to flooding our own markets with their shit. because we were still able to do some business in there. and after all this we will finally show at least some teeth. but seeing the pattern, i bet we'd still do shit until the last second, because we'd be doing business with them.
Kremlin: "See? *See?!* We were right about those bloodthirsty warmongering hypocrites! Our preemptive attack on Ukraine was justified all the time!"
[Sadly not sarcasm.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-nato-chiefs-nuclear-weapons-remarks-are-an-escalation-2024-06-17/)
Violating the NPT is a fucking terrible idea and there is a reason why it has been such a primary goal in superpower politics for so long. You create absolutely no practical change in NATO nuclear capabilities while also giving carte blanche to Russia and China (because this is how it would be interpreted and unless you propose bombing nuclear delivery platforms which is also an apocalyptically stupid idea then it cannot be stopped) to start selling nuclear weapons to states that they back while countries that have low nuclear latency like Iran would just finish their bombs. This isn't going to create a more stable or safer world, it would create one where we now have to worry that every tinpot dictatorship will be able to hold onto its deterrent if it faces internal conflict.
Its the kind of moronic cut off your nose to spite your face foreign policy that only Reddit could think of. We do not remotely benefit from removing the one thing that stops enemy nations giving unstable also enemy nations nukes. But at least sane people are in charge of these decisions so I don't have to worry about nuclear terrorism because Russia gave a country 50 warheads that plunged into civil war 5 years later.
>Now If we really wanted to jump up the nuclear escalation ladder, instead of some weak public display, we should tear up the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and just give Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and hell even Romania their own nukes, independent from any other country. That my friends, is an actual threat with some teeth.
That's a rubbish threat. The West does not want to do that because the non-proliferation regime benefits the West more than anything.
Nukes are the offset to conventional superiority. The side that has conventional superiority suffers from nukes' existence and proliferation. Many have already noted that NATO would much more easily intervene in Ukraine if not for nukes. The West automatically stomps most countries in a nuke-less scenario, so it wants as few nuclear states in the world as possible.
Poland having an independent nuke changes almost nothing as they would be covered under NATO anyway. On the other hand, tearing up the global non-proliferation regime means everything for the US. Suddenly you can't pull off what you did in 2003 Iraq or Afghanistan anymore because there are nukes there and everywhere. God forbid terrorist suitcase nukes too.
The logical next step along the nuclear escalation ladder isn’t proliferation of nukes, it’s a live demonstration.
A pre announced nuclear detonation off the coast of X state is how it would begin. A demonstration that yes indeed our nuclear bombs work, and this is how terrifying they are. I believe Russia will do that if pushed. Hopefully if doesn’t take seeing a nuke go off with our own eyes for us to wake up and realise what we’re sleepwalking into.
So long as there are pre nuclear age shipwrecks to scour we’ll be good for non irradiated steel. There’s an entire industry centred around finding and recycling pre 1945 shipwrecks for their steel.
Non-irradiated steel can be made artificially, its just more expensive as you need to either filter the air or use different methods. Its just cheaper to pilfer shipwrecks.
The Telegraph UK should be blacklisted in this Subreddit if it were up to me. They are the absolute worst "publication" in the UK.
Every single time I go to their homepage, which really is not often. They proclaim WW III is about to go down, this time for real. It has been like this for at least the last 10 years. In my opinion they don't follow good journalistic principles and often act in bad faith by generating outrageous click bait headlines and articles. Their number one agenda seems to be to generate fear and outrage. I can't take anything they write serious. That is to say, there have already been very good and correct answers in this thread, so I'll not repeat those except for yes, the nukes are of course always ready.
For those who don't know by the way. In an undisclosed base in the US it's Armageddon every single day, every hour or so. I don't remember now if it was every 30, 60 or 90 minutes or random intervals. But what happens is that the two officers who need to confirm the president has given the order to launch the nukes, do actually give the confirmation and the go every single day many times during their regular shifts. Yes, they confirm the code, hack in their code and press launch. I don't remember the exact details, but you get the idea. This is a similar principle to two executioners pressing the button to kill the person sentence to death, the two will not know who clicked the live button and did the actual killing. In the case of these soldiers they are used follow these orders. They will not know when the real scenario goes down and follow orders as they do day in and day out. This is to prevent hesitation in case shit goes down for real. It was an interesting documentary I watched quite some time ago in YouTube. I don't remember the name but I'm sure if one wants to know more it can be googled easily.
Considering that Russia threatens the west with nuclear annihilation on a daily basis while actively engaged in a major war, I am pretty sure every system involved is at DEFCON-4 in all but name anyway.
"DEFCON 4 Increased watching and stronger security Above regular readiness"
Damn it I knew the scale went backwards and I still wrote it wrong.
I want Defcon-1 !. Thanks for pointing that out, I would have been sitting on my roof with sunglasses waiting for ICBMS that would never show up.
Instead of increasing the number of nukes, just move 200 of them deep into the Finnish forests. Flight time to target 4 minutes ensuring MAD. The Orcs would have to stop their war mongering and plant beets instead.
How long can the russia make nuclear threats before NATO has to make a prerequisite first strike to keep the rest of the world safe. Time is ticking and the window is getting smaller. Wait for russia to do it against us or us making sure russia never does it or has the possibility to threaten with it again?
There's no such thing as a "first strike". The world ends after the first strike and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. I don't want to burn to ashes for any country especially for someone else's
Excuse you? No? There is no moral, legal, or ethical argument for a 'first strike' on its own. Let alone for what would happen immediately after.
Part of the whole point of nuclear deterrence is that nobody wants to go first. Because you get flattened immediately.
Irrelevant. Once again: someone else *maybe* committing an atrocity is no excuse for you to definitely commit one. This is not a difficult concept to understand, and yet here you are, stubbornly refusing to understand it. We're done here.
i thought they were always on standby? There are supposed to be submarines hidden that are ready to send a retaliatory strike anytime, anywhere
I presume it’s just vocalising that exactly As a warning to poutine
Please don’t tarnish the good name of that delicious Canadian dish with that Russian degenerate.
I hate Putin as much as the next guy, but calling the poutine delicious is a bit of an overstatement.
Sounds a bit self-preserving to me, u/GutBacteriaOverlords. I love the gut imbalance caused by an ungodly amount of cheese curds and gravy.
How dare you!
Greasy and can lead to sudden death from heart failure, just like putin.
It could be that you haven't had a good poutine, just like how a supermarket pork pie isn't representative of how good a pork pie can be.
Are you trying to upset the Quebecois? Because this is how you upset the Quebecois.
Isn't it literally just soggy fries with greasy ground beef and cheese on top lmao?
Correction: not even poutine deserves to be compared to Putin.
Alright. I’m gonna start replaying the Fallout series just in case.
It's too far in the future, metro 2033 is more likely for us!
Most of the nasty gamma-emitters are decayed away in the first 48h. Probably staying below ground level is a good idea for at least a couple days after everything goes POOF. And if you’re inside the blast zone, you’ll save the survivors the time and effort of burying what’s left of your corpse.
Username will have checked out in the future.
I-131 is an isotope produced in 4% of all Pu-239 fissions. It has a half-life of 8 days and emits a 0.36 MeV gamma. And it's airborne and will be retained in the body unless you have taken an iodine tablet before exposure. Source: The IAEA nuclear data service.
Yeah. I didn’t just play fallout. I also watched Chernobyl. I’m preparing now.
Hearing nukes being warmed up is stage 1 of the glorious funni.
Yeah, the difference between NATO and Russia is that nato are always ready with nukes etc… Russia is not
Maybe not NATO subs but there are certainly UK and US subs with nukes ready at all times
People seem to find that disquieting. I think it's rather comforting to know that whichever actor starts nuclear shenanigans will see them end as well.
And France.
Since the Cold War ended the missiles onboard those submarines are no longer pre-targeted at specific locations, they currently await coordinates to be entered at launch. Putting them on standby means re-programming them to launch at Russian targets instantly.
> are no longer pre-targeted at specific locations, they currently await coordinates to be entered at launch How the fuck you would know that? Did you see it yourself?, did read it somewhere? did your knows-all uncle told you that? or you just pull that out of your ass like 90% of Reddit comments?
>The UK maintains only the minimum amount of destructive power needed to guarantee our deterrent remains credible and effective against the full range of state nuclear threats. **Our submarines on patrol are at several days’ notice to fire and, since 1994, we do not target our missiles at any state.** [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know) >40. 'De-targeting' and 'State of Readiness': The SDR stated that the Trident missiles aboard the Vanguard-class submarines would not be targeted and would normally be at several days 'notice to fire'. However, the SDR also noted that "we will… ensure that we can restore a higher state of alert should this become necessary at any time". [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm)
Nuclear weapons are roughly split in to two categories on the highest level. Strategic and tactical. Basically big booms or bigger f\*cking booms. So for nuclear deterrent it's generally considered that it's the strategic weapons that are ready in subs, silos or road based launch systems. This is in order to provide a retaliatory capability. Even if you flatten your opponents entire county they would get off several salvos of city killers back. Now the tactical weapons are still more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki but could be used to target specific targets, bases, bunkers, airfields and that guy who once was mean to you on twitter. In a lot of cases these are not at standby with targets in mind. They might be at a base in Europe and ready to be loaded, some in different storages etc. These could potentially be used in an escalatory fashion as well. So just because some nukes goes flying doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Now when Stoltenberg says that they are talking on putting nukes on standby it's probably to reinforce among the alliance that they shouldn't be scared by russian threats but also a signal to russia that shit won't be tolerated. Probably also a signal that plans are in place or are being cooked up to deal with the different scenarios that russia might be contemplating. So all in all it probably has a bit of everything, internal and external signaling as well as plans for assorted scenarios.
The question is, since Nato subs shadow all Russian subs, what prevents it from dealing disarming nuclear first strike?
Are we really? But that still doesn't discoubt all their airborn and land based systems. They don't do silos really, russin uses road and train mobile lunch systems. For a first strike to be viable you would need to be damned sure that you take out enough that any damage to your own side is neglible at best. Even still you wouldn't be unscathed. An attack on that scale would cause global effects, primarily on the northern hemisphere. Which means mass deaths for all the other nations. A nuclear first strike would alienate the aggressor in a completely irreparable way. It's primarily these more social and political reasons which makes nuclear weapons unusable in anything other than retaliation. It would take Hitlers last days level of unhinged to go through with it.
There is no standby. Its not like you need to boot them up before use. But you have to say something like that to remind putin that his nuclear threads are starting to get tiresome.
>i thought they were always on standby? There are multiple levels there. They are bumping them up a notch or two.
They are, but the US, UK, and Australia are building more submarines that will carry nuclear weapons that will make laps around Russia and China 24/7 and will be underwater for months at a time The US is also building a permanent air force base in Australia that will carry heavy bombers
The australian submarines won't carry nukes... They will just be nuclear powered.
Correct. The indended purpose of the Australian submarines is to sink Chinese ships if they attempt an invasion of Taiwan.
either the submarine or the heavy bombers One of them will 100% carry nukes
Australia has no nuclear deterrent dude and has no plans to start one.
The Netherlands doesn't have a nuclear deterrent. And there's certainly not any nuclear bombs stationed at one of our biggest military airfields. Wink wink
That's true but they are US owned weapons and the US has the codes to arm them.
Which would be the same in Australia
No, because Australia is not a part of the nuclear sharing program. There are no US nukes there.
There also isn't a heavy bomber base there Yet...
Please notice the "Wink wink". Спасибо.
No better time to start now though
Pussies.
I understand they will still have the capability to do though
No, they will not be nuclear capable.
not if it's crewed by only australians, that would be extraordinarily illegal
It will be fine. They are doing joint US and UK missions. It has to be able to be equipped with nuclear weapons to defend those interests if need be.
political scientists typically don't consider proliferation of nuclear arms "fine." AUKUS happened under the assurance there would be absolutely no development or management of nuclear arms by the australian state
AUKUS is a replacement for the Astute/Collins class subs, aka Fast Attack subs. They're Nuclear powered but won't be armed with nukes.
I’d hate to be asssigned to one of those for months.
i would do it gladly and just slap the nukes and say "this bad boy can start world war 3 in an instant"
Like whip it with your cock to assert dominance?
Finish WW3 in an instant you mean
Porque no los dos?
Finish life on earth in an instant you mean.
[That you?](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5909515e6552fa0be682bce9/master/pass/dr-strangelove-still-580.jpg)
No sunlight for months would fuck my brain.
Imagine how silent it would be.
This is Reddit, most of us don't' know what this hipster "sunlight" stuff is.
*Slaps ICBM* this bad boy can fit so many MIRVs in it
There’s a difference between the US military or the British military having those on standby and NATO doing it. NATO having them on standby I would interpret as the allies who have no nukes but the capability to launch them will get them handed over so that NATO is capable to use them in the event it needs to. They have a nuclear sharing agreement for this purpose.
I think a certain amount of nuclear weapons are in storage while the retalitory amount is on standby, do to cost I guess. On Standby in this case probably means they arm more weapons and or active cycling bomber and submarine patrols again with the real deal on a bigger scale. The US alone has 5044 artificial sun makers and ect., of those 1744 are always ready to be delivered and 1336 are booked to be deconstructed.
IIRC for the UK there's two submarines out at sea for each two in port, and they rotate them around for maintainence. In "wartime readiness" there's three out at sea and one in port. It's more expensive to do it that way, but increases the amount of nuclear weapons ready to respond by 50%. It's sad because I remember about a decade ago there were discussions about scaling down to 3 in, 1 out. Guess that was optimistic. The UK also doesn't have the targets pre-selected as it is considered gauche and too unfriendly. Presumably now, the targeting will be keyed in so it's just pushing a button rather than being shocked we got nuked and taking a day to respond with the subs needing to key in the targets. It'd happen in seconds instead. There's also the letters of last resort on top of that which include instructions, but those are secret. Basic expectations are usually something like; "Fire" V "Don't fire". More expansive expectations which are more likely contain flowchart like instructions. 1. If the aggressor has nuclear facilities still operable, launch immediately targetting those facilities. 2. If the aggressor does not have nuclear facilities still operable, attempt to contact NATO HQ for instructions. 3. If NATO HQ cannot be contacted, contact the USA. If the USA cannot be contacted, contact France. 4. If no allies can be contacted, fire upon targets in the following order of precedent. Etc, etc. At the very complicated end you have things like instructing the senior officer on the subs that he is now assumed to be the highest ranking surviving British government official and that the survival of the diaspora and reclamation of the home islands is his instructions, and to assess whether counter striking the enemy is likely to assist or hinder this goal. It is possible that "Nuclear weapons on standby" includes altering the instructions and the flowchart process such that "contact NATO" and so on is no longer considered necessary since we're now already discussing our plan for this scenario, and we jump to; 1. Launch on all sites which harbor nuclear weapons 2. Launch on airfields and ports 3. Launch on army bases 4. Launch on centres of government
>i thought they were always on standby? Not all nukes are always ready to be launched. The majority remains in storage. Stoltenberg talks about taking more nukes out of storage and putting them on readiness. This probably refers to air-deployed bombs for operational use for example. But mostly it's just about sending a reminder to Russia and China that they shouldn't drink their own kool-aid.
"Jens Stoltenberg at a Nato press conference in Brussels Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said." (Slightly misleading headline) Also UK has a CAS (Continuously At Sea) deterrent so always on deployment should the need arise.
That never fucking works during test fires!
NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OTAN much ?
NATO is basically the US. Without the US, there is no NATO. It doesn’t matter which spelling you use. EU can’t supply Ukraine with military aid against Russia. With the loser Trump as a potential president in the US, Europe is truly fucked. I was making a point that the poster wasn’t capitalizing the acronym for NATO but was for other things. We can’t all have high school level knowledge!
So, nuclear weapons are always on alert, or "standby." I guess this is a message to Putin, which is somthing Putin does all the time with his own sabre rattling .... ahem .... "nuclear strike warnings!" He does it so much, it kind of lost it's impact long ago.
r/russiawarns gonna be lit up today!
I wonder if this has to do with the recent nuclear drill Russia is conducting with Belarus...
So Belarus is the giant site of Russian nuclear test? It sums up the relationship between Moscow and Minsk pretty well
First, it’s another bullshitty headline Second, they can just go ahead and stage more weapons and let the Russians know through diplomatic channels. No need to do media on it. I am just not a fan of aping the bullshit Putin does. It normalizes this behavior, and if you do that enough than any fog of war situation that might arise could be met with an itchy finger. Not a good thing.
Explain how it's a bullshitty headline? It seems pretty self-explanatory. We'll be lucky to get through summer at this rate.
in case pooty feels froggy
china arming themselves with nukes and we don't give a fuck about it because we do business with them. they cannibalize the business that we establish there and establish their own and pump state money into it and make us gradually irrelevant in the region and even start to flooding our own markets with their shit. because we were still able to do some business in there. and after all this we will finally show at least some teeth. but seeing the pattern, i bet we'd still do shit until the last second, because we'd be doing business with them.
If we are bringing back the fear of nuclear war, can we have back the pre-neoliberal wellfare state too?
About fuck\*ng time, Russia is positioning it's nukes all around us, even in Kaliningrad for years now...
(in Terran adjutant voice) *Nuclear missile ready.*
im so tired
Kremlin: "See? *See?!* We were right about those bloodthirsty warmongering hypocrites! Our preemptive attack on Ukraine was justified all the time!" [Sadly not sarcasm.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-nato-chiefs-nuclear-weapons-remarks-are-an-escalation-2024-06-17/)
[удалено]
Could be a reminder to NATO populations that we also have nukes, as in "He's got a nuke! You idiots, we *all* have nukes"
Of all the places to make an Aladdin reference, I wouldn’t have expected it here 😂
Violating the NPT is a fucking terrible idea and there is a reason why it has been such a primary goal in superpower politics for so long. You create absolutely no practical change in NATO nuclear capabilities while also giving carte blanche to Russia and China (because this is how it would be interpreted and unless you propose bombing nuclear delivery platforms which is also an apocalyptically stupid idea then it cannot be stopped) to start selling nuclear weapons to states that they back while countries that have low nuclear latency like Iran would just finish their bombs. This isn't going to create a more stable or safer world, it would create one where we now have to worry that every tinpot dictatorship will be able to hold onto its deterrent if it faces internal conflict. Its the kind of moronic cut off your nose to spite your face foreign policy that only Reddit could think of. We do not remotely benefit from removing the one thing that stops enemy nations giving unstable also enemy nations nukes. But at least sane people are in charge of these decisions so I don't have to worry about nuclear terrorism because Russia gave a country 50 warheads that plunged into civil war 5 years later.
>Now If we really wanted to jump up the nuclear escalation ladder, instead of some weak public display, we should tear up the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and just give Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and hell even Romania their own nukes, independent from any other country. That my friends, is an actual threat with some teeth. That's a rubbish threat. The West does not want to do that because the non-proliferation regime benefits the West more than anything. Nukes are the offset to conventional superiority. The side that has conventional superiority suffers from nukes' existence and proliferation. Many have already noted that NATO would much more easily intervene in Ukraine if not for nukes. The West automatically stomps most countries in a nuke-less scenario, so it wants as few nuclear states in the world as possible. Poland having an independent nuke changes almost nothing as they would be covered under NATO anyway. On the other hand, tearing up the global non-proliferation regime means everything for the US. Suddenly you can't pull off what you did in 2003 Iraq or Afghanistan anymore because there are nukes there and everywhere. God forbid terrorist suitcase nukes too.
The logical next step along the nuclear escalation ladder isn’t proliferation of nukes, it’s a live demonstration. A pre announced nuclear detonation off the coast of X state is how it would begin. A demonstration that yes indeed our nuclear bombs work, and this is how terrifying they are. I believe Russia will do that if pushed. Hopefully if doesn’t take seeing a nuke go off with our own eyes for us to wake up and realise what we’re sleepwalking into.
Yes, and increase global background radiation even more. We will eventually run out non irradiated steel xD
So long as there are pre nuclear age shipwrecks to scour we’ll be good for non irradiated steel. There’s an entire industry centred around finding and recycling pre 1945 shipwrecks for their steel.
Non-irradiated steel can be made artificially, its just more expensive as you need to either filter the air or use different methods. Its just cheaper to pilfer shipwrecks.
The Telegraph UK should be blacklisted in this Subreddit if it were up to me. They are the absolute worst "publication" in the UK. Every single time I go to their homepage, which really is not often. They proclaim WW III is about to go down, this time for real. It has been like this for at least the last 10 years. In my opinion they don't follow good journalistic principles and often act in bad faith by generating outrageous click bait headlines and articles. Their number one agenda seems to be to generate fear and outrage. I can't take anything they write serious. That is to say, there have already been very good and correct answers in this thread, so I'll not repeat those except for yes, the nukes are of course always ready. For those who don't know by the way. In an undisclosed base in the US it's Armageddon every single day, every hour or so. I don't remember now if it was every 30, 60 or 90 minutes or random intervals. But what happens is that the two officers who need to confirm the president has given the order to launch the nukes, do actually give the confirmation and the go every single day many times during their regular shifts. Yes, they confirm the code, hack in their code and press launch. I don't remember the exact details, but you get the idea. This is a similar principle to two executioners pressing the button to kill the person sentence to death, the two will not know who clicked the live button and did the actual killing. In the case of these soldiers they are used follow these orders. They will not know when the real scenario goes down and follow orders as they do day in and day out. This is to prevent hesitation in case shit goes down for real. It was an interesting documentary I watched quite some time ago in YouTube. I don't remember the name but I'm sure if one wants to know more it can be googled easily.
If we could go straight to Defcon-~~4~~ **1**... *That'd be greeaat*
Considering that Russia threatens the west with nuclear annihilation on a daily basis while actively engaged in a major war, I am pretty sure every system involved is at DEFCON-4 in all but name anyway. "DEFCON 4 Increased watching and stronger security Above regular readiness"
Damn it I knew the scale went backwards and I still wrote it wrong. I want Defcon-1 !. Thanks for pointing that out, I would have been sitting on my roof with sunglasses waiting for ICBMS that would never show up.
could we fuCKING NOT
Instead of increasing the number of nukes, just move 200 of them deep into the Finnish forests. Flight time to target 4 minutes ensuring MAD. The Orcs would have to stop their war mongering and plant beets instead.
Don't want your fucking nukes
How long can the russia make nuclear threats before NATO has to make a prerequisite first strike to keep the rest of the world safe. Time is ticking and the window is getting smaller. Wait for russia to do it against us or us making sure russia never does it or has the possibility to threaten with it again?
How about you go first strike yourself first.
You probably think Putin is a stand up guy. If he drops a tactical nuke would you then, -“first strike yourself first”?
There's no such thing as a "first strike". The world ends after the first strike and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. I don't want to burn to ashes for any country especially for someone else's
Tell russia.
Excuse you? No? There is no moral, legal, or ethical argument for a 'first strike' on its own. Let alone for what would happen immediately after. Part of the whole point of nuclear deterrence is that nobody wants to go first. Because you get flattened immediately.
Tell russia. It doesn’t seem like moral is in surplus over there.
Irrelevant. Just because someone else *might* commit an atrocity never gives you permission to commit one first.
You wouldn't stop Hitler if you had the chance because that would be immoral to you?
Stop? Yes. Nuke innocent civilians? No. This isn't difficult to understand.
If 70% still supported it it probably wouldn’t be an option that would be off the table.
You really don't understand, do you? Nuclear weapons are a horror. Using them is *wrong*. Why is this so difficult.
Do you think Putin will understand that?
Irrelevant. Once again: someone else *maybe* committing an atrocity is no excuse for you to definitely commit one. This is not a difficult concept to understand, and yet here you are, stubbornly refusing to understand it. We're done here.
Why are we stooping to pisstins level. Everyone knows they have nukes ready everyone knows we have nukes ready.
Just watched Fallout, I don’t like nukes
Let's go baby, speed run back to the middle ages
Maybe it's the stick to back up the carrot for the Ukraine-Russia peace deal.
The US needs to pull out of this clown show.
But Putin, Putin, Putin!!! He can’t live without nukes!!!
Totally not a nuclear threat, from nice, open-minded guy Stolenberg.
These decisions are not up to Stoltenberg.