What would a nuclear war in 2014 have looked like

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Let’s say that either events in Ukraine or Syria result in the US or Russia greatly increasing tensions, both sides threatening war and badly underestimating the situation, one side accidentally shooting the other side, and rapid escalation because the situation is misread.

Nukes start flying at some point in 2014 over this.

To what extent would the US and Russia be destroyed? Who else would they likely target at that point? Would Russia hit all of NATO and ANZUS? Would Russia hit any of their neutral neighbors to prevent them from colonizing Russia post war? Would the US and Russia hit China? If so, who does China hit? Do Israel, Pakistan, and India get dragged in? Does America cripple countries it does not like (Iran, Syria, Cuba)? Does anyone hit Latin America, Africa, Japan, or SE Asia? I assume North Korea is wiped out by everyone?

 

[lionhead]

Its highly unlikely(the entire scenario of course) that the US and Russia would launch against countries that are neutral just because they are nuclear powers.

That Russia would attack NATO is likely though, any ally of the US is automatically their enemy, and Europe is pretty fucking close.

I'm not sure about defenses in place and how well they can be used. Totally depends on the situation too of course. If one country fires accidentally and causes destruction, the reaction time of the other country is very important. How long does it take to get missiles, nuclear subs and planes ready to launch, what defensive capabilities can be activated and deployed before that?

Its all a highly hypothetical situation and not easy to actually get a good idea of the damage. The accidental launch/strike you mention alone could be bad enough to collapse the world economy. After that is probably like Einstein said, sticks and stones.

In my personal opinion, no sane person would launch their nukes to cause total destruction of their enemy, not like that. But then again Russia has Putin so...

 

[juanml82]

Its highly unlikely(the entire scenario of course) that the US and Russia would launch against countries that are neutral just because they are nuclear powers.

That Russia would attack NATO is likely though, any ally of the US is automatically their enemy, and Europe is pretty fucking close.

I'm not sure about defenses in place and how well they can be used. Totally depends on the situation too of course. If one country fires accidentally and causes destruction, the reaction time of the other country is very important. How long does it take to get missiles, nuclear subs and planes ready to launch, what defensive capabilities can be activated and deployed before that?

Its all a highly hypothetical situation and not easy to actually get a good idea of the damage. The accidental launch/strike you mention alone could be bad enough to collapse the world economy. After that is probably like Einstein said, sticks and stones.

In my personal opinion, no sane person would launch their nukes to cause total destruction of their enemy, not like that. But then again Russia has Putin so...

Yeah, well, the USA could have had Hillary "no fly zone in Syria" Clinton. So maybe Syria gets hot between Russia and the USA and Putin, realizing logistics would make Russia loose, tries to escalate to de-escalate and it doesn't work? With Russian and American fighters already fighting in the Syrian skies, there would be a certain level of readiness in both powers nuclear readiness.

 

[Vabasion]

Its highly unlikely(the entire scenario of course) that the US and Russia would launch against countries that are neutral just because they are nuclear powers.

That Russia would attack NATO is likely though, any ally of the US is automatically their enemy, and Europe is pretty fucking close.

I'm not sure about defenses in place and how well they can be used. Totally depends on the situation too of course. If one country fires accidentally and causes destruction, the reaction time of the other country is very important. How long does it take to get missiles, nuclear subs and planes ready to launch, what defensive capabilities can be activated and deployed before that?

Its all a highly hypothetical situation and not easy to actually get a good idea of the damage. The accidental launch/strike you mention alone could be bad enough to collapse the world economy. After that is probably like Einstein said, sticks and stones.

In my personal opinion, no sane person would launch their nukes to cause total destruction of their enemy, not like that. But then again Russia has Putin so...

I’m pretty sure nuclear nations on rank of Russia will launch nukes against absolutely everyone and their mother neutral or not if it comes to that.

 

[marathag]

 

[Grey Wolf]

The US certainly sent Emergency Action commands to its nuclear missile submarines, that much is documented. Putin at the same time was having his nuclear bombers out of their bunkers, loaded up with missiles on their runways. You most certainly do have that background

Ukraine might not be NATO, but the USA simply cannot sit there and watch it be completely destroyed. If the attacks towards Mariupol had continued, then the situation would have escalated.

If Russia had decided to conquer the country entirely and launched attacks on Lvov then Poland is absolutely going to be demanding NATO assistance. Even as it was Poland went to a general mobilisation order

Things look less serious in retrospect because we know nothing came of it, but that is a false view

 

[lionhead]

I’m pretty sure nuclear nations on rank of Russia will launch nukes against absolutely everyone and their mother neutral or not if it comes to that.

why though? Just because they then want to be only nuclear power? Its insane, the entire notion is. Nuclear war is insane enough on its own.

 

[Vabasion]

why though? Just because they then want to be only nuclear power? Its insane, the entire notion is. Nuclear war is insane enough on its own.

Because Nuclear war means nuclear extermination of those involved. Why should Germans or Romanians get to benefit from that. That’s the Russian stance. I think they even published a list of nuclear targets that involved a bunch of neutral countries.

 

[Barry Bull]

View attachment 644830View attachment 644831

That's the stockpile no, not no of deployable weapons.

 

[Barry Bull]

Because Nuclear war means nuclear extermination of those involved. Why should Germans or Romanians get to benefit from that. That’s the Russian stance. I think they even published a list of nuclear targets that involved a bunch of neutral countries.

Such notion is not supported by current research on Russian nuclear strategy.

https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp...06/Nikolai-Sokov-Russian-Nuclear-Strategy.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2020.1818070

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Bright. It would’ve looked pretty bright.

 

[lionhead]

Because Nuclear war means nuclear extermination of those involved. Why should Germans or Romanians get to benefit from that. That’s the Russian stance. I think they even published a list of nuclear targets that involved a bunch of neutral countries.

no, as i said, NATO countries are not neutral countries. They are allies of the US so an enemy. But why would they launch against China or India? That only invites more nuclear strikes against your own country.