How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be • Hacker News Board

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#31

Post by simonblack » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 7:19 PM UTC

hammyhavoc wrote: post #26

simonblack wrote: post #21

"... but we're not using Strategic nukes, we only using Tactical nukes". So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have. Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away…

When we reach 2030, I'll raise a glass for you mate.

Thank you. I hope we're both around to do that.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#32

Post by time0ut » Sat, Jul 01, 2023, 12:17 AM UTC

simonblack wrote: post #30

time0ut wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen. > the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wun…

Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers': Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones. Then there…

Thank you. This is interesting and gives me a few things to read more about.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#33

Post by southernplaces7 » Sat, Jul 08, 2023, 7:33 AM UTC

simonblack wrote: post #30

time0ut wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen. > the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wun…

Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers': Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones. Then there…

Defects of trial by fire in western weapons systems are just as likely as defects in trials by fire with Russian weapons systems finally facing real, heavy combat. Your examples may be valid, but similar applies to Russia as well. One example, the "top-end" Russian T-14 Armata tank, which is barely being deployed in Ukraine. Another example, Russia's newer fighter aircraft, or the Russian Kinzhal missile. But wait, there's more!

Even if the NATO Alliance weapons deployed in Ukraine don't work ideally, the total economic and technical power of the west has the ability to overcome these failures and build better for war to a much greater degree than the fragile, comparatively tiny economy of Russia can manage, and on a large scale, economic sustainability is what wins wars. Just ask the Germans after both of the World Wars they kickstarted.