Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[englishpremier]

I think nuclear weapons make the situation vastly different to the outbreak of ww2.

All parties now know that a full scale war likely leads to the annihilation of the planet/the human race.

There is no conceivable way to "win" anymore.

Not sure about the annihilation of the planet. Obviously yields are an order of magnitude higher now than they were in WW2, but back then it would have taken 24 20 kilo ton bombs just to cover the Isle of Wight. The ones dropped on Japan only has a 2km radius

 

[Jono8]

Not sure about the annihilation of the planet. Obviously yields are an order of magnitude higher now than they were in WW2, but back then it would have taken 24 20 kilo ton bombs just to cover the Isle of Wight. The ones dropped on Japan only has a 2km radius

I mean in terms of sustaining human life. The planet (ie the rock itself) will be fine, but a big enough nuclear war could lead to the planet becoming pretty uninhabitable.

 

[Rroff]

I mean in terms of sustaining human life. The planet (ie the rock itself) will be fine, but a big enough nuclear war could lead to the planet becoming pretty uninhabitable.

It ain't going to make big parts of the planet very nice places but most of those nuclear winter, etc. scenarios were based on big old dirty multi-megaton atom bombs being used exclusively against cities - say 3-4x 10MT bombs used against an urban area would result in vast amounts of burn off, vast amounts of stuff being kicked into the upper atmosphere as well as radiation fallout.

Most countries have been moving more towards multiple-warhead missiles in the 100s of kiloton range, more often configured for airburst use where fallout is much less, and many would be used against military assets (and civilian infrastructure) to try and prevent retaliation, etc. significantly reducing the amount of ash produced and the amount of ash and other material which would be injected into the stratosphere.

The resultant collapse of society would be as much a factor as anything in terms of the conditions the survivors would be faced with.

 

[Tosno]

It ain't going to make big parts of the planet very nice places but most of those nuclear winter, etc. scenarios were based on big old dirty multi-megaton atom bombs being used exclusively against cities - say 3-4x 10MT bombs used against an urban area would result in vast amounts of burn off, vast amounts of stuff being kicked into the upper atmosphere as well as radiation fallout.

Most countries have been moving more towards multiple-warhead missiles in the 100s of kiloton range, more often configured for airburst use where fallout is much less, and many would be used against military assets (and civilian infrastructure) to try and prevent retaliation, etc. significantly reducing the amount of ash produced and the amount of ash and other material which would be injected into the stratosphere.

The resultant collapse of society would be as much a factor as anything in terms of the conditions the survivors would be faced with.

We need 1.2 million heavy duty nukes to wipe out civilisation.

Russia has 5k warheads. America 4k. France 300, Israel, UK, China circa 200 each.

Not even 1% of civilisation.

 

[Rroff]

We need 1.2 million heavy duty nukes to wipe out humanity.

Russia has 5k warheads. America 4k. France 300, Israel, UK, China circa 200 each.

Not even 1% of humanity

To wipe out humanity by area yeah - there are a bunch of nuclear winter scenarios which would render the earth largely uninhabitable for quite awhile though - but most of them are based on flawed premises and/or out of date.

Russia IIRC currently has more like 7+K warheads (they've recently been revamping their more medium range stuff) but I'll be surprised if more than 2.5K are serviceable.

 

[StriderX]

I never understood the fascination with the idea that you need to literally blanket every square inch of the planet to destroy civilisation. Even if the nukes only flattened the major cities, that is the entire global economy in disarray and there's more than enough warheads to achieve that.

 

[Rroff]

I never understood the fascination with the idea that you need to literally blanket every square inch of the planet to destroy civilisation. Even if the nukes only flattened the major cities, that is the entire global economy in disarray and there's more than enough warheads to achieve that.

Yup - millions, even billions would probably starve to death and/or die in the unrest, etc. to follow if the major cities and infrastructure was destroyed. In fact I'm not sure how many these days would make it a week if that stuff was temporarily disrupted on a large scale never mind nuked.

 

[PlacidCasual]

Yeah if all major cities are destroyed there goes electricity and thus refrigeration and fertilizer production. Two thirds of the World is going to starve straight off the bat right there even if the lucky survivors get their stuff together and attempt to rebuild an agrarian society. Then you mix in radiation poisoning and environmental affects and it's going Mad Max fairly quickly.

 

[LeMson]

**** i knew i shouldn't have started on my lockdown prep stash :/

 

[Jono8]

I never understood the fascination with the idea that you need to literally blanket every square inch of the planet to destroy civilisation. Even if the nukes only flattened the major cities, that is the entire global economy in disarray and there's more than enough warheads to achieve that.

Exactly.

A large nuclear war would likely mean the end of human civilization as we know it and would cause massive damage to the planets ecosystems.

 

[burtie]

Think I'd rather not survive a nuclear war to be honest, instant death preferred.

 

[alchal]

You don't even need nukes to shut down civilization, good hacking could shut down the national grid, communications etc under sea can be cut, RN is having a new vessel built with the capability to check the cables etc as Russia has a sub that apparently is designed to cut undersea cables.

Everything is linked to the titnerweb, that combined with disinformation that they excel in and they probably never need to use nukes to screw a modern nation up.

Russian ground forces are still poor compared to the US equipment wise, European nations have some good equipment but way to little of it really to count on the ground.
Air dominance the Russians would rely on the s-300-400 batteries as their air force is in no way a match for European or American airpower.

 

[adam cool dude]

Exactly.

A large nuclear war would likely mean the end of human civilization as we know it and would cause massive damage to the planets ecosystems.

Why not? Run off to Scotland and live a life with family in some remote part for the rest of your days.

In a way it might be a fantastic experience. Not having to pay off the state and make your own life. A van full of basic tools and I would be sorted.

I could understand for people who cannot even change a lightbulb it would probably be best to just die but natural selection would take care of that anyway.

 

[englishpremier]

Exactly.

A large nuclear war would likely mean the end of human civilization as we know it and would cause massive damage to the planets ecosystems.

Ah you've now added a new phrase of "as we know it"

As we know it where? For the tuaregs it probably wouldn't change things too badly, same for other nomadic type tribes, and even countries and cities. No-one for example is going to spend too much time attacking middle Africa, there is nothing of importance there for the nuclear powers.

So basically you're mostly talking about western society and way of life.

 

[200sols]

So basically you're mostly talking about western society and way of life.

The nuclear winter would affect everyone left, those people in middle Africa wont be living very long when their crops fail.

 

[Jono8]

Ah you've now added a new phrase of "as we know it"

As we know it where? For the tuaregs it probably wouldn't change things too badly, same for other nomadic type tribes, and even countries and cities. No-one for example is going to spend too much time attacking middle Africa, there is nothing of importance there for the nuclear powers.

So basically you're mostly talking about western society and way of life.

Not really. The environmental and economic consequences would be massive (worldwide), regardless of where the bombs were dropped.

Middle Africa is not just going to be "business as usual" if there has been a massive global nuclear war, even if a bomb wasn't dropped on them.

 

[englishpremier]

The nuclear winter would affect everyone left, those people in middle Africa wont be living very long when their crops fail.

Except nuclear winter is a theory based on firestorms causing soot in the atmosphere and blocking out sunlight and causing cooling. There are major criticisms of the theory. And let's say it did cause an ice age. Didn't humans exist during the previous ice age. So all of humanity being wiped out is a little far fetched.

EDIT: I appreciate this is getting well off topic now.

 

[PlacidCasual]

@englishpremier You're quite right some humans would survive as hunter gatherers or agrarian lifestyles. But most of us would die in the first few years from disease and starvation. Any nuclear winter would be short but even one failed harvest kills most of us off. Our efficiency comes at the risk of limited tolerance to interruption.

 

[alchal]

As has been mentioned before though was that not based on explosions detonating on ground or close as where as now they explode quite high up to stop the ground absorbing the shock wave,the main damage dealer, so will result in far far less debris shot into the atmosphere.

 

[Rroff]

As has been mentioned before though was that not based on explosions detonating on ground or close as where as now they explode quite high up to stop the ground absorbing the shock wave,the main damage dealer, so will result in far far less debris shot into the atmosphere.

Airburst vs groundburst, etc. becomes very complicated in terms of debris and radiation fallout.

The big old dirty atom bombs in the multi-mega ton range significantly aided stratospheric injection (which is where it really counts) with mushroom clouds reaching far into the upper atmosphere for illustration - albeit based on a theoretical 100MT bomb (some of the bigger actual bombs in arsenals at the peak of the cold war weren't far off this):

Spoiler

A few cities getting hit with multiples of devices close to that would not be pretty even for those that survived.

Even when the combination adds up to similar MT levels the 10s to 100s of kt warheads becoming more common today don't produce as significant an effect - which in some ways might not be a good thing as that maybe makes it more likely they might be used if the consequences are less potentially "planet killing".

In comparison the nuclear weapons becoming more commonly in use today would potentially ignite around 5-40km2 firestorms compared to the older bigger nukes which could easily be in the ~500 through to 3000km2 range.