EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nato would completely overwhelm Russia, but not before nukes would fly from various places and hit major cities in the western world. In the retaliation, all of Russia would be destroyed, world in turmoil…

    • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have some doubts that Russia’s nuclear weapons are even in operational order.

      maybe they try to launch them, and they just self-destruct inside their silos. or, they fly, but fall out of the sky still in Russia, or, they actually fly all the way to the destination, but fail to detonate.

      to be sure, this is not something that we should wager on. I just think it would be funny if it turned out that way. just a fun little daydream of imperialist fascist scum getting put in the ground where they fucking belong.

      • Davel23@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Russia is believed to have about 6500 nuclear weapons. Even if ninety-nine percent of them fail, that’s still 65 cities turned to ash.

          • Imperor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            The US and the USSR engaged in a race to have the most nukes. After the fall of the Sowjet Union international treaties were put in place to reduce the number of nukes in both east and west.

            Don’t quote me, but if I remember correctly, at the height of the cold war, both sides had more than 12.000 nukes each.

            Humanity had enough fire power to delete the entire globe roughly 40x over then. Why? Because bigger is better.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s dumb. They didn’t do it just for shits and giggles. They did it because in a nuclear exchange, you only get one shot so you need to overwhelm your opponent’s defenses.

              • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Partially yes, but there’s an even more mundane reason; with nuclear weapons, if the other side has 5, you need 6: five to destroy their five, and one to destroy their capital. But when they discover that, they’ll decide that they need seven: 6 to destroy your 6, and one to destroy your capital. Add in some uncertainty to that feedback loop, and an arms race immediately becomes an exponential curve moderated only by the amount of time production takes and the amount of resources each nation is willing to commit at any given time.

                There’s a very real way in which the proliferation of arms is, itself, an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          More likely several hundred, not 65.
          Each nuke carries multiple warheads that split up in space and fly to individual targets.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s nearly impossible to mobilize a large force quickly, or covertly. There would be plenty of warning, especially if the US is involved because there’s an ocean in the way in either direction.

    If Western nations decide to attack Russia, I doubt the conflict will stay limited to Russia.

    • North Korea will probably support Russia militarily very quickly. They’re already supplying weapons, they have a close relationship, and they’re reasonably secure against counterattack because China would react very badly if NK were attacked directly.
    • Iran will join with Russia, but uncertain whether Iran will actually deploy its military in Europe (probably not), or take the opportunity to pursue their own goals in the middle east while the west is distracted.
    • China will probably play neutral for awhile, but continue to trade with Russia and sell them military equipment. China is circumspect, they won’t jump into a conflict for ideological reasons, though they’ll certainly quote ideological reasons in their propaganda. They will join the conflict when it benefits them and doesn’t present extreme risk. Most likely they will pursue their own goals in the south China sea (Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines) while the US is busy elsewhere.

    An attack from the West on Russia will balloon into a global conflict. It will be bad for everyone, even if it stays limited to conventional warfare.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Assuming no one nukes the world or that all air defenses work, it’d be a mess. There’s no force in human history that can stop NATO in a traditional war. (Maybe the Mongols because they’re always the exception.) But it’s very likely China, North Korea, Iran, and others would be much harder to conquer/occupy at the same time.

    It would be widespread suffering in most of the world. The truth is that war is obsolete as a means of accomplishing 99% of political goals. Most of the world would descend into chaos and civil war. Food would be scarce and in times of scarcity, the drunkest, most violent people usually end up in charge. You’d have warlordism in the vast, vast majority of the world.

    The natural state of humanity isn’t trade and property rights. It’s warlords offering protection in exchange for whatever they need. No one “wins” wars in 2024. Groups like ISIS would thrive, not law and order.

  • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    what are the likely outcomes?

    Putin launches nukes, huge amount of civilians die, russian military is crushed within next few months. NATO wins at the cost of horrible loss of civilians killed by russian nukes. World economy shrinks considerably

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      So, this is the same analysis I read like a year ago. Do you feel that the current situation is not different enough now to indicate an alternate course of events?

      • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Do you feel that the current situation is not different enough

        Putin has the exact same number of nukes and ICBMs as before. This is the main factor, and I don’t see it changing any time soon