Ask Lemmy

27277 readers

1270 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

115

I realize I may get some divisive answers, but if NATO Countries all agreed, mobilized, and went into Russia full force with no warning, what are the likely outcomes? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

137 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In addition It's also not a good idea to nuke a place you intend to occupy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's also a risk that the weapons have been so poorly maintained that they'd fail silently or spectacularly, which would not be great for Russia's end of the mutually part of mutually assured.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I bet they fizzle. By weight, tritium is one of the most expensive substances on the planet; do you think the people in charge of refilling the nukes have actually been doing so, or just stealing the money?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I do remember hearing that half of the users nukes were decoys that were only found out after the USSR fell so I do wonder if Russia is still bluffing with decoy nukes or if the decoy nukes were more prominent than we thought considering the a amount of fraudulent conventional weapons that the Ukraine war has revealed I suspect that Russia is still heavily dependent on bluffing with decoy nukes and the few that are intended to be real are poorly maintained or poorly made