141
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Reverendender@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

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!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] istanbullu@lemmy.ml 79 points 10 months ago

nuclear war

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 61 points 10 months ago

There's a problem with your premise. NATO (much like the UN) is not a military force of its own. Rather, it's an agreement between many nations, each with their own militaries. There is no NATO army. There is an agreement of the United States (with its army), the UK (with its army). Germany (with its army), etc.

Each of them could independently invade. They could even negotiate an agreement to invade. But that would have limited impact on NATO. The big thing would be that any invading country loses the agreed upon defenses of the rest.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That’s rather pedantic, but I guess it’s a valid point, so I clarified my question to mean what you already know I was asking.

[-] gigachad@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago

Technically, NATO has multiple multinational battalion battlegroups at Russia's border in Poland and the Baltic States, although they consist of only a couple of thousand soldiers.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 48 points 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 The truth is that war is obsolete as a means of accomplishing 99% of political goals.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.

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago

Easy way to kill a country: Disrupt the critical infrastructure at multiple points.
Just imagine how crippled we are without AWS, Azure, Cloudflare and Gcloud. Kill electricity, damage water supplies and destroy medication supply and the chaos is perfect.

[-] unsecretagent@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Gotta think of the Mongols.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 30 points 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.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 5 points 10 months ago

I agree with your prediction of China’s behavior (and especially their motivations) 100%.

[-] Sgn@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

It will be bad for northern hemisphere *

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snooggums@midwest.social 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is a complete crapshoot because it all fepends on whether thechain of people between Putin and the missles are more interested in going out with him.

What I expect to happen with an invasion:

NATO invades and quickly disables a ton of Russian military objectives. This is because Russia is already flailling with Ukraine due to lack of discipline and outdated tech that theybhave mostly lost already. Plus they can't do waves of conscript tactics at a moment's notice.

Putin loses it and tries to launch the missiles knowing it is the end of hos time in power. His military advisors refuse the order and stage a coup, killing Putin and blaming NATO, then fight a half hearted conventional defense for show before negotiating a ceasefire.

But that is just my thought and the risk of a nuclear launch makes it a terrible idea to launch a surprise invasion as some nuclear sub might respond tonthe invasion if their cummunication is cut off.

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 21 points 10 months ago

Considering that Ukraine is advancing inside Russia without so much problems, probably bad, for Russia

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago

If Russia uses nukes, Russia, the state, will cease to exist. The Oligarchs know this, Putin knows this. Only an existential threat to the Oligarchs and Putin would result in a nuclear strike. And that's why there was no nuclear response to the Kursk incursion so far.

[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

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

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 9 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 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?

[-] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 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

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

If Putin get shoot in the head?, the oligarchs don't like him, and there's a gigantic amount of people wanting to get his place

[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place 16 points 10 months ago

Pakistan and India have enough nukes to cause major famine across the world. Russia alone has enough nukes to nearly if not surely end humanity even if only 1% of the human population were killed directly from a nuclear explosion. I think the only way NATO could take Russia is if they were to somehow disarm their nukes.

Also, we have to consider alliances. Russia and North Korea are closely aligned. If the entire world went to war with NK, it is still possible that South Korea would be devastated because they have setup their entire military to shell the fuck out of South Korea at a moment's notice and have an extensive underground tunnel system for retaliatory purposes. However, it's possible that NK would value self-preservation over maintaining it's alignment with a Russia that will definitely not exist anymore.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 13 points 10 months ago

Not to argue, but shit hitting the fan on this scale makes loyalties much harder to predict.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

I wonder what would be required to surreptitiously disable most or all Russian nukes

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Well the good news is that we do have some ballistic missile defence in place. The bad news is that we don't really have enough of it. We could probably shoot down a couple hundred nukes... I'm highly doubtful that we could shoot every nuke out of the sky, if Russia decided to unleash everything they had.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] femtech@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

That depends on how well maintained their nuke arsenal is. I can see a couple launches that will be shot down but other countries would not rick nukes for the sake of Russia.

[-] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago

Nuclear annihilation. Got nothing to lose at that point

[-] swab148@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago
[-] craftyindividual@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

But I am le tired!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Steve@startrek.website 8 points 10 months ago
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I'm sure they were kept at the same tip top condition as the rest of the russian military complex's equipment.

[-] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

Possibly. But even if 99% of their strategic arsenal is junk, they'd still be left with 17 working warheads. Who's gonna risk 17 large cities wiped out?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Because Putin is a “So much for your fucking canoe!” kind of leader. I think most world leaders are if they have the chance. Look what we still say about France for surrendering in WW2, they get plenty of mockery despite being the very nation that helped the US exist in the first place.

So the default is that the worst of the rich and powerful like Putin have the relationship with their citizens and country that a narcissistic, severe domestic abuser has with their partner:

“If I can’t have you, no one will…”

(Canoe ref if you don’t know it, sorry for the shit site)

[-] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 7 points 10 months ago

For more humorous (but still serious) answers try asking in !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

Short answer: the end of the world.

The resultant nuclear war would kill a good portion of Earth's population, but it's likely far more would die from the chaos of civilisation being instantly forced back to the iron age by the EMP frying every silicon transistor.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 2 points 10 months ago

I used to be a Boy Scout. That just means I’ll die a bit slower.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 10 months ago

kinda depends on what china would do.

china is one of the only reasons russia is still standing on their feet. if china wanted, russia would be out of ukraine tomorrow.

nato vs china is ww3

[-] Boozilla@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Eric Schlosser's book, "Command and Control" may be of interest to you. I found it hard to put down.

Daniel Ellsberg's book, "The Doomsday Machine" might come closer to answering your question, but I have not read it.

[-] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago
[-] vortexal@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I haven't been paying to much attention to the news but I've heard that other, non-NATO, countries have threatened some of the countries that are just simply giving aid to Ukraine. So, I'd assume that those other countries would get involved in some way and just make things worse for everyone.

[-] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Everyone I've read here is talking about Russia immediately launching their nukes, but among so many nations, surely several would think to do something sneaky to disarm the nukes before anyone launches a full-on attack against Russia.

[-] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

If any nation could build an intelligence network that can disarm all 4000+ nukes inside Russia and can coordinate it before an all out attack; at that point they could push a puppet leader to control the country anyways.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

World war III and after that NATO countries occupying Russia. Probably quite some people die and things get destroyed in the process.

I think if they're smart they destabilize the regime and go for Putin. And not fight the whole country and population of Russia.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
141 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33002 readers
1653 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, 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 spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. 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 info@lemmy.world. 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 !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS