What would it be like during a total nuclear exchange between russia and the US?

What would it be like during a total nuclear exchange between russia and the US? Assume that Putin goes completely nuts and by some miracle actually manages to launch their full nuclear arsenal (just assume it's operational) and the US retaliates in response.
>inb4 "Did you know russia has nukes?"
I just want to know how the final 20 minutes or so would play out. Does the government issue a warning? What happens to communications and the internet? Is there some kind of secret kill switch for global networks? How do anons react?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just accept it.
    We all gotta die sometime.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Usa need nuclear exange to survive, their debt is too deep to be repaid. This is why they provoked Russia into war

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This precisely.
      Murrica knew very well Russia has very little operational nukes and in ww3 situation, china, Russia,Iran and north korea don't stand a fricking chance against murrica. This does not even include nukes of France uk and israel who can easily decimate Russia's allies

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I just want to know how the final 20 minutes or so would play out.
      So 10 minutes after launch? It depends on who they're targetting because quite simply, they don't have enough nukes and some european countries might come out completely unscathed in terms of actual bombing.

      >their debt is too deep
      The vast majority of our debt is to ourselves, nuking our geopolitical rivals doesn't really undo that.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The vast majority of our debt is to ourselves, nuking our geopolitical rivals doesn't really undo that.
        The retaliatory strike does.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      based israeli overlord. They destroy every Russian and cancel out our debt. What a play

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nullifying debt to your future self is economic suicide. Every bond is a "debt" and the economy relies on those being stable and predictably safe.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lol. My macroeconomics prof that consulted for the world bank told me that they only hired him and his peers as a formality and then promptly ignored the consensus that the bankers had zero clue what they were doing. Flew back from Europe, had a presumably half-drunken rant at the front of the class about how none of the shit we were learning mattered since the government would just print more money anyways, and then left. Based prof.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      so Russia should pull out to defeat the evil schemes of the israeli globohomosexual space lizards?

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they hit the Air Force base and power plant but not the city center, I live and commence relaxing and barbecuing everything in my chest freezer.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >freezer
      >barbecue
      What?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        What what? Prevailing winds will carry fallout away from me. The urbanites will be dead and the power will be out. It'll be paradise.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is that freezer in a shed with its own insulated cold storage? You do realize that freezer runs on electricity right?

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    the continuity of operations plan goes into effect. Military CnC is transferred to the ANMC at site R in Pennsylvania. Civilian agencies are transferred to Mount weather. the president takes to the air in a E-4B. the line of succession is dispersed. comms are redundancies built on redundancies, retaliation is assured.

    At this point the nuclear arsenal of the russian federation, even if working perfectly, cannot destroy the united states. they just don't have enough warheads ready anymore. Russia deploys ~1,600 warheads (the rest are in storage). to ensure a kill you should delegate 2 or more warheads to each target, especially a hard target. the reduces their budget to 800 targets assuming 2 warheads each but in reality it would be even less because certain targets like deep bunkers, air force bases, the missile bases etc would require several warheads to ensure a kill. in case of the missile fields it would require several hundred warheads.

    the Russians also have to deal with NATO targets as well.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >continuity of operations plan
      Thanks anon. This is the kind of stuff I was hoping to see in this thread although I was more interested in the civilian bit. Cheers.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Russia not having good maintenance of its nuclear arsenal is not something i'd want to gamble on. But if they didn't have a good budget routine whatever then it'd not surprise me if most of it is kaput

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        my post assumes complete functionality of Russian weapons.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. They know we have 400 Minuteman IIIs so that alone is gonna soak 800 warheads up or even more assuming they allocate multiple warheads. Lets be honest which if they were gonna double up warheads on any target sets it would 100% be counterforce targets.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"Shelter Skelter" is the [..] of the television series The Twilight Zone. The segment follows two men living in a fallout shelter following a nuclear explosion.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Half of all Russian missiles blow up on launch and the rest are either shot down or miss their targets completely

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What would it be like during a total nuclear exchange between russia and the US?
    You would NOT want to be in Belgorod

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It would mean the final end of the imperialist old powers. The southern nations will survive while the northern lands are unihabitable for centuries to come. The age of the dark people would start.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >just assume it's operational
    It's not. Russia realistically has about as many working nukes as China at ~400 solely based on how much they spend to maintain them vs other countries, assuming no one in charge of maintaining them is just stealing the money.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia realistically has about as many working nukes as China at ~400
      That's still enough to wipe out pretty much every US city and industrial center, though it does dissuade them from a preemptive strike.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That's still enough to wipe out pretty much every US city and industrial center
        But they'd not be used for that, 400 warheads isn't even enough for a counterforce strike against US/NATO C2 and land based missiles.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That's still enough to wipe out pretty much every US city and industrial center
        There''s like 20,000 cities in the US. Unless you mean only huge cities.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >industiral center
        As other anons have pointed in in China threads despite having more raw industrial output than China if you us the US, Jap, or Kraut definitions of "industrial" America's industrial production is spread out in tens of thousands of small shops and factories in rural America, especially from Upstate New York down to Virginia. Most of those "cities" have less than 8,000 inhabitants and wiill not be targetted. They also get their power from the grid very close to the source and live high in the watershed. So the heart of potential American military power would be largely unharmed. They can be powered by locally produced natural gas and oil. The real issue is supplying them. They rely on the super cheap rail and insterstates but the hubs the of the rail networks would be badly mauled since they do reside near large cities and are likely designated targets. The interstate is less of an issue since you can always detour onto the local highways.

        Remember that the US is one of the least urban nations in genearl and the least urban industrial nation by a wide margin. If we discount blacks and hispanics whom have negative economic value and who together account for less than 5% of those employed in industry the US is downright rural or at least suburban in character. Once again it comes down to definitions, do you live in a township of more than 4,500 inhabitants or on a highway connecting two such townships? Congradulations according to our moronic government you are now an urbanite. The reasons for this idiotic definition are clear, they want to allocate funds to urban centers thus counting the population as more urban by using deceptive criteria is the modus operandum of our current government.

        https://i.imgur.com/EIVVMAW.jpg

        Directly destroyed or in aftermath failing nuclear power plants will kill most of the life on earth, saved from immediate and short-term effects of nuclear exchange. People often forget this.

        Some nukes are likely to be targeted at nuclear power plants, even if not, EMP and collapse of other power production and power distribution will cut most of the outside power sources from nuclear power plants, which can not run on their own emergency power generators (if working, for example in Fukushima they did not) for a long time.

        When power runs out, operating, cooling of reactors and its spent fuel rods, which needs to go on for years after even controlled shutdown, will end and the reactor and most of the spent fuel rod stores will dry out and the rods start to burn, with fatal radiation emission spreading world-wide. Multiply such Chernobyl and Fukushima -style event happening in tens and even hundreads of reactors/sites, and any fallout (mostly fairly short-term) from nukes is nothing compare to the almost eternal radiation from blown reactors and fuelrods/storages.

        Nuclear exchange will evidently collapse societies and industrial infrastructures so there will be no resources to tackle with soon failing or already destroyed power plants.

        You know that at least US civilian and military reactors will SCAM like a motherfricker if damaged right? Also you vastly overestimate the effect of radioactive contamination.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I tell this story a lot on /k/, but I used to work for the New START treaty inspection teamm. Just going off my interactions with the senior Russian missileers that I've met on their inspection trips, I have no doubt that their missiles have been stripped to the shells and pawned off for real estate.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do tell us in detail

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on who strikes first. Whoever recieves a retaliatory strike is going have their cities get hit harder, but at the same time, most of the US food production is directly downwind of the missile silo fields. This is a problem if the US is struck preemptively, because silos are hardened groundburst targets, which produce way more fallout.
    Fallout is not as bad as you have been lead to believe, so long as you dont live near or downwind of a groundburst target (i.e. a missile silo or air force base). For airburst targets like cities, the fallout produced is much less, so you will not need to shelter as long.
    Modern cities don't burn like WW2 cities did. Most nuclear winter models are based on WW2 firebombings and the subsequent firestorms, so they are pretty heavily exaggerated. There would still be climatic effects, however. Give pre-historic humans survived two supervolcano eruptions, I'm fairly confident humanity will survive a nuclear winter, though billions will die, and I would almost certainly be one of them.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      correct

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    well the question really is what types of strikes will it be? Counter force or Counter value. I am of the belief that a country with a sizable nuclear arsenal will always choose counter force over counter value, and countries like NK or Iran would do counter value.
    So the answer is a lot of nuclear fallout from ground bursts at silo sites, and frankly I doubt cities would be targeted unless extra warheads exist after silos are taken care of.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It also depends in if the strike is a first strike or a retaliatory strike. A retaliatory strike is almost always going to be countervalue.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Counter value makes no sense if you have an objectively inferior nuclear arsenal to your opponent and guaranteed retaliation. Its a complete meme

      If Russia is ever insane enough to start nuclear war, you best believe they are going to vaporise U.S cities as a priority

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think that this is the harsh truth. I don't believe that the Russians have the means to go after military targets. They will never strike first and if they do, they don't have enough nuclear weapons for every target they want to hit. So resorting to terror bombing the most population dense cities of their enemy is going to be the go to. However, NATO has the means to conduct tactical nuclear warfare beyond strategic. Terror bombings would most likely be met in kind and a lot of major city centers get vaporized.

        This is obviously quite catastrophic but there will be no nuclear winter. Humans have already detonated thousands of nuclear weapons without that happening, not at the same time, obviously, but fallout is especially a problem with cobalt bombs. Maybe someone knows if Russian warheads are designed to maximize fallout, but I do not know.

        Most certainly, failures, misses, malfunctions- sabotage and sub losses will contribute to the final result.

        Even in counter value strikes, decapitation strikes against government, hitting major infrastructure like 3 gorges dam or hoover dam, or the dam that redirects water away from New Orleans. Some targets are just as worth it to destroy.

        Even with all of that, not as many die as most people think. The issue with nuclear war is the biological weapons that would end up released as a final frick you. You should also understand that next generation chemical weapons can be a substitute for nuclear strikes against population centers.

        Really, the reality of the situation is that nukes aren't the only weapon of mass destruction and if nukes get used, everything else is on the table.

        I think 8% of people survive WW3 because of the biological weapons.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Counter value makes no sense if you have an objectively inferior nuclear arsenal to your opponent and guaranteed retaliation. Its a complete meme

      If Russia is ever insane enough to start nuclear war, you best believe they are going to vaporise U.S cities as a priority

      Sorry i meant counter force makes no sense*

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Directly destroyed or in aftermath failing nuclear power plants will kill most of the life on earth, saved from immediate and short-term effects of nuclear exchange. People often forget this.

    Some nukes are likely to be targeted at nuclear power plants, even if not, EMP and collapse of other power production and power distribution will cut most of the outside power sources from nuclear power plants, which can not run on their own emergency power generators (if working, for example in Fukushima they did not) for a long time.

    When power runs out, operating, cooling of reactors and its spent fuel rods, which needs to go on for years after even controlled shutdown, will end and the reactor and most of the spent fuel rod stores will dry out and the rods start to burn, with fatal radiation emission spreading world-wide. Multiply such Chernobyl and Fukushima -style event happening in tens and even hundreads of reactors/sites, and any fallout (mostly fairly short-term) from nukes is nothing compare to the almost eternal radiation from blown reactors and fuelrods/storages.

    Nuclear exchange will evidently collapse societies and industrial infrastructures so there will be no resources to tackle with soon failing or already destroyed power plants.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure in the event of any attack, the staff at nuclear plants have instructions to SCRAM their reactors immediately to prevent that from happening.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Modern reactor designs (well, those built since the mid-'70s) don't store their spent rods in a bathtub so small that it requires active pumping in order to keep the water from flashing into steam. They store spent rods in a pool large enough to dissipate the heat naturally without boiling.

      Also, Fukushima? Seriously? Remind me again how many people were actually killed by radiation from Fukushima?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Zero multiplied by a hundred is still zero.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's a primer on the subject written specifically for /k/: https://pastebin.com/cWs6A7rR

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for this anon. I completely forgot this existed.

      >t. writegay

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes aren't real, dumbass.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What would it be like during a total nuclear exchange between russia and the US?
    It largely depends on who's initiating the strike and with how much missiles behind it. If it's US it's going to be a decapitating strike on russian assets which hinges on russians noticing and reacting fast enough to US subs launching nukes at them from mediterranean, which is basically impossible. After that, at most there's one or another random target in US or europe that gets nuked by a lucky surviving missile and it's the end of it. US might not even need nukes for this as their conventional strikes were designed for this role as well and are very vast. Unlike the cold war, US know that a limited strike on russian assets will only scare them into launching the rest before it gets destroyed so they won't do that.

    If it's russia then after the launch detection US initiates the same counterforce strike and it all hinges on how many they decide to launch as too few will likely get intercepted and deal minimal damage while a massive attack would be devastating, but neither will prevent a nuclear response.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here is a really good short alt history about the Cuban Missile Crisis going hot. Its about the best I have read. Seems very well researched.

    https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would russia launch the nukes?
    Or is everyone kind of collectively holding their breath and waiting for Putin to get knifed in the back so they can all turn the other way, and then pretend they:
    >Never knew that Putin,
    >Never voted for him,
    >Never supported his war,
    >We always spoke against it,
    >We didn’t invade,
    >Never happened
    >We never lost because it was Never a war
    >just a few bad apples in the Military
    >It was all Wagner

    I don’t have much faith in the Russian ability to see compassion, or humanity or why launching Nukes is a no win situation.

    But I do have faith in Russians sense of self preservation, and denial that it was ever their (the individual’s) fault.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Probably a likely case, or an optimistic one at lest

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You projecting the American political landscape onto the Russians doesn’t make it very convincing.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lol
        >Never Happened
        >American trait
        Lmao even

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >couldn't help but look back
      Can't blame him. Nukes are mesmerising to look at.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      they say the flash from the >10MTs is bright enough to see the bones in your fingers if you look down at your hands

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if you look down at your hands
        I thought it was when putting your hand in the way to try to shield your eyes.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        bright is hot

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    US will continue exist as in its armed forces are mostly stationed overseas.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    tldr: everyone dies and mothers cry until they are too dehydrated to cry anymore or their faces melt off due to radiation poisoning
    politicians in bunkers will drink whiskey while mouthing off sweet nothings to a lord they forgot existed until their world was destroyed

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *