|
|
|
|
|
|
by dividedbyzero
574 days ago
|
|
|
So let's say the US could shoot down everything Russia throws at them, could tell apart all of the decoys, intercept every single MIRV warhead and take out every other secret weapon Russia may have deployed. It doesn't take many hits to take out a big chunk of the US population and wipe out its economy, so that would have to be done at 100% success rate over large parts of the country. Europe cannot do anything remotely like that, so close to everything west of the Ural would burn and pretty much everyone there would die, hundreds of millions of dead and God knows how many more further to the east. The soot from burning cities and forests would darken the whole northern hemisphere for several growing seasons, large parts of the US population would probably just freeze or starve, more so if the US has been hit as well. And that leaves out fallout dispersal, especially from the inventories of nuclear power plants hit with nukes and so on. There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war. |
|
|
There's already been over 2000 nuclear warhead detonations and nothing remotely like that has happened. In fact, the fallout isn't noticeable at all. Granted, the tests were in remote locations, but all the planetary effects people worry about haven't happened at all.
> Europe cannot do anything remotely like that
Several European nations do have missiles capable of taking out ICBMs, on top of US Aegis sites, seaborne Aegis sites, Patriot batteries, etc...
> There simply is no winning an all-out nuclear war
Depends on what you consider winning. I agree it's bad. But equally bad is allowing dictatorships to do whatever they want because they have nukes. Which is where we're at. One day it's Ukraine, the next it's Lithuania, then it's Romania, Finland or Poland. Or maybe Taiwan. Then Japan. And so on. Where do we draw the line?