Do you Nuke back?

[Sovaal]

If we nuke back, it would bring a bad sign on us as well.

We’d be dead, so it wouldn’t matter.

[UniversalCommons]

We selectively strike back and invade by sea. It starts with a series of Thors Hammer Strikes across Russia disabling their military followed by a saturated electromagnetic pulse attack, combined with e-bombs. There would also likely be orbital railgun or high atmosphere railgun strikes as well. Then a number of MOAB advanced thermobaric strikes. We would use other things which we are not supposed to have as well like high energy lasers, clouds of anti-satellite missiles and other weapons which should not exist like high energy microwave plasmid bombs.

This would be followed by an over the horizon attack from the sea and air. We would secure as much land as we could. There would not be a Russia when this was done.

Russia would probably do the same thing instead of a direct nuclear strike. There would probably strikes against certain targets which are nuclear, but not all of them would be nuclear.

[Sovaal]

We selectively strike back and invade by sea. It starts with a series of Thors Hammer Strikes across Russia disabling their military followed by a saturated electromagnetic pulse attack, combined with e-bombs. There would also likely be orbital railgun or high atmosphere railgun strikes as well. Then a number of MOAB advanced thermobaric strikes. We would use other things which we are not supposed to have as well like high energy lasers, clouds of anti-satellite missiles and other weapons which should not exist like high energy microwave plasmid bombs.

This would be followed by an over the horizon attack from the sea and air. We would secure as much land as we could. There would not be a Russia when this was done.

Russia would probably do the same thing instead of a direct nuclear strike. There would probably strikes against certain targets which are nuclear, but not all of them would be nuclear.

If it’s a total nuclear strike as described in OP the majority of Us military assets will be destroyed in the first hour.

[Ifreann]

The real world isn't a video game. It doesn't disappear when your country loses.

Wait, launching about 4,500 strategically operational nuclear warheads is not life-endangering? And what if other nuclear powers strike back?

There are countries other than America and Russia. Lots of them.

---

If we nuke back, it would bring a bad sign on us as well.

Why does it matter? We're all dead anyway.

Russians, Americans, Chineses, Indians, Pakistanis, Everybody would die

Haven't you ever played Fallout?

[Sovaal]

Wait, launching about 4,500 strategically operational nuclear warheads is not life-endangering? And what if other nuclear powers strike back?

There are countries other than America and Russia. Lots of them.

---

Why does it matter? We're all dead anyway.

Russians, Americans, Chineses, Indians, Pakistanis, Everybody would die

Haven't you ever played Fallout?

Eh, a massive nuclear strokes in the US and Russia are going to have world wide effects, and a chain escalation may happen as well.

And everybody died in Fallout, were the entire population of California is a couple million at best.

[Bombadil]

I don't do shit halfway, if civilization is going to collapse I'm bringing as many lifeforms down with me. And settle some old vendettas, with nukes.

Bob Pritchard of Newport, Connecticut considers giving back that lawnmower he borrowed off you.

[The Transhuman Union]

Wait, launching about 4,500 strategically operational nuclear warheads is not life-endangering? And what if other nuclear powers strike back?

There are countries other than America and Russia. Lots of them.

Yeah, your point?

[Ifreann]

There are countries other than America and Russia. Lots of them.

---

Haven't you ever played Fallout?

Eh, a massive nuclear strokes in the US and Russia are going to have world wide effects, and a chain escalation may happen as well.

World-wide effects doesn't mean everyone everywhere will be dead.

And everybody died in Fallout, were the entire population of California is a couple million at best.

Everyone was dead.
Also there were millions alive.
Everyone dead.
Millions alive.
Everyone dead.
Millions alive.

My head hurts.

[Sovaal]

Eh, a massive nuclear strokes in the US and Russia are going to have world wide effects, and a chain escalation may happen as well.

World-wide effects doesn't mean everyone everywhere will be dead.

And everybody died in Fallout, were the entire population of California is a couple million at best.

Everyone was dead.
Also there were millions alive.
Everyone dead.
Millions alive.
Everyone dead.
Millions alive.

My head hurts.

Vast majority of the human population died, with the surviving population at best being pre-antiquity levels, at best.

[Ifreann]

There are countries other than America and Russia. Lots of them.

Yeah, your point?

They won't necessarily all die. So taking actions on the premise that everyone is dead anyway is, you know, stupid.

[UniversalCommons]

We selectively strike back and invade by sea. It starts with a series of Thors Hammer Strikes across Russia disabling their military followed by a saturated electromagnetic pulse attack, combined with e-bombs. There would also likely be orbital railgun or high atmosphere railgun strikes as well. Then a number of MOAB advanced thermobaric strikes. We would use other things which we are not supposed to have as well like high energy lasers, clouds of anti-satellite missiles and other weapons which should not exist like high energy microwave plasmid bombs.

This would be followed by an over the horizon attack from the sea and air. We would secure as much land as we could. There would not be a Russia when this was done.

Russia would probably do the same thing instead of a direct nuclear strike. There would probably strikes against certain targets which are nuclear, but not all of them would be nuclear.

If it’s a total nuclear strike as described in OP the majority of Us military assets will be destroyed in the first hour.

That is assuming you will be able to get the sea based assets and the space based assets. A lot of the sea based assets would survive the initial attack. There are some underwater bases which were uncovered after the cold war.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -its-17269

The sea based assets have enough nuclear and other capability to destroy Russia and any other country in the world many times over. We have no idea what has been placed in space. There have been military shuttles running into the upper atmosphere for decades. Enough to guarantee there are at least some unique tactical weapons in space. Military payloads have been going up since the 1980s.
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/secre ... -35318554/

This is why we don't see a nuclear exchange. You simply would have a hard time getting these kind of assets. It is a myth that a country would be able to protect itself after a nuclear strike. Russia, China, and France also probably have extensive hardened or secret nuclear assets or WMDs.

[Sovaal]

If it’s a total nuclear strike as described in OP the majority of Us military assets will be destroyed in the first hour.

That is assuming you will be able to get the sea based assets and the space based assets. A lot of the sea based assets would survive the initial attack. There are some underwater bases which were uncovered after the cold war.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -its-17269

The sea based assets have enough nuclear and other capability to destroy Russia and any other country in the world many times over. We have no idea what has been placed in space. There have been military shuttles running into the upper atmosphere for decades. Enough to guarantee there are at least some unique tactical weapons in space. Military payloads have been going up since the 1980s.
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/secre ... -35318554/

This is why we don't see a nuclear exchange. You simply would have a hard time getting these kind of assets. It is a myth that a country would be able to protect itself after a nuclear strike. Russia, China, and France also probably have extensive hardened or secret nuclear assets or WMDs.

Again, you’re ignoring the OP’s hypothetical. Sure, those sea borne assets away from the home country may survive, but they’re not going to ha e the supply lines or resources to fucking invade a country the size of motherfucking Russia.

[The Transhuman Union]

Yeah, your point?

They won't necessarily all die. So taking actions on the premise that everyone is dead anyway is, you know, stupid.

You sure about that? I don't see the dinosaurs today. And meteors don't have radioactive material in them.
Toba and Yellowstone's eruptions were destructive enough and that was before we made permanent, agricultural communities, which would cause even more damage.

[Ifreann]

If it’s a total nuclear strike as described in OP the majority of Us military assets will be destroyed in the first hour.

That is assuming you will be able to get the sea based assets and the space based assets. A lot of the sea based assets would survive the initial attack. There are some underwater bases which were uncovered after the cold war.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -its-17269

The sea based assets have enough nuclear and other capability to destroy Russia and any other country in the world many times over. We have no idea what has been placed in space. There have been military shuttles running into the upper atmosphere for decades. Enough to guarantee there are at least some unique tactical weapons in space. Military payloads have been going up since the 1980s.
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/secre ... -35318554/

This is why we don't see a nuclear exchange. You simply would have a hard time getting these kind of assets. It is a myth that a country would be able to protect itself after a nuclear strike. Russia, China, and France also probably have extensive hardened or secret nuclear assets or WMDs.

Switzerland has enough space in nuclear shelters to house their entire population, with room for thousands more people to spare. They started building them in the 60s, Cold War and all, and just...never stopped.

[Ethel mermania]

Tbh, even if we don't fire back, the world is pretty much over already.

The real world isn't a video game. It doesn't disappear when your country loses.

As far as your concerned, it does.

[Vivida Vis Animi]

So the discussion question is... in such a situation:

1. Do you give the authorisation for a full nuclear strike against Russia?
2. What are your responsibilities as the US President at this point?
3. What is the objectively moral thing to do?

1. Yes, but not out of revenge. This would more or less destroy America, leaving a massive power vacuum for the other rising powers to snatch while they have the opportunity. Looking specifically at Eastern Europe for a minute, allowing America's destruction with zero repercussions would mean Russia's absolute domination in this region (although I guess the EU might pull together some defense if Russia considering they just nuked a country out of existence). Russia's destruction would be necessary, acting as a sort of counter balance to the massive power loss in the region. This still means countries like China will easily become the next super power, but this happened through no actions of their own (probably), so it would be something I would allow to happen. Besides that, there is still the wealthy nations of the Middle East, the EU, Japan, and Korea to somewhat balance out the new powerhouse of China.

2. Considering the first priority of defending my own, immediate interests are more or less gone I can still focus on my international interests, which I've more or less described above.

3. Morally? It's probably not the best to kill millions of civilians with nukes as a last minute attempt to balance out the world stage, but perhaps this action prevents WWIII as both parties just obliterated each other.

[Valrifell]

That is assuming you will be able to get the sea based assets and the space based assets. A lot of the sea based assets would survive the initial attack. There are some underwater bases which were uncovered after the cold war.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -its-17269

The sea based assets have enough nuclear and other capability to destroy Russia and any other country in the world many times over. We have no idea what has been placed in space. There have been military shuttles running into the upper atmosphere for decades. Enough to guarantee there are at least some unique tactical weapons in space. Military payloads have been going up since the 1980s.
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/secre ... -35318554/

This is why we don't see a nuclear exchange. You simply would have a hard time getting these kind of assets. It is a myth that a country would be able to protect itself after a nuclear strike. Russia, China, and France also probably have extensive hardened or secret nuclear assets or WMDs.

Switzerland has enough space in nuclear shelters to house their entire population, with room for thousands more people to spare. They started building them in the 60s, Cold War and all, and just...never stopped.

But then they all slowly starve to death as the radiation and subsequent nuclear winter make it unsafe to go outside for fear of radiation poisoning, the severe cold, and then the sun.

[Ifreann]

They won't necessarily all die. So taking actions on the premise that everyone is dead anyway is, you know, stupid.

You sure about that? I don't see the dinosaurs today. And meteors don't have radioactive material in them.
Toba and Yellowstone's eruptions were destructive enough and that was before we made permanent, agricultural communities, which would cause even more damage.

We survived other disasters, so we couldn't possibly survive this one.

Makes...sense?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I would launch nukes, but I would only target their most economically important cities, focusing on hurting Russia as a whole instead of on hurting the Russian people. Sure, millions of people will still die, but they knew what they were getting into when they nuked a superpower.

[Ifreann]

The real world isn't a video game. It doesn't disappear when your country loses.

As far as your concerned, it does.

Am I really the only person here who has grasped object permanence?

---

Switzerland has enough space in nuclear shelters to house their entire population, with room for thousands more people to spare. They started building them in the 60s, Cold War and all, and just...never stopped.

But then they all slowly starve to death as the radiation and subsequent nuclear winter make it unsafe to go outside for fear of radiation poisoning, the severe cold, and then the sun.

Or they subsist on mutfruit and Nuka Cola.

[Greater Walesgland]

Shoot the US nukes at the Russian nukes, and go to Moscow to have diplomacy

[The Transhuman Union]

You sure about that? I don't see the dinosaurs today. And meteors don't have radioactive material in them.
Toba and Yellowstone's eruptions were destructive enough and that was before we made permanent, agricultural communities, which would cause even more damage.

We survived other disasters, so we couldn't possibly survive this one.

Makes...sense?

And in how much time did we recover?
I'm not seeing it. Especially with fallout pretty much everywhere on Earth. Also, you didn't assess one of my previous arguments that other allied (and even non-allied) nuclear powers to the US might decide to launch nukes on their own.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Shoot the US nukes at the Russian nukes, and go to Moscow to have diplomacy

Either you're joking or you have no idea how nuclear missiles work. Either way, this is hilarious

[Nordic National Union]

Yes

[Greater Walesgland]

Shoot the US nukes at the Russian nukes, and go to Moscow to have diplomacy

Either you're joking or you have no idea how nuclear missiles work. Either way, this is hilarious

You Know, outside of this scenario, i am the remnants of the UK.