Should the USA attack Russia with nuclear bombs to prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine?

[Adaeva]

90 million deaths in the first hours of the conflict.

Russia possesses a total of 5,977 nuclear warheads as of 2022, the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world; the second-largest stockpile is the United States' 5,428 warheads. Russia's deployed missiles (those actually ready to be launched) number about 1,588, second to the United States' 1,644.

Updates

+1 y

What if, using nuclear bombs against Russia is the only way to prevent Russia from wining? Considering the political cost of drafting 5 million Americans and the very high cost ($20 trillion) of moving our military in that part of the and fighting in extremely cold weather, I don't believe we would win a conventional war. Even if we could win a conventional war, before Russia would surrender, most likely they would at least use nukes against our military in Ukraine and Russia.

[BeMuse]

America is not on Ukraine's side. A cabal of corrupt socialist Nazis in the Democrat party are with them. Good luck finding an actual soldier among the lot. If you want a child molesting, Satan worshiper they've got them by the dozens, but they don't have anyone that can actually fight and win wars. Ukraine is on their own. They have lost, and if they thought harnessing corruption in the USA would convince real Americans to fight for them, then they are dumber than they look.

[Dargil]

Absolutely not. They have done nothing (yet) to threaten the USA. Most Ukrainians are Russians. We should have left them alone.

[Leopard23]

Nukes should never be used again in war. If nukes were just a bigger more destructive bomb ok but using nukes espicially enough to say destroy Russia would basically do serious damage to Ukraine and damage the rest of the world. Even if there's no relaitory Russian nuclear strike we here in the US will still have to deal with nuclear fallout, radioactive winds, radioactive black rain, thd blocking out of the sun, depletion of the ozone, so more harmful UV radiation from the sun, freezing conditions, famine, disease, drought, possible nuclear "summer" instead of winter, climate change sparking extreme weather such as tornadoes, hurricanes or tsunamis. Them even if you do survive radiation sickness, tumors and cancers can occur to kill you if not right away, months or years later. Then there's reproductive problems. Even if you do decide to have kids in a post WW3 world you may actually be infertile due to the radiation, many men may actually end up impotent as an after effect. And if you do have kids your genes may be so damaged that your kids are born with deformaties, physical or mental disabilities. You may wish you died in the nuclear fire.

[Guardian45]

NO one wins a nuclear war.

[Leopard23]

@Guardian45 it's like throwing your enemy into a deep well to die that you are going to have to drink out of. Sure he's dead but you posion yourself.

[Pyrofox]

No need for a nuke but a emp pre- emptively with the intention to be tactical and not lethal is definitely an option with how tech focused and reliant every nation is. The horror that would spawn if a emp was detonated just as Russia launches like its full aircraft fleet would be a terrorfying sight.

[Leopard23]

@Pyrofox still doesn't deal with the nukes. Russia gave up on bombers a long time ago as theirs never had the range or forward bases to hit the US. Its icbms dispersed all over Russia nuclear subs.

[Pyrofox]

And that's the thing what is the most lethal tactic within military standards. If the US really wanted to take over Russia it would just have to be a blitzkrieg. What Russia is seeing of the US right now is our most demilitarized condition in about 100 years. It would not surprise if what Russia knows about the US military strength is highly underestimated.

And I'm not really concerned about a nuclear strike. Why cause unless Russia has been swapping thrusters on those nukes they could be faulty due to age. And the only thing more scary than a properly launched nuke is one that FAILS to launch. Or worse if the engine on the missle backfires and ends up blowing up in its own silo.

Cause if the most mass produced Russian tanks are being set loose with both guns on them jam'ed I don't wanna know what the maintenance is like for the nuclear arsenal. Let alone the last time Russia attempted a cross ocean missle launch it failed entirely.

[Guardian45]

@Pyrofox. What's an emp?

[Leopard23]

@Pyrofox the US most demilitarised condition after ww1 was probably just before WW2 (1939 not 42) or the Korean war. US military especially the US army was in a real bad shape at the start of the cold war. Training had lapsed. Their equipment from ww2 hadn't been maintained. They had to go searching for Sherman tanks that had been retired and put on display outside bases and even tanks from old battlefields. Instead of just the draft they had to bring back WW2 vetreans to fight. Marines were ready to fight though.
The US military has never been stronger. 1.4 million strong all well trained volunteers. Behind that is 3-10 million military vetreans still fit for service and that's before you draft anyone. The US military has the best equipment in the world in bulk and most of this about to be completely replaced. We have 4000 modern tanks sitting in storage, most countries have about 400 modern tanks in service. The amount of quality weapons we have mothballed is unbelievable.
Nuclear strike is serious because even one nuke on us soil is one too many and the damage it would do alone.
Russian mass produced equipment is good enough but US forces would easily pick apart Russian armor colums at range. Its really a question of how much ammunition us forces have and how many tanks the Russians have. The US outclassed Russian military equipment by the late 70s and the Russians haven't really progressed from there. They've had some food designs and ideas but never able to mass produce them in numbers. Russian soldiers have no acog sights on their AKs, no body armor, no kevlar helmets and so on which most US civilians own. Their logistics failed a month into the Ukraine war, the US was able to keep mail going in every campaign. In every campaign we never ran out of food, ammunition, aircraft, tanks etc we only ever ran out of targets and enemies.

[Pyrofox]

@Guardian45 Electro Magnetic Pulse. Ever play CoD MWII Remastered's second half where Captain price launches a nuke and makes it explode mid air instead of hitting something with it. The result was it knocked out all electronics even the stuff that maintained engines...

[Guardian45]

@Pyrofox. No but I survived the NorthEast Blackout!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

[Pyrofox]

@leopard23, well considering most of the Russian infantry in Ukraine are expected to kill Ukrainains with squirrel rifles >.> to me says a lot about the true military effectiveness of Russia...

[Leopard23]

@Pyrofox hard to believe considering the ak47 and its derivatives are the most common assault rifle in the world. Virtually every AK47 of the 75-100 million ever produced by Russia must be outside Russia. There's only 8 million m16s ever built but I'm sure the US military has enough for 4 times the number of us personel. Only 500,000 M4s ever built

[Pyrofox]

@leopard23
Russians when they left, the AK's when they retreated. Probably why we keep hearing Russian military leaders mysteriously get yeeted from third and fourth story buildings on their head. I can't think Putin was happy knowing his entire invading firearm museum pieces were left for the Ukrainians to use.

[Leopard23]

@Pyrofox true as well but also Ukraine in 1990 had a lot of Russian equipment. Was on paper the 4th -8th most powerful military in the world on its own.

[Pyrofox]

www.aa.com.tr/.../2603535|

And I mean Russia didn't just leave one or two firearms either there's a reason Russia is pelting Ukraine from a long distance ROFL.

[Pyrofox]

Russia left enough firearms that its making the EU and interpool concerned they are gonna end up on the black market O... O

[Leopard23]

@Pyrofox the EU should be more concerned about after the Ukraine war is over that all those assault rifles the US and other countries have sent to Ukraine will end up on the black market.

[Pyrofox]

Well at the end of the day the EU is to blame for the US. XD. Cost of giving freedom to rebels I guess. XD. Man the idea of regulating firearms at this point is as about as logical as walking on water.

[RMorus]

A nuclear assault would be a provocation of fatal extent whoever might carry it out against whomever. The consequences of such are absolutely unpredictable.

If a nuclear war starts, which it will, if whoever strikes with a total nuclear strike, then every country on earth that can avoid the dangers will try to sit very still and every country that is doomed to be devastated in the process will fire either at whoever or at those whom they resent most - in that situation there will not be politics or thinking anymore, it will be literal chaos in many places on earth. Everything will collapse, not just from nukes, but because people will see end of the world coming.

Are you aware what exactly a nuclear weapon does to people and how it is to be wiped out by nuclear explosion or to die because of the aftermath? It is very cruel and cynical toward any people of earth to even think to use nukes against them.

You should contemplate more on what it is like when a country would be bombed by nukes, imagine yourself in the middle of it in all of the scenarios of death and torment that comes with it.

This question is under the bottom of bottomless stupidity. Because this kind of stupidity is on all levels. Not just on the level of mind. To even consider nuclear assault one has to be... Well, I don't know who. Putin maybe? - and that only assuming that he ever really considered to use nuclear weapons and to not just use them as a means of threatening.

[Adaeva]

Putin is not a madman but the people that rule the USA are. They believe they can win a first strike against Russia with acceptable American losses which is 200 million dead Americans provided they remain in power.

[RMorus]

take it from, unfortunately, a russian (who also has now a considerable background on Putin) at least concerning birth documents: he is certainly either a madman or a man with no regard for human life (which one is worse?). That the American rulers are not I do _not_ claim. God forbid.

But the nuclear option is the most fatal and stupid one whoever und whichever circumstances takes it. It is thousand times worse than any conventional war could ever be.

[jshm2]

That's not how it works, kiddo.

It's a nuclear deterrent - not a field weapon.

The whole idea is "mutual destruction is guaranteed" hence it's more a power play of showing your balls are as big as theirs. Hence you're as willing as them to turn all of us into a pile of ash.

This is why there are always "smaller conflicts" instead, between the two. Historically it's always been empire vs empire - history just repeats itself with different players, is all.

The only difference now, is that you have much more people involved.

[NamerOfStars]

No. That would mean NO ONE wins in Ukraine. Or anywhere else. That would mean that human civilization is destroyed, and given how we've grabbed pretty much all the easily available resources on the planet, that humans die when the Earth does. That would suck.

[Guardian45]

Agreed. ELE!

[Pyrofox]

The better question would be what if a sect of both Russia and US merged and stole the thunder of the nuclear deterrent power... Cause the one time nuclear deterrence doesn't work at all is if a rogue terrorist sect gets their hands on a nuclear device.

[John_Doesnt]

No, because of MAD: mutually assured destruction. This is what keeps the world at relative peace. As long as nobody uses nukes then other countries won't use nukes either. Nobody wants to end the planet. A nuke is not like a regular bomb, the fallout causes long lasting effects and makes it impossible to live near the impacted region for decades. Look at Chernobyl.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, Russia is in no danger of a nuclear attack from the U. S.

But it has already threatened using nukes on Ukraine. So take this Russian propaganda back to the factory.

[purplepoppy]

The simple answer is can America afford the price of retaliation? The mass loss of life and destruction of it's economic centres? It would also leave it weakened should china want to take a pop as well.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

YES, YES, YES!!!
IN 1945 USA SHOULD HAD KEEP FIGHTING JAPAN AND NUKE URSS AND UK START OPERATION "UNTHINKABLE".
Today will had live whit 1000 yares in the future in a more peaceful and more developed society.

[Soteris]

Why? Russia already lost. There simply is no winning for Russia right now.

[Guardian45]

Putin is cRaZy, and he is NOT done in Ukraine.

[Soteris]

@Guardian45 He has no choice in this matter. Russia is running out of equipment and vehicles. Whats the point of being an artillery an mechanized army if you dont have artillery shells and APCs and tanks? And yes, I did say Russia is running out of ARTILLERY SHELLS AND ARMORED VEHICLES.

This is not to mention trained personnel. The most recent "major offensive" that Russia launched was spearheaded by people who used to crew mine sweeping boats and such who had no had no expectation of even being in combat, much less received any training for it and they were using such vehicles that were intended for rear line duties like driving artillery pieces around. Not to mention the 2nd wave came on bloody foot rather than mounted in vehicles.

Russia is done. Its finished. All those troops Ukraine sent overseas for training is returning and they are followed up with perhaps the most modern equipment that has ever been fielded in Ukraine during this war. Ukraine is getting ever stronger militarily while Russia somehow fucking managed to deplete its soviet stockpile inheritance however unlikely that sounds.

Its fucking over.

[Guardian45]

I hope you're right, but I suspect not.

[Adaeva]

That you believe every lie from the deep state owned media is proof that your indoctrination is complete.

[Soteris]

None of this is sourced from normal media channels but from records and events provided by normal users, usually with video evidence and corroborating accounts. Hear me now, quote me later Adaeva.

[Iron_Man]

That’s like having the whole world at war doomsday

[Iron_Man]

You don’t want to ever do that unless you have to defend yourself

[noohair]

Nuclear war can destroy the planet. Talking about it as if any one side can win is insane.

[Guardian45]

That's a button that Dump should NEVER be allowed to touch!

M. A. D. & E. L. E. NO Thank you.

[DWornock]

That is what it would take because Russia is winning and will win and that is not in doubt. However, the USA would cease to exist.

[Jamie05rhs]

Morally? No.

Ethically? No.

Tactically? You may have a point.

[Adaeva]

The USA has no morals and they have no ethics so winning is the only thing.

[Jamie05rhs]

Hmm. The government? Sure. But I can't agree with you if you're speaking about the citizens.

[Adaeva]

I agree. Just the government; not the citizens. Unfortunately, the citizens have near zero power. If voting made any difference, the citizens wouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Jamie05rhs]

Hmm. Good point.

[call_me_scar]

That's a terrible plan

[call_me_scar]

You do realize nukes don't teleport right if we send that nuke more will be coming for us it's not like we hit the red button and all of Russia is gone that very second they will have time to respond and our world will end

[Adaeva]

Is saving the world more important than Ukraine?

[call_me_scar]

Girl if we nuke first everyone dies so the idea of using it is a silly idea to put politely. Yes the world is more important that's why we haven't sent nukes but we also can't sit back and let a dictator take what he wants we've seen that before in Germany

[Guardian45]

Agreed

[robocop666]

Their missiles are better. They can nuke the USA before the USA nukes them. No missile defence system can shoot down their missiles. This would be the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

Yeah might as well end all life on earth rather than the slow, inevitable heat death that approaches with more overpopulation

[Astarlessnightsky]

No. Please no Atomic War.

[abc3643]

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

[abc3643]

RESPONSE TO UPDATE.

You really need to learn about the realities of nuclear war.
You are scaring the shit out of me because you are exhibiting the sad adage that "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

THREADS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsBsIgjrnLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb32oyaS99M

THE DAY AFTER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-phsyn3KQM

TESTAMENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJAAkcb5cHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMMe8Jq3fI

[exitseven]

Sounds like the no win scenario.

[Guardian45]

Agreed

[Mayo503]

Think we be all fucked …!!!

[Guardian45]

Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye!😂

[Anonymous]

How retarded are you?

[Still-alive]

nope. next question

[Still-alive]

They won’t use nukes and we will not use our own ground troops so stop the fear mongering

[Adaeva]

Russia will not be the first to use nukes but they might use enough missiles, torpedoes, and bombs to sink an aircraft carrier that is sending bombers into Russia. 5,000 dead American military will enrage Americans. Therefore, to teach Russia a lesson, they will nuke Moscow which is their right because the USA is the exceptional country. Russia retaliates by nuking Washington, DC. However, they don't have the right to use nukes. Only the USA has that right. Therefore, the USA will nuke Russia with 700 nuclear bombs because it is better to be dead than to not win and punish Russia for retaliating, because that is how most Americans think.

[Guardian45]

Agreed. This is NOT realistic, but I do see another Cold War happening with this lunatic, Putin.

[Still-alive]

Nobody will nuke anyone. Stop

[NostalgiaSenpi]

No...

[riverrat3]

I hope not