Submitted by IndicationOver t3_118aimx in Connecticut

I remember this topic irking/pissing off people in 2022 (in this very subreddit) because "Stop fear mongering." "Nothing like that will happen in this day an age." "All of Russia nukes are outdated." blah blah

Just looking for updated, thoughts, opinions, concerns, knowledge.

Russia's Putin issues new nuclear warnings to West over Ukraine

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FallGuysStats t1_j9fyi95 wrote

Putin isn't suicidal. No worries. All grandstanding. Nothing has changed since the start of the war since they stopped inspections at that time anyway.

23

DarkLamont t1_j9fyibk wrote

Unfortunately for us, on the list of things to be worried about nuclear arms/war is still ridiculously far down the list.

6

SadAd9756 t1_j9g1ft9 wrote

I don't worry about things that are out of my or anyone else's control.

34

Viceversa10 t1_j9g3sc3 wrote

Nuclear submarines, major defense companies, close to NYC (high population). I would say yes. We would be one of the first non silo base places to be hit/targeted.

If you haven't already, I would suggest canned foods, bottled water and iodine pills. Enough to be able to live on for 3-5 months.

−2

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j9g64zg wrote

I can’t tell you what to prioritize or what to act upon based on concerns. I will say this, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. People can call you stupid or paranoid but what matters is that you are prepared, to the best of your abilities, for the curveballs life throws at you.

4

RunnyDischarge t1_j9g75eq wrote

If Putin wants to use nukes, an arms treaty ain't going to stop him.

68

activehobbies t1_j9g9sfs wrote

No.

Historically, nukes always have and always will be deterrents and bluffs.

The value of irradiated anything is zero. When every government in the world revolves around generating profit for somebody, no one can afford nuclear fallout.

32

ConsiderPissingHere t1_j9g9y26 wrote

It’s war. Nothing is ever respected, especially pleb lives like ours.

Treaties are as useful as “rules of war”.. (they dont exist.)

Putin is not stupid. With the winter waning, it’s time to prep the financial markets with more fear mongering…

6

pittiedaddy t1_j9gcgqe wrote

Putin had a "treaty" with Ukraine that he wouldn't invade them if they gave up their nukes, so they did.

Treaties and deals mean nothing to him anyway.

56

shannerd727 t1_j9gcrjg wrote

He’s just mad about Biden visiting Ukraine and huffing and puffing. Like someone else said, a treaty won’t stop him anyway.

10

draculasbitch t1_j9gdgzj wrote

CT has nothing to worry about. If Russia launches we won’t feel a thing.

8

slantedtortoise t1_j9gjbtu wrote

Not much? Wherever you are in the country if the nukes start flying, you're fucked.

Obviously it is concerning that Putin is taking this step but it's not like he'll launch one nuke perfectly aimed at the Waterbury MixMaster. It's all or nothing.

−2

Pruedrive t1_j9gk52h wrote

No… Putin and the Russian military are both jokes.

6

1234nameuser t1_j9gm5z1 wrote

I've already started low-dosing to get acclimated

11

tonysnight t1_j9gm84f wrote

Being afraid to talk about something is another form of fear mongering.

4

USMC_Valhalla t1_j9gm9pu wrote

See, sending tanks and escalating the war was a great idea.

10% for the big guy!

−6

Tarhiel_flight t1_j9gnnx3 wrote

No

Ct is obviously protected by the (low orbiting) warp lightning cannons along with the rest of New England and NY/s

But on a serious note no

3

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_j9gnq4m wrote

It's a good thing. Most of us would be wiped out in a first strike, which is what you want. Drop that thing on my head.

−4

MTGBruhs t1_j9go0gs wrote

Worry about what? Nuclear blast? Not necessarily. Worried about a global war, possibly.

1

TreeEleben t1_j9gsymp wrote

The big business owners and billionaires in both Russia and America won't let anything happen. Nuclear war would be bad for profits. Can't exploit people who are dead.

9

GetHyped85 t1_j9gvb26 wrote

Honestly, If he hits the button we won't be around long enough to worry so...

2

adultdaycare81 t1_j9gy1vg wrote

Yes. You in particular can continue being concerned

1

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9gyehe wrote

No matter of suicide.

Russia can use a limited number of nukes without fear of nuclear reprisal, in my opinion, because Russia doesn't care if tens of millions of its citizens die, so they get some tactical nuclear first strikes as freebies.

The reprisal by the west is the matter of suicide. Russia has the Perimeter dead hand deterrent system, by which a full scale nuclear attack on Russia, whether retaliatory or first-strike, triggers an automated full scale response.

So if Russia nukes Kiev to reverse the tide in Ukraine, and the west responds by nuking a couple Russian cities, that's great for Russia because they get to keep Ukraine and they brought the west to heel. If the west retaliates, it will only be a limited strike, which, again, Russia will readily accept, if it gets it something as prized as Ukraine.

There is zero chance Russia launches a first strike against the continental US. Russia likes to say it has the world's most advanced nuclear delivery system, with its hypersonic nuclear cluster bombs, but that's useless against the US unless Russia could get all our subs in one fell swoop, too, which it can't.

I assume the US has cyber warfare and space weaponry at its disposal that could prevent Russia from launching or that could neutralize incoming missiles, hypersonic or not. Obviously such capabilities are top secret and I'm only speculating.

−3

FallGuysStats t1_j9h00aw wrote

There are so many wrong takes that it's hard to respond to this but I will try.

They do care about their citizens.

There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

9

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9h3fy8 wrote

>They do care about their citizens.

Omg, you've been in a coma for the last year and just woke up. Let me fill you in on what's been happening to fighting age men in Russia and how little the oligarchs in charge of the country care about the people in it. Lol. What a joke.

>There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

What are these great consequences that would punish Russia for using nukes, but not deter them from using in the first place?

>Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

No of course it's not great. I meant the sarcastic kind of great. Again, because more than they care about a few cities, they care about their position as a world power. If they use them, they obviously think it will lead to a better position for Russia, despite what would happen to a few of their cities.

>There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

You don't know the limits of our defensive systems and I don't either. That's why I said I assume.

>Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

Perimeter is automatic (that means it doesn't need an order).

−1

USMC_Valhalla t1_j9h3tbs wrote

Maybe the US should have stayed out of Ukraine and Georgia like WE promised.

When the wars start, I hope you get drafted first. 20 years of war wasn't enough for you mall Americans.

−5

Pruedrive t1_j9h6tjf wrote

They are absolute trash. I take none of their threats as legitimate, and they wouldn’t have a snowballs chance in hell if they took us on in a conventional war.

2

Big-Pond t1_j9h927t wrote

I love how Op attempts to engage in discussion by totally dismissing previous comments on this same subject.

Op, don’t worry. Atmospheric particulate from the Ohio fire(s) will obscure CT to missile guidance systems.

−1

brdoma1991 t1_j9hayb9 wrote

No more than anyone else in the world. At least we would die fast

1

Djali-Babs t1_j9hfzmi wrote

You should be terrified, they’re gonna zero the location at your house.

3

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j9hhk8b wrote

Depends on where it hits and what the yield is. Anything shy of a “tsar bomba” impact on manhattan is pretty much a fallout problem for us in CT in which case you’re either prepared to shelter in place or evacuate to a fallout shelter immediately. Either way, Greenwich, stamford, cos cob, darien, and parts of norwalk and new canaan would be hit the worst.

2

Environmental_Log344 t1_j9hwg2k wrote

I disagree because if they hit the naval base in Groton, I am within the strike zone. They would want to disable our defenses more than the big cities, I would think. It's a 14- mile radius for instant death, as I recall hearing in school. I may be wrong on that distance.

2

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j9hzqbz wrote

No, they wouldn’t. War is rarely fought that way. Honor and respect on the battlefield have long since passed. They see an enemy medic, they open fire. They see civilians aiding the enemy, they open fire. It’s all about numbers. If you’re thinking wartime strats, killing a ton of people in a short amount of time is efficient, demoralizing, and headline grabbing. And manhattan has an estimated 1.7 million people that could be wiped out by a nuke in an instant and even more through the nuclear fallout being carried up through CT, RI, and MA vs groton’s population of 39,000, if that. Densely populated areas are prime targets. Hell, why do you think mass shooters pick schools? Densely populated and extremely vulnerable. When was last time there a mass casualty event at a courthouse, police station, government building, private affluent school with a bunch of armed security? It’s all soft targets they go after for shock and awe. And it works unfortunately.

1

SnooPeripherals5518 t1_j9i22li wrote

No. Not really. Living here (CT) ensures that most won't survive a first strike and those that do survive will die fairly quickly from high-level radiation fallout.

7

Saint_Chrispy1 t1_j9i5440 wrote

We are in between NYC and Boston. Have electric boat and Sikorsky along with plum island and milstone npp... We won't feel a thing.

7

BrickInHead t1_j9iagaa wrote

unless and until the united states+nato and russia are explicitly at war with one another, there is nothing to worry about.

if that happens, it's anyone's guess. traditional models of nuclear deterrence would state that to launch a nuclear strike would be ridiculously irrational, because any state that launches a nuke would prompt worldwide nuclear armageddon and certainly ensure its own destruction. putin probably is a rational actor right now, even if he is prone to tactical error. that said, if he's pressured into a corner...who knows? the chance is extremely slim that he would resort to the button given it is practically suicide, and if he did, there's a good chance others would step in to would stop it (see, e.g., the russian soldier who is credited as averting armageddon during the cuban missile crisis). but it's not impossible. a nuke in the air is most certainly a non-zero chance, even if it is infinitesimally small. a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a percent.

generally, thinking about nuclear warfare is a foreign concept for anyone who grew up after the fall of the ussr because we have never lived under an actual threat of one occurring. the idea of engaging in nuclear war just makes so little sense that it's hard to conceive of any situation where it could happen. but the potential impact of just one error bringing it about is existentially terrifying. it's not the sort of thing I worry about, personally, but it's also not irrational to think about, given that people are, on occasion—and particularly when under stress—irrational.

2

Magungo1066 t1_j9ie9vg wrote

Between Boston, New York, and the submarine pens in Groton/New London, we have about 50+ nukes aimed directly at us. Each one of them explodes at a temperature hotter than the sun, and vaporizes or incinerates everything for 4-6 square miles. This causes mass fires in the surrounding areas that proliferate with nearly nothing to curb or prevent the expansion. Long story short you have no reason to be afraid! You will turn to vapor in seconds and feel no pain! :)

5

Dry-Specialist-2150 t1_j9iee7k wrote

Putin can’t wait to use his Poseidon weapon- nothing at present can’t stop it . Basically a nuclear torpedo yes underwater- that will generate a radioactive tidal wave

1

CurrentResident23 t1_j9j7cd3 wrote

The only thing I worry about is being outside the blast radius and having to live in a post-nuclear hellscape. That being said, I don't actually believe any countries will be launching nukes.

2

cmedeiros22 t1_j9jg1a3 wrote

When Biden went to visit Ukraine, Russia tried to do an ICBM test in response. You just didn’t hear about because the test failed. That should tell you everything you need to know about Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

5

SnooPeripherals5518 t1_j9k2grg wrote

Sikorsky has nothing to do with it. Military helicopters (and Sikorsky helos) are a dying breed. Look at what is happening in Ukraine and look at what the U.S. Air Force is doing with their fleet of Pave Hawks. They're already decommissioning the premier active CSAR squadron in two years (the 55th at Nellis) and have divested further production of HH-60W's. Also, look at the winner of the Army FVL (Future Vertical Lift) competition which is (not) Sikorsky but their competitor Bell/Textron. If I owned Sikorsky stock I'd be selling it. If I worked at Sikorsky I'd be looking elsewhere.

So, Sikorsky is a non-player in the nuclear first strike arena.

HOWEVER, I would look at Groton and the sub base there. That IS (and always has been) a first-strike target. But other than that Connecticut is a military "Black-hole" with nothing of significance in this state. NYC is, however, a juicy target for multiple strikes and "look" for it to become a solid sheet of glass if the unthinkable were ever to become reality. Connecticut to be the recipient of literally TONS of irradiated nuclear fallout which would turn this state into a desert wasteland.

Again, no worries. It'll be over so fast you'll never be bothered by it. Just the blindness if you had been looking in the direction of a detonation and then radiation burning if close enough or inhalation asphyxiation if further away.

3

rob691369 t1_j9k7dub wrote

It's a bluff, a scare tactic. Putin is a bully, but he wont pull the trigger.

1

Environmental_Log344 t1_j9k7q00 wrote

I hadn't thought of it in terms of soft targets. We in SE CT used to talk about how Groton with it's submarines would be a first choice. I have always thought that if nukes fell, there would be no problem for me as I would be dead in the explosion. If I have to live with the fallout, then I might as well end it myself as soon as the news reaches me.

Edited to add that I am not depressed and do not need a reddit care message. TIA, I am fine 😊

1

SSoviet_Slayer t1_j9kgb7u wrote

What difference does that make? ct was always going to glow if we ever had an exchange

1

UniqueCartel t1_j9kggm9 wrote

This has always been my take. If Russia were to destroy the us with all its nukes that assumes a few things:

Scenario A 1-that they are able to fire off nukes without any detection from the US without time to respond meaning they destroy the US completely 2- then what? Then the embargoes and sanctions are technically removed, but completely worthless. Russia cannot make any money or gain an additional power. That doesn’t guarantee subordination from all remaining powers. It more likely guarantees that nukes will already be in the air from other countries assuming they’re next.

Scenario B 1-Russia fires nukes, US catches them in time only to be able to respond with nukes ensuring mutual destruction 2-nothing is left, no one is able to make money or gain power when everyone is dead

2

TheDudeMaintains t1_j9l67vo wrote

Rob your neighbors. Eat your kids. Dance like nobody's watching.

1

Big-Pond t1_j9lf9h7 wrote

It’s reprehensible to completely rewrite your OP and pretend you haven’t.

Edit; to any downvoters-the opening post is not what was posted even remotely which is why my above response seems aggressive. It was appropriate to the original post.

1

cmedeiros22 t1_j9lj6k5 wrote

Everyone thought Russia had a modern first world military before the invasion. Even US intelligence thought they would take Kiev in 3 days. Now we can see that all that oil money that Putin was giving to the Russian military, was likely just lining the pockets of the top brass. All their equipment was in disrepair before it even got into Ukraine. None of it was maintained. I doubt their ICBMs and nukes are in any better shape.

2

Pruedrive t1_j9lrnow wrote

Our only concern is how to deal with post Putin Russia when this inevitably leads to their country's collapse and a further destabilizing of that nation. Mark my words on this.. this doesn't look good for them or Putin, if they do not pull off some major spring/sumer miracles on this... or give Ukraine/NATO a favorable peace settlement, they are up shits creek.

1

Big-Pond t1_j9m58m6 wrote

You completely removed and rewrote your post.

Why you would bother to deny that now is a mystery for your therapist to address.

I have no interest in seeing anything more from you, you clearly have issues.

2

deceptacle1980 t1_j9m7afn wrote

“Quickest link. Didn’t read it but the title confirmed my statements for me and if you don’t agree you’re just a sheep”.

I could swap you for a MAGA qtard and get the same exact conversation.

But you’re so much better and smarter than them.

1

bdy435 t1_j9oxsy6 wrote

How does Putin launching nukes help Putin?

1