ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_jebx7se wrote

That is why this development is so concerning. If Russia decided to be very irresponsible, which they likely will, and stop sharing scheduled tests and similar events, the west has an extremely short window of time to determine whether it's a legit threat or not.

NK doesn't announce theirs, obviously, but they aren't in a state of hybrid conflict with the west in the same manner as Russia is. Besides, their missle game is nowhere near the Russians.

To me it makes this more than posturing and saber rattling if they follow through with it. It is just one more signal we are regressing hard into the cold war, and it's not as cold as it once was.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_je3voqr wrote

You're right to feel the way you do. Russia decided to spend all of its money building missles to counter US ABM systems instead of its actual military and it's amounted to what? I can nuke you better than you can nuke me? Oxymoron.

On paper the Russian ballistic missle fleet is easily the largest and most capable in the world. This is borne from necessity, as all of their existing missles suddenly became much less reliable due to aforementioned ABM system. So they rolled out Yars, Bulava, SARMAT II, Kinzhal, Iskander, Avangard, and Zircon. New missles built after 2000. Limited quantities but deployed in respectable numbers none the less. Some not fully deployed yet and no doubt affected by sanctions. Plus they got their old stocks, what still works anyway.

How many new missles by America entered into active service since 70s? Zero. They field two missles. Minuteman and Trident since the cold war, plus the world's most formidable bomber fleet. Missles have been updated but max at 3 MIRV. Bulava and Yars 6 to 10 MIRV. Russia has a bomber fleet but they'd never make it past water. It's all missles for them.

The Russians know that to hit the north American fortress it will either take massive quantities of missles and warheads to ensure they get through or missles that could theoretically defeat ABM today and near future. Whether they can or not, or whether they work as intended, is up for speculation but that's it on paper.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_je2tgd1 wrote

Of course, nuclear war doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm not implying its a realistic scenario. I'm just shocked at the hate and hypocrisy of people who hate America's hypocrisy. I also wonder what their leaders are like? If they are any more or less corrupt and greedy. What would it look like if they held the same power and reach? Everyone thinks the world would be so much better off, but be careful what you wish for. They may just find that the US isn't the source of all their problems and inequities.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_je2m5i6 wrote

As an American, I am always shocked by how many people justify their own ugliness and hate by pointing to America. If nothing else, America's hypocrisy gives you a nice big red bow on your casual suggestion that 330 million people dying would be a nice thing in a currency thread. Funny how hate works isn't it?

Bad human behavior is bad human behavior. Use whatever enemy real or imagined necessary, but if you're so open with your own hate, you're no better. You're just another savage with a different flag, or maybe the same one I don't know.

Clamoring for nuclear annihilation of anyone doesn't make you better. It makes you worse. America won't fall, though. Entering into an era of war will only further serve American interests. Death by 1000 cuts was doable in times of peace, but in a time of war, good luck. Whether it's oil, gold, or otherwise, a desperate America will be happy to take it off someone's hands with not so much as an apology. Won't that be fun? The only way to beat her is from within.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_jaax6vr wrote

10,000 nuclear warhead detonation wouldn't affect South America? You don't really believe that, do you?

I am confidently sure of one thing and one thing alone. We lack the ability to model our planet 10 years after 10,000 nuclear detonations in a short time. Esp considering they won't be of the 14 kt Hiroshima variety.

I am reasonably sure that 100 nuclear detonations on the planet would significantly alter the world as we know it, and maybe we can model the atmospheric effects, but we cannot model all of the effects, including disease, food disruption, animal disruption, weather disruption, and most importantly social economic disruption.

Also, 100 missles seems like a good hypothetical number, which is a limited exchange by all accounts, but each missle likely has between 3-10 individual warheads as well.

Honestly, the whole damn thing is just unthinkable. It's a useless thought exercise. Humans would likely survive in some capacity no matter what short of every single region being nuked, but it wouldn't be anything close to life now. OUR world would have effectively been ended, for a new, much scarier, and horrible world.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_jaaujoq wrote

I'm going to back you up on this. Many people, including myself, are impressed with the US intelligence capabilities. Make no mistake, though. The minute it doesn't serve US interests to be forthcoming with intel, they won't be. Also, are the people coming out and saying "Well I've liked how they handled Ukraine," and also looking to other aspects of the US government? Judging the US credibility and good intent solely on Ukraine seems short-sighted.

I have one question to people. If China were to somehow put together a peace plan that would somehow end the war, completely without the US being involved, how would the US take that? What if China is able to sort of pose the west as an aggressor in the war at the same time?

I'm not hating. I'm not demanding change. I know what it is. It's about national interests and national interests alone. It's not about doing the right thing, although it's nice when the two line up, but they dont always, and I think we all get that. It's geopolitics.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_j97jthw wrote

Yeah, no kidding. It's doing some weird things. I think it may have factored into the red aurorae becoming more common like this past week despite the relatively low magnitude events observed.

It's astonishing how much we have left to learn about the dynamics of our solar system alone. I still think that despite the weakening of the magnetosphere, it still is mostly a game of luck with the flare itself. A large and powerful flare aimed directly at earth is a very bad day.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_j96yl9j wrote

I agree overall. X Class flares of this variety occur fairly frequently. There's a bit too much sensationalism about these flares. That said, a direct hit from even a lower X class flare could have implications for earth and satellites but likely minor in nature.

In 89' an X15 and resulting CME hit earth. Aurora made it south as Texas and Quebec lost their grid for several hours. Communications were affected worldwide. It was still just a love tap, despite being a moderately strong storm. I understand that there are several factors that influence the magnitude of resulting geomagnetic storms but the 89 event does provide a decent frame of reference for strength of flare and resulting storm/effects on earth.


ArmChairAnalyst86 t1_iyaflng wrote

His point is the Kurds got fucked over solely on the premise the treaty was put into place by TPTB and then rescinded with no recourse.

This is to say NOTHING of any other mitigating factors you mentioned such as ethnicity, history, and which side feels they are right and who is wrong. It's a contained statement. Treaty made. Treaty not upheld.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Further more, why r you so hostile on a reddit forum?

Oh yeah, it's a Reddit forum.