WHAT IF RUSSIA NUKES UKRAINE! - A SCARY Realistic Scenario!

Join Discord for More Info / discord
Send me some stuff!
P.O. Box 882195
Port Saint Lucie Florida 34988
Want to see more Videos? Check out new content on Facebook!
/ devildoggamer-28834045...
Support me on Patreon
/ devildoggamer
Instagram
/ thedevildoggamer
Vlog Channel:
kzbin.info/door/JMp...
Twitch:
/ thedevildoggamer
Need a Server check out Nitrado!
nitra.do/DDG
Follow me on Twitter:
#!/DevilDogGamer

[@TheDevildogGamer]

Ok so we had to change the title and thumbnail due to so many people being mad that they clicked this and it wasn't actual news of this happening. If it happened you wouldn't be getting that news from a KZbin video that takes 30 mins to upload on a good day. Your phone would be blowing up WELL before. As was true from my 1st year on KZbin 12 years ago as is today 99% of views are driven by Thumbnail and Title so we adjusted for those that a wildly oblivious and thought this was breaking news

[@THEGAMEBREAKERSISFUN]

Have been watching you for years. I cannot believe that people actually fucking thought this. So scary what’s happening man!

[@slimmdusty8809]

I wouldn’t have even changed it dude, those individuals are just dumb and rely on information from others, any person with common sense knows that it’s still unlikely that Russia would even nuke them.

[@Sponty84]

People are fucking dumb lol

[@bradenwoods1111]

People are dumb hahah

[@GapeGang]

Smh, can’t believe how smooth their brains are. Unfathamoble

[@tskenny4692]

The guy you placed down didnt take any radiation because he was placed in Birmingham. They live with a constant 600 Roentgen.

[@SabotageDesigns]

Birmingham is no where near London

[@ElCocoNo_]

I like him

[@MrMonero]

Deffo more than 600. Birmingham is a shithole of the highest magnitude. Deffo delivers a bigger dose than 600 Roentgen haha 😆

[@stukenbergm]

In Birmingham they love the governa.

[@spencer6072]

Can confirm but those with higher doses become crackheads and start fights outside of maccies on the ramp

[@MrBeaker74]

"The only winning move is not to play."

[@mattin5850]

there is no winning move, if you don't play you will still be impacted even if not directly

[@bl00dlikewayne]

in nuclear war you either lose and get completely decimated, or you lose and get completely decimated along with your opponent.

[@Lennydontcare]

China wins

[@BloodyKnives66]

Don't think they get the reference lol

[@obzylitecrysis]

Is this an agadmator reference?

[@JonasCVogt]

Who doesn't enjoy this kind of simulation? It's so heartwarming.

[@wyvernharries4788]

Yes. warming.

[@Zero_Twice_00]

Warming

[@AK47s4EveryOne]

very warm even warmer than the ole Tos-1 thermobarics

[@guidaguida2]

It's not just heartwarming, it's absolutely positively thermonuclear!

[@keithbuddrige1210]

Uranium is always warm to the touch.

[@viejitaloca2810]

at minute 5, wouldnt it make more sense to russia attack the ukranian side that links to the poland railroad? attacking poland would just be begging for an all out nuclear war and seems pretty unlikely

[@Ghodum]

@@belliduradespicio8009 he is.

[@stillcantbesilencedevennow]

@@belliduradespicio8009 tbf, he is. It takes a special dingleberry to preside over some of the stuff he has. (Kursk, Beslan, Chechnya, Georgia, now Ukraine)

[@Kolek-sun-eater]

Putin is still way more spry than old potato Biden.

[@michaeledmunds7056]

@@Kolek-sun-eater Why does that matter?

[@julienckjm7430]

@@michaeledmunds7056 Because Biden is on the other end of the red button

[@DirtFlyer]

I think the biggest takeaway from this is how quickly things escalate if even one or two tactical nukes are used in Ukraine. It took about 4 hours from the first tactical nuke detonating, to all out global thermonuclear war. I'm betting that is pretty realistic too, because each side would be trying to beat the other side with their attacks before the other side launched another attack and/or got their missiles destroyed in their launchers. It's a race to use your nuclear weapons before they are destroyed, or the other side causes devastating destruction. I wonder how chaotic it would be after reports circulated around the globe of the initial tactical nuke attack on Ukraine.

[@jonathanwhite5688]

Yes it simply demonstrates we all go down…..

[@jonathanwhite5688]

If it states 190 million that’s I assume initial blast casualties looking at a nuclear winter and millions exposed to radiation were looking at billions dying the world will never be the same again.…..

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@jonathanwhite5688 Only America, Europe and Russia go down. That's fine by me. Fvck 'em!

[@chernovbrichtofen4767]

Panic shopping, people breaking store windows and grabbing a tv, and people running around screaming while cars crash and trash gets all over the streets

[@sorosray]

all 100% of Russian missiles will fall on the heads of the Americans and they will all die.

[@1ch0]

Also one might add: Those "small" tactical nukes are probably like the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki. Thats how "small" they would be. ^^

[@juanmccoy3066]

Well no not at all. Make no mistake tactical nukes are not "small" but they are in fact not as big as the ww2 nuclear weapons used on Japan. Ur thinking of strategic nukes which are much bigger.

[@nupagadii5834]

Tactical Nukes' are small (whose explosive force, or yield, varied from 0.1 to 1 kiloton [1 kiloton is a force equal to 1,000 tons of TNT]). Hiroshima or Nagasaki was 20kT In Russia's doctrine should be used on areas of large military concertation or as terrorize attack on cities.

[@xanovaria]

​@@juanmccoy3066 You are dead wrong and spreading misinformation. They are dial-a-yield. The American B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb; the American one mentioned in the video has different settings that let you choose how big the blast is, as is the case with most nuclear weapons the world over. The yield can be adjusted by injecting more or less of the tritium or deuterium gas into the pit or messing with the External Neutron Initiators, or turning off the secondary (the "Thermo" part of the thermonuclear bomb) nuclear weapon inside of thermonuclear weapons. Variable Yield (AKA Dial-A-Yield) has been around since the 50s, and most countries incorporate it into their weapons design programs. The Russian tactical nuclear weapons, which are delivered via cruise missiles, MLRS, artillery shells, gravity bombs, dumb bombs, laser-guided munitions, or SRBMs have a much higher Circular Error Probable (CEP), meaning that they are much less accurate. In order to compensate for this loss in accuracy, Russian weapons have a much higher yield than their American counterparts. You can see this by comparing their SRBMs, MRBMs, ICBMs, and SLBMs. They all have at least double the yield of their American counterparts and a much higher CEP (lower accuracy). The lowest setting ion the American B61 mod 12 is 0.3 kilotons, 1/60th the size of the WW2 bombs. HOWEVER, they can be set up to 400 kilotons; 20 times more powerful. (or 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 for the B61 mod 10) That's HUGE. Use nukemap to nuke your city and see the damage for yourself.

[@xanovaria]

@@nupagadii5834 The B61 mod 12 like the one in the video goes from 0.3kt all the way to 400kt. The russian nukes are bigger; thought to go up to 1 megaton. They're bigger than the US nuclear weapons for a reason; because their delivery systems are wildly more inaccurate than the US delivery system. It's calculated by a metric called Circular Error Probable, CEP. CEP means that you can statistically expect that 50% of fired ordnance to hit within X size circle around the target. The Russian CEPs are much larger than the American ones, meaning they are much less accurate. That metric holds true for every nuclear delivery system both sides have, including cruise missiles, MLRS, artillery shells, , gravity bombs, dumb bombs, laser-guided munitions, SRBMs, MRBMs, ICBMs, and SLBMs. The US' nuclear weapon yield is rarely more than 1/2 megaton (500kt), wereas their russian counterparts are usually 1MT+.

[@julienckjm7430]

@@xanovaria Terrifying stuff 😩😩

[@jona.scholt4362]

Good shout-out to Threads. That is probably the most terrifying film I have ever seen and does a great job showing how absolutely helpless and hopeless the average person would be if a large scale nuclear conflict took place. To sum it up; the world would be an absolute post-apocalyptic hellscape. And the film does a great job focusing on the days, weeks, months and eventually years after a massive exchange. The lucky ones are those standing in the open, directly under a large warhead. That way it's instantaneous and you don't suffer all the consequences of survival. Yea, Threads is hands down the scariest movie ever made.

[@sorosray]

all 100% of Russian missiles will fall on the heads of the Americans and they will all die.

[@jona.scholt4362]

@@sorosray I've always wondered what makes someone post such nonsensical garbage like you just did. I'd understand if you were an 11 year old. I'd probably understand if you were a little older but still had the maturity of a younger child. If you are not a young teenager, please go seek professional help.

[@hershelfowler6257]

It dawned on me the other day. Putin spelled backwards is Nit UP. Which was the job the children and the elderly were doing after the war in the movie Threads.

[@vreevroow]

Don't watch this movie. It'll change you.

[@MattyofWBB]

@@vreevroow Tell me about it watched this when i was about 10, it has scarred me for life.

[@SJ-xg1uf]

Somebody REALLY should make an updated version of either "The Day After" or "Threads". Just for the fact that we have sooo much more technology today than we did in the 1980's

[@egillskallagrimson5879]

Absolutely, the only thing close to threads was the movie The Road, although the movie seems to point at a meteor strike or something that level. But yes it would be not only cool to see but very educational since everybody should understand the risk nuclear weapons pose for all life on earth.

[@asn413]

i agree. people don't even know what it is or does anymore. ever see "testament?" sirens are blaring and people walk around outside like confused children. God forbid such a thing ever happning!ignorance itself would skyrocket the deathtoll.

[@vreevroow]

Threads does a fine job of giving you PTSD as is. No need to give it a fresh coat of paint.

[@praetoriancorps]

I can still see them also purposely targeting entire cities instead of just military targets.

[@michajastrzebski4383]

if you have any military target in a city, you dont get to "not hit the city" with the nuke going for that target ;)

[@limitbreak2966]

It’s very scary :(

[@spiritfree5050]

you would want to take out the army first then you can force surrender but hitting a few Major cities

[@jamesfrankel7827]

Counter-force, military target vs counter-value, economic, industrial, power generating. A major city may be both.

[@ownage11445]

In the event of a nuclear attack hardened military targets are hit first, second critical infrastructure, and then key civilian targets.

[@kylexrex]

*"Usually Hawaï doesn't get hit that much"* lmfao, that gave me a chuckle

[@ezvengabrielrosal2392]

No one found this after 1 year?

[@fkknsikk]

Seems like the only strat is to respond to any use of even the smallest tactical nuke by launching everything you've got. There's no advantage to waiting for each stage of escalation.

[@notastone4832]

or not responding..

[@Laerei]

@@notastone4832 In this scenario, NATO didn't respond to Russia using a single nuke on the city of Kherson (population of 287000) and Russia went "Oh well, that means we are free to nuke as we please."

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@Laerei No. Russia won't say "lets nuke as we please." That is a double digit IQ brainmelt understanding of how states think.

[@vreevroow]

@@Laerei and NATO nations like Germany and the UK didn't respond until after grabbing popcorn to watch their own firestorms.

[@DrForrester87]

That's why US strategy is immediate full deployment once nukes have been used.

[@turbotwo1]

It seems like this simulation doesnt take into account any type of defense. It seems like every missile launched will reach its target. I wonder how accounting for any kinds of defensive measure would change the out comes.

[@depress0coffee]

Plus it's very "turn-based". The moment missiles are in the air from either side, a response would surely be done in-kind. As you said, no defence, no interception. Also seems a bit silly to use nuclear payloads to hit rail infrastructure as opposed to using conventional ordinance or hell even a FOAB. Likewise, no mention of the speculated "Dead Hand" system used in RU, or other countermeasure systems in place.

[@TheLev11]

Icbm are designed in a way to make italmost impossible to intercept them. The speed alone of these missiles should be enough to ensure a hit, not to mention additional countermeasures, decoys, change in trajectory

[@TheDevildogGamer]

There are no defensive measures for ICBMs even if we deployed what we had it would stop 1% if we were lucky

[@BucketKingu]

DevilDog is correct. We have, basically, no direct countermeasures to ICBM's. In fact, we barely have any counter measures to most larger missile ordinances. The fact of the matter is, once a big ass missile is launched, there's not a lot that can stop it. Between the speed, the fake tips, reflectors, etc, the chances of even the most 'state of the art' defenses being able to stop most nukes, let alone ICBM's, are almost null.

[@depress0coffee]

Of course. My only gripe was the moment the US/RU detected missile launches they would have responded relatively quickly - as opposed to letting the opposing sides missiles hit the silo's first THEN launching whatever remained. I guess the main takeaway is this: if the nukes start flying, we all lose!

[@DurzoBlunts]

Honestly that many nukes hitting the silos, I wonder how deep the craters would be. That saturation was insane, crater on top of crater.

[@stevenrodriguez763]

Not very big nuclear bombs to explode on impact of the surface. They actually explode a couple hundred feet up in the air for maximum spread.

[@alphawolfgang173]

most nukes are detonated above ground for max damage, often not much of a crater

[@VeryFamousActor]

@@alphawolfgang173 They wont be using airburst against silos

[@ScoundrelzNTwK]

You can go and read old Cold War plans, in some instances the US planned to hit Russian silos with between 60-100 ground burst nukes a pieces. That was when each country had over 20k.

[@rogerbartlet5720]

airburst causes maximum casualties. groundburst causes maximum fall-out.

[@koala.justakoala4287]

As a Ukrainian I just want to say this to everyone reading: try not to look at this like just statistics, or some video game match results. Actually imagine yourself experience all of this: the sirens, the explosions, the ground shaking, the flames everywhere, not knowing where your loved ones are, where to go, or if there's anywhere to go left. Thinking constantly that all of your close people can already be dead and you probably won't know for sure for a long time. I used to not think about such videos in much detail, but having the war in my country has shifted my perspective quite a bit

[@ItsCoreyLynxxYall]

As disturbing as 'Threads' is, even that probably doesn't even cut it when it comes to how inconceivable it will be. Living in the Metro Atlanta area there are targets all around me. Not just Dobbins Air Reserve Base but 4 power plants, the CDC HQ and Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. The Federal Reserve also has a building here.

[@arnoldsherrill2585]

I live in Atlanta also ,and just those small number of facilities make this area a very tempting Target, for even a low-yield nuclear weapon. No major city is off the list if there is a escalation scenario., Either by a direct Hit or because of fallout

[@thatgenericdixienormouspicguy]

I live between a nuclear submarine base, a naval air station, an air national guard base, an airport, and the Army does a part of their Ranger training in the swamps about 30 mins from where I live.

[@katarjin]

I get sent to shipyards all the time and since the invasion we have been saying if it ever goes nuclear we are doomed, so just go up to the flight deck and enjoy the show.

[@charliewerchan7252]

Nice to know ya

[@gpheonix1]

this isn't nearly as apocalyptic as i thought it would be. I thought literally ever square inch of where anyone is living is getting nuked.

[@demonslayer4290]

In this simulation the targets are military targets not aim a city's if the simulation was built aiming at city and not military targets the dead toll would be much higher.

[@gpheonix1]

@@demonslayer4290 even when it was it was only like 200 million. i guess that's what nuclear winter is for. I still expected more death the actual bombs though.

[@worlore1651]

@@gpheonix1 nuclear winter is just a theory

[@gpheonix1]

@@worlore1651 okay

[@charliewerchan7252]

Hmmm, not that bad huh? Wow, sorry that they didn't make the whole earth glow like the sun.

[@TheBic4]

Suddenly realizing that I live close enough to an air national guard base that I’ll be wiped out by multiple nukes😢

[@skorpiongod]

I live next to multiple military bases and a military industry center. I take comfort knowing my death will be swift.

[@TheBic4]

@@skorpiongod the thing that gets me is my job far enough away from it i could potentially survive but I’d lose everything and everyone if it all happens when I’m working. So I’m not certain mine would be swift or if the radiation would get me.

[@theswagman1263]

I'm at the perfect distance not to get immediately killed but instead have my body covered in third degree burns and then slowly dying from infection and radiation. can't wait!

[@jnicholaswildcat]

I live next to 3 major military installations, myself and my family are dead at minimum 30 times over, we’d be outside of both blast and fallout zones, but the destruction and civil disorder that would follow? I don’t have enough guns and ammo for what would come after, and it wouldn’t be pretty

[@georgea5991]

Don't feel bad. I live near Ft Meade, the NSA, and Annapolis (Naval Academy), not to mention an international airport that could be taken as a counterforce target.

[@spookystorytime2774]

"I don't think anyone is stuiped enough to use a nuclear weapon" Bro....don't tempt fate. We have 99.9 percent of stuiped world leaders currently

[@user-mf3oc6mj5l]

"Some of these triggers are very slow... Very slow..." This is how you know it's realistic.

[@ShadowGJ]

Yeah, I don't think leaders would decide on major escalations, especially nuclear ones, in minutes.

[@User-jr7vf]

@@ShadowGJ But the irony is, they have to. Imagine you are informed by your General that the enemy has launched a nuclear attack on you. The order to retaliate must be given immediatly if you want any chance of survival of your country, even though that is probably not going to happen, but at least try to inflict maximal amount of suffering in your enemy.

[@Hairysteed]

Counterforce against nuclear silos woud be useless, since they'd just launch the missiles before the warheads hit in a "use it or lose it" scenario and the warheads would just be wasted on empty silos. Hitting conventional force bases makes a lot more sense since conventional force deployment takes a lot longer to deploy. In a silo you just answer the phone, read the codes and turn the keys. BTW, there's a reason the us missile fields are in the midwest - where the population density is the lowest.

[@rdiddyspace1708]

Denver is south of that missile field. and I thought about moving there at one point because they told me it's the fastest growing city in America with lots of great weather and scenery.

[@shiva_chirr]

im wondering if this takes into account attempts to intercept and defend against strikes or it just expects us to take them without trying to intercept

[@BishopGG]

No good defense against ICBMs

[@michigancube4240]

@@BishopGG THAADS, SM-3s, SM-6s and GMD/Is can intercept ICBM warheads on terminal/reentry approaches just off the top of my head whereas a few other European systems similar to the (including) Patriot PAC-3s can intercept non-ICBM reentry warheads from IRBMs and cruise missiles (I believe they *could* intercept ICBM warheads on re-entry if the conditions are optimal but its unbelievably unlikely to do so with the difference in the interceptor's payload being mainly blast-frag and not kinetic rod). SM-3s and GMD/Is can intercept mid-course but it's very situational as the warship/launch site has to be within a hundred or so miles of the launch trajectory. We can intercept *some*, like around 100-200 warheads in an optimal setting, but not a full out attack with about 1500 in use like this scenario.

[@crusader_wolf1104]

@@BishopGG There are defenses against ICBM's but in a full nuclear exchange not all of them could be stopped

[@BrianHavinga]

Simulation needs to factor in the use of EMPs as well. While I assume most nuclear hardware/silos are hardened against an EMP, it will definitely wreak havoc on infrastructure in the time after the bombs drop.

[@jasonlast7091]

The most terrifying part is how survivable it is.

[@ryang.5094]

Exactly. It can almost be taken as justification for use.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

It isn't. This video just estimates initial fatalities from the actual strikes, but there will also be many more casualties, who will eventually die from their injuries, then radiation sickness, then being unable to survive without shelter, food or water. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. I think ~1 billion dead is quite possible as a result of the initial attack, but this would be followed by a nuclear winter several years long, which would kill millions more while impoverishing hundreds of millions.

[@jackp.richardson6415]

Individual survival yes, but there is literally 0 percent chance any of the governments after the war are still alive.

[@gregjohnston455]

Nuclear winter would kill most everybody. Assuming that nuclear winter is a real thing.

[@BGRANT777X]

Its hard to call it survival, you will live out your days in a really shitty world and so will many many generations. Literally nobody is going to see the other side of a nuclear war.

[@aliasname5518]

ah yes, man made horrors beyond my comprehension

[@5434345]

Imagine, if planet cracks like egg after 20 nukebooms.

[@JTelli786]

You mentioned that the "small" tactical nukes were "only" 15 kilotons and while yes that is small for a nuke (the largest nuke was 50 megatons (roughly 500 kilotons)) a 15 kiloton warhead is what was used in the Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima.

[@lucid523]

Well the smallest nuclear bomb in the world is the Davy Crockett or the W54 which only had 01 kilotons which isn't that big at all

[@georgea5991]

@@lucid523 The Davy Crockett wasn't a bomb. It was a recoilless rifle.

[@angelofiron4366]

Now this Sarmat missle has 100 megatons. I cannot imagine what that will look like, after looking at the Tsar Bomba footage.

[@Argonwolfproject]

50 megatons would equal 50,000 kilotons.

[@Argonwolfproject]

@@georgea5991 A recoilless rifle that fired a nuclear bomb.

[@Buzzy-bm6bv]

How much time elapsed from the first Russian strike on the Ukraine to the end of the scenario presented in the video? Thank you.

[@jnicholaswildcat]

Spiral out of control is putting it lightly….and while the fallout may not be too terrible, the infrastructural destruction will be nothing short of apocalyptic, farmland destroyed, power plants and transformer stations knocked out or destroyed, fuel infrastructure crippled, communications totaled, civil unrest would be a literal hellscape nightmare, this simulation doesn’t account for things like that except for some numbers here and there, but it doesn’t have the ability to predict what would happen on the human level afterwards in regards to levels of violence and other issues like leadership, reconstruction efforts if they could even happen, what areas might end up just outright abandoned and left to rot, would there even be armed forces left to help maintain order and rebuild the country? Did the leaders survive? It’s not really that easy to account for it all

[@User-jr7vf]

Regarding civil unrest, the Army could help the Police keep the order. Not all soldiers will be busy dealing with the nuclear war (actually most won't).

[@jnicholaswildcat]

@@User-jr7vf you’re not wrong, but don’t forget that the mass civil unrest would be most likely literally nationwide and the armed forces would have their own problems with keeping order within itself for a number of reasons, like panic, family, and trying to regroup after a mass nuclear strike. And if they manage to get it together they still have infrastructure to work with, mass nuclear strikes would cause infrastructure around the country to be completely useless in many areas, and many bases are in or near major metropolitan areas which would prove major obstacles, fuel would be problematic, lack of electrical grid being a major road block as well, communication systems would be down, the list is long, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying it would be severely affected and impossibly difficult

[@skyfish0001]

I feel like the scenario should have more of a defensive capability aspect to it too, the United States has several anti-ballistic missile defense systems that could probably work and stop a lot of the incoming barrages despite the need for very quick reaction.

[@ShadowGJ]

I feel it'd never be enough to prevent major, unthinkable damage. ABM defenses may prevent it from being apocalyptic, but we'd still see unprecedented destruction.

[@michaellemasters7173]

I’m pretty sure this simulation does simulate a limited nuclear defense by both Russia and the US. The issue is that those systems aren’t very widely known about and regardless of how much we actually know about them, they are extremely limited in both capability and availability. Another issue is that actual nuclear strategy isn’t public knowledge.

[@michigancube4240]

@@ShadowGJ With current stores of SM-3s (which the newer models can do mid-course intercepts on ICBMs, the earlier ones are only terminal or lower altitude than ICBMs IIRC), SM-6s (which I believe can do terminal defense), and GMDs, we theoretically could launch against around probably 250~ targets mid course and about 500~ for terminal defense though IIRC two munitions per warhead might be launched for 90% kill probability so half that, which means around 200-500 warheads could be theoretically intercepted if they were launched at targets within a few dozen miles of US ships which would mostly be west coast and east coast port cities. THAADs are another thing as they are supposed to be terminal defense but iirc they are very hard to locate let alone know how many missiles they have in storage so likely another 100 or so intercepted wherever THAADs are based if launched at. So about 300-700 could be shot down, with the more realistic number being about 300-400 in the MOST optimistic scenario whereas in reality not every US Navy destroyer/cruiser is near the coast and not every destroyer/cruiser with SM-3s are on mid course tracks where Russian missiles would likely fly, so between the 50 odd GMDs and likely a couple dozen THAAD launchers on the west coast the US would be able to intercept probably around 100-150 warheads, which is about 10% of Russia's usable stockpile.

[@frenchfry1479]

@@michigancube4240 then add the failure Rate of Russian equipment, ~ 30%. likely more seeing that Russia uses Liquid Fuel which is harder to maintain, and needs to be replace more often

[@dawggonevidz9140]

@@frenchfry1479 not to mention the fact the military maintaining their arsenal is famously corrupt and light fingered. I think you'd have to take a third of russia's ordinance out of the picture before mechanical failures would be a factor simply because their fuel, and perhaps their warheads, only exist on paper now.

[@richard-hawley]

If history is any indicator, decisions tend to be guided by self interest. Consideration for the common man doesn't enter into it, we are entirely disposable. Japan's decision to surrender was not the threat of massive casualties (civilians were expected to hurl themselves at any invading force) but under which occupying force the leadership would survive. Would the Emperor be allowed to continue under Russian occupation or US occupation. That was it. Time and time again we see examples of this, it's a human trait, self interest at the literal expense of everyone else. There's no path for Putin to persist either his personal or national ambitions except through the current plan of action, which is hold, dig in, reinforce and exploit. He sees the churn of western leadership as a waiting game. In this scenario, he has continuity.

[@jonathancantrell858]

I agree. His best move is to wait it out until the administration changes here in the U.S. I imagine candidates will be running on promises to end U.S. involvement in the war.

[@popowere]

The thing is that Putin is not immortal. He is old and he wants to push an achievement, something he can be running to impatiently because of his own ennemy, time.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Assuming he survives the attack, I doubt Putini still has continuity if Moscow and everything west of the Urals becomes a nuclear wasteland...

[@shotgunvengeance3753]

Would be interesting to see how a situation like this would unfold with china, india, and israel involved.

[@firesmith2863]

Yeah I was thinking China would take advantage of the carnage and start taking the pacific, it would be nuclear pretty quick in the pacific then and be hitting USA as well.

[@User-jr7vf]

India would not get involved unless forced to. India has many internal problems to deal with. I can't imagine how they would manage having cities each with 10 mi people being nuked.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

They wouldn't get involved unless directly attacked, but it's difficult to see who would want to attack them, unless you envisage some kind of James Bond villain with a nuke who holds a grudge against one of them...

[@aurorathekitty7854]

Meanwhile China sitting back laughing while their competition is taking themselves out.

[@thespecialist3608]

I honestly feel like we, as a species, would have to be cataclysmically stupid to sit by and let this happen. This simulator is scary, however, I’m in agreement with DevilDog. There are *so many* goddamn procedures, evaluations and communications that would take place within the first hours of a low-yield warhead being used in Ukraine. Every stop would be pulled, and it wouldn’t just be us. The entire international community would most likely come together and stop Russia from going further. More than it already has.

[@saber2802]

Literally everyone but Russia: WOAH MAN THAT WAS TOO FAR Even China turns against Russia

[@aj9969]

How ? Which country will be stupid enough to nuke Russia in retaliation for ukraine ? More likely, when the first nuke falls in ukraine, most western nations will realize that they don't want nukes falling on their home turf, and immediately negotiate for peace.. Russia will likely nuke ukraine, but unlikely to nuke NATO territory..

[@cyrilarabatzis461]

Lol

[@GonzoTehGreat]

There is no international community, only national interests. You can expect the kind of unity you've already seen with this war in Ukraine. Most countries (outside of Europe) aren't in a position to do much about this scenario anyway, so they'd probably remain neutral. If they also have nukes then intervening would make them a potential target, but even if they don't, they can't risk it either, as they have no deterrence.

[@Maelstromme]

@@GonzoTehGreatNonwestern countries would not care.

[@Sneaky-Snek]

literally just watched threads on monday, fucking insanely scary movie when put into perspective

[@angelofiron4366]

Yea the aftermath isn't pretty.

[@logicalparadox2897]

Counter force means targeting the enemy's nukes a s military capacity. Counter value is the term used when targeting cities, population centers, industry, etc

[@mercator79]

One glitch... Turkiye won't let warships in, so the US ships are (at least to our knowledge) not in the Black Sea at this time. Easy enough for one to sneak in under a cargo ship if the depth is good enough, granted.

[@jake51515]

1 interesting thing to note is would any other nation really get involved? Consider this. Russia uses a small nuke say 15kt. Powerful enough to destroy anything within a mile..would other nations really retaliate? It would seem foolish to start lobbing our entire aresenal, or even a few, at russia simply because they used them on ukraine. If the nukes arent flying towards us, then us retaliating would be the trigger of M.A.D vs say russia using specially tactical nukes over strategic nukes. Maybe its a matter of calling 1s bluff from either side, but look at it from the perspective of the other side. Maybe we would. Im not saying we wouldnt. But maybe JUST MAYBE we dont nuke them because we know that once they do it to ukraine, thats where it stops. So maybe from the perspective of its better to lose 1 country than the entire planet. Now i dont believe russia would use nukes either, but if you back a scared dog into a corner, it will bite you. If putin feels he has nothing to lose...well...remember...nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose.

[@RaptorJesus]

NATO doctrine is to strike conventionally if the Russians only use them in Ukraine. Because NATO doesn't *have* to retaliate with nuclear weapons to destroy Russia's warfighting capability. They can be subdued with an entirely conventional response. It'd be limited to Ukraine, with the Black Sea Fleet being sunk and every Russian soldier & weapons-system being destroyed through airpower. That includes Crimea. Russia then has a decision to make. Does it want to die, or does it just want to lose?

[@GamerDave1974]

Lets face it, if something like this ever did happen... Most of the world would be screwed beyond belief lol. Lets pray it doesn't happen.

[@livingtorture5745]

I ain't praying to anyone. If the God on question is real, then it made those madmen knowing what they can do .

[@weebandgaminginc.7593]

Way ahead of you

[@the.real.ketchup]

"5kt isn't really big..."? Bro that's 5000 tons of TNT. Not 5 sticks! Kinda big now, huh?

[@Uajd-hb1qs]

He was meaning in comparison to the large ICBMs which range from 500kt to 1mt. 5kts for a nuke is very small.

[@SovereignTroll]

What happens when railroads all over the USA and elsewhere are sabotaged full of toxic self-reacting chemicals? I don't see a security force around trains or electric stations.

[@Interdiction]

Like what happened after the US hit the Nord stream pipeline . So many trains were derailed

[@donny2700]

Time from one tactical nuke in Ukraine to total nuclear war: < 6 hours.

[@sorosray]

all 100% of Russian missiles will fall on the heads of the Americans and they will all die.

[@Interdiction]

No western nation will go nuclear to help Ukraine . It will be a lot easier to wash our hands of this bogus war

[@williampretorius93]

Bruh as someone in South Africa I’d rather be in Europe if this scenario ever happened. I’m not about surviving the aftermath. 😅

[@kamilm6616]

Actually the southern hemisphere would be largely unaffected by nuclear war. Most of the fallout would stay north of the equator as predicted by nuclear war analysts.

[@williampretorius93]

@@kamilm6616 well that’s… sort of reassuring…..emphasis on sort of.

[@kamilm6616]

@@williampretorius93 the nuclear powers wouldn't waste nuclear weapons on country's that don't have any or are not military allied with nuclear powers. But if they did say launch even 1 nuclear weapon into say the African rainforest then it would cause the biggest forest fire known to man. Same with south American rainforest but its probably not likely. What would likely happen is a resource war in the southern hemisphere.

[@brokentv1855]

@@kamilm6616 South Africa is the only country to disassemble thier nukes…. Food for thought

[@kamilm6616]

@@brokentv1855 lol all 6 of them 🤣 😂. They probably didn't trust themselves to have them.

[@dukegfsl]

So where is this so I can run scenarios? A link would be wonderful. Thanks.

[@SarahC2]

What I find bizarre with this sim - upon identifying ICBM's that are heading to America (via satellite), they would counter launch instantly. The simulator shows the Russian nukes landing in America before the counter attack even starts.

[@ThaShaydeeSaint]

I know what my nightmare will be tonight. Thanks!

[@originalpastaman5470]

I think the soot and radioactivity from a nuclear war wouldn't really have that big of an effect in an actual exchange. What with nearly all nukes being airbursted thus generating virtually zero fallout, along with most modern cities not really having much to burn unlike the bamboo and wood built cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Countless millions would be dead from the blast and countless more due to supply lines being destroyed and manufacturing being at best offline for awhile. But in regards to civilization ending, or even nation ending cataclysm of radioactive poison and a nuclear induced ice age killing all? Not really. - What would be the most sad is that both nations would probably still retain a semi decent conventional warfighting capacity that they could still use to wage war after the exchange. Wouldn't be surprised if you were a soldier days after a nuclear exchange just to receive orders that you are now supposed to advance towards an enemy troop concentration. That would be pretty wild.

[@baronvonbrunn8596]

Pretty much. Just worth adding that for military targets a surface blast would be common in order to destroy the otherwise too durable parts, so radiation would still be a concern, at least for the first few days. Fallout could even be used tactically to create a barrier or make a position unusable, though I´m not sure if anyone would trust the weather forcast enough to attempt this.

[@leojohn1615]

From all the evidence I've been able to find this seems the most likely possible outcome at-least to me. However it doesn't get as many clicks as "nuclear winter would wipe out 90% of humanity" and no one really wants to take up the mantle of explaining how "nuclear war wouldn't be that bad"

[@jjbyrd3806]

What program did you use and where do I het it?

[@ChannelReuploads9451]

I have to say, the FIRST strikes on the UK, would be the Naval Bases, so that would include Portsmuth and Plymouth on the south coast. Portsmouth More so than Plymouth, as it contains the two new Aircraft carriers, and Frigates / Destroyers. Portsmuth and Plymouth are DENSELY populated.

[@evorock]

Absolutely. I live in Pompey, and not only is Portsmouth the HQ of HM Royal Navy, but we are the 5h (I think) most densely populated island on the planet. According to the war games played out by the MOD (and Russian intelligence) Portsmouth, Plymouth and Faslane, would be A grade targets

[@officialzange494]

imagine being on an island having no idea the earth just got putined

[@snigie1]

Welcome to new Zealand!

[@BloodyKnives66]

Nuclear winter would affect the entire planet

[@ardour1587]

Its funny how modern media attached nuke subject to Putin while we already have a country wich used nukes on civilian cities + wagin wars all over the world for last 60 years and affin attacked its nato ally by destroyin nord stream. But Putin is a threat to everything. World upside down. 😀 Whole EU lives under submittion of basically 5th raich since soviets are gone. Today noone even pretends anymore. Just change "green party" name for "national socialism" and its immidietly makes scence.

[@snigie1]

@@ardour1587 preach!

[@angelofiron4366]

@@snigie1 Safe, but how long will you and the people last in the long run? With let's say a radioactive half life that could last 10-20 years.

[@CoryD918]

i would love to see this same scenario but adding "If China were to join full partnership with Russia"

[@charliewerchan7252]

The Chi coms hate the Russians and vice versa. They play allies, but they are not in reality.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

They're friends, not allies.

[@livingtorture5745]

They'd lose too.

[@RevanRA]

I moved away from the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex area and now live in Northwest Iowa. I'd like to think I live relatively in a town close to nowhere, but Des Moines getting hit is still possible to give us problems, as well as Fort Dodge, and Sioux Falls, SD. So is anywhere really safe? Not really with Mutually Assured Destruction. And I thought DEFCON and ICBM was scary. I found a new program here. I'll have to wishlist it and get it sometime in the future, because I'm curious if my family and I would survive nukes hitting those locations. It all depends on which way the fallout goes.

[@Ccyawn123]

You have minuteman missile silos to your northwest and south. They'll get bombed into oblivion. You'll be right in the middle of it.

[@soulwarrior7721]

In my life span i have seen around 300 Nuclear bombs go off.. The blast kills, But the nuclear fall out is what does the damage.

[@PlanetaryDweeb]

I am surprised that this simulation does not heavily involved China, especially with how close ties russia and china have been making this past year. I would expect them to be as involved as all the nato countries were. Also surprised that japan didnt seem to be targeted.

[@popowere]

Good point ! Plus with Taiwan tensions and Philippine, Japan in China south sea, that’s clear it can be triggered at any time now. I cannot believe that we have so many countries which can eliminate the earth like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea and are crazy. Also , such amount of energy release at the same time can disrupt the orientation of the planet, I don’t think it should be ignored. India, Africa etc.. they all think they are safe that’s why they don’t care, until it will affect them because they didn’t get what a nuclear weapon is capable of..

[@User-jr7vf]

Well, China could be just a spectator waiting to emerge as the savior of the world in the aftermath, just like the US did at the end of WW2, when they helped rebuild "Great Britain" and became the world dominant power.

[@User-jr7vf]

It would be extremely unwise of China to get involved in a war of destruction that it has not been called to, unless it threatens Chinese interests fundamentally. But given how intertwined our global economy is, China would probably loose a lot if a nuclear war breaks out. That is why I believe China will step in to AVOID a nuclear confrontation from taking place.

[@popowere]

@@User-jr7vf there is huge différent of politics between communist and USA. It’s like you would say, nazi could have came as a savior to the world if they had won. Not sure we can say the word saviour for any government

[@User-jr7vf]

@@popowere yeah, I meant to say, the Chinese would see themselves as the saviours.

[@swynty5767]

Remember, everything in this video is outdated, top top top secret shit from 20 years ago that we don't even know about, imagine what is new new. Stuff we couldn't even imagine.

[@DurzoBlunts]

Nothing to stop that many nukes

[@TheDevildogGamer]

There is no way to reliably stop an ICBM

[@georgea5991]

New tech or not, MIRV's and MRV's aren't easy to defeat.

[@hopedream11]

Only way to stop ICBM's is in the slio's or by disrupting the commands to launch Them via C3I. Russia can do this. They have EMP MIRV's now. Ie Missiles with no radiation or very low yield that can disable And fry Networks. NNEMP's and Super EMP's.

[@hydra70]

@@TheDevildogGamer It blows my mind how many people think there is some super top secret laser defense grid that will shoot down all the Russian missiles. I guess it's a way to cope with the fact that we are all no more than 30 minutes away from nuclear hellfire at all times.

[@Ranstone]

"I don't think anyone is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon" Squidward: "How are we gunna tell him?"

[@tomm8195]

This just goes off of what governments havent told you. You never know what theyre hiding.

[@marcusfrable3850]

Think it was an excellent and terrifying simulation although I am curious what Chinas reaction to such a event would be? Do they sit back back watch the world burn and pick up the pieces becoming the dominant power but at what economic cost to them or would they decide to get involved to what extent and again what cost?

[@johnbenoy7532]

probably not. the US stategy now also accounts to nuking china to prevnt them from becoming a new world superpower. probably nuke India and Australia too.

[@michajastrzebski4383]

well, they didnt attack anyone, noone responded at them, why would they launch at all? I'd not be surprised if irl they did just that.

[@olanlevan8470]

@@michajastrzebski4383 Realistically and in my opinion even if a nuke war didn't include China directly as a belligerent, the so called belligerent doctrine would dictate that China be forced to consume it's nuclear stockpile as well as India and Pakistan. In other words The US or Russia in theory would not allow China India or Pakistan left standing to pick the leftovers of whatever remained. In theory a nuclear war even with 2 starting belligerents would result in the 2 belligerents inviting the other non belligerents to participate in that event wether they wanted to or not. This would guarantee that no nuclear power is left to pick the leftovers of whatever remained. Again this seems the most logical theory but I could be wrong.

[@User-jr7vf]

@@olanlevan8470 This makes sense. But how would the US or anyone else, force China/India/Pakistan into the conflict?

[@olanlevan8470]

@@User-jr7vfI'm not saying this would happen in that scenario but let's assume a few scenarios here It's a paradox because in theory the 2 belligerents would be assured complete destruction in a nuclear exchange, However let's say in theory one side believed it had an upper hand to come out ahead. The belief in a possible win would imply that one is last, and left standing. This paradoxical belief in a win seems to indicate that a loss applies to the other side. This implies that all the conditions of a win must be met which by logic would indicate that no threat exists. By "threat" one could assume that means no threat period. However let's say that both side absolutely believe that they will both be anhialated completely with nothing left to pick then it is possible that other nuclear powers should escape being invited into the conflict. I'm not saying that either theory is true. One could also argue that if 2 belligerents engage in nuclear conflict the other nuclear powers would invite themselves in to try and stop or limit a perceived condition which they believed could be avoided or attained by participating in a nuclear exchange in which they did not start in the first place. I guess the question to ask then is what condition is expected as defining a conclusion and what expectation is perceived as acceptable by one or both sides or all sides for that matter.

[@orourkeda]

I'm off work today through sickness. I cant think of a better way to spend the day then a couple of videos of nuclear exchange in eastern europe on the youtube. YAY.

[@saebbi]

Feels safe to be in Iceland but during the cold war Icelanders were warned that if there was an in-air counter attack, or air defense blowing down missiles, they would most likely happen above Iceland as it is directly in the middle between flight paths from Moscow and Washington D.C. :)

[@donkeyslayer9879]

Negative. The missiles and bombers would be going over the North Pole.

[@saebbi]

@@donkeyslayer9879 That's a relief! Screw the north pole anyways!! :D

[@KwizMatix]

After a war of this magnitude the entire planet would be thrust into a nuclear ice age. All life on the entire planet would suffer the after effects and I’m not sure the planet would ever fully recover from something that epic.

[@maxpayne930]

U are correct it will end up like Mars cos same shit happened there eons ago and look it at now still the waste land

[@leojohn1615]

Not really though. While there is no way to be certain it seems altogether more likely that after 10 years the environmental impacts would be relatively minimal away from the actual blast sites and that the nations involved would be well on their way to recovery.

[@KwizMatix]

@@leojohn1615 You seriously believe that don’t you??? So after all the nuclear fall out you honestly think there’d be clean, uncontaminated drinking water and the ecosystem will just bounce back like nothing happened huh? Interesting 🤔

[@julians7268]

I imagine this would only be the beginning of this war. Each side would be so infuriated and scared of the future that I imagine NATO and America would not just call it a day at this stage. Also, what would China's reaction be? Would they move to take Taiwan or forsee a dramatic shift in their favor and avoid doing anything to possibly get roped into this war? IDK.

[@ItsCoreyLynxxYall]

There would be perks for China for sure as long as they stayed out of it but they'd still suffer the environmental issues that would transcend in the northern hemisphere. New Zealand is a safe place to be too.

[@ssg9offical]

What About Norway 🇳🇴 ?

[@User-jr7vf]

Well, China would carefully study the aftermath and see if there is any point left in taking Taiwan.

[@chernovbrichtofen4767]

@@ssg9offical Norway is a part of nato so it would’ve been nuked

[@lucasgrey9794]

Taiwan will join China in 2 election cycles. China doesn't have to do anything.

[@ronstoppable5198]

7:28. France and United Kingdom are nuclear weapons states and further Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey are all part of nuclear weapons sharing so they would be transferred to them in the event of war.

[@popowere]

2 things the simulation doesn’t get really much is the type of nuclear weapon (some destroy entire country one shot and don’t need so many) and the defence anti missiles , USA have much even if it wouldn’t stop all

[@burgertanker7970]

I've begun minimising the amount of time I sleep so I have a higher chance of experiencing a nuclear war in real time

[@TheBic4]

Totally sane person activity

[@burgertanker7970]

@@TheBic4 lol

[@TheSkyGuy77]

Sleep more

[@marioformicadae6637]

Finna give some Slavic grandparent a heart attack with that title

[@remanscimitar]

Nothing warms the heart quite like nuclear fallout (gamefly CnC Red Alert commercial).

[@delles1548]

It is incredibly naive to think nuclear weapons will "never" be used.

[@nyxsuke]

Makes me feel a bit better about nukes , I always thought they had WAAAAAAY more destructive force but if this is accurate then I have less worries now

[@preppertrucker5736]

Only tactical nukes…. Ballistic is a hole different ballgame…

[@noidontthinksolol]

lol, they arent gonna blow a whole country up .... In reality russia has WAY WAAAAAAY less launch ready nukes.

[@preppertrucker5736]

@@noidontthinksolol And you know this how???

[@noidontthinksolol]

@@preppertrucker5736 i know this by looking at their military spendings, corruption figures and military performance. none of those signal towards a well maintained military. to the contrary, with that military budget you can NEVER maintain that many nukes and keep them functional, I M P O S S I B L E no matter the difference in economies.

[@preppertrucker5736]

@@noidontthinksolol I personally wouldn’t want to find out how many active nukes there are the hard way…. You should watch 10 ways to Doomsday on the history channel on KZbin nuclear war with Russia…..

[@georgea5991]

This wasn't escalated by a tactical weapon being used in Ukraine, it was escalated by the US/NATO directly attacking Russia. How did you think Russia would respond to that? And I'm not pro-Russia, either.

[@hydra70]

How would Russia detonating nuclear weapons in Ukraine *not* be an escalation? By every conceivable definition of the world "escalation", that would be an escalation.

[@Sponty84]

So we should just let them use nukes to attack Ukraine and not respond in any way?

[@aOldRustyTruck]

@@Sponty84 yes, the Ukraine is not in NATO. Why risk defending them

[@justaguy723]

@@aOldRustyTruck 1. It is not "the" Ukraine. It is just Ukraine. 2. By the principle of using nuclear weapons of any yield or capacity in something the Russian government doesn't officially recognize as a war needing to be shut the fuck down. 3. Because of the fact Russia is the aggressor and has been since 2014. 4. Because any semblance of the modern concept of honor demands military and political leaders back up their words with actions after warning Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would just spell doom for them.

[@Sponty84]

@an OldRustyTruck Radioactive fallout doesn't give a fuck about borders or affiliation. It's kind of a world wide concern.

[@zackoleson6766]

Hey DevilDog was wondering if you could make a video about Heroes and Generals shutting down there servers and starting a kickstarter project for Heroes and Generals 2 thank you!

[@worlore1651]

WHAT

[@prospect2664]

need to start building bunkers, especially considering how i live in between russia and poland...

[@lgvereor]

Why does it look like central PA (Clarion/Jefferson/Clearfield/etc) is hit? Is there something there strategically? It's PA's "Great Outdoor Region" known for mostly state and national parks.

[@blu5543]

Yeah I live in the UK about half a mile from a building which definitely has aleast 1 missle aimed at it. But I trust our subs to return the favour.

[@jnicholaswildcat]

All of nato would would be pulling the pin on the grenade that burns the world to ash together

[@Aeroman08]

As others have pointed out, when Russia launched a full scale response toward the U.S., we would have responded launch on warning (within just a few minutes). Russian warheads wouldn't be anywhere near us before our ICBMs were already in the air. However, my biggest concern in this scenario, is the fact that the entire nuclear escalation hinges on Russia deciding that it would be worth it to respond to a NATO conventional attack on their Black Sea fleet and forces with tactical nuclear weapons in Poland. If Russia responds conventionally, then for the time being, it's a conventional NATO-Russia conflict. It's hard to imagine Russian leadership deciding that nuking anything NATO will result in anything but suicide.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

It seems less contrived than a lot of the scenarios using this sim. The use of conventional strikes as an attempt to deescalate is interesting and very reasonable. But still I don't think Russia would risk using nukes in Ukraine. Putin's own generals would put a stop to that.

[@AVIANADRAG]

In a real nuclear war, it would escalate by the minute not days as nations have been waiting decades to use these weapons. I think it would also involve nukes from every single nuclear capable nation and it would be over for humanity in less than 72 hours as every military / civilian installation in the north would be affected and no one would survive the fall out even in the southern hemisphere

[@Mokronable]

Wait but in this scenario US attacked Crimea and the Black Sea fleet so they ARE the ones who shot first while Russia only fired on Ukraine. Pretty sure realistically Russia would consider that an attack by NATO already and just launch the nukes on America from the get go.

[@johnbenoy7532]

well, the other option would be just letting Russia get away with it. Ukraine doesn't have nearly enough power to carry out such an attack on its own, and once Russia sees there is no response from NATO, who's stopping them using more nukes in Ukraine to win? a conventional attack on the russian Baltic fleet is the most likely outcome......

[@itz_tyler2494]

I feel like militaries are using this scenario game or whatever you would classify this as to test and strategize it's kinda scary to think about...

[@99Eternal]

The military has their own far more advanced war-game scenarios mapped out and yeah, they are constantly planning for every conceivable event. You don't spend that kind of money on defense and not have a plan.

[@User-jr7vf]

@@99Eternal In times like this, I wish I knew at least one high up in the Army, so I could ask him about the plans, how an attack would unfold, etc, though they are unlikely to tell even if you are a friend 😅.

[@jackp.richardson6415]

“What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

[@charlieavent6029]

That’s really cool but also really scary i’m fascinated by mutually assured destruction and nuclear warfare my dream is to visit an active minute man three ICBM but I know it will never happen sadly

[@Ved000000]

"In this fictional scenario, Russian forces are suffering a conventional defeat" Fictional is right. 😂

[@robzombieshot]

The question is, after all the weapons spent up in Ukraine, do they really have this many ICBMs left available?. Can the similator be adjusted to the estimated current force?

[@sergeyolkhovskiy3496]

Russia didn't use any ICBMs in Ukraine and before US started to drop out of all kinds of treaties, one-sidetly since 2015, Russia was honoring nuclear treaties agreements and total number of nuclear warheads was around 2300 (out of witch about 1600 was on constant alert). However its the lowest its ever gotten -in 2016 it was 2400/1700 and that was the last official number given. In December of 2022 Sergei Shoigu (defense minister of RF) said what "strategic nuclear force had a special attention this last year, with 650 highly advanced facilities was build to hold among others "avangard", "sarmat" and "yars" ICBMs complexes" That being said its probably more like 3000-4000 nukes are ready to go at any time now. Plus another 1or2K are in reserve for the "dead hand" program.

[@user-mi7cf2ix7k]

@@sergeyolkhovskiy3496 братан, кому ты это все объясняешь? Посмотри на комментарии, основная масса американцев даже крылатую ракету от баллистической не отличат. Они - жертвы CNN, свято уверены в непроницаемости своей NORAD, и инцидент с китайским аэростатом их ничему не научил (а китайцы, скорее всего, и запустили его, чтобы продемонстрировать американцам их уязвимость, что они не такие мощные, как считают). Так зачем метать бисер перед свиньями?

[@keithvernonlewis9403]

One Eskimo looking at another Eskimo says: 'well there goes life as they know it.' AS missiles go streaking North and missiles go streaking South

[@WildsDreams45]

When European ambition flared up so high that they burned themselves to the ground a new empire from across the Atlantic rose to dominate them and when Western ambition flared up again in 2020s an empire from the far East took their place as the world's super Power.

[@bonyrick182]

I imagine the military 'think tanks' in our war rooms have done their homework and gone over 'If they do this, we could do this scenario and/or that scenario many times. I imagine, it would still be bad for mankind either way.

[@lucasgrey9794]

The eradication of Russia and the U.S is bad for mankind?

[@leojohn1615]

@@lucasgrey9794 Yes. Also imagine the president this would set for future wars

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@leojohn1615The U.S is the number 1 destabilising force on the planet by far.

[@leojohn1615]

@@lucasgrey9794 if the US disappeared tmrw there are several parts of the world that would erupt into full scale war within a few years if not sooner. Peace can only exist so long as ALL of the great powers find the status quo acceptable the US is hardly the only one to say there are certain things they wont tolerate or sees opportunities too good to pass up.

[@thedausthed]

This scenario is unrealistic, there is no way that this would be some tit for tat exchange, with the UK and France not launching the moment they detect an incoming attack, the US allowing there missile silos to be hit before they fire and the US wasting second strike weapons like the SLBMs on a limited attack. A far more realistic scenario would be the US launching a full counter force strike against Russia and demanding their surrender, else a counter value strike will be launched. It is also missing the fact a number of ICBMs launched at Europe would be shot down by the two Aegis Ashore sites (both of which have the SM-3 Block IIA capable of taking out ICBMs).

[@User-jr7vf]

A realistic scenario would be US intelligence detecting an imminent Russian nuclear attack against the US, which would trigger a US pre-emptive strike on Russian targets. However Russia has the means to detect the missiles as they fly towards Russia, hence would respond in kind, causing massive destruction in the US mainland. In the end, both countries would suffer terrible losses. This assumes that Russian systems are operating 24/7 to detect incoming missiles, and keeps its nuclear arsennal ready to go.

[@serheyyavotsky1246]

The history teaches us that every hegemon didn't want to lose its power in the world, due to that it starts wars in agony (Netherlands, Brits in the past, and now USA) but USA wouldn't provoke a country that had just used nukes. They don't wanna die for UA albeit they pretend to be determined

[@bluestar2253]

Wasn't there a movie about thermonuclear war with USSR back in the 80s?

[@josephatkinson1132]

The day after

[@julioricardopachecozavala9283]

Is the Posaidon drone available?

[@-KingOfKhaos]

Such a great vid to start off the weekend! Free BBQ 🍗 for everyone… have to look at the positive of all of this

[@Alexx120493]

I thought I was the only one that ran that scenario through the Simulator :D However I chose to build a destabilized Russian federation scenario with a single Delta IV submarine out of Polyarny firing all 16 SLBMs at exclusively Ukrainian targets. I also ran the scenario through Command Modern Operations and the hit rate of the warheads was basically 100%. With the boost and midcourse phase solely over Russian airspace the only way of intervention would be during the terminal phase and becvause of the short distance between Polyarny and Ukraine the apogee of the warheads was something like 2800km AGL with a resulting terminal speed of Mach 25+ Thats too fast for IRIS T SLM, Patriot and even the AEGIS ashore facility in Romania (plus the interception angle from there is less than optimal)

[@victorr_alvrz8594]

What is the name of this simulator?

[@Alexx120493]

@@victorr_alvrz8594 One is the one displayed in the video "Nuclear War Simulator" and the other one is "Command Modern Operations" Both are available on Steam

[@Daja_Vu1986]

Where do we get this simulation

[@maxotaurus5140]

Any use of nuclear must ensue an immediate full spectrum maximum nuclear, cyber and conventional response including taking out naval assets. Bear in mind one detonation's EMT could determine much. Says AI. Probably.

[@LiveeyePhoto]

Ok I’m sure someone brought this up but what about the missiles we have that will take the nukes out

[@hazonku]

"I don't think anyone's really stupid enough to do this" Japan, "Right......"

[@philemfulloflead]

Now times this by 50 to 100 and you'd get a more accurate account of what it would be like in terms of the nuclear missiles being let loose and this is all assuming that China and North Korea don't join in on the madness.

[@1bzymom.Of2Kids]

This kind of reminds me of the 80s movie called War Games, starring Matthew Broderick

[@charliewerchan7252]

Wow, ya think?

[@brandondavis7777]

US Doctrine has been VERY clear since 1949, so, I'm interested to watch this video and see if it shows our response.

[@Interdiction]

Not a chance the US would go nuclear to help Ukraine .That would be suicide and against what the people want

[@KasperiVonSchrowe]

We know doctrines and major strategies of nuclear powers but be do not actually know where all targets lay. I suppose it's most probable that both aim at first nuclear sites, second other military sites, third capitals and governments. They don't know the capability of enemy's air defense so to make sure that the target will be destroyed, they send multiple war heads towards those enemy targets. Therefore I believe a surprisingly large portion of the world will be left unattended. I believe the global effects of full scale nuclear war would be rather small after all. It's terrible to say so, but I think most strategists believe in this too and that makes the nuclear war more probable that is said in public. I wish deeply that I am wrong.

[@jaydrone9723]

ill be starting to make my own gas mask factory.