Is a nuclear war winnable?

[sarisataka]

There has been discussion of the capability of the US nuclear arsenal compared to Russia. It has been put forth that much of Russia's weaponry may not be functional.

Given the necessity of stopping expansionist tyrants as soon as possible and the apparent superiority of NATO nuclear weapons, should the risk of escalating to a nuclear war no longer be a reason for the US/NATO to avoid confrontation?

Has it reached the point where the US and its allies would win a nuclear exchange?

49 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes- we can win a clear victory in a war with nuclear weapons
	0 (0%)
	We could win the war but the number of casualties would outweigh the benefit of any victory
	3 (6%)
	Win or lose, The risks posed by the return of fascism are worth risking the human race
	0 (0%)
	No we would lose such a war and be in a worse situation
	1 (2%)
	Everyone would lose
	45 (92%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bottomofthehill]

1. If you think the gasoline engine is bad

Wait till you see what a couple thermonuclear devices do to climate change.

[EX500rider]

17. I do believe it would reverse global warming though...lol

[NickB79]

26. Only short term, then supercharge it

Nuclear winter would dissipate in a few years after the dust settled. Not long enough to cause true glaciation.

Then the CO2 from the decaying bodies, burned forests and cities would kick in, and temps would spike way higher than today. It's posited that this is what did in the dinosaurs, a one-two punch of extreme cold followed by extreme heat.

[Model35mech]

38. That would take more than a 'couple'.

In my childhood the US and Russia were atmospheric testing the damned things. The evidence of which will be in my bones and teeth as long as those skeletal remains last. But, other than radioactive precipitation we were told not to eat, there really wasn't really other meteorological effect from in blasts.

Multiplying trace meteorological impact times a couple seems like it would be unlikely to bring about nuclear winter

A 'couple' of them probably wouldn't win anyone a war, either. But it very might result in runaway exchanges the lead to majority of the world's nukes being detonated.

Pulverizing civilization in the northern hemisphere with 11,000 of them would be another thing entirely.

Indeed, it would be M.A.D.

[NickB79]

42. Yes, I was referring to full on nuclear apocalypse

All silos emptied.

[tirebiter]

2. We are the only ones who have.

[Celerity]

19. it is not a true nuclear war when only one nation on the planet has nukes (WWII)

[doublethink]

3. Not just NO but ...

FUCK NO to nuclear war. WTF?

[RockRaven]

4. It doesn't take many nukes to cause a nuclear winter and global famine, so...

Like several dozen would do it. And they wouldn't be using them one at a time like in WWII.

Whoever starts a nuclear war is killing ~2/3 of the world's population, if not more.

[Doodley]

5. When one side thinks they can win a nuclear war.......

[Tomconroy]

6. Putin if he does anything will launch small tactical weapons at Ukraine.

Much smaller than Hiroshima. Then we'll have to see how the US responds.

[Celerity]

22. that is my true fear

[sprinkleeninow]

25. ...

I just familiarized myself with tactical nuclear weaponry.

If *he* orders this, that will be a catalyst for how to respond. Say your prayers, everyone.

[Solly Mack]

7. I'm at a loss for words.

[Gore1FL]

8. I guess the lower population, lack of functioning infrastructure, and a nuclear winter...

...would solve climate change.

[Midnight Writer]

9. No problem, thanks to the visionary Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Missile Defense System.

You don't think we paid trillions of dollars to defense contractors for some worthless boondoggle, do you?

[WarGamer]

10. Was it you who posted the JFK quote earlier today...

About tasting ash?

Stunningly appropriate.

[sarisataka]

12. I did post a paraphrase

I am finding the increasing dismissiveness of expanding the war to a nuclear level very disturbing.

I also believe in not beating around the bush and asking the question outright. Who will be brave enough to step up and stand by their opinion?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Yep. Nothing like septuagenarians advocating for war that could escalate beyond nightmare.

I don’t know if they are bored or just don’t have anything to live for - or both.

[WarGamer]

36. +1000, great points

[DBoon]

11. Was it Einstein who said ...

.. he didn't know what weapons would be used in WW III, but WW IV would be fought with rocks and spears?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. A lot of people have thoughts, but it's all in the phrasing of the question.

K&R.

[Xolodno]

14. The fact this question is being asked...

...is disturbing.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. In the 1950s several excellent s-f novels were written

about nuclear war. Probably the best of them is Alas, Babylon, by Pat Frank, published in 1959. I understand it has never been out of print since then. I would have read it fairly early on, and have re-read it any number of times over the years. Actually, I should re-read it again.

Apparently, it has been turned into a film twice, which I only just now discovered when I googled Alas, Babylon. Interesting. I had no idea.

here's the thing I most want to share, is that writers of hard science fiction, hard science fiction not fantasy or vampires or such, tend to be VERY grounded in real science, and mostly get things right, especially the technology.

Anyway, Alas, Babylon is well worth reading.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

16. If you're a cockroach!

[Volaris]

18. There is no option for 'The only Winning Move, is not to play.'

I get it's a deadly serious topic, but where's my Gen X Movie Solution at lol?!?!

[sarisataka]

41. An oversight on my part

For which I sincerely apologize

[Volaris]

43. Lol well that screen capture is very putin-appropriate..good job n thanks!

[niyad]

23. "By the way, who won the war?" "We did. Not that it matters." Those were

the last lines in a novel called, "Triumph", by philip wylie, back in the early '60's. The novel takes place after WWIII has been started by accident, and alternates between dtailing the lives of a group of people in a millionaire's bomb shelter deep inside a mountain, and the horrors of the war around the world. For several hundrred pages, we are witness to the death and destruction. The group is finally rescued, and the last sentences are quoted above.

"Who won the war?" "We did. Not that it matters."

[MurrayDelph]

24. That depends

Are you a cockroach? Then, no.

[former9thward]

27. You would have to define "winnable".

[Calculating]

28. Even if 90% of Russia's nukes don't work the remaining 10% will mess up the world badly

Last edited Sat Oct 1, 2022, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Maybe not end the human race bad, but the world will never be the same. Most major cities across the world will be destroyed and billions will die from hunger and radiation.

[roamer65]

29. ...

[roamer65]

30. Give Ukraine tactical nuclear weapons.

Make them a nuclear state overnight.

How many nuclear states have been invaded? Very few, if any.

That would be the end of this war when Putler realizes that he will get one right back.

MAD works.

[Bettie]

31. So, Putin gets to hold the world hostage because he makes threats?

This time, he gets Ukraine, because "I'll use nuclear weapons"!

Next time, he gets Poland, because "I'll use nuclear weapons"!

France, Germany, all of Europe, because "I'll USE THEM!"

China, the US, Canada? "I'll DO IT!"

Where does it end? Should the entire world just throw up their hands and tell Putin he's now the supreme ruler of Earth because he has nuclear weapons and might use them?

If fear is the only driver of policy, then there's no point in resisting, is there? Eventually, he'll threaten everyone and we'll all give in.

So, yeah, I guess no one wins in a nuclear war or if there's a crazy man threatening nuclear war...either way, he wins and we lose.

[Calculating]

35. Nukes either keep the peace or end the world as we know it

They keep the peace when sane, rational leaders have them. MAD and all that. The problem of course is if you get a crazy person running a nuclear armed country and he doesn't care so long as he can either win or make everybody lose. There are no good answers in such a case, you gotta just say no and hope he doesn't push that button.

[Bettie]

40. The US and the UK

and, oddly, Russia, in the Budapest Memorandum, said that in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons, they would receive protection.

Well, Russia has broken that agreement, attacking them, first taking Crimea, then, when they got away with it with virtually no consequences, they decided to go for more.

The US and the UK are living up to their ends of the deal. Putin wouldn't have attacked if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that saying "Fine, Putin, you can take whatever you want as long as you declare that you want to to destroy the world" isn't it. Turning our backs on Ukraine would be a mistake and would embolden Putin and people like him to threaten nuclear war any time they want something.

[Iggo]

32. Definitely either Yes or No.

[Diraven]

33. How many millions would need to be sacrificed?

Even if we could decisively win a nuclear war, many millions of Americans would die, along with probably just about single person in Russia (current population 144 millions). Is that really worth it to say we beat Putin once and for all?

[Calculating]

34. The problem is Putin can make that choice for us

It's always seemed absolutely insane that some crazy man on the other side of the world has the power to kill us all by pushing a button, but that's the world we live in. Nukes never should have been made, and once the horrors were discovered they all should have been destroyed. Unfortunately, there will always be bad guys who want a "we all lose" button in case they can't win.

[TDale313]

37. No. Did no one see War Games?

“Would you like to play a game”

(Yes, I’m being snarky. It’s gallows humor. Sue me)

[AntivaxHunters]

39. Why is nobody talking about de-escalation?

The winds of war are beginning to blow very hard.
A nuclear war is pretty fucked up & nobody wins. We're all dead folk. Literally.
I think I'll pass on any of that.
Fuck war.

[DFW]

44. In a continent as thickly settled as Europe, depending on the number of bombs, survival is doubltful

Even when Chernobyl blew up nearly 40 years ago, mushrooms from the forest were exhibiting high radiation levels here in Germany for a long time after the explosion, and the populace was warned not only not to eat them, but not even to go hiking in the woods for months afterward. The number of thyroid cancer cases exploded in number. And this was from a power plant many hundreds of miles to the east, the direction in which the winds generally blow. After vaporizing London, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Madrid and Rome, there would be no central government, no currency, no transportation, no food, and virtually no medical facilities available to handle all the gruesome effects of the radiation, which would be a slow, agonizing death sentence for all not vaporized in the initial attack. MAYBE Putin would spare non-aligned places like Amsterdam or Zürich, but these places are so close to cities that WOULD be bombed, their radiation levels would exceed what is deemed survivable several dozen times over. It would probably be a great time to find yourself vacationing on New Zealand's South Island, but who knows for how long?