EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Nato would completely overwhelm Russia, but not before nukes would fly from various places and hit major cities in the western world. In the retaliation, all of Russia would be destroyed, world in turmoil…

    • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      I have some doubts that Russia’s nuclear weapons are even in operational order.

      maybe they try to launch them, and they just self-destruct inside their silos. or, they fly, but fall out of the sky still in Russia, or, they actually fly all the way to the destination, but fail to detonate.

      to be sure, this is not something that we should wager on. I just think it would be funny if it turned out that way. just a fun little daydream of imperialist fascist scum getting put in the ground where they fucking belong.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        The IAEA and the START treaty mean we have inspectors that can monitor the actual capabilities of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. According to these inspectors Russia has, at least, 2000 completely operational nukes.