Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Eddie Teach]

Do nukes have any reason to make the trip?

New Jersey has the highest population density of any state.

[DGuller]

Do nukes have any reason to make the trip?

New Jersey has the highest population density of any state.

Are you calling me stupid? 

[Eddie Teach]

 

[Jacob]

Wouldn't want to be in NYC if the nukes start flying.

Jersey City isn't really that far.

Very kind of you to point out the punchline.

How many people on languish do you think need that service?

[garbon]

Wouldn't want to be in NYC if the nukes start flying.

Jersey City isn't really that far.

Very kind of you to point out the punchline.

How many people on languish do you think need that service?

Well that is why I first was unsure. It didn't strike me as a funny joke but assumed that's what he meant.

That said - it did cost me once $100 in a cab to JC so that's pretty far!

[Jacob]

Well that is why I first was unsure. It didn't strike me as a funny joke but assumed that's what he meant.

IMO DGuller is consistently the funniest poster on languish, though I suppose his sense of humour as a bit dry for some.

That said - it did cost me once $100 in a cab to JC so that's pretty far!

I wonder if there's a map that compares the geographical effect of nukes vs cab fare from the point of detonation?

[Berkut]

I looked at one of those maps that shows the area of effect for nuclear weapons over some particular point.

Oddly enough, what I got out of that is that the area of effect is not nearly as large as I expected.

I think culturally we imagine nuclear weapons as being these crazy huge weapons that take out entire cities, but they are not of course. It takes quite a few, for example, to really destroy NYC.

[DGuller]

IMO DGuller is consistently the funniest poster on languish, though I suppose his sense of humour as a bit dry for some.

[Razgovory]

I looked at one of those maps that shows the area of effect for nuclear weapons over some particular point.

Oddly enough, what I got out of that is that the area of effect is not nearly as large as I expected.

I think culturally we imagine nuclear weapons as being these crazy huge weapons that take out entire cities, but they are not of course. It takes quite a few, for example, to really destroy NYC.

Yeah, the backlash against nukes has created this idea that everyone will die if they are used.  Everyone chortled about the "Duck and cover" exercises, when in fact that is very good advice.  Sure it may not save you if you are in a wooden house at ground zero, but a concrete building 10 miles away, that could save your life.  Make no mistake, nuclear warfare would be very bad.  Lots and lots and lots of people would die.  But I don't think it will destroy all life on the planet, grow giant ants, or cause everyone to ride around in dune buggies while wearing bondage gear.

[Razgovory]

IMO DGuller is consistently the funniest poster on languish, though I suppose his sense of humour as a bit dry for some.

Well, now I have a rival and an enemy.  And that's really too bad, since I like Dguller and don't want to have to strangle him.

[Eddie Teach]

You should pair up and make a comedy duo. The strangling can be part of the act.

[CountDeMoney]

My understanding is that General Berkut is arguing for a massive thermonuclear strike on the Russian Strategic Rocket Force, with the argument that it is better to get the whole MAD thing going on our terms (i.e. the chance of knocking out the non-ready Russian ICBMs in their holes).  That's the really-big-risk, really-big-reward option.

I think that is a fair characterization with the caveat that I see it is a lower risk option, actually. It is basically saying "lets take the surety of a full scale exchange on our terms because the risk of a full scale exchange NOT on our terms is too great".

A full scale exchange that Russia gets off means probably two hundred million dead good guys, and a civilization ending war. An effective US first strike sees probably ten million dead good guys, and a not so effective US first strike is probably 25 or 50 million dead, but no chance of it being civilization destroying.

At least, that is how I see it, with the understanding that my "sources" are ridiculously suspect as far as actual capabilities are concerned.

I am going from preliminary attack conference to full attack conference and concurring with General Berkut.   

If the grand exchange is to be made, we would need to do it on our terms, which means getting most of theirs first.  Between cyber capabilities, sea assets and strategic stealth delivery, a massive US strike won't get all of Ivan's assets, but it would get most of them.  Naturally any strike, limited or not, would reduce the United States to the equivalent of a post-earthquake El Salvador after a Cat 5 hurricane, but we're talking about winning here.


Ed, you have the Looking Glass.  Happy hunting.

[Ed Anger]

Eek, I'd hate to do the supply chain disruptions study of a nuke exchange. The Pandemic one that I was involved with was horrifying enough.

[CountDeMoney]

No shit.  You see what happens to people when their internet provider is down for 4 hours.  Imagine multiple atmospheric EMP blasts.  Then who'll be laughing at 11Bravo's collection of cars with electric starters?

I'm allergic to potassium iodide anyway, so fuck it.  Let's rock, Boris. 

[DGuller]

People are more resilient that they are given credit for.  They adjust to new realities very quickly if they have to.  Those adjustments are not "free", though, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to lack those adjustments until they become necessary.