Can Putin launch nukes at several NATO countries at once?

[AbsentmindedWoman]

Obviously, I am completely ignorant about everything to do with nuclear bombs but I have googled, and my tiny mind just doesn't grasp how this works.

In theory, could the UK/ US/ France/ Germany/ several other countries all suffer hits seconds apart?

Or would Putin have to choose one to be the first? How would he choose targets?

I understand the idea of mutual assured destruction if there are just two entities battling it out - but I don't understand how the dynamics of MAD work if it is Russia vs numerous countries, and Putin can only target one area at a time?

Is the nuclear capacity at his disposal really so huge he could take out many major cities and all military bases in Europe and the USA all at once?

Both USA and Russia have enough warheads to wipe out life on earth. There are special bombs which only destroy life not buildings. Terrifying.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

So is his current stock of nuclear "deterrents" just sailing around in subs across the globe?

Some of his deterrent will spend its time sailing around, doing its best to remain undetected.

The US, UK, France, China and India all do the same. I can’t speak for other nations confidently, but the UK aims to always keep one boat on patrol at all times. France and India will probably aim to do the same. Russia, China and the US will likely keep more out.

Part of the high alert for his nuclear arsenal will be pre selecting targets, making sure missiles are fueled, planes loaded, subs moved into position etc.

The Idea is that multiple missiles are simultaneously launched from multiple locations at multiple targets in order to stand the best chance of as many hitting as possible.

The real worry is that they may have space launched, hypersonic or glide missile systems that could be used to launch a pre emptive strike before an effective countermeasure could be activated.

Both USA and Russia have enough warheads to wipe out life on earth.

Yes, I mean this gets quoted a fair bit. I guess I'd always assumed it was a complex process to set them up and activate them.

But it seems they can be mobilised very quickly in multiple directions at once.

Why would he have only one nuclear launch site? It would be MAD anyway as we'd all launch them back and we would all die.

The reality would be that we would all get nuked and Russia would be bombed back... with multiple bombs. Likely mostly hitting Moscow and perhaps St Petersburg.

@Cocycola

Possibly, who knows. But what a dramatic scare mongering thread. 🙄

Yes indeed. HOPEfully someone with some sense in the Military also has to allow the red button to be pressed? Can it really be just one madman who unleashes 'Armageddon'?

None of us in Europe or Russia would survive.

@Fagled

He can target multiple at once.

Submarine launched ballistic missiles can be fired at a moments notice, and within minutes missiles can be sent in multiple directions. They have effectively an unlimited range and can strike more or less anywhere on the planet. Each submarine contains, multiple missiles (8-16), of which may contain multiple warheads (6). In theory one typical submarine could launch 96 independent strikes.

Other ballistic missiles can be fired from the land, these take more preparation, but will either be fired from silos or from mobile launchers. Units will likely have pre-arranged targets at critical infrastructure over the globe. When Putin readied his nuclear deterrent it was this type of force that was put at its highest level of alert, and mobile launchers were probably rolled out and armed.

Nuclear weapons fired or dropped by aircraft typically have a much smaller range, they take the most preparation from orders to fire to weapons delivery, as unless already airborne you have to prep an aircraft. The smaller ranged of these are often described as tactical nuclear weapons but may also describe much smaller ranged ballistic missiles.

Putin has enough of each to decimate the West and it’s critical infrastructure at the drop of a hat.

And vice versa, which makes it all rather pointless and that is the idea of mutually assured destruction.

The point of having nuclear missiles is that that can be readied very quickly, or they’re not a deterrent. It’s probably not the case that 6000 can be launched simultaneously but certainly enough to hit several countries at once. However they wouldn’t ever take out all the other missiles in the world (as mentioned there are plenty on subs) so would definitely suffer a large amount of retaliation no matter what.

@Viviennemary

Both USA and Russia have enough warheads to wipe out life on earth. There are special bombs which only destroy life not buildings. Terrifying.

I remember hearing about those from Mum, who went to Greenham and we all went on the anti Nuke protests with pushchairs &c 1980's.

@FixTheBone

Part of the high alert for his nuclear arsenal will be pre selecting targets, making sure missiles are fueled, planes loaded, subs moved into position etc.

The Idea is that multiple missiles are simultaneously launched from multiple locations at multiple targets in order to stand the best chance of as many hitting as possible.

The real worry is that they may have space launched, hypersonic or glide missile systems that could be used to launch a pre emptive strike before an effective countermeasure could be activated.

You still have submarine launched Ballistic missiles too. Submarines are very hard to target in deep ocean regardless of the velocity of a missile.

Not if as fixTheBone says, they make use of hypersonic missiles - you know, the ones the Chinese were testing in December.

So how long would a nuke take to get to Croydon I'd rather be at the epicentre given a choice than scrabbling around eating radioactive ☢️ rats for the next 7 years

Why would he have only one nuclear launch site?

I didn't think he had only one launch site - but for example, if he decided to bomb the USA that's a huge, huge range to cover for one country alone, which would require a lot of bombs.

I wasn't sure if he could do that while also striking multiple sites in Europe pretty much simultaneously.

But it seems like he can, so oh well.

Wasn't this the basis of the Cuban missile crisis? That if Cuba had missiles they could nuke the US before the US had time to react, hence the fear. Everywhere else the distance was too great so that if a nuclear power sent a nuke the recipient would have time to retaliate. Hence MAD

Even if they did it would still be MAD. Our nuclear submarines are, no doubt, patrolling the seas around Russia right now. Our nuclear arsenal isn't sitting in Scotland waiting for launch!

Would it really necessarily be armageddon though?

I mean nuclear bombs have been dropped in the ocean loads of times, to test them out. North Korea’s always doing it.

I don’t think if one or two were dropped it would actually be the ‘end of the world’ would it? It might be like Chernobyl where the area is severely affected, but not the end of the world?

@ThisIsGroundControl

Wasn't this the basis of the Cuban missile crisis? That if Cuba had missiles they could nuke the US before the US had time to react, hence the fear. Everywhere else the distance was too great so that if a nuclear power sent a nuke the recipient would have time to retaliate. Hence MAD

It was but I'm guessing technology has moved on significantly since then!

@AbsentmindedWoman

Why would he have only one nuclear launch site?

I didn't think he had only one launch site - but for example, if he decided to bomb the USA that's a huge, huge range to cover for one country alone, which would require a lot of bombs.

I wasn't sure if he could do that while also striking multiple sites in Europe pretty much simultaneously.

But it seems like he can, so oh well.

He wouldn't bomb all of the US. He would focus on economic, military or strategic centres - New York, DC, London, Brussels etc.

He doesn't need to wipe out ALL of the west. Especially considering nuclear fallout would wipe out huge surrounding areas. He just needs to destabilise power.

Russia could launch missiles at lots of targets at once. It takes time to get some of them ready, but that is partly what Putin's order to be at "high alert" was about on Sunday.

The West would detect the launches before they hit their targets, though, and so could respond in kind before Russia's weapons landed - hence the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that everyone hopes will act as a deterrent to Great Powers actually using nukes against each other.

If it somehow turned into a full fledged nuclear war, it would all be over very quickly. From the initial orders being given to launch, to complete destruction would be just a matter of hours.

Time to move to Wales I think…

I hear Zanzibar is nice...

But as was mentioned above, any nuclear weapons used would likely be strategic in nature, so a limited nuclear war. Still over with very quickly, still extremely devastating.

@Orangade

Would it really necessarily be armageddon though?

I mean nuclear bombs have been dropped in the ocean loads of times, to test them out. North Korea’s always doing it.

I don’t think if one or two were dropped it would actually be the ‘end of the world’ would it? It might be like Chernobyl where the area is severely affected, but not the end of the world?

No if one or two were dropped the world wouldn't end. But if they dropped it on London half the country would die and the rest would have no supplies or infrastructure. People would starve, the country would be poisoned. Nothing could grow/be eaten near the site.

The world would survive if it was just London/Moscow... but the UK would not.

But even if technology has moved on, distance is still a factor.

"Strategic" above should have been "tactical". Strategic use of tactical nuclear weapons.