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?

[quote GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing]@Deliberateplanning I just feel like it would be bound to be Croydon!

Like they’d be aiming for central London but, oh whoops, it actually landed on Croydon[/quote]
But if they hit Croydon how would anyone tell the difference?

@ThisIsGroundControl

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

It is but at least with trident (and I assume other NATO countries) our subs can a) be silently operating off the coast of hostile nations without even the vast majority of the crew knowing where they are and b) have the ability to act upon sealed written orders in the event of confirmed nuclear attack on the UK. It means that we can still strike even if the UK is wiped out. The static launch sites of the 60's are a thing of the past.

@Squidthing

Wouldn't all the fall out from a hit anywhere in Europe also affect Russia though? Even if he managed to just hit Liz Truss?

It’s irrelevant, Russia would be hit by return fire mins later. That’s the whole premise of the program.

@Kingharoldshairstyle That makes more sense than my old-school thinking, thank you. Had forgotten satellites existed.

But what if he has INVISIBLE nuclear warheads! Is that better or worse for the nightmares, everyone?

How many billions of dollars went into developing these fucking evil weapons i wonder. Just so some mad men could destroy everyone and everything in the course of willy waving.

It's interesting. When - as in, what decade - did it become possible for Russia to quickly hit all their preferred targets in one fell swoop?

Technology moves so quickly, I'm imagining in the Cold War the tech must have been a very different ball game?

Don’t we have weapons that can knock the misfiles off target?

But if they hit Croydon how would anyone tell the difference?

That's a mean burn

@nancy75

Don’t we have weapons that can knock the misfiles off target?

The O2 is actually a big, big trampoline to bounce them back but its bouncy roof got broken in the climate crisis storms caused by 5G 😥

@AbsentmindedWoman

It's interesting. When - as in, what decade - did it become possible for Russia to quickly hit all their preferred targets in one fell swoop?

Technology moves so quickly, I'm imagining in the Cold War the tech must have been a very different ball game?

Pretty sure it was the1970s. This isn't new.

[quote stuntbubbles]@Kingharoldshairstyle That makes more sense than my old-school thinking, thank you. Had forgotten satellites existed.

But what if he has INVISIBLE nuclear warheads! Is that better or worse for the nightmares, everyone?[/quote]
He doesn’t have invisible war heads 😂

@Anniefrenchfry How can anyone tell?

They probably can

But the nature of these things is we'll never know their true capability

They've got a shitload of launch sites though, which will all be able to work independently and in reality you need what a couple of nuclear subs and you can fuck the whole world up

He doesn’t have invisible war heads

No - but I thought the hypersonic missiles are a major fly in the ointment of defence systems because they are undetectable until they are very near target?

Undetectable is a bit like invisible in that context!

I think the best way to think of it isn’t nuclear war, it’s nuclear exchange. That’s the most accurate term.

@AbsentmindedWoman

But if they hit Croydon how would anyone tell the difference?

That's a mean burn

I drove through it on Friday & assumed it had already been hit.

putin has enough nukes to irradiate the planet several times over, one saturn 2 which has 12 warheads on it, could wipe out the whole of the UK for a start.

and the latest ICBMs are hypersonic moving at Mach 5, nothing can catch them.

theres really no point worrying about it, if any of these things got launched we would all be dead before you can think about it.

I Find it strange that he sends in his own flying monkeys, then leans on the Belarus army and sends in the Chechens to fight. Are his army not good enough? I suspect he’s not as great as he makes out. Bloody lunatic! Won’t be long before someone internally gets him and turns on him.

@AbsentmindedWoman

He doesn’t have invisible war heads

No - but I thought the hypersonic missiles are a major fly in the ointment of defence systems because they are undetectable until they are very near target?

Undetectable is a bit like invisible in that context!

Hypersonic is just very fast, it’s not nuclear and cannot stop a nuclear missile.

A nuclear missile goes up into space then comes back down again, trying to hit it would be impossible. But hypersonic is not nuclear.

Nothing stops a nuclear missile.

Have you seen the film War Games?

Can I ask a really stupid question 😂
What is the point in anyone having these weapons then?
If as soon as one country fires one, they are guaranteed to get the same (or more) back in return?

Just doesn’t seem any point in anyone having them 🤷🏻‍♀️😂

Hypersonic is just very fast, it’s not nuclear and cannot stop a nuclear missile.

A nuclear missile goes up into space then comes back down again, trying to hit it would be impossible. But hypersonic is not nuclear.

Nothing stops a nuclear missile.

I thought hypersonic missiles could carry nuclear warheads?

And I did think the USA had a defence system that theoretically can shoot down nukes before they hit target ie over the sea?

why do we even have nuclear weapons though? whats the actual point if using them kills all life?

What is the point in anyone having these weapons then?
If as soon as one country fires one, they are guaranteed to get the same (or more) back in return?

That's pretty much the beauty* of them tbf

• I don't think they're beautiful things at all, but they provided a stalemate situation that's lasted quite well

@ArnoldBee

Have you seen the film War Games?

I have not! Maybe it should go on the watch list.

Ordinarily I have absolutely zero interest in military technology and the history of weapons, as everyone can tell from this thread