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?

*Quite. If the commanding officer of whichever Vanguard-class submarine is on patrol at the moment deems that the UK must have perished (Radio 4 ceasing to broadcast being one of the tests), then he goes to the safe and opens a letter from the Prime Minister. That letter will tell him what the PM wants him to do in the event that the UK is wiped out (such as: retaliate, surrender, latch on to an ally etc.).

Until that point, only the PM knows what was written in that letter (even if you would never use nuclear weapons, you want the Russians to think that you would). When a PM resigns the old letters get destroyed.

So a pre-emptive strike doesn't mean that you can avoid retaliation, the submarines may still act even if we are wiped out.*

knowing Johnson it probably says 2 bottles of gin, a pint of milk and some hobnobs

That letter will tell him what the PM wants him to do in the event that the UK is wiped out

Do you think Boris ever got round to writing them?

He's had a busy few years and he's not known for being organised.

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

North Korea test the delivery system. They don't arm them for testing.

NK have run test explosions.

Areas near the Nevada and Kazakhstan sites used by the US and USSR respectively to perform live testing have seen increased rates of radiation-related illness.

This is fascinating in a horrible way and I've fallen down a rabbit hole 😆

What I don't quite understand is this- the whole MAD thing seems to assume that in the event of a nuclear strike, everyone would just aim everything they had at the other country and go hell for leather. Is this really how it would play out in real life?!?!

I'm just speculating here (obviously, I'm not Putin). But I rather think that if I was Vlad, I wouldn't just go bam bam bam and wipe everyone out. Wouldn't it be possible that whoever launched the first strike would launch a 'small' weapon at a military target in a gamble to see if everyone surrendered? That scenario might not end in Armageddon. Because it would be awful, but it would also seem a bit extreme for the west to retaliate with their entire arsenal instead of frantically trying to deescalate if it's the whole of humanity at stake.

Also, I have a feeling that I read somewhere that nowhere near the entirety of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a usable state because you couldn't keep 6,000 nukes all ready to fire, although I'd have to fact check that. Not that it's an especially comforting thought.

This is what I think would happen, I reckon it would start 'small' and someone would back down after a couple of exchanges, but then I know precisely fuck all. But I suppose it wouldn't be in anyone's interests to question the whole MAD thing or there goes your deterrent.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

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

There is currently a Russian submarine (along with a Russian armada) in the Black Sea that has been there for about 4 days. I'm not sure if it fires nuclear weapons or not, though - but it at the very least, it is capable of firing supersonic missiles with destructive payload.

@VelvetChairGirl. Yes but if it goes tits up down here, they’ll surely have nowhere to escape to will they?

@DdraigGoch absolutely but the poster was referencing the missile tests that NK has fired towards Japan.
:)

[quote Spanglybangles]@VelvetChairGirl. Yes but if it goes tits up down here, they’ll surely have nowhere to escape to will they?[/quote]
give it a while and then come back when the supplies are low, they'd have no choice.

There is currently a Russian submarine (along with a Russian armada) in the Black Sea that has been there for about 4 days. I'm not sure if it fires nuclear weapons or not, though - but it at the very least, it is capable of firing supersonic missiles with destructive payload.

Also, interestingly, a couple of weeks ago a Russian submarine with almost 200 nuclear warheads on board surfaced just off the US coastline. It had remained undetected in its journey under the Atlantic until then.

@shreddednips

This is fascinating in a horrible way and I've fallen down a rabbit hole 😆

What I don't quite understand is this- the whole MAD thing seems to assume that in the event of a nuclear strike, everyone would just aim everything they had at the other country and go hell for leather. Is this really how it would play out in real life?!?!

I'm just speculating here (obviously, I'm not Putin). But I rather think that if I was Vlad, I wouldn't just go bam bam bam and wipe everyone out. Wouldn't it be possible that whoever launched the first strike would launch a 'small' weapon at a military target in a gamble to see if everyone surrendered? That scenario might not end in Armageddon. Because it would be awful, but it would also seem a bit extreme for the west to retaliate with their entire arsenal instead of frantically trying to deescalate if it's the whole of humanity at stake.

Also, I have a feeling that I read somewhere that nowhere near the entirety of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in a usable state because you couldn't keep 6,000 nukes all ready to fire, although I'd have to fact check that. Not that it's an especially comforting thought.

This is what I think would happen, I reckon it would start 'small' and someone would back down after a couple of exchanges, but then I know precisely fuck all. But I suppose it wouldn't be in anyone's interests to question the whole MAD thing or there goes your deterrent.

I wonder all these things too!

Somebody said upthread that hypersonic missiles "aren't nuclear".

But I thought they CAN carry nuclear warheads? And they are hard to detect when incoming - afaik they are detected much later, which interferes with retaliation?

@Dishh

There is currently a Russian submarine (along with a Russian armada) in the Black Sea that has been there for about 4 days. I'm not sure if it fires nuclear weapons or not, though - but it at the very least, it is capable of firing supersonic missiles with destructive payload.

Also, interestingly, a couple of weeks ago a Russian submarine with almost 200 nuclear warheads on board surfaced just off the US coastline. It had remained undetected in its journey under the Atlantic until then.

Woah

In answer to what happens if a country gets wiped out - there is also supposed to be a “dead man’s hand” system in Russia, where in the event of the Kremlin (and everyone who has the power to retaliate) getting wiped out, a series of seismographic sensors detects that a nuclear bomb has been detonated, and launches an automated counterattack on all major Western sites. So that you supposedly can’t cheat MAD by wiping out the Soviet leaders. Who knows if it’s still operational, but I suppose one wouldn’t be surprised.

The idea of a defence shield that brought down missiles out of the sky was supposedly the basis of the 80s Reaganite “Star Wars” system, but as far as I know it never worked and was never fully developed.

I was fascinated and horrified by nuclear war as a child (and utterly terrified of it). My parents had acquired in some box of books from a car boot sale a massive chunky paperback book on how to survive a nuclear war. Though basically you didn’t really want to survive, between the radiation sickness, the looting and the rats. It included helpful descriptions of exactly what kinds of devastating effects were produced on the human body by different nerve gases. It made me rigid with terror but I couldn’t stop reading it - kept me up many a merry night with terrifying nightmares and anxiety. I have no idea why my parents didn’t notice what their ten year old was reading

It was all fun fun fun in the 80s! Now we get to experience all that again. Lovely.

Fun fact: when the bomb detonates, lie down in the road facing it with your head buried in your arms. Stops your retinas being burnt out by the detonation blast and your body being hurled sideways by the blast wave.

Here’s an article from 2014 (so pre the current situation) about the “Dead Hand” - presumably still operative.

It also answers your original question about whether lots of them can be fired at once - clearly a fair number must be ready to go instantly if the dead hand still exists!

Terrifying. To think I was hoping to sleep early tonight

www.businessinsider.com/russias-dead-hand-system-may-still-be-active-2014-9

Sorry if this sounds silly but what's the point of nuclear bombs at all?! Why does ANYONE have them?? They sound utterly terrifying, I don't get it.

No

@AbsentmindedWoman

Somebody said upthread that hypersonic missiles "aren't nuclear".

But I thought they CAN carry nuclear warheads? And they are hard to detect when incoming - afaik they are detected much later, which interferes with retaliation?

They can be nuclear. That's why I wasn't certain about the submarine currently in the Black Sea - its hypersonic missiles are supposedly not nuclear, but another class of the same submarine does carry hypersonic nuclear missiles.

Ukraine don't have any and look what's happening to them

Not to get TOO depressing, but what approximately is the actual vaporisation zone in terms of miles?

I mean, I guess that depends on the size - but in terms of the smallest likely one to be used to flatten a city?

If we get vaporised we wouldn't know anything about it at all, would we?

I don’t know, but in the effect of a nuclear war, unless you’re somewhere in Greenland or whatever, you basically want to be in that vaporisation zone rather than outside it

We are not going to get nuked. Putin isn't sat with his hand hoovering over the big red button. He would need the minister of defence and some army generals or something to sort it out. So unless they are as mental as him, we're okay. If he told them to nuke somewhere then they'd hopefully think "fuck that, NATO will nuke us into the ground in retaliation" and just kill him. Someone in his own government will hopefully assassinate or overthrow him way before it comes to that anyway.

But if we did, it could potentially wipe out a city and cause 1st - 3rd degree burns for a few miles. But we won't.

@nightwakingmoon

I don’t know, but in the effect of a nuclear war, unless you’re somewhere in Greenland or whatever, you basically want to be in that vaporisation zone rather than outside it

Well yes that was my point - I was musing that we would be none the wiser, we'd just be floating away as vapour on the breeze!

Which is quite peaceful, really.

@AbsentmindedWoman

Not to get TOO depressing, but what approximately is the actual vaporisation zone in terms of miles?

I mean, I guess that depends on the size - but in terms of the smallest likely one to be used to flatten a city?

If we get vaporised we wouldn't know anything about it at all, would we?

See: www.zmescience.com/science/how-many-people-modern-nuke-323476345/

TLDR;Depends on the bomb, but let’s say 2km radius.

Also, interestingly, a couple of weeks ago a Russian submarine with almost 200 nuclear warheads on board surfaced just off the US coastline. It had remained undetected in its journey under the Atlantic until then

Where's the source for this? Cos it sounds made up and nothing is coming up on Google. The whole point of nuclear submarines is for them to stay undetected, for months at a time.

Oh I have found some a source for above claim, from Russian owned media. Pinch of salt.