if a country launches its nukes, is there any hope for it to

Anon it's not worth worrying about
Stop posting trying to get us to reassure you
Nukes and their capabilities, while awesome, are overrated.

>>32779799
why are you not worried? there are more warheads than major cities aren't there? and afaik it only takes 15kt to really mess up a major metropolitan area, whereas most cone thingies have 45.

>>32779825
Maybe he doesn't live in a major city...

A country that launches nukes is likely to use a "Pearl Harbor" strategy and knock out the enemy with a single massive strike.

Nuke defenses are more valuable than nukes are for that reason. Being able to nuke a nation without fear o immediate retaliation is empowering.

But yea.... Any nation that uses a nuke without DAMN good justification will get crucified via international backlash.

In WW2 it was a different time. The Japanese were so in the wrong that to this day they willingly underarm themselves as a sign of humility. The invention of radio and the printing press means its much harder for nations to deceive themselves into thinking they can get away with murder and theft. And today, with the internet, its even more severe.

>>32779825
most modern nuclear weapons are in the 150-875 kiloton range.

>>32780075
>Nuke defenses are more valuable than nukes are for that reason

You are wrong.

t. LeMay

>>32779633
yes

>>32779633
You can get away with using nukes on anybody that doesn't have meaningful allies.
If we decided to light up North Korea or Zimbabwe with a few Minutemen, is anyone at the United Nations REALLY going to give enough of a fuck do to anything?

>>32780927
Yes, they very much will

>>32779633
My only worry is if a terrorist group or extremist country gets their hands on nukes and just blows them off everywhere for the sake of chaos. I'm hoping something like that would take over 40 years, and that by then we could just laser missiles out of the sky no problemo.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1466509787259.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>Launch nukes from a submarine in the middle of the ocean
>Enemy has no idea who attacked them
>Better yet, put a false flag on your sub incase you get caught on satellite

The perfect war crime.

>>32780075
Nukes are nuke defence, they're to show that if you nuke us, we will nuke the fuck out of you so no one wins
It's why states that care about their influence and power, I.e most nations won't do shit unless they get attacked
And if someone like norks try shit then their entire nation would be annihilated at the cost of destroying a couple cities, most likely sork shitties too

>>32779633
Mutually assured destruction isn't so because the US has a top secret policy that if enough nukes are flying to destroy us completely, we won't strike back so as to not end the world in nuclear winter. Unbeknownst to us, Russia has the same policy.

Nukes are mostly for ships. I wouldn't worry about them unless you live in the city, in that case you probably welcome death.

>>32781012
America may not know where every Chinese and Russian sub is at the moment, but we have a pretty good idea.
Same probably applies to our subs as well.

>>32781021

>nuclear winter

>>32780094
>>32781019

>nukes are more valuable

Its easy for communist infiltrators to convince America to decrease its nuclear arsenal.

Its a lot less reasonable to convince America to take down a defense grid.

>>32780094
So why does the USA DOD spend billions on emp and anti missle?

>>32779825
Alot of those nukes will, mechanically fail, miss their target or be shot down by missle defenses. Some of them will not be ready to launch because they will be under maintenance. Also priority targets will be hit by multiple nukes for redundancy reasons. Some targets won't be cities at all, infrastructure, manufacturing, and military targets. Alot of nukes will not launch initially, so they can be used for second strike purposes.

File: 180kt_hiroshima.png (1MB, 1251x860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1251x860px

>>32780080
The damage from an air bust or ground burst also scales to the cube root of the yield of the weapon. See pic related of a 180 KT full yield 150 weapon with fresh tritium stores at 2000 ft burst height.
It's when the enemy starts megatons is when the crowd pleasing starts.

>>32779633
Actually yes

There are instances of countries not retaliating with nukes when they thought they were being nuked

>>32783559
As compared to the original 16KT strike in 1945 the damage is less, but still fairly impressive.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/classic/?lat=34.395472&lng=132.453528&zm=13&kt=16

>>32779633
If the entire world launched everything they had, which they can't, it would not be apocalyptic.

>>32779825
Because nukes don't just LOLVAPE everything they touch. Also:
>Warheads are not the same as missiles; you can have a million warheads but with only one rocket, you can only launch one nuke
>Only 15kt to fuck a metropolitan area
An Ivy Mike, the biggest the US has, wouldn't fuck all of NYC.
And the first targets aren't civilian population centers, it's strategic targets. Enemy launch facilities, multiple times for saturation, political capital, intelligence buildings, sub pens, airbases, etc. Cities are just an extra fuck you.

>>32781021
>A TS policy some anon knows about and shares
>The same anon also knows Russian TS policy
>This anon thinks either nation is retarded enough to think nuclear winter is a real thing and not a fucking hollywood meme

>>32783572
Also this. Russia thought they had an incoming nuke like twice, and dismissed it because, "Why would we only see one nuke?"

There was also the time a sub came under attack mid communication transmission. It was not clear if it was a launch or stand down order. Captain wanted to launch, thinking there wasn't a Pentagon left to update orders. Second in command confined Captain to quarters.

Turns out it was stand down.

>>32781008
Terrorists, getting ahold of nukes. Kiddo please, now you're being fucking stupid.

>>32783700

>If the entire world launched everything they had, which they can't, it would not be apocalyptic.

Define "Apocalyptic". Because civilization would be over, at least.

File: tmp_5236-1485036895224-298426625.gif (514KB, 200x112px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 200x112px

>>32786659
No.

Please do some actual research on nuclear weapon capabilities.

>>32782999
>Priority targets will be hit by multiple nukes

>Tfw you live in MD, where if you want to be by the coast, you're near Annapolis and Navy HQ that surely has multiple nukes trained on it, if you want to live in the DC-Baltimore corridor you have to contend with all the DC targets plus shit like the NIH and GSA in Montgomery or the NSA in PG that will also get multiple warheads dropped on them, and if you want to get /comfy/ near the farms and mountains in Frederick you're now right near Camp David, Raven Rock, and Mount Weather that surely all have multiple BIG, multi-megaton city killers trained on them.

Oh well, maybe I'll have enough advance warning to make a break for central PA before the shit hits the fan. That's just about the safest place on the east coast iirc.

>>32786781

Enlighten me.

>>32780927
Zimbabwe is gonna rustle China's jimmies, a lot.

North Korea is gonna rustle the Pacific Rim a whole lot.

File: 1471881645860.jpg (25KB, 552x594px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 552x594px

maybe if it's india vs pakistan the world will just let them fuck each other and not launch the nukes

>>32783700

>There was also the time a sub came under attack mid communication transmission. It was not clear if it was a launch or stand down order.
>Captain wanted to launch, thinking there wasn't a Pentagon left to update orders. Second in command confined Captain to quarters.
>Turns out it was stand down.

So.. Crimson Tide was based on a real thing?

>>32787408
That's what I've always been told.