Do you think it was the mistake for the Soviets to not strike first and miss an opportunity to destroy capitalism in...

Do you think it was the mistake for the Soviets to not strike first and miss an opportunity to destroy capitalism in the nuclear holocaust?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

khrushchev was a mistake

>Do you think it was the mistake for MacArthur to not strike first and miss an opportunity to destroy communism in the nuclear holocaust?

The whole world was brainwashed by anti nuke memes. First they said the atmosphere would be ignited. When that didn't happen, they pull the nuclear winter memes. Now finally they admitted there weren't enough nuke to cause a winter.

The same thing with MAD. The soviets didn't have enough nukes to destroy USA. In a nuke war in any period USA and allies would surely have won.

How were they going to do that exactly? The Soviets didn't have a forward positioned nuclear arsenal until later in the Cold War. By the time they DID have a forward positioned nuclear arsenal, it was very apparent to the Soviet government that they were losing their grip and that socialism was failing thus striking first was never realistically on the table. The reality of the situation is that the Soviet Union was never in a position to take advantage of first strike and even their secondary strike capabilities were lacking outside of SLBMs.The simple fact of the matter is that any nuclear scenario is going to end very badly for the Soviet Union. The only way the Soviets are going to come out on top is through a conventional war and NATO doctrine made sure that any conflict was going to go nuclear.

tl;dr
The Soviets were always on the backfoot and no matter how much they bluffed and how little NATO realized it, they were always going to be there.

that's not true a bit. they spent lavishly on their arsenal and (as can be seen right up to the present day) the russians know their way around a rocket. Analysis of russian stockpiles throughout the cold war typically gave them a numerical advantage in nukes. And even if you assume all estimates to be off by a factor of two, that still leaves more than enough megatonnage to put humans back centuries between the two powers

Unlike Littlefinger, the Russians did not want to rule over the ashes.

> won
> in nuclear war

I agree here. Because of nuclear weapons, men become weak and scared of total war. Weak men bring bad times and degradation of society.

SLBMs are a first-strike weapon also. They had the means to incinerate Washington DC at any time (say, state of the union) with only about 3 minutes warning to the poor suckers on land

american submarines typically shadowed every russian sub, boomers in particular, from the moment they left port. So they would be watching very closely for signs of an impending attack, but it's very likely they can't stop ALL the missiles from flying, and a half-dozen or so MIRVs making it out is quite sufficient to entirely decapitate the US government at a stroke

The whole anti-nuke meme was just a scam so that some particular scientists, whose research was tangentially relevant to nukes, can gain a podium in the talk shows and news columns. Hollywood filmmakers and feminists environmentalists also profited in these memes.

From time to time they would bring out a weird clock whose sole purpose is to remind people they exist. Why a clock? It doesn't make sense because a clock is supposed to tell time and go only forward. But no. They used a clock because the longhand looks good in pictures.

The whole anti-nuke meme was just a scam so that some particular scientists, whose research was tangentially relevant to nukes, can gain a podium in the talk shows and news columns. Hollywood filmmakers and feminists environmentalists also profited in these memes.

From time to time they would bring out a weird clock whose sole purpose is to remind people they exist. Why a clock? It doesn't make sense because a clock is supposed to tell time and go only forward. But no. They used a clock because the longhand looks good in pictures.

>THE CLASSES AND THE RACES, TOO WEAK TO MASTER THE NEW CONDITIONS OF LIFE, MUST GIVE WAY. THEY MUST GIVE PERISH IN THE REVOLUTIONARY HOLOCAUST.
Is there any more proof necessary to show that the USSR wasn't real communism?

>in nukes
In warheads, not active nuclear weapons. The missile/bomber gap is a myth that became apparent to NATO intelligence in the 60's that lingers into today through remembering Cold War paranoia. The U.S. and Soviet Union were always within reasonable nuclear parity. Once you go NATO vs Pact, the warhead gap vanishes and the weapon gap becomes even less favorable of the Soviet Union.

>SLBMs are a first-strike weapon also
SLBMs are POTENTIALLY a first-strike weapon, but their primary purpose was and is secondary strike due to their place in the Holy Trini- er Nuclear Triad. Also as you mentioned, Russian subs weren't getting near as close as U.S. ones were due to the inferiority of Russian subs (until the Cold War was over). Thus once again, you have proved the point of the lack of a forward-positioned Soviet nuclear arsenal until it was too late for the Soviets to realistically make it out ahead.

>making it out is quite sufficient to entirely decapitate the US government at a stroke
You've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

1700 nuke scenario there isn't enough nukes to destroy the American civilization.
The same is true of America nuking Russia.

While Einstein is a cool dude, he didn't really understand how infrastructure and knowledge was spread.

>half your population is dead
>all your major cities are in ruins
>your people will live in misery for the next century
>"we won the war guys! aren't you glad?"

>nuking major cities instead of major military complexes as intended
Way to out yourself as ignorant

yeah nobody plans for countervalue anymore. it's all about counterforce

Doesn't change anything.
Even if complete annihilation is a meme, the costs of war are still too high.

> not nuking both

Such a war might actually have positive environmental benefits because of the rapid decline in human activity.

>Doesn't change anything
>changing from civilian-oriented strategic bombing to military oriented strategic bombing away from population centers changes nothing
Seriously get out. You already proved yourself ignorant and now you're just doubling down.

Realistically not enough active warheads to hit both.

>MAD fails
>everyone knows it's a lose-lose scenario
>still assuming the other guy won't ignore the missile silos in favor of permanently crippling the other guy

Seems like a pretty big gamble to me. You only have one load to blow, might as well make it count.

MAD did fail because of your exact retarded scenario. NUTS has been nuclear doctrine since the 70s.

MAD literally isn't even used anymore. Limitations on nuclear warheads and delivery systems, imposed by treaties, have made it completely impractical. We NUTS now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection

popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war

This seemed like an interesting article, given the direction this thread went. It's an interesting point: If 100 piddly Little Boys could do that much damage, what would happen if someone set off even half that many H-bombs in short succession? The issue that comes to mind immediately is that said H-bombs would not be going off as close to each other as on the Indian/Pakistani landmass, but at the same time I wonder if that's even relevant if it's a global mutual exchange.

I've seen a refutation of this, but I can't remember where. Basically the models are based on continuously burning fires for several months which wouldn't make any sense in a real-world scenario given how quickly extra-state actors would move in for relief, aid, and cleanup. It's wholly predicated on complete non-action from anyone after the bombs fall.

>Weak men bring bad times and degradation of society.

That sounds extremely questionable. For one thing, you're not going to have the entire nation focused on putting out wildfires; you're going to have emergency response dealing primarily with human casualties, getting emergency infrastructure up and running, etc. Protecting areas of human habitation if at all possible, yes, and food crops too perhaps, but they have no time to worry about a focused cleanup operation. And even if they did after the immediate crisis was partly under control, this isn't a single Californian wildfire (which can already take up to a month to get under control). These are multiple infernos going on all over. Magnified all the more if H-bombs were used instead.

What part of extra-state actors do you not understand? Do you think the world is going to sit idly by after a nuclear holocaust?

>surfaces behind you
>nukes your coastline

Psst......nothing personal.....imperialists.

First, bud, tone down the hostility. I didn't come in here yelling at you and I'm only trying to make for interesting discussion.

Second, that really depends. If it's America and some other major power like China? Most countries are going to be too busy with the ensuing economic turmoil and civil panic to devote much time to putting out other peoples' fires. If it's a "small" region like India and Pakistan? Your scenario is more likely.

Capitalism can only be destroyed by worldwide revolution

Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on earth. But it will not impede communism

It doesn't take much to nuke major population centers, it only takes much to nuke all of them. If you think only military targets would be hit you're delusional.

And you're a huge fucking faggot by the way m8

Oh fuck off you criminal terrorist.

You sit snug and comfy in a safe capitalist nation plotting the downfall and murder of everyone around you.

Fucking commie scum. Literally a toxic cancer

Is that because commies are like cockroaches?

where you that guy on k a few months back who was claiming that radiation isn't real, and its all just some "jewish trick

The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.

...

The Soviets really only reached nuclear parity with the West in the late 70s/early 80s thanks to taking advantage of Detente (which included US-made guidance computers), US military budget cuts, and anti-nuclear movements in the free world

At the time of the Cuban missile Crisis, the USSR actually had no reliable method of delivering a nuclear weapon to the US that wasn't a one-way bomber trip.

Except, you know, the actual missiles in Cuba which if dropped on the States would absolutely have resulted in a counterstrike against the Soviets. That's also not counting the submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes they had skulking around and almost blowing up aircraft carriers.

*detects u*

How does one destroy ideology with a nuke?

nice meme

desu they probably didn't have enough nukes to kill all the chinese

What do you mean the "world" thought the atmosphere would ignite? Only the select few scientists who were working on the Manhattan Project had that fear, and it wasn't that serious.

Killing people is bad, user.

Don't worry guys it would only result in 80 percent of the population dying.