youtube.com/watch?v=2jy3JU-ORpo Science & Global Security (SGS) journal developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. This four-minute audio-visual piece is based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets. It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases.
>Russia nukes Germany and the UK >NATO immediately retaliates >by obliterating Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia Oh no no no no no.
this is retarded. russia hasnt been relevant for 50+ years. china is going to be the problem, not russia
Brandon Allen
The video isn't good
Hunter Anderson
>Russia nukes NATO >NATO retaliates >by also nuking NATO wat
Jeremiah Davis
Yeah, not likely. Russian-US relations are cold sure, but nowhere near Obama-era levels. Trumps posture is Sino-centric, he's letting Poland be the Bulwark of the East. This whole thing is just there to stoke the fires of "Orange man bad" level hysteria. That's obvious.
True
Oh shut up you.
Anthony Lewis
OP says it all, this has to be the laziest work of scare mongering of the entire Trump era.
Noah Barnes
A thread died for this low effort shitpost
Julian Garcia
>Russia doesn't have nuclear subs parked off the US coasts. Uh... Yeah, sure.
Adam Cox
It's a design to look sort of plasuable while avoiding the elephant in the room.
A Russian tactical strike would result in a US attack on Russian delivery systems and assets via DT tridents.
Realistically, this would wipe out almost all Russian delivery systems before they could fire, ending the war with limited casualties and damage to Europe.
They can't sell a video of a winnable nuclear war, or Russian's vulnerability without any functional second-strike systems.
They don't. Russian boomers remain at dock where they act as functional stationary platforms. This works, but means in an American first strike or sudden escalation from a limited exchange that Russian delivery systems are very vulnerable. At sea it's unrealistic to imagine that Russian boomers could survive to launch under any circumstances.
Carson Nguyen
A good enough scare, but I don't have to be a fucking expert on nuclear war to know this is a obvious crock of shit. This might've been a plausible scenario 30-60 years ago, but not now. The US and Russia are smart enough to know nuking the hell out of each other is not gonna give any gains whatsoever. But I reckon somewhere out there, there has to be a thinktank or supercomputer finding a way to achieve a "success" that would involve the least damage to either country or the environment, not to mention the possibility of some super secret defense system. My two cents.
Mason Howard
Clearly the US strategy is to seek peace with Russia by forming an anti-NATO alliance, demonstrating loyalty by pre-emptively attacking.
Jonathan Sanchez
I feel like this is one of the insane stratgies that flashes up at the end of WarGames.
"FUCK POLAND STRATAGEM" >USSR and NATO Alliance collectively agree to pound Eastern Europe in the ass for a while.
Julian Sanchez
>A Russian tactical strike would result in a US attack on Russian delivery systems and assets via DT tridents. >Realistically, this would wipe out almost all Russian delivery systems before they could fire, ending the war with limited casualties and damage to Europe. That doesn't make sense. If Russia strikes first, they are not being taken by surprise. You can bet that all the other delivery systems would be ready to immediately launch the payload as soon as US retaliates. Now, if US is the aggressor, that may be plausible.
The idea is most likely to create a buffer zone of scorched earth with no infrastructure, so that Russian land invasion would be impossible. If so, the plan really is based on outdated strategems. Russia doesn't have the resources for a land invasion anymore. Still, it shows the actual role of the butthurt belt in NATO.
Jonathan Robinson
>NATO nukes the shit out of Poland
Jesus Christ these guys are fucking retards
Gavin Martinez
This reminded me of the DEFCON game. I wish there were still people playing it online
Jordan Miller
>The idea is most likely to create a buffer zone of scorched earth with no infrastructure, so that Russian land invasion would be impossible.
Then such strikes would focus in Belarus and Russia proper.
What most likely this entire thing is from is retards thinking that 1980 plans are still relevant. There's no reason to nuke Poland when the Soviets aren't right on their border and will move forces through them. But these cunts don't realize how things have changed. The fact that it also doesn't show subs using DT shots for decapitation should tell everyone that knows anything how ignorant these people are.
Jason Brown
Poles? Yeah. They allied with France and UK. It's not like these countries have a history of pretending to be friends of Poland in view of the common enemy, only to betray their alliance and use Poland as a sacrificial lamb when said enemy finally attacks. Never happened before and here we go again.
Jaxon Watson
>Belarus >Russia proper >having infrastructure to destroy Lol no. Waste of nukes.
Nathaniel Wilson
>"realistic nuclear war" >France is left intact >not a single nuke hit his main nuclear submarine base
yeah ok
Elijah Young
>France is left intact They surrendered in time.
Matthew Hill
>not taking out enemy silos and airstrips after the warning shot It's like they don't even know how to play mad doctrine
Adrian Bailey
Russian weapons don't have the response time to launch in response to a DT strike. Russia has to fully commit to a first strike or lose.
Lincoln Lopez
Its literally modded version of "Defcon", the 2006 nuclear war game
The US president refuses to hold a meeting with Zelensky in the White House, according to media reports, until Kiev fulfills the requirements for an investigation against Biden. President Donald Trump believes US actions in Ukraine are meaningless. About this newspaper The Washington Post , citing a source.
As noted, the interlocutor of the publication repeatedly discussed this situation with the president, who, according to him, believes: "What we are doing in Ukraine is pointless and only annoys Russia." "The position of the president is essentially that we need to recognize the fact that Russia should be our friend, and who cares about Ukraine at all?" - said the source.
The article says that Trump refuses to set a specific date for a meeting in the White House with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. At the same time, the assistants to the head of the Washington administration want these negotiations to go through.
Russians will prepare their weapons before making the first strike. Therefore, their response time before launch will not matter - as they will be the ones choosing the time of attack, they can launch without any delay whatsoever, as soon as NATO retaliates.
Jonathan Wood
Europoors absolutely obliterated no matter who wins kek
Here we have an expert who knows the reaction times of Russian nuclear forces. I swear this the board with most pure concentrated bullshit on this board.
Jaxon Perry
>is >website Fuck, I'm so tired of these idiots here I can't even type properly.
Christian Russell
Poorland was made just to be destroyed
Adrian Russell
There is no condition Russian weapons can be held at where they can launch in the window following detection of an American DT launch. If Russians want to launch, they have to make it a full-commitment first strike. That could of course do a hell of a lot of damage.
Liam Jackson
the white dots on the map kinda look like a dinosaur
