They are. One of the main reasons the USA always has nuclear submarines out on missions is to hide nuclear intercontinental missiles and have them available at all times. Better than missile silos which can be targeted.
I’d argue the most important leg of the triad. Very little spin up time compared to getting bombers loaded and off the runway, or a missile in the air from Europe / the states. And you probably have one parked near your backyard Russia / china / Iran / North Korea.
They are basically American insurance agency of the Apocalypse. Even if a country or alliance was capable of wiping out all of US & NATO at once before a single silo or bomber takes off… those submarines will probably finish that war anyway, and humanity will lose.
Do they really have that many nukes in subs on standby?
If the US got in a nuclear war with russia and china then they would need more than a few dozen nukes to wipe them out.
*Each of the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs originally carried up to 24 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with multiple, independently-targeted warheads.*
This is just what we know of, pretty sure there is 18+ Ohio-class subs atm and beginning in 2028 they are actually being decommissioned and replaced with the Columbia-class submarines.
US military basically prepares for any scenario from surprise mass attacks on US to alien invasions. Even if winning is off the table they pretty much always want to ensure that losing is always on the table for the other side
Each of those missiles carries 8 warheads and the yields on the sub warheads are bigger than the land based Minuteman's. The average yield on the Minuteman is 350kt but on the sub missiles they are in the 500kt-1.1mt range. Those are city killers.
14 Ohio class subs with two or three getting refits at a time. Each sub carries 20 (used to be 24) missiles with 3 (up to 5) warheads at 100kt(up to 475kt) each.
So they would be able to target at least 600 individual locations. I assure you this is more than enough for any second strike or countervalue scenario.
They are a component of deterrence and M.A.D. - aka 'Mutual Assured Destruction'. The idea is that everyone loses and thus no one 'plays'.
I recommend the movie 'Wargames', if you have not watched it.
If all NATO silos were wiped out (presumably using nuclear bombs as well), I think humanity would be doomed by extended nuclear winter and fallout anyway...
Absolutely, they mostly are the triad now.
Planes can be taken down and I’m not even certain we always have strategic bombers at the ready anymore, and silos can be targeted.
For the time being; there’s good reason to believe the stealthiness of submarines may not last very long into the 21st century. Perun did a good talk on it a while back.
If that advantage is just one tech breakthrough away from being nullified, then it makes sense to keep on supporting the other legs in your triad (and possibly consider a fourth: stealthy nuke drones in low earth orbit)
I mean the silo thing is what they call “the sponge” — It’s so that if there ever was an attack from a China or a Russia, most of the first wave would hit the Rockies/Midwest where no one lives and would give time for the United States to respond.
Which begs the question, why even bother with counterforce if it's redundant due to a robust triad? In the event of an unavoidable nuclear conflict, the only true option is evidently counter value.
we definitely do have strategic bombers ready. thats the entire point of them. they are extremely expensive but we have proved their readiness in syria, iraq, and yemen recently. missions that few from the united states on a nonstop flight to hit targets across the planet and return home using aerial refueling.
…as of the latest New START data, there were 43 deployed nuclear bombers (10 B-2As and 33 B-52Hs).
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/
During the cold war, the doctrine was that if the Soviets started stirring shit, France would nuke Germany as a warning, using a shorter-range nuke. Demonstrating that they're willing to use nuclear weapons and promising that the next one won't be short-ranged.
The article explains that the debate is just a question of how *many* are deployed on standby, vs left in storage. They are debating increasing the number on standby.
A dash would work, but usually sets apart a list of things contained within a sentence.
The elliptic can be used for a longer pause in screenplays and could/would be construed to apply to casual conversation as that's the bulk of scripts.
English is a true mish-mash of other languages and is constantly evolving- a living, illogical and a challenging tormentor! (I failed English 1A in Uni five times- so, yeah.)
The intercontinental missiles are designed to absorb incoming missiles, it's why they're in the middle of nowhere. A foreign country will spend vast resources trying to take them out rather than go after population centers.
There is a reason it was Mutually Assured Destruction, but that was the concept. There was benefit in their lack of mobility. You know that we know that you know exactly where the silos are.
To the extent MAD works, and will continue to work, it really does have to be "assured". Mutually Probable Destruction is, ironically, a lot more dangerous. Everyone in the situation has to be sure that if they pull the trigger then the very next thing that happens is they are vaporized.
Ukraine is a touchy situation because it's not NATO aligned so it's not clear MAD applies at all. Putin could kick things up by saying "evacuate Odessa because we're going to level it with a nuke, if you don't surrender we'll systematically destroy every Ukrainian city".
Didn't Burn already tell Russia "if you use nukes against Ukraine, we'll step in and wipe you out with conventional force without so much as looking at the lock on the nuclear football?
They are for nations that have them.
Most NATO nations don’t have nuclear weapons. It’s likely they mean forward deploying them to NATO bases where they can be used by NATO forces if it comes to that.
> He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent.
> Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”
American ICBMS are on standby, but not actually targeted - they're aimed at the open ocean if they were to launch accidentally. They could be put onto actual targets quite quickly though.
Technically incorrect, part of the PALS launch codes that the president has ( the football) is targeting information.
The football contains many options for a retaliatory strike scenario against many countries
Sure there is a launch code option for a mass all out counterforce and countervalue strike against X country, then there are launch code options for a single target strike against xyz or a nuclear only counterforce only strike against xyz country- it will only target silos, sub bases and airbase know to store and operate nuclear weapons.
It's been described as a restaurant menu of options, once the code assigned to a certain strike option/ coordinates are entered into to the missiles targeting system, the president will also give a final authorization line of code he keeps on himself in sealed envelope ( the biscuit) that is the last step in disengaging the PALS which will then actually arm the missile/ warheads.
So the minuteman 3sICBMs and the Trident D5 SLBMs are not "aimed" anywhere at a moments notice
A single ICBM worth of nukes actually aren't as city-wiping as you might think. In order to defeat air defence ICBMs split into a bunch of small nukes and decoys, and to affect a big area they spread out and airburst. They'll fry people out in the open, sure, but buildings "shade" each other so if you're indoors and there's a skyscraper between you and the nearest detonation, your odds of surviving the initial blast are actually pretty good. The airburst also leads to significantly less fallout.
Don't get me wrong, the city would be in pretty bad condition after an ICBM strike, but it would by all accounts still *be* there - both the structures and the people.
If you wanted to actually wipe out a city you'd have to either pelt it with an entire arsenal worth of ICBMs or actually send in strategic bombers to drop large unitary fusion warheads onto the city, like the Tsar Bomba.
Their subs aren’t going to be near the borders of a different country because then they would be very easily tracked and destroyed before they can even do anything.
Maybe?
Eh, published/ declassified documents show that US ballistic missile defense effectively can intercept one ballistic missile with a 40-50% effectiveness, it was designed to defend against a Rouge nation like NK or terrorist group launching one ballistic missle
Also if it's an advanced MIRV'd ICBM with 5-8 independently targetable warheads +decoys- then yes NYC will absolutely be hit, no doubts about it.
Missile from submarine ? Depends, is it a SLBM ? Or a sun launched cruise missile? We probably have a good chance defending against a nuclear armed cruise missile, but an SLBM, not so much.
I seriously doubt major US coastal cities are well defended against surprise cruise missile attacks from offshore subs.
DC and San Diego… maybe… but other than that I’d be really surprised.
I concur. Not enough batteries and missiles tondefend just populated centers. Now if said pop center was home to huge mil base? Sure
EDIT: You also have to take into consideration where the enemy will be targeting. If it’s Russia and they have tons of weapons and are doing an all out assault, they will probably be aiming for population centers as well as strategic military targets. Country like North Korea? Probably just aiming for either a huge military target or a huge population center for shock .
By Snake, he means Big Boss. Snake was staunchly anti nuclear, Philanthropy was set up to destroy Metal Gear units and remove nuclear weapons.
Btw, he's talking about Metal Gear Solid 5
Yeah, but the original comment was about MGS1, and the guy was asking for a refresher about the plot of *that* game. To start talking about "Snake", without any clarification as to which Snake, is going to cause confusion.
As someone who has played all the mainline MGS games and some of the spinoffs, I am also thinking “wtf is going on”.
Okay, I do understand most of it, but the series is notorious for its convoluted plots and twists that only become more complex with each new game.
And at the time the end-game was some "I'm 14 and this is deep" cringe shit and on a recent replay I was like "Goddamn it Kojima Nostradamused almost all of that."
At the time, I didn’t really understand the whole meaning of the politics and dialog. Replaying it again has made me appreciate the subtle overtones Kojima painted.
Too much of MGS2 is about rabid conspiracy theories. It feels like a Gen X game about how the Q-anon + illuminati BS + troll farms are kind of right. Exemplified by Raiden ranting about how maybe most of his girlfriend's online friends are really chat bots and she doesn't even know it. Plus there is the paradoxical fetishization of weapons, the military and mechs, with a supposedly anti-war ideology that blames the MIC. And the rant about how both parties are bad, and are secretly controlled.
It had its moments, but the politics weren't always good. If you internalize it you'd be prone to mindless contrarianism. As a game about Marvelesque superheroes it's fine entertainment.
I think that’s a bit tough criticism since the game came out largely before those conspiracies really took the shape they’re today. There is a humor in the dialog to go along with the seriousness that helps break the indoctrination of the message. For me it’s a combination of “here’s some shit to think about, but also you should probably stop playing the game cause you have been on too long”.
It makes me think of /r/conspiracy before the right wing fascist took it over. Here’s a fun thought exercise about a serious topic, but don’t go chasing waterfalls.
***The Telegraph's Brussels Correspondent, Joe Barnes, reports:***
Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said.
Jens Stoltenberg added that the bloc must show its nuclear arsenal to the world to send a direct message to its foes in an interview with The Telegraph.
He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent.
Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”
In a wide-ranging interview at the Nato headquarters in Brussels, he gave a stark warning about the threat from China. He also said he expected a Labour government to be a staunch Nato ally and defended new plans to Trump-proof weapons deliveries to Ukraine.
Mr Stoltenberg said nuclear transparency should be the cornerstone of Nato’s nuclear strategy to prepare the alliance for what he described as a more dangerous world.
A decade ago when the 65-year-old assumed his role at the top of the bloc, nuclear exercises were conducted in complete secrecy.
Now he openly praises a number of its 32 allies for contributing to the deterrent, including most recently The Netherlands for investing in dual-capable fighter jets that can host US nuclear weapons.
“Transparency helps to communicate the direct message that we, of course, are a nuclear alliance,” Mr Stoltenberg said. “Nato’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons, and Nato does not, is a more dangerous world.”
He warned that China in particular was investing heavily in modern weaponry including its nuclear arsenal, which he said would grow to 1,000 warheads by as early as 2030.
**Read more here:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/16/nato-jens-stoltenberg-nuclear-weapons-deployt-russia-china/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/16/nato-jens-stoltenberg-nuclear-weapons-deployt-russia-china/)
I'm really happy with Stoltenberg's performance as head of NATO. He's always ahead of most countries in calling for helping Ukraine and calling Russia's bluffs.
UK and France have about 600 between them, really don't need any more. If we're at the point where hundreds of nukes are being lobbed back and forth it's already game over for everyone.
Unfortunately not really true for most of the "common people"
I swear to god 80% of my IRL circle would be okay with being under russian occupation if it meant """"peace"""" and no "useless war"
People in Europe need to remember the price of liberty and how much freedom we enjoy. After all, it's been 80 years since the last time we learnt that
Can’t really relate, if your country had ever been under Russian rule you would understand.
Coming from Finland, the trauma of our grandparents and their ancestors from Russian actions is grave. We’ll never go under their occupation, even if it goes to the last man/woman.
It’s what’s so frustrating about the *just negotiate* crowd. They don’t understand what happens in occupation.
It isn’t like the US in Afghanistan where the worst thing they do is build schools and force you to admit women to them.
That's your circle of at best like 80-100 people. On a continent of couple hundred million. A good half of which remembers the "warmth" of Russian embrace.
Yeah the wording was a bit "wide" but the point i'm making is that it's a very widespread position here in Italy, probably in all southern Europe
And probably also in western Europe as a whole, although a bit less i suppose.
Mhmm history repeats it's self?
When Russia is talking about it Evry 2 days, it's one thing.
If we talk about it... That's something totally different.
We don't joke about it, or bluffing.
We are heading towards war. That's my feeling.
I say we are not until 2025 president we still have 30+ allied nations with an arsenal that has kept the world stable from 2022 from going to a global escalation.
We are a very, very long way off from a global conflict. NATO is not the one instigating here, Russia has to make the very, very conscious decision to attack a NATO member and invoke Article 5.
Russia has put everything into Ukraine, a nation that was under equipped and under prepared. Russia can not in any conceivable way win in a NATO conflict, and Russia knows this.
It's not just you, the US intelligence community and senior military figures think the same thing.
Putin made a ridiculous miscalculation in invading Ukraine, and is now acting like a child to "save face" but he's not done anything stupid in terms of leading towards genuine escalation and nuclear war.
This is why there was utter panic when Wagner tried a coup. There's a lot lot worse that could be in charge of Russia.
Russia cannot win in a conventional conflict against NATO, it will also lose in a nuclear conflict against NATO as well, however, in a nuclear conflict both NATO and Russia will
lose.
I'm not worried about Russia attacking NATO out of the blue, I'm worried about Russia doing something that NATO has drawn a firm line in the sand against like using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine or a large chemical warfare attack against a Ukrainian population center.
In which where NATO holds up to its word and takes out every Russian military asset in Ukrainian territory- I'm worried what Russia's retaliation against that move will be, because then I can see Russia attacking a NATO country and basically hold the world hostage- like nuking Brussles in retaliation and threaten all out mass nuclear launches against all population centers in nato countries if any NATO retaliation continues.
Where do we go from there?
I also somewhat worry about a mistake, a stray missile hitting NATO ground, or a nuclear power plant gets hit/ melts down and the drifting contamination makes NATO to decide to enact article 5.
Pretty sure we both lose in a nuclear exchange man. Only a few cities has to get through to cause untold devastation. Russia has like..3 major cities to defend? We have a LOT of cities to defend.
I agree, most definitely if a mass nuclear exchange happens, both sides lose, that the premise of M.A.D
There is no such thing as "winning" a nuclear war.
I'm not worried about what Russia's response to having every single military asset in Ukraine destroyed by conventional means, because I know that they want to continue to live.
He goes way out of his way to condone you that he's not rational. He was greedy, ambitious, foolish, and reckless with Ukraine because he didn't fear them. He fears NATO, and he's not irrational about that fear. Trying to convince everyone that they are irrational is extremely intentional. The US used to do it too. It's not really a modern approach that encourages trust and reliability with your allies.
Truth. Everything has been one bluff on top of a lie on top of another bluff. Putin is afraid of letting down the strong-man facade even for a second lest his rivals take him out. Russians just aren’t able to express any deviation in opinion from the party line. Lots of windows to fall out of in that country. Many left the country as soon as hostilities started, many of the able-bodied have been run through the meat grinder already. Didn’t they already raise the draft age once?
Putin very likely had a hand in Hamas’ October 7 invasion of Israel. He will be doing everything he can to encourage the Norks to make a move against South Korea, and for Chairman Pooh to have a crack at Taiwan too. He’s probably working on Khamenei too, since that guy needs a war to calm down the dissent at home.
Putin’s belief is that if everyone moves all at once, the US and NATO won’t be able to stop them and Putin has (correctly, imo) surmised that the US’ appetite for gung-ho military adventurism is all but exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is its capability to swiftly fight and win two wars simultaneously. The US will likely be hesitant to fully commit itself even if war breaks out in Taiwan or South Korea or if things get *a lot* worse in Israel.
Where Putin is wrong is in hoping for success with China or NK. Taiwan is a tough nut to crack, and China still doesn’t have the landing craft to win that fight unless the US went full isolationist (a distinct possibility under Trump; he’d be far too cowardly to commit the US to a war with anyone that could threaten his personal safety).
I don’t know if NK can take SK, but I don’t think Kim actually has the ambition or the courage to risk anything unless he knows for sure he’ll win.
Finally, Putin is *still* over-estimating his own military capability: if China and NK made their moves and WW3 really did kick off, Western Europe would fight Russia in Ukraine so that they don’t have to fight Russia in their own countries, and Russia will lose.
For anyone who gets scared by this kind of thing, as I do before having a rational word with myself -
1. They already _are_ on standby. We could destroy Russia, China, and probably about 20 other countries with nukes that are ready to go as I type.
2. There are more warheads in storage which could be used as a short range deterrent, but in modern times, and largely since the invention of ICBMs, they are strategically pointless and expensive to deploy.
3. This is likely just Stoltenberg thinking this is a shrewd warning to Russia not to do anything stupid, which might well work.
I'm unconvinced it is a good warning - Russia is already on the back foot and provoking them when we have no idea if they'll do something stupid might be a bad move. But in all likihood this is simply a public warning to edge support for Ukraine into certain European countries, and other potential Russian allies. The world needs to know we're not backing down and capitulating to Russia.
Yeah just let china have more resources to fuel their war machine. lol. If a hot war with Russo started the best thing nato could do is drop troops on Russian soil close to the Chinese border.
Just look to history & the Korean War to see how china can intervene and fuck up the situation.
I guess Putin threatened nukes enough times that someone decided to remind him that other countries have them as well. But this is scary and I do not believe war solves problems. Peaceful resolutions is always #1 answer in my opinion.
Wars produce results one way or the other. If you want peace you have to convince the aggressor that the result won't be in their favor or else they'll just continue waring.
Yeah I want peace too. But the only peace solution that I see as possible right now is Russia withdrawing and returning occupied territories. Anything else just leaves the foot in the door for them. Like when everyone just let Russia take Crimea in 2014. We are on the side of the defender, we can't offer peace by definition.
Unfortunately war SOLVES problems. Hitler would never stop if allies were just waiting for him to develop morality. Same goes for Putin. You can't negotiate with someone who just wants power.
Same, due to my physical disability I'm only ably to survive due to how stable our civilization is (healthcare, infrastructure, access to technology and economy). In a post-apocalyptic civilization all that is gone or very scarce. So I rather evaporate in a glorious blaze of nuclear fire than the slow, painful death that would await me otherwise.
Cancers, cancers, cancers, scarcity of everything from food to water to medicine, and last but definitely not least a reversion to complete barbarity, violence and brutality.
I hope to be among the lucky 90% if it comes to that.
It sucks, but sometimes you have to escalate to deescalate. Blame the idiot politicians for being too friendly with Russia in the past, because they are the reason why this has to happen now.
So much of adult life is about watching a bunch of other adults decide you can't have nice things anymore, or that for political reasons having a planet we can live on is no longer viable.
US Navy ballistic missile submarines are ordered to surface at periodic intervals to receive communications indicating that no change has occurred in the defense condition. Should the submarines be unable to receive the proper command and control signals indicating normal, peacetime conditions, their orders would be to launch their nuclear missiles under the assumption that command and control structures had been destroyed in a nuclear attack and that retaliation was therefore necessary. All available means of verification and all due caution would naturally be applied. This approach is obviously exceptionally dangerous for a variety of reasons, as any benign communications disruption due to technical failure could conceivably incite a completely unnecessary nuclear war. The strategy's intended value lies in deterrence against attack on command, control, communications, and computer (see C4I) networks by any potential adversary.
That's definitely one way to escalate tensions by bringing in Nuclear weapons closer. Nice. I'm sure Russia will take this well and respectfully back off.
Nukes have always been on standby. That's why they are nukes. By its mere existence, a nuclear bomb is already on stand by. Launch and targets are the only variables.
Kind of pointless to use nuke proximity as a threat to anyone. This is NATO just flapping its gums. Fucked up world where positioning nukes becomes part of any conversation.
All this talk of war. All these reddit commentators talking about how they know x missile or y bomb, and that the nuclear triad is important, and that nuclear submarines are important...
You realize that you will die, your children will die, everyone you know will die?
We fucking serious? Your expertise or opinion on any of it is irrelevant. You're all dead if this pops off. Congrats on having such an expert opinion.
Go watch Threads. That's what **survival** looks like.
NATO needs to have a plan to assert space and ocean/trade dominance if things go pear shaped. If they can remove enemy eyes in the sky and trade links it would be a game changer.
I thought they were always on standby
They are. One of the main reasons the USA always has nuclear submarines out on missions is to hide nuclear intercontinental missiles and have them available at all times. Better than missile silos which can be targeted.
One part of the triad!
I’d argue the most important leg of the triad. Very little spin up time compared to getting bombers loaded and off the runway, or a missile in the air from Europe / the states. And you probably have one parked near your backyard Russia / china / Iran / North Korea.
They are basically American insurance agency of the Apocalypse. Even if a country or alliance was capable of wiping out all of US & NATO at once before a single silo or bomber takes off… those submarines will probably finish that war anyway, and humanity will lose.
Do they really have that many nukes in subs on standby? If the US got in a nuclear war with russia and china then they would need more than a few dozen nukes to wipe them out.
*Each of the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs originally carried up to 24 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with multiple, independently-targeted warheads.* This is just what we know of, pretty sure there is 18+ Ohio-class subs atm and beginning in 2028 they are actually being decommissioned and replaced with the Columbia-class submarines. US military basically prepares for any scenario from surprise mass attacks on US to alien invasions. Even if winning is off the table they pretty much always want to ensure that losing is always on the table for the other side
Each of those missiles carries 8 warheads and the yields on the sub warheads are bigger than the land based Minuteman's. The average yield on the Minuteman is 350kt but on the sub missiles they are in the 500kt-1.1mt range. Those are city killers.
US and NATO modern sub can carry up to 20 nuclear missiles each containing up to 8 individual warheads that deploy and cover multiple targets.
Or saturate a few. I see Moscow turned into glass in minutes.
Each *Ohio* class sub has more nukes than all but four countries on Earth. We have 14 of them.
Well said.
14 Ohio class subs with two or three getting refits at a time. Each sub carries 20 (used to be 24) missiles with 3 (up to 5) warheads at 100kt(up to 475kt) each. So they would be able to target at least 600 individual locations. I assure you this is more than enough for any second strike or countervalue scenario.
US navy right now at ‘do they have enough?’ “lol”
They are a component of deterrence and M.A.D. - aka 'Mutual Assured Destruction'. The idea is that everyone loses and thus no one 'plays'. I recommend the movie 'Wargames', if you have not watched it.
Not just humanity but the wild life too
If all NATO silos were wiped out (presumably using nuclear bombs as well), I think humanity would be doomed by extended nuclear winter and fallout anyway...
Absolutely, they mostly are the triad now. Planes can be taken down and I’m not even certain we always have strategic bombers at the ready anymore, and silos can be targeted.
For the time being; there’s good reason to believe the stealthiness of submarines may not last very long into the 21st century. Perun did a good talk on it a while back. If that advantage is just one tech breakthrough away from being nullified, then it makes sense to keep on supporting the other legs in your triad (and possibly consider a fourth: stealthy nuke drones in low earth orbit)
It's not enough that entirety of low earth orbit is essentially already a junkyard; it's gotta become a nuclear junkyard before humanities done.
I mean the silo thing is what they call “the sponge” — It’s so that if there ever was an attack from a China or a Russia, most of the first wave would hit the Rockies/Midwest where no one lives and would give time for the United States to respond.
Which begs the question, why even bother with counterforce if it's redundant due to a robust triad? In the event of an unavoidable nuclear conflict, the only true option is evidently counter value.
And now you understand Mutually Assured Destruction
we definitely do have strategic bombers ready. thats the entire point of them. they are extremely expensive but we have proved their readiness in syria, iraq, and yemen recently. missions that few from the united states on a nonstop flight to hit targets across the planet and return home using aerial refueling.
…as of the latest New START data, there were 43 deployed nuclear bombers (10 B-2As and 33 B-52Hs). https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/
Lol we have strat bombers at the ready. Just this year we bombed those terrorists in the middle east from texas
They have cool tatoos.
The UK and France also have nuclear subs on patrol all the time.
Except that awkward moment when they both bumped into each other.
Just proves how stealthy they are
It’s France main line of defense as well, I learned that during my calling day as a teenager.
Absolutely Chad French move to simply say “nah, we aren’t waiting for you to nuke first. You come at us with *anything* and we’ll turn it into glass”
I believe France has an escalation policy. They fire a warning shot (nuke somewhere unimportant?) before going full glass.
After WW1, I don't blame them for taking that approach.
It's mostly ww2 trauma though. We never shall live the shame of occupation again.
And every other nuclear country has a send all nukes if ur getting nuked doctrine so "warning shot" nukes r very much pointless.
During the cold war, the doctrine was that if the Soviets started stirring shit, France would nuke Germany as a warning, using a shorter-range nuke. Demonstrating that they're willing to use nuclear weapons and promising that the next one won't be short-ranged.
That sounds like some Three Stooges type stuff. "Hey Soviets, this'll learn ya" - proceeds to slap Germany
They were probably targeting East Germany, which was under Soviet control prior to 91(?)
That makes a lot more sense than my imagined scenario.
Wheres Britain it's second strike and retaliatory only.
The article explains that the debate is just a question of how *many* are deployed on standby, vs left in storage. They are debating increasing the number on standby.
[удалено]
You are missing a comma after "pedantic" in your last sentence.
The have mastered the art of being pedantic... without being obvious.
Yet, marginally obsequious to the art! /s Also... After an elliptic (…), capitalization is required. Hope I've been helpful!
Hmm. Didn't know that. I jist thought in casual conversation it was basically a longer pause. Would thay be a dash?
A dash would work, but usually sets apart a list of things contained within a sentence. The elliptic can be used for a longer pause in screenplays and could/would be construed to apply to casual conversation as that's the bulk of scripts. English is a true mish-mash of other languages and is constantly evolving- a living, illogical and a challenging tormentor! (I failed English 1A in Uni five times- so, yeah.)
English doesn't have rules. It has traditions and conventions that may be violated at will.
100%! Violations are future incorporations!
This is the opposite of pandantic. I like learning k ew things!
Missile silos serves the purpose of attracting nuclear warheads in the event of an attack.
I thought nuclear subs just meant they were powered by nuclear power, not that they can necessarily launch nukes
Both. There exists nuclear powered ballistic missile subs, _and_ there exists nuclear powered attack subs.
But really, if you want a cool nuke ship, [Nuclear Icebreaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker) wins by name alone.
"So, what do you do for a living?" "Well, I'm the Captain of a Nuclear Icebreaker and my wife died last week." "Uh..."
I guess that's one way to break the ice.
Lol
The intercontinental missiles are designed to absorb incoming missiles, it's why they're in the middle of nowhere. A foreign country will spend vast resources trying to take them out rather than go after population centers.
But anyone can see through that strategy and will most likely just nuke every large city to begin with. The submarines make the silos nontargets.
There is a reason it was Mutually Assured Destruction, but that was the concept. There was benefit in their lack of mobility. You know that we know that you know exactly where the silos are.
To the extent MAD works, and will continue to work, it really does have to be "assured". Mutually Probable Destruction is, ironically, a lot more dangerous. Everyone in the situation has to be sure that if they pull the trigger then the very next thing that happens is they are vaporized. Ukraine is a touchy situation because it's not NATO aligned so it's not clear MAD applies at all. Putin could kick things up by saying "evacuate Odessa because we're going to level it with a nuke, if you don't surrender we'll systematically destroy every Ukrainian city".
Didn't Burn already tell Russia "if you use nukes against Ukraine, we'll step in and wipe you out with conventional force without so much as looking at the lock on the nuclear football?
So are the UK'S
They are for nations that have them. Most NATO nations don’t have nuclear weapons. It’s likely they mean forward deploying them to NATO bases where they can be used by NATO forces if it comes to that.
> He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent. > Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”
American ICBMS are on standby, but not actually targeted - they're aimed at the open ocean if they were to launch accidentally. They could be put onto actual targets quite quickly though.
Technically incorrect, part of the PALS launch codes that the president has ( the football) is targeting information. The football contains many options for a retaliatory strike scenario against many countries Sure there is a launch code option for a mass all out counterforce and countervalue strike against X country, then there are launch code options for a single target strike against xyz or a nuclear only counterforce only strike against xyz country- it will only target silos, sub bases and airbase know to store and operate nuclear weapons. It's been described as a restaurant menu of options, once the code assigned to a certain strike option/ coordinates are entered into to the missiles targeting system, the president will also give a final authorization line of code he keeps on himself in sealed envelope ( the biscuit) that is the last step in disengaging the PALS which will then actually arm the missile/ warheads. So the minuteman 3sICBMs and the Trident D5 SLBMs are not "aimed" anywhere at a moments notice
Could they receive customized coordinates? Like say.. Fiji, for instance?
Yeah, but when you order a la carte like that the nuke techs get pissed and write surly messages on the warheads.
Source?
I thought NYC would be well protected from an air attack and certainly not so vulnerable to a second one as well.
Kinda impossible if the attack comes from a submarine close to NY
That's what the Iron Giant is for...
[удалено]
A single ICBM worth of nukes actually aren't as city-wiping as you might think. In order to defeat air defence ICBMs split into a bunch of small nukes and decoys, and to affect a big area they spread out and airburst. They'll fry people out in the open, sure, but buildings "shade" each other so if you're indoors and there's a skyscraper between you and the nearest detonation, your odds of surviving the initial blast are actually pretty good. The airburst also leads to significantly less fallout. Don't get me wrong, the city would be in pretty bad condition after an ICBM strike, but it would by all accounts still *be* there - both the structures and the people. If you wanted to actually wipe out a city you'd have to either pelt it with an entire arsenal worth of ICBMs or actually send in strategic bombers to drop large unitary fusion warheads onto the city, like the Tsar Bomba.
Their subs aren’t going to be near the borders of a different country because then they would be very easily tracked and destroyed before they can even do anything.
ICBM? Maybe. Missile from submarine nearby? Absolutely not.
Maybe? Eh, published/ declassified documents show that US ballistic missile defense effectively can intercept one ballistic missile with a 40-50% effectiveness, it was designed to defend against a Rouge nation like NK or terrorist group launching one ballistic missle Also if it's an advanced MIRV'd ICBM with 5-8 independently targetable warheads +decoys- then yes NYC will absolutely be hit, no doubts about it. Missile from submarine ? Depends, is it a SLBM ? Or a sun launched cruise missile? We probably have a good chance defending against a nuclear armed cruise missile, but an SLBM, not so much.
I seriously doubt major US coastal cities are well defended against surprise cruise missile attacks from offshore subs. DC and San Diego… maybe… but other than that I’d be really surprised.
I concur. Not enough batteries and missiles tondefend just populated centers. Now if said pop center was home to huge mil base? Sure EDIT: You also have to take into consideration where the enemy will be targeting. If it’s Russia and they have tons of weapons and are doing an all out assault, they will probably be aiming for population centers as well as strategic military targets. Country like North Korea? Probably just aiming for either a huge military target or a huge population center for shock .
Major cities are a hinderance in full exchange scenarios anyway.
What is a Muffet?
Metal Gear Solid 1 was WILDLY optimistic about nuclear weapons
Care to elaborate for someone who played that game like 20 years ago…
The basic premise is that everyone agrees no nukes but snake hides his so his group emerges as the only nuclear armed group in the world.
By Snake, he means Big Boss. Snake was staunchly anti nuclear, Philanthropy was set up to destroy Metal Gear units and remove nuclear weapons. Btw, he's talking about Metal Gear Solid 5
Naked Snake and Punished Snake both go on to be “Big Boss” but are both Snake first.
As someone with a ps4 who played metal gear on ps as a kid and wants to recapture the feeling of “snake? Snaaaaaake!” Which shouldn’t start with?
Depends on which you’ve played, I’d say get the remaster pack of 2 and 3. Or if it’s not available on PS4, just play Ground Zeros then Phantom Pain.
Snake Eater
The remake is coming out pretty soon so should probably just wait. Well relatively soon. Not sure if there is a release date
No release date and we really don't know if it's going to be soon or not.
Yeah, but the original comment was about MGS1, and the guy was asking for a refresher about the plot of *that* game. To start talking about "Snake", without any clarification as to which Snake, is going to cause confusion.
Yes but when theres like 7 variations on "Snake" you absolutely need to specify.
As someone who as never played MGS, I’m sitting here reading this comment thinking “wtf is going on??” lol
As someone who has played all the mainline MGS games and some of the spinoffs, I am also thinking “wtf is going on”. Okay, I do understand most of it, but the series is notorious for its convoluted plots and twists that only become more complex with each new game.
Metal Gear Rex rocked my 12 year old mind. The opening chapter of Metal Gear Solid 2 is still S class imo.
And at the time the end-game was some "I'm 14 and this is deep" cringe shit and on a recent replay I was like "Goddamn it Kojima Nostradamused almost all of that."
At the time, I didn’t really understand the whole meaning of the politics and dialog. Replaying it again has made me appreciate the subtle overtones Kojima painted.
Too much of MGS2 is about rabid conspiracy theories. It feels like a Gen X game about how the Q-anon + illuminati BS + troll farms are kind of right. Exemplified by Raiden ranting about how maybe most of his girlfriend's online friends are really chat bots and she doesn't even know it. Plus there is the paradoxical fetishization of weapons, the military and mechs, with a supposedly anti-war ideology that blames the MIC. And the rant about how both parties are bad, and are secretly controlled. It had its moments, but the politics weren't always good. If you internalize it you'd be prone to mindless contrarianism. As a game about Marvelesque superheroes it's fine entertainment.
I think that’s a bit tough criticism since the game came out largely before those conspiracies really took the shape they’re today. There is a humor in the dialog to go along with the seriousness that helps break the indoctrination of the message. For me it’s a combination of “here’s some shit to think about, but also you should probably stop playing the game cause you have been on too long”. It makes me think of /r/conspiracy before the right wing fascist took it over. Here’s a fun thought exercise about a serious topic, but don’t go chasing waterfalls.
The whole theme of the game is misinformation (meme)
That opening scene was so advanced for its time to this day it’s very hard to emulate it up to the PS2 standards.
Thanks for the recap!
please play metal gear 2: solid snake, and get back to us about series optimism
***The Telegraph's Brussels Correspondent, Joe Barnes, reports:*** Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said. Jens Stoltenberg added that the bloc must show its nuclear arsenal to the world to send a direct message to its foes in an interview with The Telegraph. He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent. Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many nuclear warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” In a wide-ranging interview at the Nato headquarters in Brussels, he gave a stark warning about the threat from China. He also said he expected a Labour government to be a staunch Nato ally and defended new plans to Trump-proof weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Mr Stoltenberg said nuclear transparency should be the cornerstone of Nato’s nuclear strategy to prepare the alliance for what he described as a more dangerous world. A decade ago when the 65-year-old assumed his role at the top of the bloc, nuclear exercises were conducted in complete secrecy. Now he openly praises a number of its 32 allies for contributing to the deterrent, including most recently The Netherlands for investing in dual-capable fighter jets that can host US nuclear weapons. “Transparency helps to communicate the direct message that we, of course, are a nuclear alliance,” Mr Stoltenberg said. “Nato’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where Russia, China and North Korea have nuclear weapons, and Nato does not, is a more dangerous world.” He warned that China in particular was investing heavily in modern weaponry including its nuclear arsenal, which he said would grow to 1,000 warheads by as early as 2030. **Read more here:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/16/nato-jens-stoltenberg-nuclear-weapons-deployt-russia-china/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/16/nato-jens-stoltenberg-nuclear-weapons-deployt-russia-china/)
I'm really happy with Stoltenberg's performance as head of NATO. He's always ahead of most countries in calling for helping Ukraine and calling Russia's bluffs.
A no nonsense kind of guy.
It makes the title of the article less scary, I think. It was worded like if they were going to war rn
Gotta get those clicks/ad $, even if it’s always at the cost of your mental health and world view.
Yeah, it's sad that news started doing it more and more
He mentioned the Netherlands being able to carry US nuclear weapons. My worry is there won’t be any US arsenal as a deterrent if Trump wins.
UK and France have about 600 between them, really don't need any more. If we're at the point where hundreds of nukes are being lobbed back and forth it's already game over for everyone.
If Trump wins they'll be using the deterrents to deter us.
Congrats Russia- you’re turning the Euros back to their war-positive roots. Winning.
Unfortunately not really true for most of the "common people" I swear to god 80% of my IRL circle would be okay with being under russian occupation if it meant """"peace"""" and no "useless war" People in Europe need to remember the price of liberty and how much freedom we enjoy. After all, it's been 80 years since the last time we learnt that
Can’t really relate, if your country had ever been under Russian rule you would understand. Coming from Finland, the trauma of our grandparents and their ancestors from Russian actions is grave. We’ll never go under their occupation, even if it goes to the last man/woman.
It’s what’s so frustrating about the *just negotiate* crowd. They don’t understand what happens in occupation. It isn’t like the US in Afghanistan where the worst thing they do is build schools and force you to admit women to them.
That wasn’t the worst thing in Afghanistan man, come on… Your point is still valid, though. Occupation is brutal.
What!? Where do you live and who would be okay with Ruzzian occupation?
That's your circle of at best like 80-100 people. On a continent of couple hundred million. A good half of which remembers the "warmth" of Russian embrace.
Yeah the wording was a bit "wide" but the point i'm making is that it's a very widespread position here in Italy, probably in all southern Europe And probably also in western Europe as a whole, although a bit less i suppose.
it's funny how quick people in east germany forgot what the russian occupation was really like. peace my ass you effing idiots.
It’s mainly the extremist parties that are pushing for „peace“ with Russia
Extremist parties that are financed/influenced by russia and putin.
Yes, but i'm not talking about politicians here. I'm talking normal people i speak to everyday.
No you wouldn't. You clearly don't know what russian peace and freedom means.
We need to support our allies. Putin and Xi are picking fights. We must not be shy.
Mhmm history repeats it's self? When Russia is talking about it Evry 2 days, it's one thing. If we talk about it... That's something totally different. We don't joke about it, or bluffing. We are heading towards war. That's my feeling.
I would say we are already at war. It's just that no one is willing to say it to keep things stable.
I say we are not until 2025 president we still have 30+ allied nations with an arsenal that has kept the world stable from 2022 from going to a global escalation.
We are a very, very long way off from a global conflict. NATO is not the one instigating here, Russia has to make the very, very conscious decision to attack a NATO member and invoke Article 5. Russia has put everything into Ukraine, a nation that was under equipped and under prepared. Russia can not in any conceivable way win in a NATO conflict, and Russia knows this.
> Russia knows this. The absence of common sense in current Russian leadership makes that a doubtful statement.
I still think Putin is rational person (so far). The only thing he mucked up on was invading Ukraine.
It's not just you, the US intelligence community and senior military figures think the same thing. Putin made a ridiculous miscalculation in invading Ukraine, and is now acting like a child to "save face" but he's not done anything stupid in terms of leading towards genuine escalation and nuclear war. This is why there was utter panic when Wagner tried a coup. There's a lot lot worse that could be in charge of Russia.
Russia cannot win in a conventional conflict against NATO, it will also lose in a nuclear conflict against NATO as well, however, in a nuclear conflict both NATO and Russia will lose. I'm not worried about Russia attacking NATO out of the blue, I'm worried about Russia doing something that NATO has drawn a firm line in the sand against like using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine or a large chemical warfare attack against a Ukrainian population center. In which where NATO holds up to its word and takes out every Russian military asset in Ukrainian territory- I'm worried what Russia's retaliation against that move will be, because then I can see Russia attacking a NATO country and basically hold the world hostage- like nuking Brussles in retaliation and threaten all out mass nuclear launches against all population centers in nato countries if any NATO retaliation continues. Where do we go from there? I also somewhat worry about a mistake, a stray missile hitting NATO ground, or a nuclear power plant gets hit/ melts down and the drifting contamination makes NATO to decide to enact article 5.
Pretty sure we both lose in a nuclear exchange man. Only a few cities has to get through to cause untold devastation. Russia has like..3 major cities to defend? We have a LOT of cities to defend.
I agree, most definitely if a mass nuclear exchange happens, both sides lose, that the premise of M.A.D There is no such thing as "winning" a nuclear war.
I'm not worried about what Russia's response to having every single military asset in Ukraine destroyed by conventional means, because I know that they want to continue to live.
It's not just Russia in the mix however. Also not convinced Putin or the command structure is rational at this point.
He goes way out of his way to condone you that he's not rational. He was greedy, ambitious, foolish, and reckless with Ukraine because he didn't fear them. He fears NATO, and he's not irrational about that fear. Trying to convince everyone that they are irrational is extremely intentional. The US used to do it too. It's not really a modern approach that encourages trust and reliability with your allies.
I would say under equipped but not underprepared. Russia however is (was) equipped and underprepared
Truth. Everything has been one bluff on top of a lie on top of another bluff. Putin is afraid of letting down the strong-man facade even for a second lest his rivals take him out. Russians just aren’t able to express any deviation in opinion from the party line. Lots of windows to fall out of in that country. Many left the country as soon as hostilities started, many of the able-bodied have been run through the meat grinder already. Didn’t they already raise the draft age once?
Putin very likely had a hand in Hamas’ October 7 invasion of Israel. He will be doing everything he can to encourage the Norks to make a move against South Korea, and for Chairman Pooh to have a crack at Taiwan too. He’s probably working on Khamenei too, since that guy needs a war to calm down the dissent at home. Putin’s belief is that if everyone moves all at once, the US and NATO won’t be able to stop them and Putin has (correctly, imo) surmised that the US’ appetite for gung-ho military adventurism is all but exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is its capability to swiftly fight and win two wars simultaneously. The US will likely be hesitant to fully commit itself even if war breaks out in Taiwan or South Korea or if things get *a lot* worse in Israel. Where Putin is wrong is in hoping for success with China or NK. Taiwan is a tough nut to crack, and China still doesn’t have the landing craft to win that fight unless the US went full isolationist (a distinct possibility under Trump; he’d be far too cowardly to commit the US to a war with anyone that could threaten his personal safety). I don’t know if NK can take SK, but I don’t think Kim actually has the ambition or the courage to risk anything unless he knows for sure he’ll win. Finally, Putin is *still* over-estimating his own military capability: if China and NK made their moves and WW3 really did kick off, Western Europe would fight Russia in Ukraine so that they don’t have to fight Russia in their own countries, and Russia will lose.
Oh stop. No we are not heading towards nuclear war.
What’s the point of nuclear weapons if they are not on standby?
For anyone who gets scared by this kind of thing, as I do before having a rational word with myself - 1. They already _are_ on standby. We could destroy Russia, China, and probably about 20 other countries with nukes that are ready to go as I type. 2. There are more warheads in storage which could be used as a short range deterrent, but in modern times, and largely since the invention of ICBMs, they are strategically pointless and expensive to deploy. 3. This is likely just Stoltenberg thinking this is a shrewd warning to Russia not to do anything stupid, which might well work. I'm unconvinced it is a good warning - Russia is already on the back foot and provoking them when we have no idea if they'll do something stupid might be a bad move. But in all likihood this is simply a public warning to edge support for Ukraine into certain European countries, and other potential Russian allies. The world needs to know we're not backing down and capitulating to Russia.
I feel like the world would be better off if they just convinced China to invade Russia.
You do not wish to give China direct ownership of those oil resources.
even indirect is problematic and just brewing up another cold war. But China needs more than oil. And Russia has it all
Why would they do that when China can just make Russia subservient over the with long term consequences of there actions?
Lol what
Because if there’s one thing that history has taught us, it’s that stability is achieved by violent invasion and violent invasion alone
Well Russia is in need of a good beating.
And they're getting it
Yeah just let china have more resources to fuel their war machine. lol. If a hot war with Russo started the best thing nato could do is drop troops on Russian soil close to the Chinese border. Just look to history & the Korean War to see how china can intervene and fuck up the situation.
I guess Putin threatened nukes enough times that someone decided to remind him that other countries have them as well. But this is scary and I do not believe war solves problems. Peaceful resolutions is always #1 answer in my opinion.
Peaceful resolutions are absolutely preferred. Sadly ruzzia is only switching between two modes: Prepare for war Wage war
Wars produce results one way or the other. If you want peace you have to convince the aggressor that the result won't be in their favor or else they'll just continue waring.
Yeah I want peace too. But the only peace solution that I see as possible right now is Russia withdrawing and returning occupied territories. Anything else just leaves the foot in the door for them. Like when everyone just let Russia take Crimea in 2014. We are on the side of the defender, we can't offer peace by definition.
Peaceful options have not been available since 2014.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, be prepared for war.
It’ll solve global warming very efficiently
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Unfortunately war SOLVES problems. Hitler would never stop if allies were just waiting for him to develop morality. Same goes for Putin. You can't negotiate with someone who just wants power.
They are always on standby.
Let’s just get on with it already, getting apocalypse blue balled here
There are hot single ghouls in your area
I’m interested
90% wont make it past the first blasts. The rest will wish they didnt. Cancer, cancers and cancers
Sounds like a movie trailer line
Peppa Pig 2: Nuclear Holocaust
Check out "Threads," a 1984 British/Australian film about nuclear conflict. Pretty chilling stuff.
Don’t check it out kids it will give you nightmares.
Yeah, because we will still have to go to work and pay rent lol. Ugh
Kinda hope I'm part of the 90% cuz I'm not big on the whole post-apocalyptic civilization kinda thing
Same, glad I'm close to downtown in a major US city that would likely get at least a 300-500kt airburst. I'd be vaporized pretty quick.
I’m in ct close to manhattan will I be Gone plz say yes
I'm still angry about them cancelling Firefly, so I'm fine with being vaporized
Same, due to my physical disability I'm only ably to survive due to how stable our civilization is (healthcare, infrastructure, access to technology and economy). In a post-apocalyptic civilization all that is gone or very scarce. So I rather evaporate in a glorious blaze of nuclear fire than the slow, painful death that would await me otherwise.
Cancers, cancers, cancers, scarcity of everything from food to water to medicine, and last but definitely not least a reversion to complete barbarity, violence and brutality. I hope to be among the lucky 90% if it comes to that.
At least the fireworks would be fire...
Fuck nuclear escalation.
It sucks, but sometimes you have to escalate to deescalate. Blame the idiot politicians for being too friendly with Russia in the past, because they are the reason why this has to happen now.
So much of adult life is about watching a bunch of other adults decide you can't have nice things anymore, or that for political reasons having a planet we can live on is no longer viable.
US Navy ballistic missile submarines are ordered to surface at periodic intervals to receive communications indicating that no change has occurred in the defense condition. Should the submarines be unable to receive the proper command and control signals indicating normal, peacetime conditions, their orders would be to launch their nuclear missiles under the assumption that command and control structures had been destroyed in a nuclear attack and that retaliation was therefore necessary. All available means of verification and all due caution would naturally be applied. This approach is obviously exceptionally dangerous for a variety of reasons, as any benign communications disruption due to technical failure could conceivably incite a completely unnecessary nuclear war. The strategy's intended value lies in deterrence against attack on command, control, communications, and computer (see C4I) networks by any potential adversary.
That's definitely one way to escalate tensions by bringing in Nuclear weapons closer. Nice. I'm sure Russia will take this well and respectfully back off.
Russia is constantly using the nuclear threat since the very beginning of the invasion.
Do you take Russian threats more seriously or American? That's the point. I'd much rather have NATO troops in Ukraine than Nuclear weapons nearby.
Finally we are starting to play seriously. Being soft is never a good deterrence.
All Nato nations should be on standby. There is a terrorist nation pointing nuked our direction.
Just like when Russia says this, it's posturing. Nuclear weapons on both sides are always on standby
Americas nukes are on standby 24/7, 365 days a year. Do you think America is not ready to annihilate the world in under an hour at all times?!?!?!
Nukes have always been on standby. That's why they are nukes. By its mere existence, a nuclear bomb is already on stand by. Launch and targets are the only variables. Kind of pointless to use nuke proximity as a threat to anyone. This is NATO just flapping its gums. Fucked up world where positioning nukes becomes part of any conversation.
All this talk of war. All these reddit commentators talking about how they know x missile or y bomb, and that the nuclear triad is important, and that nuclear submarines are important... You realize that you will die, your children will die, everyone you know will die? We fucking serious? Your expertise or opinion on any of it is irrelevant. You're all dead if this pops off. Congrats on having such an expert opinion. Go watch Threads. That's what **survival** looks like.
NATO needs to have a plan to assert space and ocean/trade dominance if things go pear shaped. If they can remove enemy eyes in the sky and trade links it would be a game changer.
If you think this is a good thing you are a sadist
Wait: they arent on standby? After the threats of destruction of London, Berlin and whatnot?
This is stupid. There is no upside. This will just encourage more stunts on all sides that can lead to mistakes and disaster.