I can accept the correction that I failed to factor in the scarcity of Aegis missiles, such that a substantial number of Russian nukes would get through the curtain and hit their targets. I'm still failing to see how a mere 1000 nukes could possibly "end the world", given their destructive potentials. It's a big world, and nukes still have a fairly small destructive radius - I'm talking real-world destruction here, not the propagandistic "let's scare a bunch of folks" fake destruction potentials. They might take out Washington DC, New York, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc, but that still leaves a lot of folks alive and scratching their heads, and really, who would miss those places anyhow other than their denizens? We'd probably be better off without them.
While it's true that Russia (and the US) only targets "military" targets, we must also understand that in the Russian mind, a Boeing 747 is just another bomber with a flashy paint job, so "military" targets is somewhat flexible as a target description.
I'm also not seeing how in the world NATO is an "existential threat" to Russia, whether on Russian borders or not. Why is NATO an "existential threat"? What has NATO done that threatens the existence of Russia? After all, threatening someone's very existence is an act of aggression, rather than an act of defense. Who is the aggressor? NATO or Russia? Which one is REALLY the "existential threat"?
Now a case could be made that the Ukraine IS a part of Russia, and they have just moved to reclaim that rebellious state, just as the US did against the Confederacy 160 years ago, and that NATO is trying to block that reunion... but that still doesn't threaten the existence of Russia, it only threatens their re-annexation of lost territory. If they fail to re-annex the Ukraine, Russia still exists, and is not under threat even if they just let the rebels walk away like they are trying to do.
A good primer for nukes is The Effects of Nuclear War (1979). There was another one from 1977 that may have been a bit more science, calculation, and calculus heavy, but I cannot recall the name of it now. These include the actual science of nuclear destruction.
There were also a couple of civilian-geared reference works at the time that were pretty good, such as Dr. Bruce Clayton's "Life After Doomsday", and Cresson Kearny's "Nuclear War Survival Skills" (Kearny's main claim to fame was his development of a rudimentary radiation meter that could be built from kitchen scraps).
To get an idea of just how panicky folks were about nukes back then, here is a 'select bibliography' of nuclear war related texts from 1982
From what I can see, a nuclear strike would not be "world ending", but it would definitely imperil the globalist's grip on the world, and create a hard reset. In the case of Russia, they need to figure out just how much MORE of their territory, population, and infrastructure they are willing to sacrifice just to make a point and hit "the west" with nukes. In the final analysis, I would say Russia has far more potential to be an "existential threat" to itself than NATO could ever have hoped to have been. All they gotta do is fuck around and find out.
ETA: Here is the other technical document I mentioned The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1977).
.
While it's true that Russia (and the US) only targets "military" targets, we must also understand that in the Russian mind, a Boeing 747 is just another bomber with a flashy paint job, so "military" targets is somewhat flexible as a target description.
I'm also not seeing how in the world NATO is an "existential threat" to Russia, whether on Russian borders or not. Why is NATO an "existential threat"? What has NATO done that threatens the existence of Russia? After all, threatening someone's very existence is an act of aggression, rather than an act of defense. Who is the aggressor? NATO or Russia? Which one is REALLY the "existential threat"?
Now a case could be made that the Ukraine IS a part of Russia, and they have just moved to reclaim that rebellious state, just as the US did against the Confederacy 160 years ago, and that NATO is trying to block that reunion... but that still doesn't threaten the existence of Russia, it only threatens their re-annexation of lost territory. If they fail to re-annex the Ukraine, Russia still exists, and is not under threat even if they just let the rebels walk away like they are trying to do.
A good primer for nukes is The Effects of Nuclear War (1979). There was another one from 1977 that may have been a bit more science, calculation, and calculus heavy, but I cannot recall the name of it now. These include the actual science of nuclear destruction.
There were also a couple of civilian-geared reference works at the time that were pretty good, such as Dr. Bruce Clayton's "Life After Doomsday", and Cresson Kearny's "Nuclear War Survival Skills" (Kearny's main claim to fame was his development of a rudimentary radiation meter that could be built from kitchen scraps).
To get an idea of just how panicky folks were about nukes back then, here is a 'select bibliography' of nuclear war related texts from 1982
From what I can see, a nuclear strike would not be "world ending", but it would definitely imperil the globalist's grip on the world, and create a hard reset. In the case of Russia, they need to figure out just how much MORE of their territory, population, and infrastructure they are willing to sacrifice just to make a point and hit "the west" with nukes. In the final analysis, I would say Russia has far more potential to be an "existential threat" to itself than NATO could ever have hoped to have been. All they gotta do is fuck around and find out.
ETA: Here is the other technical document I mentioned The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1977).
.