• josefo@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    My point was, the assassination goal would be him not being able to drop a second one. Also slay the first 100 people in the chain of command and leave them headless.

    Cool thing is that nuclear winter will fight global warming

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Unfortunately, nobody would be able to take him out that quickly. Russia still has plenty of nukes, and they could fire them all before anybody has time to react. If that nuke is an ICBM, though, as soon as it leaves the silo the world would know, and the counter barrage of nukes would be firing up before it even lands.

      I originally meant that dropping a nuke would have the entire world declare war on Russia, even his former allies because no one wants to rule over a pile of radioactive rocks, but thinking about it, his allies would probably be the ones most likely to try to have him assassinated in that situation. A maniac with a big stick is only useful so long as you don’t have to worry about him smacking you with it, too.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Russia still has plenty of nukes, and they could fire them all before anybody has time to react. If that nuke is an ICBM, though, as soon as it leaves the silo the world would know, and the counter barrage of nukes would be firing up before it even lands.

        Obviously an ICBM is armageddon. However a tacticsl nuke, one dropped from a plane or something onto Ukraine would be a different story.

        The world will be far less inclined to launching ICBMs over that. So it’s just a game of how much they can get away with.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Source?

        Seems pretty likely that all those fires would cause a lot of soot that blocks out some of the sunlight, thus causing a global temperature drop

        • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          sagan et al overstated amount of soot from full nuclear exchange from targets most susceptible to large scale fires by 10x-ish and this is the only way they could come up with actual nuclear winter

          when counterexample happened during gulf war they dropped it, but when people forgot this was a thing they brought it up again. this is not how you do science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Not off hand but the idea is the amount needed to cause one is not as low as previously stated (the 3 large scale bombs being enough was likely off by an order of magnitude).

          The fear of instant nuclear winter was likely more cold war scare then sound science, but the chance of nuclear winter is still there. We just don’t know exactly how many nukes and where would kick one off.