安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
nato likely won't.. but if russia trows just the one nuke.. the responce of the usa.. likely is one nuke back (not on russian soil to not get an incident.. but on a large concentration of russian troops in ukraine halting their advance.... and perhaps american boots on the ground..
than the ball is back in russia's court.. if russia does nothing.. putin looks weak.. hundreds of thousant of russians and thousants of tanks are jst nuked.. and nothing is done in terurn...
but if puting than says ok 1 more nuke..
we get a dangerous back and forth nuke game.. that leads to MAD
putin may be mad enough to toss 1 nuke if he ever thinks this war is truelly lost (he does not.. he just thinks for now.. the west is stronger but lacks stamina.. russia is experienced in grinding wars that last decades.. america looses interest after a few years.. just wait till the support dries up.. and than the war can be won.
if putin ever things the war can't be won no more.. than he might want to toss 1 nuke.. to prevent loosing all gains.. or better said..
but as china not want that.. and china is supplying a lot of materials to russia.. + putin needs support of the oliarchs and those olyiarchs might not want that nuke either and rather will get rid of putin and install another dictator.
purins reign and likely his life will fall if he looses this war.. so putin won't accept a defeat..
but the forces behind the throne... might think otherwise and have a point where they will not allow him to push it any further.
Thanks again for demonstrating what kind of person you are.
Attacking Ukraine with nuclear weapons would turn the entire world against Russia.
It would also render the whole invasion pointless because you can`t use radiated land for anything for few hundred years at least and you cant continue the invasion.
You mean like those Abraham tanks, M1A1. They pulled them from the front, their useless the M1A1. Russian drones are turning them, into shish kebab. Russian is also out of most of their conscripted soldiers, and prisoners. And is sending more and more professional soldier's. Ukraine has run out of professional soldier's. And are now sending in conscripted soldiers, and prisoners.
But Ukraine has been selling grain for decades now. Why i check everything i eat. I don't buy stuff from Ukraine.
not how nukes work...
nukes use fuel with a fast halfweight time..
this means the radiation the first weeks is insanely high and deadly... but also will drop to much more survivable levels rather soon.. likely 2 months after a nuke is dropped you can start by scraping topsoil..
unless they toss a dirty bomb.. which uses a non nucleair explosive to spread nucleair material with a slow halfweight time... thus it will produce less radiotion but over a much longer timeframe.. meaning the region is deadly much much longer..
1 nuke can be cleaned up likely in a year..
the problem with a full on MAD.. is not that it could not be cleaned but that the global trade get disrupted meaning many deaths cause starvation (as the world is like 2 weeks of no trade away from half the world starving).. and that the materials and manpower needed to clean up.. are also hit.... you need a functual base to launch your cleanup from...
1 nuke or 2.. can still be cleaned up.. and are much less as inssue than a leaking nucleair powerplant.
M1A1 they sent to Ukraine is from 1985.
Current modern version is M1A2 SEPV3.
No, I don't think they will do that.
There are three problems -
1. The world would be outraged and Russia would lose any support for the war.
2. The radioactive fallout would affect other countries, perhaps even Russia.
3. Putin wants Ukraine, he doesn't want a radioactive wasteland.
no.. putin want a safe border... russia is a wide open plane... russia for hundreds of years has solved that issue with distance... and it likes in europe to push it's border to the mountains.. ukraine no longer friendly to russia means a gaping open hole in russias "distance to capital of german tanks" safety zone..
thats making russians very uneasy.. can't have that.
an IRADIATED distance between the west and your capitol.. will serve russia just fine... than they know no nato forces will invade them trough there...
it's china who says no (and who is quite needed for russias export now).. that likely keeps his finger of the button..
+ there is no need to press it.. as the war is slowly won by russia without needing to escelate it to that point.
All the nuclear posturing has one and only one purpose: Frightening ill informed people in the West trying to influence public opinion.
The worst that can currently happen are more cyberattacks or other covert actions. But these already happen.
Russia even has too much to lose from using nukes in Ukraine, because then they will lose any support they currently might have from China. And in the long run Russia can not survive without Chinese political and economic support.
And to all the people who are claiming that "Russia is fighting Ukraine and NATO alone", I need to remind you, that Russia has to rely on military support from North Korea, Iran and possibly China. So by your logic, Ukraine is fighting alone against Russia, North Korea, Iran and China.
1st where to we leave the first 2 meters, of the entire planet.
2d, tjernobyl was a dirty, and they sell grain.
the nukes now are not as large in caliber as the ones in the cold war.
and no not 2 meters even ALL nukes on the planet targeted at the most dense population area's on earth regardless of what nation they are in.. will kill less than halve the world populations..
and the imediate radiation zone of an impact is rather limited...
the worst radiation will only last a few days...
so unless in the direct blastzone.. staying inside for 2 weeks with all airvents closed.. will be enoigh...
if you leave the impact zones alone... than they remain slighly radioactive for 10-30 years.. depending on the type of nuke... essentially standing in the crater 2 weeks after impact is like getting a full body xray every 5 minutes.. not healthy but not imediately deadly..
scraping the top 20cm and bag it.. of just that impact crater.. and burn and destroy any crops in the falout range... and reseed.. will be fine..
yes the world likely will have 3 times the number of cancer cases for the next 200 years.. if all nukes are fired... but it will be far from a world ending event...
what will happen though is halve the worlds population will starve not cause nucleair winter.. but cause the destryed crops.. + discruption to global trade..
if it remains limited to just 2 nukes on the entire planet even if the most potent still around... you will not notice much unless if you life near their impact point.... a nuke on kiev.. likely means some crops in other european nations need to be destroyed,... and the soil for 20-60km around the impact crater must be scraped for 20cm.... before reseeding..
it be safer in 1 year to live on the spot where a nuke stroke and no soil scraping ever was done..than it is to live in pyapat today.
not all sources of radiation are equal.. yes nukes a bad.. but not AS insane bad as once believe.. the insane mton bombs that would trow debris that high in the stratosphere no longer excist in any nations arsenal... instead we have much more smaller blast nukes..
if one of them stroke the center of amsterdam.. the blast likely would not even destroy halve the city.. you would need like 5 to fully cover just 1 city of 1 million people...
nukes are bad... but decades of nuclear disarment that has rid both sides of the most heavy blast nukes.. has reduced the risk a lot.
can nukes cause a famine that will half the world population .. yes.
and with just halve the population the global trade will collapse... it can cause a collapse like the bronze age collapse... causing much of human societie and inventions be lost..
the earth and mankind will live on... and it will be far less mad max world.. and more... medieval europe... with the ability to produce much technology and build many things lost... hold on for as long as they keep working.. central goverments collapsing.. states reverting to a patchwork blanked of much smaller more self suffient states...
yes the strong rule such a world.. so warlors certainly will play their part.. and a stated you can expect cancer rates to tripple for 200 years.. but thats not such a rate that humanity won't recover..
after 200 years 6 generations later.. todays civilization will have been a story.. like how rome was to those living 200 years after it's fall.. it's ruins still visiable.. some of them still functioning.. but ever more of it falling in disrepear without the infrastructure and knowhow of an empire to maintain them
it will not cause a full collapse to barbarism.. but we likely will for a while fall back to a pre-industrial phase...