probably one of the weirdest topics you might have read for a while but whatever.
considering russia apparently has issues with its own equipment and its missile arsenal might be not entirely functional,
and considering missile defense systems might potentially catch most missiles,
and considering nuking europe or the us would result in mutual destruction and thus the destruction of russia anyway,
and considering nuclear winter causes most deaths worldwide in a nuclear face off,
no matter how advanced the icbm defense or submarine defense of the nato might be, even with a guaranteed 100% prevention rate, russia would always be able to keep the threat of nuclear armageddon by having the option to just nuke its own territory to cause a nuclear winter, followed by worldwide fallout, they dont even need functional missiles to nuke themselves and could potentially even alternate the warheads to ensure more debris to be send into the sky. and i doubt they overlook the option to make that threat when they think the nato has too good of an icbm defense available.
so yeah the questions:
- is there any reasonable chance to counter that doomsday scenario where russia nukes itself?
- do you rate any anti icbm system as a waste of money? i mean it only seems to make sense if and only if russia heavily underestimates its capabilities and actually tries to nuke europe/us instead of itself for the better outcome of the missiles being caught.
*if this went too far, dont roast me please*
considering russia apparently has issues with its own equipment and its missile arsenal might be not entirely functional,
and considering missile defense systems might potentially catch most missiles,
and considering nuking europe or the us would result in mutual destruction and thus the destruction of russia anyway,
and considering nuclear winter causes most deaths worldwide in a nuclear face off,
no matter how advanced the icbm defense or submarine defense of the nato might be, even with a guaranteed 100% prevention rate, russia would always be able to keep the threat of nuclear armageddon by having the option to just nuke its own territory to cause a nuclear winter, followed by worldwide fallout, they dont even need functional missiles to nuke themselves and could potentially even alternate the warheads to ensure more debris to be send into the sky. and i doubt they overlook the option to make that threat when they think the nato has too good of an icbm defense available.
so yeah the questions:
- is there any reasonable chance to counter that doomsday scenario where russia nukes itself?
- do you rate any anti icbm system as a waste of money? i mean it only seems to make sense if and only if russia heavily underestimates its capabilities and actually tries to nuke europe/us instead of itself for the better outcome of the missiles being caught.
*if this went too far, dont roast me please*