I have seen nuclear scientists say just 5% of world's stock of nukes going off would kill pretty much all life on earth. And just 100 hiroshima sized bombs would kick up enough dust and dirt and all that stuff to lead to continent-wide crop failures that could kill hundreds of millions via famine.
The premise of MAD is that while ICBMs are essentially unstoppable, they can usually be detected early enough for a counterattack to occur. So with or without the world ending it guaranteed that USA and USSR would've been wiped out.
Idk, but unlike other ballistic missiles I don't think anyone bothers doing a non nuclear weapon because you'll probably be annihilated if you launch an icbm at a populated target.
So some icbms have mirv rockets which means it carries multiple warheads. Some of those could be decoys so the anti missile system shoot down the one with out the nuke in it.
Yeah icbms go up high into space and then come down. The hypersonic missiles have a much lower trajectory so there is less time to react for countermeasures or retaliation.
Aren’t 6200 nukes enough to finish everyone no matter where on the globe they explode … ? That’s the premise of MAD, right?
I have seen nuclear scientists say just 5% of world's stock of nukes going off would kill pretty much all life on earth. And just 100 hiroshima sized bombs would kick up enough dust and dirt and all that stuff to lead to continent-wide crop failures that could kill hundreds of millions via famine.
:yea:
I mean, it could've been worse
Literally just exploding the bombs in the missile silos would be enough for apocalypse. You don't even need to launch them
:yea:
? Don't they need to be armed to explode?
I was saying detonatng them, not just taking another explosive and destroying them.
The premise of MAD is that while ICBMs are essentially unstoppable, they can usually be detected early enough for a counterattack to occur. So with or without the world ending it guaranteed that USA and USSR would've been wiped out.
Thanks! And said detection, could it tell whether the ICBM for sure carries a nuke?
Idk, but unlike other ballistic missiles I don't think anyone bothers doing a non nuclear weapon because you'll probably be annihilated if you launch an icbm at a populated target.
Ballistic Missiles as a conventional bombardment method exist.
But there are easier ways to get missiles to their target than launching out of a silo on the opposite side of the world.
deleted by creator
So some icbms have mirv rockets which means it carries multiple warheads. Some of those could be decoys so the anti missile system shoot down the one with out the nuke in it.
Thanks! And I assume the hypersonic missles are even better at evading the anti missle system?
Yeah icbms go up high into space and then come down. The hypersonic missiles have a much lower trajectory so there is less time to react for countermeasures or retaliation.
Ah now I get it. Thanks!
Basically yeah, everywhere except Antarctica and maybe the southern most parts of Africa and South America would be gone.