A false flag operation using radioactive warheads is reportedly aimed at spent nuclear fuel
Ukrainian forces have begun preparations to target nuclear waste storage sites at a Russian power plant with radioactive warheads and to then blame Moscow, according to intelligence received by Russia.
“Sources on the other side report that the [Ukrainians] are preparing a nuclear false flag – an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” military journalist Marat Khairullin said Friday on his Telegram channel. “They plan to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant.”
The special warheads intended for the attack have already been delivered to the Vostochny Mining and Processing plant in Zhovti Vody, in Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk Region, according to Khairullin.
As possible targets of the attack, Khairullin indicated either the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar or the Kursk NPP in Kurchatov, noting that the Ukrainian government and its Western backers are “desperate and willing to try anything.”
A security official in the Russian Military Administration of Kharkov Region corroborated Khairullin’s claim to RIA Novosti on Friday. The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody.
Kiev’s intention is to accuse Moscow of a false flag so it could justify using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the security official said. The Ukrainian government has received orders from its Western backers to “escalate as much as possible,” he added.
According to the security official, the intelligence came from Ukrainian prisoners of war.
Sergey Lebedev, introduced as leader of the Nikolaev Region underground, who said the planned attack would be carried out with NATO weapons, with the consent of the West.
Lebedev pointed out that a large number of Western journalists have already arrived in the Sumy Region near Kursk, as well as the Ukrainian-controlled part of Zaporozhye, suggesting that this is part of Kiev’s preparations for the nuclear false flag.
This is the second time Ukraine is trying to use nuclear war as a bargaining chip.
Keep in mind, the earlier Kursk offensive's goal seemed to be to take control of the Kursk nuclear power plant to threaten a nuclear meltdown on Russian soil and/or to take control of nuclear weapons nearby. In other words, Ukraine has already tried this shit once.
If Ukraine and NATO wants nukes that badly, Russia should deliver them the experience first, preferably with conventional munitions first as a taste. I honestly do not give a shit anymore what happens to the Ukronazis. If they want to get glassed that badly, Russia should give it to them.
On a related note, Russia and China really need to assist Iran to get nukes. China also needs to increase its nuclear stockpile to more than the USA. If China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK) combine their nuclear forces and ICBM defense, they can wipe out the West if need be while taking out a good number of US nukes. The USA is the only NATO country with sizable nuclear forces and decent ICBM defenses, so CRINK should be able to glass Europe at least. China should be able to glass the USA, Russia to glass Europe, Iran to glass Israel, and North Korea to glass the stragglers (Japan, occupied Korea, etc.) if needed. That is deterrence.
sorry chief but I think we should be aiming for nuclear disarment, not holocaust.
I agree that nuclear disarmament is a lovely utopian ideal to strive for, but is simply not realistic until capitalism is completely destroyed. Until then, there is no way to trust that any capitalist country is actually disarming. For example, if everyone disarms except for the US, then we are even more fucked than if everyone had nukes.
Acquiring nukes is simply the best way for any anti-imperialist country to protect themselves against overt outside interference. If capitalist countries warmonger about invading the anti-imperialist bloc, the logical response is to remind them that they will get glassed if they try. Libya is what happens when you don't get nukes.
See this previous discussion on the topic: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4516648
China's current nuclear stockpile of ~500 warheads is 1/10 the size of Russia's or the USA's (both around 5000) and is around the size of Britain + France (~250 each). China's official reason for this is the country's no-first-use policy, but such a policy assumes that NATO is not insane. Ukraine's recent NATO-backed attempts at attacking/stealing nukes is clear evidence against that. In such a scenario, China's arsenal is simply not enough to protect its 1.4 billion population.
A country must have enough nukes to ensure decently proportional retaliation. If the USA can kill 1 million Chinese, China should be able to immediately do the same ad infinitum. Otherwise, the calculus breaks down in one side's favor. Let's assume a nuclear exchange between China and the USA based on Wikipedia's stockpile numbers for each.
I do not consider nuclear winter in this scenario, only direct kills. Nuclear winter only really affects food production. Recent simulations and the experiences of the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires actually show that nuclear winter would be much less severe than initially predicted in the early 1980s, decreasing temperatures by only a few degrees for ~10 years in localized areas before returning to normal. If this wasn't the case, Canadian wildfires would be cooling the planet significantly, but they don't. Furthermore, nuclear winter depends on setting flammable cities ablaze. Modern cities are made of concrete and steel, not wood, so would not produce the firestorms and soot needed for severe nuclear winter.
Its real, relatively small effects can be mitigated with large enough stockpiles and rapid deployment of nonperishable foodstuffs, greenhouses, sunlight-independent energy like nuclear/geothermal energy, fossil fuels (which would actually make climate change a good thing to warm the planet), sunlight-free food production tech, climate geoengineering, and other technologies (much research has been focused on this topic already). China and the USA both have enough resources to invest in these and protect their own populations if tensions did spike. Ultimately, the only way to hinder their deployment is again, to kill enough of the enemy.
Based on their strategic warhead arsenal to total strategic arsenal megatonnage ratios), each warhead in both of their stockpiles is about 0.6 megatons, for a total megatonnage of 300 for China and 3000 for the USA. The average population density is ~400 per sq mile (psqm) in China and ~90 psqm in the USA.
Using NUKEMAP to estimate deaths per nuke, we can use Hanzhong, Shaanxi; Hegang, Heilongjiang; and Yuxi, Yunnan with population density around 400 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in China is ~230,000. We use Sandpoint, Idaho; Hillsboro, Texas; and Vermillion, South Dakota with population density around 90 psqm to estimate that the average deaths per 0.6 megaton warhead in the USA is ~10,000.
This means that to match the casualties for every one US warhead, China needs around 23 warheads. If the USA uses its entire stockpile, it can kill at least 1.15 billion Chinese, while China can only kill around 5 million USAmericans. What an amazing deal for the USA, a trade of one US death per 230 Chinese deaths! This is not mutually assured destruction, this is USA assured success. We aren't even counting the nukes that could be shot down by air defenses or destroyed during first strike, which would just make the US situation even better.
To just counter the USA and ensure complete mutual destruction, China needs at least 30,000 nukes with 0.6 megatons each. Notice how conveniently close this is to the USSR's maximum stockpile of 45,000 nukes. The math is valid and has been done before.
An obvious objection to my quick maths is that nukes would be used on population centers first. However, if China and the USA want true mutually assured destruction, they must kill practically every single human. At first, the deaths-per-nuke will be very high. But by the end, all population centers will have already been glassed, so the deaths-per-nuke will be very low, resulting in an overall deaths-per-nuke around that experienced by the average population density.
Even if this averaging assumption isn't true, it simply makes China's situation all the more pressing since each US nuke can kill way more Chinese.
There's too many fellow travellers here for them to see the point you're trying to make, some people in the West resist the New Cold War not out of any moral or principled anti-imperialist reasons but principally a selfish self-preservational fear from a potential MAD scenario they have floating in their heads.
We've been through all this before. Back in the 1980s, you had some Western "leftists" too busy celebrating over the supposed European nuclear disarmament through the "Zero Option" scam that Reagan pitched to Gorbachev to see the capitulation to imperialist hegemony that Gorbachev represented. There was a rather disgusting, though largely unserious at first, struggle session over on Hexbear a while back where they debated whether China should "bother" launching its second strike if the US suddenly launches a first strike against it. "Yes, 1.4 billion people will be murdered, 1/5th of the human race exterminated, but since things are already too late, China should prevent the loss of 'more lives' and let bygones be bygones." I'm sure they thought writing a few articles in Monthly Review afterwards condemning this nuclear holocaust would be a balanced recompense for this fantasy genocide scenario. You don't need enemies with "comrades" like these.
All these nonsense stories about Ukrainian "dirty nukes" or NATO escalatory gimmicks, that tries to make it seem like the Western leadership is more like the fictional General Ripper rather than the chicken-hawk it really is, obfuscates the fact that Russian nuclear superiority, particularly its still-active Perimeter program will always ensure that there is always a bottom line the West will avoid stepping on. China has completely bypassed the nuclear unilateralism nonsense that gripped the USSR, having rejected so far all Western attempts to shackle it to "trilateral arms agreements" (where the West combines its stockpile with Russia's against their own) when it still has not reached nuclear parity. The material conditions of a contemporary arms race are different from the first Cold War in that China's industrial capacity can afford it to outcompete the West in a nuclear buildup when this had once been an active US strategy to drain the Soviet budget.
The difference in the treatment of Libya and the DPRK, the first having drawn back from its nuclear program and the latter having heroically ensured its sovereignty through a mere modest nuclear capacity is plain to see for anyone in the Global South.
Thank you for your enlightening historical viewpoint on this topic. There is no reason why socialist and anti-imperialist states should allow the West to have nuclear force supremacy. Doing so fixes nothing and instead portends the collapse of promising socialist projects.
Slight correction: A nuclear second strike is any launch after the first one. So if the the US goes for a first strike and China launches its arsenal while the US nukes are still on their way, that'd too be a second strike.
Strongly agree with most of what you're saying.
The calculus for China is even more complex. They need the ability not just to take x lives for x lives. They need the ability to suppress US and NATO capabilities globally. It's not enough to suppress the US mainland when the US stations nukes and has military forces, bases, reserves, pawns all over western Europe, as well as smaller bases in the middle east in places like Jordan, as well as places in Asia itself like Japan, occupied Korea, etc, etc. Nukes could come from anywhere including a pawn which the US disavows.
China needs a nuclear capability that is enough they can wipe out the US in a tit for tat mainland attack but also have enough that if they start with attacking US assets outside the US, they'll have enough after finishing that to still finish the US and the UK. I'd say 1500 bare minimum. Luckily they are on their way to 1000 though it will take time, time in which they're under greater threat.
They must also consider interceptor tech or the math that not all warheads will reach their destination if this is in response to a first strike by the US who is now waiting fully prepared to mitigate as much as possible (to say nothing of the possibility of the US actually managing to take out a chunk of their warhead stock in the first strike). So you need to allocate at least 10-20% more warheads than you think you need, maybe as high as 30%. Having reserves never hurts. Of course this is alleviated somewhat by putting such warheads on hypersonic missiles/delivery systems but I don't think the Chinese have entirely switched their nuclear arsenal over to those yet as they are still kind of a beta product and may not be considered ready for that duty. But even those there's still the chance the US could launch counter-nukes into the atmosphere in the path of incoming weapons to destroy them and a hypersonic missile if caught close enough would be destroyed just the same as a regular one (though I admit given the plasma around them they probably have an advantage in being able to be closer to such a blast and continue than normal missiles).
And I've mentioned this before they need enough to hit all these places plus New Zealand. Why NZ? Because it's where all the big western bourgeoisie have their bunkers and will likely flee and they need to know they'll die because China will drop 3 nukes one on top of the other on them and bury them alive in their now tombs.
I agree. The US and all its vassals and military bases absolutely have to be subdued in the event of nuclear war. In other words, the USSR's 45,000 nuke stockpile should be the goal for China as well, and is even more prescient than we expected.
Russia and North Korea should be encouraged to assist as well, as it increases redundancy and is in their interests also. In the same vein, Iran still desperately needs nukes to defend itself and contribute as well.
As @MelianPretext@lemmygrad.ml discussed, unlike the USSR, China actually has the industry to rapidly build up and maintain a stockpile of this size. If China can automate electric car production like no other, it should automate nuke production as well. Nuclear warheads are about the size of electric scooters, so should be able to be built on similar production lines. China's rapid buildout of nuclear reactors should help this along, as nuclear reactors are needed to produce the plutonium for nukes.
It seems many of our considerations have been taken into account by Xi already. If western media is to be believed, China's buildup is real. I only hope that production is scaled exponentially to reach the necessary amounts before it is too late.
As a side note, IDK why western journalists on this topic say that China is building up nukes for "ambiguous political reasoning and muddled thinking". Clearly, Chinese thinking isn't muddled if we here are discussing the same things. It's so funny how westerners will warmonger about destroying China, then act surprised when China prepares by strengthening its arms.
We're already seeing a holocaust against the Palestinians, and the Isntrealis are talking about their "Samson option" as usual.
Disarmament only works if the other side also complies. So- no disarmament, rather, the entire global south, those whose states desire independence rather than being wholly enslaved to the west, should be armed. Nuclear armament is the tangible form of hman dignity and equality in the face of genocidal intent, so long as the west holds the world hostage. The imperialists can disarm first, or they can go to hell.
(edit) and also- why is it a "holocaust" when the Isntrealis bring upon that which they are trying to provoke, and inflicting on others? Was the destruction of Germany during WW2 a "holocaust?" Was the driving out of settlers, in Zimbabwe or Algeria, a "holocaust?" The Zionists can either cease being Zionists, cease being settlers, accept equality, or get the hell out- they are the ones inflicting holocausts on others, and threatening holocausts on other nations such as Iran.
My ancestors also experienced what may as well be considered genocide- in fact, the vast majority of particularly the non-white, non-western world has. Why do the Zios receive special treatment to do the same unto others, and to avoid the consequences of their actions?
please dont insert things that I havent said, I called it a nuclear holocaust because of things like the cuban missile crisis, one nuke is enough to set off a chain reaction that kills everyone.
Its all good and well saying 'deterence!' without factoring in how fucking stupid we all are.
it's a holocaust because it would literally be death by fire, it's not that deep
Fair enough. Though as said above, Isntreal is already inflicting a holocaust on the Palestinians. The west (the Zionist occupation included) is threatening a holocaust on the rest of humanity, as they always have.
Deterrence in kind is the first and only reliable bulwark against a greater holocaust, one that the west has shown all intention of inflicting, which they are already inflicting in part, and which they have already inflicted thousands of times over, constantly moving from one holocaust to another, for 500 years.
we're literally under an article about a war being prosecuted despite a nuclear deterrence (the strongest nuclear deterrence in the world btw) but sure what could go wrong with even more doomsday weapons spread across even more actors with varying levels of security, political stability, and responsibility
isn'treal already has nukes is the problem. The unstable golden child will use them before they topple.
indeed, israel makes a very good argument against nuclear proliferation
Cool, so how would you propose taking away Israel's nukes? They won't give them up willingly. Either you show Israel that if they nuke anyone else, they will also get glassed, or you glass them first.
maybe a campaign of economic interdiction, international pressure, and conventional resistance while maintaining an openness for negotiation so less suicidal zionists see a way out that doesn't involve killing themselves. wait is that what the Iran-lead resistance is actually doing
No fucking shit, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan for the worst because it makes you feel icky. The cold calculus of war doesn't care about feelings.
"we" shouldn't plan for worst? what "we" is this, because the nuclear proliferation and escalation being broached in this thread is not the line of the actual antiimperialist or existing socialist states, just a couple lemmygraders playing
So socialist/anti-imperialist states shouldn't think ahead then?
what are you even replying to because this is a comment observing a difference in actual policy between China's numbers of warheads and posturing and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons versus people advocating immediate and multilateral nuclear escalation.
these places have thought about it, in much finer detail and they don't think they need enough nukes to kill every american or that nukes will singularly dissolve israel. how you can twist an argument for trusting the policy of these states into imaginary criticism is remarkable
Just because someone disagrees with you or points out the flaws in your logic doesn't mean you can strawman them.
It's not imaginary criticism either, and furthermore, no one is pressuring Iran or China into building nukes, it's called discussion about the worst possible catastrophes and how to mitigate the extreme risk.
Its the opposite, nuclear deterrence is one of the very few things that can get the US and its vassals to fuck off. Not having them, especially if you're not a major power, opens yourself up to imperialist bullying.
There is one socialist country in the entire western hemisphere, and one of the main reasons it's still standing, was due to Fidel's correct position on nuclear deterrence (which comes with a 100% willingness to use them, despite the pearl-clutching from imperial-core "leftists"). Nothing caused more strain between the Cuba and the USSR, than when the USSR removed them, Fidel was furious. Compare Cuba with all the other attempts in the western hemisphere: Chile, Grenada, etc.
Look at the fate of east asian countries also: compare the DPRK to Indonesia, Vietnam, and all the other interventions after the 1950s.
Cuba had a nuclear deterrent for all of 13 days 60 years ago. They've signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cuba as a very stable and well defended country that is no danger to its neighbors wouldn't worry me at all anyway. the persistent thread here is the suggestion that places not like Cuba and the DPRK should have nukes
And what a difference that threat made, even after the US got rid of Kennedy and had more openly warmongering administrations, they never on-the-ground attempted troop invasions like a repeat of the bay of pigs in Cuba again. And look at the 70s-80s especially: a LOT of US troops were on the ground in the caribbean, and central and south america.
Most of us here are advocating that AES countries should have nuclear weapons, opposing the pearl-clutching imperial-core tendency of disarmament for thee, not for me.
Are you opposed in principle to imperialized countries like Palestine having a nuclear deterrent?
Cuba does NOT have a nuclear deterrent! the threat made in 1967 had no power after those weapons were removed. the suggestion that simply expressing you'd use a nuclear weapon is analogous to actually having one is ludicrous.
are you operating on a completely abstracted level? an Actually Existing Socialist Palestinian State might be a place that could use nuclear weapons. but that doesn't exist! "nukes for palestine" in the real world is nukes for multiple non state groups just barely cooperating in a time of grave struggle. can you not recognize the danger that a reactionary force could seize control of them? that a nation divided against itself is a ripe opportunity for the infiltration and influence of imperialists?
And how do you think that war would be going, if Russia had not had that deterrence? Russia's arsenal is the biggest reason why things are only officially a "proxy war."
Frankly, I would trust any non-western, non-western backed states or even most non-state entities with nukes over the western imperialists. If you want to talk about reducing the number of doomsday weapons, perhaps you should look at the ones who introduced them to the world to begin with, and who are being the aggressors across the entire globe, rather than those who are simply trying to resist.
what if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? you can't account for every state's internal security & political rectitude in perpetuity, if Ukraine had kept nuclear weapons to protect itself from the west nazis would have inherited them today.
Almost all countries in the world are run by normal people who simply want to improve the status of their country (and also possibly personally benefit in the process).
The only countries in the world that would benefit by nuking people is the USA, Israel, and maybe NATO allies. This is because they are the current dominant global powers, so nuking anyone else cements their position.
That means giving nukes to any stable country who is not them is objectively a good thing, as it reduces the likelihood that USA and co. can glass others without consequences.
no non-imperial countries ever have wars or competing interests, they've never done bad things to one another. listen to yourself.
if this was a salient strategy the USSR and China would have shipped off nukes to everyone who'd take them, but thankfully they were run by less impulsive people than you
If palestine got nukes the palestinians would not have been genocided
fantasist shit, when were you going to give them one, before the Nakba? the whole fucking conflict springs from Palestine not being a real state that can control things like its borders, a formal military, or a nuclear arsenal.
If yemen got nukes, the yemen people would not have been genocided. If syria had nukes, same. If afghanistan had nukes, same. And of course, libya.
childish magical thinking, an a-bomb would magically reconcile North and South Yemen, all Afghanistan would start holding hands if whoever's in control of Kabul had a nuke silo.
the Jamahiriya is the only state that didn't and reasonably could have but why analyze nuclear weapons as part of the whole conditions of a state? they're instant sovereignty devices apparently
I don't care about your weird technicalities. Give them nukes ASAP.
"weird technicalities" a country having a government not in danger of losing its control of its weapons to a rebel group? what is with this attitude its a two day old thread and you weirdos are still going "nu uh!" without adding literally anything.
Strawmanning much?
Nuclear disarmament will need to be forced when the Amerikkkan regime can be beaten down enough
How about we don't go into the nuclear holocaust scenario? It's not a good thing, even for Russia - to keep flaunting nuclear weapons as though you're a gangsta waving a Glock. I understand the sentiment against the Ukronazis, and I hate them as much as you do, but what you are saying is far beyond the reasonable.
Reasonable
Unnecessary, useless brinksmanship
Batshit, world-ending insanity that should permanently disqualify the speaker from holding any political office
Obviously CRINK shouldn't first strike ever, but having the ability to wipe out the West is essential. Please see my calculations below on why China needs more nukes. Right now China is fully dependent on Russia for nuclear defense. Russia's nukes are better spent as EU deterrence. China's 500 warheads simply cannot kill more than 10% of the USA with its entire arsenal on a good day, while the USA can wipe China's entire population out. That is not deterrence.
Lmao what are you talking about
Say the U.S. could destroy 20% of Chinese nukes in a war (it can't). The remaining 400 nukes could do more than enough damage to the U.S. to make thr cost of starting a nuclear war too high -- that's deterrence, that's all you need. Hell, the DPRK's situation (a few nukes that can strike U.S. bases or take out a carrier group) is probably sufficient.
If push comes to shove, the loss of 10% of the US population in exchange for deleting all of China is not that bad of a trade for US capitalists. 0.6 megaton nukes are actually kind of small compared to the size of the USA.
In the case of the DPRK, the cost of getting California nuked is not worth the relatively tiny amount of resources the DPRK has. It wouldn't even pay for the damages. The same is not true for China. Taking over all of China would certainly be enough resources to rebuild the USA and profit massively for hundreds of years after, especially if the USA only loses ~10% of its population. The radioactive nuclides from nukes last barely a week, leaving the land empty and ready for colonization. Imagine Manifest Destiny 2.0 and white colonization of a 'pristine' land, empty of the 'yellow hordes', the size of another USA. A settler's wet dream.
Just the ability to hold onto US hegemony for another century would be worth the cost of 10% of the proles dying in the US and a few trillion in damages that need to be repaired to the bourgeoisie. I mean they stand to make or lose everything if they can't stop China. If they could nuke China and survive themselves they're looking at hegemony for the rest of this century and capitalism continuing well into next.
Even better for them and worse for us, as climate change accelerates it will turn the screws on most places that aren't the US. It will put at a permanent disadvantage all their major competitors/enemies such as India, the whole Asia region, etc. It will create masses of desperate people, empty land, death, and a suffering world whose desperation they can exploit even harder due to the worsened conditions making migration more common and migrants more desperate. The only other country that will sort of benefit like the US is Russia but frankly I don't see them rising as any kind of real challenge unless they go communist again and if the US takes out China they'll do their damnedest to prevent or blunt any type of communist revolution in Russia and prefer the status quo at at that point Russia will be encircled anyways waiting for the right moment where they can do a decapitating strike on its government and splinter it into pieces.
400 nukes would do far more damage. Just the 100 most populous U.S. cities have about 67 million people, or 20% of the U.S. population. And that itself dramatically understates the immediate effects of nuclear strikes on those cities, because a bunch of the next most populous U.S. cities are right by where the nukes would land (Frisco, TX, #101 on that list, would have a real bad time if nukes landed on Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Plano, all in the top 100).
And that still leaves 300 nukes to strike military bases, carrier groups, and smaller population centers (again, baking in the overgenerous assumption that the U.S. could shoot down 1 in 5 nukes). And there would be worldwide fallout and environmental destruction. And killing well probably closer to a third or half the U.S. population, in addition to losing every major economic hub, would likely end the country's ability to function anything like it does now.
In short, you aren't remotely close to the reality of a nuclear exchange. It just might be possible that the PRC's strategists have a better handle on effective deterrence than someone on the internet who thinks 500 nukes would be basically a bump in the road.
So what if the USA loses 20%? All it does it change the calculus for US capitalists a little bit. It is still a great deal for deleting China.
You are confusing the rather ambiguous definition of a "city" in the USA with the actual distribution of people in said "city". US city populations aren't distributed like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, they're much more spread out (Even then, the US's bombs weren't enough to kill everyone in the municipal city area). Because of US sprawl, it doesn't take just one 0.6 megaton warhead to eliminate a city's inhabitants, it takes 4+. For example, New York City technically has ~8 million residents, but it takes ~5 0.6 megaton nukes to cover the entire city. As cities get smaller populations in the USA, they get much more spread out, making this problem worse. As another example, take Virginia Beach, a "city" that is 100% suburbs. Just to kill all residents, it also takes another 4 nukes. At this rate, China will very quickly run out of nukes in a casualty v. casualty exchange with the USA. If we approximate that each city takes ~5 nukes, China can currently only eliminate 20% of the US population at maximum as you estimate.
The problem is that we can apply the same density-maximization to the US nuking China, in which case everything looks much worse. China's cities are much larger, much denser, and there are way more of them. Because China is denser, the US simply gets more bang-for-the-buck per nuke. In that sense, the US could cripple China much faster than the other way around by killing many more people with way fewer nukes.
In my calculations, I assume that both nations seek full elimination of the other. As I explained in my other post, over time there are diminishing returns per nuke as nations run out of dense population targets and trend toward sparser targets. That is why I calculated using average population density.
I have already addressed the environmental destruction / nuclear winter talking point below. In short, new research, experiences from the Kuwaiti oil well fires and various wildfires, and the switch from flammable wood to nonflammable concrete and steel in city buildings combine to show that nuclear winter simply would be nowhere as severe as initially predicted in the 1980s. Fallout from nuclear bombs only lasts around a week due to short half-lives. Assuming decent amounts of prior preparation of necessary supplies and tech in hardened bunkers (which major Cold War countries did kinda do before), it is survivable, especially if China only kills 20% of the US population in certain centralized cities. At current, there are plenty of Wyoming farmers who would survive unscathed, put up some greenhouses, and weather out the storm.
Previously, China could get away with low nuclear bomb counts because it could depend on Russia and/or court the West. Now they can't do that. Russia has its own worries in Europe, and the USA is hellbent on destroying China. The USSR has shown the number of nukes required to go against the USA alone. China is clearly responding to these concerns by building up to at least 1000 nukes, which should increase the cost to the US to ~30% of its population based on your estimates. I see no downsides with such an act.
You're on another planet lol
They have a point though. The capitalists primarily care about dollar signs and weapons
"Capitalists care about money above all else" is not a novel observation.
The point is that they are dramatically underestimating the damage 500 nuclear bombs would cause, and using that to argue for something that would make the world less safe (a new nuclear arms race).
Do you really think the capitalists themselves fully understand their inhumanity or evil or the destructive potential of even a single nuclear bomb? That's mostly or partially a rhetorical question than a literal one.
Building up nuclear weapons is to safeguard and reduce the chance of this conflict escalating, or at least scaring the imperialists into being slightly more reasonable.
War isn't a bed of roses, and obviously all of this will be incredibly dangerous and expensive and soul-wrenching.
But the west NEEDS the global south to agonize and belly-ache over the morality of all this, because if we don't, then we all but won already, given the superiority of socialism's drive and production over capitalism. Refusing to play their game gets us all killed, and I refuse to have the Global South be victim-blamed, when it's the imperialist nutjobs forcing us all into this situation.
No one is saying to approach this with no safeguards or extensive processes, but if we aren't collectively willing to do whatever it takes, we have already lost. Do you really think the bad guys aren't itching to obliterate all of humanity if they think they have no other option? They have to be beaten down and outmatched before they can strike.
Listen, your entire argument is fundamentally flawed from the get go. You are looking at nukes as if they only kill people. Your analysis does nothing to account for infrastructural damage. Primarily energy and communications. China wouldn't even need 100 nukes to land to wipe out 80% of the US population. They could do it with a dozen or so.
The energy grid of the US is so dilapidated that the destruction of 9 key substations would wipe out power for almost the entire country. Estimates that it would be 18 months before power was restored. In that time is estimated 80% of the population would die. The country would be in absolute chaos. They couldn't fight a war because the population would be tearing itself apart just trying to survive. Most people couldn't even cook a meal without electricity. Houses, stoves, etc. are designed for it anymore. Water treatment, refrigeration, etc. without power then manufacturing goes out the window.
Even if they didn't hit those exact substations, a couple hundred nukes would still do so much damage to the grid that it would take years to begin restoring electricity to the country in any reasonable level. When the country fall apart that bad the military itself will fall apart. Cut off supply to every ship and base outside of the US landmass and see how long they hold up. See if the USs vassal states stay loyal when the home country is literally ripping itself to pieces for their neighbors canned food.
You obsession with nuclear deterrents being solely about how many people die in the initial blasts has no basis on reality. People are not just little NPCs standing around waiting to be ordered to do a thing. They need infrastructure and resources to survive.
I think you're missing the point. Obviously people aren't NPC's and need resources, but having a huge arsenal of ready nuclear weapons is way more intimidating for the imperialists than a small group of 10.
Do you have some reading about those 9 key substations?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020104579433670284061220
https://spectrum.ieee.org/attack-on-nine-substations-could-take-down-us-grid
Where in my comment did I say they needed to reduce their nuclear arsenal, or only have 10? I simply said they don't need as many as this person is claiming they need. That their argument is fundamentally flawed because they are looking at nuclear deterrents as only the direct impact to immediate population size. That if you can't turn the whole of the US into glass it somehow means you don't have enough nukes to defeat them. When, in fact, the ramifications of nuclear warheads is much greater then just immediate dead bodies. If you destroy enough infrastructure to cause 80% of the population to be gone in less than 2 years you have effectively destroyed that country. Especially a country like the US that can barely rebuild its infrastructure under its current situation. Let alone one in which it's been hit with multiple nuclear warheads.
I meant as a counterexample or a point of phrase, I'm aware that your argument wasn't to reduce China's nuclear arsenal, I was speaking to the character of your argument by a related hypothetical.
I'm also aware of the extreme ramifications of nuclear weapons, but my point was that when it comes to psychopaths like the bourgeoisie, what scares them is a force that hits them where it hurts that they understand.
In the same way that someone may be an evil monster that wants to wantonly murder people, the threat and efficacy of a socialist police force prevents them.
This is how you get useless arms races that suck up resources and manpower that could be used to support the population and economy.
How in the fuck is building up a method of attack and deterrence useless? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely asking. When the very existence of human civilization, humanity itself, life on Earth, the biosphere, and practically everything humanity knows and loves is at stake, then fundamentally no price is too high.
I wager that China is large enough (as in population wise, labor-force wise, financially, natural resource-rich, and geopolitically allied with and has arguably the best and largest most skillfully-pat down scientists, technicians, and supply chains on Earth to accomplish this, and is almost definitely better able to than the Soviet Union was) take care of it's people's population and economy, build socialism, and produce en masse nuclear weapons.
Obviously this shouldn't be the main focus, and no plan for socialism, humanity or the future should hinge on a single plan, and preparing for war, especially nuclear conflict, is always a soul-wrenching experience, and no one hopes that it should come down to it, but how you anyone honestly say that this isn't a worthwhile possibility or a last resort?
The cold calculus of war is a harsh mistress, but avoiding all of this is stupid and wrong. It's incredibly unfair that China and the global south have to put this much forethought and agonizing and picking our battles, and it's bullshit and evil how badly the odds are stacked against us, but I feel that if socialist/anti-imperialist states don't take all of this into account, then we have already lost. We have a responsibility, even if it's unfair and dangerous and cruel, to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
I wager that it would cost more resources, willpower, money, time, and suffering if more nuclear weapons aren't built or if we collectively wait until we have no other option, and then it will be too late.
You have a slight point in regards to not exactly going tit for tat against the imperialists and the west, and not losing sight of the bigger picture, but that isn't an excuse to not do anything, especially when billions of souls and life on Earth are in danger.
You really think the U.S., Britain, France, NATO, and their ilk, aren't just all itching to obliterate all of humanity if the power of the capitalists is even slightly threatened in the coming years and decades?
I take no relish in saying any of this, I am unfortunately extremely sober, and this shit is fucking scary and inhumane, that we are all put in.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "the only way to win, is not to play?"
In this case, a better argument is "if the Global South collectively does nothing, then we almost automatically lose, so we have no choice but to play"
Of course the west wants the Global South to agonize over this, because the west are inhumane evil monsters. Having a conscience is extremely difficult, in regards to war. If China or the rest of humanity bellyaches and overly worries about right or wrong about whether or not to build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons, then the west has already one before the conflict has begun. The only way to win is to embrace the danger carefully and intelligently, lest all of our efforts are for nothing.
If I was an advisor or somehow had Xi Jinping's ear, I would explain all of this. China is already in efforts to massively scale up it's building/acquisition of nuclear weapons, to get at least several hundred more, which is a good start, but I think that can or should be kicked already into overdrive.
I'm open to discussion and I'm not saying I'm 100 percent right or immovable, and I don't presume to know more than Xi or the CPC or the Global South.
Edit: Wow, stepped on some toes.
Survival isn't useless
It's getting extremely difficult to have any sympathy for these Ukra-Nazis.
Of course it goes without saying, Ukraine or Ukrainians aren't the problem, and Ukraine isn't a race, and obviously people are individuals, and the Ukrainian government is a fascist state that has millions of people hostage, and constantly lies to them, abuses them and uses them as cannon fodder or fleshlights, and it's simultaneously unfortunate and horrific and evil, yet slightly reasonable for many Ukrainians to have an antagonistic attitude towards Russians for daring to liberate them from Amerikkkan-NATO imperialism and dismantling their decades-old lies and horseshit capitalist propaganda, and we shouldn't let some nutjobs allow us to overgeneralize millions of people.
But with that all being said, on Twitter, it seems many Ukrainians are ungreatful, selfish, monsterous, manipulative, twisted, evil, whiny bastards that are mad that their government and their racism is being challenged. Just like Zionists, Ukra-Nazis pretend to speak for all Ukrainians (Or Jews, as it were) and act like such innocent victims being forced to commit atrocities because the U.S. somehow put a gun to their heads and collectively forced them to, but Jesus Christ, I'm starting to think that the more of these Ukra-Nazis that get put in the ground, the better it is overall for humanity.
This, just this, I don't give a shit anymore, I just want Urkonazis to get what's coming to them and for that terrorist country to be finally put to rest, at this point they aren't even just a regional threat, but a global one which needs to be put out like a plague as soon as possible.
Mali can testify about the global threat part. Apparently the Ukronazis have enough extra resources to help terrorists attack Mali's army.
least delusional nuclear war fan
Tell that to the capitalists. No one is pushing for nuclear war. It's stupid to not consider every single last resort.
I am the least delusional, thank you. Can't say the same for you.