Nuclear Weapons Aren’t Built to be Used
Nuclear weapons initially made war vastly more complex. But later, hopeless for conquerors.
A nuclear weapon is a prime example of our greedy nations’ lust for the biggest and brightest — whether this was for defensive purposes, ideals, or paranoia is up for debate. Regardless of the reasons, it’s also a prime example of that fallacious endeavour exploding in their faces.
Nuclear weapons were an attempt at making and controlling the biggest stick, and yet, once created, we realized it annihilates everything we wish to achieve with said stick.
“In nuclear war, all men are cremated equal,” Dexter Gordon.
As Dexter Gordon explains in this apt quote, nuclear war, now, is the last thing world leaders want. This means Putin, this means Biden, and it even means Kim Jong-un – even if he fails to realize this. In a nuclear war with North Korea, for instance, the entire country would be turned to glass, and the dust in the atmosphere from such destruction would create nuclear winter.
Nuclear winter can occur with 100 megatons of explosives. To put that into perspective, if the Americans fired 21 of their LGM-30 Minuteman Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, then we would have a nuclear winter, and all the plant matter on earth would die. Which essentially means we would all die. It is possible some people could live underground and grow plants with light, but glaciers would proliferate, and it would only be a matter of time before they were either killed, crushed, or turned into mole people — forced to live in darkness and lick damp walls for slime and sustenance. Something the collective world and even its inept elites quiver at.
21 Ballistic Missiles is no arbitrary number. It could easily take that number to wipe out the threat of North Korean nukes. If North Korea hit South Korea first, it would cause nuclear winter. This is sparsely considering what China would do if their cist of a vassal state ceased to exist.
This is why the US is developing B-21 Raiders and other stealthy craft to penetrate deep into enemy territory and deliver devastating blows with conventional weaponry. The US could potentially destroy all launch sites in North Korea before they could nuke anyone. But North Korea allegedly has an ICBM sub, which means regardless of what you do to the mainland, there could be megatons of reprisals lurking in the sea.
That brings us to Putin’s Russia. The US could not take out Russian nuclear potential before devastating missiles took flight. This is due to Boomers. There are nuclear-powered subs which are often confused with their armageddon capable counterparts: ICBM subs or boomers. ICBM subs are the ones that are capable of decimating seaboards.
ICBM subs guarantee MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) through their anonymity. Countries never know for sure where all the enemies’ nuclear-armed subs are. And since these subs can fire vast distances and often have orders to fire if they don’t receive communications from their homeland, it means the end of the planet if nuclear war is attempted. The Russian Borei class, for instance, has 16 × RSM-56 Bulava SLBMs with 6 MIRV warheads. One of these subs can obliterate a third of the United States in one volley. Russia has 5 of these subs.
Known and verified boomers (ICBM submarines) of the world:
- France — Triomphant class
- China — Type 092 submarine
- India — Arihant class
- Russia — Borei class
- United Kingdom — Vanguard class
- United States — Ohio class
Again, it’s speculated that North Korea has a boomer, but whether it’s capable is debatable.
These subs have essentially made war between superpowers obsolete. This is due to the fact that at any moment, the losing superpower can throw the game board. A superpower can destroy the other country and, subsequently, our planet’s ability to sustain life. Nobody wants this; no elite, family, or billionaire would vote for this if they knew it would mean their subsequent deaths. Yet, pushed into a corner, some leader may be crazy enough to try it.
That being said, they would never do anything to risk nuclear war without being overtly provoked. This is why we’ve seen a major rise in proxy wars since the 50s.
Some could argue the war in Ukraine is a proxy war for NATO and its interests. But many more would say it’s not that simple. Proxy wars are fought essentially for the gains of superpowers using vassal countries’ people and wealth. The west has successfully shown it can provide better for its citizens and is, therefore, more desirable. Couple this with Russia attacking its underlings, and you have a situation where a country has no choice but to leverage the west against whatever Russian foreign policy has mutated into in the last two decades.
The EU should do more to speed the war up and oust the invaders. Yet, this common viewpoint provokes criticism, including rebuttals like:
“Putin will use nukes if Germany and Poland help defend Ukraine and push invaders out with fresh divisions,” the misinformed.
This is unequivocally wrong. Putin wouldn’t dare. It would be different if the EU was assaulting Russian soil. But that’s not what many other analysts and I are suggesting. We simply want to end the war by means of direct conflict with EU nations. This would push the invaders out of Ukrainian soil, and that would be that. Russia would have no choice but to retreat, and they have no means to fight on other fronts. They have proven they are a paper tiger with horrendously inept leadership.
Why do many analysts want more war to end the war? Because people are dying in a stalemate on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides. It’s horrible to watch and unnecessary. Furthermore, both countries are spending fortunes trying to pound each other into submission. Something that will take an absurd amount of death and destruction to achieve. Neither is close to their goals.
If actual divisions entered and assisted Ukraine, Putin would not use nukes because Germany and Poland wouldn’t use said weapons on his forces. Furthermore, it would risk nuclear war with NATO, which, again, nobody wants.
So, here we see again a situation where a regional power could use nuclear weapons for their gains but doesn’t. They never will, so long as other countries threaten them with the same blight.
Nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction have ushered in a strange era of peace. Much like Nikola Tesla’s Death Ray idea, the same goal is achieved. Countries have far more to lose than gain in any conflict with nuclear-wielding nations and their allies.
Real strategists of the day use influence to rage wars. NATO beat Russia by winning over its vassals. They created a more hospital environment for their citizens and spread that message throughout the earth.
On the contrary, If you nuke a neighbour, your worldly influence is shattered. Much like attacking a neighbour, you swore to protect if they decommissioned their nuclear weapons. This is the real irony of the War in Ukraine.
Russia swore to protect Ukraine if they decommissioned their nuclear weapons. Fast forward 20 years later, and Russia broke said agreement by annexing Crimea, a peninsula that was given to Ukraine 60 years ago by a Khrushchev-led Soviet Union.
Would Russia have invaded if Ukraine had ICBM submarines? Or even elusive ICBM silos? It’s tough to say because nobody wants to be the first to use a nuke. But this is certain; it would have been a much harder decision for Putin to attack a nuclear-capable country.
All this nonsense about Russia feeling like they are threatened by a NATO-supported Ukraine is insane. NATO is winning without invading, shooting, or nuking. They don’t need Ukraine, but they won’t turn them away. If someone wants to join NATO, that’s good for NATO. They no longer need air bases, nukes in Turkey, or interceptors. NATO has won, Russia is in their net, and anything Russia tries to do militarily will incentivize NATO cooperation.
The crisis in Ukraine may have seemed like a digression, but it all substantiates the same narrative. It has proven that neither Russia will use nuclear weapons first nor will NATO unless pushed to the brink of total destruction. If Russia truly believed its excuse for the conquest of its neighbours and truly felt threatened, the leaders would have threatened more nuclear reprisals than they have. Instead, we hear lie after lie, “Nazis, dirty bombs, Satanists.” This is not a country that feels threatened enough to initiate MAD and destroy the planet via nuclear retaliation. The truth is, no country would resort to nukes unless they were on the brink of desolation.
Nuclear weapons aren’t built to be used. Nuclear weapons are the most significant proprietors of peace this dusty space rock has ever seen. The next time someone says an invading country will use a nuclear weapon on land they hope to conquer, please send them this article. It’s the stupidest thing a superpower could do and corrupts everything it hopes to gain in conquest.
