• josefo@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My bet is, if Putin dares to drop a single nuke, he will get assassinated. Lot of secret service agents, and other enthusiasts are straight up going to try that. During war that’s allowed right?

    • sunstoned@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think if you’re assassinating a public figure you’re a little past caring about what’s “allowed”

      • josefo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was taking about like, it’s considered a war crime? Skipping the soldiers dying and straight up killing the dude.

      • oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Any major power could easily assasinate the leadership of any other major power, but doing so is taboo for obvious reasons.The nuclear taboo is higher on the list of “things that are not done.”

        Opening the door to actually using nuclear weapons represents a threat to everyone – including the rich and powerful. Whoever is dumb enough to use even a tactical nuke is going to not only find themselves a pariah, they’re going to face coordinated efforts to eliminate the threat they represent by everyone.

        Imagine being in his inner circle: you’d be getting credible offers of “whatever you need and want” to remove Putin from power from every major power on the planet.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Mutually assured destruction is still a thing. We may not be at Cold War levels of insanity, where between the US and Russia there were enough nukes to glass the planet like 150 times over, but plenty of nations have arsenals (especially in Europe), and the best way to make enemies of the entirety of the world would be to be the first one to launch a nuke. Dropping a nuke would signal to every leader in the world that no country is safe from becoming an irradiated wasteland.

      I think if Putin dropped a nuke, his allies would drop him faster than it would take NATO to declare all out war with Russia.

      • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I read this book and it changed my opinion a little. Every scenario ends in a nuclear apocalypse, no matter who started with how much.
        There might be a hero or two refusing to launch down the command line. But should we rely on that?

      • josefo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        My point was, the assassination goal would be him not being able to drop a second one. Also slay the first 100 people in the chain of command and leave them headless.

        Cool thing is that nuclear winter will fight global warming

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Unfortunately, nobody would be able to take him out that quickly. Russia still has plenty of nukes, and they could fire them all before anybody has time to react. If that nuke is an ICBM, though, as soon as it leaves the silo the world would know, and the counter barrage of nukes would be firing up before it even lands.

          I originally meant that dropping a nuke would have the entire world declare war on Russia, even his former allies because no one wants to rule over a pile of radioactive rocks, but thinking about it, his allies would probably be the ones most likely to try to have him assassinated in that situation. A maniac with a big stick is only useful so long as you don’t have to worry about him smacking you with it, too.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Source?

            Seems pretty likely that all those fires would cause a lot of soot that blocks out some of the sunlight, thus causing a global temperature drop

            • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not off hand but the idea is the amount needed to cause one is not as low as previously stated (the 3 large scale bombs being enough was likely off by an order of magnitude).

              The fear of instant nuclear winter was likely more cold war scare then sound science, but the chance of nuclear winter is still there. We just don’t know exactly how many nukes and where would kick one off.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You say that, and yet Exxon-Mobil have proven that actively trying to destroy the world does nothing to turn world leaders away from trying to buddy up with you.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Sure they do, the rest of the universe wins by not having to deal with another species stupid enough to destroy itself.