this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
306 points (96.1% liked)

World News

32121 readers
1210 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What would happen if a non aligned country nukes NATO? I know India is aligning themselves with Russia or atleast the news is presenting it that way but. Would all nuclear armed countries nuke India? Would it cause Russia to Nuke the USA and vice versa or would everyone nuke India or only a back and forth between NATO and India?

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

When India launched their nukes, Pakistan would probably nuke India, fearing they were being targeted. Article 5 gets triggered and every NATO member is at war with India, which might involve nuking them, might not. Russia would probably launch their nukes in response to NATO countries firing their nukes at India because, again, they'd think they might be being targeted. If NATO didn't launch nukes and just carries out a conventional attack on India, Russia probably doesn't get involved militarily.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't believe there would be retaliatory nukes as that would just lead to further retaliation. India would quickly get cut off from international trade and financial systems and become a total pariah. Their only friends would be the other pariah states like ruzzia.

Now if the US got nuked there would definitely be military retaliation.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, it would be much, much worse than that. Nuking a country is a declaration of war and an unprecedented violation of the post-WW2 norms that have prevented global nuclear armageddon. If the nuked country is in NATO, then NATO will absolutely go to war. That's the whole point of NATO. NATO would probably not start with nuclear retaliation, but India would get invaded and/or be forced to capitulate. It would be like Japan after WW2. India would be forced to give up its nukes. Modi and other leaders would be tried as war criminals. Significant adjustments to the Indian constitution would be made. Permanent NATO bases would be established in India. Within a couple of years, India would be allowed to hold elections and self-govern again as a non-nuclear NATO ally, which would both protect it from Pakistan or China and make it entirely dependent on NATO for that protection.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm surprised the other person is downplaying the consequences of a nuclear strike. If they actually followed through with this then India would be glass in thirty minutes

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I simply disagree. Canada has no nukes of our own so in order to "glass" India, one of the other nuclear powers would have to take that step which then opens them up for retaliation. I just don't know if I trust the commitment of other NATO countries to commit that hard.

Think about it, if India nuked Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely attempt to nuke anyone else that attempts to punish them for that. Now if you're a NATO country other than Canada, are you willing to get yourself nuked as well? I just don't know if anyone else would put themselves in that position.

The reality of the situation is that India would never do something so crazy so it's pointless to speculate about what the response would be.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US would retaliate before the nuke even landed in Canada. The Monroe doctrine is still in effect.

[–] nathris@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol the US will invade not because they are our ally, but because they believe they are the only ones that are allowed to attack Canada.

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Nah - they’d retaliate (not necessarily nuclear) as they don’t like nukes in their part of the world.
This is assuming the subs could fire their nukes, that the rockets would go where intended and the nukes not being intercepted.
Recent events shows that there’s a difference between testing weapons in controlled environments and using them for real.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great response. I think everything you said is essentially the promise that NATO makes, but as I said to another poster, if India is going to nuke Canada because we accused them of assassination, they will definitely nuke anyone that attacks them. Canada has no nukes of our own, so we couldn't directly retaliate. Now if you're the leader of another NATO country, are you going to risk getting nuked for the sake of NATO? I just don't think anyone else would be willing to step up like that when the shit hits the fan. Think about it... are you willing to risk getting your country nuked for NATO? I just don't know.