this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
115 points (82.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26734 readers
1509 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

(page 3) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

World war III and after that NATO countries occupying Russia. Probably quite some people die and things get destroyed in the process.

I think if they're smart they destabilize the regime and go for Putin. And not fight the whole country and population of Russia.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Russia is obliterated shortly followed by Russian nukes shortly followed by the end of humanity as a speicies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FleetingTit@feddit.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

For starters: amassing troops at the russian is a warning.

But I think a coordinated attack by NATO could neutralize all russian air power, at least in the western part. Thus preventing Russia from waging war in Ukraine or making any attacks on NATO countries in return.

Nuclear war is not plausible due to Mutual Assured Destruction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Usernameblankface@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Everyone I've read here is talking about Russia immediately launching their nukes, but among so many nations, surely several would think to do something sneaky to disarm the nukes before anyone launches a full-on attack against Russia.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›