This is a huge misconception lots of people have with nuclear bombs. All modern nukes are around 0.5 megatons, so no modern nukes are Tsar Bombas. That means each nuke cannot wipe out more than a ~5 mile radius max.

Humans have already tested more than 2000 nukes and we’re still here.

Here’s the video from Brian Berletic you mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCCh8-nE7Z0

The key source they both are referencing is the NYT bragging about CIA bases in Ukraine: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html

There is no ‘stretch’ about this if even the NYT is talking about it in the open.

The Global South cannot get nukes fast enough. The only way to deter the US is to show that it will get glassed by everyone if it tries any shit.

Luckily the US’s non-existent industry can’t really sustain a prolonged nuclear arms race (e.g. how slow even conventional US munitions are being built). Back in the Cold War, the USA used the nuclear arms race to waste Soviet industrial resources. Now, the Global South can flip the same strategy on the US.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair. However, we must consider the overall situation and recent news. NATO really wants Ukraine to keep wearing down Russia, and causing a nuclear threat to Russia certainly would damage Russia more than Ukraine has been able to do before.

Furthermore, this is consistent with the goals of the previous Kursk offensive. 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. Fool me once, shame on you. Ukraine is not fooling Russia twice.

Mali can testify about the global threat part. Apparently the Ukronazis have enough extra resources to help terrorists attack Mali’s army.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In his free time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an Olympic-medalling free diver, underwater bomb expert, and Polish resident who likes to swim in the middle of the Baltic Sea.

TLDR: China and the Global South are dramatically improving their research quality and quantity, while US research is falling behind because private companies don’t want to fund it and the education required to do it.

As the Global South develops to match/exceed the West, I expect countries’ research outputs to be near-proportional to their population sizes. China has yet more room to grow to 4x the US’s research output to match their population.

It will be an incredible day when China and India make 4x as much research as the US, while Indonesia matches or exceeds the US. If the Global South can form larger collaborative research blocks, we could see country blocks outcompeting the US in research on every level.

They brought enough scuba gear to dive to the bottom of the ocean to plant said explosives too. Definitely not sus looking.

They’re still memeing on this? How the flip did Ukrainians teleport from their mostly-landlocked location in the middle of Europe to the Baltic Sea without full NATO and US support and involvement?

Fucking parasites. I know China already has laws against capital flight, but increasing their strength would never hurt. Why would you ever let people make money in your country, with your infrastructure, then have them fuck off as soon as you ask for some of it back?

If you VPN into Russia and check the Russia Ministry of Defense website (https://eng.mil.ru/), they post daily and weekly reports on the progress of the SMO. If you add up all the Ukrainian troop deaths in their report from 22 – 28 June 2024, you get 13820 deaths in the week, which averages to ~2000 per day. Russia also lists a bunch of armored vehicles and aircraft they blew up, I do not know if casualties from them were included in the troop death counts.

Here’s the full report if anyone’s interested:

From 22 June to 28 June 2024, the Russian Armed Forces have carried out 17 group strikes with high-precision weapons and attack unmanned aerial vehicles. Enemy energy facilities, infrastructure of military airfields, logistics centres for storing weapons delivered by Western countries to the AFU, as well as assembly and storage facilities for attack unmanned aerial vehicles and uncrewed boats.

Temporary deployment areas of AFU troops and foreign mercenaries have been also hit.

Over the past week, the units of the Sever Group of Forces continued to advance into the depths of the enemy defence and inflicted losses on manpower and hardware of three formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, one marine brigade, and three territorial defence brigades.

The AFU losses were up to 1,560 Ukrainian troops, 12 armoured fighting vehicles, and 43 motor vehicles.

In the course of counter-battery warfare, 33 field artillery guns, including seven foreign-made howitzers, three Nota electronic warfare stations, Bukovel-AD, and two U.S.-made AN/TPQ-50 counter-battery radar stations have been eliminated.

The units of the Zapad Group of Forces have improved the tactical situation and inflicted fire damage on four mechanised and two tank brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as on two territorial defence brigades. Six counter-attacks of AFU assault detachments have been repelled.

The AFU losses were up to 3,230 Ukrainian troops, four armoured fighting vehicles, 40 motor vehicles, three Grad MLRS combat vehicles, 24 field artillery guns, six of them were U.S.-made.

In addition, three U.S.-made AN/TPQ-50 and AN/TPQ-37 counter-battery warfare radars, as well as 11 field ammunition depots have been destroyed.

The units of the Yug Group of Forces have liberated Razdolovka (Donetsk People’s Republic) and seized more advantageous lines.

The strikes have been delivered at manpower and hardware of the three mechanised, two airmobile, and two air assault brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The AFU losses were up to 4,410 Ukrainian troops, two tanks, eight armoured fighting vehicles, 48 motor vehicles, and 39 field artillery guns, including 11 U.S.-made M777 and M198 howitzers.

In addition, seven Anklav, Bukovel electronic warfare stations, and 25 field ammunition depots have been destroyed.

The units of the Tsentr Group of Forces have improved the situation along the front line and defeated units of four mechanised, two infantry formations of the AFU and two territorial defence brigades. Enemy 39 counter-attacks have been repelled in this direction during the week.

The AFU losses were up to 2950 troops, three tanks, six armoured fighting vehicles, including two U.S.-made Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, 30 motor vehicles, and 42 field artillery guns, including six U.S.-made M777 howitzers.

The units of the Vostok Group of Forces have improved the tactical situation and inflicted losses on manpower and hardware of two brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, three formations of the Territorial Defence and two National Guard brigades.

The AFU losses were up to 930 Ukrainian troops, six armoured fighting vehicles, 36 motor vehicles, and 19 field artillery guns, including six UK-made FH-70 howitzers.

The units of the Dnepr Group of Forces have defeated units of two formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and three brigades of the Ukrainian Territorial Defence.

The AFU losses were up to 740 Ukrainian troops, three tanks, two armoured fighting vehicles, 48 motor vehicles, and 23 field artillery guns, 11 of them were foreign-made.

In addition, eight Anklav, Bukovel electronic warfare stations, and six ammunition depots have been destroyed.

Operational-Tactical Aviation, unmanned aerial vehicles, Missile Troops and Artillery of the Russian Groups of Forces have destroyed six M142 HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system launchers, one M270 MLRS launcher, and one transport and loader vehicle together with foreign specialists who ensured their use, as well as three P-18 air target detection and tracking radars.

Air defence facilities have shot down two Ukrainian Air Force’s MiG-29 aircraft, 589 unmanned aerial vehicles, six U.S.-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles, eight U.S.-made Patriot anti-aircraft guided missiles, one U.S.-made HARM anti-radiation missile, and 61 U.S.-made HIMARS MLRS projectiles, Czech-made Vampire and Olkha projectiles.

Over the past week, 56 Ukrainian servicemen have surrendered on the line of contact.

In total, 615 airplanes and 276 helicopters, 26,777 unmanned aerial vehicles, 533 air defence missile systems, 16,446 tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, 1,357 combat vehicles equipped with MLRS, 11,020 field artillery guns and mortars, as well as 23,049 units of special military equipment have been destroyed during the special military operation.