@Elessar 1) Every major population center would not be taken out. Not even close.
2) Most leaders, at least in the West would be in bunkers well before the bombs went off.
3) Virtually every business HQ ... again no.
The vast majority of targets in the West would be military targets, not population centers. Russia doesn't have enough warheads to take out both military targets and population centers. I know you're close to Aviano so you might be at risk, but you have to understand how vast NATO is from Pearl Harbor to Warsaw.
@sarabee1995 Well, Venice is not too close, but assuming they'll drop a Topol (800kt), surface burst and right wind conditions (N/E, 15mph) I should get fairly tanned and crispy
@badlands Commenting here based on the current world hot spots... six months ago or six months from now the situation was or could be very different.
So, a nuclear exchange today would almost certainly begin with Russia No one else in the world is threatening the use of nukes.
It is very unlikely that Russia today would launch a full scale nuclear attack (if you disagree, then ask me why). An attack today is far more likely to be a limited attack within the current theater of battle.
The response from Ukraine would be insignificant. The response from NATO would be massive and almost instant. A nuclear strike anywhere close to NATO territory (i.e. Ukraine) will be treated as an attack on NATO. But the response would not be nuclear. It would be conventional. But massive, quick, and and decisive.
@Diotrephes people should be held accountable for Putin's actions just because they were born in Russia? 🤨 I think threatening with genocide against Russians will only motivate him more to strike first and strike hard.
