Oh yeah? This is precisely the kind of idiocy that put us in this situation in the first place. Here’s a list:
“Today, nine countries are estimated to possess nuclear warheads and have been mentioned below:
Russia - 5,977
The United States - 5,428
China - 350
France - 290
The United Kingdom - 225
Pakistan - 165
India - 160
Israel - 90
North Korea - 20”
https://www.worldatlas.com/modern-world ... apons.html
What about those 5,977 nukes Ralph?
How many nukes does it take to destroy the world Ralph? It doesn’t even matter who fired them or who was targeted. Even readers of the Guardian may be inconvenienced by a very few nukes. And your u tubers. Not even the fabled ‘first strike’ works. This is where your ideas end up:
“Attacks with 100 nuclear weapons are analyzed for their effect on the population of the aggressor nation if nuclear winter/nuclear autumn occurs, due to the disruption of the food supply. In the 100 nuclear explosion case, following [41] with a 0.75-Mt total yield could produce about 7 trillion grams (Tg) of soot, regardless of the target country (excluding island countries). This would be more than sufficient to produce the lowest temperatures Earth has experienced in the past 1000 years—lower than during the post-medieval Little Ice Age or in 1816, the so-called year without a summer.”
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/02/28/s ... the-world/
And I don’t think Russia wants to be ‘placated’ Ralph. It just doesn’t want NATO nuclear capable missiles on its doorstep.
Kinda like that Cuban missile business?