“Basically, there would be no winners after a nuclear war.”
Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that Russian INTEND TO WIN a nuclear war as that has been their stated policy since at least the 1970s and that is why they’re so well prepared.
But I guess if we’re not going to believe the above, who’s ever left here will find out the hard way.
Some factoids:
1) SALT and START treaties greatly reduced the warhead inventory on both sides. The Nuclear Winter scenario of decades ago was likely not valid, but regardless of that, inventory size today is very much smaller than then. Currently about 5500 nuclear warheads US, 6400 Russian, and a solid 10% of both sides are theater tactical, aka, very low yield.
2) Miltary officers do not target civilians. The Russian schools for officers are almost all attachments to civilian universities. About 5 are seperate. This is essentially identical to US ROTC and Academies. Orders to attack cities/civilian targets are judged illegal in the US and Russia curricula both. Washington DC would be wiped out because of Pentagon proximity. Ditto Moscow because of defense bases surrounding. Moscow would do far better than DC because of the shelters described. The US doesn’t fund that stuff nearly at all.
3) Ukraine officers went to the Russian schools. The generals on both sides were classmates. They all know exactly how this plays out, on both sides.
4) This is the first war with superb quality satellite recon on both sides. All the propaganda talk of which weapons are doing well and which are crap (usually text created to influence the next Indian buy) is largely inconsequential. The weapons matter almost not at all. The recon is everything. Troops can’t move without being seen. Targets are specified by both sides from satellite imagery. This has never ever ever happened before in the history of mankind.