It isn’t a secret, really. It is their position. They aren’t saying that surviving a nuclear war means civilization goes on, just that there will be some very miserable people who would survive and they would eventually rebuild civilization.
From Grok.
Russian leadership and military doctrine suggest a belief that nuclear war, while catastrophic, is survivable to some extent. Their strategic posture emphasizes deterrence but also includes plans for continuity of government and societal survival post-conflict. The 2020 nuclear doctrine prioritizes deterrence and retaliation, implying a structured response to nuclear scenarios. Russia’s extensive network of bunkers, like those beneath Moscow, and historical civil defense programs indicate preparations for post-nuclear survival, rooted in Soviet-era strategies. Public statements from figures like Putin frame nuclear use as a last resort, but the rhetoric also conveys confidence in Russia’s resilience.
On the flip side, some analysts argue this stance is more about projecting strength than genuine optimism about surviving a full-scale nuclear exchange. Modern nuclear arsenals, including Russia’s, could cause unprecedented global devastation, and no nation could fully “survive” in a meaningful sense. Russian military writings acknowledge the catastrophic humanitarian and economic toll, suggesting a more nuanced view internally.
Answer: The short answer is no—there's no real “winning” in a nuclear conflict between powers. A first strike might aim to cripple an opponent's ability to retaliate, but the reality is that most nuclear-armed nations maintain a “second-strike capability.” This means they have enough hidden or mobile nuclear weapons (like submarines or stealth bombers) to launch a devastating counterattack even after being hit.
Historically, the Cold War highlighted the dangers of this strategy. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union feared a first strike from the other, leading to an arms race and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was simple but terrifying: if one side launched, both would be annihilated.
Even today, experts argue that the risks of escalation, global fallout, and catastrophic humanitarian consequences make any potential “benefit” of a first strike meaningless. It's a grim reminder of why diplomacy and disarmament are so crucial.
Iirc China and India had a standoff a while back.
India’s statement to China was something vto the effect
Nuclear war would be devastating. However vthere are many more of us than you. India will survive. You won’t.
Don’t try us.