How would a limited nuclear strike on lets say a military target affect the economy in the UK? Say for example Putin hit a submarine base in Scotland with a limited lower yield , perhaps 5 times the power of the Hiroshima one. Would that create a collapse in the economy , house prices, and a crash on the pound etc. The UK seems the most likely target at present.
Iâm no expert on the housing market, but if nukes are getting thrown around and we head into WWIII, I doubt resale value of a flat will be a top concern.
Incidentally, Biden does have a bit of a donât-give-a-sh&t swagger lately. I donât think Moscow would be wise to test him out right now. And if Moscow starts throwing around nukes when DJT becomes President . . . then weâll know weâre really into a new era.
Guy
1 Like
Doesnât answer your question, but have you seen this movie? I watched it a few nights ago, fairly interesting (though I had a bit of trouble getting over the datedness).
2 Likes
My god that was a terrifying topic to see. âI read a novel for 30 minutes and THIS happens?!â
EDIT: Thread title has now changed and no longer suggests world-shattering events have just occurred in the British Isles.
2 Likes
Companies would add an extra surcharge onto everything. Just because.
Agencies would spring up offering work cleaning up the radioactive sites. If you die on the job, your family can claim for a bag of crisps.
Labour would refuse to help with the clean up blaming the 22 billion pound blackhole left by the conservatives.
The locals would flock to the blast site and dump their old sofas and fridges.
The place would be classified as uninhabitable, bought up by the PMâs brother in law and turned into a refugee center.
10 Likes
Gifted. And then repaid
1 Like
And then an explanation that he in fact saved the taxpayers money.
You forgot the part where politicians on both sides open companies in their relativesâ names and award them lucrative contracts for fallout filters and potassium iodide tablets, while flipping their second home allowance so they could renovate two properties and fix the radiation damage.
3 Likes
Ive changed the title back to a UK military site which is far more likely than !ondon. Please leave the title as it was. An attack on London is unlikely as that would require a reciprocal attack on Moscow. The UK would only do a reciprocal attack on a Russian military facility.
The results in my opinion would be a drop on the pound a rise in Gold to record levels. An increase in stock value for any companies who deal with radioactive waste , pottasium iodide etc. Grounded airline flights due to a small electromagnetic pulse. Possibly a surge in the purchase of land in somewhere like Cornwall.
Dingies with British people might try and do a channel crossing to France.
Yes, i was shown this at school lol
3 Likes
It depends on whether Russia uses the 500 meter high tsunami option. 
But seriously, it isnât going to happen.
2 Likes
It might well happen now or perhaps conventional first on UK. The crew launching them are also British.
Ukraine launches British Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time | World | News | Express.co.uk.
NATO only responds from an attack not to a retalitery attack.
1 Like
Two black holes ha, both made by men
Jesus there is no reason to use a nuke if youâre looking for precision 
Just use large conventional missiles, they do the job just as well and donât ruin your relationship with the rest of the world irreparably
Stellar film. I think the datedness added to it for me as it made it feel more like some sort of dramatized government production âthis is what happens if we get nukedâ with all the headlines and stats and such. Not a happy one, but definitely worthwhile.
1 Like
There is no such thing as a limited nuclear strike on a NATO country. One rocket in the air will trigger a chain reaction that will end the world we know. Few pockets of survivors here and there who will band together trying to stay alive.
Now, if they target Ukraine, the West will not strike back with nukes, but they surely will take out Putin one way or other.
Yes you can it even has a specicial name called a tactical nuclear strike."
They are lower kiloton and have much less radiation.
Yes the west would not go all out nuclear in retataliation but maybe use a tactical nuke to take out a deep underground arms base. Then there would be calls from all sides to cease fire immediately by the UN.
there is nothing tactical about the usage of a preemptive nuclear strike. That would be strategic.
Take the below example on the topic of air power as a guide for term usage. It comes from the blog of a professor of military history, and while it doesnât really deal much with nuclear weapons (linked, on nuclear deterrence). He primarily focuses on ancient military history, but also does teach more introductory level courses on modern subjects.
if you use aircraft to attack enemy units in support of a ground operation (like an invasion), that would be tactical airpower; the airpower is a tactic that aims to win a battle which is still primarily a ground (or naval) battle. We often call this kind of airpower âclose air supportâ but not all tactical airpower is CAS. If you instead use airpower to shape ground operations â for instance by attacking infrastructure (like bridges or railroads) or by bombing enemy units to force them to stay put (often by forcing them to move only at night) â thatâs operational airpower. The most common form of this kind of airpower is âinterdictionâ bombing, which aims to slow down enemy ground movements so that friendly units can out-maneuver them in larger-scale sweeping movements.
By contrast strategic airpower aims to produce effects at the strategic (that is, top-most) level on its own. Sometimes that is quite blunt: strategic airpower aims to win the war on its own without reference to ground forces, or at least advance the ball on winning a conflict or achieving a desired end-state (that is, the airpower may not be the only thing producing strategic effects). Of course strategic effects can go beyond âwinning the warâ â coercing or deterring another power are both strategic effects as well, forcing the enemy to redefine their strategy
Ergo, tactical nukes = winning an ongoing battle, or attacking a tactical objective. Ideally used in close proximity both ones own soldiers and the enemy. There is, therefore, nothing tactical about the usage towards a noncombat state.
This could be considered operational; destroying an enemy base would be an operational usage, but ultimately this would not truly fit the reasoning behind using it.
Thus, this would be a strategic use of nukes. The idea being to keep GB out of the war by nuking it into fear. It aims to effect a peace.
Problematically, even at the level of destruction of the real - but never used, and generally just kinda a bad idea âtactical nukesâ - it almost certainly will not accomplish the goal of positively delivering the desired aim.
It instead takes one of two paths:
- Putin v. The World
Or
- nuclear escalation. Need not explain this; falls under the umbrella of MAD.
Fundamentally, the idea of a tactical nuclear weapon is rather silly anyhow. They target an area, as you said, multitudes larger than those dropped on Japan. And those were already honestly well beyond tactical usage. I can think of very few examples where a tactical nuclear bomb usage would be sensible, and even fewer where it would be strategically justifiable.
You might win the battle, but if youâre already at the point where youâve turned to nuclear weapons to save your armies⌠Youâve probably got much bigger problems than just that battle to start, and those problems are going to get much, much worse after dropping a nuclear weapon.
Very pin-pointyâŚ
Deciding to go nuclear, whatever the size of the bomb, is declaring all-out war, the last resort. No turning back. Total annihilation. There is a reason why no one has tried since WW2.
You can have this discussion for an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon and dealing with the aftermath but not for a preemptive strike.
2 Likes
Does this look like a country that will fare well in a nuclear exchange? Looks more like: farewell.
Source: x.com
Guy
1 Like