posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by ArMaP
First of all, the population of Russia is only a third of the USA, and with almost twice the land mass there ‘less to lose’. If the next big
battle goes nuclear, I don’t think anybody wants worldwide annihilation, so a few small strategic nukes will be launched. This would be at certain
major cities to cripple the enemy country. That would leave the rest of the country to regather itself and restart. A large part of Russia is
currently unpopulated. Should there be a Nuclear strike on say Moscow, a lot of the people could move up north or East, away from the disaster.
If Russia has 14000 nukes, (operational or not) they would have to have had a back up plan. Since this many would clearly be overkill, and nobody want
to wipe themselves out, my guess is that they have shelters to cater for a fair proportion of the population.
Failing that plan, if there is no back up, and things did go nuclear, maybe they have that many so there will be no chance of ANY survival so an
attack on Russia is a suicide move.
Like I said, if they are pushed hard enough, maybe they will go down that path.
Even if there were survivors, Russia has not made big claims of being the most powerful nation etc so they have ‘less to lose’ by way of
credibility as well.
The final reason I say they have ‘less to lose’ is (again supposing there are survivors) that they are self sufficient with oil and gas supplied,
where to US are largely dependant on the M.E. which by all likelihood is where much of the next ‘big war’ or Nuking will be. If they lose access
to that region due to nukes they will be without their supplies. Meaning they potentially have more to lose on that front.
This is just my theory so feel free to attack it in any way you like, just don’t be looking for hard evidence to support it.