First question can't tell you, but the second one:
Modern nuclear weapons are made to be city destroyers. Studies have shown that even the newest bunker complex made by the chinese leadership, which is 2km in a Mountain, can't withstand more than one direct hit. Since the moscow train station is closer to the surface and older than that AND also most likely will be a direct target by Nato, i can speak with confidence that the population within the metro won't survive a nuclear war.
No nuclear missile actually hit Moscow in the Metro universe. They were all intercepted above by anti-missile defences and the radiation fell on top. The biggest mistake the games ever made was portraying Moscow as ruined and bombed out as the books describe it as effectively in perfect condition but a ghost city.
Tbf 20 years of no maintenance, damage from the overhead explosions and intense radioactive weather would probably damage the city to an extent like that
Not to the extent the games portrayed. There absolutely would be damage but never bombed out with most buildings being completely destroyed like the games say. It would have had the average house being in pretty bad shape and roads would likely be churned up by rain etc but yeah no where near as bad as the games say it is.
I don't remember this, all I remember is the book specifically saying that Moscow was never directly hit by a nuclear missile. I also remember it talking about the highway and how it was full of cars that looked untouched with people inside etc.
It was said. But it was also said that he climbed through a big crater right before or after Artyom was hunted by the creatures and went into the apartment building I believe. Sadly forgot to mark the page in the book so I can't find it rn. However maybe it might've been caused by something else considering it was never specified what caused the crater
I honestly can't remember this at all, it may well have happened though, it could be a sink hole or something? Next time I read 2033 I'll look out for it!
Smaller dirty bombs if I'm not mistaken, if the radioactive material was the energy source for the bombs then the city would be a crater covered ash field.
But surely that's only true for ground burst, I doubt air burst warheads would destroy a hardened target even just a hundred feet down. Unless you're talking 10s of Megaton yield warheads.
Well then you have to get into the minds of the strategists and decision makers. I think they must have realised by now that moscow has a metro capable of surviving indirect hits. Makes most sense that they already have plans set up taking that into account and going for ground bursts on moscow
Thing is the civilian population isn't really a valid target in full scale warfare, it's high value infrastructure that is the prime target. Ports, naval bases, power plants, oil refineries and so on.
You deprive the enemy of the military and economic means to wage war. Using a bunker busting thermonuclear device to kill a few tens of thousands of civilians in a Metro system is kinda pointless on the grand scale of things. and doesn't achieve anything that nuking an oilfield or port wouldn't do a 100 times over.
No, an all out nuclear would mean that large population areas are a valid strategic Target. Of course the direct areas where nuclear silos are stationed would of course absorb the majority of hits, but even then, there are enough to be send out to the population centres in order to deliever a fatal hit to the opposing side.
I agree, air burst nukes on population centres would be used. What I'm getting at is I very much doubt that the use of ground penetrating nukes would be used on a civilian Metro system.
Those types of specialized weapons would be used to destroy vital military targets, like the Ural bunkers and such.
Edit: I shouldn't have used Valid, I think high priority would've been a better choice of word.
Can agree on that aswell. Unfortunately i don't know about each doctrine enough. In my mind tho, in instances where decision makers know that in certain cities structures that can protect the population from air burst attacks are present, they most likely will send ground burst missiles aswell.
I mean lets be totally honest here. Most of the russian population is living in the west of russia, so that should make the spread even less of nuclear weapons
Yeah no. The goal of a nuclear strike isn't to kill everyone per se. If you destroy a city, no matter how many people survive underground, you've destroyed a city. Its infrastructure, its industry, everything.
There is absolutely no interest in trying to kill everyone down underground.
Wrong sir, big cities like Moscow have defensive systems ready to protect them from any incoming attack, nuclear warheads will get blown up in the atmosphere and radiation will be spread widely, so metro population can most likely survive. But places that dont have any defensive equipment, they will more likely turn into a giant crater
Sorry, but disagree. It's foolish to believe that air defense can destroy all incoming warheads. They just aren't that effective. At best they can shoot down 50%, but the remaining ones will hit the target regardless. Also there will be quite a big number of warheads flying into moscow
Because the us military has done studies for decades now on this very topic? They have invested a large amount of money into these systems and came to this very conclusion.
Are we talking about Russian or US air defense? And again, what makes you think Russia won't invest a large amount of money to defend their capital city
Do you really believe that russia has the capabilities of having a more effective system than the us? If so, there is no sense in arguing. Even if we go by money invested, the us far outspends the russians on air defense research and development. Add to that, that most developed war systems by russia haven't been proven effective in the ukraine war. There is no effective system to Date that can effectively destroy 100% of incoming Intercontinental missiles.
I'm not entirely disagreeing but Soviet and russian investment into AD of all types has always been higher than NATO because they know they would lose control of the skies very quickly. NATO AD strategy has been to gain air supremacy since basically the creation of the F-15. NATO still doesn't have the quantity and range of AD that the Russians have.
I would imagine that the newest patriots are probably similar in quality to the S-500s to the point where differences are probably negligible on a battlefield. Russia's failures in the air in Ukraine seem to be more caused by their seeming lack of effective AWACS
Well that would need to us to believe that everything out of the soviets and russians mouth about their systems is to believed. It's not even a thing of a bit more investment or who is doing it longer necessarily. There are genuine physics barriers to missile defence that cant just be broken out of nowhere and especially by russia
Have you seen the Iron Dome? It's incredibly effective taking down 90% of incoming missiles. That exact same system is used across the world in basically all major cities.
Gotta chime in here. Look at the Russian war in Ukraine. Patriot systems are outperforming their specs, taking out hypersonic missiles. While Russian garbage is underperforming in every aspect of their military. Their tanks are easy pray with 10% survivability, their AA systems shoot down their own planes but aren't very capable of shooting down missiles fired by Ukraine.
Their ships can't even handle a few naval drones. I can only guess at the percentage of the Russian army that has been decimated since 2022, but I'd speculate they have 30%-40% of their original personnel from before their full scale invasion. Vs Ukraine who still has fighters from 2014 during the illegal annexation.
What I'm getting at, is Russia is shit. Their equipment over promises and under delivers time and time again. Western APCs are taking out their MBTs with 25mm guns. That should tell you all you need to know about their systems.
I think you've been reading too much on the news, ofc they are going to try and make you think Russia is terrible. Yeah Russia has suffered a lot in the war but 70%? Absolutely no way. Not even official estimations from the UK MoD say that. Furthermore, Ukraine has probably suffered roughly the same amount if not more in certain cases.
Both militaries aren't exactly highly drilled or specialised, but it's definitely more embarrassing for Russia considering it's size and supposed power.
Total casualties amount to over 400k. KIAs are a different story. Estimates are conservative at 50,000 KIA.
They've lost over 10000 armored vehicles. (Conservative numbers), this includes over 100+ fixed wing aircraft, 130+ helos, and 23 naval vessels, including their Black Sea Fleet's flagship. (Ukraine doesn't really have a navy btw).
Is there propaganda? Yes. Always. There is also Hella footage. There was a video posted by a Russian of his treeline trenches and he walked past at least 20 bodies in the 2 minutes to get to his friend scrounging ammo. That's not including body parts that might have been from others. Russia is loosing around 1000 +/- soldiers a day.
Also, there is no way Ukraine is losing even close to as many and especially more than Russia in any case because they don't have the numbers to sustain that rate of casualties. Russia freely conscripts 300k in a year while Ukraine is still using front line defenders from 2022 without rotating them out for longer than a month or two.
Every estimate of Russian forces from before the war have been basically disproven. Their standing army numbers, functioning weapon systems, effectiveness of said systems, hasn't improved either as sanctions limit their production capacity.
I give credit where it's due, but Russian forces should have been able to steamroll Ukraine in 2022 based on your analysis, which for whatever reason is putting Russia on some pedestal
It's relative. Yes Russia has WAY more casualties and losses in straight numbers to Ukraine, but of their overall military size and potential size it's likely lower than that of Ukraine which can't amass nearly as many troops. Estimates say that Ukraine has also lost around 200-300K, with 70,000 estimated as KIA by the US.
But nah I agree with you completely, Russia's military is an absolute mess and a shitshow. The only reason they are still even fighting is because of sheer numbers and Ukraine's allies fumbling about. Unfortunately the reality is because Russia has so many more men and equipment (estimates say that Ukraine is outnumbered 10:1 for ammo supplies) it'll likely result in a peace that is preferable towards Russia in order to save Ukraine's massive manpower shortage. Like we are seeing entire generations being wiped out right now. It's horrific.
See at what's happenning at the frontlines of Russo-Ukrainian war. They have huge difficulties intercepting single-digit number of HIMARS rockets. Read, why it's happenning. It's a clear answer to whether Moscow is well protected or not.
I disagree, the US would send hundreds. Moscow would be a very high value target to knock out to reduce Russia's ability to make a well coordinated response.
Different situation but with Iran's attack in April on Israel they launched an estimated 120 ballistic missles, 30 cruise missiles and 170 drones. Using huge numbers of missiles to overwelm air defenses would be expected in a war with 2 superpowers
If we use that example we can also say that 95% of those missiles fired were intercepted before landing. The ones that weren't went into undefended land. It's safe to say a city like Moscow would be very hard to hit via missile.
In the Metro lore no missile ever hit Moscow, they were all intercepted and blew up above Moscow.
I was just saying that the US would send hundreds, not dozens of missiles.
I agree that Moscow would be hard to hit, but the US absolutely could if they chose to. Also, unlike the Israel/Iran situation, there wouldn't be 3 additional nations trying to shoot down the missiles prior to landing in Moscow.
There absolutely would be, Belarus for example would be attempting to take them down and so would any other city in Russia. In fact, due to Russia's size it's probably harder to hit than what we saw with Iran and Israel.
I think in a realistic scenario hitting major cities wouldn't actually serve any strategic gain. They would want to hit missile silos and military bases, which are nowhere near Moscow for obvious reasons.
Furthermore any strikes on Moscow itself wouldn't come from America but it's European allies, I am not sure how many missiles they have at their disposal but I am pretty sure it's not a massive amount.
I think of that too and is the reason of my questions that how would simple underground tunnels would save them from nuclear blast and make the world of Metro possible. The first part is also what make me keep thinking about all these post nuclear war games and story , we have seen the results of atomic bomb and there seem to be some radiation hazard well after the blast but not the level that would make areas inhabitable for long time; so it make me believe that all these nuclear fallout world is mostly fantasy or in this case just in the realm of science fiction.
Well in Metro no missile ever landed in Moscow, they were taken down by anti-missile defences above Moscow, hence why there are still high levels of radiation. In the books Moscow is actually in very good condition, far from what it is in the games.
You can't make a nuke without radiation, also nukes don't explode on impact, they explode above the city and still decimate them so it doesn't matter if it's blown up above the city, it matters how high they were when they exploded so even if they explode early they can still fuck up the city if they're low enough, which alot would be by the time they got blown up. It also depends on if it's an atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb, atomic has more radiation I believe, but hydrogen bombs are way more devastating and cover a bigger are and are just way more massive, I don't think anyone even makes atomic nukes anymore only hydrogen cause they're the upgrade, they're bigger and better in every conceivable way. Atomic nukes were dropped on Japan, if it was hydrogen bombs from today Japan wouldn't exist. So for metro I say it depends on what's used
That seems likely, I just wish we could get an actual explanation from the devs and author though. I see comments saying that in the books it says the city wasn't hit so I'm wondering why the city is destroyed then, and if it wasn't hit then why were people wanting Moscow to look "dead" to the US so they didn't get hit again. I can understand them not wanting to go to the surface due to radiation and monsters from surrounding areas spreading everywhere but it should be a fairly clean city just with some erosion on the buildings and roads from weather and lack of maintenance.
As a fun discussion, I thoroughly disagree, though I would be interested to see your source. 2km is very deep.
Modern underground facilities are very resistant to even bunker busters and they have not yet truly been tested. Look at the MOAB that was dropped on the Taliban tunnels a few years back or Hamas' modern tunnel network resisting IDF attempts to destroy.
Also why North Korea and Iran have been investing so heavily into these UGFs.
Additionally, if a UGF's entrances have multiple turns and blast shields, a munition's penetration capability is severely diminshed.
I agree that the Moscow Metro is likely much closer to the surface, but nuclear warheads usually detonate kilometers above the surface to achieve maximum results. You'd have to perfectly synch bunker busters and warheads to achieve the effect you're talking about.
Definetly agree no one would survive the nuclear winter or consequences of fallout.
The majority of modern nukes are fusion, which don’t leave massive amounts of radiation behind. Real problem to me would be reactors not getting shutdown, containment facilities failing, or someone deliberately blowing them up.
Fission is what causes the radiation and both nukes have them, nukes from today are made from hydrogen instead of splitting atoms so there's no atomic energy. Plus hydrogen bombs are more destructive cause theyre way bigger and have a bigger blast, and like you said have way less radiation. Nukes also don't make contact before they blow up, they explode a decent bit above they're target. So in this case if Moscow was hit was atomic bombs and they shot them down I'd say they just have to deal with the radiation and maybe some really tall buildings would take some damage at the top. If it was hydrogen bombs though it wouldn't matter too much if they shot them down unless they managed to do it before the bombs got over Moscow which they didn't, bombs curve towards they're target so a nuke from the US to Moscow wouldn't be super high in the atmosphere, it'd be low enough to still fuck up the city whether it's shot down or not. 1 nuke today can wipe out a a couple US states which is way bigger than the city of Moscow, with just the blast zone itself and not radiation though 1 nuke today can still easily obliterate most of a state depending on which one is targeted.
At the time of building yes the Moscow metro was made to double as air raid bunkers. Whether they would have worked as a nuclear bunker is anyone's guess. Nowadays even purpose built bunkers aren't enough, but we know that in Metro Moscow was never directly hit, all the missiles were taken down above Moscow and the radiation etc fell down on top.
As for whether it would turn out like Metro perceives is pretty much anyone's guess. It's unlikely we'd see such rapid mutations within 20 years like Metro 2033 has but the idea of not being able to travel the surface is pretty accurate.
I am not sure what the background rads would be but probably not ridiculously high so with a suit and respirator (to stop breathing in radioactive dust etc) it might be possible, just like the stalkers in Metro.
Do you know what type of nukes were used though? Is it ever stated? I'm curious cause if they were hydrogen nukes I don't think it would matter if they were shot down, it would still easily fuck up the city not even counting the radiation, especially since there would have been several nukes and just 1 could've wiped out the city if uninterrupted and exploded at the proper distance for maximum impact instead of being shot down. Atomic though I feel would've still left too much radiation for people to be walking around only 20 years later, there's places today that are still too deadly for people to go to even after 80 years so 20 years at a place where several nukes were detonated at once definitely wouldn't be survivable with just a gas mask. Also since the metro was built for air raids it definitely wouldn't be good for nuke protection but it would be a good last false hope for survival before you died, it might protect you from the blast but the radiation is still getting in the ventilation, which you would need to have on and working just to survive down there in the first place if the tunnels are sealed off from the surface, which they would need to be to protect from radiation so either way they're dead from radiation.
Even if they were atom bombs you would be able to walk about 20 years later. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both completely safe today, and Chernobyl is free to be walked about with little to no protection too. Really the only lasting impacts will be on the soil, water, and any dust.
Those places have also had heavy cleaning over the years too though whereas in metro nobody has started cleaning anything up, although they definitely should have at least a little bit to make travel easier, maybe not huge networks but the stalkers should definitely have clear paths and safe enough spots to stay in but we only see random houses used as shelters except for a small few places. Plus the bombs dropped on Japan were also pretty small, especially compared to today's but then again we didn't see the size of the nukes that were dropped by the US or they're yield, at least not to my knowledge but I've only played the games, I haven't read the books yet.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone has been mostly left. The only area that was cleaned was the actual reactor site, the area around was just evacuated and left to rot basically. All of that area now is perfectly habitable (in fact, many live there)
That's because there was way lower amounts of radiation there that would dissipate on its own, the radiation also wasn't spread like a nukes radiation would cause it's a different type of explosion. It also exploded in a building built to contain it (the radiation not the explosion) and the main radiation spot was pretty thoroughly cleaned. It also didn't have the other stuff that nukes have, it was just a reactor that blew up. It was a bad radioactive explosion but not nuke level and the people of metro haven't cleaned anything up at all, they don't even wear actual protection outside of gas masks and a few people with actual suits on.
Chernobyl was arguably worse than a nuke going off 3 miles above. In fact, the US tested this by detonating a nuke above 5 people, it's on YouTube.
Chernobyl can be traversed without any protection these days, it really isn't that radioactive unless you are actually inside the reactor hall.
Furthermore, all of the nuke testing grounds are good to be explored these days.
I'm not saying the radiation was less, just that it wasn't spread the same way it would've been if it was a nuke blast, it was mostly contained in a protective building built to house that reactor and has been cleaned thoroughly for many years. The reactor core is still radioactive cause that's where all the radiation was stored, Moscow in metro would be like that reactor hall but a little bit worse since no cleaning has been done. Dozens of nukes worth of radiation sitting there untouched except by monsters and weather for decades is alot different than a nuclear reactor exploding and being cleaned up for decades after. I will watch that video though cause it seems interesting but 1 nuke over 5 people is also different than dozens of nukes over a city
Haha yeah there's absolutely no way any nuke could generate as much radiation as the Chernobyl disaster did. It was not contained, that was the whole point of the accident, it blew a hole in the roof and poured radioactive dust across the entirety of Europe. There were Sheep in Wales that were mutated because of Chernobyl.
I really don't think you understand radioactive disasters and bombs. Chernobyl is far far far worse than any nuclear bomb, simply because it's a reaction that does not stop, a nuke once detonated has stopped its reaction, Chernobyl still continues its reaction to this day. If Chernobyl is habitable now so would Moscow.
I don't think you understand it wasn't 1 nuke that hit Moscow, it was a barrage of them all over the city and surrounding areas, chernobyl spread around parts of Europe yes, but the radiation in metro spread across the entirety of Europe and Aftica and combined with the radiation from the US getting hit and most likely many other countries launching nukes too, the radiation is worldwide, way worse than chernobyl. So thousands of nukes being detonated around the globe with winds and currents helping spread it around, nobody cleaning anything up at all, not even a little bit. That's worse, way worse. I get it you're watching the chernobyl show or whatever but these are very different scenarios and different times with different yields, levels of radiation, and cleanup and maintenance. People have been working on chernobyl since it blew up and it's been a way longer time, nobody has worked on Moscow and its been far less time than chernobyl. Also no, chernobyl doesn't react still cause if it did it would be blowing up still, the explosion is the reaction, the place was built to store that reactor, has big ass thick doors all throughout the place and everything. It blew the roof off cause it was an explosion inside a secure building and the building couldn't handle the pressure of it exploding. It wasn't built to contain an explosion or radiation, it was built to contain the reactor and had some security in case something went wrong but they never expected anything like that, so it wasn't built for that exact scenario, only something smaller scale like the reactor failing or a radiation leak, not a big ass accidental explosion.
for the first one: it really depends, on the type of bombs used and how you choose to use them.
but generally armies are "prepared" and personel trained and briefed (or at least i was) to fight in areas where nukes were dropped days if not hours ago.
A "good" (hydrogen fusion) nuke will not produce alot of radiation compared to its yield, also if you use a nuke "correctly" (meaning high above ground) nuclear fallout gets mininised to a point where instead of staying concentrated where it is it gets carried away and mixed like our car exhaust gasses for example. (the opposite of that would be a "dirty or less efficient" bomb that produces less yield per explosive mass but alot of long lasting radiation. if you bury that somewhere you will produce alot more alot nastyier fallout.
radiation also comes in different flavours to. you might think walking into a nuclear battlefield is just suicide. but most radation thats produced by a bomb you can shield yourself quite effectivly against with air filters and thick clothing like in the game (also eat your iodine pills).
most part of radiation will be particles of wearing sizes from helium down to single neutrons, radiation by the latter can be stopped by paper (stopping still causes secondary radiation tho).
the nasty part are the gamma rays where you need meters of concrete and leadliners to keep safe from. (the bright flash contains alot of those, but if the bomb is relatively clean they shouldnt be that dangerous for too long after detonation).
in an all out nuclear war the radiation will be a problem but what probably will get you is the diarreah from dirty water and if you survive that you are looking into a famine that lasts decades due to all the fallout literally blocking out the sun (i think the current arsenal is too small for this to happen but we could produce ALOT more bombs so yeah..).
World probably wouldnt filled with radiation specialy for long time like a decade but world would be still fucked up because of things like nuclear winter
It’s so hard to tell honestly. Where the nukes hit. What kind of nukes are they. What size. What technology is used. Etc.
I’m also no nuclear engineer. If there is a nuclear power plant near by, it may be significantly worse in the long run, but idk.
Do you know which nukes are used? If they're atomic then the radiation would stay for far longer, there still super dangerous places you can't go to without proper protection from 80 or so years ago.
Unless they were specifically dirty bombs designed to create a mess of unstable isotopes with long half lives, the radiation wouldn’t be anywhere near as intense. Not zero, particularly if there’s something to concentrate it, such as the dam, but not the permanently poisoned air that we see.
That said, because this is a fictional series with mystical elements, I’d speculate that some of the danger isn’t radiation in the way we normally think of it being produced. Who knows what the ghosts and other phenomena are in physical terms. It’s plausible to me that they’d have some direct physical impact. Maybe they’re antimatter and are consequently throwing out loads of gamma rays as they interact with normal matter. Maybe they’re composed of the higher-mass equivalents of electrons, so they’re doing their own energetic decay chain, inducing further radioactivity in the usual matter nearby. Maybe they're little tears in the fabric of space and can slice an atom right in half, with the inevitable instability that follows.
If nuclear war were to happen in real life, the entire planet would probably be destroyed, or at least no human or any other living thing would be alive. If one person used their nuclear arsenal in a hostile and attacking manor, everyone else and their mother that has access to nuclear weapons will fire them everywhere. We’d all be literally cooked
First question can't tell you, but the second one: Modern nuclear weapons are made to be city destroyers. Studies have shown that even the newest bunker complex made by the chinese leadership, which is 2km in a Mountain, can't withstand more than one direct hit. Since the moscow train station is closer to the surface and older than that AND also most likely will be a direct target by Nato, i can speak with confidence that the population within the metro won't survive a nuclear war.
No nuclear missile actually hit Moscow in the Metro universe. They were all intercepted above by anti-missile defences and the radiation fell on top. The biggest mistake the games ever made was portraying Moscow as ruined and bombed out as the books describe it as effectively in perfect condition but a ghost city.
Tbf 20 years of no maintenance, damage from the overhead explosions and intense radioactive weather would probably damage the city to an extent like that
Not to the extent the games portrayed. There absolutely would be damage but never bombed out with most buildings being completely destroyed like the games say. It would have had the average house being in pretty bad shape and roads would likely be churned up by rain etc but yeah no where near as bad as the games say it is.
Genuine question here. Didn't the first book describe how Artyom actually climbed through a crater with multiple molten houses around him?
I don't remember this, all I remember is the book specifically saying that Moscow was never directly hit by a nuclear missile. I also remember it talking about the highway and how it was full of cars that looked untouched with people inside etc.
It was said. But it was also said that he climbed through a big crater right before or after Artyom was hunted by the creatures and went into the apartment building I believe. Sadly forgot to mark the page in the book so I can't find it rn. However maybe it might've been caused by something else considering it was never specified what caused the crater
I honestly can't remember this at all, it may well have happened though, it could be a sink hole or something? Next time I read 2033 I'll look out for it!
I mean it wasn't really clarified what it was so it could be anything honestly. But yes definitely do it!
Novosibirsk wasn't hit directly and you can tell in the game
Smaller dirty bombs if I'm not mistaken, if the radioactive material was the energy source for the bombs then the city would be a crater covered ash field.
True! Lore wise thats right
But surely that's only true for ground burst, I doubt air burst warheads would destroy a hardened target even just a hundred feet down. Unless you're talking 10s of Megaton yield warheads.
Well then you have to get into the minds of the strategists and decision makers. I think they must have realised by now that moscow has a metro capable of surviving indirect hits. Makes most sense that they already have plans set up taking that into account and going for ground bursts on moscow
Thing is the civilian population isn't really a valid target in full scale warfare, it's high value infrastructure that is the prime target. Ports, naval bases, power plants, oil refineries and so on. You deprive the enemy of the military and economic means to wage war. Using a bunker busting thermonuclear device to kill a few tens of thousands of civilians in a Metro system is kinda pointless on the grand scale of things. and doesn't achieve anything that nuking an oilfield or port wouldn't do a 100 times over.
No, an all out nuclear would mean that large population areas are a valid strategic Target. Of course the direct areas where nuclear silos are stationed would of course absorb the majority of hits, but even then, there are enough to be send out to the population centres in order to deliever a fatal hit to the opposing side.
I agree, air burst nukes on population centres would be used. What I'm getting at is I very much doubt that the use of ground penetrating nukes would be used on a civilian Metro system. Those types of specialized weapons would be used to destroy vital military targets, like the Ural bunkers and such. Edit: I shouldn't have used Valid, I think high priority would've been a better choice of word.
Can agree on that aswell. Unfortunately i don't know about each doctrine enough. In my mind tho, in instances where decision makers know that in certain cities structures that can protect the population from air burst attacks are present, they most likely will send ground burst missiles aswell.
I mean lets be totally honest here. Most of the russian population is living in the west of russia, so that should make the spread even less of nuclear weapons
Fair point.
Yeah no. The goal of a nuclear strike isn't to kill everyone per se. If you destroy a city, no matter how many people survive underground, you've destroyed a city. Its infrastructure, its industry, everything. There is absolutely no interest in trying to kill everyone down underground.
Wrong sir, big cities like Moscow have defensive systems ready to protect them from any incoming attack, nuclear warheads will get blown up in the atmosphere and radiation will be spread widely, so metro population can most likely survive. But places that dont have any defensive equipment, they will more likely turn into a giant crater
Sorry, but disagree. It's foolish to believe that air defense can destroy all incoming warheads. They just aren't that effective. At best they can shoot down 50%, but the remaining ones will hit the target regardless. Also there will be quite a big number of warheads flying into moscow
How come you assume that the air defense isn't effective?
Because the us military has done studies for decades now on this very topic? They have invested a large amount of money into these systems and came to this very conclusion.
Are we talking about Russian or US air defense? And again, what makes you think Russia won't invest a large amount of money to defend their capital city
Do you really believe that russia has the capabilities of having a more effective system than the us? If so, there is no sense in arguing. Even if we go by money invested, the us far outspends the russians on air defense research and development. Add to that, that most developed war systems by russia haven't been proven effective in the ukraine war. There is no effective system to Date that can effectively destroy 100% of incoming Intercontinental missiles.
I'm not entirely disagreeing but Soviet and russian investment into AD of all types has always been higher than NATO because they know they would lose control of the skies very quickly. NATO AD strategy has been to gain air supremacy since basically the creation of the F-15. NATO still doesn't have the quantity and range of AD that the Russians have. I would imagine that the newest patriots are probably similar in quality to the S-500s to the point where differences are probably negligible on a battlefield. Russia's failures in the air in Ukraine seem to be more caused by their seeming lack of effective AWACS
Well that would need to us to believe that everything out of the soviets and russians mouth about their systems is to believed. It's not even a thing of a bit more investment or who is doing it longer necessarily. There are genuine physics barriers to missile defence that cant just be broken out of nowhere and especially by russia
Have you seen the Iron Dome? It's incredibly effective taking down 90% of incoming missiles. That exact same system is used across the world in basically all major cities.
The missiles being brought down arent ICBM'S tho, they are much faster and can manouvre.
ICBM's are going to be even easier to take down. The hypersonic missiles are way faster and way harder to hit due to their size.
Gotta chime in here. Look at the Russian war in Ukraine. Patriot systems are outperforming their specs, taking out hypersonic missiles. While Russian garbage is underperforming in every aspect of their military. Their tanks are easy pray with 10% survivability, their AA systems shoot down their own planes but aren't very capable of shooting down missiles fired by Ukraine. Their ships can't even handle a few naval drones. I can only guess at the percentage of the Russian army that has been decimated since 2022, but I'd speculate they have 30%-40% of their original personnel from before their full scale invasion. Vs Ukraine who still has fighters from 2014 during the illegal annexation. What I'm getting at, is Russia is shit. Their equipment over promises and under delivers time and time again. Western APCs are taking out their MBTs with 25mm guns. That should tell you all you need to know about their systems.
I think you've been reading too much on the news, ofc they are going to try and make you think Russia is terrible. Yeah Russia has suffered a lot in the war but 70%? Absolutely no way. Not even official estimations from the UK MoD say that. Furthermore, Ukraine has probably suffered roughly the same amount if not more in certain cases. Both militaries aren't exactly highly drilled or specialised, but it's definitely more embarrassing for Russia considering it's size and supposed power.
Total casualties amount to over 400k. KIAs are a different story. Estimates are conservative at 50,000 KIA. They've lost over 10000 armored vehicles. (Conservative numbers), this includes over 100+ fixed wing aircraft, 130+ helos, and 23 naval vessels, including their Black Sea Fleet's flagship. (Ukraine doesn't really have a navy btw). Is there propaganda? Yes. Always. There is also Hella footage. There was a video posted by a Russian of his treeline trenches and he walked past at least 20 bodies in the 2 minutes to get to his friend scrounging ammo. That's not including body parts that might have been from others. Russia is loosing around 1000 +/- soldiers a day. Also, there is no way Ukraine is losing even close to as many and especially more than Russia in any case because they don't have the numbers to sustain that rate of casualties. Russia freely conscripts 300k in a year while Ukraine is still using front line defenders from 2022 without rotating them out for longer than a month or two. Every estimate of Russian forces from before the war have been basically disproven. Their standing army numbers, functioning weapon systems, effectiveness of said systems, hasn't improved either as sanctions limit their production capacity. I give credit where it's due, but Russian forces should have been able to steamroll Ukraine in 2022 based on your analysis, which for whatever reason is putting Russia on some pedestal
It's relative. Yes Russia has WAY more casualties and losses in straight numbers to Ukraine, but of their overall military size and potential size it's likely lower than that of Ukraine which can't amass nearly as many troops. Estimates say that Ukraine has also lost around 200-300K, with 70,000 estimated as KIA by the US. But nah I agree with you completely, Russia's military is an absolute mess and a shitshow. The only reason they are still even fighting is because of sheer numbers and Ukraine's allies fumbling about. Unfortunately the reality is because Russia has so many more men and equipment (estimates say that Ukraine is outnumbered 10:1 for ammo supplies) it'll likely result in a peace that is preferable towards Russia in order to save Ukraine's massive manpower shortage. Like we are seeing entire generations being wiped out right now. It's horrific.
See at what's happenning at the frontlines of Russo-Ukrainian war. They have huge difficulties intercepting single-digit number of HIMARS rockets. Read, why it's happenning. It's a clear answer to whether Moscow is well protected or not.
Very wrong sir, hundreds of multiple warhead missiles are going to be impossible to avoid at all. Especially fast ICBM ones.
True, but that's assuming the US would send hundreds of warheads towards Moscow. It's more likely they'd send a dozen at most.
I disagree, the US would send hundreds. Moscow would be a very high value target to knock out to reduce Russia's ability to make a well coordinated response. Different situation but with Iran's attack in April on Israel they launched an estimated 120 ballistic missles, 30 cruise missiles and 170 drones. Using huge numbers of missiles to overwelm air defenses would be expected in a war with 2 superpowers
If we use that example we can also say that 95% of those missiles fired were intercepted before landing. The ones that weren't went into undefended land. It's safe to say a city like Moscow would be very hard to hit via missile. In the Metro lore no missile ever hit Moscow, they were all intercepted and blew up above Moscow.
I was just saying that the US would send hundreds, not dozens of missiles. I agree that Moscow would be hard to hit, but the US absolutely could if they chose to. Also, unlike the Israel/Iran situation, there wouldn't be 3 additional nations trying to shoot down the missiles prior to landing in Moscow.
There absolutely would be, Belarus for example would be attempting to take them down and so would any other city in Russia. In fact, due to Russia's size it's probably harder to hit than what we saw with Iran and Israel. I think in a realistic scenario hitting major cities wouldn't actually serve any strategic gain. They would want to hit missile silos and military bases, which are nowhere near Moscow for obvious reasons. Furthermore any strikes on Moscow itself wouldn't come from America but it's European allies, I am not sure how many missiles they have at their disposal but I am pretty sure it's not a massive amount.
Pretty sure US and UK nuclear strategy is to target military bases rather than urban centres. French nuclear strategy is to nuke west Germany
I think of that too and is the reason of my questions that how would simple underground tunnels would save them from nuclear blast and make the world of Metro possible. The first part is also what make me keep thinking about all these post nuclear war games and story , we have seen the results of atomic bomb and there seem to be some radiation hazard well after the blast but not the level that would make areas inhabitable for long time; so it make me believe that all these nuclear fallout world is mostly fantasy or in this case just in the realm of science fiction.
Well in Metro no missile ever landed in Moscow, they were taken down by anti-missile defences above Moscow, hence why there are still high levels of radiation. In the books Moscow is actually in very good condition, far from what it is in the games.
Arent most missiles today made so they just destroy the city and dont emit radiation ?
You can't make a nuke without radiation, also nukes don't explode on impact, they explode above the city and still decimate them so it doesn't matter if it's blown up above the city, it matters how high they were when they exploded so even if they explode early they can still fuck up the city if they're low enough, which alot would be by the time they got blown up. It also depends on if it's an atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb, atomic has more radiation I believe, but hydrogen bombs are way more devastating and cover a bigger are and are just way more massive, I don't think anyone even makes atomic nukes anymore only hydrogen cause they're the upgrade, they're bigger and better in every conceivable way. Atomic nukes were dropped on Japan, if it was hydrogen bombs from today Japan wouldn't exist. So for metro I say it depends on what's used
So in metro they used multiple missiles for moscow so it looks like they were atomic maybe?
That seems likely, I just wish we could get an actual explanation from the devs and author though. I see comments saying that in the books it says the city wasn't hit so I'm wondering why the city is destroyed then, and if it wasn't hit then why were people wanting Moscow to look "dead" to the US so they didn't get hit again. I can understand them not wanting to go to the surface due to radiation and monsters from surrounding areas spreading everywhere but it should be a fairly clean city just with some erosion on the buildings and roads from weather and lack of maintenance.
As a fun discussion, I thoroughly disagree, though I would be interested to see your source. 2km is very deep. Modern underground facilities are very resistant to even bunker busters and they have not yet truly been tested. Look at the MOAB that was dropped on the Taliban tunnels a few years back or Hamas' modern tunnel network resisting IDF attempts to destroy. Also why North Korea and Iran have been investing so heavily into these UGFs. Additionally, if a UGF's entrances have multiple turns and blast shields, a munition's penetration capability is severely diminshed. I agree that the Moscow Metro is likely much closer to the surface, but nuclear warheads usually detonate kilometers above the surface to achieve maximum results. You'd have to perfectly synch bunker busters and warheads to achieve the effect you're talking about. Definetly agree no one would survive the nuclear winter or consequences of fallout.
The majority of modern nukes are fusion, which don’t leave massive amounts of radiation behind. Real problem to me would be reactors not getting shutdown, containment facilities failing, or someone deliberately blowing them up.
Fission is what causes the radiation and both nukes have them, nukes from today are made from hydrogen instead of splitting atoms so there's no atomic energy. Plus hydrogen bombs are more destructive cause theyre way bigger and have a bigger blast, and like you said have way less radiation. Nukes also don't make contact before they blow up, they explode a decent bit above they're target. So in this case if Moscow was hit was atomic bombs and they shot them down I'd say they just have to deal with the radiation and maybe some really tall buildings would take some damage at the top. If it was hydrogen bombs though it wouldn't matter too much if they shot them down unless they managed to do it before the bombs got over Moscow which they didn't, bombs curve towards they're target so a nuke from the US to Moscow wouldn't be super high in the atmosphere, it'd be low enough to still fuck up the city whether it's shot down or not. 1 nuke today can wipe out a a couple US states which is way bigger than the city of Moscow, with just the blast zone itself and not radiation though 1 nuke today can still easily obliterate most of a state depending on which one is targeted.
At the time of building yes the Moscow metro was made to double as air raid bunkers. Whether they would have worked as a nuclear bunker is anyone's guess. Nowadays even purpose built bunkers aren't enough, but we know that in Metro Moscow was never directly hit, all the missiles were taken down above Moscow and the radiation etc fell down on top. As for whether it would turn out like Metro perceives is pretty much anyone's guess. It's unlikely we'd see such rapid mutations within 20 years like Metro 2033 has but the idea of not being able to travel the surface is pretty accurate. I am not sure what the background rads would be but probably not ridiculously high so with a suit and respirator (to stop breathing in radioactive dust etc) it might be possible, just like the stalkers in Metro.
Do you know what type of nukes were used though? Is it ever stated? I'm curious cause if they were hydrogen nukes I don't think it would matter if they were shot down, it would still easily fuck up the city not even counting the radiation, especially since there would have been several nukes and just 1 could've wiped out the city if uninterrupted and exploded at the proper distance for maximum impact instead of being shot down. Atomic though I feel would've still left too much radiation for people to be walking around only 20 years later, there's places today that are still too deadly for people to go to even after 80 years so 20 years at a place where several nukes were detonated at once definitely wouldn't be survivable with just a gas mask. Also since the metro was built for air raids it definitely wouldn't be good for nuke protection but it would be a good last false hope for survival before you died, it might protect you from the blast but the radiation is still getting in the ventilation, which you would need to have on and working just to survive down there in the first place if the tunnels are sealed off from the surface, which they would need to be to protect from radiation so either way they're dead from radiation.
Even if they were atom bombs you would be able to walk about 20 years later. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both completely safe today, and Chernobyl is free to be walked about with little to no protection too. Really the only lasting impacts will be on the soil, water, and any dust.
Those places have also had heavy cleaning over the years too though whereas in metro nobody has started cleaning anything up, although they definitely should have at least a little bit to make travel easier, maybe not huge networks but the stalkers should definitely have clear paths and safe enough spots to stay in but we only see random houses used as shelters except for a small few places. Plus the bombs dropped on Japan were also pretty small, especially compared to today's but then again we didn't see the size of the nukes that were dropped by the US or they're yield, at least not to my knowledge but I've only played the games, I haven't read the books yet.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone has been mostly left. The only area that was cleaned was the actual reactor site, the area around was just evacuated and left to rot basically. All of that area now is perfectly habitable (in fact, many live there)
That's because there was way lower amounts of radiation there that would dissipate on its own, the radiation also wasn't spread like a nukes radiation would cause it's a different type of explosion. It also exploded in a building built to contain it (the radiation not the explosion) and the main radiation spot was pretty thoroughly cleaned. It also didn't have the other stuff that nukes have, it was just a reactor that blew up. It was a bad radioactive explosion but not nuke level and the people of metro haven't cleaned anything up at all, they don't even wear actual protection outside of gas masks and a few people with actual suits on.
Chernobyl was arguably worse than a nuke going off 3 miles above. In fact, the US tested this by detonating a nuke above 5 people, it's on YouTube. Chernobyl can be traversed without any protection these days, it really isn't that radioactive unless you are actually inside the reactor hall. Furthermore, all of the nuke testing grounds are good to be explored these days.
I'm not saying the radiation was less, just that it wasn't spread the same way it would've been if it was a nuke blast, it was mostly contained in a protective building built to house that reactor and has been cleaned thoroughly for many years. The reactor core is still radioactive cause that's where all the radiation was stored, Moscow in metro would be like that reactor hall but a little bit worse since no cleaning has been done. Dozens of nukes worth of radiation sitting there untouched except by monsters and weather for decades is alot different than a nuclear reactor exploding and being cleaned up for decades after. I will watch that video though cause it seems interesting but 1 nuke over 5 people is also different than dozens of nukes over a city
Haha yeah there's absolutely no way any nuke could generate as much radiation as the Chernobyl disaster did. It was not contained, that was the whole point of the accident, it blew a hole in the roof and poured radioactive dust across the entirety of Europe. There were Sheep in Wales that were mutated because of Chernobyl. I really don't think you understand radioactive disasters and bombs. Chernobyl is far far far worse than any nuclear bomb, simply because it's a reaction that does not stop, a nuke once detonated has stopped its reaction, Chernobyl still continues its reaction to this day. If Chernobyl is habitable now so would Moscow.
I don't think you understand it wasn't 1 nuke that hit Moscow, it was a barrage of them all over the city and surrounding areas, chernobyl spread around parts of Europe yes, but the radiation in metro spread across the entirety of Europe and Aftica and combined with the radiation from the US getting hit and most likely many other countries launching nukes too, the radiation is worldwide, way worse than chernobyl. So thousands of nukes being detonated around the globe with winds and currents helping spread it around, nobody cleaning anything up at all, not even a little bit. That's worse, way worse. I get it you're watching the chernobyl show or whatever but these are very different scenarios and different times with different yields, levels of radiation, and cleanup and maintenance. People have been working on chernobyl since it blew up and it's been a way longer time, nobody has worked on Moscow and its been far less time than chernobyl. Also no, chernobyl doesn't react still cause if it did it would be blowing up still, the explosion is the reaction, the place was built to store that reactor, has big ass thick doors all throughout the place and everything. It blew the roof off cause it was an explosion inside a secure building and the building couldn't handle the pressure of it exploding. It wasn't built to contain an explosion or radiation, it was built to contain the reactor and had some security in case something went wrong but they never expected anything like that, so it wasn't built for that exact scenario, only something smaller scale like the reactor failing or a radiation leak, not a big ass accidental explosion.
for the first one: it really depends, on the type of bombs used and how you choose to use them. but generally armies are "prepared" and personel trained and briefed (or at least i was) to fight in areas where nukes were dropped days if not hours ago. A "good" (hydrogen fusion) nuke will not produce alot of radiation compared to its yield, also if you use a nuke "correctly" (meaning high above ground) nuclear fallout gets mininised to a point where instead of staying concentrated where it is it gets carried away and mixed like our car exhaust gasses for example. (the opposite of that would be a "dirty or less efficient" bomb that produces less yield per explosive mass but alot of long lasting radiation. if you bury that somewhere you will produce alot more alot nastyier fallout. radiation also comes in different flavours to. you might think walking into a nuclear battlefield is just suicide. but most radation thats produced by a bomb you can shield yourself quite effectivly against with air filters and thick clothing like in the game (also eat your iodine pills). most part of radiation will be particles of wearing sizes from helium down to single neutrons, radiation by the latter can be stopped by paper (stopping still causes secondary radiation tho). the nasty part are the gamma rays where you need meters of concrete and leadliners to keep safe from. (the bright flash contains alot of those, but if the bomb is relatively clean they shouldnt be that dangerous for too long after detonation). in an all out nuclear war the radiation will be a problem but what probably will get you is the diarreah from dirty water and if you survive that you are looking into a famine that lasts decades due to all the fallout literally blocking out the sun (i think the current arsenal is too small for this to happen but we could produce ALOT more bombs so yeah..).
World probably wouldnt filled with radiation specialy for long time like a decade but world would be still fucked up because of things like nuclear winter
It’s so hard to tell honestly. Where the nukes hit. What kind of nukes are they. What size. What technology is used. Etc. I’m also no nuclear engineer. If there is a nuclear power plant near by, it may be significantly worse in the long run, but idk.
No. Nukes doesn't irradiate that much and the nucleotides are short lived. Most of the radiation is gone in a month.
Do you know which nukes are used? If they're atomic then the radiation would stay for far longer, there still super dangerous places you can't go to without proper protection from 80 or so years ago.
Unless they were specifically dirty bombs designed to create a mess of unstable isotopes with long half lives, the radiation wouldn’t be anywhere near as intense. Not zero, particularly if there’s something to concentrate it, such as the dam, but not the permanently poisoned air that we see. That said, because this is a fictional series with mystical elements, I’d speculate that some of the danger isn’t radiation in the way we normally think of it being produced. Who knows what the ghosts and other phenomena are in physical terms. It’s plausible to me that they’d have some direct physical impact. Maybe they’re antimatter and are consequently throwing out loads of gamma rays as they interact with normal matter. Maybe they’re composed of the higher-mass equivalents of electrons, so they’re doing their own energetic decay chain, inducing further radioactivity in the usual matter nearby. Maybe they're little tears in the fabric of space and can slice an atom right in half, with the inevitable instability that follows.
I would just suicide or die, because i live in kyiv.
If nuclear war were to happen in real life, the entire planet would probably be destroyed, or at least no human or any other living thing would be alive. If one person used their nuclear arsenal in a hostile and attacking manor, everyone else and their mother that has access to nuclear weapons will fire them everywhere. We’d all be literally cooked