The Russian Debate

[Final-Fan]

AsGryffynn said:

VGPolyglot said:

There would be no winners at all, the whole world would lose.

Technically, you win if your loss is less than the enemy... 

SpokenTruth said:

80% of their population lives west of the Ural mountains which is an area less than half the size of the US.  And we both have enough nukes to render Earth a wasteland.  We have 6,800, they have 7,000.   Are you not familiar with M.A.D.?  Mutually Assured destruction?  It's the concept that kept the cold war from becoming a hot war.

I am aware of this much. However, Russia's non urban population is spread so thinly that it's been discussed that in the event of Russia starting a nuclear war, there would be enough nukes to reduce the US population to a sub hundred thousand number, but Russia's population would probably remain in the million range, even if only a very small figure... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia

With three inhabitants per square kilometer, you're only going to have enough to nuke the major cities because the other locations are near non existent as they are. The only place that would fare similarly would be Alaska... 

Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana all have population densities lower than or as low as Siberia.  Generally speaking, your concept probably applies to the whole region east of the (U.S.A.'s) West Coast states but west of the Mississippi River.  This region is on average more hospitable, I think, to human life than Siberia, but would likely experience worse fallout.  I'm not sure how that would balance out. 

Either way, the better question is, what do you define as Russia "winning" versus the United States in a nuclear war?  Total number of survivors?  Percentage of population reduction?  If its government is totally destroyed, can "Russia" be the winner, even if there is a remnant of the U.S. government left?  Should we factor in the likelihood of a neighbor annexing the remnant instead of helping it back on its feet?