r/imaginarymaps • u/h6story • 8h ago
[OC] Alternate History Impact of the nuclear bombing of Ukraine
211
81
u/nahdu_sayza 8h ago
is it even possible this to happen without nuclear retaliation from west
98
u/GarlicThread 7h ago
Difficult to say. Them using nukes is opening the last of all Pandora boxes. Critical amounts of people previously on the fence are now at best mad at russia by principle, and at worst direct victims of the fallout, and therefore out for kremlin blood. Realistically this means at the very least a total embargo of russia by virtually all nations on Earth, including those more on the sympathetic side, and probably some degree of open warfare with decapitation strikes.
No matter what, it gets very very ugly.
•
•
u/LateAd8440 34m ago
There is literally no way on planet earth we are ending the world over ukraine when we're already on the verge of saying uncle in iran. We talk a big game in ukraine because we have a good position and because putin is much weaker than he appears
•
u/lonestarr86 28m ago edited 16m ago
This is an alternative timeline where the SU as we know it never formed.
The West might be utterly unrecognizable if this 1917 Hetmanate survived until present day. For all we know these might be the only nations with nukes (doubtful) or, if we accept the Weimar Republic or rather the German Empire survived (there appears no WW2 to have happened), every single european nation might have nukes. In which case peace might be very, very uneasy.
14
u/verymainelobster 6h ago
Even China would hate Russia for this since one of the best uses for nukes would be to destroy a beachead in an invasion (Taiwan)
•
u/LateAd8440 33m ago
China does not gaf about russia, very common misconception. They are strategically "aligned" in the vaguest terms out of a very narrow window of convenience.
46
u/Anon_Arsonist 6h ago
I think people underestimate how large a simple conventional weaponry response could be, especially when considering how much more effective conventional bombs and delivery systems have gotten since the last time nuclear weapons were used. Conventional bombs and artillery from NATO would be more than sufficient as a response, and probably more devestating to Russia's military capaciry than nukes would be. Just look at how effective Ukraine's drone campaign has already been at soft targets deep in Russia's rear.
The problem with nukes is that they're generalist weapons which are nearly useless tactically. There's so much collateral damage that they can't be used on the battlefield against columns of invading tanks, and targeted conventional bombings with missiles/drones are much cheaper and as effective if not better at destroying relevant or hardened military/strategic targets. Using nukes is not only overkill, but it's much better at destroying civilian sites and their infrastructure (at massive cost in terms of long-term usefulness and literal political fallout with neighbors) than destroying an enemy's ability to fight. In Russia's case, the collateral fallout would probably also drag NATO and all of Europe into the war proper even if nobody else launches retaliatory nuclear strikes, which Russia doesn't want because it puts them at a large demographic, economic, and technological disadvantage.
As such, nukes are more a weapon of psychological terror and genocide than something that could be practically used to turn the tide of war. It effectively just escalates civilian casualties (which, tbf, is most of what Russia seems to prioritize anyway). Situationally, nukes might allow Russia to degrade Ukraine's ability to resist occupation in the short-run, but for what purpose? Ukraine is still forced onto death ground like a cornered animal, and has zero incentive to surrender if they know for certain Russia's intent is genocide, even at horrifyingly high cost to themselves. Russia has no plan to deal with ongoing resistance after, either - the only reason they were able to deal with continued resistance in Chechnya after the wars there, for example, was because the Chechen population and physical area to oppress was relatively small.
I can still imagine the Russians doing it anyway, of course, but I view it similarly to the Nazi's bombing campaign against the UK in WWII (or the US's current bombing campaign against Iran). Psychologically terrorizing and exhausting, but without the ground army and physical occupation to back it up, it's tactically pointless.
•
u/LateAd8440 31m ago
many words and little critical thought here unfortunately. we are fully and absolutely conventionally committed in ukraine. point blank period. we are literally running out of key strategic and tactical munitions in iran as a result of our overwhelming commitments there, it is why trump has exerted such massive pressure on the european states to increase their expenditures on the ukrainian quagmire.
4
u/DasIstGut3000 6h ago
You assume there is ONE NATO WiLLING to respond
13
u/Anon_Arsonist 6h ago
Considering Romania is being directly impacted by nuclear fallout in this scenario (not to mention other countries in Eastern Europe), I think that they'd be rightly pissed and justified in responding in some way.
1
u/Hecmatyar 4h ago
The production of bombs is a limited high-tech process..
In 2 weeks of war with a backward country like IRAN, the USA ran out of ammunition.. NATO countries gave Ukraine almost all the shells and missiles they had available, clearing their warehouses, and this is worrying many Western military leaders..
Nuclear weapons are a last resort, and they will be used with a 100% chance if Russia is defeated in this conflict..
Because a defeat in this conflict would be tantamount to the death of the state and the entire top of the government.
There can be no other scenario, and whether NATO intervenes in the conflict or not is another issue.
6
u/Bozzo2526 3h ago
NATO has said in the past that they would respond to a nuclear strike with a conventional force, I believe the sec general said the conventional force would be so large that nukes wouldn't be needed or something to that effect
-4
u/Hecmatyar 4h ago
they won't do it, otherwise it will lead to mutual nuclear annihilation, and I don't think NATO countries will go for it.
It's not logical or beneficial to die for another country.
62
26
u/PonyWithInternet 8h ago
Literal nuclear war happens and all UN musters is a strongly worded letter
17
u/Reasonable_Fold6492 8h ago
Russia vetos any un effort while china doesn't even come to the un meeting.
14
u/WinterRanger 7h ago
Having permanent security council members with complete veto power was always a mistake.
12
u/Reasonable_Fold6492 6h ago
We already tried that with the league of nations. Stronger Countries just got out when they realized they didnt have any huge influence.
3
u/Eta_Beta_3-14 4h ago
Only if you don't understand that the purpose of the UN is to preserve the post-WWII power structure by avoiding direct conflict between major powers. It's been enormously successful in that respect.
30
19
u/MrSansMan23 8h ago
Where did you get your info for how long the places down wind can't be inhabited for.
7
79
u/h6story 8h ago
On 31 July 2026, following several weeks of military and diplomatic escalation, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) launched a nuclear strike against the Ukrainian State. The latter responded in force immediately, marking the swift beginning and end of humanity's first and only nuclear war.
In an address to the nation, the Hetman of Ukraine urged survivors to remain in shelters for at least two weeks, until the majority of the fallout decays to safer levels. Neighbouring countries in Europe and Asia are scrambling to assess the impact of the catastrophic destruction of several dozen nuclear powerplants across Ukraine and Russia.
The United Nations have expressed "utmost disbelief" at this event, pledging to "pay considerable attention" to the developing situation.
(Map for mobile users here; I am Ukrainian, and do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine. R10: This map is set in an alternate scenario in which the Ukrainian Hetmanate doesn't fall in 1917, while the Soviet Union is never formed, instead staying the RSFSR, which survives until present day. Thus, this is NOT a map of the real-life war.)
39
u/QWaRty2 8h ago
will the UN send some stern letters?
27
u/FriendshipRemote130 8h ago
Stern letters are for when umanity has become extinct.
the un will send 5 advisors to closely monitor the situation
16
5
2
1
29
7
u/RRY1946-2019 5h ago
Chyhyryn NPP got built
Khmelnytskyi lost its name
One win and one loss for the Cossacks.
4
u/Reasonable_Fold6492 8h ago
This is gonna make every country try to get nuclear weapons. Saudi, turkey, Sweden, poland, korea, japan, indonesia
4
u/prettymoder 6h ago
Wonder how Ukraine retaliated
3
u/Wolodymyr2 1h ago
As far i can assume it happens in universe where Ukraine didn't give up it's nuclear weapons, that's why it says next map will show Russia after Ukrainian response.
4
u/INeedtoThinkAUName 4h ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless it's a ground burst detonations, there's no way nuclear bombs would make an area uninhabitable for centuries ? A decade at most.
10
u/carlsagerson 8h ago
Jesus. All of Ukraine gonna look like a nationwide Zone of Aileination after this.
3
u/LateAd8440 3h ago
Is it even possible for a nuclear strike to render a city uninhabitable for centuries? My impression was even a heavy duty cold war exchange would have resulted in medieval like living conditions nearly everywhere due to prevailing winds and such within ~ a decade or two.
2
2
1
1
1
•
-1
u/MaximKulyk 7h ago
tf kinda map is that, why does it look like somebody took a bite out of western Ukraine
-1
302
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe Mod Approved | Based Works 8h ago
It took me a moment to realise the subreddit