Unless you find some way to simultaneously take out all nuclear installations in the world, or prevent their misiles from impacting your territory, this seems extremely hard.
Anyway, a retaliation strike from the USA would wipe out enough of Russia to end the war in a draw, if we can say so. They only have to remind Putin the common wisdom from all those years of cold war, if any of us attacks we are all toast.
Also, wasn't there some revelation, after the cold war ended, that Russia had known American nuclear codes or positions all along? That would certainly give them some advantage.
That's not 'victory' by anyone's definition. Also there are plenty of areas noone is targeting - remote Pacific islands, rural Australia, etc. Theybare going to be much better than a bunker.
Of course that's what they'd want the world to believe, right?
No, it didn't; their numerical advantage in main battle tanks over the #2 is, by ratio, much greater than their advantage in nuclear warheads.
The reason Chernobyl was taken is obvious if you look at a map. It's on the border, and there's a massive offensive across the entirety of it.
It's not a target, it's simply on the way to a target.
It needs 24/7 maintenance.
Do nothing and it melts down and destroyers the globe.
The whole globe? Gonna need a citation for that. It won't be fun for Europe or Russia if it melts down, but destroy the whole globe seems a little hyperbolic.
Here is a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency:
https://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/IEM4/29Jan/Voitsekhovy...
(Poor english but good diagrams)
Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an option. Facing an overwhelming military power you need to improvise. Certainly Putin thought of this option hence he took the control ot the Chernobyl.