Analysis and speculation regarding use of nuclear weapons
October 13, 2022 12:57 AM Subscribe
A post for discussion of nuclear weapons and war in Ukraine.
What is known about the possibility of a nuclear conflict with Russia. (New York Times) (no paywall archive)
The purpose of this post is to provide a place for those who want to discuss the potential use of nukes in Ukraine. And to keep this discussion away from people who would rather not see it.
A few links to start the discussion:
How Close Is Vladimir Putin to Using a Nuclear Bomb? (New Yorker)
Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (International Institute of Strategic Studies)
Ukraine war: how the Biden administration is responding to Putin’s threats to go nuclear (The Conversation)
Potential US responses to the Russian use of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Putin threats: How many nuclear weapons does Russia have? (BBC)
What are nuclear tactical weapons, will they be used in Ukraine? (Al Jazeera)
A Russian Tactical Nuke Wouldn’t Confer Much Battlefield Advantage, Experts Say. But the environmental and health effects would be enormous and long-lasting. (Defense One)
The purpose of this post is to provide a place for those who want to discuss the potential use of nukes in Ukraine. And to keep this discussion away from people who would rather not see it.
A few links to start the discussion:
How Close Is Vladimir Putin to Using a Nuclear Bomb? (New Yorker)
Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (International Institute of Strategic Studies)
Ukraine war: how the Biden administration is responding to Putin’s threats to go nuclear (The Conversation)
Potential US responses to the Russian use of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Ukraine (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
Putin threats: How many nuclear weapons does Russia have? (BBC)
What are nuclear tactical weapons, will they be used in Ukraine? (Al Jazeera)
A Russian Tactical Nuke Wouldn’t Confer Much Battlefield Advantage, Experts Say. But the environmental and health effects would be enormous and long-lasting. (Defense One)
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- taz
Given the unknown quality of Russia's nuclear stockpile. the realistic expectation that, like anything expensive left untouched for decades, it would have been devoured by corruption like a cashmere sweater in a box full of moths, and the fact that firing off a nuke that fizzles would be catastrophic for Putin, any prelude to even planning to use nuclear weapons as anything more than a rhetorical device would probably have to involve a nuclear test to make sure that they work. If seismographs detect an underground nuclear explosion somewhere under Siberia or the Russian Far East, then there'd be reason to start worrying.
posted by acb at 1:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [40 favorites]
posted by acb at 1:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [40 favorites]
France won't retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them in Ukraine
[In my opinion, it is not a good sign that players at the table are revealing their hands.]
posted by chavenet at 1:36 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
[In my opinion, it is not a good sign that players at the table are revealing their hands.]
posted by chavenet at 1:36 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
John Sung Kim: What Elon Musk and others in Silicon Valley get wrong about Ukraine
As an outsider that hasn't been paying attention, I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was generally pro Ukraine. So Musk's tweet about giving Putin parts of Ukraine as an attempt to prevent nuclear war really surprised me. Seeing this op-ed surprised me for the same reason. Are these viewpoints commonplace in Silicon Valley / American tech?
posted by UN at 1:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
As an outsider that hasn't been paying attention, I was under the impression that Silicon Valley was generally pro Ukraine. So Musk's tweet about giving Putin parts of Ukraine as an attempt to prevent nuclear war really surprised me. Seeing this op-ed surprised me for the same reason. Are these viewpoints commonplace in Silicon Valley / American tech?
posted by UN at 1:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [7 favorites]
>Are these viewpoints commonplace in Silicon Valley / American tech?
Musk is completely erratic. But don't assume the tech crowd is a monolith. There are ardent anti-statists. There are right wingers (like Facebook, and Palantir). And there are plenty who just want money.
posted by cult_url_bias at 2:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [15 favorites]
Musk is completely erratic. But don't assume the tech crowd is a monolith. There are ardent anti-statists. There are right wingers (like Facebook, and Palantir). And there are plenty who just want money.
posted by cult_url_bias at 2:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [15 favorites]
he raised a terrifying prospect that many Americans had not worried much about since the end of the Cold War.
A thought that recently occurred to me, and the math checks out:
Nobody under 40 remembers the Cold War. They were either not born yet, or were too young to understand.
Median age in the U.S. was 38.8 as of 2021.
posted by swr at 2:35 AM on October 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
A thought that recently occurred to me, and the math checks out:
Nobody under 40 remembers the Cold War. They were either not born yet, or were too young to understand.
Median age in the U.S. was 38.8 as of 2021.
posted by swr at 2:35 AM on October 13, 2022 [27 favorites]
Any plutonium based weapon risks miss-fire if the conventional explosives that compress the core become slightly miss aligned, including by corrosion, likely this concerns every weapon in existence. I'd expect such miss-fires are discoverable from residual radioactive materials after a minor conventional detonation, although the conventional detonation maybe so small nobody looks.
Any Teller–Ulam design weapon risks partial miss-fire under more subtle failure modes. In particular, US forgot how the aerogel Fogbank worked, so they spent $23 M reinventing it because it needed replacing. It's plausible Russian weapons are larger and simpler, but maintenance costs sound high anyways. Any miss-fire like this is extremely visible since the primary nuclear bomb still goes off, but destroys far less than intended.
And delivery systems can miss-fire too, resulting in detonations in the middle of nowhere, or even dropping unexploded bombs in front of farmers.
The US accounted for half of the $72.9 billion spent on nuclear weapons last year (and wants a $1.2 trillion upgrade)
We've good odds Russia's stockpile were not properly maintained, but no real information, besides so much other equipment being poorly maintained. Any miss-fires are likely to be detected, and reveal the stockpile's poor condition, but even miss-fires won't mean all their weapons broke down.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:46 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
Any Teller–Ulam design weapon risks partial miss-fire under more subtle failure modes. In particular, US forgot how the aerogel Fogbank worked, so they spent $23 M reinventing it because it needed replacing. It's plausible Russian weapons are larger and simpler, but maintenance costs sound high anyways. Any miss-fire like this is extremely visible since the primary nuclear bomb still goes off, but destroys far less than intended.
And delivery systems can miss-fire too, resulting in detonations in the middle of nowhere, or even dropping unexploded bombs in front of farmers.
The US accounted for half of the $72.9 billion spent on nuclear weapons last year (and wants a $1.2 trillion upgrade)
We've good odds Russia's stockpile were not properly maintained, but no real information, besides so much other equipment being poorly maintained. Any miss-fires are likely to be detected, and reveal the stockpile's poor condition, but even miss-fires won't mean all their weapons broke down.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:46 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
I gotta say, as someone who does remember the Cold War, "Don't worry, Putin's nukes are probably defective, they probably won't even go off!" is not the comfort people think it is.
posted by fortitude25 at 2:58 AM on October 13, 2022 [60 favorites]
posted by fortitude25 at 2:58 AM on October 13, 2022 [60 favorites]
France won't retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them in Ukraine
This is just from memory, I don't have a cite, but I thought that France and the U.K. arsenals would be used for a "second strike" response in a major nuclear confrontation. So, Macron might have some wiggle room on this, if that aspect of nuclear strategy is unofficially out there. France might not respond, but France wouldn't be in the initial response anyway, so this statement could still leave open the possibility of a U.S. response.
Agree that Macron or other decision-makers talking about it openly is not a good idea.
posted by gimonca at 3:01 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
This is just from memory, I don't have a cite, but I thought that France and the U.K. arsenals would be used for a "second strike" response in a major nuclear confrontation. So, Macron might have some wiggle room on this, if that aspect of nuclear strategy is unofficially out there. France might not respond, but France wouldn't be in the initial response anyway, so this statement could still leave open the possibility of a U.S. response.
Agree that Macron or other decision-makers talking about it openly is not a good idea.
posted by gimonca at 3:01 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
North Korea says it practiced firing nuclear-capable cruise missiles
posted by chavenet at 3:07 AM on October 13, 2022
posted by chavenet at 3:07 AM on October 13, 2022
Didn't France's openly announced cold-war era nuclear warplans call for nuking an invading Soviet force in Germany?
I suppose that was probably during their hiatus from NATO, but still. They tend to be kind of an odd sideshow with their nuclear policy.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:09 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I suppose that was probably during their hiatus from NATO, but still. They tend to be kind of an odd sideshow with their nuclear policy.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:09 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
So far, the media opinion pieces that come out when there's another flap of Russian nuclear threats all seem to focus on the possibility of escalation of any wartime use of nuclear weapons to a massive strategic exchange.
Other possibilities are also not good ones. If Russia uses ten small nukes, and two actually work, and Russia "gets away with it", that's still bad in the immediate short term, and terrible in the longer term if it leads to some sort of normalization of tactical nukes in battle.
posted by gimonca at 3:19 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
Other possibilities are also not good ones. If Russia uses ten small nukes, and two actually work, and Russia "gets away with it", that's still bad in the immediate short term, and terrible in the longer term if it leads to some sort of normalization of tactical nukes in battle.
posted by gimonca at 3:19 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
There are right wingers (like Facebook, and Palantir).
Supporting Russia in this war is not one of Palantir's sins. (Exploiting the conflict to field test their stuff would be more like it.)
Axios: Denver tech companies play key roles in Ukraine battle against Russia.
Supporting Russia in this war is not one of Palantir's sins. (Exploiting the conflict to field test their stuff would be more like it.)
Axios: Denver tech companies play key roles in Ukraine battle against Russia.
Palantir Technologies' CEO Alex Karp met with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine last week, the company said.posted by snuffleupagus at 3:24 AM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
The leaders strategized ways the Denver company's data mining and intelligence technology could help repel Russia.
In May, Karp told shareholders that the "war in Europe has now conspired to shatter our collective illusions of stability and perpetual peace."
The thing is that Musk doesn't spend a cent on the Ukrainian Starlink connectivity. Starlink get reimbursed at commercial rates by the US and other allies, though Musk is happy to soak up the praise, adding Hero of Ukrainian Freedom to the trophy shelf containing Tesla Founder, Engineering Genius, Berlin EDM DJ, Crypto Influencer and Supercool Meme Lord.
Which means that when, after speaking with Putin he gets redpilled to the usual fashy Duginist talking points and makes an executive decision to block Crimea or something, surely the people who foot the bill could tell him to pull his head in?
posted by acb at 3:45 AM on October 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
Which means that when, after speaking with Putin he gets redpilled to the usual fashy Duginist talking points and makes an executive decision to block Crimea or something, surely the people who foot the bill could tell him to pull his head in?
posted by acb at 3:45 AM on October 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
Really glad for this FPP and thanks for setting it up. Even if the conclusions are still unchanged ('technically and politically unfeasible unless you're insane and/or stupid and/or desperate '), maybe if we keep attacking this from every angle repeatedly we'll find the satisfyingly tragic answer we* can make a movie out of eventually.
*Well, not me, unless another Prime Minister's son wants to play Hollywood producer with my taxpayer money again
posted by cendawanita at 4:28 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
*Well, not me, unless another Prime Minister's son wants to play Hollywood producer with my taxpayer money again
posted by cendawanita at 4:28 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Aren't the winds in Ukraine primarily from the West? The use of a tactical nuke would most likely contaminate land the Russians want and possibly Russia itself depending on where the weapons were deployed. Not that Russia seems overly concerned about killing its own people.
Just as a reminder: Donald Trump & Mike Pompeo are directly responsible for reducing the United States and NATO's ability to monitor Russian nukes by withdrawing from the Open Skies nuclear program monitoring treaty..
It's almost as if this invasion and subsequent nuke threats were part of a long range plan and the Trump administration was part of shaping the battlefield for the invasion of Ukraine and a possible conflict with NATO and Western Europe.
posted by srboisvert at 5:15 AM on October 13, 2022 [30 favorites]
Just as a reminder: Donald Trump & Mike Pompeo are directly responsible for reducing the United States and NATO's ability to monitor Russian nukes by withdrawing from the Open Skies nuclear program monitoring treaty..
It's almost as if this invasion and subsequent nuke threats were part of a long range plan and the Trump administration was part of shaping the battlefield for the invasion of Ukraine and a possible conflict with NATO and Western Europe.
posted by srboisvert at 5:15 AM on October 13, 2022 [30 favorites]
It's almost as if this invasion and subsequent nuke threats were part of a long range plan and the Trump administration was part of shaping the battlefield for the invasion of Ukraine and a possible conflict with NATO and Western Europe.
Y’think?
I know people treat the notion like it’s a silly joke, but you can’t look at how Trump did as much as he could to damage the US’s relationships with its NATO partners, and pump-up Putin, up to the point of stealing classified information and very possibly passing it on to Russia, and not get the vague feeling that he actually was/is a Russian plant. Or, at the very least, a willing stooge, which would be more on-brand, really.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [28 favorites]
Y’think?
I know people treat the notion like it’s a silly joke, but you can’t look at how Trump did as much as he could to damage the US’s relationships with its NATO partners, and pump-up Putin, up to the point of stealing classified information and very possibly passing it on to Russia, and not get the vague feeling that he actually was/is a Russian plant. Or, at the very least, a willing stooge, which would be more on-brand, really.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [28 favorites]
U.S. says to defend "every inch" of NATO as nuclear planning group meets
Meanwhile, NATO said it would go ahead with its annual nuclear preparedness exercise dubbed "Steadfast Noon" next week, in which NATO air forces practise the use of U.S. nuclear bombs based in Europe with training flights, without live weapons.posted by MrVisible at 5:43 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Cancelling the drills because of the war in Ukraine would send a "very wrong signal," NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday.
So they say the odds of a nuclear war are "low." My response? That's not low enough.
Allow me to illustrate.
Humans are not, instinctively, good at understanding probabilities. I have a minor in math, and even for me it does not always come intuitively. A great example of this is the 2016 election. We were all shocked — shocked! — that Trump won the election. Didn't Nate Silver tell us he only had a 29% chance of winning? 29% doesn't sound like a lot, does it? Even I thought those odds looked good. Well, how often does the weather forecast call for a 71% chance of sun, and then it rains? It happens all the time. It happens ... exactly 29% of the time.
Okay, so let's talk about the possibility of nuclear war. They say it's "low." They don't say how low, but let's arbitrarily pick a low number and examine it a bit. Let's say theres an 0.27% chance of nuclear war. I imagine the chances of nuclear war are probably a lot higher, but let's just go with the 0.27% chance. That's 1 in 365, or the probability that a random person you meet will have your same birthday.
Last year, I met a woman on an online dating site, and we dated for a time. Turns out, she had my same birthday. What were the odds? Well, 1 in 365 — or that very low-sounding 0.27% chance. That's based on the idea that someone else's birthday is a random variable — in other words, meeting one woman with my birthday doesn't make it any more or less likely that the next woman I meet will also have my birthday. However, it's worth mentioning that, as handsome as I am, I sincerely doubt that I've dated 365 women. And we also don't know that she's the only woman I've met on a dating site who also had my birthday.
But there you have it. My 0.27% chance came true. Sounds low, but happens all the time. In the parlance of global thermonuclear war, we just lost Seattle.
They say the odds are "low." I say, "not low enough."
posted by panama joe at 5:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [25 favorites]
Allow me to illustrate.
Humans are not, instinctively, good at understanding probabilities. I have a minor in math, and even for me it does not always come intuitively. A great example of this is the 2016 election. We were all shocked — shocked! — that Trump won the election. Didn't Nate Silver tell us he only had a 29% chance of winning? 29% doesn't sound like a lot, does it? Even I thought those odds looked good. Well, how often does the weather forecast call for a 71% chance of sun, and then it rains? It happens all the time. It happens ... exactly 29% of the time.
Okay, so let's talk about the possibility of nuclear war. They say it's "low." They don't say how low, but let's arbitrarily pick a low number and examine it a bit. Let's say theres an 0.27% chance of nuclear war. I imagine the chances of nuclear war are probably a lot higher, but let's just go with the 0.27% chance. That's 1 in 365, or the probability that a random person you meet will have your same birthday.
Last year, I met a woman on an online dating site, and we dated for a time. Turns out, she had my same birthday. What were the odds? Well, 1 in 365 — or that very low-sounding 0.27% chance. That's based on the idea that someone else's birthday is a random variable — in other words, meeting one woman with my birthday doesn't make it any more or less likely that the next woman I meet will also have my birthday. However, it's worth mentioning that, as handsome as I am, I sincerely doubt that I've dated 365 women. And we also don't know that she's the only woman I've met on a dating site who also had my birthday.
But there you have it. My 0.27% chance came true. Sounds low, but happens all the time. In the parlance of global thermonuclear war, we just lost Seattle.
They say the odds are "low." I say, "not low enough."
posted by panama joe at 5:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [25 favorites]
All statistics with a single data point are kinda beyond suspect.
MAD is mad but it it happens the result is unambiguous. But if one small tactical nuke is set off in a non-urban area does that trigger MAD? If not are there rational decisions that the western powers can make that do not escalate to MAD? Seems possible, thus the french declaration to not use nukes may be de-escalatory, not for Putin, but for others in the chain of command.
posted by sammyo at 6:38 AM on October 13, 2022
MAD is mad but it it happens the result is unambiguous. But if one small tactical nuke is set off in a non-urban area does that trigger MAD? If not are there rational decisions that the western powers can make that do not escalate to MAD? Seems possible, thus the french declaration to not use nukes may be de-escalatory, not for Putin, but for others in the chain of command.
posted by sammyo at 6:38 AM on October 13, 2022
I suppose that was probably during their hiatus from NATO, but still. They tend to be kind of an odd sideshow with their nuclear policy.
I dated a guy who actually fulfilled his French national service obligation while living in the US, which apparently consisted of an afternoon in the consulate hearing about why French nuclear testing in the Pacific was totally cool.
posted by hoyland at 6:38 AM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I dated a guy who actually fulfilled his French national service obligation while living in the US, which apparently consisted of an afternoon in the consulate hearing about why French nuclear testing in the Pacific was totally cool.
posted by hoyland at 6:38 AM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
FPP Fission: or How I Learned to Flag It and Move On.
posted by Reverend John at 6:45 AM on October 13, 2022
posted by Reverend John at 6:45 AM on October 13, 2022
There seem two camps in the discussion:
● Stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Doing so crosses Putin's red lines and increases the chance of nuclear confrontation.
● Support Ukraine with weapons, training and financial aid. Not doing so emboldens Putin to cause more damage.
I do not think we have:
● Send weapons to Ukraine. Doing so increases the chance of nuclear confrontation but it's worth the risk.
I think it's fair to argue between points one and two. But many in favor of the first point are working on the assumption that the other side is in favor of the third point, which is a bit of a straw man argument.
What I don't understand, for those who favor the first option: what do you do if Putin takes a step towards other countries? If a dictator confronts you with a red line, the % risk of a nuclear confrontation does not change, right? That's independent of the country in question — the 'red lines' remain. So what's the strategy?
posted by UN at 7:21 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
● Stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Doing so crosses Putin's red lines and increases the chance of nuclear confrontation.
● Support Ukraine with weapons, training and financial aid. Not doing so emboldens Putin to cause more damage.
I do not think we have:
● Send weapons to Ukraine. Doing so increases the chance of nuclear confrontation but it's worth the risk.
I think it's fair to argue between points one and two. But many in favor of the first point are working on the assumption that the other side is in favor of the third point, which is a bit of a straw man argument.
What I don't understand, for those who favor the first option: what do you do if Putin takes a step towards other countries? If a dictator confronts you with a red line, the % risk of a nuclear confrontation does not change, right? That's independent of the country in question — the 'red lines' remain. So what's the strategy?
posted by UN at 7:21 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
The US government is concerned enough to place a large order for a drug that is used to treat radiation sickness.
posted by interogative mood at 7:30 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:30 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Panama Joe: the calculation you did there was to turn the thought “the odds are low enough we don’t really need to worry about it” into a number that sounded like low odds to you, and then argue that if that number was right, it is high enough to worry about it.
The problem with that is it’s just dueling intuitions — is “low enough that we don’t need to worry about it” accurate? In which case the numerical odds are probably much lower than your .27% guess. Or is your intuition that “however low the odds are, they have to be at least .27%” accurate? In which case we should be worrying more (to the extent that there’s anything productive about worrying at all). But we just don’t have the information to pick between those two alternative guesses.
posted by LizardBreath at 7:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
The problem with that is it’s just dueling intuitions — is “low enough that we don’t need to worry about it” accurate? In which case the numerical odds are probably much lower than your .27% guess. Or is your intuition that “however low the odds are, they have to be at least .27%” accurate? In which case we should be worrying more (to the extent that there’s anything productive about worrying at all). But we just don’t have the information to pick between those two alternative guesses.
posted by LizardBreath at 7:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
What I don't understand, for those who favor the first option: what do you do if Putin takes a step towards other countries?
If those countries are part of NATO, then we retaliate with nuclear weapons.
If those countries are not part of NATO ... perhaps there's a good reason they're not part of NATO.
posted by panama joe at 7:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
If those countries are part of NATO, then we retaliate with nuclear weapons.
If those countries are not part of NATO ... perhaps there's a good reason they're not part of NATO.
posted by panama joe at 7:37 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
If those countries are part of NATO, then we retaliate with nuclear weapons.
So if Russia invaded a European NATO country with conventional weapons, the idea is that NATO would retaliate with nuclear weapons?
posted by UN at 7:48 AM on October 13, 2022
So if Russia invaded a European NATO country with conventional weapons, the idea is that NATO would retaliate with nuclear weapons?
posted by UN at 7:48 AM on October 13, 2022
So if Russia invaded a European NATO country with conventional weapons, the idea is that NATO would retaliate with nuclear weapons?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "takes a step."
But I believe that NATO exists for a reason, and a lot of thought has gone into the decisions around whether or not a country is part of that collective. Keep in mind that, until very recently, Ukraine wasn't even being considered for EU membership, let alone NATO.
posted by panama joe at 7:52 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "takes a step."
But I believe that NATO exists for a reason, and a lot of thought has gone into the decisions around whether or not a country is part of that collective. Keep in mind that, until very recently, Ukraine wasn't even being considered for EU membership, let alone NATO.
posted by panama joe at 7:52 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Takes a step" is an unclear phrasing on my part. Let's say invade. Putin invades a NATO country with conventional weapons, draws a red line to the rest of NATO: support this small NATO country and there will be nukes. "This is not a bluff" and all that. The line is drawn, what do you do?
posted by UN at 7:56 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by UN at 7:56 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'd expect nuclear war risks increase dramatically by not halting Russia now, UN, because Russia could slowly discover the maintenance status of its nuclear stockpiles, and Russia could be more belligerent once they know their stockpiles work.
> they say the odds of a nuclear war are "low." My response? That's not low enough.
Ain't so simple.. We've like nine priorities that clearly rank higher than avoiding nuclear war, one of which is limiting carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
We're headed for +3.2°C due to climate change, but really higher since we'll trigger tipping points. As I've noted before, we basically know +4°C would be much worse for our species than a nuclear war between the US and Russia. Afaik, all these other planetary boundaries work out similar once you dig into the details, like if the Amazon or Russia forests die then South America or Asia turn into deserts, which likely kills more people than nuclear war too.
As a species, we're best off if this conflict resolves in some way where (a) Russian forests stay uncut and uninhabited, and (b) Russian coal, oil, and gas stay underground, whatever that means.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
> they say the odds of a nuclear war are "low." My response? That's not low enough.
Ain't so simple.. We've like nine priorities that clearly rank higher than avoiding nuclear war, one of which is limiting carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
We're headed for +3.2°C due to climate change, but really higher since we'll trigger tipping points. As I've noted before, we basically know +4°C would be much worse for our species than a nuclear war between the US and Russia. Afaik, all these other planetary boundaries work out similar once you dig into the details, like if the Amazon or Russia forests die then South America or Asia turn into deserts, which likely kills more people than nuclear war too.
As a species, we're best off if this conflict resolves in some way where (a) Russian forests stay uncut and uninhabited, and (b) Russian coal, oil, and gas stay underground, whatever that means.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [9 favorites]
Why would Russia nuke Ukraine? You don't shit where you eat, and the whole point is that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. If you have to nuke it to keep it, it's not worth it. Maybe somewhere in the west of Ukraine that's full of "Nazis" would work?
If I was them, I'd just skip to nuking somewhere else if for some reason I HAD to do it, but I am not a general for obvious reasons.
posted by kingdead at 8:22 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
If I was them, I'd just skip to nuking somewhere else if for some reason I HAD to do it, but I am not a general for obvious reasons.
posted by kingdead at 8:22 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Russia has shown a willingness to use its conventional weapons in ways that are accomplish very little strategically and only serve to terrorize the population of Ukraine. It will not shock me if they hit Kyiv with a tactical nuclear weapon as punishment for its defiance and in an attempt to decapitate the government of Ukraine.
The larger concern is what happens if as Ukraine advances the Russian government collapses into a huge Russian civil war. There will be a big stockpile of nuclear weapons up for grabs and possibly for sale.
posted by interogative mood at 8:30 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
The larger concern is what happens if as Ukraine advances the Russian government collapses into a huge Russian civil war. There will be a big stockpile of nuclear weapons up for grabs and possibly for sale.
posted by interogative mood at 8:30 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
A thought that recently occurred to me, and the math checks out:
Nobody under 40 remembers the Cold War.
I'll raise you one. Anybody who was ten years old in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki more or less "put the exclamation mark on history" (to quote Marshall McLuhan) is eighty-seven now. We are fast reaching the point where nobody living will have even a passing memory of what it was like to be alive when those horrors were unleashed.
It's all abstraction past a certain point ...
posted by philip-random at 8:46 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Nobody under 40 remembers the Cold War.
I'll raise you one. Anybody who was ten years old in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki more or less "put the exclamation mark on history" (to quote Marshall McLuhan) is eighty-seven now. We are fast reaching the point where nobody living will have even a passing memory of what it was like to be alive when those horrors were unleashed.
It's all abstraction past a certain point ...
posted by philip-random at 8:46 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
. Well, how often does the weather forecast call for a 71% chance of sun, and then it rains? It happens all the time. It happens ... exactly 29% of the time.
If we're going to talk about probability, then using meteorology is not a great example. The thing about modern weather prediction with satellites is that your TV weatherperson knows to a near certainty what the weather pattern will be over the next 24 hours (at least in terms of normal weather, excluding tornadoes etc.), but they don't know where in their coverage map you, the audience member, lives.
Let's say I was your weatherperson, I'm looking at a 100 sq mile map. Thanks to satellites and prediction software, I can say confidently that 50% of this map will definitely get rained on. When I go on TV, I say "50% chance of rain" because the listening audience is as likely to live where the rain will be vs. where it won't.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:47 AM on October 13, 2022 [15 favorites]
If we're going to talk about probability, then using meteorology is not a great example. The thing about modern weather prediction with satellites is that your TV weatherperson knows to a near certainty what the weather pattern will be over the next 24 hours (at least in terms of normal weather, excluding tornadoes etc.), but they don't know where in their coverage map you, the audience member, lives.
Let's say I was your weatherperson, I'm looking at a 100 sq mile map. Thanks to satellites and prediction software, I can say confidently that 50% of this map will definitely get rained on. When I go on TV, I say "50% chance of rain" because the listening audience is as likely to live where the rain will be vs. where it won't.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:47 AM on October 13, 2022 [15 favorites]
The US government is concerned enough to place a large order for a drug that is used to treat radiation sickness.
It isn't something they did now...it is a regular order that isn't for this particular scary reason and isn't nearly large enough to help anyone anyway.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:53 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
It isn't something they did now...it is a regular order that isn't for this particular scary reason and isn't nearly large enough to help anyone anyway.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:53 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Nobody under 40 remembers the Cold War.
Some years ago, I had the thought that we should re-broadcast Threads on TV somewhere. Or send a DVD copy to every person in the US, or make it an all-streaming-platforms collaboration for a one-time-only Streaming Event.
This is exactly why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:59 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
Some years ago, I had the thought that we should re-broadcast Threads on TV somewhere. Or send a DVD copy to every person in the US, or make it an all-streaming-platforms collaboration for a one-time-only Streaming Event.
This is exactly why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:59 AM on October 13, 2022 [13 favorites]
It is important to remember that assigned probabilities of people choosing courses of action are predictions we are imposing on the situation, not models of randomness. The sequence of decisions by all the people involved in attempting an act like a nuclear test or strike, in combination with factors of chaos such as communications issues (missing or miscommunication) and impacts of corruption, compound with the truly random factors like effects of time and decay within the physical systems.
We look at this whole big hairy system and then try to assign a probability that some event will occur. We then consider a changed situation and try to assign a new probability on the event in that changed situation. One of the big arguments in this conflict is whether the change of providing certain types of aid to Ukraine will increase or decrease these probabilities over the long term, in combination with other outcomes of those decisions.
"Calling the bluff" for Putin in this case can be construed as any action other than total capitulation to his demands because he has explicitly spoken this threshold. My concern is that a primary factor in this equation is the information Putin has to work with. Nearly every decision in this conflict can (in my opinion) be rendered more rational by presuming that Putin is working with poor information fed to him by a structure which is better equipped to tell him what he wants to hear rather than the truth. I think this is why Biden said his bit about the dangers of any nuclear action during the Democratic donors event. It was covered by the press as a "gaffe" that was formally walked back a bit, but it was also information that Biden needs to be absolutely sure Putin is hearing.
posted by meinvt at 9:15 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
We look at this whole big hairy system and then try to assign a probability that some event will occur. We then consider a changed situation and try to assign a new probability on the event in that changed situation. One of the big arguments in this conflict is whether the change of providing certain types of aid to Ukraine will increase or decrease these probabilities over the long term, in combination with other outcomes of those decisions.
"Calling the bluff" for Putin in this case can be construed as any action other than total capitulation to his demands because he has explicitly spoken this threshold. My concern is that a primary factor in this equation is the information Putin has to work with. Nearly every decision in this conflict can (in my opinion) be rendered more rational by presuming that Putin is working with poor information fed to him by a structure which is better equipped to tell him what he wants to hear rather than the truth. I think this is why Biden said his bit about the dangers of any nuclear action during the Democratic donors event. It was covered by the press as a "gaffe" that was formally walked back a bit, but it was also information that Biden needs to be absolutely sure Putin is hearing.
posted by meinvt at 9:15 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
When the United States nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did not serve an immediate military field-of-battle goal (no fighting was going on in either city, neither city was at all contested). It did serve a strategic goal (shock-and-awe-ing Japan into immediate capitulation).
It's not clear that nuking part of Ukraine would serve any strategic goal for Putin. Even if it doesn't result in retaliatory nukes hitting Russian territory, It immediately cuts Russia off from the entire world community, turns the country Putin wants to "annex" into part-wasteland, part-eternal enemy, puts radioactive fallout right on Russia's doorstep, and leaves Putin in a position where his sole remaining threat -- lay off of us or we'll nuke all of you -- is hollow at best, and obviously suicidal even if he had the remaining nuclear infrastructure to pull it off, which is in serious doubt.
And, so, the question becomes this: are the nations of the world negotiating with a rational actor who's using the threat of nuclear launches as a cynical ploy, or with a spiteful child who might smash what he's holding simply out of unfettered rage and frustration?
posted by delfin at 9:27 AM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
It's not clear that nuking part of Ukraine would serve any strategic goal for Putin. Even if it doesn't result in retaliatory nukes hitting Russian territory, It immediately cuts Russia off from the entire world community, turns the country Putin wants to "annex" into part-wasteland, part-eternal enemy, puts radioactive fallout right on Russia's doorstep, and leaves Putin in a position where his sole remaining threat -- lay off of us or we'll nuke all of you -- is hollow at best, and obviously suicidal even if he had the remaining nuclear infrastructure to pull it off, which is in serious doubt.
And, so, the question becomes this: are the nations of the world negotiating with a rational actor who's using the threat of nuclear launches as a cynical ploy, or with a spiteful child who might smash what he's holding simply out of unfettered rage and frustration?
posted by delfin at 9:27 AM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
...Even if it doesn't result in retaliatory nukes hitting Russian territory, It immediately cuts Russia off from the entire world community...
I don't think that is necessarily a given. Specifically, I have my doubts China would cut itself off from Russia. Maybe not India, either. Oil has a huge part to play in those instances.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:31 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't think that is necessarily a given. Specifically, I have my doubts China would cut itself off from Russia. Maybe not India, either. Oil has a huge part to play in those instances.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:31 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
the whole point is that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. If you have to nuke it to keep it, it's not worth it.
This hasn't prevented Russia from destroying Mariupol and countless other Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Or Grozny in Chechnya. I'm sure there are other cities that Russia/Soviet Union has equally "liberated".
It is quite doubtful that Russia has the resources to rebuild Ukraine if they wanted to, even if the residents supported them. This isn't post-WW2 Japan and Germany, where those countries were rebuilt.
Taiwan, in the event of a Chinese invasion, thinks about this too: Taiwan says destroying TSMC in the event of a Chinese invasion is unnecessary
posted by meowzilla at 9:48 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
This hasn't prevented Russia from destroying Mariupol and countless other Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Or Grozny in Chechnya. I'm sure there are other cities that Russia/Soviet Union has equally "liberated".
It is quite doubtful that Russia has the resources to rebuild Ukraine if they wanted to, even if the residents supported them. This isn't post-WW2 Japan and Germany, where those countries were rebuilt.
Taiwan, in the event of a Chinese invasion, thinks about this too: Taiwan says destroying TSMC in the event of a Chinese invasion is unnecessary
posted by meowzilla at 9:48 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Aren't the winds in Ukraine primarily from the West?Primarily, but the angle and speed depends strongly on timing. Right now when I look at wind maps I see air from eastern Ukraine heading slowly south over the Black Sea; when I looked a day or two ago they were basically funnelling air straight over Moscow.
I'm not sure that's going to enter into their thinking either way. Playing around with Nukemap, with tactical-nuke-sized detonations (originally with burst height optimized for blast damage, then other values for the hell of it), I'm only seeing fallout plumes under 200km. Sucks for Eastern Ukraine, but caring about Eastern Ukraine seems to be a pretty flimsy pretext rather than an actual component of Russian strategic planning.
posted by roystgnr at 9:48 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
> Aren't the winds in Ukraine primarily from the West? The use of a tactical nuke would
> most likely contaminate land the Russians want and possibly Russia itself depending
> on where the weapons were deployed.
Tactical nukes come in all sizes, and in any case fallout is very different from a meltdown. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki returned to their 1945 levels within 10 years.
(things have gotten weird more recently though -- the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world while simultaneously having among the lowest rates of breast cancer.)
Even for a mass strategic nuclear exchange the radiation threat would be largely gone within 5 years. The armageddon scenario is what it would do to the environment.
No one wants to pull out nukes and their use would be truly devastating, but they're not really the end of the world. Russia knows this.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:15 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
The armageddon scenario is what it would do to the environment. No one wants to pull out nukes and their use would be truly devastating, but they're not really the end of the world.
An "armageddeon scenario" impact on the environment sounds pretty fucking apocalyptic to me, my dude.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:18 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
An "armageddeon scenario" impact on the environment sounds pretty fucking apocalyptic to me, my dude.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:18 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
No one wants to pull out nukes and their use would be truly devastating, but they're not really the end of the world.
the lack of imagination inherent in this train of thought is frankly terrifying to me. Somebody posted this in an early nuke discussion but it bears repeating:
Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove
posted by philip-random at 10:55 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
the lack of imagination inherent in this train of thought is frankly terrifying to me. Somebody posted this in an early nuke discussion but it bears repeating:
Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove
posted by philip-random at 10:55 AM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
France won't retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them in Ukraine
[In my opinion, it is not a good sign that players at the table are revealing their hands.]
This is standard French nuclear doctrine, and has been for six decades. Macron wasn't going to unilaterally change things on the hoof, nor should he. The French will only use nuclear weapons if France is directly attacked. Same goes for the UK, IIRC.
posted by arkhangel at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
[In my opinion, it is not a good sign that players at the table are revealing their hands.]
This is standard French nuclear doctrine, and has been for six decades. Macron wasn't going to unilaterally change things on the hoof, nor should he. The French will only use nuclear weapons if France is directly attacked. Same goes for the UK, IIRC.
posted by arkhangel at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
And the war itself has given corporations and countries an economic excuse to open and consume even more fossil fuels, which will further irretrievably accelerate global warming. The left has been talking about this consequence of the war, meanwhile mainstream media is busy spinning the nuclear problem because that captures people's attention. It's with deep irony because this contribution of war to environmental damage is already happening, it's just less appreciable by and/or less known by the public.
posted by polymodus at 11:04 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 11:04 AM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
the lack of imagination inherent in this train of thought is frankly terrifying to me.
The rampant fear that the words "radiation" and "nuclear" inspire in people, particularly those that grew up during the Cold War, terrify me. As long as the American politicians and populace are making decisions based on Cold War propaganda and Hollywood blockbusters they will continually misjudge the Russians.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:05 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
The rampant fear that the words "radiation" and "nuclear" inspire in people, particularly those that grew up during the Cold War, terrify me. As long as the American politicians and populace are making decisions based on Cold War propaganda and Hollywood blockbusters they will continually misjudge the Russians.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:05 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
An "armageddeon scenario" impact on the environment sounds pretty fucking apocalyptic to me, my dude.
Fair point. I was just thinking of the radiation aspect. There’s a good chance the world would become a wasteland, just not a nuclear one.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Fair point. I was just thinking of the radiation aspect. There’s a good chance the world would become a wasteland, just not a nuclear one.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:07 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
(The UK has made commitments through NATO that France has not. NATO comes from a history of planning and threatening to use nuclear weapons against Russian conventional attack, simply because the Russian conventional forces were seen as numerous and overwhelming. The UK remains deliberately ambiguous about the red lines for their own use of nuclear weapons.)
We've kept the nuclear taboo for 77 years. To me, that matters more than this war. It matters for the next war, and the war after that, and the war after that.
Keeping this taboo justifies the strongest response to nuclear threats, because if you give in to blackmail once then you've shown that you'll fold in the face of nuclear weapons. That would give every pissant dictator a reason to get nuclear weapons. And that's how we would get more nuclear wars.
So the West's response to Putin's threats should be very blunt: "if you use one nuke, then we use enough to remove Russia from the map".
If that threat is credible enough, then if Putin orders the use of one nuke, everyone in the Russian military knows that obeying those orders means their own death , the death of their family, and the death of everyone they know. That's gives us the best chance of ensuring those orders are not carried out.
posted by happyinmotion at 11:31 AM on October 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
We've kept the nuclear taboo for 77 years. To me, that matters more than this war. It matters for the next war, and the war after that, and the war after that.
Keeping this taboo justifies the strongest response to nuclear threats, because if you give in to blackmail once then you've shown that you'll fold in the face of nuclear weapons. That would give every pissant dictator a reason to get nuclear weapons. And that's how we would get more nuclear wars.
So the West's response to Putin's threats should be very blunt: "if you use one nuke, then we use enough to remove Russia from the map".
If that threat is credible enough, then if Putin orders the use of one nuke, everyone in the Russian military knows that obeying those orders means their own death , the death of their family, and the death of everyone they know. That's gives us the best chance of ensuring those orders are not carried out.
posted by happyinmotion at 11:31 AM on October 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
I was going to post this in the first, deprecated, Ukraine thread, but, it would get deleted.
For those of us who grew up in the 80s, the anxiety of nuclear annihilation was ever present.
Then the USSR fell apart, and things got dealt with. And everyone forgot. Assumed rational people were realizing how crazy it was to use nukes.
You cannot discuss this war and not consider possible insane reactions when someone like Putin is in charge. That genie is not going back in the bottle. Desperate people do desperate things. Like, the way this war has evolved.
And so many pointless deaths... sigh
posted by Windopaene at 11:33 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
For those of us who grew up in the 80s, the anxiety of nuclear annihilation was ever present.
Then the USSR fell apart, and things got dealt with. And everyone forgot. Assumed rational people were realizing how crazy it was to use nukes.
You cannot discuss this war and not consider possible insane reactions when someone like Putin is in charge. That genie is not going back in the bottle. Desperate people do desperate things. Like, the way this war has evolved.
And so many pointless deaths... sigh
posted by Windopaene at 11:33 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
As long as the American politicians and populace are making decisions based on Cold War propaganda and Hollywood blockbusters they will continually misjudge the Russians.
How do you figure this?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
How do you figure this?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
the West's response to Putin's threats should be very blunt: "if you use one nuke, then we use enough to remove Russia from the map".
If that threat is credible enough, then if Putin orders the use of one nuke
I don't know how you make "If you nuke Snake Island we'll unleash our strategic forces" a credible threat. Will American forces choose to unleash the apocalypse- drawing certain second strikes on the US in return- in that situation? I find it unlikely!
I've read that relatively recent wargames involving US officials ended up responding to a single nuke use by Russia with... nuking Belarus one time.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:52 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
If that threat is credible enough, then if Putin orders the use of one nuke
I don't know how you make "If you nuke Snake Island we'll unleash our strategic forces" a credible threat. Will American forces choose to unleash the apocalypse- drawing certain second strikes on the US in return- in that situation? I find it unlikely!
I've read that relatively recent wargames involving US officials ended up responding to a single nuke use by Russia with... nuking Belarus one time.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:52 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
That is, in a simulated situation where Russia used a smallish nuclear weapon, American officials didn't want to nuke Russia per se and, in lieu of any better options, nuked Belarus instead, even though Belarus wasn't even a party to the simulated scenario.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:53 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 11:53 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I grew up in the 1980s, in the last lingering shadows of the Cold War. I learned that at any minute, the nukes could fall and that would be the end of everything. So I never planned for a future. What would be the point? Might as well just wake up every dismal day, go through the rote motions of living, and then go back to sleep. Now I'm old, and fat, and broke, and tired. But the one thing I'm not? I'm not scared of nuclear armageddon.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:58 AM on October 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:58 AM on October 13, 2022 [12 favorites]
Oh, here's that wargame described in an article in Slate ("Why the U.S. Might Not Use a Nuke, Even if Russia Does"):
The game’s scenario: Russia invades one of the Baltic countries; NATO fights back effectively; Russia fires a low-yield nuclear weapon at the NATO troops or at a base in Germany where drones, combat planes, and smart bombs are deployed. The question: What do U.S. decision makers do now?...posted by BungaDunga at 11:59 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter... insisted that it was crucial to meet a nuclear attack with a nuclear response; the allies expect us to do this; if we didn’t, that would be disastrous for NATO, the end of all our alliances, the end of America’s credibility worldwide.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and the Secretary of Energy agreed with Carter...
the question turned to operational matters. Where should we aim the nuclear response? Someone suggested Kaliningrad, but it was noted that Kaliningrad was part of Russia; if the U.S. hit it with nukes, Russia might fire back at the United States. How about hitting the Russian invaders in the Baltics? Well, the bombs would also kill a lot of Baltic civilians. Finally, the generals settled on firing a few nuclear weapons at the former Soviet republic of Belarus, even though, in the game thus far, Belarus had played no role in the war. And then the game was stopped.
That's a good threat on a couple of levels.
I agree, and it also reinforces that it's all Russia's own behavior that's the problem. Don't want to get the bug-guts stomped out of every force you have outside your borders (which we totally could do at any time and you know it)? Well how about not having forces conducting aggression outside your borders? We're not interested in attacking Russia, but we WILL put you back in your can.
posted by ctmf at 12:03 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I agree, and it also reinforces that it's all Russia's own behavior that's the problem. Don't want to get the bug-guts stomped out of every force you have outside your borders (which we totally could do at any time and you know it)? Well how about not having forces conducting aggression outside your borders? We're not interested in attacking Russia, but we WILL put you back in your can.
posted by ctmf at 12:03 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't know how you make "If you nuke Snake Island we'll unleash our strategic forces" a credible threat.
"If nuclear-weapon state Russia uses nuclear weapons in this conflict against non-nuclear-weapon state Ukraine, we will make available to Ukraine an equivalent kilotonnage of American nuclear weapons to be used and targeted at Ukrainian discretion."
posted by The Tensor at 12:07 PM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
"If nuclear-weapon state Russia uses nuclear weapons in this conflict against non-nuclear-weapon state Ukraine, we will make available to Ukraine an equivalent kilotonnage of American nuclear weapons to be used and targeted at Ukrainian discretion."
posted by The Tensor at 12:07 PM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
We've collectively done 520 atmospheric detonations with a combined yield of 545 Mt. Almost all tests were "small" tactical sizes, but the 73 detonations above 1.4 Mt brought a combined yield of > 405 Mt (see health assessments)
Any war discussed here would release far less radiation, so no nuclear wastelands. W78 and W87 warheads on Minuteman IIIs yield 0.3 or 0.35 Mt. W88 warheads on Tridents yield 0.475 Mt. Afaik actual tactical weapons are considerably smaller. Almost all the current yield rests with our 650 1.2 Mt B83s, and our 3000ish 0.1ish Mt B61s, which both require bombers like the B-52.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:09 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Any war discussed here would release far less radiation, so no nuclear wastelands. W78 and W87 warheads on Minuteman IIIs yield 0.3 or 0.35 Mt. W88 warheads on Tridents yield 0.475 Mt. Afaik actual tactical weapons are considerably smaller. Almost all the current yield rests with our 650 1.2 Mt B83s, and our 3000ish 0.1ish Mt B61s, which both require bombers like the B-52.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:09 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's almost as if this invasion and subsequent nuke threats were part of a long range plan and the Trump administration was part of shaping the battlefield for the invasion of Ukraine and a possible conflict with NATO and Western Europe.
posted by srboisvert at 7:15 AM on October 13
I have no trouble at all believing Trump is a stooge for Russia but am wondering why Biden didn't rejoin Open Skies. (from your linked Wikipedia article: "In January 2021, Russia announced that it will follow the United States in withdrawing from the Treaty on Open Skies.[39] The Biden administration informed Moscow in May 2021 that it would not re-enter the pact; on 7 June 2021 Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on that formalised Russia's exit from the Treaty on Open Skies.")
posted by joannemerriam at 12:14 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 7:15 AM on October 13
I have no trouble at all believing Trump is a stooge for Russia but am wondering why Biden didn't rejoin Open Skies. (from your linked Wikipedia article: "In January 2021, Russia announced that it will follow the United States in withdrawing from the Treaty on Open Skies.[39] The Biden administration informed Moscow in May 2021 that it would not re-enter the pact; on 7 June 2021 Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law on that formalised Russia's exit from the Treaty on Open Skies.")
posted by joannemerriam at 12:14 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't know how you make "If you nuke Snake Island we'll unleash our strategic forces" a credible threat.
Only madmen would chose to use nuclear weapons, but it was Nixon that came up with the Madman theory of nuclear deterrance. It would be nuts to nuke Russia over Snake Island, but then again, it was nuts for Russia to invade Ukraine.
If US decisionmakers present themselves as irrational, then that makes their threats more credible, which makes it less likely that they'll have to use nuclear weapons, so presenting as irrational is a rational strategy. Yes, strategic theories of nuclear confrontation lead to some very weird conclusions.
hippybear hits it on the head though - the constraint on nuclear attack on Russia is Russia's nuclear second strike. So the West's first strike needs to be a disabling counter-force strike intending to destroy Russia's strategic nuclear forces before those can launch. That means not using detectable ICBMs but instead using stealth bombers, low-observable cruise missiles, and sub-launched ballistic missiles on depressed tragectories. That gives Russian forces five minutes or less to respond. That's not enough time to launch.
However, those weapons are all highly accurate, potentially accurate enough that fitting them with conventional warheads may be effective enough without using nukes.
Maybe.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:23 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Only madmen would chose to use nuclear weapons, but it was Nixon that came up with the Madman theory of nuclear deterrance. It would be nuts to nuke Russia over Snake Island, but then again, it was nuts for Russia to invade Ukraine.
If US decisionmakers present themselves as irrational, then that makes their threats more credible, which makes it less likely that they'll have to use nuclear weapons, so presenting as irrational is a rational strategy. Yes, strategic theories of nuclear confrontation lead to some very weird conclusions.
hippybear hits it on the head though - the constraint on nuclear attack on Russia is Russia's nuclear second strike. So the West's first strike needs to be a disabling counter-force strike intending to destroy Russia's strategic nuclear forces before those can launch. That means not using detectable ICBMs but instead using stealth bombers, low-observable cruise missiles, and sub-launched ballistic missiles on depressed tragectories. That gives Russian forces five minutes or less to respond. That's not enough time to launch.
However, those weapons are all highly accurate, potentially accurate enough that fitting them with conventional warheads may be effective enough without using nukes.
Maybe.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:23 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
At least nothing short of MAD.
This is all dusty game theory. There's nothing to say a Putin willing to resort to MAD wouldn't do something more limited to test the world's resolve. Worst case scenario is the same, but maybe you do better than that....
We have no real way of knowing what would happen (differently than in conventional war) and that is where these threads always land.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:27 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
This is all dusty game theory. There's nothing to say a Putin willing to resort to MAD wouldn't do something more limited to test the world's resolve. Worst case scenario is the same, but maybe you do better than that....
We have no real way of knowing what would happen (differently than in conventional war) and that is where these threads always land.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:27 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
We do not risk nuclear winter either because we already release far more soot from forest fire than occurs in nuclear winter models.
"[Nuclear winter is] an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." - Freeman Dyson (Princeton)
"[The nuclear winter concept is] notorious for its lack of scientific integrity" - Kerry Emanuel (MIT)
"a war in late fall or winter would have no appreciable [cooling] effect" - Stephen Schneider (Stanford)
We might face nuclear summer aka ozone depletion, assuming some future nuclear war reaches the B-52 campaign phase. Yet, it turns out climate change shall create a wet stratosphere that destroys the ozone layer though too.
It appears climate change shall bring about every significant long-term consequence of nuclear war, and also much worse, which clarifies were the real priorities lie.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:33 PM on October 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
"[Nuclear winter is] an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." - Freeman Dyson (Princeton)
"[The nuclear winter concept is] notorious for its lack of scientific integrity" - Kerry Emanuel (MIT)
"a war in late fall or winter would have no appreciable [cooling] effect" - Stephen Schneider (Stanford)
We might face nuclear summer aka ozone depletion, assuming some future nuclear war reaches the B-52 campaign phase. Yet, it turns out climate change shall create a wet stratosphere that destroys the ozone layer though too.
It appears climate change shall bring about every significant long-term consequence of nuclear war, and also much worse, which clarifies were the real priorities lie.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:33 PM on October 13, 2022 [10 favorites]
So the West's first strike needs to be a disabling counter-force strike intending to destroy Russia's strategic nuclear forces
AND, the problem is you have to assume you don't get them all. They will have some amount of second-strike, period. Not the full second strike, but somewhere between 0% and 100%. Most people would say any second strike is an unacceptable risk to conducting the first strike.
Especially since their (exaggerating) one surviving missile in the air headed for a city in the West - now what. Retaliate against the retaliation to our own action? Accept it?
posted by ctmf at 12:33 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
AND, the problem is you have to assume you don't get them all. They will have some amount of second-strike, period. Not the full second strike, but somewhere between 0% and 100%. Most people would say any second strike is an unacceptable risk to conducting the first strike.
Especially since their (exaggerating) one surviving missile in the air headed for a city in the West - now what. Retaliate against the retaliation to our own action? Accept it?
posted by ctmf at 12:33 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
the West's first strike needs to be a disabling counter-force strike intending to destroy Russia's strategic nuclear forces before those can launch.
I don't think there's any known technology that can disable either side's second strike capability: SLBMs. All the other stuff maybe can or can't launch on warning, but the subs don't have to. There's an argument out there that we could all dismantle our silos tomorrow and the strategic situation would be basically unchanged, since it's the submarines that are providing the second-strike guarantee.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:42 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't think there's any known technology that can disable either side's second strike capability: SLBMs. All the other stuff maybe can or can't launch on warning, but the subs don't have to. There's an argument out there that we could all dismantle our silos tomorrow and the strategic situation would be basically unchanged, since it's the submarines that are providing the second-strike guarantee.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:42 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I do not miss the constant background hum of nuclear dread. Not one single bit. I've already had so much damn anxiety from the whole global pandemic while suffering from chronic respiratory disease and now this.
posted by drewbage1847 at 12:43 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 12:43 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
This thread's existential terror balances nicely with the body-horror of the colonoscopy thread!
posted by mittens at 12:51 PM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:51 PM on October 13, 2022 [5 favorites]
I was in high school when the wall fell and it was chaotic, but at the same time felt like a relief, something had broken... maybe this was it. Real change.
Humans suck. I'd like to just hang out with my dogs.
posted by drewbage1847 at 12:53 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Humans suck. I'd like to just hang out with my dogs.
posted by drewbage1847 at 12:53 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Honestly I have less fear about a nuclear exchange than the slow slide into fascism that's happening in the U.S., and the fact that so many people seem OK with it. I grew up expecting a Mad Max future, not a dystopia where you still have to go to work every day while dodging the plague.
posted by jzb at 12:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by jzb at 12:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [20 favorites]
But there's a big insult in this threat as well. That NATO could annihilate Russia's military at any time of its choosing. Without using a single nuke. And there's nothing Russia could do about it. At least nothing short of MAD. That's a pretty visceral insult to a gangster like Putin.
No it is not. It amounts to a gigantic boast if not an outright lie. Why would Putin even believe that the US/NATO has the capability to literally destroy the entire Russian army within hours/weeks? And what if we don't? Then what? And if we even start destroying Russia's visible navy, then what makes anyone think he wouldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons? Do we have a swarm of invisible planes and missiles we are going to use?
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:14 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
That came from a Foreign Policy chief, not a military strategist. And it doesn't answer what Round 2 brings. NATO doesn't have the resources at the ready to launch a quick decisive offensive in Ukraine- so Russia has time to ready any other nuclear missiles they are preparing.
Never mind that it starts WW3.
If the Russian army in Ukraine is destroyed, then what stops the west (or Ukraine or anyone else) from invading either to take territory or preemptively destroy nuclear weapons?
So, no, sorry but the threat from NATO and the suggested actions are not credible.
It's honestly childish thinking and silly boasting.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:21 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Never mind that it starts WW3.
If the Russian army in Ukraine is destroyed, then what stops the west (or Ukraine or anyone else) from invading either to take territory or preemptively destroy nuclear weapons?
So, no, sorry but the threat from NATO and the suggested actions are not credible.
It's honestly childish thinking and silly boasting.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:21 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
And like I said, MAD would be an option for Putin. But that's an option where he and his country lose everything. There wouldn't be any effective short-term responses possible for Russia that fall short of MAD.
I think the thing people are overlooking is that Putin would have the presence of mind to remember this.
He's a megalomaniac who only wants to win. He's got the ego of Trump, but with more brains. He very well MAY NOT CARE if MAD is triggered - a phyrric victory is still a victory, right?
People assuming Putin can be reasoned with scares me.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:25 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think the thing people are overlooking is that Putin would have the presence of mind to remember this.
He's a megalomaniac who only wants to win. He's got the ego of Trump, but with more brains. He very well MAY NOT CARE if MAD is triggered - a phyrric victory is still a victory, right?
People assuming Putin can be reasoned with scares me.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:25 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
If Russia needs their army to protect their territory then they should withdraw it back inside of Russia where it can do that job and be safe from scary NATO.
posted by rustcrumb at 2:26 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by rustcrumb at 2:26 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
If Russia needs their army to protect their territory then they should withdraw it back inside of Russia where it can do that job and be safe from scary NATO.
They don't currently need their army to protect their territory from NATO because currently NATO is not involved in this conflict and doesn't wish to become so.
Also, this thread makes me laugh - if any threats of nuclear assault are rational and need to be war gamed, then GWII was right about prematurely attacking Iraq to make sure they didn't get any nuclear weapons, even if the actual threat was only in G Bush's head.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:50 PM on October 13, 2022
They don't currently need their army to protect their territory from NATO because currently NATO is not involved in this conflict and doesn't wish to become so.
Also, this thread makes me laugh - if any threats of nuclear assault are rational and need to be war gamed, then GWII was right about prematurely attacking Iraq to make sure they didn't get any nuclear weapons, even if the actual threat was only in G Bush's head.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:50 PM on October 13, 2022
the West's response to Putin's threats should be very blunt: "if you use one nuke, then we use enough to remove Russia from the map".
I used to be a believer in MAD as a deterrent. Now I wonder if the more humane approach should be to establish a norm that any country that pre-emptively uses nukes is subject to decapitation by the rest of the world. That is, if chief executive X were to decide to use nukes, then the world should engage in a relentless, concerted campaign to kill chief executive X in particular. That could (but importantly does not necessarily, and may not even likely) involve engaging in total war against whatever country dictator X rules. If such a norm were established, then in the event of a nuclear attack, it seems likely that fewer people would die.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 2:53 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I used to be a believer in MAD as a deterrent. Now I wonder if the more humane approach should be to establish a norm that any country that pre-emptively uses nukes is subject to decapitation by the rest of the world. That is, if chief executive X were to decide to use nukes, then the world should engage in a relentless, concerted campaign to kill chief executive X in particular. That could (but importantly does not necessarily, and may not even likely) involve engaging in total war against whatever country dictator X rules. If such a norm were established, then in the event of a nuclear attack, it seems likely that fewer people would die.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 2:53 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don't think there's any known technology that can disable either side's second strike capability: SLBMs. All the other stuff maybe can or can't launch on warning, but the subs don't have to. There's an argument out there that we could all dismantle our silos tomorrow and the strategic situation would be basically unchanged, since it's the submarines that are providing the second-strike guarantee.
This is the heart of it, for me. Keeping a fleet of SSBNs in operation is a fucking expensive proposition for a nation as poor as Russia (seriously: half the GDP of California), and they're not doing it for fun. I assume the SLBMs are a majority of the warheads they know actually still work.
The rest... well, from their perspective the US was probably going to get most of them in a first strike anyway, so why spend money keeping them operational? They know that they manufactured X warheads and any US spies in their manufacturing program would confirm that much actually happened. Maintenance beyond that is scattered so thoroughly across so many bases and mobile launchers over a huge countryside. Who's going to call them on it?
Point is: I think their second strike / retaliatory SLBMs are probably functional, and that's a serious enough threat that our current policy WRT Ukraine is the only sane approach.
posted by Ryvar at 2:54 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
This is the heart of it, for me. Keeping a fleet of SSBNs in operation is a fucking expensive proposition for a nation as poor as Russia (seriously: half the GDP of California), and they're not doing it for fun. I assume the SLBMs are a majority of the warheads they know actually still work.
The rest... well, from their perspective the US was probably going to get most of them in a first strike anyway, so why spend money keeping them operational? They know that they manufactured X warheads and any US spies in their manufacturing program would confirm that much actually happened. Maintenance beyond that is scattered so thoroughly across so many bases and mobile launchers over a huge countryside. Who's going to call them on it?
Point is: I think their second strike / retaliatory SLBMs are probably functional, and that's a serious enough threat that our current policy WRT Ukraine is the only sane approach.
posted by Ryvar at 2:54 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
NATO doesn't have the resources at the ready to launch a quick decisive offensive in Ukraine- so Russia has time to ready any other nuclear missiles they are preparing.
Ukraine is currently more than holding its own on the ground AND in the air. I'm pretty sure NATO, if it chose to, could wipe out the Russian Air Force in occupied Ukraine and sink the Black Sea Fleet besides within hours. Without sea OR air support, Russian ground forces would be in deep trouble.
And yes, Russia could then respond with nuclear weapons. But that's been true for every minute of every day of my half-century of life, covering multiple wars including the current one. What's stopped them up to now?
posted by The Tensor at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ukraine is currently more than holding its own on the ground AND in the air. I'm pretty sure NATO, if it chose to, could wipe out the Russian Air Force in occupied Ukraine and sink the Black Sea Fleet besides within hours. Without sea OR air support, Russian ground forces would be in deep trouble.
And yes, Russia could then respond with nuclear weapons. But that's been true for every minute of every day of my half-century of life, covering multiple wars including the current one. What's stopped them up to now?
posted by The Tensor at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
On the flip side, up until the point that Putin does use nukes, it seems like the Ukraine-aligned world would do well to offer Putin an out in the form of a safe life in exile. As success in Ukraine recedes from his sight, he may have a harder time staying alive in Russia.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's just crazy to me, hearing people speak — calmly and with a straight face — about the possibility of "limited nuclear exchange," or how a nuclear war "might not mean total destruction." I'd imagine there were folks around in the Kennedy era would speak of such things, but the "lefties" and "peaceniks" of the time would have considered them the hawkiest of the war hawks (e.g. Kissinger and his ilk). Nowadays, the people taking up such viewpoints are ... lefties and peaceniks???
I'm sorry, but I just cannot be with you on this one. It is not a step my mind is willing to take.
posted by panama joe at 3:17 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, but I just cannot be with you on this one. It is not a step my mind is willing to take.
posted by panama joe at 3:17 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
But the one thing I'm not? I'm not scared of nuclear armageddon.
Right?!? I used to cry over this as a child, and now I'm just sitting here in the park smoking weed and staring at the fall colours with a big "This is fine" smile pasted on my face.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:55 PM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
Right?!? I used to cry over this as a child, and now I'm just sitting here in the park smoking weed and staring at the fall colours with a big "This is fine" smile pasted on my face.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:55 PM on October 13, 2022 [6 favorites]
The only kind of nuclear war we've had so far: limited.
Sure, things changed between WW2 and the Kennedy era. And they've changed since the Kennedy era and now, too. For instance: USSR is no longer. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The power dynamics are not what they used to be.
The two countries in a hot war we're talking about: both are former Soviet Union.
What would Kennedy have done if a nuclear confrontation within the USSR was starting? Who knows. Definitely it would involve a bunker. Maybe a strike. Or maybe they'd sit and watch and be ready for anything but avoid getting sucked in?
Surely Cold War era thinking can be revised some 30 years later (!).
posted by UN at 4:12 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Sure, things changed between WW2 and the Kennedy era. And they've changed since the Kennedy era and now, too. For instance: USSR is no longer. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The power dynamics are not what they used to be.
The two countries in a hot war we're talking about: both are former Soviet Union.
What would Kennedy have done if a nuclear confrontation within the USSR was starting? Who knows. Definitely it would involve a bunker. Maybe a strike. Or maybe they'd sit and watch and be ready for anything but avoid getting sucked in?
Surely Cold War era thinking can be revised some 30 years later (!).
posted by UN at 4:12 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Much else has changed besides. There are fewer nuclear weapons in the world than there were in 1980. Improved accuracy of delivery systems has reduced the need for extremely high yields. Improved conventional weapons also reduce the need for nuclear weapons. The high survivability of ballistic missile submarines is a stabilizing force, also.
posted by rustcrumb at 4:17 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by rustcrumb at 4:17 PM on October 13, 2022 [4 favorites]
One aspect of the nuke discussion that I've been having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around is this: Under what circumstances would Putin think that using nukes was a better option than not using nukes?
Assuming that Putin isn't a Nixonian Madman, then he's making some kind of rational, though possibly/likely misguided or incorrect, calculus. What are the benefits for Putin of using nukes and when do those benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Of course, the calculation of pros and cons would also come down to exactly what kind of nukes are deployed (e.g.: bigger or smaller) and against what targets (e.g.: a Ukrainian tank column in Luhansk Oblast, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, a civilian population center in Ukraine, anything at all inside of a NATO country, etc...).
As for the downsides, one aspect that I think is perhaps a little under-played (though I think that the New Yorker article alludes indirectly to it) is how China may react. Like, it's one thing for Putin to piss off The West (I mean, he's already at war with The West in his own mind). It'd be a whole other thing to piss off one of Russia's few remaining sources of technology, currency, and resources from the outside world. If I were in a position to do so, probably I'd want to be spending as much time and effort as I could figuring out -- and, if possible, influencing -- China's stance on any possible Putin nuke move. For all the talk of what Putin's "red lines" might be, I'm kind of curious to know what red lines Xi Jinping might have.
posted by mhum at 5:30 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Assuming that Putin isn't a Nixonian Madman, then he's making some kind of rational, though possibly/likely misguided or incorrect, calculus. What are the benefits for Putin of using nukes and when do those benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Of course, the calculation of pros and cons would also come down to exactly what kind of nukes are deployed (e.g.: bigger or smaller) and against what targets (e.g.: a Ukrainian tank column in Luhansk Oblast, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, a civilian population center in Ukraine, anything at all inside of a NATO country, etc...).
As for the downsides, one aspect that I think is perhaps a little under-played (though I think that the New Yorker article alludes indirectly to it) is how China may react. Like, it's one thing for Putin to piss off The West (I mean, he's already at war with The West in his own mind). It'd be a whole other thing to piss off one of Russia's few remaining sources of technology, currency, and resources from the outside world. If I were in a position to do so, probably I'd want to be spending as much time and effort as I could figuring out -- and, if possible, influencing -- China's stance on any possible Putin nuke move. For all the talk of what Putin's "red lines" might be, I'm kind of curious to know what red lines Xi Jinping might have.
posted by mhum at 5:30 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
OSINT commentator Perun's take on the nuclear scenarios (from five months ago or so).
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:50 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:50 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'd think Biden and Xi Jinping both benefit from the current proxy war continuing indefinitely.
In theory, Xi Jinping promised retaking Taiwan, albeit peacefully. Any protracted direct America v Russia conventional war gives him wider opportunities. America squishing Russia's military quickly maybe reduces his options. Russia ousting Putin also risks his cheap oil and gas supply, but maybe not much.
An American occupation-turned-oil-heist of Russia gives him wider options again, but limits his oil and gas supply. It's even plausible China would "ally" and "help" an American invasion, by conquering eastern Russia, which they'll really desire in like 20-30 years once real climate famines hit.
An American-Chinese occupation of Russia should be considered the absolute worst case scenario, by this criteria.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:00 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
In theory, Xi Jinping promised retaking Taiwan, albeit peacefully. Any protracted direct America v Russia conventional war gives him wider opportunities. America squishing Russia's military quickly maybe reduces his options. Russia ousting Putin also risks his cheap oil and gas supply, but maybe not much.
An American occupation-turned-oil-heist of Russia gives him wider options again, but limits his oil and gas supply. It's even plausible China would "ally" and "help" an American invasion, by conquering eastern Russia, which they'll really desire in like 20-30 years once real climate famines hit.
An American-Chinese occupation of Russia should be considered the absolute worst case scenario, by this criteria.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:00 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Assuming that Putin isn't a Nixonian Madman, then he's making some kind of rational, though possibly/likely misguided or incorrect, calculus.
Nixon played the piano and had a dog named checkers. assume nothing.
They don't currently need their army to protect their territory from NATO because currently NATO is not involved in this conflict and doesn't wish to become so.
But but you see it's Putin's thing that has him all hunker bunker about NATO racing through Ukraine like butter in his Matryoshka doll mindset.
So, we can bring our three battalions of tanks home?
posted by clavdivs at 6:27 PM on October 13, 2022
Nixon played the piano and had a dog named checkers. assume nothing.
They don't currently need their army to protect their territory from NATO because currently NATO is not involved in this conflict and doesn't wish to become so.
But but you see it's Putin's thing that has him all hunker bunker about NATO racing through Ukraine like butter in his Matryoshka doll mindset.
So, we can bring our three battalions of tanks home?
posted by clavdivs at 6:27 PM on October 13, 2022
An American occupation-turned-oil-heist of Russia ...
An American-Chinese occupation of Russia ...
Who on earth is talking about either of these options?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:44 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
An American-Chinese occupation of Russia ...
Who on earth is talking about either of these options?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:44 PM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think Putin will use N Korea as the trigger man, for the first strike, then maybe Russia will be the second punch. But if Putin is all so smitten with history, then he will probably hit Paris as payback for the tactical burning of Moscow, in the Napoleonic war. By October 19th of 1813, Napoleon was on his way back to France, having lost some 500,000 soldiers. The Russians just kept giving him enough rope to hang himself. So backing up into Russia, backing into the winter and letting the winter, fight is a typical tactic.
It worries me that Russia is baiting and waiting, and they have nasty allies, and strange, new weapons, and this is a part of a broader tactic.
posted by Oyéah at 6:55 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
It worries me that Russia is baiting and waiting, and they have nasty allies, and strange, new weapons, and this is a part of a broader tactic.
posted by Oyéah at 6:55 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
> jeffburdges: "I'd think Biden and Xi Jinping both benefit from the current proxy war continuing indefinitely."
Even if this is truly the case, I can't help but wonder if this may be orthogonal to the nuke question. Specifically, even if they felt that a prolonged (conventional) war would be beneficial to them, would China be okay with a Russia that was comfortable with dropping nukes willy-nilly? Heck, at the same time, if the whole point of nukes is to bring about an end to the war and prolongation is in China's interest, then shouldn't they oppose Putin's nukes on that basis?
posted by mhum at 6:59 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Even if this is truly the case, I can't help but wonder if this may be orthogonal to the nuke question. Specifically, even if they felt that a prolonged (conventional) war would be beneficial to them, would China be okay with a Russia that was comfortable with dropping nukes willy-nilly? Heck, at the same time, if the whole point of nukes is to bring about an end to the war and prolongation is in China's interest, then shouldn't they oppose Putin's nukes on that basis?
posted by mhum at 6:59 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
NATO doesn't have the resources at the ready to launch a quick decisive offensive in Ukraine-
Yeah, I dunno. citation needed. Pentagon spokesghouls are salivating over this whole thing. I'm in New Orleans, and I've seen German pilots flying training missions since March--which at this point might be longer than many Russian military might have trained.
I think I heard a claim of "36 hours", on one CNN report. That seems exaggerated, but weeks, less than a month, sure. I think 30 days to establish a whole forward base is doctrinal. the current rate at which materiel seems to be freely moving into Ukraine already, less than a month.
The retired general of the US European command responded to Ukraine Ministry of Defense's request for ATAC missiles and armored personnel carriers by stating that, what they really needed was to mobilize US private security contractors in country...the Billions in spending that could be justified by such an action seems almost irresistible, it feels like they are just barely waiting to move the US Treasury to Kyiv...
posted by eustatic at 7:08 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I dunno. citation needed. Pentagon spokesghouls are salivating over this whole thing. I'm in New Orleans, and I've seen German pilots flying training missions since March--which at this point might be longer than many Russian military might have trained.
I think I heard a claim of "36 hours", on one CNN report. That seems exaggerated, but weeks, less than a month, sure. I think 30 days to establish a whole forward base is doctrinal. the current rate at which materiel seems to be freely moving into Ukraine already, less than a month.
The retired general of the US European command responded to Ukraine Ministry of Defense's request for ATAC missiles and armored personnel carriers by stating that, what they really needed was to mobilize US private security contractors in country...the Billions in spending that could be justified by such an action seems almost irresistible, it feels like they are just barely waiting to move the US Treasury to Kyiv...
posted by eustatic at 7:08 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
We spent trillions on fighting USSR/Russia.
suffice to say the can have all the billions they need.
I don't think u.s. contractors are a thing.
Been there already.
posted by clavdivs at 7:20 PM on October 13, 2022
suffice to say the can have all the billions they need.
I don't think u.s. contractors are a thing.
Been there already.
posted by clavdivs at 7:20 PM on October 13, 2022
Dammit I totally had Pakistan in my "first use of nuclear weapons in anger" pool.
posted by whuppy at 7:41 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by whuppy at 7:41 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think I heard a claim of "36 hours", on one CNN report. That seems exaggerated, but weeks, less than a month, sure. I think 30 days to establish a whole forward base is doctrinal
Operational in the sense of having a forward base capable of conducting combat operations with basic shelter, repair, and feeding infrastructure in 36 hours is the target. About a month to take it from kinda primitive to modern eyes to fully fleshed out with amenities and semi-permanent infrastructure. The US military has huge caches of pop up buildings, generators, kitchen equipment, water treatment gear, etc stashed all around the globe to make this possible.
We spend a godawful amount of money on our military, but we do (supposedly, it's always possible the real capability is lower than the planned capability) get a very high level of readiness in exchange. The entire doctrine is based on containing things before they have a chance to turn into a full on regional conflict, should the US choose to intervene.
posted by wierdo at 7:42 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Operational in the sense of having a forward base capable of conducting combat operations with basic shelter, repair, and feeding infrastructure in 36 hours is the target. About a month to take it from kinda primitive to modern eyes to fully fleshed out with amenities and semi-permanent infrastructure. The US military has huge caches of pop up buildings, generators, kitchen equipment, water treatment gear, etc stashed all around the globe to make this possible.
We spend a godawful amount of money on our military, but we do (supposedly, it's always possible the real capability is lower than the planned capability) get a very high level of readiness in exchange. The entire doctrine is based on containing things before they have a chance to turn into a full on regional conflict, should the US choose to intervene.
posted by wierdo at 7:42 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Yep. Each branch basically has the ability to generate a brigade and supplies for constructing forward operating bases in each of the potential theaters. The Army has its APS sites throughout the world, the Navy has MPSRON squadrons, and the Air Force has BEAR bases.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:47 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:47 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I get a little irritated when people say that young people under age 40 don't truly understand what the nuclear threat is like. I grew up in the Cold War, and I knew from a very young age that the entire world might be obliterated if the US and the USSR got in a tiff.
My children, however, have grown up knowing that the world that they know will absolutely not exist in 20 years because of global warming. They began learning in preschool that the world they know is ending. There will be survivors, but there will be millions upon millions of deaths, and there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it at this point.
So please don't go on saying the kids today don't understand existential threat. Bro, third graders are suicidal over global warming. They absolutely fucking understand existential threat. Nuclear war just seems like a possibly faster, slightly less horrifying version.
Like, why should they be worried about a high-speed, relatively painless apocalypse when they are living through a torturously slow one that will hurt and possibly kill everyone they know?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:18 PM on October 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
My children, however, have grown up knowing that the world that they know will absolutely not exist in 20 years because of global warming. They began learning in preschool that the world they know is ending. There will be survivors, but there will be millions upon millions of deaths, and there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it at this point.
So please don't go on saying the kids today don't understand existential threat. Bro, third graders are suicidal over global warming. They absolutely fucking understand existential threat. Nuclear war just seems like a possibly faster, slightly less horrifying version.
Like, why should they be worried about a high-speed, relatively painless apocalypse when they are living through a torturously slow one that will hurt and possibly kill everyone they know?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:18 PM on October 13, 2022 [21 favorites]
I grew up expecting a Mad Max future, not a dystopia where you still have to go to work every day while dodging the plague.
Ted Rall wrote a comic book on that very scenario. And we're only a year and a few months away from 2024!
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:32 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
Ted Rall wrote a comic book on that very scenario. And we're only a year and a few months away from 2024!
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:32 PM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree with the overall thesis, Eyebrows McGee, but most people killed by a large scale nuclear war will not die quickly. They'll just die relatively quickly from infections and other currently very treatable medical conditions going untreated and prompt radiation poisoning and more will die slowly from starvation, cancer from radiation poisoning, etc. It ain't like we can blanket the entire earth with a blast wave sufficient to kill everyone all at once. Even at the height of the Cold War there wasn't enough megatonnage to do that.
It would be possible to build a bomb big enough to be the equivalent of a large meteor strike, but nobody was crazy enough to do that. Even then, an unlucky few would live, at least for a while.
posted by wierdo at 9:40 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
It would be possible to build a bomb big enough to be the equivalent of a large meteor strike, but nobody was crazy enough to do that. Even then, an unlucky few would live, at least for a while.
posted by wierdo at 9:40 PM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Given the unknown quality of Russia's nuclear stockpile. the realistic expectation that, like anything expensive left untouched for decades
Russia's nuclear weapons have certainly not been "left untouched for decades".
Nuclear weapons aren't like rifle ammunition. If you leave a couple of nukes—all but the very simplest and least-efficient types—in a warehouse for decades, when you come back to them you don't have nuclear weapons. You have nuclear weapon parts. And maybe not even that.
Having a nuclear stockpile isn't just about having a bunch of bombs and posting guards around them. It implies a commitment to a very intensive maintenance and logistics program, where weapons must continually be moved back and forth to central refurbishment sites—to my knowledge, all the major nuclear powers have a single site, although Russia is pretty opaque about this stuff—in order to have the decaying parts replaced. All US weapons go through a single facility in Texas for periodic maintenance (and generally various upgrades), to the tune of about $4 billion USD a year (although that includes other 'Stockpile Stewardship' activities like physics simulations, testing rockets and reentry vehicles, and other alternatives to live-fire tests). This is one of the reasons why Ukraine probably agreed to the Budapest Memorandum in the first place: having a bunch of nukes doesn't help you without the infrastructure to maintain them, and that infrastructure was all in Russia proper.
Technical sidebar: tritium in particular—which is used in virtually all modern US weapons (according to Wikipedia, "all" without qualification), and probably most Russian ones given the approximate parity in weapons design—only has a half-life of ~12 years. Its decay product, He-3, is a neutron "poison" and needs to be periodically filtered out, probably leading to maintenance intervals even more frequent than the tritium decay itself would suggest. It is exceedingly unlikely that the Russians have found some way to build a "wooden round" tactical nuke in a small package. (It's possible that you could devise a way to maintain a big city-buster mounted to an ICBM in situ, but I don't know of any examples.)
Anyway: my guess is that Russia's actual stockpile of working weapons is probably lower than advertised, but they probably have a very good idea of it internally—it's basically "which weapons have we recently refurbished and dispersed back out to the field"—and it's unlikely to be zero. In the very worst (for Russia) case, even if they had really let their maintenance program collapse, they certainly have access to enough HEU and Pu to put together a couple of weapons, if they had a mind to do so. But I don't think that's happened: Russia was one of the biggest suppliers of rare isotopes (for medical and industrial/scientific use) in the world, and the existence of these isotopes (some of which are pretty short-lived) implies that a lot of nuclear infrastructure—reactors, isotope separation lines, etc.—is still operational, and the pricing of those products compared to what's available from commercial operators suggests government financial support. I doubt Putin was subsidizing those reactors and factories in order to ensure a cheap supply of cancer therapeutics.
I would not assume that lack of availability of viable weapons is what's constraining their use.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:22 PM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
Russia's nuclear weapons have certainly not been "left untouched for decades".
Nuclear weapons aren't like rifle ammunition. If you leave a couple of nukes—all but the very simplest and least-efficient types—in a warehouse for decades, when you come back to them you don't have nuclear weapons. You have nuclear weapon parts. And maybe not even that.
Having a nuclear stockpile isn't just about having a bunch of bombs and posting guards around them. It implies a commitment to a very intensive maintenance and logistics program, where weapons must continually be moved back and forth to central refurbishment sites—to my knowledge, all the major nuclear powers have a single site, although Russia is pretty opaque about this stuff—in order to have the decaying parts replaced. All US weapons go through a single facility in Texas for periodic maintenance (and generally various upgrades), to the tune of about $4 billion USD a year (although that includes other 'Stockpile Stewardship' activities like physics simulations, testing rockets and reentry vehicles, and other alternatives to live-fire tests). This is one of the reasons why Ukraine probably agreed to the Budapest Memorandum in the first place: having a bunch of nukes doesn't help you without the infrastructure to maintain them, and that infrastructure was all in Russia proper.
Technical sidebar: tritium in particular—which is used in virtually all modern US weapons (according to Wikipedia, "all" without qualification), and probably most Russian ones given the approximate parity in weapons design—only has a half-life of ~12 years. Its decay product, He-3, is a neutron "poison" and needs to be periodically filtered out, probably leading to maintenance intervals even more frequent than the tritium decay itself would suggest. It is exceedingly unlikely that the Russians have found some way to build a "wooden round" tactical nuke in a small package. (It's possible that you could devise a way to maintain a big city-buster mounted to an ICBM in situ, but I don't know of any examples.)
Anyway: my guess is that Russia's actual stockpile of working weapons is probably lower than advertised, but they probably have a very good idea of it internally—it's basically "which weapons have we recently refurbished and dispersed back out to the field"—and it's unlikely to be zero. In the very worst (for Russia) case, even if they had really let their maintenance program collapse, they certainly have access to enough HEU and Pu to put together a couple of weapons, if they had a mind to do so. But I don't think that's happened: Russia was one of the biggest suppliers of rare isotopes (for medical and industrial/scientific use) in the world, and the existence of these isotopes (some of which are pretty short-lived) implies that a lot of nuclear infrastructure—reactors, isotope separation lines, etc.—is still operational, and the pricing of those products compared to what's available from commercial operators suggests government financial support. I doubt Putin was subsidizing those reactors and factories in order to ensure a cheap supply of cancer therapeutics.
I would not assume that lack of availability of viable weapons is what's constraining their use.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:22 PM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
I think Putin will use N Korea as the trigger man, for the first strike,
NK has nukes to deter regime change. The regime know full well that they wouldn't survive if the US launched an assault. The very last thing they would do is start a war themselves, certainly not on Putin's behalf. I just can't see it happening.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:28 PM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
NK has nukes to deter regime change. The regime know full well that they wouldn't survive if the US launched an assault. The very last thing they would do is start a war themselves, certainly not on Putin's behalf. I just can't see it happening.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:28 PM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
Also, NK is a Chinese vassal state and not really in any sort of Russian sphere of influence. They may start shelling Seoul on Chinese orders to keep more US troops busy as part of a WW3 coalition (if Russia hadn't gone and fucked it all up for China) but they're not going to randomly nuke Japan to break the nuclear taboo first for Putin.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:59 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:59 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Use of nuclear weapons might bring the world's commercial air traffic to an abrupt stop, due to an insurance clause.
posted by Harald74 at 5:22 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Harald74 at 5:22 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't think there's any known technology that can disable either side's second strike capability: SLBMs.
This brings up a weapon that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet. Cyber weapons.
Russia has pretty openly been using such weapons against western nations for a long time now, largely through third-party hacker groups. It’s a given that there are deeper, more covert, operations going on all the time. What we don’t know is to what extent the US and its allies have been digging into Russian defenses and infrastructure.
The closest thing we’ve seen in this war has been the hacking of Russian ATM screens (and other such systems) to display anti-Putin messages, and that was done by a third-party (supposedly) not connected to the military.
I think it would be foolish to assume the US has been sitting on its meta-hands, doing nothing to penetrate Russian military systems. That we never hear about such hackings may (or may not) speak to the level of sophistication and “quietness” those efforts have been. Certainly, Russia wouldn’t make public any such intrusions, unless they were openly visible. I mean, if I were leading the US’s offensive cycber-warfare department, my doctrine would be to dig wide, dig deep, and stay silent until absolutely necessary, and then rain digital hell on the enemy’s military systems.
All this is to say, I think Putin’s first strike against the west may very well not be nuclear. It’ll be code. And the west’s response may very well be the same. Hell, it may already be happening.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:36 AM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
This brings up a weapon that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet. Cyber weapons.
Russia has pretty openly been using such weapons against western nations for a long time now, largely through third-party hacker groups. It’s a given that there are deeper, more covert, operations going on all the time. What we don’t know is to what extent the US and its allies have been digging into Russian defenses and infrastructure.
The closest thing we’ve seen in this war has been the hacking of Russian ATM screens (and other such systems) to display anti-Putin messages, and that was done by a third-party (supposedly) not connected to the military.
I think it would be foolish to assume the US has been sitting on its meta-hands, doing nothing to penetrate Russian military systems. That we never hear about such hackings may (or may not) speak to the level of sophistication and “quietness” those efforts have been. Certainly, Russia wouldn’t make public any such intrusions, unless they were openly visible. I mean, if I were leading the US’s offensive cycber-warfare department, my doctrine would be to dig wide, dig deep, and stay silent until absolutely necessary, and then rain digital hell on the enemy’s military systems.
All this is to say, I think Putin’s first strike against the west may very well not be nuclear. It’ll be code. And the west’s response may very well be the same. Hell, it may already be happening.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:36 AM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
It's weird to think that people under 40 don't remember nuclear panic when a large part of the pretext for invading Iraq was their alleged nuclear weapons program. "Nukes will kill you and everyone you know" was a pretty major propaganda push for a few years.
I was 13 when the Iraq war started, as a datapoint, and I spent most of middle school scared to death of nukes. And plane hijackings and school shootings and climate change, but I promise you, nukes were there.*
*not literally "there" in the Iraq sense, tho
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 6:17 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I was 13 when the Iraq war started, as a datapoint, and I spent most of middle school scared to death of nukes. And plane hijackings and school shootings and climate change, but I promise you, nukes were there.*
*not literally "there" in the Iraq sense, tho
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 6:17 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I would imagine most American millennials have seen the playground scene.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:41 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:41 AM on October 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
The playground scene gave me nightmares for almost a year. Very vivid dream incorporating my house, school and family. I was terrified of nuclear bombs everywhere I went and noted the fallout shelter signs on schools and government buildings in case I needed it.
posted by glaucon at 7:36 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by glaucon at 7:36 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Hiroshima After the Bomb
These are 360° panorama photos of Hiroshima, taken soon after the war ended. It's estimated that the yield equaled 15kt, which is more-or-less equal to a modern mid-range tactical nuke. Modern tactical weapons can range from a fraction of Hiroshima yield, up to several multiples in yield.
It's necessary to note that, like all Japanese cities of the era, in Hiroshima the buildings were mostly wooden structures.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:09 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
These are 360° panorama photos of Hiroshima, taken soon after the war ended. It's estimated that the yield equaled 15kt, which is more-or-less equal to a modern mid-range tactical nuke. Modern tactical weapons can range from a fraction of Hiroshima yield, up to several multiples in yield.
It's necessary to note that, like all Japanese cities of the era, in Hiroshima the buildings were mostly wooden structures.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:09 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Hell, it may already be happening.
It is happening. Trump may very well have lost the election if it weren't for Russians singing his praises on Facebook.
posted by Melismata at 8:26 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
It is happening. Trump may very well have lost the election if it weren't for Russians singing his praises on Facebook.
posted by Melismata at 8:26 AM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
But if Putin is all so smitten with history, then he will probably hit Paris as payback for the tactical burning of Moscow, in the Napoleonic war.
Russian submarine spotted off French coast.
posted by acb at 8:36 AM on October 14, 2022
Russian submarine spotted off French coast.
posted by acb at 8:36 AM on October 14, 2022
I am a rational person and frightened of MAD, but also I think the specific circumstances of this war are notable. The problem with nuclear weapons is that the only solution we've had to preventing their use is to make clear that any use of nuclear weapons will result in immediately firing all nuclear weapons we have, because how else are you able to handle that level of escalation?
Russia, in this case, has given us an alternative: their army is shithouse. They are losing badly to a country far smaller than them, and in doing so have exposed their poor tactics, training, morale and equipment. In addition, the US has a number of allies in a defence pact, motivated by the prospect of Russia firing nuclear weapons. The assessment appears to be that Russia cannot do a one-sided MAD-style barrage in response to whatever NATO do, and likely won't even have a credible response. So they can afford to do a conventional strike, which is much less risky for the world and no less personally threatening to Putin.
posted by Merus at 8:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Russia, in this case, has given us an alternative: their army is shithouse. They are losing badly to a country far smaller than them, and in doing so have exposed their poor tactics, training, morale and equipment. In addition, the US has a number of allies in a defence pact, motivated by the prospect of Russia firing nuclear weapons. The assessment appears to be that Russia cannot do a one-sided MAD-style barrage in response to whatever NATO do, and likely won't even have a credible response. So they can afford to do a conventional strike, which is much less risky for the world and no less personally threatening to Putin.
posted by Merus at 8:43 AM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's weird to think that people under 40 don't remember nuclear panic when a large part of the pretext for invading Iraq was their alleged nuclear weapons program.
To me it all gets lumped under "WMD", a vague umbrella term used to make the lies harder to pin down. Sure, let's be scared that Iraq might MAD us with nukes, that makes sense.
posted by ryanrs at 8:46 AM on October 14, 2022
To me it all gets lumped under "WMD", a vague umbrella term used to make the lies harder to pin down. Sure, let's be scared that Iraq might MAD us with nukes, that makes sense.
posted by ryanrs at 8:46 AM on October 14, 2022
> ryanrs: "To me it all gets lumped under "WMD", a vague umbrella term used to make the lies harder to pin down."
I was under the impression that the Bush admin went with "WMDs" as the causus belli because they couldn't just say nukes. If they had even the slightest chance of selling a story of Iraqi nukes, they wouldn't have needed to push the umbrella term of WMD which lumps in chemical and biological weapons with nukes.
posted by mhum at 10:06 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
I was under the impression that the Bush admin went with "WMDs" as the causus belli because they couldn't just say nukes. If they had even the slightest chance of selling a story of Iraqi nukes, they wouldn't have needed to push the umbrella term of WMD which lumps in chemical and biological weapons with nukes.
posted by mhum at 10:06 AM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
The use of the WMD phrase in its present meaning took off after September 11, 2001, becoming a vital part of the Bush Administration's rhetoric of confrontation and the basis for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq...According to the web encyclopedia, Wikipedia, during the Cold War WMD referred only to nuclear weapons...The current use of WMD to refer to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was defined by UN Resolution 687 and later by US law.Parsing the Meanings of WMD:
[Jonathan B. Tucker, senior fellow at Monterey Institute of International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies,] believes that defining WMD as synonymous with CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear ] is confusing because it "conflates four categories of weaponry whose technical characteristics and destructive effects differ enormously both across the categories and within them."posted by kirkaracha at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2022
...
Tucker believes that "the ambiguity of the term WMD facilitated the Administration's prewar campaign to inflate the severity and imminence of the Iraqi military threat to the U.S. and justify the decision to launch a preventive war of choice."
The US cannot wait for final proof "in the form of a mushroom cloud" before taking action against Saddam Hussein, the US president, George Bush, warned overnight.
So when we say "WMD" we really mean "NUUUKES! boo!!", unless you start asking questions, then maybe it's just aluminum tubes or some shit.
posted by ryanrs at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
So when we say "WMD" we really mean "NUUUKES! boo!!", unless you start asking questions, then maybe it's just aluminum tubes or some shit.
posted by ryanrs at 12:09 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
'Do we take the chance' — or do what, precisely?
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:55 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:55 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
U.S. Officials Suspect New Nuclear Missile in Explosion That Killed 7 Russians. 2019.
posted by clavdivs at 3:47 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 3:47 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Russian submarine spotted off French coast.
Unless it was on fire or something, they only get spotted (by someone other than another submarine) when they want to get spotted. That's probably meant to vaguely threaten the EU.
posted by ctmf at 4:36 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Unless it was on fire or something, they only get spotted (by someone other than another submarine) when they want to get spotted. That's probably meant to vaguely threaten the EU.
posted by ctmf at 4:36 PM on October 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I always take a certain bitter satisfaction from stories about people involved in nuclear weapons work getting killed on the job, even when they're Americans.
posted by Reverend John at 4:40 PM on October 14, 2022
posted by Reverend John at 4:40 PM on October 14, 2022
The entire crew of the Kursk was 'involved in nuclear weapons work.' There was no satisfaction to be taken in Russia's refusal to accept assistance in rescuing those poor bastards.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:28 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:28 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
The satisfaction is bitter because I'd prefer not to take any satisfaction in anyone's death. But they were willing to kill millions if told to, so.
posted by Reverend John at 5:53 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 5:53 PM on October 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
Why do people not want to discuss this possibility? Is it just too grim or am I missing something?
posted by clark at 10:29 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by clark at 10:29 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
People are different. Different triggers, different reactions to stress, persistent unwanted thoughts, whatever.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:49 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 10:49 PM on October 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Why do people not want to discuss this possibility? Is it just too grim or am I missing something?
I recently spent some time delving into climate change, doing research on how bad things can plausibly get. And it quickly came to my attention that, when discussing matters that can have severe impacts on peoples' lives, most people have a point at which they just shut down. They can't process information that's too dire. For the sake of their own mental equilibrium they have to find a way to reject it.
Oftentimes it's simply not listening. Sometimes it's outright denial. Anger is usually involved. Accusations of mental illness are in there frequently.
And that's not entirely off the mark. Good mental health involves a lot of avoidance. Don't dwell on dark thoughts, don't upset yourself with thoughts of doom. Take a break from the news. It's actually good advice, the human body doesn't respond well to despair.
But the worst case scenarios do exist, and contemplating them does serve a useful function. If you deny that atomic war can happen, you can't think about what you can do to survive it. You won't oppose something that's impossible. It's when we dwell on the worst case scenarios that we figure out how to get through them. So some of us choose to look at the awfulness that's really happening in the world, the weapons and wars and environmental collapse that are already happening, head-on, unblinkered, in full knowledge of the damage it's doing to our mental health.
I can't blame people for not doing that. But I think some of us have to.
posted by MrVisible at 10:54 PM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
I recently spent some time delving into climate change, doing research on how bad things can plausibly get. And it quickly came to my attention that, when discussing matters that can have severe impacts on peoples' lives, most people have a point at which they just shut down. They can't process information that's too dire. For the sake of their own mental equilibrium they have to find a way to reject it.
Oftentimes it's simply not listening. Sometimes it's outright denial. Anger is usually involved. Accusations of mental illness are in there frequently.
And that's not entirely off the mark. Good mental health involves a lot of avoidance. Don't dwell on dark thoughts, don't upset yourself with thoughts of doom. Take a break from the news. It's actually good advice, the human body doesn't respond well to despair.
But the worst case scenarios do exist, and contemplating them does serve a useful function. If you deny that atomic war can happen, you can't think about what you can do to survive it. You won't oppose something that's impossible. It's when we dwell on the worst case scenarios that we figure out how to get through them. So some of us choose to look at the awfulness that's really happening in the world, the weapons and wars and environmental collapse that are already happening, head-on, unblinkered, in full knowledge of the damage it's doing to our mental health.
I can't blame people for not doing that. But I think some of us have to.
posted by MrVisible at 10:54 PM on October 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
Thorzdad > It's necessary to note that, like all Japanese cities of the era, in Hiroshima the buildings were mostly wooden structures.
American research, design, and testing of conventional incendiary firebombs for use against high-density Japanese and German residential targets began in late 1940:
posted by cenoxo at 5:04 AM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
American research, design, and testing of conventional incendiary firebombs for use against high-density Japanese and German residential targets began in late 1940:
Who Made That Firebomb?, Alex Wellerstein, Restricted Data — The Nuclear Secrecy Blog, August 30, 2013More details follow in the article. As a result, napalm-based incendiaries became cheap and plentiful, but required fleets of expensive B-29s to deliver them over Japanese cities. However, the enormously expensive Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs only needed one B-29.
…
We’ve heard so much about the invention of the atomic bomb. But when was the last time you heard about the invention of the firebomb? Obviously this is because one of these is a technological marvel, improbably created in an impressively short amount of time. I’m not knocking the bomb as the more interesting invention case. But the firebombs are impressive in their own way — and in a very deep sense, the story of their invention is the more shocking one, if only for its banality.
The atomic bomb represents, in a sense, a case of a special almost-one-off invention meant to be something novel and terrible. The firebomb, by contrast, is a weapon developed for a doing terrible things as a regular mode of operation. That is, the moral arguments in favor of the atomic bombs are usually structured in the form of “we had to do this twice in order to achieve a greater good.” It’s harder to do that with firebombs because we used them so many times. It’s one thing to say, “ah, once or twice we had to target large numbers of civilians to make a point.” It’s another to make the targeting of civilians your everyday job, when you start measuring success less by knocking out specific military targets and instead by total area destroyed.
So who made that firebomb? A now all-too-familiar mixture of American industry, universities, and government. The list of contractors involved in American incendiary weapons during World War II includes Brown University, University of Chicago, Du Pont, Eastman Kodak, Harvard University, Monsanto, Standard Oil Development, and Stanford University, among others, all working under the auspices of Vannevar Bush’s Office of Scientific Research and Development, the Chemical Warfare Service, and other parts of the military….
posted by cenoxo at 5:04 AM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Well, which people? Every article I've read will at some point bring up nuclear war, the critical differences being the authors' own speculation on the risk level. The ones who want more arms for Ukraine (Paul Krugman for example), will argue (or assume) lower nuclear risk, and vice versa.
Which sociologically the discourse starts to look kind of anti-scientific, in that all these pundits and experts trying to answer a question (how to solve Ukraine) while there's an elephant-sized dependency (multiple nuclear global powers are de facto involved in the crisis) in the room.
At least these public authors are engaging in some semblance of coherent argument in that they take assessment of nuclear risk a logical necessity, one that the rest of their opinion depends on. Whereas those who make nuclear discussion taboo, while at the same time talking about Ukraine, risk reinforcing their own implicit biases.
posted by polymodus at 5:04 AM on October 15, 2022 [7 favorites]
Which sociologically the discourse starts to look kind of anti-scientific, in that all these pundits and experts trying to answer a question (how to solve Ukraine) while there's an elephant-sized dependency (multiple nuclear global powers are de facto involved in the crisis) in the room.
At least these public authors are engaging in some semblance of coherent argument in that they take assessment of nuclear risk a logical necessity, one that the rest of their opinion depends on. Whereas those who make nuclear discussion taboo, while at the same time talking about Ukraine, risk reinforcing their own implicit biases.
posted by polymodus at 5:04 AM on October 15, 2022 [7 favorites]
“At least these public authors are engaging in some semblance of coherent argument in that they take assessment of nuclear risk a logical necessity, one that the rest of their opinion depends on. Whereas those who make nuclear discussion taboo, while at the same time talking about Ukraine, risk reinforcing their own implicit biases.”
IIRC, I've disagreed with much of what you've written in these threads, polymodus, but I broadly agree with this criticism.
The debate about talking about nukes has intensely bothered me and I've really struggled to self-critically evaluate what it is that's upset me. I'm all in favor of being sensitive to the sensibilities of those who are more proximate, and as a rule I'm very hostile to both the whole "abstracted speculation about people's actual lives" and "Americans making it all about them" things that happen here. So I should be wholeheartedly supportive of the ban. But I haven't been, and I've really struggled with this.
This is especially weird because I don't really conform to your theory about those who are hawkish and those who are dovish. While I oppose direct NATO involvement, I strongly support vigorous indirect involvement. Yet I absolutely do not minimize the threat of bilateral nuclear escalation. I think it is very possible, as do I also think that Russia (Putin) using a nuclear weapon when desperate is very possible. So I think Russia should be actively opposed, but in a very deliberate, measured fashion.
And I don't see how this can be done unless we're navigating these waters with full awareness of the nuclear threat.
Obviously, we are not the ones making decisions. Well, in some limited sense we are, as citizens of the democracies involved. But it's not as if we're here to formulate policy.
But in these threads we've always talked about what should be done, what the possibilities are, etc. They've always included more than a little speculation, and not usually in an abstracted wargaming way, but in a real and grounded way.
So I think that I've been bothered in two respects by the ban: the way it's intellectually incoherent, which is annoying, and the way in which it's borderline delusional, which is frightening. That's why your comment above resonated with me.
Another thing that's been a problem for me, which I'm a lot more ambivalent about and suspect that I'm simply wrong, is the proprietariness of those nearby about the nuclear threat. Because I believe nukes could be used, and because I believe that avoiding escalation if that happens would be difficult, it seems to me to be very, very much not a local threat. I grew up with associations to two of the weapons labs, live near one of them, know a great deal about the history of nuclear weapons development, and this has never in the least been an abstract issue for me. Like others my age, I grew up having nuclear nightmares and I'm deeply unhappy to find that I'm having them again. There is nothing about the nuclear fear which isn't personal to me. In contrast, much of the events of conventional war in Ukraine and particularly the atrocities are quite distant from me personally — yet those things are acceptable for discussion.
In any case, overall I'm unhappy with anything that amounts to bystander gawking. I fear there's been too much of this in general, in the media and Twitter, and here. There's a difficult line to walk between being informed and active about something we should care and be informed about, and voyeurism and the like. So I want to be more sympathetic and err on the side of caution with regard to nuclear stuff. But it's been a struggle.
From the start of this, especially as so many supporters of Ukraine advocated for aggressive intervention such as enforcing no-fly zones, I've been very, very surprised to discover how so many younger people are unaware of the nuclear threat, the history, the grim inevitability of the MAD doctrine, and how much they seem to view "nuclear war" as something fantastical and remote. It's like it's, to them, something out of a movie that is more relevant as a bogeyman misused as a rhetorical cudgeon than it is an actual threat.
It's felt to me as if the ban on nuclear discussion comes from (what seems to me to be) a very weird place: where it's simultaneously fantastical but also psychologically potent. It's not real enough to be a necessary part of the discussion, but it's also somehow terrifying enough to be banned from the discussion.
Oddly, while that seems wildly inconsistent to me, perhaps dangerously so, it also is very persuasive in making me more sympathetic to this perspective because this sort of contradiction is, I think, a hallmark of very emotive and fraught topics. It directs my attention toward trying to understand the perspective, where it's coming from.
Zooming out to the larger view, this is characteristic of the times we live in: living with events that are too big and previously unthinkable, and discovering that we're just not equipped to really process them.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:18 AM on October 15, 2022 [19 favorites]
IIRC, I've disagreed with much of what you've written in these threads, polymodus, but I broadly agree with this criticism.
The debate about talking about nukes has intensely bothered me and I've really struggled to self-critically evaluate what it is that's upset me. I'm all in favor of being sensitive to the sensibilities of those who are more proximate, and as a rule I'm very hostile to both the whole "abstracted speculation about people's actual lives" and "Americans making it all about them" things that happen here. So I should be wholeheartedly supportive of the ban. But I haven't been, and I've really struggled with this.
This is especially weird because I don't really conform to your theory about those who are hawkish and those who are dovish. While I oppose direct NATO involvement, I strongly support vigorous indirect involvement. Yet I absolutely do not minimize the threat of bilateral nuclear escalation. I think it is very possible, as do I also think that Russia (Putin) using a nuclear weapon when desperate is very possible. So I think Russia should be actively opposed, but in a very deliberate, measured fashion.
And I don't see how this can be done unless we're navigating these waters with full awareness of the nuclear threat.
Obviously, we are not the ones making decisions. Well, in some limited sense we are, as citizens of the democracies involved. But it's not as if we're here to formulate policy.
But in these threads we've always talked about what should be done, what the possibilities are, etc. They've always included more than a little speculation, and not usually in an abstracted wargaming way, but in a real and grounded way.
So I think that I've been bothered in two respects by the ban: the way it's intellectually incoherent, which is annoying, and the way in which it's borderline delusional, which is frightening. That's why your comment above resonated with me.
Another thing that's been a problem for me, which I'm a lot more ambivalent about and suspect that I'm simply wrong, is the proprietariness of those nearby about the nuclear threat. Because I believe nukes could be used, and because I believe that avoiding escalation if that happens would be difficult, it seems to me to be very, very much not a local threat. I grew up with associations to two of the weapons labs, live near one of them, know a great deal about the history of nuclear weapons development, and this has never in the least been an abstract issue for me. Like others my age, I grew up having nuclear nightmares and I'm deeply unhappy to find that I'm having them again. There is nothing about the nuclear fear which isn't personal to me. In contrast, much of the events of conventional war in Ukraine and particularly the atrocities are quite distant from me personally — yet those things are acceptable for discussion.
In any case, overall I'm unhappy with anything that amounts to bystander gawking. I fear there's been too much of this in general, in the media and Twitter, and here. There's a difficult line to walk between being informed and active about something we should care and be informed about, and voyeurism and the like. So I want to be more sympathetic and err on the side of caution with regard to nuclear stuff. But it's been a struggle.
From the start of this, especially as so many supporters of Ukraine advocated for aggressive intervention such as enforcing no-fly zones, I've been very, very surprised to discover how so many younger people are unaware of the nuclear threat, the history, the grim inevitability of the MAD doctrine, and how much they seem to view "nuclear war" as something fantastical and remote. It's like it's, to them, something out of a movie that is more relevant as a bogeyman misused as a rhetorical cudgeon than it is an actual threat.
It's felt to me as if the ban on nuclear discussion comes from (what seems to me to be) a very weird place: where it's simultaneously fantastical but also psychologically potent. It's not real enough to be a necessary part of the discussion, but it's also somehow terrifying enough to be banned from the discussion.
Oddly, while that seems wildly inconsistent to me, perhaps dangerously so, it also is very persuasive in making me more sympathetic to this perspective because this sort of contradiction is, I think, a hallmark of very emotive and fraught topics. It directs my attention toward trying to understand the perspective, where it's coming from.
Zooming out to the larger view, this is characteristic of the times we live in: living with events that are too big and previously unthinkable, and discovering that we're just not equipped to really process them.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:18 AM on October 15, 2022 [19 favorites]
One of the problems with existential level threats (climate change and nuclear war both count here) is how they overwhelm any other concerns. Yes, I am worried about the coming climate crisis; but I also want to be informed about events in my town, region, and country that aren’t directly related. I’m worried about loss of rights and about the anti-vote brigade. I want to hear when our broken court system kicks a popular voting rights proposition off the ballot. Yes, on some level all of this is small potatoes compared to the climate crisis, and maybe none of it matters if my state is uninhabitable when temps go up 4deg, but that doesn’t mean I should only pay attention to news directly related to climate.
Same with the war in Ukraine. I actually think dividing the threads has worked pretty well for this purpose. Dividing out the nuclear discussion means I can actually hear some reporting and analysis about other details of the war, and that’s a useful thing to have.
posted by nat at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Same with the war in Ukraine. I actually think dividing the threads has worked pretty well for this purpose. Dividing out the nuclear discussion means I can actually hear some reporting and analysis about other details of the war, and that’s a useful thing to have.
posted by nat at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Pushing back against Putin’s threat of nuclear use in Ukraine, Steven Pifer, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 10, 2022:
Is it realistic to say that no battle plan will survive first contact with nuclear weapons?
posted by cenoxo at 10:13 AM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Seven and a half months after it began, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine has not gone as the Kremlin had hoped. The Ukrainian military has resisted with skill and tenacity, in recent weeks clawing back territory in the country’s south and east. As the Russian invasion falters, concern has arisen that Putin might turn to nuclear weapons.More about Putin’s nuclear threats follows in the article.
The nuclear threat needs to be taken seriously. Russia’s conventional forces appear stymied, the country has a large nuclear arsenal, and Putin thus far seems unwilling to lose or retreat. He has, if anything, doubled down, for example, ordering a mobilization and a sham annexation of Ukrainian territory. Moreover, Putin has made a string of miscalculations in launching and executing his war on Ukraine, and his comments have observers wondering if nuclear could be next. But there are reasons to believe Moscow would not press the nuclear button. Such use would not end the Ukrainian determination to resist. It would alienate countries such as China and India that have tried to remain on the sidelines of this war. Moreover, senior Russian political and military leaders understand that introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict would constitute a step into a murky and potentially disastrous unknown….
Is it realistic to say that no battle plan will survive first contact with nuclear weapons?
posted by cenoxo at 10:13 AM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
especially as so many supporters of Ukraine advocated for aggressive intervention such as enforcing no-fly zones
Right, you can't explain why the NATO has been unwilling to get into a shooting war with Russian troops- and has settled for indirect support- without talking about nuclear deterrence. And deterrence is also a large part of why Russian forces haven't tried to intercept equipment bound for Ukraine on NATO soil. It certainly seems like nuclear deterrence has shaped what this war has looked like and what actions Russia and NATO have been willing to do.
If you ignore the nuclear issue it looks like the US is cowardly using Ukraine to do its dirty work just to avoid putting US troops in harm's way. But "avoid getting into a shooting war with Russian ground forces in Europe" is an old tradition borne from decades of totally justified nuclear fears.
As a data point, for whatever reason, probably because I'm young enough that the existential crisis I grew up with was climate and not nukes, I nope out of climate threads real fast but don't much mind the nuclear ones. It doesn't tickle the same existential horror emotion center that climate change does for me.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:34 AM on October 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
Right, you can't explain why the NATO has been unwilling to get into a shooting war with Russian troops- and has settled for indirect support- without talking about nuclear deterrence. And deterrence is also a large part of why Russian forces haven't tried to intercept equipment bound for Ukraine on NATO soil. It certainly seems like nuclear deterrence has shaped what this war has looked like and what actions Russia and NATO have been willing to do.
If you ignore the nuclear issue it looks like the US is cowardly using Ukraine to do its dirty work just to avoid putting US troops in harm's way. But "avoid getting into a shooting war with Russian ground forces in Europe" is an old tradition borne from decades of totally justified nuclear fears.
As a data point, for whatever reason, probably because I'm young enough that the existential crisis I grew up with was climate and not nukes, I nope out of climate threads real fast but don't much mind the nuclear ones. It doesn't tickle the same existential horror emotion center that climate change does for me.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:34 AM on October 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
At least these public authors are engaging in some semblance of coherent argument in that they take assessment of nuclear risk a logical necessity, one that the rest of their opinion depends on.
If an analysis depends on a nuclear risk assessment, it's likely to be wrong.
posted by UN at 10:44 AM on October 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
If an analysis depends on a nuclear risk assessment, it's likely to be wrong.
posted by UN at 10:44 AM on October 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
Take Poland's recent decision to stock their fire departments with iodine pills, so they can be quickly distributed to the public in an emergency. That is a policy decision borne of nuclear risk assessment. Those are discussions worth having, and it does not require certainty.
posted by ryanrs at 11:24 AM on October 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 11:24 AM on October 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
Conspicuous bomb shelters could be used as props to lend support to the idea that Russia is fighting an existential war for its survival, and thus prop up public opinion otherwise against an unpopular mobilisation.
Like everything else in Putinist Russia, it's set dressing.
posted by acb at 4:13 PM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Like everything else in Putinist Russia, it's set dressing.
posted by acb at 4:13 PM on October 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
From the first article link Moscow parking lots are being prepared for bomb shelters, according to Important Stories:
posted by cenoxo at 4:35 PM on October 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
On July 12, Deputy Mayor of Moscow Pyotr Biryukov stated that the addresses of bomb shelters where Moscow residents could take refuge in the event of a nuclear attack, as well as information about their number and readiness for use, are "state secrets." This statement was made in response to a corresponding appeal from the Moscow City Duma deputy from the Communist Party Yevgeny Stupin.IMHO, it sounds like he’s referring specifically to preparations for retaliatory nuclear strikes on Moscow after a Russian nuclear attack somewhere. They’re making more potential shelters available on short term notice (in addition to currently designated fallout shelters).
Stupin specified that state propaganda and individual deputies periodically threaten foreign states with nuclear strikes, and the risk of retaliatory strikes against Moscow is increasing. He asked the Moscow government for the addresses of bomb shelters in the areas of Nekrasovka, Kosino-Ukhtomsky, Novokosino, Vykhino-Zhulebino, Veshnyaki.
The deputy mayor's reply stated that there were "protective structures of civil defense" (ZSGO) at the indicated addresses, but the rest of the information was "state secret".
posted by cenoxo at 4:35 PM on October 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
Conspicuous bomb shelters could be used as props to lend support to the idea that Russia is fighting an existential war for its survival
There is an international audience for this sort of thing, too. Loudly announcing civil defense drills is also a way to signal that you're prepared to risk nuclear retaliation, to make your own threats seem more credible.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:19 PM on October 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
There is an international audience for this sort of thing, too. Loudly announcing civil defense drills is also a way to signal that you're prepared to risk nuclear retaliation, to make your own threats seem more credible.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:19 PM on October 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
that's how most of the missiles are pre-programmed
When you're launching those missiles, you've committed to a strategic release. That's not really what we're talking about here (which the main threads haven't been willing to bracket); that really is the scenario where there's not much to do but play with nukemap and post song lyrics.
RUSI, June 2022: Russia’s Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons and Its Views of Limited Nuclear War.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:47 PM on October 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
When you're launching those missiles, you've committed to a strategic release. That's not really what we're talking about here (which the main threads haven't been willing to bracket); that really is the scenario where there's not much to do but play with nukemap and post song lyrics.
RUSI, June 2022: Russia’s Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons and Its Views of Limited Nuclear War.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:47 PM on October 15, 2022 [3 favorites]
Two precedents have been rattling around in my skull of late in regards to the war in Ukraine.
The first is the Katlyn Massacre :
As for the intentional targeting of both Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for heat, power and light plus missile strikes against nuclear power plants beyond Chernobyl and Zaporizhia, that too is an extension of their salting the earth genocidal attacks. As Khystym proves -- from the head on down they know exactly what they are doing.
hile things nuclear and environmental seem to be moving more like those million domino cascades at present, there is something to be said for eventually outlawing authoritarian governments everywhere.
Between Putin, Chi, Bolsonaro -- and Putin's Poodle too that seems a tough row to hoe but the same, let us pray for a Ukrainian victory and a multinational war crimes tribunal instead. If only to keep hope alive. And because we have no choice.
posted by y2karl at 6:20 PM on October 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
The first is the Katlyn Massacre :
...Among the Polish POWs held in special camps in Kozelsk, Starobielsk and Ostashkow were professional officers of the Polish Army and State Police as well as reservists. In “death transports” to Smolensk and Kharkiv were: 12 generals, 1 rear admiral, 77 colonels, 197 lieutenants-colonels, 541 majors, 1 441 captains, 6 061 lieutenants, second lieutenants, cavalry masters, and warrant officers, and 18 chaplains and other clergymen. According to Polish historians, half of the then officer corps of the Polish Army were killed. In the NKVD prisons of so-called Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, the Soviets detained officers who were not mobilized in September 1939, civil servants and local government officials. Many of the murdered were high-class specialists in various fields, among them university professors, engineers, priests, doctors, lawyers, officials, poets, writers – the intellectual elite of Poland.The second was the 1957 nuclear disaster of Khystym:
In the late afternoon of 29 September 1957, residents of the Chelyabinsk district in the Southern Urals noticed unusual bluish-violet colors in the sky...So what had happened? The cooling system of a cistern containing radioactive waste had failed. And nobody had noticed. The waste started to heat up, eventually exploding at a temperature of 350 degrees Celsius. The 160-ton concrete cover burst, flinging 20 million curies of radioactive material into the sky, where it was scattered by the wind. It settled over an area of 20,000 square kilometers, home to 270,000 people.The inclination and capacity of both the Soviet and post-Soviet Russian army to commit genocidal massacres seems to be baked from the git go, aided no doubt by the quaint custom of Dedovshchina. Mass rape both as a weapon against civilian populations and as a rite of passage within the army seems to have been baked in as well. Which goes a long way to explain the mass exhumations of massacred Ukrainians found in recovered territory to this day.
As for the intentional targeting of both Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for heat, power and light plus missile strikes against nuclear power plants beyond Chernobyl and Zaporizhia, that too is an extension of their salting the earth genocidal attacks. As Khystym proves -- from the head on down they know exactly what they are doing.
hile things nuclear and environmental seem to be moving more like those million domino cascades at present, there is something to be said for eventually outlawing authoritarian governments everywhere.
Between Putin, Chi, Bolsonaro -- and Putin's Poodle too that seems a tough row to hoe but the same, let us pray for a Ukrainian victory and a multinational war crimes tribunal instead. If only to keep hope alive. And because we have no choice.
posted by y2karl at 6:20 PM on October 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
I don't put it past Putin to wait until he's got a moment to throw something at a Major Western City, which would of course cause a major MAD style retaliation.
If it's any comfort, Putin appears to be escalating little by little, not in great leaps.
posted by ryanrs at 6:54 PM on October 15, 2022
If it's any comfort, Putin appears to be escalating little by little, not in great leaps.
posted by ryanrs at 6:54 PM on October 15, 2022
If it's any comfort, Putin appears to be escalating little by little, not in great leaps.
That could well change, considering the general he just put in charge of his war.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:24 PM on October 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
That could well change, considering the general he just put in charge of his war.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:24 PM on October 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
snuffleupagus > RUSI, June 2022: Russia’s Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons and Its Views of Limited Nuclear War.
From the same source (WP > RUSI), see also: Ukraine and the Consequences for Nuclear Deterrence, Jonathan Eyal & Dr Matthew Harries, RUSI, 14 October 2022. How significant is the danger that Russia may resort to nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war? And what do Russia’s indirect threats mean for the future of nuclear deterrence? Dr Matthew Harries (MH), RUSI’s newly appointed Director of Proliferation and Nuclear Policy, talks to Dr Jonathan Eyal (JE).
posted by cenoxo at 4:47 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
From the same source (WP > RUSI), see also: Ukraine and the Consequences for Nuclear Deterrence, Jonathan Eyal & Dr Matthew Harries, RUSI, 14 October 2022. How significant is the danger that Russia may resort to nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war? And what do Russia’s indirect threats mean for the future of nuclear deterrence? Dr Matthew Harries (MH), RUSI’s newly appointed Director of Proliferation and Nuclear Policy, talks to Dr Jonathan Eyal (JE).
posted by cenoxo at 4:47 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
...Reynolds: We’ve recently had Elon Musk step into this conflict trying to promote discussion of peace settlements. What do you make of the role that he’s playing?Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’
Hill: It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin. There was a conference in Aspen in late September when Musk offered a version of what was in his tweet — including the recognition of Crimea as Russian because it’s been mostly Russian since the 1780s — and the suggestion that the Ukrainian regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia should be up for negotiation, because there should be guaranteed water supplies to Crimea. He made this suggestion before Putin’s annexation of those two territories on September 30. It was a very specific reference. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia essentially control all the water supplies to Crimea. Crimea is a dry peninsula. It has aquifers, but it doesn’t have rivers. It’s dependent on water from the Dnipro River that flows through a canal from Kherson. It’s unlikely Elon Musk knows about this himself. The reference to water is so specific that this clearly is a message from Putin.
Now, there are several reasons why Musk’s intervention is interesting and significant. First of all, Putin does this frequently. He uses prominent people as intermediaries to feel out the general political environment, to basically test how people are going to react to ideas. Henry Kissinger, for example, has had interactions with Putin directly and relayed messages. Putin often uses various trusted intermediaries including all kinds of businesspeople. I had intermediaries sent to discuss things with me while I was in government.
This is a classic Putin play. It’s just fascinating, of course, that it’s Elon Musk in this instance, because obviously Elon Musk has a huge Twitter following. He’s one of the most popular men in opinion polls in Russia. At the same time, he’s played a very important part in supporting Ukraine by providing Starlink internet systems to Ukraine, and kept telecommunications going in Ukraine, paid for in part by the U.S. government. Elon Musk has enormous leverage as well as incredible prominence. Putin plays the egos of big men, gives them a sense that they can play a role. But in reality, they’re just direct transmitters of messages from Vladimir Putin.
posted by y2karl at 4:56 PM on October 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
We should adopt a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons, and work toward making it an international norm.
Although it would be unlikely to influence the trajectory of the current crisis, it could make future similar crises less likely, or at least less dangerous to the world as a whole.
posted by Reverend John at 6:57 PM on October 17, 2022
Although it would be unlikely to influence the trajectory of the current crisis, it could make future similar crises less likely, or at least less dangerous to the world as a whole.
posted by Reverend John at 6:57 PM on October 17, 2022
Fiona Hill: “Putin is also making it very clear that to get what you want in the world, you have to have a nuclear weapon and to protect yourself, you also have to have a nuclear weapon. So this is an absolute mess. Global nuclear stability is on a knife edge.”
Will Putin Use Nuclear Weapons? Watch These Indicators. I asked several experts to share the indicators they’re tracking most closely to determine whether Russian [tactical] nuclear use in Ukraine is imminent—and to help us all separate the signal from the noise. Uri Friedman, The Atlantic, October 15, 2022. [Major indicators might include:]
posted by cenoxo at 7:21 PM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Will Putin Use Nuclear Weapons? Watch These Indicators. I asked several experts to share the indicators they’re tracking most closely to determine whether Russian [tactical] nuclear use in Ukraine is imminent—and to help us all separate the signal from the noise. Uri Friedman, The Atlantic, October 15, 2022. [Major indicators might include:]
- A shift to more explicit, specific nuclear threats by Putin and other Russian officials.
- A definitive rout of Russian forces in Ukraine and corresponding threats to Putin’s power at home.
- Movements of Russian tactical nuclear weapons from storage to the field.
- Intercepted communications suggesting forthcoming nuclear use and corresponding movements of Russian forces or military assets.
posted by cenoxo at 7:21 PM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Russian leaders have kids and grandkids and other relatives living in the west. They also have a lot left to lose in a nuclear war including their own lives. Hitler gave the order to burn Germany to the ground at the end and inner circle defied him.
posted by interogative mood at 7:21 PM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 7:21 PM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
…after 12 years of Hitler in political power, with the last six of those years at war (and tens of millions dead). May Russia tire of the PTsar’s imperial ambitions much sooner than that.
posted by cenoxo at 7:40 PM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by cenoxo at 7:40 PM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
“Fiona Hill: 'Putin is also making it very clear that to get what you want in the world, you have to have a nuclear weapon and to protect yourself, you also have to have a nuclear weapon. So this is an absolute mess. Global nuclear stability is on a knife edge.'”
This has been obviously true for decades, but I suppose Russia is underscoring this. But all the world's powers have a huge vested interest in nonproliferation, which is why nonproliferation has been as remarkably successful as it has.
India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only nuclear powers that aren't Non-proliferation Treaty signatories, but that's for their own particular reasons and they each have very grave regional security concerns that are threatened by proliferation, so they've been very careful, too.
In the early 90s, I confidently (and sadly) predicted that the former USSR states wouldn't be able to account for all their nuclear weapons, some would make their way to rogue states or terrorist groups, and by the 2020s we'd see a few nukes used in isolated cases. I am very surprised and happy to have been proven wrong.
In fact, I'm still somewhat amazed at this.
Iran is considered a breakout nuclear state, meaning that sanctions notwithstanding Iran could probably build and test a weapon fairly rapidly. North Korea has managed to build and test a few weapons despite all sanctions and international efforts to prevent it.
Both, along with Israel, India, and Pakistan, demonstrate just how huge the incentives are to be a nuclear power. It completely changes the strategic situation.
Ironically, in all these cases, I think, it's reduced conventional military conflict while increasing the tension and the stakes. My greatest fear about the utilization of nuclear weapons prior to this war has been an exchange between India and Pakistan. (Israel has been a worry, as well.)
So, all that said, while I agree that Russia is making it crystal clear just how empowering it is to have nuclear weapons, I think that because global nonproliferation controls have been extremely effective and longstanding, and the few nations with the most incentive and potential to get nukes have already done so, that this war isn't going to change the proliferation situation.
What really frightens me is how much everything would change once someone, such as Russia, uses a nuclear weapon even in the most limited sense. Once that taboo is broken, all of the ways in which nukes have been stabilizing are greatly undermined and similar limited uses of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts, like India/Pakistan or in the middle-east become much more likely.
In my view, it's not just about the possibility of escalation to multilateral strategic nukes, but very much about breaking the taboo and the threat that represents, which is huge.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:49 AM on October 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
This has been obviously true for decades, but I suppose Russia is underscoring this. But all the world's powers have a huge vested interest in nonproliferation, which is why nonproliferation has been as remarkably successful as it has.
India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only nuclear powers that aren't Non-proliferation Treaty signatories, but that's for their own particular reasons and they each have very grave regional security concerns that are threatened by proliferation, so they've been very careful, too.
In the early 90s, I confidently (and sadly) predicted that the former USSR states wouldn't be able to account for all their nuclear weapons, some would make their way to rogue states or terrorist groups, and by the 2020s we'd see a few nukes used in isolated cases. I am very surprised and happy to have been proven wrong.
In fact, I'm still somewhat amazed at this.
Iran is considered a breakout nuclear state, meaning that sanctions notwithstanding Iran could probably build and test a weapon fairly rapidly. North Korea has managed to build and test a few weapons despite all sanctions and international efforts to prevent it.
Both, along with Israel, India, and Pakistan, demonstrate just how huge the incentives are to be a nuclear power. It completely changes the strategic situation.
Ironically, in all these cases, I think, it's reduced conventional military conflict while increasing the tension and the stakes. My greatest fear about the utilization of nuclear weapons prior to this war has been an exchange between India and Pakistan. (Israel has been a worry, as well.)
So, all that said, while I agree that Russia is making it crystal clear just how empowering it is to have nuclear weapons, I think that because global nonproliferation controls have been extremely effective and longstanding, and the few nations with the most incentive and potential to get nukes have already done so, that this war isn't going to change the proliferation situation.
What really frightens me is how much everything would change once someone, such as Russia, uses a nuclear weapon even in the most limited sense. Once that taboo is broken, all of the ways in which nukes have been stabilizing are greatly undermined and similar limited uses of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts, like India/Pakistan or in the middle-east become much more likely.
In my view, it's not just about the possibility of escalation to multilateral strategic nukes, but very much about breaking the taboo and the threat that represents, which is huge.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:49 AM on October 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
ZNPP: Peaceful Use Verification Obligations, Mark Hibbs, Arms Control Wonk, October 11, 2022:
*International Atomic Energy Agency (WP article). Their latest report on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is: Update 119 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine, 17 Oct 2022.
posted by cenoxo at 6:29 AM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
President Vladimir Putin, on the basis of a military invasion and improvised “referenda” widely deplored by many states and the United Nations, declared on September 30 that the Russian Federation will annex four occupied territories in Ukraine. Beginning soon Russia may take steps to impose its authority in these territories, perhaps prioritizing certain matters including nuclear energy where Russian leaders may conclude that exerting firm Russian control would reap status or strategic benefits.Details in the article.
If Russia’s March 2014 annexation of Crimea serves as its nuclear blueprint, Russia can be anticipated to interrupt and terminate the IAEA’s [*] ongoing and routine implementation of nuclear safeguards, carried out under Ukraine’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA, in any annexed Ukrainian territory. If so, in Zaporizhzhia Russia may challenge established multilateral non-proliferation understandings as well as specific understandings of individual Western governments concerning nuclear items they permitted to be transferred to Ukraine over which Russia has wrested control by force.
These understandings are, for example, expressed in a 1998 bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation between Ukraine and the United States. Future Russian interference with IAEA safeguards in Ukraine might also contravene related arrangements governing nuclear trade and nonproliferation obligations between Ukraine and Sweden….
*International Atomic Energy Agency (WP article). Their latest report on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant is: Update 119 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine, 17 Oct 2022.
posted by cenoxo at 6:29 AM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Got this via Eliot A Cohen's tweet: Superb piece by someone who knows KGB/FSB officers really well — and from there extrapolates convincingly about what will and what won’t deter Putin from going nuclear.: Addressing Putin’s Nuclear Threat: Thinking Like the Cold War KGB Officer That He Was (by Douglas London)
Assessing whether Putin will resort to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons – a question that took on new resonance as his regime has faltered even before the Kerch bridge attack — is no easy task. Policymakers would do well to remember three fundamentals that guide Putin’s decision-making: 1) he is the product of the 1970’s and 1980’s KGB and stood witness in then-East Germany in 1991, when the world as he knew it ceased to exist; 2) ego, survival, greed, and ambition direct his moral compass; and 3) he has come to believe his own propaganda.
As a Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who spent much of my career pursuing and countering Russian intelligence officers of Putin’s era, and those who would follow, I don’t expect his next steps will be guided by Clausewitz’s strategic military teachings, Sun Tzu’s enlightened pragmatism, or Machiavelli’s guidance for princes. Putin will pay little heed to the limited, practical, battlefield utility of nuclear or chemical weapons, or overly concern himself that prevailing winds might bring the fallout’s enduring harm to his own people. Putin’s logic is simple: It’s all about him, his court’s blind, obsequious obedience, and reasserting control. There are no rules, only consequences, that shape his calculus. In Putin’s mind, the rules of the post-World War II order were designed by an elitist West to restrain and humiliate his country (never mind that his country helped shape and long participated in that order and those rules), negating any obligation he has to respect them, or the words and treaties of his predecessors.
Putin will not look to his own military for counsel. There is no love lost between the Russian leader and his armed forces. A Cold War-era KGB officer, he was indoctrinated with profound mistrust in them. His micromanagement of Russia’s military campaign, disinterest in its catastrophic losses, and reliance instead on the Federal Security Service, or FSB, for his war in Chechnya and initial strategy in Ukraine, reflect this attitude.
More in the piece, though likely not a lot of new info or conclusions for those who've taken the above considerations on board their thinking.
posted by cendawanita at 12:01 AM on October 19, 2022 [3 favorites]
Assessing whether Putin will resort to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons – a question that took on new resonance as his regime has faltered even before the Kerch bridge attack — is no easy task. Policymakers would do well to remember three fundamentals that guide Putin’s decision-making: 1) he is the product of the 1970’s and 1980’s KGB and stood witness in then-East Germany in 1991, when the world as he knew it ceased to exist; 2) ego, survival, greed, and ambition direct his moral compass; and 3) he has come to believe his own propaganda.
As a Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who spent much of my career pursuing and countering Russian intelligence officers of Putin’s era, and those who would follow, I don’t expect his next steps will be guided by Clausewitz’s strategic military teachings, Sun Tzu’s enlightened pragmatism, or Machiavelli’s guidance for princes. Putin will pay little heed to the limited, practical, battlefield utility of nuclear or chemical weapons, or overly concern himself that prevailing winds might bring the fallout’s enduring harm to his own people. Putin’s logic is simple: It’s all about him, his court’s blind, obsequious obedience, and reasserting control. There are no rules, only consequences, that shape his calculus. In Putin’s mind, the rules of the post-World War II order were designed by an elitist West to restrain and humiliate his country (never mind that his country helped shape and long participated in that order and those rules), negating any obligation he has to respect them, or the words and treaties of his predecessors.
Putin will not look to his own military for counsel. There is no love lost between the Russian leader and his armed forces. A Cold War-era KGB officer, he was indoctrinated with profound mistrust in them. His micromanagement of Russia’s military campaign, disinterest in its catastrophic losses, and reliance instead on the Federal Security Service, or FSB, for his war in Chechnya and initial strategy in Ukraine, reflect this attitude.
More in the piece, though likely not a lot of new info or conclusions for those who've taken the above considerations on board their thinking.
posted by cendawanita at 12:01 AM on October 19, 2022 [3 favorites]
From the Fiona Hill interview linked above, another section quite relevant to this discussion:
Hill: What Putin is trying to do is to get us to talk about the threat of nuclear war instead of what he is doing in Ukraine. He wants the U.S. and Europe to contemplate, as he says, the risks that we faced during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Euromissile crisis. He wants us to face the prospect of a great superpower war. His solution is to have secret diplomacy, as we did during Cuban Missile Crisis, and have a direct compromise between the United States and Russia.posted by UN at 8:48 AM on October 19, 2022 [6 favorites]
But there’s no strategic standoff here. This is pure nuclear blackmail. There can’t be a compromise based on him not setting off a nuclear weapon if we hand over Ukraine. Putin is behaving like a rogue state because, well, he is a rogue state at this point. And he’s being explicit about what he wants. We have to pull all the diplomatic stops out. We have to ensure that he’s not going to have the effect that he wants with this nuclear brinkmanship.
Sounds almost like hostages - what if I am a loyal Ukrainian that wants to stay and be liberated?
posted by Meatbomb at 10:52 AM on October 19, 2022
posted by Meatbomb at 10:52 AM on October 19, 2022
That would be complicate the veiled scorched earth threat.
I wonder if the performative speculation about sinking every Russian ship in the Black Sea is meant to include any ballistic missile subs.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:56 AM on October 19, 2022
I wonder if the performative speculation about sinking every Russian ship in the Black Sea is meant to include any ballistic missile subs.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:56 AM on October 19, 2022
Mod note: Deleting the last comment left by hippybear because 1. Calling a user “fucker” is never cool and 2. You can email us if you’re dissatisfied with modding decisions and we’re happy to reassess.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:14 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:14 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
How many times do we have to tell you people?
posted by Reverend John at 6:14 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 6:14 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
The reasonable side of myself thinks: "Surely, they wouldn't telegraph their intentions so blatantly."
They're not making predictions or assessments on tactics and strategy in Russian media. We're watching propaganda workers in these clips — clips their bosses know will get disseminated in western media.
The intention is to make westerners anxious about nuclear war which serves a purpose in the information war. And these obfuscated threats largely work, perhaps not as well as they'd like them to.
posted by UN at 6:24 PM on October 19, 2022 [9 favorites]
They're not making predictions or assessments on tactics and strategy in Russian media. We're watching propaganda workers in these clips — clips their bosses know will get disseminated in western media.
The intention is to make westerners anxious about nuclear war which serves a purpose in the information war. And these obfuscated threats largely work, perhaps not as well as they'd like them to.
posted by UN at 6:24 PM on October 19, 2022 [9 favorites]
I believe the black sea fleet only includes diesel attack submarines, snuffleupagus, likely ICBM subs only exist in their Northern and Pacific fleets.
Russia has 15 ICBM subs, vs like 19-21 SSN 774s and 27-32 SSN 688s, whose primary job is to track ICBM subs presumably. I've no idea if their cruise missile subs carry nuclear warheads too.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:27 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
Russia has 15 ICBM subs, vs like 19-21 SSN 774s and 27-32 SSN 688s, whose primary job is to track ICBM subs presumably. I've no idea if their cruise missile subs carry nuclear warheads too.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:27 PM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
19-21 SSN 774s and 27-32 SSN 688s, whose primary job is to track ICBM subs presumably
Side note, but I would say that's "a" purpose but not the "primary job". In all my time on a 688 I never once tracked an enemy ICBM sub. A lot of protecting surface ship groups from submarine threats, lurking around key areas like the Straight of Malacca ensuring nobody can threaten to block it, the occasional special forces insertion/recovery, and generally electronically spying on anyone within range of a coastline. Lots and lots of spying.
Not saying nobody follows missile boats, just that not everyone does. It probably varies by region.
posted by ctmf at 10:44 PM on October 19, 2022 [8 favorites]
Side note, but I would say that's "a" purpose but not the "primary job". In all my time on a 688 I never once tracked an enemy ICBM sub. A lot of protecting surface ship groups from submarine threats, lurking around key areas like the Straight of Malacca ensuring nobody can threaten to block it, the occasional special forces insertion/recovery, and generally electronically spying on anyone within range of a coastline. Lots and lots of spying.
Not saying nobody follows missile boats, just that not everyone does. It probably varies by region.
posted by ctmf at 10:44 PM on October 19, 2022 [8 favorites]
I don't buy Fiona Hill's rhetoric at all. America is a nuclear hypocrite. A more sober analytic context can be found in this kind of paper, just skimming the first section is enough to pour cold water over her pious words:
https://sgs.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/2020-01/mian-2004.pdf
posted by polymodus at 12:29 AM on October 20, 2022
https://sgs.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/2020-01/mian-2004.pdf
posted by polymodus at 12:29 AM on October 20, 2022
Could you point out the parts of that paper from 2003 that you think are particularly relevant to Hill's arguments specifically, or to Russian nuclear blackmail in their invasion of Ukraine in general?
I'm not seeing many connections, unless you're saying that because the US has acted improperly in the past that somehow justifies Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine.
posted by Reverend John at 7:29 AM on October 20, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm not seeing many connections, unless you're saying that because the US has acted improperly in the past that somehow justifies Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine.
posted by Reverend John at 7:29 AM on October 20, 2022 [3 favorites]
Skimming the first section of that 2004 symposium paper in 2022 leaves me with a different impression of who was employing "pious words:"
Noam Chomsky tells a story that he attributes to St. Augustine: A captured pirate was
brought before the emperor Alexander the Great; "How dare you molest the sea?" asked
Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world” replied the pirate, who continued,
"Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy,
are called an emperor."
In a number of ways, as Chomsky notes, the story of the pirate and emperor can serve as
a powerful analogy for many contests over international power, legality and justice in the
modern world.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:38 AM on October 20, 2022
Noam Chomsky tells a story that he attributes to St. Augustine: A captured pirate was
brought before the emperor Alexander the Great; "How dare you molest the sea?" asked
Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world” replied the pirate, who continued,
"Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy,
are called an emperor."
In a number of ways, as Chomsky notes, the story of the pirate and emperor can serve as
a powerful analogy for many contests over international power, legality and justice in the
modern world.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:38 AM on October 20, 2022
I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase.
posted by Mitheral at 9:41 AM on October 20, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 9:41 AM on October 20, 2022 [2 favorites]
Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy,
are called an emperor."
Caeser weeps.
posted by clavdivs at 6:29 PM on October 20, 2022
are called an emperor."
Caeser weeps.
posted by clavdivs at 6:29 PM on October 20, 2022
You know, between this pirate and Diogenes, it seems like Alexander took a lot of guff.
posted by Reverend John at 7:46 AM on October 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 7:46 AM on October 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
On one hand, Chomsky has called Putin's invasion criminal. On the other, he's using his clout to try to convince people that Ukrainians should accept rule by the same criminal fascist dictator. It's intellectual brutality.
posted by UN at 9:26 AM on October 21, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by UN at 9:26 AM on October 21, 2022 [6 favorites]
Alexander took a lot of guff.
And Plato's carpets, shows up naked with only a bowl!
posted by clavdivs at 5:40 PM on October 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
And Plato's carpets, shows up naked with only a bowl!
posted by clavdivs at 5:40 PM on October 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
The rug really tied the agora together, man.
posted by Reverend John at 9:09 PM on October 21, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 9:09 PM on October 21, 2022 [3 favorites]
dude was like 90.
posted by clavdivs at 9:44 PM on October 21, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 9:44 PM on October 21, 2022 [1 favorite]
Translation:
Shoigu called the defense ministers of Turkey, France and Britain and said that Ukraine was allegedly preparing to detonate a “dirty bomb”
Feels like something is going to happen.
Feels to me like they want us to feel like "something is going to happen."
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:30 PM on October 23, 2022
Shoigu called the defense ministers of Turkey, France and Britain and said that Ukraine was allegedly preparing to detonate a “dirty bomb”
Feels like something is going to happen.
Feels to me like they want us to feel like "something is going to happen."
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:30 PM on October 23, 2022
edgelords of the interwebs playing Brinkmanship 101 -- what could possibly go wrong?
posted by philip-random at 10:13 PM on October 23, 2022
posted by philip-random at 10:13 PM on October 23, 2022
From today's ISW assesment:
posted by Reverend John at 10:13 PM on October 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
The Kremlin is unlikely to be preparing an imminent false-flag dirty bomb attack. Shoigu’s claims further a longstanding Russian information campaign. The Kremlin has repeatedly claimed that Western states will help Ukraine conduct a false-flag WMD attack since the earliest stages of its invasion of Ukraine in February. The Russian Ministry of Defense claimed it had information the US was “preparing provocations to accuse the Russian Armed Forces of using chemical, biological, or tactical nuclear weapons” in April.[4] Putin claimed in his pre-invasion speech on February 24 that Ukraine was preparing for a nuclear attack against Russia, and Russian state disinformation outlets repeatedly claimed Western states were supporting Ukraine’s development of nuclear weapons and planning false-flag attacks.[5]¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Reverend John at 10:13 PM on October 23, 2022 [2 favorites]
So, Russia is warning in every prominent venue available that Ukraine is supposedly going to deploy a dirty bomb in a false-flag attack. They brought it up in the UN Security Council yesterday. They took calls with the US and others about it. It's dominated discussion of the war everywhere for two days now. Am I correct in my assumption that it can only be discussed in this thread, given that it's not appeared in the main thread? Does this make sense? Or is it just happenstance and discussion of a "dirty bomb" is not included in the ban on nuclear weapon discussion in the main thread?
Anyway, It's certainly the biggest news of this war in the last few days. I've been convinced by some previous conments that this is merely another example of Russia's alarmist misinformation, such as the biolabs nonsense, and that it doesn't prefigure Russia's use itself of a false-flag dirty bomb detonation — but today I'm not so sure given how loudly and repeatedly Russia is making this claim at the highest levels, notably exceeding what they did in the case of the biolabs misinformation. Also, a dirty bomb actually needn't be very dangerously radioactive per se, because (in this case) its biggest intended effect would be psychological and as a pretext for some kind of Russian response.
A nuclear expert quoted in the Guardian today said that it would be absurd for Russia to attempt this because radioactive materials used in a dirty bomb would inevitably have a signature that points to the facility which produced it. That's unfortunately not a very persuasive argument to me because they've had access to both Chernobyl and to the Zaporizhzhia plant. They could use material from one of these and claim Ukraine had access (which it has/had).
Common sense inclines me to believe this is just information warfare of a sort, quite like the other allegations they've made, and I certainly hope this is the case. But the full-on effort in this case worries me, coupled with how irrational/foolish previous Russian actions have been in this war.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:02 AM on October 25, 2022 [3 favorites]
Anyway, It's certainly the biggest news of this war in the last few days. I've been convinced by some previous conments that this is merely another example of Russia's alarmist misinformation, such as the biolabs nonsense, and that it doesn't prefigure Russia's use itself of a false-flag dirty bomb detonation — but today I'm not so sure given how loudly and repeatedly Russia is making this claim at the highest levels, notably exceeding what they did in the case of the biolabs misinformation. Also, a dirty bomb actually needn't be very dangerously radioactive per se, because (in this case) its biggest intended effect would be psychological and as a pretext for some kind of Russian response.
A nuclear expert quoted in the Guardian today said that it would be absurd for Russia to attempt this because radioactive materials used in a dirty bomb would inevitably have a signature that points to the facility which produced it. That's unfortunately not a very persuasive argument to me because they've had access to both Chernobyl and to the Zaporizhzhia plant. They could use material from one of these and claim Ukraine had access (which it has/had).
Common sense inclines me to believe this is just information warfare of a sort, quite like the other allegations they've made, and I certainly hope this is the case. But the full-on effort in this case worries me, coupled with how irrational/foolish previous Russian actions have been in this war.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:02 AM on October 25, 2022 [3 favorites]
I have no idea if the Russians will do it, but my prediction is that if they do, there will be a robust and immediate US led conventional response. That is a bit scary, as then Russia will be truly and utterly f'd on the battlefield, with Putin in an even tighter corner. But it could also end the war sooner.
Interesting times, sheesh...
posted by Meatbomb at 11:10 AM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Interesting times, sheesh...
posted by Meatbomb at 11:10 AM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Am I correct in my assumption that it can only be discussed in this thread, given that it's not appeared in the main thread?
Since following the threads when the invasion attempt began in February, and I realised I never chimed in on this specific bit before, my observation isn't that the ALL nuclear talk was verboten. To a point, when it's newsworthy, it's shared in the main thread. What consistently happens next, without fail, is then the ones (Americans usually) who live not anywhere near the region, then overtake the emotional temperature of the thread, as though only Americans and only those of a certain age, lived through nuclear panic and the terror of the atomic bomb. This gets expressed in speculation that escalates in energy, because the collective normalization effort to bring the temperature down gets treated as being insulting and patronising, so ensuing comments keeps wanting to rachet the 'concern'. The back and forth and back and forth and metatalks get tiresome BECAUSE also usually the ones who are trying to regulate the temperature aren't the usual mefites who post consistently across the various threads regardless. We've seen more than one mefite (usually Eastern European) who finally become regulars (to my reading notice anyway) in commenting thanks to this unhappy war. But the regulars really don't get the amount of emotional energy and labour it requires to speak up, and speak up so regularly it becomes your 'brand'.
And that's my observation about it.
posted by cendawanita at 11:34 AM on October 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
Since following the threads when the invasion attempt began in February, and I realised I never chimed in on this specific bit before, my observation isn't that the ALL nuclear talk was verboten. To a point, when it's newsworthy, it's shared in the main thread. What consistently happens next, without fail, is then the ones (Americans usually) who live not anywhere near the region, then overtake the emotional temperature of the thread, as though only Americans and only those of a certain age, lived through nuclear panic and the terror of the atomic bomb. This gets expressed in speculation that escalates in energy, because the collective normalization effort to bring the temperature down gets treated as being insulting and patronising, so ensuing comments keeps wanting to rachet the 'concern'. The back and forth and back and forth and metatalks get tiresome BECAUSE also usually the ones who are trying to regulate the temperature aren't the usual mefites who post consistently across the various threads regardless. We've seen more than one mefite (usually Eastern European) who finally become regulars (to my reading notice anyway) in commenting thanks to this unhappy war. But the regulars really don't get the amount of emotional energy and labour it requires to speak up, and speak up so regularly it becomes your 'brand'.
And that's my observation about it.
posted by cendawanita at 11:34 AM on October 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also, a dirty bomb actually needn't be very dangerously radioactive per se, because (in this case) its biggest intended effect would be psychological and as a pretext for some kind of Russian response.
It needn't exist at all, for that matter. They could just say they encountered one and fake up some evidence. But it's laughable for a lot of reasons. If there was a dirty bomb detonation, it could only be Russia. Everyone knows dirty bombs don't do anything except scare people who don't know what they're talking about. Everyone knows everyone else knows this, including Ukraine. Nobody would use an ineffective weapon to terrorize their own people, inside their own territory. At this point, if Russia wants to go nuclear, might as well just do it because the elaborate cover story is going to fool nobody.
The Karkhova dam was a better false flag candidate, but that's out of the bag already.
In fact, that's one thing the West has been doing very well, beating Russia to the punch, telling the story first, saying "they're probably going to claim this" right before they claim it. It's been incredibly effective at making Russia look foolish.
posted by ctmf at 11:38 AM on October 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
It needn't exist at all, for that matter. They could just say they encountered one and fake up some evidence. But it's laughable for a lot of reasons. If there was a dirty bomb detonation, it could only be Russia. Everyone knows dirty bombs don't do anything except scare people who don't know what they're talking about. Everyone knows everyone else knows this, including Ukraine. Nobody would use an ineffective weapon to terrorize their own people, inside their own territory. At this point, if Russia wants to go nuclear, might as well just do it because the elaborate cover story is going to fool nobody.
The Karkhova dam was a better false flag candidate, but that's out of the bag already.
In fact, that's one thing the West has been doing very well, beating Russia to the punch, telling the story first, saying "they're probably going to claim this" right before they claim it. It's been incredibly effective at making Russia look foolish.
posted by ctmf at 11:38 AM on October 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also unless Russia is incredibly stupid (which may be the case) the last thing they want to do is use "tactical" nuclear weapons on the battlefield. The Russian army cannot operate in the radiological environment. So the hope would be to create some kind of no-go buffer around the territory they've got and sit on it until they can build the army back up. Problem: western armies CAN operate in that, and would, forcing Russia to choose between leaving or defending with strategic nuclear weapons. And Russia knows it. Classic example of all nuclear weapon roads leading to a place nobody wants to be.
I don't believe they are trying to come up with a pretext for that. They're trying to influence decision-makers in the West to withdraw support.
posted by ctmf at 11:56 AM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don't believe they are trying to come up with a pretext for that. They're trying to influence decision-makers in the West to withdraw support.
posted by ctmf at 11:56 AM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Hippybear, you have been very much one of Those Americans who seem to be centering their own, Cold-War-based worries at the expense of everyone else.
There were so many requests for people to just make their own thread, and now that you have it, people are *still* complaining about where they can post. I really don't think it was a moderation problem.
posted by sagc at 11:57 AM on October 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
There were so many requests for people to just make their own thread, and now that you have it, people are *still* complaining about where they can post. I really don't think it was a moderation problem.
posted by sagc at 11:57 AM on October 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
Turns out there's more arguing about whether or not we can talk about it than there is actual talking about it when allowed.
posted by ctmf at 11:57 AM on October 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by ctmf at 11:57 AM on October 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
If there was a dirty bomb detonation, it could only be Russia
On the other hand, in today's politics, it isn't about having a plausible story, it's about giving your supporters a fig leaf to repeat robotically on TV and to their friends while they continue to support you no matter what evil shit you're doing. The timing of being before US midterms isn't accidental.
I still don't think it's anything but a bluff because it would be so incredibly stupid for Russia to escalate to nuclear. If they want to win this, they need to keep it at the goon level and deter the west from escalating even to precision weapons, etc. Already blew that, don't make it worse.
posted by ctmf at 12:17 PM on October 25, 2022
On the other hand, in today's politics, it isn't about having a plausible story, it's about giving your supporters a fig leaf to repeat robotically on TV and to their friends while they continue to support you no matter what evil shit you're doing. The timing of being before US midterms isn't accidental.
I still don't think it's anything but a bluff because it would be so incredibly stupid for Russia to escalate to nuclear. If they want to win this, they need to keep it at the goon level and deter the west from escalating even to precision weapons, etc. Already blew that, don't make it worse.
posted by ctmf at 12:17 PM on October 25, 2022
Don't you think that might be an individual thing, rather than a moderation failure?
posted by sagc at 1:16 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 1:16 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
The mods nixed a running parallel thread for nuclear doomsaying; that this thread exists indicates that they're fine when there's something new to talk about.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:25 PM on October 25, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:25 PM on October 25, 2022 [3 favorites]
You can't fight in here, this is the nuclear war thread!
posted by Meatbomb at 2:37 PM on October 25, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 2:37 PM on October 25, 2022 [19 favorites]
I don't believe they are trying to come up with a pretext for that. They're trying to influence decision-makers in the West to withdraw support.
My uninformed take is that the dirty bomb rhetoric is not threatening the US/UK/France "West" as much as Turkey specifically under the pretense of information sharing. Salami slicing NATO apart via false flag nuclear terrorist attacks. Well, threats, presently. Presumably they want warships rehomed to the black sea to protect Crimea, and Turkey has no shortage of wedge issues with respect to NATO.
posted by pwnguin at 2:39 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
My uninformed take is that the dirty bomb rhetoric is not threatening the US/UK/France "West" as much as Turkey specifically under the pretense of information sharing. Salami slicing NATO apart via false flag nuclear terrorist attacks. Well, threats, presently. Presumably they want warships rehomed to the black sea to protect Crimea, and Turkey has no shortage of wedge issues with respect to NATO.
posted by pwnguin at 2:39 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
So many horrors have already been done in this war; what is one more or less in the balance. Tens of thousands of children stolen and women raped; hundreds of thousands are dead. millions homeless, and more starving from the loss of crops. All those Russians pulled from prisons and sent to the front that have TB, HIV, and other diseases. Who knows what new strains of Covid, flu and plagues will come from this. I can think of no reason Russia won’t attempt to unleash the horror of a radiological disaster as another means to punish and destroy Ukraine. I assume they will do it and it will be yet one more horror we will witness and endure during our lifetimes.
posted by interogative mood at 4:28 PM on October 25, 2022
posted by interogative mood at 4:28 PM on October 25, 2022
interogative mood, I don't think hundreds of thousands are dead?
posted by sagc at 4:39 PM on October 25, 2022
posted by sagc at 4:39 PM on October 25, 2022
The last estimate I heard from some ideologically innocuous NGO was well over 100K inclusive of civilians and combatants, if perhaps not 200K (yet).
A radiological attack meant to poison the land and permanently take the ZPP offline (maybe contaminate the river too) would make it that much more difficult for Ukraine to return to normality within a lifetime (let alone continue their integration into Europe) and so really would add another level of horror, and demand another level of sacrifice from Ukrainians — no matter how much has been borne already.
I'm more persuaded by the theory that Russia understands actually doing it would backfire; and if they escalated that way it would be with a real nuke (used or tested) — but who the hell knows at this point.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:02 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
A radiological attack meant to poison the land and permanently take the ZPP offline (maybe contaminate the river too) would make it that much more difficult for Ukraine to return to normality within a lifetime (let alone continue their integration into Europe) and so really would add another level of horror, and demand another level of sacrifice from Ukrainians — no matter how much has been borne already.
I'm more persuaded by the theory that Russia understands actually doing it would backfire; and if they escalated that way it would be with a real nuke (used or tested) — but who the hell knows at this point.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:02 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
Also, there's the irony of Russia (and Moscow) picking Ukraine to threaten with a radiological disaster at a nuclear power plant, of all countries.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:08 PM on October 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:08 PM on October 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
I wouldn't use the word 'irony', I'd say it's horrific.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:50 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:50 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
Agreed, but it's also the only country (presently existing) with practical experience in managing that very thing at that scale.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:51 PM on October 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:51 PM on October 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
Oh, that's a good point.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:54 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:54 PM on October 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
(Not to diminish Fukushima; or Three Mile Island, or any other disasters with effects on nearby populations.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:04 PM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:04 PM on October 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Russia has dropped a dirty photo:
In a Twitter post on 25 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry claimed it had information that two organisations in Ukraine were “directly ordered” to create a so-called dirty bomb.posted by UN at 10:42 PM on October 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
Slovenia has become inadvertently involved in a Russian claim that Ukraine is building a “dirty bomb,” forcing the government to issue a statement stressing that nuclear waste is being stored safely.
In a Twitter post on 25 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry claimed it had information that two organisations in Ukraine were “directly ordered” to create a so-called dirty bomb.
Slovenian sleuths quickly determined that one of the photos offered as evidence was a photo of radioactive waste stored in Slovenia that had been published by the Slovenian Agency for Radioactive Waste, as evident from the Slovenian word for “radioactive” seen on bags containing radioactive material.
The photo was taken in 2010 and is the property of the Agency for Radioactive Waste (ARAO), the Slovenian government explained in a series of Twitter posts.
The Mail on Sunday also reveals today that during the final days of her premiership, Ms Truss became fixated by the weather forecast – because of increasingly alarming security warnings about the situation in Ukraine.In a piece on the Mail on Sunday (archive link) about Putin hacking Truss' phone.
Ms Truss had become alarmed by reports from the intelligence services that Russia could be preparing to detonate a nuclear device in Ukraine or over the Black Sea as part of a show of strength, and was concerned about the impact of a radioactive cloud heading for the UK.
‘Liz was obsessed with the prevailing wind,’ said a source.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:20 PM on October 29, 2022
<smugly sips a warm Dr. Pepper in the comfort of the Ukrainian thread nuclear bunker>
posted by Reverend John at 6:15 PM on November 12, 2022
posted by Reverend John at 6:15 PM on November 12, 2022
This is my land, I am ready to kill for it”. How Ukrainian women fight on the front line.
frostie root beer!
posted by clavdivs at 6:27 PM on November 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
frostie root beer!
posted by clavdivs at 6:27 PM on November 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Winter is coming to Ukraine and the war (take 2) | The Joke is You Can Do This More or Less in the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
He cites a 1977 US Army manual that outlines the need for using 136 tactical nuclear weapons in a single wave along a 100 km wide front to break a Soviet attack on an Army corps. With follow-up waves if that one didn't "take".
posted by Harald74 at 1:12 AM on October 13, 2022 [2 favorites]