You can't fight in here, this is the nuclear war thread
March 29, 2022 10:12 AM Subscribe
Russia’s chain of command for authorization of the use of nuclear weapons. Russia’s nuclear doctrine as of 2020 (summary of recent developments, more information below). Nuclear Deterrence 101. Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used?
Consequences of Nuclear War
Discussion of nuclear weapons and strategy tends to be abstract, partly because technical details are important to understanding the issues and partly because the consequences of nuclear war are unthinkable. The tendency toward abstraction should be resisted. Testimony of survivors of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A Hiroshima shadow that was once a human being.
What if we nuke a city. (previously)
According to a recent scholarly estimate, a small nuclear war between minor nuclear powers India and Pakistan would kill 50-125 million people directly and also cause a small-scale nuclear winter which would reduce world food production by 25-50%. A larger scale nuclear war would have much more serious consequences.
Current Nuclear Doctrines of the Nuclear-Armed Countries
Who owns nuclear weapons and approximately how many they have in active service.
Bret Devereaux’s definition of military doctrine
Military doctrine answers the most fundamental questions about how a country’s armed forces think about themselves and how they should do what they do. This includes everything from a bit of bongcloud philosophy (“like, what is an army even for, man?” Canadian Military Doctrine CFJP-01-2009, sections 201-209) to practical questions about how a country’s military is structured and how it operates. Nuclear doctrine discusses what goals might justify nuclear war, who has the authority to give orders, and what means might be used to fight a nuclear war.
Nuclear doctrine is important because it affects whether military officers will obey orders. Orders which are incompatible with established objectives or procedures raise doubts.
China (scroll down for the heading on doctrine) was the first nuclear-armed state to adopt a “no first use” policy, reaffirmed in current Chinese nuclear doctrine (2015). This means that China has renounced the use of nuclear weapons except in retaliation against nuclear attack. Current Pakistani and Indian nuclear doctrines are also “no first use,” although recent remarks and patterns of weapons development suggest that either or both countries may adopt more aggressive stances in future.
It’s worth noting the Paradox of Deterrence, which gives reason to think of retaliation as immoral or even irrational. If an attacker’s weapons have already been launched, threats cannot deflect a missile that is already in the air. Retaliation only makes life worse for the defender since fallout from their own weapons would further damage their own country. It seems to follow that a rational defender would never launch a retaliatory second-strike, which means that threats of retaliation are meaningless. The only reason why Mutually Assured Destruction deters is the possibility that (A) the defending leader might be irrational, retaliating out of confusion or anger or (B) nuclear weapons might be launched automatically or by pre-arranged order (Russia’s Perimeter/Dead Hand, UK’s Letter of Last Resort).
Current British and French nuclear doctrines speak of “strategic ambiguity.” This means that they have not officially abandoned the possibility of pre-emptive or tactical nuclear attacks, though deterrence through second-strike capability seems to be the primary purpose of their nuclear arsenals.
North Korea has not made its nuclear doctrine public, but North Korea has announced that it will not use nuclear weapons except as a last measure to preserve national sovereignty. This would presumably include first-use against a conventional invasion. Israeli nuclear doctrine is opaque to such an extent that the country will not even confirm that it has nuclear weapons.
Current American nuclear doctrine (as expressed in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review) holds that “deterring nuclear attack is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons.” It very vaguely suggests that the USA might reply with nuclear weapons to a sufficiently serious non-nuclear attack against the USA or its allies (“European, Asian, and Pacific allies”). Note that the NPR is deliberately vague about which countries are protected by the American nuclear umbrella. The USA has some “non-strategic” tactical nuclear weapons (comparatively small weapons intended for battlefield use) and is seeking to upgrade it’s tactical nuclear capabilities; the NPR is troubled by “Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage in crises and at lower levels of conflict.”
Current Russian nuclear doctrine (more details here) authorizes second-strike against nuclear attack or first-use against conventional attack “that threatens the very existence of the state.” This includes “large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons.” Russia has promised not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries “except in the event of an attack on the Russian Federation [or] the Russian Federation Armed Forces.” Russia doctrine ambiguously appears to include “escalate-to-deescalate,” a plan for first-use of tactical nuclear weapons if Russia appears to be losing a conventional war. The idea is that first use of nuclear weapons as a demonstration is an extreme escalation of a war, intended to be so alarming as to cause Russia’s opponent to de-escalate by ending the war.
There is a reason why French, British, American and Russian nuclear doctrines are somewhat ambiguous about the circumstances under which they will use nuclear weapons. In Bret Devereaux’s words, “maintaining ‘ambiguity’ about where exactly the red line is serves to limit an opposing power’s freedom of action – they cannot risk miscalculating and crossing your red lines.” Devereaux adds that this situation makes big wars less likely and smaller wars more likely, for knowing that other nuclear powers will be deterred from intervening gives big countries impunity to attack non-nuclear countries.
Some Recent Commentary of Immediate Relevance to the Current War in Ukraine
Should Ukraine have retained Soviet nuclear weapons?
Maybe Russia doesn’t believe in escalate-to-deescalate? If it does, it is a flawed strategy which might cause further escalation to global thermonuclear war.
Why a no-fly-zone over Ukraine would require attacking ground-based air defenses inside Russia
How to survive a nuclear attack (previously)
Playlist
Yo La Tengo – (Talking About) Nuclear War
Tom Lehrer – We’ll All Go Together When We Go
Vera Lynn – We’ll Meet Again
Consequences of Nuclear War
Discussion of nuclear weapons and strategy tends to be abstract, partly because technical details are important to understanding the issues and partly because the consequences of nuclear war are unthinkable. The tendency toward abstraction should be resisted. Testimony of survivors of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A Hiroshima shadow that was once a human being.
What if we nuke a city. (previously)
According to a recent scholarly estimate, a small nuclear war between minor nuclear powers India and Pakistan would kill 50-125 million people directly and also cause a small-scale nuclear winter which would reduce world food production by 25-50%. A larger scale nuclear war would have much more serious consequences.
Current Nuclear Doctrines of the Nuclear-Armed Countries
Who owns nuclear weapons and approximately how many they have in active service.
Bret Devereaux’s definition of military doctrine
Military doctrine answers the most fundamental questions about how a country’s armed forces think about themselves and how they should do what they do. This includes everything from a bit of bongcloud philosophy (“like, what is an army even for, man?” Canadian Military Doctrine CFJP-01-2009, sections 201-209) to practical questions about how a country’s military is structured and how it operates. Nuclear doctrine discusses what goals might justify nuclear war, who has the authority to give orders, and what means might be used to fight a nuclear war.
Nuclear doctrine is important because it affects whether military officers will obey orders. Orders which are incompatible with established objectives or procedures raise doubts.
China (scroll down for the heading on doctrine) was the first nuclear-armed state to adopt a “no first use” policy, reaffirmed in current Chinese nuclear doctrine (2015). This means that China has renounced the use of nuclear weapons except in retaliation against nuclear attack. Current Pakistani and Indian nuclear doctrines are also “no first use,” although recent remarks and patterns of weapons development suggest that either or both countries may adopt more aggressive stances in future.
It’s worth noting the Paradox of Deterrence, which gives reason to think of retaliation as immoral or even irrational. If an attacker’s weapons have already been launched, threats cannot deflect a missile that is already in the air. Retaliation only makes life worse for the defender since fallout from their own weapons would further damage their own country. It seems to follow that a rational defender would never launch a retaliatory second-strike, which means that threats of retaliation are meaningless. The only reason why Mutually Assured Destruction deters is the possibility that (A) the defending leader might be irrational, retaliating out of confusion or anger or (B) nuclear weapons might be launched automatically or by pre-arranged order (Russia’s Perimeter/Dead Hand, UK’s Letter of Last Resort).
Current British and French nuclear doctrines speak of “strategic ambiguity.” This means that they have not officially abandoned the possibility of pre-emptive or tactical nuclear attacks, though deterrence through second-strike capability seems to be the primary purpose of their nuclear arsenals.
North Korea has not made its nuclear doctrine public, but North Korea has announced that it will not use nuclear weapons except as a last measure to preserve national sovereignty. This would presumably include first-use against a conventional invasion. Israeli nuclear doctrine is opaque to such an extent that the country will not even confirm that it has nuclear weapons.
Current American nuclear doctrine (as expressed in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review) holds that “deterring nuclear attack is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons.” It very vaguely suggests that the USA might reply with nuclear weapons to a sufficiently serious non-nuclear attack against the USA or its allies (“European, Asian, and Pacific allies”). Note that the NPR is deliberately vague about which countries are protected by the American nuclear umbrella. The USA has some “non-strategic” tactical nuclear weapons (comparatively small weapons intended for battlefield use) and is seeking to upgrade it’s tactical nuclear capabilities; the NPR is troubled by “Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage in crises and at lower levels of conflict.”
Current Russian nuclear doctrine (more details here) authorizes second-strike against nuclear attack or first-use against conventional attack “that threatens the very existence of the state.” This includes “large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons.” Russia has promised not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries “except in the event of an attack on the Russian Federation [or] the Russian Federation Armed Forces.” Russia doctrine ambiguously appears to include “escalate-to-deescalate,” a plan for first-use of tactical nuclear weapons if Russia appears to be losing a conventional war. The idea is that first use of nuclear weapons as a demonstration is an extreme escalation of a war, intended to be so alarming as to cause Russia’s opponent to de-escalate by ending the war.
There is a reason why French, British, American and Russian nuclear doctrines are somewhat ambiguous about the circumstances under which they will use nuclear weapons. In Bret Devereaux’s words, “maintaining ‘ambiguity’ about where exactly the red line is serves to limit an opposing power’s freedom of action – they cannot risk miscalculating and crossing your red lines.” Devereaux adds that this situation makes big wars less likely and smaller wars more likely, for knowing that other nuclear powers will be deterred from intervening gives big countries impunity to attack non-nuclear countries.
Some Recent Commentary of Immediate Relevance to the Current War in Ukraine
Should Ukraine have retained Soviet nuclear weapons?
Maybe Russia doesn’t believe in escalate-to-deescalate? If it does, it is a flawed strategy which might cause further escalation to global thermonuclear war.
Why a no-fly-zone over Ukraine would require attacking ground-based air defenses inside Russia
How to survive a nuclear attack (previously)
Playlist
Yo La Tengo – (Talking About) Nuclear War
Tom Lehrer – We’ll All Go Together When We Go
Vera Lynn – We’ll Meet Again
And it's one two three what are we fighting for?
posted by whatevernot at 10:22 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by whatevernot at 10:22 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
In the main Ukraine thread, ChurchHatesTucker posted this: Russia Finally Rules Out Using Nuclear Weapons Over Ukraine War
"Let's keep these two things separate," Peskov said, "I mean, existence of the state and special military operation in Ukraine, they have nothing to do with each other."
This is very good news, but note that NATO intervention might be considered a threat to the existence of the Russian state.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Let's keep these two things separate," Peskov said, "I mean, existence of the state and special military operation in Ukraine, they have nothing to do with each other."
This is very good news, but note that NATO intervention might be considered a threat to the existence of the Russian state.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
When I was playing Civilization, I forget which one, there was a rule that if you used nuclear weapons, every other civilization automatically became hostile. You lose all of your alliances and everyone hates you.
That rings true. Who on Earth would defend the use of nuclear weapons? In the game, this is the move you make when you've already lost, and you want to lose spectacularly.
And of course that would be your legacy. In every history textbook your face will be next to a mushroom cloud. Whatever else you've done in life, history will despise you. You fuck ONE goat...
posted by adept256 at 10:45 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
That rings true. Who on Earth would defend the use of nuclear weapons? In the game, this is the move you make when you've already lost, and you want to lose spectacularly.
And of course that would be your legacy. In every history textbook your face will be next to a mushroom cloud. Whatever else you've done in life, history will despise you. You fuck ONE goat...
posted by adept256 at 10:45 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
End of Ze World [Hokay, so ... unfortunately still relevant 16 years later. ]
posted by chavenet at 10:49 AM on March 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 10:49 AM on March 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
This is very good news, but note that NATO intervention might be considered a threat to the existence of the Russian state.
There's also the very real possibility that Russia's Nuclear arsenal is in the same state of repair that the rest of their military has been discovered to be in, and they aren't confident they have weapons in a state to launch at all.
posted by mhoye at 10:51 AM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
There's also the very real possibility that Russia's Nuclear arsenal is in the same state of repair that the rest of their military has been discovered to be in, and they aren't confident they have weapons in a state to launch at all.
posted by mhoye at 10:51 AM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Yeah, but who takes that risk? The ONLY reason this has dragged on all these weeks is the threat of nukes. That's it. Otherwise the world would have marched in and ended it.
posted by hippybear at 10:53 AM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:53 AM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
The US did it twice and isn't exactly a pariah state.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 10:59 AM on March 29, 2022 [30 favorites]
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 10:59 AM on March 29, 2022 [30 favorites]
Thank you firstly for making this post and secondly for putting so much effort into making an excellent post.
posted by roolya_boolya at 11:00 AM on March 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by roolya_boolya at 11:00 AM on March 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
It takes a second to say goodbye.
As a Gen-Xer I'm used to my various timelines being filled with nostalgia and it's almost fun having a threat of nuclear war come back after all these years. How I've missed it. I mean, not really, nuclear war is terrifying, but thinking about it really was a huge part of my childhood. The Day After, Threads, Testament, seemed like every week there was a new movie where everyone dies.
posted by bondcliff at 11:02 AM on March 29, 2022 [24 favorites]
As a Gen-Xer I'm used to my various timelines being filled with nostalgia and it's almost fun having a threat of nuclear war come back after all these years. How I've missed it. I mean, not really, nuclear war is terrifying, but thinking about it really was a huge part of my childhood. The Day After, Threads, Testament, seemed like every week there was a new movie where everyone dies.
posted by bondcliff at 11:02 AM on March 29, 2022 [24 favorites]
Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Two Tribes apocalypse never sounded so good.
posted by lalochezia at 11:04 AM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 11:04 AM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
The US did it twice and isn't exactly a pariah state.
That is deeply disingenuous and borderline a-historic. Prior to our deployment of them, most of the world thought destructive power like that was purely hypothetical, and no international organizations had even thought to discuss agreements about their deployment. Putting aside the morality of the decision to use them, there were no taboos about the use of nuclear weapons for the U.S. to violate, because the terms "fallout" and "mutually assured destruction" weren't in the popular lexicon yet.
posted by Mayor West at 11:04 AM on March 29, 2022 [39 favorites]
That is deeply disingenuous and borderline a-historic. Prior to our deployment of them, most of the world thought destructive power like that was purely hypothetical, and no international organizations had even thought to discuss agreements about their deployment. Putting aside the morality of the decision to use them, there were no taboos about the use of nuclear weapons for the U.S. to violate, because the terms "fallout" and "mutually assured destruction" weren't in the popular lexicon yet.
posted by Mayor West at 11:04 AM on March 29, 2022 [39 favorites]
We literally only had three bombs during that time, and one of them was used for a test. And that was a very specific circumstance that is very difficult to compare to this current war.
posted by hippybear at 11:09 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 11:09 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Can We Not relitigate Hiroshima/Nagasaki in this thread?
posted by lalochezia at 11:10 AM on March 29, 2022 [39 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 11:10 AM on March 29, 2022 [39 favorites]
The US bombs cruising overhead
But there goes my love rocket red
Shoot it up
Oh, shoot it up
posted by loquacious at 11:11 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
But there goes my love rocket red
Shoot it up
Oh, shoot it up
posted by loquacious at 11:11 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Russia says it will reduce military operations around Kyiv following talks with Ukraine
The Russian defense ministry has decided to "radically, at times, reduce military activity" in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv, deputy defense minister Alexander Fomin said, state media RIA reported.
-
Fomin told reporters that the ongoing discussions regarding the "neutrality and non-nuclear status of Ukraine" had contributed to the decision.
Is this the story he's taking home to Russia? Congratulations, Ukraine has been forced to give up nukes, finally Russia is safe, victory is ours!
I mean, whatever face-saving bullshit you need to do, just do it and fuck off. Ukraine can make a big show of signing a cartoon sized contract to give up the nukes with a six foot sharpie, and you can all fuck off home.
posted by adept256 at 11:13 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
The Russian defense ministry has decided to "radically, at times, reduce military activity" in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv, deputy defense minister Alexander Fomin said, state media RIA reported.
-
Fomin told reporters that the ongoing discussions regarding the "neutrality and non-nuclear status of Ukraine" had contributed to the decision.
Is this the story he's taking home to Russia? Congratulations, Ukraine has been forced to give up nukes, finally Russia is safe, victory is ours!
I mean, whatever face-saving bullshit you need to do, just do it and fuck off. Ukraine can make a big show of signing a cartoon sized contract to give up the nukes with a six foot sharpie, and you can all fuck off home.
posted by adept256 at 11:13 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm not being disingenuous. I'm saying the only example we have does not back up the point.
Somebody will use nuclear weapons in the future. And then after that, sooner than you think, they will be rehabilitated in geopolitics. They'll sign treaties and send delegates to all the cool parties and they'll just be another country that Did The Thing, just like the US.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 11:14 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
Somebody will use nuclear weapons in the future. And then after that, sooner than you think, they will be rehabilitated in geopolitics. They'll sign treaties and send delegates to all the cool parties and they'll just be another country that Did The Thing, just like the US.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 11:14 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
Don't talk about the only use of nuclear weapons in war in the use of nuclear weapons in war thread!
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:19 AM on March 29, 2022 [65 favorites]
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:19 AM on March 29, 2022 [65 favorites]
ahem, that Yo La Tengo song is a cover of a song by Sun Ra. Carry on.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 11:23 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by SystematicAbuse at 11:23 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
The US did it twice and isn't exactly a pariah state.
a) in the context of an already world-wide war, where firebombing cities to ash was already doctrine
b) they were the only one with nukes, so nobody was in a position to argue with them about it
c) it immediately prompted other major powers to develop nukes as table stakes, leading to not least the cold war, and the current shitshow
d) have you *seen* how many people in the world despise the US and its foreign policy? You may be feared, but you are not loved around the world, far from it (Middle East, South America, China, India, Africa, just for starters) And Trump did a spectacular job of pissing off the remaining % of the world that are your allies, we're all just waiting for round 2 of the american neonazis in trepidation.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 11:24 AM on March 29, 2022 [36 favorites]
a) in the context of an already world-wide war, where firebombing cities to ash was already doctrine
b) they were the only one with nukes, so nobody was in a position to argue with them about it
c) it immediately prompted other major powers to develop nukes as table stakes, leading to not least the cold war, and the current shitshow
d) have you *seen* how many people in the world despise the US and its foreign policy? You may be feared, but you are not loved around the world, far from it (Middle East, South America, China, India, Africa, just for starters) And Trump did a spectacular job of pissing off the remaining % of the world that are your allies, we're all just waiting for round 2 of the american neonazis in trepidation.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 11:24 AM on March 29, 2022 [36 favorites]
The book Command and Control is an excellent and terrifying history of the nuclear fleets. It is shocking that any of us are alive.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [23 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [23 favorites]
Eh, that really depends. If it's somehow limited to one detonation, then yeah, maybe. After some time and some change of regime, life goes on. But the whole point is that with proliferation (something the US didn't have to worry about when making the call to bomb Japan), limiting use of nuclear weapons and NOT ending civilization as we know it is never a sure thing. Once the first detonation happens, it's extremely difficult to stop it from becoming a cascade (have you SEEN how good humans are at de-escalating violent situations???). The only example we have comes from a vastly different time, and from an era when whole cities were being firebombed out of existence with glee (and with "conventional" weapons) already.
posted by rikschell at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by rikschell at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't taboo, they're just not all that instructive for a pragmatic discussion of the present day. A Russia using modern nukes in Ukraine (whether city-busters or tactical weapons) is not at all in the same position as the US using the earliest atomic bombs at the end of WWII (in every relevant aspect).
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
"...is not at all in the same position as the US using the earliest atomic bombs at the end of WWII (in every relevant aspect)"
Except for their destructive capacity against human beings and their long term effects, for which we have only two prior examples.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:35 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Except for their destructive capacity against human beings and their long term effects, for which we have only two prior examples.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:35 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
The second person ever to eat a chilli pepper was fucking crazy.
posted by adept256 at 11:36 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 11:36 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm saying the only example we have does not back up the point.
The obvious lesson from 1945 is that we should strike first with our entire nuclear arsenal, right? Last time we did it, we won!
posted by ryanrs at 11:36 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
The obvious lesson from 1945 is that we should strike first with our entire nuclear arsenal, right? Last time we did it, we won!
posted by ryanrs at 11:36 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Except for their destructive capacity against human beings and their long term effects, for which we have only two prior examples.
That would be a whole lot worse too; and without any intention to diminish Japan's suffering -- Ukraine is not an island nation.
(I specifically said they're relevant. They're just not that directly instructive.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:37 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
That would be a whole lot worse too; and without any intention to diminish Japan's suffering -- Ukraine is not an island nation.
(I specifically said they're relevant. They're just not that directly instructive.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:37 AM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but who takes that risk? The ONLY reason this has dragged on all these weeks is the threat of nukes. That's it. Otherwise the world would have marched in and ended it.
That's been my single heuristic for evaluating the quality of any proposed solution. Any proposal or essay being shared virally has to at least demonstrate basic understanding of the nuclear weapons problem i.e. the Doomsday Clock and some plausible reason of what to do with it. Once this heuristic is applied a lot of the viral content is just not very good, they pretend this war is just a conventional one. No idea why this is broadly accepted by educated authors.
Here's the Doomsday Clock website, https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/, they've written at least one article about the current war and more people ought to read it.
posted by polymodus at 11:37 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
That's been my single heuristic for evaluating the quality of any proposed solution. Any proposal or essay being shared virally has to at least demonstrate basic understanding of the nuclear weapons problem i.e. the Doomsday Clock and some plausible reason of what to do with it. Once this heuristic is applied a lot of the viral content is just not very good, they pretend this war is just a conventional one. No idea why this is broadly accepted by educated authors.
Here's the Doomsday Clock website, https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/, they've written at least one article about the current war and more people ought to read it.
posted by polymodus at 11:37 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Can We Not relitigate Hiroshima/Nagasaki in this thread?
We choose to relitigate Hiroshima/Nagasaki and do the other things too!
We choose in this thread to settle, once and for all, chunky versus smooth, ghif versus jif, sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe, overhand or underhand, and which is the One True Barbecue not because they are easy but because they are hard!
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [49 favorites]
We choose to relitigate Hiroshima/Nagasaki and do the other things too!
We choose in this thread to settle, once and for all, chunky versus smooth, ghif versus jif, sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe, overhand or underhand, and which is the One True Barbecue not because they are easy but because they are hard!
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [49 favorites]
There's also Nukemap, which I can't really bring myself to go mess with right now.
(Apologies if I missed it somewhere in the FPP.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
(Apologies if I missed it somewhere in the FPP.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Command and Control was great! I'd also recommend:
The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy / David E. Hoffman. Doubleday, 2009.
Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die / Garrett Graff. Simon & Schuster, 2017.
The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power / William Perry and Tom Colina. BenBella Books 2020.
posted by mfoight at 11:42 AM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy / David E. Hoffman. Doubleday, 2009.
Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die / Garrett Graff. Simon & Schuster, 2017.
The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power / William Perry and Tom Colina. BenBella Books 2020.
posted by mfoight at 11:42 AM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
I wonder if I still have my copy of Nuclear War hiding in a box someplace.
posted by hippybear at 11:45 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 11:45 AM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
So, When the Wind Blows came out on Blu-Ray in 2020. One of the lines they used to sell it is:
posted by box at 11:53 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
The End-of-the-World Animated Classic Returns to Devastate a New GenerationDo Gen X parents really do that thing where they make their kids suffer the same psychological wounds that they did? Some of them do, I guess.
posted by box at 11:53 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
rikschell: have you SEEN how good humans are at de-escalating violent situations???
The Decemberists "Calamity Song"
posted by indexy at 11:56 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
The Decemberists "Calamity Song"
posted by indexy at 11:56 AM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Great post. It's tough to separate the functionality of these weapons from the emotional response they tend to receive and you did it very well in my opinion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, designing/building a fission weapon is technically difficult but is vastly simpler than coming up with a way to deliver that weapon to it's target quickly and effectively. One of my favorite observations is that the last nuclear weapon used in anger was dropped from a propeller driven aircraft. That is a massive dichotomy that can't be overstated.
Missiles are notoriously finicky and prone to failure and are (usually) a maintenance nightmare. Same thing with the warheads themselves. They're not bullets, you can't just put a shitload of them in a box and hide it in a warehouse. You have to maintain them, which isn't cheap. I can only speculate on what level the Russian nuclear arsenal's maintenance is at, having seen and read about the state of the US's arsenal.
When you factor that into the fact that the two main "superpowers" have several thousand of these weapons developed and manufactured over a 50-60 year timeframe the implications of this become glaringly obvious. Not to mention the several thousand scattered amongst the non "superpower" nations.
If you couple this with the history of warfare being illustrative of the idea that better weapon = victory, you end up with nations and non-nation states striving to have that "ultimate" weapon, thinking that their conventional force's ability to wage war is amplified by the tangible threat of someone thinking that firing one of these missiles off could be a good idea if one were to be on the losing end of a conventional conflict. This has worked very effectively over the last 75 years or so.
Although personally, I believe that other non-weapon things have mostly defused the fervor for continental warfare such as the World Cup, Olympics, and my current favorite Eurovision have taken that implicit and inherent feeling of hostile nationalism and competitiveness that is usually a requirement* of that scale of warfare and given it a non-warfare way to vent off that steam coupled with the omnipresent threat of a nuclear exchange is why we haven't seen a "WWIII" as yet.
On one level I feel like I'm saying that we shouldn't worry about "nuclear war" at all, when what I intend to convey is that it's much more unlikely than current discussion and media reporting would lead you to believe. The consequences are so massive and so poorly understood that we tend to fall back to observations about "conventional" warfare when this really needs to be taken on it's own level.
Seconding Command and Control, it's a frightening albeit great read.
I wonder if I still have my copy of Nuclear War hiding in a box someplace. I know where my copy is. We were playing in in high school when someone came around the corner to tell us that the Challenger had exploded on takeoff.
Did not expect this post to be this large, apologies.
posted by Sphinx at 11:57 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, designing/building a fission weapon is technically difficult but is vastly simpler than coming up with a way to deliver that weapon to it's target quickly and effectively. One of my favorite observations is that the last nuclear weapon used in anger was dropped from a propeller driven aircraft. That is a massive dichotomy that can't be overstated.
Missiles are notoriously finicky and prone to failure and are (usually) a maintenance nightmare. Same thing with the warheads themselves. They're not bullets, you can't just put a shitload of them in a box and hide it in a warehouse. You have to maintain them, which isn't cheap. I can only speculate on what level the Russian nuclear arsenal's maintenance is at, having seen and read about the state of the US's arsenal.
When you factor that into the fact that the two main "superpowers" have several thousand of these weapons developed and manufactured over a 50-60 year timeframe the implications of this become glaringly obvious. Not to mention the several thousand scattered amongst the non "superpower" nations.
If you couple this with the history of warfare being illustrative of the idea that better weapon = victory, you end up with nations and non-nation states striving to have that "ultimate" weapon, thinking that their conventional force's ability to wage war is amplified by the tangible threat of someone thinking that firing one of these missiles off could be a good idea if one were to be on the losing end of a conventional conflict. This has worked very effectively over the last 75 years or so.
Although personally, I believe that other non-weapon things have mostly defused the fervor for continental warfare such as the World Cup, Olympics, and my current favorite Eurovision have taken that implicit and inherent feeling of hostile nationalism and competitiveness that is usually a requirement* of that scale of warfare and given it a non-warfare way to vent off that steam coupled with the omnipresent threat of a nuclear exchange is why we haven't seen a "WWIII" as yet.
On one level I feel like I'm saying that we shouldn't worry about "nuclear war" at all, when what I intend to convey is that it's much more unlikely than current discussion and media reporting would lead you to believe. The consequences are so massive and so poorly understood that we tend to fall back to observations about "conventional" warfare when this really needs to be taken on it's own level.
Seconding Command and Control, it's a frightening albeit great read.
I wonder if I still have my copy of Nuclear War hiding in a box someplace. I know where my copy is. We were playing in in high school when someone came around the corner to tell us that the Challenger had exploded on takeoff.
Did not expect this post to be this large, apologies.
posted by Sphinx at 11:57 AM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
I pulled Warday [1984] off my Dad's shelf one afternoon as a kid. As they say now....oof.
I was also recently reminded of Amazing Grace and Chuck.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:58 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I was also recently reminded of Amazing Grace and Chuck.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:58 AM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Thanks for making this thread, all the other threads have been absolutely maddening in the need to talk around the single biggest reason Ukrainians are being forced to fight this with their own hands.
Wanted to briefly talk about this from the most recent thread (though it’s been raised several times prior in previous threads):
yes Russia/Putin has (in some measure (does he really really? I find myself thinking lately, or is it like the night vision goggles?) ) nuclear weapons but,
The most obvious and immediate answer is that we cannot know. On paper Russia has over 6,000 warheads but going all the way back to the USSR there was frequent speculation that those weapons were in rough shape, many or even most non-functional. The reason for this is obvious: once you’ve actually made the warhead its purpose as a deterrent has been fulfilled. Unless you’re actually planning to use the thing there’s no reason to carry the ongoing high maintenance costs. You say you have 6,000 warheads, any enemy spies would confirm 6,000 were manufactured, and what happens to them after that occurs in many widely distributed top security facilities. Who would know whether 3,000 or 5,000 of those are non-viable? Plus even with the latter, you’ve still got 1,000 viable warheads and that should be enough, no?
My personal speculation is this: the submarine-launched strategic weapons work. The operating costs of a first-class SSBN fleet are already extremely high so those are the ones you’re not going to stock with duds. Of the nuclear triad they’re by far Russia’s best bet for legitimately inflicting grievous harm on the United States (the only enemy that really threatens their existence), and unlike the other two platforms (bombers and ICBMs) SSBNs are very nearly impossible to kill in a pre-emptive strike.
Any issues the USSR had with maintenance would’ve been an order of magnitude worse in the lean years that followed the Soviet collapse, so you have to figure the bulk of the arsenal no longer works.
But even just what’s on the subs is enough to completely destroy life as we know it in the US and Europe.
So that’s my take on a question that we are unlikely to ever have a verified true answer to: no, they’re mostly broken, but the ones that matter (SSBN-based) still work and MAD is still very much a thing, and the unfortunate hands-tied approach to the suffering in Ukraine is the least-bad of our options. If anyone has any compelling arguments why this cannot be the case I’m deeply interested in hearing them.
posted by Ryvar at 12:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [34 favorites]
Wanted to briefly talk about this from the most recent thread (though it’s been raised several times prior in previous threads):
yes Russia/Putin has (in some measure (does he really really? I find myself thinking lately, or is it like the night vision goggles?) ) nuclear weapons but,
The most obvious and immediate answer is that we cannot know. On paper Russia has over 6,000 warheads but going all the way back to the USSR there was frequent speculation that those weapons were in rough shape, many or even most non-functional. The reason for this is obvious: once you’ve actually made the warhead its purpose as a deterrent has been fulfilled. Unless you’re actually planning to use the thing there’s no reason to carry the ongoing high maintenance costs. You say you have 6,000 warheads, any enemy spies would confirm 6,000 were manufactured, and what happens to them after that occurs in many widely distributed top security facilities. Who would know whether 3,000 or 5,000 of those are non-viable? Plus even with the latter, you’ve still got 1,000 viable warheads and that should be enough, no?
My personal speculation is this: the submarine-launched strategic weapons work. The operating costs of a first-class SSBN fleet are already extremely high so those are the ones you’re not going to stock with duds. Of the nuclear triad they’re by far Russia’s best bet for legitimately inflicting grievous harm on the United States (the only enemy that really threatens their existence), and unlike the other two platforms (bombers and ICBMs) SSBNs are very nearly impossible to kill in a pre-emptive strike.
Any issues the USSR had with maintenance would’ve been an order of magnitude worse in the lean years that followed the Soviet collapse, so you have to figure the bulk of the arsenal no longer works.
But even just what’s on the subs is enough to completely destroy life as we know it in the US and Europe.
So that’s my take on a question that we are unlikely to ever have a verified true answer to: no, they’re mostly broken, but the ones that matter (SSBN-based) still work and MAD is still very much a thing, and the unfortunate hands-tied approach to the suffering in Ukraine is the least-bad of our options. If anyone has any compelling arguments why this cannot be the case I’m deeply interested in hearing them.
posted by Ryvar at 12:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [34 favorites]
I saw When The Wind Blows in theaters when it was released. I really didn't know what I was getting into -- it was a cool european-style animated thing, so I went.
Hoooooly fuck!
All the other nuclear war stuff I'd seen had been on television and hadn't been nearly so personal or contained a story.
It wasn't the first or the last, but it was truly the one that left the deepest impression on me.
posted by hippybear at 12:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Hoooooly fuck!
All the other nuclear war stuff I'd seen had been on television and hadn't been nearly so personal or contained a story.
It wasn't the first or the last, but it was truly the one that left the deepest impression on me.
posted by hippybear at 12:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
In the main Ukraine thread, ChurchHatesTucker posted this: [link] Russia Finally Rules Out Using Nuclear Weapons Over Ukraine War
From Wikipedia:
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
From Wikipedia:
[T]he Russian government repeatedly denied it had plans to invade or attack Ukraine; those who issued the denials included Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov in November 2021, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in January 2022, Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov on 20 February 2022, and Russian ambassador to the Czech Republic Alexander Zmeevsky on 23 February 2022.Lying (or being mistaken) about Russian policy is not an isolated event either. The Russians have very little credibility.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Do Gen X parents really do that thing where they make their kids suffer the same psychological wounds that they did? Some of them do, I guess.
It may not be the height of the cold war, but if the threat weren't still there then we wouldn't need this thread and NATO would have already ejected Russia from Ukraine. (Or, more likely, it would never have tried it.)
I don't think the effect is as terrifying when the context and the threat are more distant; meanwhile the need to educate and urge people to support disarmament and non-proliferation has not gone away.
Locking this kind of stuff away is like avoiding art about atrocities because it's traumatizing; it tends to make the unthinkable more thinkable over time.
Although for Gen X I'd think the common touchstone is the T-2 playground scene.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
It may not be the height of the cold war, but if the threat weren't still there then we wouldn't need this thread and NATO would have already ejected Russia from Ukraine. (Or, more likely, it would never have tried it.)
I don't think the effect is as terrifying when the context and the threat are more distant; meanwhile the need to educate and urge people to support disarmament and non-proliferation has not gone away.
Locking this kind of stuff away is like avoiding art about atrocities because it's traumatizing; it tends to make the unthinkable more thinkable over time.
Although for Gen X I'd think the common touchstone is the T-2 playground scene.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
Russia Finally Rules Out Using Nuclear Weapons Over Ukraine War
Russia also considers Crimea to be an integral part of Russia, which Ukraine disagrees with. Ukrainian troops, fresh from victory in the Donbas, entering Crimea to liberate it may not be considered part of the Ukraine War for the purposes of nuclear doctrine.
posted by acb at 12:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Russia also considers Crimea to be an integral part of Russia, which Ukraine disagrees with. Ukrainian troops, fresh from victory in the Donbas, entering Crimea to liberate it may not be considered part of the Ukraine War for the purposes of nuclear doctrine.
posted by acb at 12:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
The Spanish Dogs Atomic Shockwaves is an underrated celebration of nuclear immolation.
posted by Headfullofair at 12:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Headfullofair at 12:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Do Gen X parents really do that thing where they make their kids suffer the same psychological wounds that they did?
Nah, no need - kids these days got their own cool thing called "climate change" - yeah try and shine that rotten apple. My approach is/was to point out that the only constant is change, "...let's think about the Black Death, now that was a rough time..."
The notion of 'bombs going off' now... there's something deeply human in that, like Jaws coming back around when you thought the danger was over. (My money's actually on (checks Doom-Bingo card) 'bus accident' no wait, 'meteor coming in from the direction of the sun.' A couple hundred years ago it probably would have been 'return of Christ' and in a different culture, 'Animal devours the sun.' Really one is just as plausible as the other, and the end effect the same...
posted by From Bklyn at 12:36 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Nah, no need - kids these days got their own cool thing called "climate change" - yeah try and shine that rotten apple. My approach is/was to point out that the only constant is change, "...let's think about the Black Death, now that was a rough time..."
The notion of 'bombs going off' now... there's something deeply human in that, like Jaws coming back around when you thought the danger was over. (My money's actually on (checks Doom-Bingo card) 'bus accident' no wait, 'meteor coming in from the direction of the sun.' A couple hundred years ago it probably would have been 'return of Christ' and in a different culture, 'Animal devours the sun.' Really one is just as plausible as the other, and the end effect the same...
posted by From Bklyn at 12:36 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I only just recently found out about the Nuclear Sponge plan across the five US states of MT, CO, ND, WY and NE. That is some truly ruthless planing - basically cede these five states to being the incoming sponge for potentially hundreds or even thousands of missiles. Not that it matters I suppose at that scale. But I swear if that nuclear sponge ends up soaking up enough nuclear explosions to set of the Yellowstone Caldera, I’ll turn this car straight around and take you all home.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 12:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 12:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
Except for their destructive capacity against human beings and their long term effects, for which we have only two prior examples.
Although no one was directly killed by the blast, a third example of their long term effects comes from the US 1954 Castle Bravo test, which eventually sickened and killed thousands of Marshallese and rendered several islands uninhabitable to this day.
posted by mubba at 12:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
Although no one was directly killed by the blast, a third example of their long term effects comes from the US 1954 Castle Bravo test, which eventually sickened and killed thousands of Marshallese and rendered several islands uninhabitable to this day.
posted by mubba at 12:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
Thanks for making this thread, all the other threads have been absolutely maddening in the need to talk around the single biggest reason Ukrainians are being forced to fight this with their own hands.I agree with this. In the other threads, whenever I see an example of the seemingly near-constant "Will American MeFites stop making this all about America and respect the fact that I'm from {Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever} and I'm worried that Russia is going to invade my country", I think: (1) Nobody's making everything about America, but more importantly (2) This person does not understand nuclear war.
I get that it's worrisome thinking that Russia might invade your country. But the entire world should be worried -- extremely worried -- about what would happen if Russia expanded this war into your NATO or even your NATO-in-all-but-name country. Not just you.
posted by Flunkie at 12:46 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
Russia Finally Rules Out Using Nuclear Weapons Over Ukraine War
You can't honestly consider Newsweek a legitimate news source anymore. They are repeating Kremlin talking points, like other far-right outlets (and a certain ex-president).
posted by rikschell at 12:50 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
You can't honestly consider Newsweek a legitimate news source anymore. They are repeating Kremlin talking points, like other far-right outlets (and a certain ex-president).
posted by rikschell at 12:50 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
It's easy to catastrophize about how Russia could use nukes in Ukraine, because...they could. They have the weapons. But there are good reasons to expect that will not happen. Consider the problems Putin is confronted with.
1. You have to have an objective that can only be achieved with nukes. Nuking a city that you were trying to capture makes no sense - are you still trying to capture it? Battlefield tactical weapons are most useful against large enemy formations, which Ukraine is mostly avoiding, and requires that your troops are trained, equipped, and prepared to conduct combat operations around nukes, which I guarantee you they are not.
2. Russia still has India and China as allies and oil buyers. Do those relationships have any red lines that your nuke ideas might cross? Are you sure? Losing those alliances would lead to the impressive achievement of having fewer friends than North Korea.
3. Unless you are really, really, really, really sure that your nukes work, you can't use them except as your final strategic deterrent. Plutonium decays. Tritium decays. These are not maintenance-free weapons! If you drop one bomb and it doesn't go off, your strategic deterrent is now in question and you basically have to resume nuclear testing in order to get it back.
posted by allegedly at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
1. You have to have an objective that can only be achieved with nukes. Nuking a city that you were trying to capture makes no sense - are you still trying to capture it? Battlefield tactical weapons are most useful against large enemy formations, which Ukraine is mostly avoiding, and requires that your troops are trained, equipped, and prepared to conduct combat operations around nukes, which I guarantee you they are not.
2. Russia still has India and China as allies and oil buyers. Do those relationships have any red lines that your nuke ideas might cross? Are you sure? Losing those alliances would lead to the impressive achievement of having fewer friends than North Korea.
3. Unless you are really, really, really, really sure that your nukes work, you can't use them except as your final strategic deterrent. Plutonium decays. Tritium decays. These are not maintenance-free weapons! If you drop one bomb and it doesn't go off, your strategic deterrent is now in question and you basically have to resume nuclear testing in order to get it back.
posted by allegedly at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
It’s worth noting the Paradox of Deterrence, which gives reason to think of retaliation as immoral or even irrational. If an attacker’s weapons have already been launched, threats cannot deflect a missile that is already in the air. Retaliation only makes life worse for the defender since fallout from their own weapons would further damage their own country. It seems to follow that a rational defender would never launch a retaliatory second-strike, which means that threats of retaliation are meaningless.
This doesn't follow at all and is frankly just stupid. The entire point of the threat of retaliation is to ensure that missiles never get in the air at all. The other side has to know that doing so means death for them no matter what happens to you. The "well actually the fallout would be worse for the defender" is that special brand of divorced-from-reality "logic" akin to "if I punch you in the face it's irrational for you to swing back because you risk damaging your fist thus increasing the total damage to your body".
MAD isn't mad and absolute retaliation is the only possible safe stance in a world of nuclear powers. Everyone has to know in their bones that a nuclear war can't be won, that using them is guaranteed death for everyone. It would be better if no one has any nukes, but as long as they do, no sane nuclear power can take any other stance.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:55 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
This doesn't follow at all and is frankly just stupid. The entire point of the threat of retaliation is to ensure that missiles never get in the air at all. The other side has to know that doing so means death for them no matter what happens to you. The "well actually the fallout would be worse for the defender" is that special brand of divorced-from-reality "logic" akin to "if I punch you in the face it's irrational for you to swing back because you risk damaging your fist thus increasing the total damage to your body".
MAD isn't mad and absolute retaliation is the only possible safe stance in a world of nuclear powers. Everyone has to know in their bones that a nuclear war can't be won, that using them is guaranteed death for everyone. It would be better if no one has any nukes, but as long as they do, no sane nuclear power can take any other stance.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:55 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
no sane nuclear power
Therein lies the rub.
posted by rikschell at 12:58 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Therein lies the rub.
posted by rikschell at 12:58 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
That is some truly ruthless planing - basically cede these five states to being the incoming sponge for potentially hundreds or even thousands of missiles.
During the period that France was out of NATO, its strategic plan was to keep invading Soviet forces out of France by nuking them in Germany. You might call it the Major-Asshole Line.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
During the period that France was out of NATO, its strategic plan was to keep invading Soviet forces out of France by nuking them in Germany. You might call it the Major-Asshole Line.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
What’s the Likelihood of Nuclear War?
Of the six historians I consulted, four said the present moment was less dangerous than the Cold War’s most hazardous moments; one said it was equally dangerous, just in different ways; and one said it was more dangerous....
In comparing Ukraine today with the Cuban missile crisis, Dobbs arrived at a grim calculation. “The risks of a direct confrontation between U.S. and Russian forces may be fairly low at present,” he conceded. “But if you multiply that by X months or X years and the number of things that could go wrong, they turn out to be similar mathematically.”posted by joeyh at 1:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
It blows my mind that any reasonable commentator could consider the present moment anywhere near the Cold War's most hazardous moments, let alone worse. You cannot compare "the risks are low, but if you multiply that by X years..." to "that ship turns around right now or everyone dies".
posted by allegedly at 1:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by allegedly at 1:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
You can't honestly consider Newsweek a legitimate news source anymore.
The PBS interview where Putin's spokesman Peskov makes the statement.
posted by Reverend John at 1:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
The PBS interview where Putin's spokesman Peskov makes the statement.
posted by Reverend John at 1:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
1. You have to have an objective that can only be achieved with nukes.
Nukes are a weapon of terror. Scaring the Ukrainian military has not proved possible with conventional weapons.
All it will take is one small tactical nuke to get the message across. Doesn't even need to kill anyone.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:17 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Nukes are a weapon of terror. Scaring the Ukrainian military has not proved possible with conventional weapons.
All it will take is one small tactical nuke to get the message across. Doesn't even need to kill anyone.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:17 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go watch On The Beach, then re-read The Road while listening to Wooden Ships on repeat.
posted by thecincinnatikid at 1:19 PM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by thecincinnatikid at 1:19 PM on March 29, 2022 [12 favorites]
If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go watch On The Beach, then re-read The Road while listening to Wooden Ships on repeat.
this kind of relentless optimism sickens me
posted by lalochezia at 1:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [37 favorites]
this kind of relentless optimism sickens me
posted by lalochezia at 1:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [37 favorites]
It's easy to catastrophize about how Russia could use nukes in Ukraine
No, Putin won't be using the nukes in Ukraine. He would use them against the capitol cities (or second city, or whatever good target) in the countries that moved to defend Ukraine.
Nobody here is worried that Ukraine would get nuked. Not in a geopolitical sense. This whole stand-off is about "I'm holding your mother hostage, but I'll shoulder-rocket your house if you do anything against me."
This isn't about killing the hostage. It's about killing the family of those who try to attempt a rescue.
posted by hippybear at 1:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
No, Putin won't be using the nukes in Ukraine. He would use them against the capitol cities (or second city, or whatever good target) in the countries that moved to defend Ukraine.
Nobody here is worried that Ukraine would get nuked. Not in a geopolitical sense. This whole stand-off is about "I'm holding your mother hostage, but I'll shoulder-rocket your house if you do anything against me."
This isn't about killing the hostage. It's about killing the family of those who try to attempt a rescue.
posted by hippybear at 1:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
It blows my mind that any reasonable commentator could consider the present moment anywhere near the Cold War's most hazardous moments, let alone worse
The convincing argument I've heard for at least considering this to be the case is precisely because the Cold War is over. Back then everyone knew the stakes very clearly. Since then, there's a general sense that tension has ratcheted down. It's therefore possible that one side or the other might feel emboldened to gamble with nukes because they no longer think the other side really means it. Basically, that MAD has weakened.
The likeliest gamble stemming from above that I've read about is use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield in the case of a feared loss of conventional forces, something unthinkable by the USSR during the Cold War as basically guaranteeing escalation to full-scale global nuclear war but maybe possibly considerable by Russia today.
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:35 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
The convincing argument I've heard for at least considering this to be the case is precisely because the Cold War is over. Back then everyone knew the stakes very clearly. Since then, there's a general sense that tension has ratcheted down. It's therefore possible that one side or the other might feel emboldened to gamble with nukes because they no longer think the other side really means it. Basically, that MAD has weakened.
The likeliest gamble stemming from above that I've read about is use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield in the case of a feared loss of conventional forces, something unthinkable by the USSR during the Cold War as basically guaranteeing escalation to full-scale global nuclear war but maybe possibly considerable by Russia today.
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:35 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also, can I just say THANK YOU FOR THIS THREAD, because this is basically the ONLY really this war continues. Not discussing it as a topic in the other threads (and being scolded and deleted for doing so) felt a bit like a very deliberate Elephant In The Room situation.
posted by hippybear at 1:36 PM on March 29, 2022 [27 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 1:36 PM on March 29, 2022 [27 favorites]
Plutonium decays. Tritium decays. These are not maintenance-free weapons!I agree that these are not maintenance-free weapons, but I don't think radioactive decay really has much if anything to do with that.
The fissile material in an A-bomb (or in the first stage of an H-bomb) is typically either plutonium-239 or uranium-235. These have half-lives of like 24 thousand years (Pu-239) or 7 million years (U-235).
In the second stage of an H-bomb, you can use tritium, which does decay on a relevant timescale (14 year half-life). However, because of that, it's more common to use deuterium or lithium deuteride, neither of which decay at all (except maybe in the super-theoretical "protons might decay in several bazillions of years" sense). The energy released by these is then enough to produce tritium as the bomb is going off, and that tritium then itself undergoes fusion, releasing more energy.
You can further increase the overall energy yield by adding a fissionable but not fissile material -- i.e. a material that can undergo fission, but not in a self-sustaining chain reaction. The energy provided by the earlier stages of the bomb causes fission in this material. The largest bombs ever made used this idea. The typical fissionable-but-not-fissile fuel would be uranium-238, which has a half-life measured in the billions of years.
posted by Flunkie at 1:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
There's also Nukemap, which I can't really bring myself to go mess with right now.
Sadly, Nukemap promotes the wrong message. Or at least, not a helpful one. Yes, it would be quite bad for Google and Lockheed Martin if the Czar Bomba were dropped in Mountain View. But the global existential threat is not whether an atom bomb bursts on contact with ground or airbursts, but the number bombs pre-targetted at basically every US city (and probably most of Europe).
posted by pwnguin at 1:50 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Sadly, Nukemap promotes the wrong message. Or at least, not a helpful one. Yes, it would be quite bad for Google and Lockheed Martin if the Czar Bomba were dropped in Mountain View. But the global existential threat is not whether an atom bomb bursts on contact with ground or airbursts, but the number bombs pre-targetted at basically every US city (and probably most of Europe).
posted by pwnguin at 1:50 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I can see how Nukemap might give people the wrong idea in a tree vs. forest way, playing out their personal survivalist scenarios; but it doesn't lead me to forget that it would be happening all across the globe in many cities and other targets.
I linked it mostly so people don't have to speculate about what dropping X thing at Y place in Ukraine would mean (in terms of immediate effects).
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:54 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I linked it mostly so people don't have to speculate about what dropping X thing at Y place in Ukraine would mean (in terms of immediate effects).
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:54 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Nukemap: YMMV
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
The tritium of interest for nuclear bomb maintenance is the stuff used in the neutron initiator, which is an important bit.
You generate the critical mass by implosion, right? But there’s a very brief period of time where the mass is critical, and you need to make sure that a significant percentage of the mass fissions before it blows itself apart. If not enough fission happens while the assembly is still critical, you get a “fizzle”, which makes a huge radioactive mess but only a relatively tiny boom.
The neutron initiator is a small particle accelerator designed to fire a bunch of tritium and deuterium into a plate where they fuse, which generates a bunch of neutrons, enough to greatly jumpstart the amount of chain reactions happening in the critical assembly such that it reliably goes Full Boom within the needed timespan.
The more degraded the tritium, the greater the risk that the bomb fizzles. Assuming the tritium didn’t get nicked to sell on the black market or something. I dunno, this is Russia we’re talking about.
posted by notoriety public at 1:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
You generate the critical mass by implosion, right? But there’s a very brief period of time where the mass is critical, and you need to make sure that a significant percentage of the mass fissions before it blows itself apart. If not enough fission happens while the assembly is still critical, you get a “fizzle”, which makes a huge radioactive mess but only a relatively tiny boom.
The neutron initiator is a small particle accelerator designed to fire a bunch of tritium and deuterium into a plate where they fuse, which generates a bunch of neutrons, enough to greatly jumpstart the amount of chain reactions happening in the critical assembly such that it reliably goes Full Boom within the needed timespan.
The more degraded the tritium, the greater the risk that the bomb fizzles. Assuming the tritium didn’t get nicked to sell on the black market or something. I dunno, this is Russia we’re talking about.
posted by notoriety public at 1:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
The only thing that makes Russian use of a nuclear weapon in this situation even a little plausible to me is the question of their maintenance. Right now, it's just the associative property of armchair commentary that leads one to suggest that perhaps the nuclear forces were as heavily looted as the conventional forces and are equally bereft today. However, if that should bubble up to become a state-level concern, it could be argued that in order for them to show that they actually do maintain an effective deterrent, which is obviously a critical component of MAD, they might need a demonstration.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:03 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:03 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
The only winning move is not to play. How do I get out of this game?
posted by dg at 2:06 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by dg at 2:06 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Will American MeFites stop making this all about America and respect the fact that I'm from {Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever} and I'm worried that Russia is going to invade my country", I think: (1) Nobody's making everything about America, but more importantly (2) This person does not understand nuclear war.
To call the war in Ukraine a nuclear war is like calling Gulf War 1 or 2 nuclear wars. There were nuclear power(s) and nuclear weapon related issues in both of those wars. But the main thread was seldom "will the US drop a nukes on Iraq and its allies or not" because that would be misunderstanding those wars. In threads about the war in Ukraine, for those of us in the region, it's not about misunderstanding nuclear war. It's about keeping the discussion somewhat on point and relevant to what's actually going on and less about hypotheticals ... in other words, putting a brake on those talks is about understanding nuclear war and preventing the spread of, to put it bluntly, apocalypse fantasies.
posted by UN at 2:51 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
To call the war in Ukraine a nuclear war is like calling Gulf War 1 or 2 nuclear wars. There were nuclear power(s) and nuclear weapon related issues in both of those wars. But the main thread was seldom "will the US drop a nukes on Iraq and its allies or not" because that would be misunderstanding those wars. In threads about the war in Ukraine, for those of us in the region, it's not about misunderstanding nuclear war. It's about keeping the discussion somewhat on point and relevant to what's actually going on and less about hypotheticals ... in other words, putting a brake on those talks is about understanding nuclear war and preventing the spread of, to put it bluntly, apocalypse fantasies.
posted by UN at 2:51 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
I don't think that was meant to suggest that the present war is a nuclear war; rather that if the conflict 'went nuclear' then the consequences wouldn't be limited to wherever they were first used, and so it is reasonable for people living further away to be concerned and want to talk about it. (Which we can now do here, even if it's a bit awkward to split out.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
To call the war in Ukraine a nuclear war is like calling Gulf War 1 or 2 nuclear wars.I did not say, and did not mean to imply, that the war in Ukraine is a nuclear war.
posted by Flunkie at 3:06 PM on March 29, 2022
The only winning move is not to play.
Or, if winning is absolutely everything and there’s no referee, you lie, cheat, and/or steal.
OTOH, perhaps Putin’s Use of a Nuclear Weapon Against Ukraine Would Backfire, Michael Krepon, Arms Control Wonk, March 24, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 3:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Or, if winning is absolutely everything and there’s no referee, you lie, cheat, and/or steal.
OTOH, perhaps Putin’s Use of a Nuclear Weapon Against Ukraine Would Backfire, Michael Krepon, Arms Control Wonk, March 24, 2022:
Quote of the week:Details in the article.“What is the only provocation that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the priority target for nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the only established defense against nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. How do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons? By threatening the use of nuclear weapons. And we can’t get rid of nuclear weapons, because of nuclear weapons. The intransigence, it seems, is a function of the weapons themselves.” ― Martin Amis, Einstein’s Monsters [WP]The odds are against Vladimir Putin using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Let’s reinforce these odds by clarifying the ways how such a monstrous decision would backfire against him and against Russia…
First, Putin is obliged to consider whether the use of nuclear or chemical weapons in Ukraine would change NATO’s rules of engagement in this war…
Second, Putin would become the first leader in human history to wage an aggressive war and to authorize the use of a nuclear weapon…
Third, Putin’s use of a nuclear weapon would make Russia far more insecure…
Fourth, Russian nuclear deterrence would be weakened after first use…
Fifth, after the poor performance of the Russian Army in Ukraine, nuclear deterrence is Putin’s sole remaining high card….
posted by cenoxo at 3:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
[gestures gently toward the title of the thread]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
There should be non-apocalyptic options. So if I was a bigwig, I would have very quiet personal level messaging to the Oligarchs and Generals that we do not want a nuclear war but if Putin does detonate one that have not day, not hours but minutes to have Putin bound and on a jet to the Hague.
posted by sammyo at 3:24 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 3:24 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I could see NATO or some group of nations moving in and Putin shooting off one nuke and everything just stops and everyone just completes the "shutting Russia off from the outside world" and they become a pariah state like North Korea. Like, there is no demand to respond in kind, and the best the West could do would be to Not Do That.
posted by hippybear at 3:27 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 3:27 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I could see NATO or some group of nations moving in and Putin shooting off one nuke and everything just stops and everyone just completes the "shutting Russia off from the outside world" and they become a pariah state like North Korea
This doesn't really work, at least not in a vacuum (i.e. without the status of all the currently unaligned and threatened nations changing). Then you've shown how far you're prepared to go no matter what, and anyone not under the NATO umbrella can be extorted by the pariah (in both senses) up to and including nuking smaller targets. The DPRK doesn't have the history or means to re-constitute a recently lost empire by subsuming its neighbors. This basically invites Putin to take what he wants, at a ghastly price.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
This doesn't really work, at least not in a vacuum (i.e. without the status of all the currently unaligned and threatened nations changing). Then you've shown how far you're prepared to go no matter what, and anyone not under the NATO umbrella can be extorted by the pariah (in both senses) up to and including nuking smaller targets. The DPRK doesn't have the history or means to re-constitute a recently lost empire by subsuming its neighbors. This basically invites Putin to take what he wants, at a ghastly price.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I've posted about it before, but I'll just take a minute to remind everyone about duck and cover.
It's fun to talk about how those silly people in the 1950s thought that you could hide under a school desk and ride out a nuclear attack. The reality is a bit more complicated.
If you live in the immediate blast radius of a detonating nuclear device, you're going to have a bad day. But if you don't live on a military base, or otherwise near a high-value target, you might be a bit better off.
If you are far enough away from a nuclear detonation that you can see it, then you're outside the vaporization radius and have survived the first part of the nuclear blast. Unfortunately, you're just a few seconds away from a huge pressure wave coming through to shake your house and break your windows. The best place to be in that situation is underneath something sturdy, like, say, a 1950s school desk.
Let's look at a real-world example. On February 15, 2013, a meteor about 20 meters in diameter entered the Earth's atmosphere near Chelyabinsk, Russia. It glowed brighter than the sun and then, while still almost 30 km above the ground, fragmented in an explosion that released the energy equivalent of a good-sized nuclear bomb.
Only a few dozen people were hurt by the initial blast, most of them with eye damage, or sunburns. Had you been outside wearing sunscreen and welding goggles, you'd have been in no danger.
Unfortunately, what happened next is that lots of people saw a weird, bright light outside and ran to the nearest window to see what it was. When the pressure wave hit, glass shattered and buildings shook; over 1000 people were injured by broken glass and falling debris.
So, if you see a bright light outside, don't go to the window. Duck and cover.
posted by Hatashran at 3:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [31 favorites]
It's fun to talk about how those silly people in the 1950s thought that you could hide under a school desk and ride out a nuclear attack. The reality is a bit more complicated.
If you live in the immediate blast radius of a detonating nuclear device, you're going to have a bad day. But if you don't live on a military base, or otherwise near a high-value target, you might be a bit better off.
If you are far enough away from a nuclear detonation that you can see it, then you're outside the vaporization radius and have survived the first part of the nuclear blast. Unfortunately, you're just a few seconds away from a huge pressure wave coming through to shake your house and break your windows. The best place to be in that situation is underneath something sturdy, like, say, a 1950s school desk.
Let's look at a real-world example. On February 15, 2013, a meteor about 20 meters in diameter entered the Earth's atmosphere near Chelyabinsk, Russia. It glowed brighter than the sun and then, while still almost 30 km above the ground, fragmented in an explosion that released the energy equivalent of a good-sized nuclear bomb.
Only a few dozen people were hurt by the initial blast, most of them with eye damage, or sunburns. Had you been outside wearing sunscreen and welding goggles, you'd have been in no danger.
Unfortunately, what happened next is that lots of people saw a weird, bright light outside and ran to the nearest window to see what it was. When the pressure wave hit, glass shattered and buildings shook; over 1000 people were injured by broken glass and falling debris.
So, if you see a bright light outside, don't go to the window. Duck and cover.
posted by Hatashran at 3:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [31 favorites]
I'll just take a minute to remind everyone about duck and cover
Wasn't there a certain amount of "afterward we can identify the bodies because they will be under their assigned desks" thing to it when it came to schools and such?
That was the morbid sense that was passed around in my elementary school in the 70s. "Duck and cover so they know who you are when they find you after you're dead."
posted by hippybear at 3:40 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Wasn't there a certain amount of "afterward we can identify the bodies because they will be under their assigned desks" thing to it when it came to schools and such?
That was the morbid sense that was passed around in my elementary school in the 70s. "Duck and cover so they know who you are when they find you after you're dead."
posted by hippybear at 3:40 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I think the utility of duck and cover also changed with the development of weapons; less useful with thermonuclear weapons of increasing megatonnage, more warheads landing in an area. You still don't want to go stand by the window in any kind of predictable blast. (Or a hurricane, or an earthquake, etc)
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Who on Earth would defend the use of nuclear weapons? In the game, this is the move you make when you've already lost, and you want to lose spectacularly.
Former and plausible future US President Cheeto is out there saying he'd employ nuclear weapons against Russia just this week. That is on top of his routine dissemination of nuclear secrets while President. Nancy Pelosi wasn't alone in being concerned Trump would throw a nuclear temper tantrum in the closing days of his administration. And when he wasn't suggesting people chug bleach to cure covid he was repeatedly advocating for use of nuclear weapons against hurricanes.
I don't know whether Trump or someone like him could actually convince people to launch nuclear weapons but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that he would at least order it.
Trump kicked my Gen-X nuclear war stress into high gear and the latest actions by Putin have basically matted the accelerator.
posted by Mitheral at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [18 favorites]
Former and plausible future US President Cheeto is out there saying he'd employ nuclear weapons against Russia just this week. That is on top of his routine dissemination of nuclear secrets while President. Nancy Pelosi wasn't alone in being concerned Trump would throw a nuclear temper tantrum in the closing days of his administration. And when he wasn't suggesting people chug bleach to cure covid he was repeatedly advocating for use of nuclear weapons against hurricanes.
I don't know whether Trump or someone like him could actually convince people to launch nuclear weapons but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that he would at least order it.
Trump kicked my Gen-X nuclear war stress into high gear and the latest actions by Putin have basically matted the accelerator.
posted by Mitheral at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [18 favorites]
If not enough fission happens while the assembly is still critical, you get a “fizzle”, which makes a huge radioactive mess but only a relatively tiny boom.
This is also the difference between an atomic/fission bomb and a thermonuclear one, I think? IIRC for thermonuclear warheads, the chain goes shaped explosives -> compresses uranium to supercritical -> uranium fissions in a chain reaction (nearby tritium/deuterium fuses and generates additional neutrons boosting the fission) -> channels produced xrays towards 2nd stage material, massively heating and compressing it, which produces and ignites lots of tritium fusion -> fuses into helium, releasing lots of neutrons -> causes huge fission reaction with the uranium casing of the 2nd stage = much bigger boom.
The original atomic bombs stopped at the first fission stage, and most of the fission mass is wasted when the thing blows itself apart - hence the 'fizzle'. Boosted fission weapons add tritium/deuterium, which undergoes a small amount of fusion and generates additional neutrons, which 'boosts' the fission reaction before it blows apart. Thermonuclear weapons add the 2nd stage, where the first boosted fission reaction starts a big fusion reaction which sets off a much bigger fission explosion - in the megaton range, instead of kilotons.
There's a material in US thermonuclear warheads called 'fogbank', that "is classified. Its composition is classified. Its use in the weapon is classified, and the process itself is classified." Given it was so secret, the US didn't record how to make it, and the engineers who knew had retired. It took a decade and a lot of money, but it was eventually reverse engineered and produced again in the late 2000s in order to refurbish US (and UK) submarine warheads and keep them operational. The general assumption is that fogbank is an interstage aerogel that channels the 1st stage fission reaction energy to the 2nd stage.
You have to wonder if the USSR weapons had an equivalent material, and the Russians have been able to service it and/or replace it through the fall of the USSR and the well-documented military funding cuts, as well as the tritium/deuterium that serves as the booster for the first fission stage.
Not that you're gonna want to be near either going off - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'just' fission weapons - but having the missiles targeted assuming the detonations will be 1000x bigger than they actually turn out, might save some lives? Kinda hard to be optomistic about global thermonuclear war that's 'only' a global atomic war though.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 3:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
This is also the difference between an atomic/fission bomb and a thermonuclear one, I think? IIRC for thermonuclear warheads, the chain goes shaped explosives -> compresses uranium to supercritical -> uranium fissions in a chain reaction (nearby tritium/deuterium fuses and generates additional neutrons boosting the fission) -> channels produced xrays towards 2nd stage material, massively heating and compressing it, which produces and ignites lots of tritium fusion -> fuses into helium, releasing lots of neutrons -> causes huge fission reaction with the uranium casing of the 2nd stage = much bigger boom.
The original atomic bombs stopped at the first fission stage, and most of the fission mass is wasted when the thing blows itself apart - hence the 'fizzle'. Boosted fission weapons add tritium/deuterium, which undergoes a small amount of fusion and generates additional neutrons, which 'boosts' the fission reaction before it blows apart. Thermonuclear weapons add the 2nd stage, where the first boosted fission reaction starts a big fusion reaction which sets off a much bigger fission explosion - in the megaton range, instead of kilotons.
There's a material in US thermonuclear warheads called 'fogbank', that "is classified. Its composition is classified. Its use in the weapon is classified, and the process itself is classified." Given it was so secret, the US didn't record how to make it, and the engineers who knew had retired. It took a decade and a lot of money, but it was eventually reverse engineered and produced again in the late 2000s in order to refurbish US (and UK) submarine warheads and keep them operational. The general assumption is that fogbank is an interstage aerogel that channels the 1st stage fission reaction energy to the 2nd stage.
You have to wonder if the USSR weapons had an equivalent material, and the Russians have been able to service it and/or replace it through the fall of the USSR and the well-documented military funding cuts, as well as the tritium/deuterium that serves as the booster for the first fission stage.
Not that you're gonna want to be near either going off - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'just' fission weapons - but having the missiles targeted assuming the detonations will be 1000x bigger than they actually turn out, might save some lives? Kinda hard to be optomistic about global thermonuclear war that's 'only' a global atomic war though.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 3:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
I'm here to talk about nukes. Nuclear apocalypse fantasies exist in cinema (Dr. Strangelove has been mentioned) and they exist on this site. I never made a post against those discussions in those other threads, no need to show me the door here.
I did not say, and did not mean to imply, that the war in Ukraine is a nuclear war.
If the war in Ukraine is not a nuclear war, then we can agree that someone from Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever understands nuclear war if they want to stay on topic? One is real, the other is (an important) hypothetical.
posted by UN at 4:00 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I did not say, and did not mean to imply, that the war in Ukraine is a nuclear war.
If the war in Ukraine is not a nuclear war, then we can agree that someone from Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever understands nuclear war if they want to stay on topic? One is real, the other is (an important) hypothetical.
posted by UN at 4:00 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
it could be argued that in order for them to show that they actually do maintain an effective deterrent, which is obviously a critical component of MAD, they might need a demonstration.
A demonstration proves nothing. Everyone believes they could scrounge up one working warhead for a pre-arranged test. Even North Korea can manage that.
posted by ryanrs at 4:01 PM on March 29, 2022
A demonstration proves nothing. Everyone believes they could scrounge up one working warhead for a pre-arranged test. Even North Korea can manage that.
posted by ryanrs at 4:01 PM on March 29, 2022
If you live in the immediate blast radius of a detonating nuclear device, you're going to have a bad day.
But on the bright side, it's going to be short.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:08 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
But on the bright side, it's going to be short.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:08 PM on March 29, 2022 [11 favorites]
If the war in Ukraine is not a nuclear war, then we can agree that someone from Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever understands nuclear war if they want to stay on topic? One is real, the other is (an important) hypothetical.
We can maybe just drop this...opinions differ as to whether discussion of the nuclear policy that informs and restricts the possibilities for fighting the current war (but takes place on a global stage) belongs in the primary thread or not.
Out of deference to those who felt strongly about it, the discussion is here instead without really needing to establish a consensus. It's fine.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:10 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
We can maybe just drop this...opinions differ as to whether discussion of the nuclear policy that informs and restricts the possibilities for fighting the current war (but takes place on a global stage) belongs in the primary thread or not.
Out of deference to those who felt strongly about it, the discussion is here instead without really needing to establish a consensus. It's fine.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:10 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
If the war in Ukraine is not a nuclear war, then we can agree that someone from Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever understands nuclear war if they want to stay on topic? One is real, the other is (an important) hypothetical.No, I'm afraid we can't agree to that. In fact, to me, you seem to be demonstrating my point:
The thing you're referring to as "real", is, in fact, hypothetical. And if that hypothetical becomes real, it's not just the people yelling "Americans shut up, I'm in danger here" who are in danger. Everyone is in danger.
If your NATO country gets invaded, that's going to trigger Article 5, and I doubt that NATO will ignore that fact. And as soon as NATO becomes directly involved, the chance of nuclear war suddenly seems much more likely. So if, say, a Pole yells at an American to shut up because the Pole is worried about the danger they'll face if Russia invades Poland, it seems to me that that Pole doesn't understand that the magnitude of the potential consequences of Russia invading Poland.
posted by Flunkie at 4:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
BTW, that tritium that decays with a 12 year half-life? That's the improved, low maintenance initiator. Earlier designs used polonium-210 with a half-life of 138 days.
posted by ryanrs at 4:19 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 4:19 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Like the most likely scenario is that Russia launches a missile because of "provocation" or "escalation" or whatever, and the processes we have had in place since the Cold War which haven't been sufficiently wound down come live and we launch back before that one even lands, and those missiles trigger further launches from others, and so on, and thus is the obliteration I've lived with for the first half of my life. And which I'm not welcoming it back now, but I've been thinking about this for decades, so bring it on.
posted by hippybear at 4:23 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:23 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
The thing you're referring to as "real", is, in fact, hypothetical
As I read it, the thing referred to as 'real' is the fighting in Ukraine; and 'hypothetical,' the use of nuclear weapons.
The point missed is trying to split out nuclear discussions from the 'real war' is that the potential for that use is not hypothetical, is elevated by the 'real war' and a primary factor in conditioning what can be done in the 'real war' under established rules of engagement between holders of nuclear weapons; and moreover that elevated risk of nuclear war and the making of policy in its shadow is legitimately a concern for people everywhere given likely nuclear scenarios.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:23 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
As I read it, the thing referred to as 'real' is the fighting in Ukraine; and 'hypothetical,' the use of nuclear weapons.
The point missed is trying to split out nuclear discussions from the 'real war' is that the potential for that use is not hypothetical, is elevated by the 'real war' and a primary factor in conditioning what can be done in the 'real war' under established rules of engagement between holders of nuclear weapons; and moreover that elevated risk of nuclear war and the making of policy in its shadow is legitimately a concern for people everywhere given likely nuclear scenarios.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:23 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Ugh, nuclear death is so retro. I was hoping to be killed by a malevolent AI.
posted by ryanrs at 4:24 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 4:24 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Ugh, nuclear death is so retro. I was hoping to be killed by a malevolent AI.
I mean maybe you will be, just a much more rudimentary one. Blyatnet.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:28 PM on March 29, 2022
I mean maybe you will be, just a much more rudimentary one. Blyatnet.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:28 PM on March 29, 2022
Lol no. There are way too many countries that have the means to detect the use of nuclear weapons and every incentive to roast the US over their use for there to be any chance of that having actually happened.
posted by wierdo at 4:29 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by wierdo at 4:29 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Does use of Chernobyl to scare or bully count as nuclear threat?
posted by clavdivs at 4:31 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 4:31 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
There are way too many countries that have the means to detect the use of nuclear weapons
Like we can literally detect North Korea tests happening underground through global sensing consensus. It's not like this could have happened at all.
posted by hippybear at 4:32 PM on March 29, 2022
Like we can literally detect North Korea tests happening underground through global sensing consensus. It's not like this could have happened at all.
posted by hippybear at 4:32 PM on March 29, 2022
Yeah the emissions from a nuclear blast are unmistakeable - they don't occur naturally and are detectable anywhere on earth. You can't use one in secret and hope no one notices.
posted by adept256 at 4:32 PM on March 29, 2022
posted by adept256 at 4:32 PM on March 29, 2022
Does use of Chernobyl to scare or bully count as nuclear threat?
Will the soldiers who drove tanks across Chernobyl's red soil driving up dust for entire ranks ever be told about why they're all dying 20 years from now?
posted by hippybear at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Will the soldiers who drove tanks across Chernobyl's red soil driving up dust for entire ranks ever be told about why they're all dying 20 years from now?
posted by hippybear at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Holy crap. A one-day old account with no likes or favorites and a username that's a first name twice followed by a number, posting a link to an actual Russian propaganda outlet?
It feels like we've arrived, somehow.
posted by MrVisible at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [35 favorites]
It feels like we've arrived, somehow.
posted by MrVisible at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [35 favorites]
My personal speculation is this: the submarine-launched strategic weapons work.
I agree with this. Submarine based weapons are surely one of the low budget nuclear weapon capabilities, given that it's the approach that both the British and the French have taken.
I think it is also obvious, and acknowledged by many politicians, that some responses by NATO (or theoretically anyone else) are off the table because they could provoke the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. I don't think anyone who has given any of this more than a little thought realises that nuclear weapons could be used in Ukraine, or directly against other countries perceived to have attacked Russia. Similarly, if you live in or near a NATO member state, you probably realise that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be directed at your house specifically to kill you.
I am also yet to be convinced that eg China would definitely and without question stop being friends with Russia if they "were provoked" into using nuclear weapons.
Dunno where that leaves us. It seems unbelievable that Putin will actually order a nuclear attack, not least because it seems unbelievable that anyone will give him sufficient provocation.
So if, say, a Pole yells at an American to shut up because the Pole is worried about the danger they'll face if Russia invades Poland, it seems to me that that Pole doesn't understand that the magnitude of the potential consequences of Russia invading Poland.
Nonsense. If Russia invades Poland that means that the NATO alliance is triggered. It doesn't necessarily mean that the USA/France/Britain will launch nuclear weapons against Russia nor does it necessarily mean that Russia will launch nuclear weapons against the USA or anywhere else. It does mean that there are Russian tanks in Poland and that some Polish people will die, potentially including the said yelling Pole.
It's the like the comfort in, dump out circle theory. Ukraine is in the middle. Finland and Georgia, being non-NATO Russian neighbours are probably in the next concentric circle. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland are all closer to the middle than the USA, if for no other reason that you can drive there from Russia in a tank and they also have been invaded and occupied by Soviets/Russians within living memory. On top of which, we've never tested NATO article 5.
posted by plonkee at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
I agree with this. Submarine based weapons are surely one of the low budget nuclear weapon capabilities, given that it's the approach that both the British and the French have taken.
I think it is also obvious, and acknowledged by many politicians, that some responses by NATO (or theoretically anyone else) are off the table because they could provoke the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. I don't think anyone who has given any of this more than a little thought realises that nuclear weapons could be used in Ukraine, or directly against other countries perceived to have attacked Russia. Similarly, if you live in or near a NATO member state, you probably realise that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be directed at your house specifically to kill you.
I am also yet to be convinced that eg China would definitely and without question stop being friends with Russia if they "were provoked" into using nuclear weapons.
Dunno where that leaves us. It seems unbelievable that Putin will actually order a nuclear attack, not least because it seems unbelievable that anyone will give him sufficient provocation.
So if, say, a Pole yells at an American to shut up because the Pole is worried about the danger they'll face if Russia invades Poland, it seems to me that that Pole doesn't understand that the magnitude of the potential consequences of Russia invading Poland.
Nonsense. If Russia invades Poland that means that the NATO alliance is triggered. It doesn't necessarily mean that the USA/France/Britain will launch nuclear weapons against Russia nor does it necessarily mean that Russia will launch nuclear weapons against the USA or anywhere else. It does mean that there are Russian tanks in Poland and that some Polish people will die, potentially including the said yelling Pole.
It's the like the comfort in, dump out circle theory. Ukraine is in the middle. Finland and Georgia, being non-NATO Russian neighbours are probably in the next concentric circle. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland are all closer to the middle than the USA, if for no other reason that you can drive there from Russia in a tank and they also have been invaded and occupied by Soviets/Russians within living memory. On top of which, we've never tested NATO article 5.
posted by plonkee at 4:33 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. The Strategic Culture Foundation is a Russian propaganda operation; please do not link it or use it to support your argument. Also thank you to the alert mefite who flag-with-noted that comment to bring it to our attention with appropriate sourcing -- it really helps us!
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 4:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [19 favorites]
France Has Increased Its Ballistic Missile Submarine Patrols For The First Time In Decades - France's revised nuclear deterrence posture comes as nuclear threats from Russia have become especially concerning due to its actions in Ukraine., Thomas Newdick, The War Zone, March 24, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 4:39 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
For the first time in around 30 years, France has put three of its four ballistic missile submarines, or SSBNs, to sea at the same time, according to reports in the local media. Normally, just one of the Triomphant class SSBNs [WP], each of which can be armed with up to 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), with multiple warheads, is on patrol at any given time. The significant uptick in French nuclear deterrence activity seems to be intended as a signal to Russia at a time of unprecedented tensions in Europe, including fears that nuclear weapons could be part of the Kremlin’s plans as its campaign in Ukraine stutters.More in the article.
The Telegramme, the newspaper serving the Breton port city of Brest, where the Triomphant class is based, reported the development, confirming that two additional SSBNs had departed their base on the Île Longue peninsula. These then joined a third Triomphant class boat that was already on patrol, likely in the Atlantic where they normally operate. The French Navy has neither confirmed nor denied the report….
posted by cenoxo at 4:39 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Pretty sure (without googling) that not only is a nuke known within a day anywhere the "signature" of the radiation uniquely identifies the builder. No secret nukes.
posted by sammyo at 4:39 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 4:39 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's interesting that Russia is pushing the idea that the United States has used tactical nukes in the past, though. That's a very scary tack for the propaganda to take. It's a way to set up the use of tactical nukes as justifiable, and the fact that someone is pushing that (obviously ludicrous) idea on Metafilter makes me wonder how many media outlets are currently being saturated with that spin.
posted by MrVisible at 4:43 PM on March 29, 2022 [18 favorites]
posted by MrVisible at 4:43 PM on March 29, 2022 [18 favorites]
And seismic signatures are also used. There is no way one can be used without being detected. US govt website about this, Australian website, that's as far as I dug, but that's the main thing they use. It's faster.
posted by hippybear at 4:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 4:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure (without googling) that not only is a nuke known within a day anywhere the "signature" of the radiation uniquely identifies the builder. No secret nukes.
To double check, do you mean, once detonated? (I've never thought about this before.)
posted by plonkee at 4:51 PM on March 29, 2022
To double check, do you mean, once detonated? (I've never thought about this before.)
posted by plonkee at 4:51 PM on March 29, 2022
With regard to badly maintained and possibly failing nuclear weapons, they can fail in a lot of different ways. A failure to work at all is one option, yes. But you should also expect that a good part of your arsenal will end up nuking your own country or random places other than the intended targets.
You should expect that result with excellently maintained weapons too when you have lots and lots of them.
Of course, it doesn't really matter in a nuclear war.
posted by Ashenmote at 4:58 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
You should expect that result with excellently maintained weapons too when you have lots and lots of them.
Of course, it doesn't really matter in a nuclear war.
posted by Ashenmote at 4:58 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Armageddon’s Fingerprints [Science History Institute]
"Atomic fingerprint identifies emission sources of uranium" Nature Communications, 2020
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Atomic fingerprint identifies emission sources of uranium" Nature Communications, 2020
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Surprise nuclear strike? Here's how we'll figure out who did it – Postdetonation forensics may help provide answers if the nuclear nightmare becomes a reality, Science, Richard Stone, Mar 11, 2016.
Greatly simplified infographic: Forensics of a Nuclear Blast; more details at Wikipedia > Nuclear Forensics.
posted by cenoxo at 5:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Greatly simplified infographic: Forensics of a Nuclear Blast; more details at Wikipedia > Nuclear Forensics.
posted by cenoxo at 5:34 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
And then I asked myself, why did I read this whole thread?
posted by Glinn at 5:42 PM on March 29, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by Glinn at 5:42 PM on March 29, 2022 [13 favorites]
It is possible for an underground detonation to be fully contained and leak nothing for radioisotope analysis. It's really fucking hard. You just have to look at the list of US underground tests on Wikipedia to see exactly how hard. Even when the US was trying, it often failed.
That's why the Comprehensive Test Ban Organization runs a sufficiently dense global network of seismometers to detect underground tests and localize them to a specific country. Some of the US tests done outside the Nevada Test Site were primarily done so that the US could get a baseline of what seismic signals from nuclear tests look like in different kinds of geologic formations so they could be reliably differentiated from natural seismic activity even without other indicators.
Above ground detonations are pretty much unmistakable. The light curves from the double flash are quite distinct and a satellite can carry a gamma ray detector as a second check. The US and Russia are both known to operate such satellites and it's likely that others do the same. The fact of a nuclear detonation would be known almost instantly to a multitude of countries, giving ample time for sampling planes to be deployed to pinpoint the culprit.
The entire system built up around nuclear weapons and the detection means used to verify compliance with arms control treaties are really quite fascinating, if more than a little morbid. And a bit sad that so much money and talent has gone into that rather than something actually useful to humanity. It's really quite unfortunate that physics conspired to make nuclear weapons possible. It could just as easily have been the case that the Germans were correct that it would be impossible to build a deliverable bomb.
posted by wierdo at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
That's why the Comprehensive Test Ban Organization runs a sufficiently dense global network of seismometers to detect underground tests and localize them to a specific country. Some of the US tests done outside the Nevada Test Site were primarily done so that the US could get a baseline of what seismic signals from nuclear tests look like in different kinds of geologic formations so they could be reliably differentiated from natural seismic activity even without other indicators.
Above ground detonations are pretty much unmistakable. The light curves from the double flash are quite distinct and a satellite can carry a gamma ray detector as a second check. The US and Russia are both known to operate such satellites and it's likely that others do the same. The fact of a nuclear detonation would be known almost instantly to a multitude of countries, giving ample time for sampling planes to be deployed to pinpoint the culprit.
The entire system built up around nuclear weapons and the detection means used to verify compliance with arms control treaties are really quite fascinating, if more than a little morbid. And a bit sad that so much money and talent has gone into that rather than something actually useful to humanity. It's really quite unfortunate that physics conspired to make nuclear weapons possible. It could just as easily have been the case that the Germans were correct that it would be impossible to build a deliverable bomb.
posted by wierdo at 5:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
I used to run a nuclear reactor (well, not "ran a nuclear reactor" in the same sense of "ran a bakery" or something; I was one of a dozen or so operators). One of the things we did regularly was "Reactor Movie Night" where we watched not only stuff from the 50s and 60s but more contemporary sources. There were some you could just laugh at (The China Syndrome or Godzilla, which have very... loose ideas of nuclear science) and some that were just absolutely wrenching (When the Wind Blows etc.).
It was horrifying. We were all kids who had only lived through the very last gasps of the Cold War, and a lot of this stuff was pretty shocking to us. We were taught about nuclear war as something that was decidedly in the past, rather than a present threat. Those who grew up during the Cold War at least achieved a sense that this was a serious existential threat, which was something that we had never been taught. And it hasn't been taught since.
And they don't make movies and write books about nuclear war anymore, or at least not many. The Road maybe, but that's much less interested in how the world ends than what happens after. There's the sense, in literature and film, if you were to produce that kind of art nowadays it would come across as quaint and outdated, and we tend to regard nuclear conflict as more of a sort of humorous artifact than an ongoing threat (see, for example, the whole Fallout series of games). How do you feel now, though?
Also, as a side note, a friend insists that Galaxie 500's "Snowstorm" is the be-all end-all nuclear war song, though I must be too stupid to understand why he thinks that and am reluctant to admit it. I have decidedly simpler tastes that involve more harmonica.
posted by lorddimwit at 5:49 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
It was horrifying. We were all kids who had only lived through the very last gasps of the Cold War, and a lot of this stuff was pretty shocking to us. We were taught about nuclear war as something that was decidedly in the past, rather than a present threat. Those who grew up during the Cold War at least achieved a sense that this was a serious existential threat, which was something that we had never been taught. And it hasn't been taught since.
And they don't make movies and write books about nuclear war anymore, or at least not many. The Road maybe, but that's much less interested in how the world ends than what happens after. There's the sense, in literature and film, if you were to produce that kind of art nowadays it would come across as quaint and outdated, and we tend to regard nuclear conflict as more of a sort of humorous artifact than an ongoing threat (see, for example, the whole Fallout series of games). How do you feel now, though?
Also, as a side note, a friend insists that Galaxie 500's "Snowstorm" is the be-all end-all nuclear war song, though I must be too stupid to understand why he thinks that and am reluctant to admit it. I have decidedly simpler tastes that involve more harmonica.
posted by lorddimwit at 5:49 PM on March 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
the be-all end-all nuclear war song
For something with a more depressing vibe, try this.
posted by dg at 6:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
For something with a more depressing vibe, try this.
posted by dg at 6:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
On a side note and for the record: is there a Metatalk or comment that can illuminate the Polish/Czech/Eastern Bloc be-quiet-about-nukes-yeller thing? I read a few of those comments about keeping nukes out of the talks but they seemed to come from Western Europeans as far as I could tell (and I respect that wish).
I haven't met anyone from Poland/Czechia/Romania who would shy away from a direct and lively discussion of nuclear destruction, the threat of it, Article 5 etc. Quite the opposite, really.
posted by UN at 6:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I haven't met anyone from Poland/Czechia/Romania who would shy away from a direct and lively discussion of nuclear destruction, the threat of it, Article 5 etc. Quite the opposite, really.
posted by UN at 6:14 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
ASCI Red (also known as ASCI Option Red or TFLOPS) was the first computer built under the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI),[5][6] the supercomputing initiative of the United States government created to help the maintenance of the United States nuclear arsenal after the 1992 moratorium on nuclear testing.
So one of the reasons (of many) for the test ban is that new technology allowed testing to be performed with computer simulations, ASCI Red being the first of many supercomputers tasked with this.
I mention this because while the mighty ASCI Red achieved the admirable performance peak of 1.3 teraflops, 30 years later the graphics card in my computer does 13 teraflops.
posted by adept256 at 6:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
So one of the reasons (of many) for the test ban is that new technology allowed testing to be performed with computer simulations, ASCI Red being the first of many supercomputers tasked with this.
I mention this because while the mighty ASCI Red achieved the admirable performance peak of 1.3 teraflops, 30 years later the graphics card in my computer does 13 teraflops.
posted by adept256 at 6:22 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Glinn: And then I asked myself, why did I read this whole thread?I too ask, why did you?
And more to the point I wonder: Why are you telling us this? Are you suggesting that we (the Metafilter community as a whole) should not discuss nuclear warfare concerns stemming from the current war under any circumstances, even in this separate thread?
If that is what you are suggesting, I do not understand why that should be the case and would be interested in hearing why you do.
If that is not what you are suggesting, I would be interested to hear what it is you do mean.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 6:26 PM on March 29, 2022
When I favorited that comment it was because I, too, was wondering why I read this whole thread. I don't think Metafilter shouldn't disucss this, but reading it is bad for my mental health. It's also bad for my mental health to dwell on this topic without Mefi, which I will do.
So yeah.
Personally I think that we the humans ought to rise up all over the world and demolish every nuclear weapon and production facility.
posted by Reverend John at 6:37 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
So yeah.
Personally I think that we the humans ought to rise up all over the world and demolish every nuclear weapon and production facility.
posted by Reverend John at 6:37 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
We choose in this thread to settle, once and for all, chunky versus smooth, ghif versus jif, sock sock shoe shoe versus sock shoe sock shoe, overhand or underhand, and which is the One True Barbecue not because they are easy but because they are hard!
You forgot whether toilet paper rolls over the front or out the back
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
You forgot whether toilet paper rolls over the front or out the back
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:45 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
XKCD on what would happen if we let skynet control the nukes.
posted by adept256 at 6:46 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 6:46 PM on March 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
You forgot whether toilet paper rolls over the front or out the back
Also, ny god one of the famous AskMes... do you stand or sit to wipe?
(Some number of people reading this never realized that there are people who do it a different way, for the first time in their lives.)
posted by hippybear at 6:48 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Also, ny god one of the famous AskMes... do you stand or sit to wipe?
(Some number of people reading this never realized that there are people who do it a different way, for the first time in their lives.)
posted by hippybear at 6:48 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
That iconic thread taught me a lot about western toilet practices, so don't be ashamed!! (I'm mostly aghast, but I'm from water-using culture)
posted by cendawanita at 6:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 6:59 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
"Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?”
If the sheild over Chernobyl is significantly breached, what would occur.
posted by clavdivs at 7:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
If the sheild over Chernobyl is significantly breached, what would occur.
posted by clavdivs at 7:01 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?”
Is there something somehow Marxist about how one wipes?
posted by hippybear at 7:04 PM on March 29, 2022
Is there something somehow Marxist about how one wipes?
posted by hippybear at 7:04 PM on March 29, 2022
Employees lose respect for a company that fails to provide decent facilities for their comfort.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:07 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
people are something else these days
we get a world wide pandemic and what do we obsess with? toilet paper
we consider the dire possibility of nuclear war and civilization's end and what do we obsess with? toilet paper
enough
posted by pyramid termite at 7:10 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
we get a world wide pandemic and what do we obsess with? toilet paper
we consider the dire possibility of nuclear war and civilization's end and what do we obsess with? toilet paper
enough
posted by pyramid termite at 7:10 PM on March 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
amen.
It Turns Out Quite a Few Nukes Are Still Missing From the Cold War
posted by clavdivs at 7:15 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
It Turns Out Quite a Few Nukes Are Still Missing From the Cold War
posted by clavdivs at 7:15 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: Bongcloud philosophy.
posted by storybored at 7:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by storybored at 7:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
It's breaking the retaliation chain. Can any Western country take a Russian nuke and just not respond in kind? Can NATO take a hit to any member country and not respond in kind?
I suspect that Putin will put one nuke into play. The question for everyone is what happens after that missile is detected.
posted by hippybear at 7:55 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I suspect that Putin will put one nuke into play. The question for everyone is what happens after that missile is detected.
posted by hippybear at 7:55 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I would recommend the Arms Control Wonk podcast in general, but they had an interesting episode specifically about Russia, Ukraine, and nuclear weapons: The Bunga Bunga Theory of Deterrence
It's a bit tongue in cheek but the idea is that if the country's leader is still hanging out in the bunga bunga room, loving life, for example having weird photo op meetings with a room of 20 Aeroflot stewardesses, they are clearly not in a bunker contemplating global thermonuclear war.
posted by allegedly at 7:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's a bit tongue in cheek but the idea is that if the country's leader is still hanging out in the bunga bunga room, loving life, for example having weird photo op meetings with a room of 20 Aeroflot stewardesses, they are clearly not in a bunker contemplating global thermonuclear war.
posted by allegedly at 7:56 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
The smart genocidal maniacs pre-stock the bunker with all the necessities
posted by Jacen at 8:04 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 8:04 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
IIRC, at the end of our last world war the dictator's bunker *became* Das Bungabungazimmer...
posted by credulous at 8:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by credulous at 8:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
IAEA chief makes unannounced visit to Ukraine to launch safety assistance, Reuters, Francois Murphy, March 29, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 8:18 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
VIENNA, March 29 (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi [WP bio] visited Ukraine on Tuesday to start providing assistance including experts and equipment aimed at keeping nuclear facilities there safe in the midst of war, apparently without Russia's blessing.More in the article.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine last month, Grossi has called on both countries to urgently agree a framework to ensure nuclear facilities, including the radioactive waste facilities at Chernobyl and Europe's biggest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia, are safe and secure.
International Atomic Energy Agency [website, WP] chief Grossi has so far failed to obtain such an agreement or a three-way meeting with Ukraine and Russia such as one he wanted to happen at Chernobyl, which like Zaporizhzhia is held by Russian troops. He met their foreign ministers separately in Turkey almost three weeks ago.
"Just crossed the border into #Ukraine to start (the IAEA's) mission to ensure the safety and security of the country's nuclear facilities. We must act now to help prevent the danger of a nuclear accident," Grossi said on Twitter….
posted by cenoxo at 8:18 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Putin Reveals Existence Of New Nuclear Command Bunker.
Bunker-42. book your tour today!
Bunker-703 Go on in!
Revealed: Putin's luxury anti-nuclear bunker for his family's refuge
double bunker
The Russian Nuclear Button.
Strategic Command and Control ( The Chegets)
Dead Hand
"We must act now to help prevent the danger of a nuclear accident"
That's it, an accident of war. The main problem, what if a stray missle hits that Chernobyl sheild and more importantly, who on the planet can fix it.
posted by clavdivs at 8:41 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Bunker-42. book your tour today!
Bunker-703 Go on in!
Revealed: Putin's luxury anti-nuclear bunker for his family's refuge
double bunker
The Russian Nuclear Button.
Strategic Command and Control ( The Chegets)
Dead Hand
"We must act now to help prevent the danger of a nuclear accident"
That's it, an accident of war. The main problem, what if a stray missle hits that Chernobyl sheild and more importantly, who on the planet can fix it.
posted by clavdivs at 8:41 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
And then I asked myself, why did I read this whole thread?
I would be interested to hear what it is you do mean.
What I meant was, I found it upsetting, I knew I would find it upsetting, and I read it against my better judgement. And I had a feeling I wouldn't be the only one, so I left that comment for those that came after in the same frame of mind.
Also, what? Suggesting what "Metafilter as a whole" should be doing? I think it's a stretch to get there from my original comment. But perhaps it was less clear than I thought.
posted by Glinn at 9:02 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
I would be interested to hear what it is you do mean.
What I meant was, I found it upsetting, I knew I would find it upsetting, and I read it against my better judgement. And I had a feeling I wouldn't be the only one, so I left that comment for those that came after in the same frame of mind.
Also, what? Suggesting what "Metafilter as a whole" should be doing? I think it's a stretch to get there from my original comment. But perhaps it was less clear than I thought.
posted by Glinn at 9:02 PM on March 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Two Tribes yt apocalypse never sounded so good.
If you're going to do it do it right. "If any member of the family should die from contamination whilst in the shelter, put them outside. But remember to tag them first for identification purposes."
The Cassingle: Two Tribes (annihilation)
War (Hide Yourself)
Two Tribes (Surrender)
One February Friday [Interview of The Lads by Paul Morley]
Alternately there is the Keep The Peace mega mix of Two Tribes.
Frankie is a wealth of wonders.
posted by hippybear at 9:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
If you're going to do it do it right. "If any member of the family should die from contamination whilst in the shelter, put them outside. But remember to tag them first for identification purposes."
The Cassingle: Two Tribes (annihilation)
War (Hide Yourself)
Two Tribes (Surrender)
One February Friday [Interview of The Lads by Paul Morley]
Alternately there is the Keep The Peace mega mix of Two Tribes.
Frankie is a wealth of wonders.
posted by hippybear at 9:12 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
You forgot whether toilet paper rolls over the front or out the back
Overhand or underhand
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Overhand or underhand
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:13 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
I guess this goes here:
Science: Dirty bomb ingredients go missing from Chornobyl monitoring lab
Science: Dirty bomb ingredients go missing from Chornobyl monitoring lab
Although power was restored to Chornobyl on 14 March, Nosovskyi’s worries have multiplied. In the chaos of the Russian advance, he told Science, looters raided a radiation monitoring lab in Chornobyl village—apparently making off with radioactive isotopes used to calibrate instruments and pieces of radioactive waste that could be mixed with conventional explosives to form a “dirty bomb” that would spread contamination over a wide area. ISPNPP has a separate lab in Chornobyl with even more dangerous materials: “powerful sources of gamma and neutron radiation” used to test devices, Nosovskyi says, as well as intensely radioactive samples of material leftover from the Unit Four meltdown. Nosovskyi has lost contact with the lab, he says, so “the fate of these sources is unknown to us.”posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:28 PM on March 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
If Russia invades Poland that means that the NATO alliance is triggered. It doesn't necessarily mean that the USA/France/Britain will launch nuclear weapons against Russia nor does it necessarily mean that Russia will launch nuclear weapons against the USA or anywhere else
Certainly there are no guarantees in this world. However, a quick reading of European history — particularly the start of WWI — reveals just how quickly things get out of hand when mutual defense treaties get triggered.
Everyone on both sides knows this, which will make the escalation even quicker.
If I were in charge of the NATO response to a Russian incursion to a NATO state, my first action would to wipe out every single Russian nuclear asset that I knew of everywhere, using nukes if necessary. It wouldn’t be pretty and undoubtedly some would slip through, but leaving those weapons in the hands of a country that is trying to commit suicide-by-NATO would be monumentally irresponsible.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Certainly there are no guarantees in this world. However, a quick reading of European history — particularly the start of WWI — reveals just how quickly things get out of hand when mutual defense treaties get triggered.
Everyone on both sides knows this, which will make the escalation even quicker.
If I were in charge of the NATO response to a Russian incursion to a NATO state, my first action would to wipe out every single Russian nuclear asset that I knew of everywhere, using nukes if necessary. It wouldn’t be pretty and undoubtedly some would slip through, but leaving those weapons in the hands of a country that is trying to commit suicide-by-NATO would be monumentally irresponsible.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:44 PM on March 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
2022 Undersea Warfare Spring Conference.....
posted by clavdivs at 9:57 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 9:57 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
>> It's breaking the retaliation chain. Can any Western country take a Russian nuke and just not respond in kind? Can NATO take a hit to any member country and not respond in kind?
> If I were in charge of the NATO response to a Russian incursion to a NATO state, my first action would to wipe out every single Russian nuclear asset that I knew of everywhere, using nukes if necessary.
NATO, a land of contrasts, heh.
So what about those subs...?
posted by ryanrs at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2022
> If I were in charge of the NATO response to a Russian incursion to a NATO state, my first action would to wipe out every single Russian nuclear asset that I knew of everywhere, using nukes if necessary.
NATO, a land of contrasts, heh.
So what about those subs...?
posted by ryanrs at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2022
So what about those subs...?
Give it a click for the AV clubs hosting lounge effect.
Commandos launch stealth raid from Royal Navy sub as Arctic training intensifies
29 March 2022
U.S. Navy Concludes ICEX 2022
17 March 2022
First Columbia Ballistic Missile Submarine Begins to Take Shape
March 8, 2022
"We expect our submarine force, as a stealth force and endurance capability, to operate inside an adversary’s defensive perimeters and deliver all kinds of effects—precision strike, anti-surface weapons, anti-submarine weapons, seabed warfare, mining, delivery of SEAL [sea, air and land] teams and really every kind of effect you can think of,” he adds. “But what really makes us most effective is when our undersea forces are able to integrate with other stealth forces and share targeting, communicate and ultimately provide access as part of the broader joint force.”
posted by clavdivs at 10:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Give it a click for the AV clubs hosting lounge effect.
Commandos launch stealth raid from Royal Navy sub as Arctic training intensifies
29 March 2022
U.S. Navy Concludes ICEX 2022
17 March 2022
First Columbia Ballistic Missile Submarine Begins to Take Shape
March 8, 2022
"We expect our submarine force, as a stealth force and endurance capability, to operate inside an adversary’s defensive perimeters and deliver all kinds of effects—precision strike, anti-surface weapons, anti-submarine weapons, seabed warfare, mining, delivery of SEAL [sea, air and land] teams and really every kind of effect you can think of,” he adds. “But what really makes us most effective is when our undersea forces are able to integrate with other stealth forces and share targeting, communicate and ultimately provide access as part of the broader joint force.”
posted by clavdivs at 10:38 PM on March 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I just want to echo a number of comments up thread. Refusing to "speculate" about nuclear considerations is itself already a form of speculation. It's a logical conceit. It's also called putting your head in the sand.
posted by polymodus at 11:09 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 11:09 PM on March 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
New article from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists today entitled "Why—and how—the world should condemn Putin for waving the nuclear saber", and first line is:
Nuclear weapons have been part of the current war in Ukraine from the beginning—not in a physical way, but as a threat Russia deliberately introduced to shape the conflict
posted by polymodus at 11:26 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Nuclear weapons have been part of the current war in Ukraine from the beginning—not in a physical way, but as a threat Russia deliberately introduced to shape the conflict
posted by polymodus at 11:26 PM on March 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's not very hard to come up with a hypothetical scenario where Putin might find it advantageous to use a nuclear weapon; what's it's very difficult to do is come up with any sort of probability of these scenarios, or their underlying assumptions, actually happening.
E.g.: the current attritional war stagnates, with the Russians unwilling to leave without taking a chunk of Ukraine with them, and the Ukrainians (and the rest of the world acting as their industrial base) unwilling to let Russia set the precedent that they can just cut slices off of neighboring states whenever it suits them. The West turns Ukraine into an infernal meat grinder, reducing Russian conscripts to lumpy paste with asymmetric tactics and weapons taken from 20 years of being on the other side of a counterinsurgency war. Eventually, the wheels start to come off the Russian economy.
What happens at that point? Nobody really knows. Maybe Putin gets deposed by other actors within the Russian political system—this seems to be what everyone is hoping happens. Or maybe he doesn't, and he decides he's boxed in: can't leave Ukraine without looking weak and possibly getting deposed, but can't stay in Ukraine without collapsing the Russian economy and getting deposed. Time to escalate: touch off a nuclear weapon and maybe you force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table on Russian terms, or just as good, scare NATO and the West into cutting off the flow of advanced weapons.
There are a lot of scenarios you can get to, where nuclear weapons use can be made to look like a good idea—or at least the least-bad of a bunch of bad options—especially if your primary goal isn't "prevent nuclear war" but "stay in power at all costs".
The problem is, nobody outside the Kremlin, and probably nobody but Putin himself, really knows under what circumstances Russia might use a nuclear weapon, particularly as part of a graduated-intensity escalation strategy.
It's not clear what NATO would do in response to a Russian "test" of a tactical weapon and delivery system on its own territory. And if that went okay, how about an underground, low-yield/low-fallout employment as part of a "bunker buster" system—which some NATO members, including the US, might be reasonably okay with letting out into the realm of the possible, the better to scare the shit out of Iran and North Korea? What about sub-kiloton atomic demolition munitions, used against military targets?
It's not clear that all these scenarios lead immediately to full-scale retaliation by NATO and The End of Everything, and as a result they're not necessarily off the table.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:13 AM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
E.g.: the current attritional war stagnates, with the Russians unwilling to leave without taking a chunk of Ukraine with them, and the Ukrainians (and the rest of the world acting as their industrial base) unwilling to let Russia set the precedent that they can just cut slices off of neighboring states whenever it suits them. The West turns Ukraine into an infernal meat grinder, reducing Russian conscripts to lumpy paste with asymmetric tactics and weapons taken from 20 years of being on the other side of a counterinsurgency war. Eventually, the wheels start to come off the Russian economy.
What happens at that point? Nobody really knows. Maybe Putin gets deposed by other actors within the Russian political system—this seems to be what everyone is hoping happens. Or maybe he doesn't, and he decides he's boxed in: can't leave Ukraine without looking weak and possibly getting deposed, but can't stay in Ukraine without collapsing the Russian economy and getting deposed. Time to escalate: touch off a nuclear weapon and maybe you force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table on Russian terms, or just as good, scare NATO and the West into cutting off the flow of advanced weapons.
There are a lot of scenarios you can get to, where nuclear weapons use can be made to look like a good idea—or at least the least-bad of a bunch of bad options—especially if your primary goal isn't "prevent nuclear war" but "stay in power at all costs".
The problem is, nobody outside the Kremlin, and probably nobody but Putin himself, really knows under what circumstances Russia might use a nuclear weapon, particularly as part of a graduated-intensity escalation strategy.
It's not clear what NATO would do in response to a Russian "test" of a tactical weapon and delivery system on its own territory. And if that went okay, how about an underground, low-yield/low-fallout employment as part of a "bunker buster" system—which some NATO members, including the US, might be reasonably okay with letting out into the realm of the possible, the better to scare the shit out of Iran and North Korea? What about sub-kiloton atomic demolition munitions, used against military targets?
It's not clear that all these scenarios lead immediately to full-scale retaliation by NATO and The End of Everything, and as a result they're not necessarily off the table.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:13 AM on March 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Imagine you and your family are in Ukraine. Circa four or five weeks ago. You turn on the TV: the news broadcaster is talking about what to do in case of nuclear war. You gather around the kitchen table. You talk about the capabilities of Russian vs. French nuclear submarines. Or do you focus on sending your children to Poland or Slovakia instead?
Now imagine you're planning Ukraine's defense strategy four or five years ago. You gather all your people and you tell them: the main issue for us is nuclear war and the total destruction of the world is the outcome — start planning for a nuclear confrontation with Russia now. This is where we'll give all our effort, but we'll also allocate a small budget for conventional war. Where are you today?
posted by UN at 12:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Now imagine you're planning Ukraine's defense strategy four or five years ago. You gather all your people and you tell them: the main issue for us is nuclear war and the total destruction of the world is the outcome — start planning for a nuclear confrontation with Russia now. This is where we'll give all our effort, but we'll also allocate a small budget for conventional war. Where are you today?
posted by UN at 12:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don't even know what budgeting for nuclear confrontation with Russia even looks like. A dozen missiles prepped to travel the short hop to Moscow in record time? Violate non-proliferation, and lose your trade channel with the west?
AFIACT the best Ukrainian defense solution post Crimea is preparing to fight a conventional war, since the nuclear one cannot be won or prepared for, and hope Russia doesn't try out a first use scenario. Which is what happened, right?
posted by pwnguin at 1:11 AM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
AFIACT the best Ukrainian defense solution post Crimea is preparing to fight a conventional war, since the nuclear one cannot be won or prepared for, and hope Russia doesn't try out a first use scenario. Which is what happened, right?
posted by pwnguin at 1:11 AM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists > Nuclear Notebook: How many nuclear weapons does Russia have in 2022?, Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda; February 23, 2022:
We are a pale blue dot, indeed.
posted by cenoxo at 1:15 AM on March 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
…What is Russia’s nuclear strategy?More more detail in the lengthy article, including Russian nuclear warhead counts; START limitations; ICBM forces/status; submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missiles; strategic bombers; and land/sea/air-based nonstrategic [tactical] nuclear weapons.
The international debate about Russia’s nuclear strategy has reached a new level of intensity, particularly after the Trump administration published its Nuclear Posture Review in February 2018. The Nuclear Posture Review claimed that “Russian strategy and doctrine emphasize the potential coercive and military uses of nuclear weapons. It mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to ‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia” (US Defense Department [Nuclear Posture Review (PDF)] 2018, 8).
Specifically, the document claimed, “Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” This so-called “escalate to de-escalate” doctrine “follows from Moscow’s mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow” (US Defense Department 2018, 30).
The former head of the US Strategic Command, Gen. John Hyten [WP bio], reacted to “Russia’s destabilizing doctrine on what some call escalate to deescalate” by saying: “I really hate that discussion. I’ve looked at the Russian doctrine. I’ve looked at Russian writings. It’s not escalate to de-escalate, it’s escalate to win. Everybody needs to understand that” (Hyten 2017).
Some have suggested that Russian leaders are signaling a willingness to use nuclear weapons even before an adversary retaliates against a Russian conventional attack by “employing the threat of selective and limited use of nuclear weapons to forestall opposition to potential aggression” (emphasis added) (Miller 2015). The implication is that Russia would potentially use nuclear weapons first to scare an adversary into not even defending itself.
Such characterizations conflict with Russia’s publicly stated policy….
We are a pale blue dot, indeed.
posted by cenoxo at 1:15 AM on March 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
AFIACT the best Ukrainian defense solution post Crimea is preparing to fight a conventional war, since the nuclear one cannot be won or prepared for, and hope Russia doesn't try out a first use scenario. Which is what happened, right?
Right, at least, that's how I see it. For those in places outside of the main premise of theories such as MAD, not revolving our lives on the threat of nuclear destruction is our own little MAD but it's also simply pragmatic. The two scenarios I gave are examples of that (and why proximity to the war does in fact matter).
It may have taken some courage for NATO members to send conventional weapons to Ukraine. As mentioned eloquently here, nobody can predict what Putin is capable of. But for those directly threatened by Putin & Co., we can't revolve our lives around the threat of nuclear war. This may be (mis)interpreted as digging our heads in the sand, but really it's just a choice between doing anything and everything Putin wants (again, we have no MAD and he can probably destroy our cities with conventional means), or simply living as we wish. We choose "not Putin" (we as in many people here)
posted by UN at 2:43 AM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Right, at least, that's how I see it. For those in places outside of the main premise of theories such as MAD, not revolving our lives on the threat of nuclear destruction is our own little MAD but it's also simply pragmatic. The two scenarios I gave are examples of that (and why proximity to the war does in fact matter).
It may have taken some courage for NATO members to send conventional weapons to Ukraine. As mentioned eloquently here, nobody can predict what Putin is capable of. But for those directly threatened by Putin & Co., we can't revolve our lives around the threat of nuclear war. This may be (mis)interpreted as digging our heads in the sand, but really it's just a choice between doing anything and everything Putin wants (again, we have no MAD and he can probably destroy our cities with conventional means), or simply living as we wish. We choose "not Putin" (we as in many people here)
posted by UN at 2:43 AM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
From the "Nuclear Deterrence 101" link at the start, there's sometimes a false dichotomy raised between "protect Ukraine" and "risk nuclear armageddon".
If you allow nuclear brinksmanship to work, that creates an incentive for more nuclear brinksmanship. If Putin rattles his nukes and gets Ukraine, there are a whole bunch of nuclear powers with territorial claims who then have an incentive to put their own nukes on a hair trigger and invade those territories. That raises the risk of nuclear armageddon in the long term.
When a nuclear power starts a conventional war to gain territory, there just isn't a safe option for the other nuclear powers. Intervening isn't safe. Not intervening isn't safe either.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:11 AM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
If you allow nuclear brinksmanship to work, that creates an incentive for more nuclear brinksmanship. If Putin rattles his nukes and gets Ukraine, there are a whole bunch of nuclear powers with territorial claims who then have an incentive to put their own nukes on a hair trigger and invade those territories. That raises the risk of nuclear armageddon in the long term.
When a nuclear power starts a conventional war to gain territory, there just isn't a safe option for the other nuclear powers. Intervening isn't safe. Not intervening isn't safe either.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:11 AM on March 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
Regarding the interrelation of computing history and nuclear command and control, and the and resulting sociocultural impacts, one of my favorite books is The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America by Paul Edwards.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:04 AM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
The Closed World explores three apparently disparate histories—the history of American global power, the history of computing machines, and the history of subjectivity in science and culture—through the lens of the American political imagination. In the process, it reveals intimate links between the military projects of the Cold War, the evolution of digital computers, and the origins of cybernetics, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence.And for another contribution to the soundtrack, don't miss Icebreaker International's Distant Early Warning (on the invented NATO Arts label). Co-prosperity Sphere. (Their other albums are good too; themed on trade and space.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:04 AM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Oh, and now I'm reminded of Rush's Distant Early Warning, which is definitely a product of the cold war.
posted by hippybear at 7:22 AM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:22 AM on March 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
(also, OMG I forgot how 80s that video is! holy crap!)
posted by hippybear at 7:23 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:23 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
AFIACT the best Ukrainian defense solution post Crimea is preparing to fight a conventional war, since the nuclear one cannot be won or prepared for, and hope Russia doesn't try out a first use scenario. Which is what happened, right?
Also it looks like someone may have been taking notes in the double-decade-long seminar in asymmetric warfare the US conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Also it looks like someone may have been taking notes in the double-decade-long seminar in asymmetric warfare the US conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:30 AM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
> Also it looks like someone may have been taking notes in the double-decade-long seminar in asymmetric warfare the US conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Namely the US. Since 2014 American advisors have been training the Ukrainian military in the lessons we learned getting the shit kicked out of us by guerilla fighters in toyota hiluxes
posted by dis_integration at 8:01 AM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Namely the US. Since 2014 American advisors have been training the Ukrainian military in the lessons we learned getting the shit kicked out of us by guerilla fighters in toyota hiluxes
posted by dis_integration at 8:01 AM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
(also, OMG I forgot how 80s that video is! holy crap!)
I love it. It encapsulates very well the existential dread of -- at any moment -- everyone dying in a spasm of nuclear fireballs. I guess if I learned anything, it's that Tom Clancy was an optimist.
posted by mikelieman at 8:22 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I love it. It encapsulates very well the existential dread of -- at any moment -- everyone dying in a spasm of nuclear fireballs. I guess if I learned anything, it's that Tom Clancy was an optimist.
posted by mikelieman at 8:22 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Now imagine you're planning Ukraine's defense strategy four or five years ago. You gather all your people and you tell them: the main issue for us is nuclear war and the total destruction of the world is the outcome — start planning for a nuclear confrontation with Russia now. This is where we'll give all our effort, but we'll also allocate a small budget for conventional war. Where are you today?
I don’t really understand the point of this counterfactual. It’s obviously silly from Ukraine’s perspective, as I’m sure you intended it to be. But the relevance of nuclear weapons to this war is primarily as a constraint on the actions of countries that more explicitly are part of the balance of MAD, and I’d argue that the logic of nuclear weapons suggests both that Russian first use against Ukraine is unlikely and that other powers are not going to get directly involved (unless that first use happens, god forbid) - which is to say it suggests precisely that the best Ukraine could have done was to prepare to fight a conventional war mostly on its own. And at the same time, the specter of nuclear war is plenty relevant to other countries strategizing how they might assist Ukraine and oppose Russia without crossing any lines. Does anyone actually disagree with any of this or is it just an argument about whose fears ought to be foregrounded?
posted by atoxyl at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I don’t really understand the point of this counterfactual. It’s obviously silly from Ukraine’s perspective, as I’m sure you intended it to be. But the relevance of nuclear weapons to this war is primarily as a constraint on the actions of countries that more explicitly are part of the balance of MAD, and I’d argue that the logic of nuclear weapons suggests both that Russian first use against Ukraine is unlikely and that other powers are not going to get directly involved (unless that first use happens, god forbid) - which is to say it suggests precisely that the best Ukraine could have done was to prepare to fight a conventional war mostly on its own. And at the same time, the specter of nuclear war is plenty relevant to other countries strategizing how they might assist Ukraine and oppose Russia without crossing any lines. Does anyone actually disagree with any of this or is it just an argument about whose fears ought to be foregrounded?
posted by atoxyl at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
The latter; and we do have a separate thread whether or not we ought to have needed it so I don't know how much we're getting out of that back and forth now.
(I mean, carry on if it serves some purpose; I just don't see one.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2022
(I mean, carry on if it serves some purpose; I just don't see one.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2022
Regarding the interrelation of computing history and nuclear command and control, and the and resulting sociocultural impacts…
…I think the best film – or worst, given its ultimate outcome – is Fail Safe (1964).
posted by cenoxo at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
…I think the best film – or worst, given its ultimate outcome – is Fail Safe (1964).
posted by cenoxo at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
You have to wonder if the USSR weapons had an equivalent material, and the Russians have been able to service it and/or replace it through the fall of the USSR and the well-documented military funding cuts, as well as the tritium/deuterium that serves as the booster for the first fission stage.
I love the story about FOGBANK because it sounds like something that Charles Stross would have made up, a la A Tall Tail. And it does exist as a sort of secular folk tale in some corners of the tech community. (And in that role it almost doesn't matter if it's factually true; in another generation it'll be up there with "the Russians brought pencils".)
In the latest iteration of it that I've heard, the production process was supposedly less "forgotten" than "actively destroyed" in order to avoid awkward questions about environmental contamination and personnel health problems. Depending on the version of the story, they were playing with acetonitrile or carbon disulfide or something else nasty without disposing of it correctly, and the reason they couldn't pull anyone out of retirement is that nobody wanted to admit what they'd been doing. It's an interesting little twist to the tale.
Once in a while you hear speculation about the Soviet version, or a basically equivalent MacGuffin that the weapons can't work without. One good campfire story I heard at a conference from a Russian guy involved a mystery substance used in their smallest warheads that's somehow cellulose-based, and caused the Soviets to maintain a closed-off, government-owned forest, a crack lumberjack team, and a top secret paper mill, somewhere on the shores of Lake Baikal. Woe to any hikers who wandered in by mistake.
Setting aside the specifics, if you believe these kinds of stories at face value, there are probably other very weak links in the weapon manufacturing chain, and probably also in the maintenance (in the US I think the preferred euphemism is "stewardship") processes.
In the case of Russia, the economically-declining rump of what was once the USSR, there might be infrastructure or human-capital/knowledge investments made in the past, that they absolutely could not replicate today. Meaning that a well-targeted conventional attack, or clandestine sabotage operation, could destroy something that they wouldn't be able to rebuild in time for their warheads to not be definitely inoperative (and thus without any deterrent value).
Classic 2-party MAD deterrent theory suggests this is a dangerous scenario and something to be avoided, because it eliminates the strategic balance. But if you thought you might be on the receiving end of a nuclear warhead in less than an all-out nuclear war, it might seem like a good move.
Semi-related: I'd be cautious making statements like "nuclear war cannot be won" or "nobody can fight a nuclear war" as objective truths. They are largely a cultural consensus that has developed in the West. Putin, and other parts of the Russian command structure necessary for a nuclear strike, may not share it. (Putin apparently only watched Doctor Strangelove quite recently.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
I love the story about FOGBANK because it sounds like something that Charles Stross would have made up, a la A Tall Tail. And it does exist as a sort of secular folk tale in some corners of the tech community. (And in that role it almost doesn't matter if it's factually true; in another generation it'll be up there with "the Russians brought pencils".)
In the latest iteration of it that I've heard, the production process was supposedly less "forgotten" than "actively destroyed" in order to avoid awkward questions about environmental contamination and personnel health problems. Depending on the version of the story, they were playing with acetonitrile or carbon disulfide or something else nasty without disposing of it correctly, and the reason they couldn't pull anyone out of retirement is that nobody wanted to admit what they'd been doing. It's an interesting little twist to the tale.
Once in a while you hear speculation about the Soviet version, or a basically equivalent MacGuffin that the weapons can't work without. One good campfire story I heard at a conference from a Russian guy involved a mystery substance used in their smallest warheads that's somehow cellulose-based, and caused the Soviets to maintain a closed-off, government-owned forest, a crack lumberjack team, and a top secret paper mill, somewhere on the shores of Lake Baikal. Woe to any hikers who wandered in by mistake.
Setting aside the specifics, if you believe these kinds of stories at face value, there are probably other very weak links in the weapon manufacturing chain, and probably also in the maintenance (in the US I think the preferred euphemism is "stewardship") processes.
In the case of Russia, the economically-declining rump of what was once the USSR, there might be infrastructure or human-capital/knowledge investments made in the past, that they absolutely could not replicate today. Meaning that a well-targeted conventional attack, or clandestine sabotage operation, could destroy something that they wouldn't be able to rebuild in time for their warheads to not be definitely inoperative (and thus without any deterrent value).
Classic 2-party MAD deterrent theory suggests this is a dangerous scenario and something to be avoided, because it eliminates the strategic balance. But if you thought you might be on the receiving end of a nuclear warhead in less than an all-out nuclear war, it might seem like a good move.
Semi-related: I'd be cautious making statements like "nuclear war cannot be won" or "nobody can fight a nuclear war" as objective truths. They are largely a cultural consensus that has developed in the West. Putin, and other parts of the Russian command structure necessary for a nuclear strike, may not share it. (Putin apparently only watched Doctor Strangelove quite recently.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
this kind of relentless optimism sickens me
Say can I have some of your purple berries
Yes I've been eating them for six or seven weeks now
haven't got sick once, probably keep us both alive
posted by thecincinnatikid at 12:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Say can I have some of your purple berries
Yes I've been eating them for six or seven weeks now
haven't got sick once, probably keep us both alive
posted by thecincinnatikid at 12:37 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Ukraine Situation Report: Russian Military Buildup Underway At Chernobyl Nuclear Plant – Ukrainian officials have warned about the potential risks from Russia stockpiling ammunition at the Chernobyl site, Joseph Trevithick, The War Zone, March 30, 2022:
The Ukrainian military says that Russian forces are massing at the site of the now-defunct Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant despite some apparent withdrawals elsewhere in the northeastern part of the country. Whether this is part of a phased withdrawal or an effort to dig in there and establish a more robust base of operations, or both, is unclear…posted by cenoxo at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Latest
POSTED: 1:55 PM EST—
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine noted the apparent buildup of Russian military units near the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which was the site of what is still the world's worst-ever nuclear disaster in 1986 and was shut down for good in 2000, in a daily update on the situation in Ukraine that was posted on Facebook earlier today. Russian forces claimed to have captured the Chernobyl site on the first day of the invasion and have been operating within the broader Chernobyl Exclusion Zone since then.
Separately, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk called for Russian forces to leave the area, where they are also reportedly stockpiling ammunition, and for a special, independent United Nations mission to secure the site to prevent any new nuclear catastrophe. For weeks, concerns have regularly been raised about the well-being of Ukrainian personnel who continue to monitor the state of the Chernobyl site and other associated facilities, including a storage facility for spent fuel rods.
A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an independent international body [led by Rafael Gossi] that reports to the United Nations, arrived in Ukraine today as part of an effort to help safeguard nuclear power plants and other nuclear-related facilities in the country.…
Sergei Sazonov: The West should ignore Putin’s nuclear blackmail and put an end to the war in Ukraine
The West offers little more than moral support and token supplies of obsolete weaponry. This passivity is rationalized by the desire to avoid nuclear war. There are three reasons why this is wrong.
posted by UN at 12:50 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
The West offers little more than moral support and token supplies of obsolete weaponry. This passivity is rationalized by the desire to avoid nuclear war. There are three reasons why this is wrong.
posted by UN at 12:50 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can see from your coat, my friend, you're from the other side
there's just one thing I've got to know, can you tell me please:
who won?
Wooden Ships (CSN+Y), for those who haven't heard it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:50 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
there's just one thing I've got to know, can you tell me please:
who won?
Wooden Ships (CSN+Y), for those who haven't heard it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:50 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
AFP News Agency on Twitter
For the soundtrack: 99 Red Ballons / 99 Luftballons
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:10 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
#BREAKING Russians starting to withdraw from Chernobyl nuclear site: Pentagon
For the soundtrack: 99 Red Ballons / 99 Luftballons
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:10 PM on March 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Russians starting to withdraw from Chernobyl nuclear site
Raising a lot more dust, I'm sure.
20 years from now there will be cancer deaths. And some perhaps sooner depending on if there's any plutonium in what they inhaled.
posted by hippybear at 2:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Raising a lot more dust, I'm sure.
20 years from now there will be cancer deaths. And some perhaps sooner depending on if there's any plutonium in what they inhaled.
posted by hippybear at 2:14 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Glad to see two Tom Lehrers in the thread already - but I'll toss Wernher Von Braun into the pile for the prequel.
posted by Mchelly at 2:24 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Mchelly at 2:24 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I was born in 1969 and studied biology in college, including a year at East Anglia where I got early access (1989) to the latest and greatest climate info. So both nukes/climate are very real to me. I don't think the two crises are comparable, but I will say that the Cold War was very traumatizing in a much more immediate way. If you live in say, the US, climate is a slow-rolling boulder that's coming to crush you in ... 20 years? 50 years? It's not super clear; the frog will slowly boil, and you (and maybe even your kids) could get lucky and be insulated from the worst effects due to money and Western exceptionalism.
With nukes, I have a brother who spent most of his childhood thinking he could be killed overnight if a nuclear exchange started. Not *inevitable* like climate change seems to be, but much much more immediate like "it's Tuesday, and Wednesday could be the end of civilization."
So for my generation, the Ukraine conflict is *primarily* about nukes in that if Russia didn't have them, there would probably already be a no-fly zone and/or direct military assistance and this would be over already. I tend to think we should just do the no-fly zone, but I don't know if it's fair for NATO or the US to make a call that could impact everyone on the whole planet. Glad I'm not on the hook for that.
posted by freecellwizard at 2:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
With nukes, I have a brother who spent most of his childhood thinking he could be killed overnight if a nuclear exchange started. Not *inevitable* like climate change seems to be, but much much more immediate like "it's Tuesday, and Wednesday could be the end of civilization."
So for my generation, the Ukraine conflict is *primarily* about nukes in that if Russia didn't have them, there would probably already be a no-fly zone and/or direct military assistance and this would be over already. I tend to think we should just do the no-fly zone, but I don't know if it's fair for NATO or the US to make a call that could impact everyone on the whole planet. Glad I'm not on the hook for that.
posted by freecellwizard at 2:35 PM on March 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
But for those directly threatened by Putin & Co., we can't revolve our lives around the threat of nuclear war. This may be (mis)interpreted as digging our heads in the sand
Honestly the thing that sounds like digging one's head in the sand is the repeated call for the US to enforce a no-fly zone. I suppose one can ask but no point being surprised when the answer is "no."
posted by pwnguin at 3:12 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Honestly the thing that sounds like digging one's head in the sand is the repeated call for the US to enforce a no-fly zone. I suppose one can ask but no point being surprised when the answer is "no."
posted by pwnguin at 3:12 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
For myself, The Minutemen's Paranoid Chant was the quintessential song about fear of nuclear war.
posted by house-goblin at 4:18 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by house-goblin at 4:18 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I can see from your coat, my friend, you're from the other side
there's just one thing I've got to know, can you tell me please:
who won?
And for what many consider a superior version of the CSN&Y classic
posted by thecincinnatikid at 4:43 PM on March 30, 2022
there's just one thing I've got to know, can you tell me please:
who won?
And for what many consider a superior version of the CSN&Y classic
posted by thecincinnatikid at 4:43 PM on March 30, 2022
For me, it's Laurie Anderson's O Superman
She takes the motto of the Postal Service and applies it in a different context:
They're American planes....Made In America...Smoking, or Non Smoking
Neither snow nor rain, nor gloom of night
Shall stay these couriers
From swift completion
of their appointed rounds.
I was working on The Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign at the time this song was in its heyday, and it became a chilling reminder of the Cold War. And the close of the song seems ironically relevant even today:
When love is gone, there's always justice
And when justice is gone, there's always force
And when force is gone, there's always mom, HI MOM
So hold me mom, in your long arms, in your automatic arms, your military arms.
posted by effluvia at 4:44 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
She takes the motto of the Postal Service and applies it in a different context:
They're American planes....Made In America...Smoking, or Non Smoking
Neither snow nor rain, nor gloom of night
Shall stay these couriers
From swift completion
of their appointed rounds.
I was working on The Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign at the time this song was in its heyday, and it became a chilling reminder of the Cold War. And the close of the song seems ironically relevant even today:
When love is gone, there's always justice
And when justice is gone, there's always force
And when force is gone, there's always mom, HI MOM
So hold me mom, in your long arms, in your automatic arms, your military arms.
posted by effluvia at 4:44 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
20 years from now there will be cancer deaths. And some perhaps sooner depending on if there's any plutonium in what they inhaled.
Much sooner if, as Silvery Fish mentioned in the main thread, they entrenched in the radioactive dirt.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Much sooner if, as Silvery Fish mentioned in the main thread, they entrenched in the radioactive dirt.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:30 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Y'all must be too young to remember the best song about impending nuclear war: the Kingston Trio's Merry Minuet (SLYT), from 1959. Existential dread sparked by both man and nature is hardly new, but rarely so charmingly packaged.
posted by lhauser at 5:31 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by lhauser at 5:31 PM on March 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
And for what many consider a superior version yt of the CSN&Y classic
Ah, Jorma, Jack, and Spencer...
posted by mikelieman at 6:48 PM on March 30, 2022
Ah, Jorma, Jack, and Spencer...
posted by mikelieman at 6:48 PM on March 30, 2022
Much sooner if, as Silvery Fish mentioned in the main thread, they entrenched in the radioactive dirt.
My paranoid half is now wondering how long it's going to be before those busloads of badly irradiated Russian soldiers are claimed to be 'proof' of previously claimed Ukrainian/US radiological weapons development in Ukraine, hence justifying the Russian 'special military operation' and grounds for Russian escalation of say, a chemical weapon attack on Mariupol ala Syria.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
My paranoid half is now wondering how long it's going to be before those busloads of badly irradiated Russian soldiers are claimed to be 'proof' of previously claimed Ukrainian/US radiological weapons development in Ukraine, hence justifying the Russian 'special military operation' and grounds for Russian escalation of say, a chemical weapon attack on Mariupol ala Syria.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:58 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
To be honest, I've refrained from posting at least half of the soundtracks from the various Fallout games. From my personal collection, we've got XTC's Living Through Another Cuba, I Remember The Sun, and This World Over.
posted by mollweide at 7:10 PM on March 30, 2022
posted by mollweide at 7:10 PM on March 30, 2022
... if Russia didn't have them, there would probably already be a no-fly zone and/or direct military assistance and this would be over already. I tend to think we should just do the no-fly zone, but I don't know if it's fair for NATO or the US to make a call that could impact everyone on the whole planet.
You know, I've been wondering how long it might take to train up some Ukrainian crews on the Patriot missile system. We could then start providing those to Ukraine with an understanding that the launchers wouldn't be deployed east of the Dniper or within 100 miles of the Russian or Belarusian borders.
posted by Reverend John at 7:51 PM on March 30, 2022
You know, I've been wondering how long it might take to train up some Ukrainian crews on the Patriot missile system. We could then start providing those to Ukraine with an understanding that the launchers wouldn't be deployed east of the Dniper or within 100 miles of the Russian or Belarusian borders.
posted by Reverend John at 7:51 PM on March 30, 2022
What are Russians taught about Chernobyl? Not just the soldiers, but the commanders in the field. Would they know much about the meltdown?
I learned all about it here in the US, which is a very long way away. And I imagine a student in Ukraine or Poland studies it quite a lot more than I did. But what would the Russians know?
(I am genuinely curious; I do not know how it is taught in Russia.)
posted by ryanrs at 8:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I learned all about it here in the US, which is a very long way away. And I imagine a student in Ukraine or Poland studies it quite a lot more than I did. But what would the Russians know?
(I am genuinely curious; I do not know how it is taught in Russia.)
posted by ryanrs at 8:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
If we're doing the Bomb-Songs thing again here's a couple that probably didn't make it to the US:
Righeira - Vamos a la Playa
Runrig - Protect and Survive
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:57 PM on March 30, 2022
Righeira - Vamos a la Playa
Runrig - Protect and Survive
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:57 PM on March 30, 2022
my view on nuclear war is that it's a bar room knife fight on a thousand year timeline.
imagine a booze fueled room with two (or more) assholes. they have hidden knives. the technology of a knife is pretty fuckin basic. anyone can have one. it's easy to use and almost impossible to stop because you never know when it's coming and it's very fast. sure it doesnt kill you immediately and you can stab back, but in a minute you'll be dead too.
over a long enough timeline, the "night" at the bar, or 1000 years of human civilization, at least one fucking asshole is going to stab someone. the odds are just stacked. the alcohol, i.e. all the factors that lead to war, is flowing. someone with a knife, which again at this point is very basic 75 yr old tech, is gonna use it eventually.
now maybe the stabbing is minor and gets contained. maybe passers by defuse it and discourage it for a while. but then another round gets served and another asshole gets ornery.
this destructive tech is too simple and humans are too aggressive and the defensive tech is too complex for any other outcome to be plausible. our best hope is that it doesnt happen in our particular lifetimes.
posted by wibari at 11:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
imagine a booze fueled room with two (or more) assholes. they have hidden knives. the technology of a knife is pretty fuckin basic. anyone can have one. it's easy to use and almost impossible to stop because you never know when it's coming and it's very fast. sure it doesnt kill you immediately and you can stab back, but in a minute you'll be dead too.
over a long enough timeline, the "night" at the bar, or 1000 years of human civilization, at least one fucking asshole is going to stab someone. the odds are just stacked. the alcohol, i.e. all the factors that lead to war, is flowing. someone with a knife, which again at this point is very basic 75 yr old tech, is gonna use it eventually.
now maybe the stabbing is minor and gets contained. maybe passers by defuse it and discourage it for a while. but then another round gets served and another asshole gets ornery.
this destructive tech is too simple and humans are too aggressive and the defensive tech is too complex for any other outcome to be plausible. our best hope is that it doesnt happen in our particular lifetimes.
posted by wibari at 11:06 PM on March 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'd like to call attention to what UN linked upthread, "Sergei Sazonov: The West should ignore Putin’s nuclear blackmail and put an end to the war in Ukraine." It's one of the most important articles that's been posted on this thread and I think it merits close attention.
Sazonov's three arguments, oversimplified: (read the article!)
1) A dichotomy: Putin is too rational to use nuclear weapons, or if he is irrational then we cannot predict his behaviour and might as well intervene.
2) If we give in to blackmail today then we will be blackmailed again tomorrow. Sazonov mentions the Baltic states as Putin's possible next target.
3) Countries like Iran and North Korea (his examples) will be emboldened to use nuclear blackmail to prevent outside intervention while they attack their neighbours
This is the most plausible collection of arguments I've seen for immediately sending NATO forces into Ukraine to attack the Russian invaders.
My concerns:
3) Nuclear blackmail only works for countries with credible second-strike capability. Notably, North Korea’s ballistic missiles are few in number, not mobile, and have long fueling times. If North Korea were in the process of invading South Korea, saving Seoul might reasonably be deemed to justify the extreme risk of a disarming counterforce strike.
2) If you'd asked me a year ago if Putin might invade Estonia I would have been unsure. Not today. NATO has never looked stronger and more unified. Everyone today knows that one Russian boot crossing the Estonian border means war without compromise against thirty armies. The only problem with the NATO red line is that it doesn't protect enough people.
1) The reason why I started this thread with discussion of nuclear doctrine is that it's not hypothetical and not speculative. It's public knowledge. Here's Russia's 2020 Nuclear Doctrine in English with Putin's signature. The key clause is 19-D. Unlike China (which has a no-first-use doctrine), Russian military and civilian leadership believe that (tactical?) nuclear weapons are sometimes a rational response to conventional military defeat. What we don't know is exactly where the red lines are.
I'm not currently convinced by Sazonov but his article is worth reading. I agree with him that inappropriate fear of nuclear war is preventing us from doing as much as we could to help Ukraine. Consider the Polish MIG-29 debacle; American and Polish dithering talked an imagined red line into existence. Contrast Bayraktar.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
Sazonov's three arguments, oversimplified: (read the article!)
1) A dichotomy: Putin is too rational to use nuclear weapons, or if he is irrational then we cannot predict his behaviour and might as well intervene.
2) If we give in to blackmail today then we will be blackmailed again tomorrow. Sazonov mentions the Baltic states as Putin's possible next target.
3) Countries like Iran and North Korea (his examples) will be emboldened to use nuclear blackmail to prevent outside intervention while they attack their neighbours
This is the most plausible collection of arguments I've seen for immediately sending NATO forces into Ukraine to attack the Russian invaders.
My concerns:
3) Nuclear blackmail only works for countries with credible second-strike capability. Notably, North Korea’s ballistic missiles are few in number, not mobile, and have long fueling times. If North Korea were in the process of invading South Korea, saving Seoul might reasonably be deemed to justify the extreme risk of a disarming counterforce strike.
2) If you'd asked me a year ago if Putin might invade Estonia I would have been unsure. Not today. NATO has never looked stronger and more unified. Everyone today knows that one Russian boot crossing the Estonian border means war without compromise against thirty armies. The only problem with the NATO red line is that it doesn't protect enough people.
1) The reason why I started this thread with discussion of nuclear doctrine is that it's not hypothetical and not speculative. It's public knowledge. Here's Russia's 2020 Nuclear Doctrine in English with Putin's signature. The key clause is 19-D. Unlike China (which has a no-first-use doctrine), Russian military and civilian leadership believe that (tactical?) nuclear weapons are sometimes a rational response to conventional military defeat. What we don't know is exactly where the red lines are.
I'm not currently convinced by Sazonov but his article is worth reading. I agree with him that inappropriate fear of nuclear war is preventing us from doing as much as we could to help Ukraine. Consider the Polish MIG-29 debacle; American and Polish dithering talked an imagined red line into existence. Contrast Bayraktar.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:33 PM on March 30, 2022 [12 favorites]
I read that article a couple of weeks ago. I remain unconvinced.
He also equates harsh sanctions as a casus belli equivalent to military intervention. We have had sanctions in place on Russia since at least 2014 because of the invasion of the Crimea; the current ones are a major escalation of those, true, but are a well known and would have been an expected response to Russian military action. They have been stronger than likely expected, and Putin is not happy about them. They can also be escalated further - a complete ban on Russian shipping, and especially a full ban on Russian gas and oil exports is still an option (though also extremely costly to the EU) - and that would be truly crippling to the Russian economy.
Whether Putin is rational or not, he has not, yet, used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or as a result of sanctions. Even an irrational actor still has triggers and red lines that prompt a response out of say, rage, we just can't know where they are. We do know one of his stated red lines - external direct military intervention in Ukraine. Yes, it's nuclear blackmail. That comes with the territory when nuclear-armed states are involved. Note the lack of direct opposition by nuclear states to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite outrage and condemnation.
It's also worth pointing out that a no-fly zone requires not only shooting down Russian jets, but destroying Russian SAM sites that can (and would) shoot down NATO jets, most likely via cruise missiles. This will include into Russia itself, e.g. east of Kharkiv, and Russian ships on the black sea. Firing lots of cruise missiles INTO Russia, that can be nuclear tipped, (they wouldn't be, but Russia couldn't know until they hit their targets) could easily be the trigger for a first strike nuclear launch by Russia, thinking they're performing a *second* strike.
Red lines also go the other way; should Russia decide to attack say, Poland, then he knows that the NATO response will be huge, militarily devastating, and has the distinct possibility to escalate to nuclear. NATO protects NATO members, not everyone.
Nuclear-armed states do not get directly involved in wars against each other by any even partially rational actor; the risks are simply too high that some form of uncontrollable escalation will result. Equally, it means that nuclear-armed states have more freedom of action against those that aren't.
To put it very coldly - 10s of thousands of deaths in Ukraine are less worse than millions across Europe, or billions across the world that could easily result once a Russian/NATO conflict escalates to nuclear war. That's the cold calculation that means NATO won't get directly involved, and why they've made that clear. Absent Russian use of WMD, at which case nobody knows for sure what happens. That's the problem with nukes - rolling the dice on what opponents *might* do comes with incredibly high stakes, and the cold war gave us several brushes that came far too close to nuclear escalation to want to do so again.
There was a lengthy scholarly article that laid this all out much better than me, about red lines and using constructive ambiguity along with credible threats to gain freedom of action, or prevent actions by nuclear opponents, that was linked in one of the Ukraine threads a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't been able to find it again yet - if anyone knows the one I mean, I'd be grateful!
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 1:54 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
He also equates harsh sanctions as a casus belli equivalent to military intervention. We have had sanctions in place on Russia since at least 2014 because of the invasion of the Crimea; the current ones are a major escalation of those, true, but are a well known and would have been an expected response to Russian military action. They have been stronger than likely expected, and Putin is not happy about them. They can also be escalated further - a complete ban on Russian shipping, and especially a full ban on Russian gas and oil exports is still an option (though also extremely costly to the EU) - and that would be truly crippling to the Russian economy.
Whether Putin is rational or not, he has not, yet, used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or as a result of sanctions. Even an irrational actor still has triggers and red lines that prompt a response out of say, rage, we just can't know where they are. We do know one of his stated red lines - external direct military intervention in Ukraine. Yes, it's nuclear blackmail. That comes with the territory when nuclear-armed states are involved. Note the lack of direct opposition by nuclear states to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite outrage and condemnation.
It's also worth pointing out that a no-fly zone requires not only shooting down Russian jets, but destroying Russian SAM sites that can (and would) shoot down NATO jets, most likely via cruise missiles. This will include into Russia itself, e.g. east of Kharkiv, and Russian ships on the black sea. Firing lots of cruise missiles INTO Russia, that can be nuclear tipped, (they wouldn't be, but Russia couldn't know until they hit their targets) could easily be the trigger for a first strike nuclear launch by Russia, thinking they're performing a *second* strike.
Red lines also go the other way; should Russia decide to attack say, Poland, then he knows that the NATO response will be huge, militarily devastating, and has the distinct possibility to escalate to nuclear. NATO protects NATO members, not everyone.
Nuclear-armed states do not get directly involved in wars against each other by any even partially rational actor; the risks are simply too high that some form of uncontrollable escalation will result. Equally, it means that nuclear-armed states have more freedom of action against those that aren't.
To put it very coldly - 10s of thousands of deaths in Ukraine are less worse than millions across Europe, or billions across the world that could easily result once a Russian/NATO conflict escalates to nuclear war. That's the cold calculation that means NATO won't get directly involved, and why they've made that clear. Absent Russian use of WMD, at which case nobody knows for sure what happens. That's the problem with nukes - rolling the dice on what opponents *might* do comes with incredibly high stakes, and the cold war gave us several brushes that came far too close to nuclear escalation to want to do so again.
There was a lengthy scholarly article that laid this all out much better than me, about red lines and using constructive ambiguity along with credible threats to gain freedom of action, or prevent actions by nuclear opponents, that was linked in one of the Ukraine threads a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't been able to find it again yet - if anyone knows the one I mean, I'd be grateful!
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 1:54 AM on March 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
Sazonov isn't wrong, but the part he misses is that if we follow his advice then 1000 years from now future humanity will judge present humanity as a whole for how backwards it was that things got painted into the very status quo/context corner that renders Sazonov's arguments correct.
Take Chomsky in contrast. He's still adamant now about US intervention through negotiations (I believe he means trilateral, between USA, Russia, Ukraine). To me, his message is, there's still this sliver of hope, so isn't it worth trying for?
So, the West should take action. Is it going to be the military action or the pacifist action? It's probably going to be the military one. This is also why Zizek, who is smart enough to resynthesize this debate, has recently predicted an era of "hot peace" (people can google his essay).
posted by polymodus at 2:19 AM on March 31, 2022
Take Chomsky in contrast. He's still adamant now about US intervention through negotiations (I believe he means trilateral, between USA, Russia, Ukraine). To me, his message is, there's still this sliver of hope, so isn't it worth trying for?
So, the West should take action. Is it going to be the military action or the pacifist action? It's probably going to be the military one. This is also why Zizek, who is smart enough to resynthesize this debate, has recently predicted an era of "hot peace" (people can google his essay).
posted by polymodus at 2:19 AM on March 31, 2022
my view on nuclear war is that it's a bar room knife fight on a thousand year timeline.
Also agree with this. (I've felt) it's almost as if you could organize the different arguments based on how the different sides are conceiving of timescale.
posted by polymodus at 2:25 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Also agree with this. (I've felt) it's almost as if you could organize the different arguments based on how the different sides are conceiving of timescale.
posted by polymodus at 2:25 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
My personal speculation is this: the submarine-launched strategic weapons work.
I agree with this. Submarine based weapons are surely one of the low budget nuclear weapon capabilities, given that it's the approach that both the British and the French have taken.
Well, I would consider the UK nuke subs to be just somewhat more reliable than the current competence of the Russian military that is on display in Ukraine but not too much. The Royal Navy subs have had collisions, run aground, fires on board, onboard murders and those are just the screw ups we know about. The US navy has also recent collisions indicating a substantial decrease in operational performance. The older I get the less faith I have in the competence of human beings in supposedly super high competence scenarios because these stories of shocking "elite" incompetence just keep accumulating.
In short, I believe we might accidentally or deliberately nuke the world but we probably won't do it as efficiently and effectively as we had hoped in our worst nightmare.
posted by srboisvert at 4:01 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I agree with this. Submarine based weapons are surely one of the low budget nuclear weapon capabilities, given that it's the approach that both the British and the French have taken.
Well, I would consider the UK nuke subs to be just somewhat more reliable than the current competence of the Russian military that is on display in Ukraine but not too much. The Royal Navy subs have had collisions, run aground, fires on board, onboard murders and those are just the screw ups we know about. The US navy has also recent collisions indicating a substantial decrease in operational performance. The older I get the less faith I have in the competence of human beings in supposedly super high competence scenarios because these stories of shocking "elite" incompetence just keep accumulating.
In short, I believe we might accidentally or deliberately nuke the world but we probably won't do it as efficiently and effectively as we had hoped in our worst nightmare.
posted by srboisvert at 4:01 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
If we give in to blackmail today then we will be blackmailed again tomorrow.
Yes, but tomorrow doesn't actually mean tomorrow -- and there's the rub.
Putin has been in power for 22 years, and has been slowly making a long series of escalations throughout that time, many of them directly following the playbook that Dugin laid out 25 years ago. His worldview is a fantasy, but it's one that thinks in centuries.
Meanwhile, Western politicians serve short terms, and they face genuine elections. How many were in power when Russia last advanced into Ukraine in 2014? They know that if they can avoid getting their countries involved today, what Putin does next time becomes someone else's problem. The west likes to talk about long term strategic thinking, but its governments are systemically vulnerable to short term pressures, and Putin knows this.
It's almost as if you could organize the different arguments based on how the different sides are conceiving of timescale.
Exactly.
posted by automatronic at 4:03 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
Yes, but tomorrow doesn't actually mean tomorrow -- and there's the rub.
Putin has been in power for 22 years, and has been slowly making a long series of escalations throughout that time, many of them directly following the playbook that Dugin laid out 25 years ago. His worldview is a fantasy, but it's one that thinks in centuries.
Meanwhile, Western politicians serve short terms, and they face genuine elections. How many were in power when Russia last advanced into Ukraine in 2014? They know that if they can avoid getting their countries involved today, what Putin does next time becomes someone else's problem. The west likes to talk about long term strategic thinking, but its governments are systemically vulnerable to short term pressures, and Putin knows this.
It's almost as if you could organize the different arguments based on how the different sides are conceiving of timescale.
Exactly.
posted by automatronic at 4:03 AM on March 31, 2022 [6 favorites]
Will American MeFites stop making this all about America and respect the fact that I'm from {Poland/Latvia/Bulgaria/Romania/whatever} and I'm worried that Russia is going to invade my country"
This is going on in another online hangout of mine as well. And I get it. It makes perfect sense. If I were them, I would be terrified and furious.
But I'm not them so my worry is nuclear war instead. Which doesn't mean I'm not appalled and horrified by what Russia is doing.
A lot of commenters have been saying it's been hard not discussing nukes in the other thread but I haven't been in it for a bit or haven't been in the newest one or maybe was not reading closely enough: is talking about nukes verboten in that thread?
posted by pelvicsorcery at 5:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
This is going on in another online hangout of mine as well. And I get it. It makes perfect sense. If I were them, I would be terrified and furious.
But I'm not them so my worry is nuclear war instead. Which doesn't mean I'm not appalled and horrified by what Russia is doing.
A lot of commenters have been saying it's been hard not discussing nukes in the other thread but I haven't been in it for a bit or haven't been in the newest one or maybe was not reading closely enough: is talking about nukes verboten in that thread?
posted by pelvicsorcery at 5:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Russian Troops Suffer ‘Acute Radiation Sickness’ After Digging Chernobyl Trenches
Several hundred Russian soldiers were forced to hastily withdraw from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine after suffering “acute radiation sickness” from contaminated soil, according to Ukrainian officials.
The troops, who reportedly dug trenches in a contaminated Red Forest near the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history, are now being treated in a special medical facility in Gomel, Belarus. The forest is so named because thousands of pine trees turned red during the 1986 nuclear disaster. The area is considered so highly toxic that not even highly specialized Chernobyl workers are allowed to enter the zone.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 5:32 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Several hundred Russian soldiers were forced to hastily withdraw from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine after suffering “acute radiation sickness” from contaminated soil, according to Ukrainian officials.
The troops, who reportedly dug trenches in a contaminated Red Forest near the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history, are now being treated in a special medical facility in Gomel, Belarus. The forest is so named because thousands of pine trees turned red during the 1986 nuclear disaster. The area is considered so highly toxic that not even highly specialized Chernobyl workers are allowed to enter the zone.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 5:32 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
is talking about nukes verboten in that thread?It is, at minimum, strongly discouraged there.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 5:39 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
There was a mod note, though it may have been in the previous thread.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:56 AM on March 31, 2022
There was a lengthy scholarly article that laid this all out much better than me, about red lines and using constructive ambiguity along with credible threats to gain freedom of action, or prevent actions by nuclear opponents, that was linked in one of the Ukraine threads a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't been able to find it again yet - if anyone knows the one I mean, I'd be grateful!
Maybe it was this one by Bret Devereaux?
posted by logicpunk at 6:05 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
Maybe it was this one by Bret Devereaux?
posted by logicpunk at 6:05 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
You know, I've been wondering how long it might take to train up some Ukrainian crews on the Patriot missile system.
It is likely way more complicated than expected and likely has a significant ongoing specialized maintenance cost. Then there is the question of how many Patriot batteries you'd need. There are several different versions of the Patriot that have an operational range of 12 to 99 miles. I assume to be safe you halve those numbers at least. Ukraine is larger than California in population and area. It would take a crazy number of batteries and a crazy number of trained troops just to protect the biggest cities.
posted by mmascolino at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
It is likely way more complicated than expected and likely has a significant ongoing specialized maintenance cost. Then there is the question of how many Patriot batteries you'd need. There are several different versions of the Patriot that have an operational range of 12 to 99 miles. I assume to be safe you halve those numbers at least. Ukraine is larger than California in population and area. It would take a crazy number of batteries and a crazy number of trained troops just to protect the biggest cities.
posted by mmascolino at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
The legacy Soviet systems they are already trained on seem to be effective; more of those (and reloads for them) are a better idea for so long as stockpiles last. Patriots for Greece, Bulgaria and Slovakia, and they send their remaining S300s and etc in.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
To put it very coldly - 10s of thousands of deaths in Ukraine are less worse than millions across Europe, or billions across the world that could easily result once a Russian/NATO conflict escalates to nuclear war.
The risk of global nuclear destruction is a risk the US, Russia and others took as soon as they built nuclear weapons. It didn't suddenly appear now that some outsiders are pleading for help when faced with death and destruction.
Honestly the thing that sounds like digging one's head in the sand is the repeated call for the US to enforce a no-fly zone. I suppose one can ask but no point being surprised when the answer is "no."
Zelenskyy is in Kyiv, not on a beach. Not many places to dig one's head in the sand at the moment.
posted by UN at 11:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
The risk of global nuclear destruction is a risk the US, Russia and others took as soon as they built nuclear weapons. It didn't suddenly appear now that some outsiders are pleading for help when faced with death and destruction.
Honestly the thing that sounds like digging one's head in the sand is the repeated call for the US to enforce a no-fly zone. I suppose one can ask but no point being surprised when the answer is "no."
Zelenskyy is in Kyiv, not on a beach. Not many places to dig one's head in the sand at the moment.
posted by UN at 11:27 AM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Maybe it was this one by Bret Devereaux?
Thanks, that's the one - and I now note it's the Nuclear Deterrence 101 article linked in the FPP!
Thanks, that's the one - and I now note it's the Nuclear Deterrence 101 article linked in the FPP!
Nuclear deterrence can be an odd topic to discuss with people outside of the security studies (military history, political science, IR, etc) space. As we’ll see, there is a certain inescapable logic to many of the conclusions of deterrence theory, but the conclusions themselves viewed without considering that logic seem absurd (and occasionally are, even with the logic). Nevertheless, outside of those security studies fields at the college level, we generally don’t teach nuclear deterrence theory in school and so while this is actually one of the most studied and theorized concepts in the modern world (note that this doesn’t mean the theory is necessarily correct, but it does mean that a lot of very smart and well informed people have been grappling with these ideas for a while now), in my experience there is a tendency by the general public to assume that they are the first to notice this or that absurd-seeming conclusion. Everyone has an opinion about nuclear weapons, but the gap between having an opinion and having an informed opinion is both massive and rarely spanned.posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 12:43 PM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]
...
I am going to say this several times because it is a fundamental truth about nuclear weapons: if you aren’t at least a bit worried, you aren’t paying attention.
ANY-K-W > …It's also worth pointing out that a no-fly zone requires not only shooting down Russian jets, but destroying Russian SAM sites that can (and would) shoot down NATO jets, most likely via cruise missiles. This will include into Russia itself, e.g. east of Kharkiv, and Russian ships on the Black Sea…
Speaking of the latter, New Videos Show Russian Navy Firing 8 Naval Cruise Missiles From the Black Sea, Heather Mongilio, USNI News, March 22, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 3:16 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Speaking of the latter, New Videos Show Russian Navy Firing 8 Naval Cruise Missiles From the Black Sea, Heather Mongilio, USNI News, March 22, 2022:
The Russian Navy fired eight long-range naval cruise missiles from a guided-missile warship near the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, according to multiple videos of the launch on several posts on social media.See also: Russian Buyan-M-class ship fires salvo of 8 Kalibr cruise missiles at Ukrainian arms depot, Army Recognition, 25 March 2022:
Several posts on Instagram and Telegram show a video of eight missiles launching from a ship operating off the coast of Crimea that bear the same characteristics of a Kalibr NK SS-N-30 naval guided cruise missile [*], which launches vertically and then quickly pivots 90 degrees to travel parallel to the ground.
The Department of Defense was unable to confirm reports of the missile firings, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said Tuesday. However, the DoD has seen increased naval activity in the Black Sea. USNI News could not independently verify the launch. The video lined up with ship spotters who have tracked a modern frigate operating in the Black Sea between Crimea and just off the coast of Odesa.…
MOSCOW, March 25. /TASS-DEFENSE/. The Russian Defense Ministry released a footage of a warship firing a salvo of eight Kalibr cruise missiles at a Ukrainian arms depot. It was the first demonstration of such a strike to the public.*More about 3M-14 Kalibr (SS-N-30A) cruise missiles – which may be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead – at Missile Threat and Wikipedia.
Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov said seaborne precision missiles hit an arsenal in the settlement of Orzhev 14 kilometers northwest of the city of Rovno. “The strike destroyed a major Ukrainian arsenal with arms and military hardware, also supplied by western countries,” he said.
The Kalibr missiles were reportedly fired by a Buyan-M-class small missile ship of project 21631 in the Black Sea. The footage shows the eight missiles blasting off one after another. The ship thus fired the whole round of missiles, as it carries eight of them…
posted by cenoxo at 3:16 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
So, When the Wind Blows came out on Blu-Ray in 2020. One of the lines they used to sell it is:
The End-of-the-World Animated Classic Returns to Devastate a New Generation
Do Gen X parents really do that thing where they make their kids suffer the same psychological wounds that they did? Some of them do, I guess.
Or maybe it's so said kids will one day make a good song out of it like these guys did.
posted by gtrwolf at 7:48 PM on March 31, 2022
The End-of-the-World Animated Classic Returns to Devastate a New Generation
Do Gen X parents really do that thing where they make their kids suffer the same psychological wounds that they did? Some of them do, I guess.
Or maybe it's so said kids will one day make a good song out of it like these guys did.
posted by gtrwolf at 7:48 PM on March 31, 2022
oh, btw, Tears For Fears has a new album out, just this winter. Worth a listen.
posted by hippybear at 8:01 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 8:01 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Well, there's the entire Radio K.A.O.S album by Roger Waters. Conversation between a DJ and a kid in a wheelchair who talks through a box, and they talk to each other as they wait for the bombs to fall. There's way more to it, but that's the gist of it.
And New Model Army's "White Coats" is pretty great. But with--how many years of cold war?--I should probably stop listing, especially since I was in high school in the late '80s, so the perfect mashup of video meets music meets teenage maudlin angst meets legitimate existential dread that can now be explored in broader artistic terms. I'm sure if I sit and think about it for too long, it'll be a list with enough actually good stuff that I'll feel compelled to listen to it, and that's probably not great for me right now.
(The soundtrack for When The Wind Blows is pretty good...)
posted by tllaya at 8:54 PM on March 31, 2022
And New Model Army's "White Coats" is pretty great. But with--how many years of cold war?--I should probably stop listing, especially since I was in high school in the late '80s, so the perfect mashup of video meets music meets teenage maudlin angst meets legitimate existential dread that can now be explored in broader artistic terms. I'm sure if I sit and think about it for too long, it'll be a list with enough actually good stuff that I'll feel compelled to listen to it, and that's probably not great for me right now.
(The soundtrack for When The Wind Blows is pretty good...)
posted by tllaya at 8:54 PM on March 31, 2022
Update 38 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine, International Atomic Energy Agency; Vienna, Austria; 31 Mar 2022:
The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Mariano Grossi [IAEA bio], arrived in Kaliningrad today for talks with senior Russian officials tomorrow morning. This follows his detailed discussions yesterday with senior Ukrainian government officials at South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) to review the concrete steps that need to be taken to immediately deliver urgent technical assistance for nuclear safety and security to Ukraine. Director General Grossi will return to the IAEA’s Vienna headquarters on Friday and hold a press conference later in the afternoon.posted by cenoxo at 9:18 PM on March 31, 2022
Ukraine today informed the IAEA that the Russian forces that have been in control of Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) since 24 February had, in writing, transferred control of the NPP to Ukrainian personnel and moved two convoys of troops towards Belarus. A third convoy had also left the city of Slavutych, where many of the Chornobyl NPP staff live, and moved towards Belarus. In addition, Ukraine reported that there are still some Russian forces on the Chornobyl NPP site but presumed that those forces are preparing to leave.
…
The IAEA has not been able to confirm reports of Russian forces receiving high doses of radiation while being in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone. The IAEA is seeking further information in order to provide an independent assessment of the situation.
Out of the country’s 15 operational reactors at four sites, the regulator said nine were operating, including two at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhya NPP, four at Rivne, one at Khmelnytskyy, and two at South Ukraine. The other reactors are shut down for regular maintenance, it added…
For more detailed (pre-invasion) information and history of nuclear power plants in Ukraine, see: IAEA Country Nuclear Power Profiles, UKRAINE (Updated 2020).
posted by cenoxo at 9:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by cenoxo at 9:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
SECDEF Austin Extends Truman Deployment as Conflict in Ukraine Continues, Heather Mongilio, USNI News, March 31, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 10:05 PM on March 31, 2022
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is extending the deployment of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, its escorts and Carrier Air Wing 1 as a hedge against Russian aggression in Europe, two defense officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.More details in the article.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) [Wikipedia] has spent almost four months operating in the Mediterranean Sea since Austin ordered the strike group to remain on station in December as Russia massed forces along the Ukrainian border, USNI News previously reported.
“[Austin] reviews the posture literally every day, and he has decided that he’s going to keep the 82nd [Airborne] there for a while longer,” Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters Thursday. “And he has decided that [USS] Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) and her strike group will stay in the Med for a while longer.” …
posted by cenoxo at 10:05 PM on March 31, 2022
Some excellent books have already been recommended here, and I would add Richard Rhodes' fascinating and terrifying four-part history of nuclear weapons:
posted by sindark at 11:02 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
- The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986)
- Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (1995)
- Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race (2007)
- The Twilight of the Bombs (2010)
So much confusion, so much paranoia, so many good intentions, so much hard work, technical genius, cynicism, manipulation, buckpassing, buckpocketing, argument, grandstanding, risk-taking, calculation, theorizing, goodwill and bad, rhetoric and hypocrisy, so much desperation, all point to something intractable behind the problem of how to deploy sufficient and appropriate nuclear arms to protect one’s nation from a nuclear-armed opponent. There was such a beast. It was quite simply the fundamental physical fact of nuclear energy: that such power is relatively cheap to generate and essentially illimitable. Nuclear warheads cost the United States about $250,000 each: less than a fighter-bomber, less than a missile, less than a patrol boat, less than a tank. Each one can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. “You can’t have this kind of war,” Eisenhower concluded. “There just aren’t enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets.” It followed, and follows, that there is no military solution to safety in the nuclear age: There are only political solutions. As the Danish physicist and philosopher Niels Bohr summarized the dilemma succinctly for a friend in 1948, “We are in an entirely new situation that cannot be resolved by war.” The impossibility of resolving militarily the new situation that knowledge of how to release nuclear energy imposes on the world is the reason the efforts on both sides look so desperate and irrational: They are built on what philosophers call a category mistake, an assumption that nuclear explosives are military weapons in any meaningful sense of the term, and that a sufficient quantity of such weapons can make us secure. They are not, and they cannot.Rhodes, Richard. Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race. p. 101
posted by sindark at 11:02 PM on March 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
[Austin] reviews the posture literally every day, and he has decided that he’s going to keep the 82nd [Airborne] there for a while longer,” Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters Thursday. “And he has decided that [USS] Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) and her strike group will stay in the Med for a while longer.” …
For clarity, the 82nd Airborne is in Poland.
So far as books are concerned, I also thought The Cold War: A Military History by Jeremy Black was interesting (although probably not on the same level as others).
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:39 AM on April 1, 2022
For clarity, the 82nd Airborne is in Poland.
So far as books are concerned, I also thought The Cold War: A Military History by Jeremy Black was interesting (although probably not on the same level as others).
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:39 AM on April 1, 2022
The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986)
This is also one of the best "history of physics" books I've ever read. When I reread it, I always make sure to read the last chapters on the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan BECAUSE it's hard to read, and the victims deserve to be seen and remembered.
posted by mikelieman at 5:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
This is also one of the best "history of physics" books I've ever read. When I reread it, I always make sure to read the last chapters on the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan BECAUSE it's hard to read, and the victims deserve to be seen and remembered.
posted by mikelieman at 5:42 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
I thought this was interesting (linked from Kyiv Independent, but I am not familiar with this source): "Karazin University will move from Kharkiv" which talks about relocating universities, and also ongoing virtual education. (Here's a photo of Karazin University's bombed economics dept, and if you scroll down there's a before-the-war photo.)
posted by joannemerriam at 6:31 AM on April 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by joannemerriam at 6:31 AM on April 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Twitter thread on Russian public opinion: talking to ordinary Russians...
Possible use of nuclear weapons got normalized. Conversations about consequences of war often trigger the nukes threat. “They will lift all these sanctions b/c we have nukes” “They will give in anyway, otherwise we will try our nukes on them."
For many Russians, Putin is testing, once again, the ingrained belief that might makes right. Hubris is unlimited: one simply has to be impudent enough to become the master of the universe. The West is often said to be weak because it is not ready to risk a nuclear war.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:07 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Possible use of nuclear weapons got normalized. Conversations about consequences of war often trigger the nukes threat. “They will lift all these sanctions b/c we have nukes” “They will give in anyway, otherwise we will try our nukes on them."
For many Russians, Putin is testing, once again, the ingrained belief that might makes right. Hubris is unlimited: one simply has to be impudent enough to become the master of the universe. The West is often said to be weak because it is not ready to risk a nuclear war.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:07 AM on April 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
U.S. cancels ICBM test due to Russia nuclear tensions [Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali, Reuters]
posted by MrVisible at 10:58 PM on April 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by MrVisible at 10:58 PM on April 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Since music was brought up, I have to mention Pink Floyd's 1984 album The Final Cut. It's by no means their best work musically, but Roger Waters was really on a tear about war and the state of the world generally at the time, ending with a track titled Two Suns in the Sunset. The reference should be obvious enough to go without explanation.
posted by wierdo at 11:28 PM on April 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 11:28 PM on April 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Two Suns in the Sunset.
I have to agree. During a roundhouse on what to do with Fatman and Little boy, the demonstration theory is the one I personally went with, not dropping it so, Find an island and you drop the dam thing right at sunrise or just before symbolizing a new "rising sun" brighter and more terrifying with all limited access seating, get John Ford in there. Then let the scientists and Army confer, if they didn't surrender/ believe perhaps the second one would be more convincing. Hence, two Suns at sunset.
So Putin invades Ukraine with a Trench coat of scintillating colors full of atoms with a demonstration of nuclear threat by going on high alert and trampling Chernobyl.
'8 Ball'
N.W.A
posted by clavdivs at 12:29 AM on April 2, 2022
I have to agree. During a roundhouse on what to do with Fatman and Little boy, the demonstration theory is the one I personally went with, not dropping it so, Find an island and you drop the dam thing right at sunrise or just before symbolizing a new "rising sun" brighter and more terrifying with all limited access seating, get John Ford in there. Then let the scientists and Army confer, if they didn't surrender/ believe perhaps the second one would be more convincing. Hence, two Suns at sunset.
So Putin invades Ukraine with a Trench coat of scintillating colors full of atoms with a demonstration of nuclear threat by going on high alert and trampling Chernobyl.
'8 Ball'
N.W.A
posted by clavdivs at 12:29 AM on April 2, 2022
They are built on what philosophers call a category mistake, an assumption that nuclear explosives are military weapons in any meaningful sense of the term, and that a sufficient quantity of such weapons can make us secure. They are not, and they cannot.
I would argue that this is wrong (even though it's also completely right). While there's a point where any additional nuclear weapon does not make a country safer (the 1001st warhead isn't going to change anything), there's clearly a reluctance between nuclear powers to go head to head with each other which brings with it a level of security for those powers. A level of security that non-nuclear countries like Ukraine don't have — and we can see what this brings them (see: the X million lives lost in Ukraine is better than X billion lives lost globally argument).
There's a sort of "Well, we've got our big bimbs, and we know it has downsides. You figure out your safety however you want (but not like we did ourselves!')" that this line of logic comes down to.
In other words, to disregard the security nuclear weapons bring a country is the biggest argument for nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine's future cannot be protected, if it's allowed to perish, it would be practically absurd for other countries to not seriously consider if they can build or acquire nuclear weapons. For their own security. And I don't mean the usual mentions (North Korea, Iran) but also Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Morocco, Vietnam, .......
posted by UN at 1:51 AM on April 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
I would argue that this is wrong (even though it's also completely right). While there's a point where any additional nuclear weapon does not make a country safer (the 1001st warhead isn't going to change anything), there's clearly a reluctance between nuclear powers to go head to head with each other which brings with it a level of security for those powers. A level of security that non-nuclear countries like Ukraine don't have — and we can see what this brings them (see: the X million lives lost in Ukraine is better than X billion lives lost globally argument).
There's a sort of "Well, we've got our big bimbs, and we know it has downsides. You figure out your safety however you want (but not like we did ourselves!')" that this line of logic comes down to.
In other words, to disregard the security nuclear weapons bring a country is the biggest argument for nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine's future cannot be protected, if it's allowed to perish, it would be practically absurd for other countries to not seriously consider if they can build or acquire nuclear weapons. For their own security. And I don't mean the usual mentions (North Korea, Iran) but also Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Morocco, Vietnam, .......
posted by UN at 1:51 AM on April 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
In other words, to disregard the security nuclear weapons bring a country is the biggest argument for nuclear proliferation.
Yes, this is a consequence of the Stability-Instability paradox. When two states have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of direct war between them drops substantially; but this also increases the probability of 'minor'* conflicts, as nuclear states have more freedom to act without other countries intervening. It also increases the likelihood of proxy wars, where other nuclear states are involved indirectly; Korea and Vietnam both being classic examples, and Ukraine arguably being another.
Ukraine is only the latest example of a nuclear power being able to act with relative immunity from intervention; the incentive to develop your own nuclear weapons to prevent another nuclear power attacking you has existed pretty much since they were invented. The alternative to developing your own is to have a military alliance with a country that does, and is, on paper at least, willing to use them in your defence; Hence the warsaw pact, and NATO. Poland doesn't need nuclear weapons, in theory, as the US, France and the UK do and Poland is allied to them via article 5.
Taiwan is a special case, but there is at least constructive ambiguity over whether the US would use them on Taiwan's behalf.
Also, developing nuclear weapons alone is not enough; you need to be able to deliver them (e.g. via ICBM) and you also really need a 2nd strike capability, neither of which is cheap; if you only have a limited number, and they can all be reliably taken out by an opponent striking first, then you've actually encouraged opponents to do so if they believe you're a high risk of using them. Starting to develop them also puts you on the anti-proliferation shitlist, because the last thing nuclear powers want is more countries having them.
There's very little about nuclear deterrence that is simple, and the possibility of them being used complicates a lot of other things, and the stability of the world is greatly threatened by them. We'd be far, far better off if they'd never been invented; but here we are.
* 'minor' here is a term of art which refers to the number of countries involved, and how far the conflict spreads geopoliticially. Obviously, conflict even contained largely to one country ala Iraq, Syria or Ukraine still has a huge and utterly terrible cost.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 5:12 AM on April 2, 2022 [5 favorites]
Yes, this is a consequence of the Stability-Instability paradox. When two states have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of direct war between them drops substantially; but this also increases the probability of 'minor'* conflicts, as nuclear states have more freedom to act without other countries intervening. It also increases the likelihood of proxy wars, where other nuclear states are involved indirectly; Korea and Vietnam both being classic examples, and Ukraine arguably being another.
Ukraine is only the latest example of a nuclear power being able to act with relative immunity from intervention; the incentive to develop your own nuclear weapons to prevent another nuclear power attacking you has existed pretty much since they were invented. The alternative to developing your own is to have a military alliance with a country that does, and is, on paper at least, willing to use them in your defence; Hence the warsaw pact, and NATO. Poland doesn't need nuclear weapons, in theory, as the US, France and the UK do and Poland is allied to them via article 5.
Taiwan is a special case, but there is at least constructive ambiguity over whether the US would use them on Taiwan's behalf.
Also, developing nuclear weapons alone is not enough; you need to be able to deliver them (e.g. via ICBM) and you also really need a 2nd strike capability, neither of which is cheap; if you only have a limited number, and they can all be reliably taken out by an opponent striking first, then you've actually encouraged opponents to do so if they believe you're a high risk of using them. Starting to develop them also puts you on the anti-proliferation shitlist, because the last thing nuclear powers want is more countries having them.
There's very little about nuclear deterrence that is simple, and the possibility of them being used complicates a lot of other things, and the stability of the world is greatly threatened by them. We'd be far, far better off if they'd never been invented; but here we are.
* 'minor' here is a term of art which refers to the number of countries involved, and how far the conflict spreads geopoliticially. Obviously, conflict even contained largely to one country ala Iraq, Syria or Ukraine still has a huge and utterly terrible cost.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 5:12 AM on April 2, 2022 [5 favorites]
Romania to issue iodine tablets as Russian war continues in neighboring Ukraine – All people under the age of 40 will receive the pills from mid-April., Helen Collis, POLITICO, April 3, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on April 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Romania is launching a campaign to inform its citizens of how to store and take iodine tablets in the event of a nuclear incident, as Russia’s offensive in neighboring Ukraine continues.See the facts about iodine tablets at CDC > Radiation Emergencies > Potassium Iodide (KI).
“At the moment, there is no danger that makes it necessary to take these pills,” the Romanian health ministry underlined in a statement today [Google Translate].
The country has decided to provide iodine tablets to all people under the age of 40 from mid-April. In preparation, from Monday, the ministry will launch a public information campaign including advising people on how to take preventative measures to avoid radiation exposure.
…
Romania’s policy will align with that of Finland, Bulgaria, Belgium and others that have for some time provided free iodine tablets to citizens, with some countries reporting a rush on pills since Russia’s invasion.
In the event of a nuclear incident, radioactive iodine can be dispersed into the air. Any that is inhaled or ingested is absorbed by the thyroid gland, leading to thyroid cancer. Iodine tablets can block that absorption and reduce the risk of cancer….
posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on April 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Ukrainian Nuclear Disaster Scientist Talks Worst-Case Wartime Scenarios - Ukrainian nuclear expert discusses the challenges of keeping the country's nuclear facilities safe during a Russian invasion., Howard Altman, The War Zone; April 4, 2022:
*More about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant at Wikipedia.
posted by cenoxo at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
Amid the horrors of the past 39 days of Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine, Olena Pareniuk finds a rare moment of absurd humor. “I wanted to be the expert in radiation safety, but I didn't want that much experience,” Pareniuk says, laughing at the thought. Unfortunately, Pareniuk, 35, has no choice.Possible scenarios and their effects follow in the War Zone article.
As a senior researcher for Ukraine’s Institute for Safety Problems of Nuclear Power Plants, it’s Pareniuk’s job to investigate what happens after a disaster at a nuclear power plant. She’s spent years researching the aftermath of both the 1986 explosion and fires at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the extensive damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in the wake of a tsunami in 2011.
But after Feb. 24, when Russia launched its massive assault on Ukraine and subsequently took over Chernobyl and shelled Europe’s largest nuclear power plant [*] in the southern Zaporizhzhya region, she’s had new nightmares to ponder along with ceaseless questions about worst-case scenarios that she is tired of thinking about….
…“They were shooting at a working nuclear power plant with a cannon,” she said. “I wouldn't believe it. If aliens landed on my lawn, It would be okay for me, but I would never, ever believe if someone would tell me that here in Ukraine, in the former Soviet Union, someone would just shoot. We'll just take a tank and shoot into the working nuclear power plant because, you know, here in the former Soviet Union, we have this history of Chernobyl. All of us are affected by Chernobyl. All of us know people who got the sickness, who died because they were affected by Chernobyl and I have no idea how can you even imagine doing something like that?”
*More about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant at Wikipedia.
posted by cenoxo at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
Update 42 – IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine, 04 Apr 2022:
Ukraine informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today that “the morale and the emotional state” of staff working at the country’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) were “very low” a month after Russian military forces seized the site, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said.posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on April 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
The Director General has repeatedly expressed grave concern about the extremely stressful and challenging work conditions for personnel operating Ukraine’s nuclear facilities during the conflict, especially at the Zaporizhzhya NPP and the Chernobyl site, which Russian forces controlled for five weeks before their withdrawal last Thursday.
This unprecedented NPP staffing situation has seriously compromised one of the seven indispensable pillars of nuclear safety and security stating that “operating staff must be able to fulfil their safety and security duties and have the capacity to make decisions free of undue pressure”.
“It is unacceptable and unsustainable that staff are working under circumstances that could severely affect their wellbeing and so have a negative impact on the safe and secure operation of these nuclear facilities,” Director General Grossi said. “As I said during my visit to the South Ukraine NPP last week, the staff there and at the other Ukrainian nuclear sites deserve our deep admiration and sincere gratitude for their resilience and determination in carrying out their important work duties.”…
As the Danish physicist and philosopher Niels Bohr summarized the dilemma succinctly for a friend in 1948, “We are in an entirely new situation that cannot be resolved by war.” The impossibility of resolving militarily the new situation that knowledge of how to release nuclear energy imposes on the world is the reason the efforts on both sides look so desperate and irrational: They are built on what philosophers call a category mistake, an assumption that nuclear explosives are military weapons in any meaningful sense of the term, and that a sufficient quantity of such weapons can make us secure. They are not, and they cannot.
Rhodes is a good writer, but this isn't some objective truth. This view—that nuclear weapons are so categorically different from other weapons as to be useless for anything but deterrence—is a popular line of thinking in the West, and goes all the way back to Bohr and some other early nuclear figures. We might fairly call it the "IAEA Consensus" (since Bohr's concerns and desire for international management of nuclear issues led to the creation of the IAEA). It's extremely popular among US-educated non-proliferation and IR folks, from what I can tell.
But it has never been universally accepted, even in the West.
The opposing view is that nuclear weapons will be possessed and controlled by nation states, and they will be employed in war and statecraft without essentially changing the nature of either. I would propose that we call this the "Special Weapons Consensus", after the AWSWP, and the military's longstanding euphemism for nuclear weapons.
The Special Weapons consensus would be, broadly: that nuclear weapons are extremely powerful, but do not fundamentally alter the nature of warfare or inter-state relations. They change the practice, strategies, and tactics of warfare—as other revolutionary weapons have throughout history—but do not make warfare obsolete, nor do they lack applicability to warfare. Although nuclear weapons allow one state to threaten another with ultimate, complete devastation, states have long threatened each other with this, and probably visited it on each other by hacking the other's population to death with swords (depending on your belief of the historicity of Scripture, this seemed to happen with alarming regularity at some points in history). And not only is it possible to think about nuclear war and how to fight one, it is in fact necessary to think about how to fight one, because a refusal to develop these weapons will inevitably lead to domination by states that do. It has its own list of heavyweights over the years: Leslie Groves, Vannevar Bush, Edward Teller, basically the entirety of the postwar rocket program, the RAND Corp braintrust, etc.
I'd suggest that it's possible (perhaps even likely) that not just Putin, but potentially much of the Russian military establishment, falls much further into the Special Weapons camp than the Bohr/IAEA one. And in seeking to understand what the Russians might do—in Ukraine or anywhere else—it's necessary to make sure we're not inadvertently approaching the issue from the IAEA Consensus side without factoring that in.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:36 PM on April 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
Rhodes is a good writer, but this isn't some objective truth. This view—that nuclear weapons are so categorically different from other weapons as to be useless for anything but deterrence—is a popular line of thinking in the West, and goes all the way back to Bohr and some other early nuclear figures. We might fairly call it the "IAEA Consensus" (since Bohr's concerns and desire for international management of nuclear issues led to the creation of the IAEA). It's extremely popular among US-educated non-proliferation and IR folks, from what I can tell.
But it has never been universally accepted, even in the West.
The opposing view is that nuclear weapons will be possessed and controlled by nation states, and they will be employed in war and statecraft without essentially changing the nature of either. I would propose that we call this the "Special Weapons Consensus", after the AWSWP, and the military's longstanding euphemism for nuclear weapons.
The Special Weapons consensus would be, broadly: that nuclear weapons are extremely powerful, but do not fundamentally alter the nature of warfare or inter-state relations. They change the practice, strategies, and tactics of warfare—as other revolutionary weapons have throughout history—but do not make warfare obsolete, nor do they lack applicability to warfare. Although nuclear weapons allow one state to threaten another with ultimate, complete devastation, states have long threatened each other with this, and probably visited it on each other by hacking the other's population to death with swords (depending on your belief of the historicity of Scripture, this seemed to happen with alarming regularity at some points in history). And not only is it possible to think about nuclear war and how to fight one, it is in fact necessary to think about how to fight one, because a refusal to develop these weapons will inevitably lead to domination by states that do. It has its own list of heavyweights over the years: Leslie Groves, Vannevar Bush, Edward Teller, basically the entirety of the postwar rocket program, the RAND Corp braintrust, etc.
I'd suggest that it's possible (perhaps even likely) that not just Putin, but potentially much of the Russian military establishment, falls much further into the Special Weapons camp than the Bohr/IAEA one. And in seeking to understand what the Russians might do—in Ukraine or anywhere else—it's necessary to make sure we're not inadvertently approaching the issue from the IAEA Consensus side without factoring that in.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:36 PM on April 4, 2022 [6 favorites]
A song dedicated to Putin and the rest of the members of the Special Weapons consensus. Seems like a particularly apt time for it.
posted by Reverend John at 7:57 AM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 7:57 AM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Whether a claim such as that (or, indeed, anything) is "objective truth" or not is something that can only be decided by a preponderance of evidence and is subject to revision. The available evidence about the actual utility of nuclear weapons in warfare strongly supports that claim, given that in the seventy years following the only use of them, no nuclear power has utilized them in battle even as they've become much more widely available. If such weapons were useful, then it is extremely odd that a number of states haven't utilized them when under stress, such as Israel, India, Pakistan, the US, and, yes, Russia.
I agree that it's crucial to understand that a nuclear power very well may conclude that using nuclear weapons is a viable choice and I even agree that there's good reason to think that there are members of the Russian military and leadership who may think this way, but I disagree that there's much reason to believe that they could be right. History, so far, makes a strong argument otherwise.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:49 AM on April 5, 2022 [3 favorites]
I agree that it's crucial to understand that a nuclear power very well may conclude that using nuclear weapons is a viable choice and I even agree that there's good reason to think that there are members of the Russian military and leadership who may think this way, but I disagree that there's much reason to believe that they could be right. History, so far, makes a strong argument otherwise.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:49 AM on April 5, 2022 [3 favorites]
Important note: the perverse logic of the utility of nuclear weapons is that, regardless of truth, the possibility of use must be maintained because their one inarguable utility is deterrence. As I wrote in another thread, this is why it's sometimes called the "nuclear trap".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:53 AM on April 5, 2022
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:53 AM on April 5, 2022
The problem is, when you rely on the possibility that you'll use nuclear weapons as a deterrence strategy, you have to keep people convinced that you'll actually use them. It seems like, right now, nuclear weapons have limited deterrence power because nobody really believes they'll be used. They act almost like a protective shield for bluster on the part of nuclear powers because they can make threats while sitting behind that shield and everyone's too scared to call their bluff. At some point, someone has to use them to 'top-up' their power as a deterrent and it doesn't really matter who it is that pulls the trigger. Russia may well be considering when the right time is to prove they will, if pushed beyond point x, actually use them to shore up their power.
posted by dg at 2:31 PM on April 5, 2022
posted by dg at 2:31 PM on April 5, 2022
So let's call Putin's bluff. Let's send NATO troops from every member country into Ukraine at the same time. Will Putin bomb every NATO nation in response. Would they all respond in kind?
I'm fucking sick and tired of living with this nightmare. I thought it was over decades ago and now it's back. So let's pull off the fuckin' bandaid and let's see how much it all bleeds.
posted by hippybear at 3:08 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm fucking sick and tired of living with this nightmare. I thought it was over decades ago and now it's back. So let's pull off the fuckin' bandaid and let's see how much it all bleeds.
posted by hippybear at 3:08 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
So let's call Putin's bluff. Let's send NATO troops from every member country into Ukraine at the same time. Will Putin bomb every NATO nation in response. Would they all respond in kind?
I agree. Have the Ukrainian army along with NATO troops push Russia back to their borders, and keep them there. Then, it's just a matter of time before the sanctions really start hurting. I suspect that'll be about the time all the parents in the ruling class start hearing their kids whine about their iphone being broken -- or wanting a new one -- AND THERE ARE NO MORE IN RUSSIA. I give them a week of that before giving in.
posted by mikelieman at 3:53 PM on April 5, 2022
I agree. Have the Ukrainian army along with NATO troops push Russia back to their borders, and keep them there. Then, it's just a matter of time before the sanctions really start hurting. I suspect that'll be about the time all the parents in the ruling class start hearing their kids whine about their iphone being broken -- or wanting a new one -- AND THERE ARE NO MORE IN RUSSIA. I give them a week of that before giving in.
posted by mikelieman at 3:53 PM on April 5, 2022
Any one NATO country sending troops into Ukraine to fight against Russia is effectively the same as all of them. The reason for this is because NATO is so integrated, it would be difficult or impossible to support those troops without involving nearby NATO bases and, even if great lengths were taken to do so, Russia would have little reason to believe this to be the case.
So, either way, Russia would necessarily retaliate against the staging and support in nearby NATO countries, and certainly the missile and radar installations there as well.
This would constitute an attack on NATO soil, invoking Article 5, requiring all of NATO to respond.
Furthermore, in my opinion, a war between NATO and Russia on NATO soil — or Russian soil, for the very same reasons that fighting in Ukraine would involve neighboring NATO countries — could not fail to escalate into a nuclear exchange, assuming there's no momentary conventional engagement followed by a panicked withdrawal from the brink by all parties involved.
So, failing that "whoops, none of us really wanted to do this, let's all take a moment" possibility, no NATO country can fight in this war.
Why would it (almost) inevitably escalate to the use of a nuclear weapon? Because, in short, Russia would be instantly outmatched by NATO and the resulting war would be — either in reality or in the view of Russian leadership — an existential threat. And if there's anything nuclear weapons are good for, it's as a promise to those who would eliminate you that they're going to be eliminated, too, if they dare.
Russia would have to use them both as a present defense against total defeat, but also as a defense against certain future total defeat — because not using them would demonstrate a fatal weakness. Not just fatal, but also an intolerable weakness from the point of their enemies: if they have the weapons but won't use them willingly, then the risk of the possibility that they might be used inadvertently outweighs whatever costs would be associated with defeating and disarming them.
And the thing to understand is that this reasoning applies to all (strategic) nuclear powers. A nuclear power must not be proven to be unwilling or unable to use their nuclear weapons because, if so, the threat they pose to everyone else is greater than the costs associated with total war waged by everyone else to disarm them.
This is why I've repeatedly pointed out that having nuclear weapons both expands and limits what a country can militarily do. It makes limited wars against non-nuclear powers more possible, even when these are really proxy wars wars with other nuclear powers; but it makes actual wars directly between nuclear powers almost impossibly risky. (Note that this applies much more, or much more clearly, to strategic nuclear capabilities than it does when there's only a limited tactical capability.)
In the winter of 1980, when I was a sophomore in high school, one night on a band trip while the four of us were in bed, awake, in a motel room, talk turned toward the Iran Hostage Crisis. "Why," my friends asked, "do we have these bombs if we won't use them? Why can't we just nuke Iran?"
Morality aside, I was surprised that I had to explain the geopolitics of the situation and why such an attack would result in a global thermonuclear exchange. Post-1991, I never would have expected to have such conversations again.
We can't wish nuclear weapons away. More specifically, we can't wish the massive numbers of strategic nuclear weapons away. They exist. People have sadly become accustomed to forgetting their existence and — not that this was ever that true — stopped understanding how this all works together and just how little there is that's actually keeping global thermonuclear war from happening. And most of what that is? The fear of these weapons and the fear of ever letting that genie out of the bottle. People that are inclined to fuck around and find out will, god forbid, take most of the rest of us with them. So let's not be so casual about risking a billion or so lives.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:12 PM on April 5, 2022 [13 favorites]
So, either way, Russia would necessarily retaliate against the staging and support in nearby NATO countries, and certainly the missile and radar installations there as well.
This would constitute an attack on NATO soil, invoking Article 5, requiring all of NATO to respond.
Furthermore, in my opinion, a war between NATO and Russia on NATO soil — or Russian soil, for the very same reasons that fighting in Ukraine would involve neighboring NATO countries — could not fail to escalate into a nuclear exchange, assuming there's no momentary conventional engagement followed by a panicked withdrawal from the brink by all parties involved.
So, failing that "whoops, none of us really wanted to do this, let's all take a moment" possibility, no NATO country can fight in this war.
Why would it (almost) inevitably escalate to the use of a nuclear weapon? Because, in short, Russia would be instantly outmatched by NATO and the resulting war would be — either in reality or in the view of Russian leadership — an existential threat. And if there's anything nuclear weapons are good for, it's as a promise to those who would eliminate you that they're going to be eliminated, too, if they dare.
Russia would have to use them both as a present defense against total defeat, but also as a defense against certain future total defeat — because not using them would demonstrate a fatal weakness. Not just fatal, but also an intolerable weakness from the point of their enemies: if they have the weapons but won't use them willingly, then the risk of the possibility that they might be used inadvertently outweighs whatever costs would be associated with defeating and disarming them.
And the thing to understand is that this reasoning applies to all (strategic) nuclear powers. A nuclear power must not be proven to be unwilling or unable to use their nuclear weapons because, if so, the threat they pose to everyone else is greater than the costs associated with total war waged by everyone else to disarm them.
This is why I've repeatedly pointed out that having nuclear weapons both expands and limits what a country can militarily do. It makes limited wars against non-nuclear powers more possible, even when these are really proxy wars wars with other nuclear powers; but it makes actual wars directly between nuclear powers almost impossibly risky. (Note that this applies much more, or much more clearly, to strategic nuclear capabilities than it does when there's only a limited tactical capability.)
In the winter of 1980, when I was a sophomore in high school, one night on a band trip while the four of us were in bed, awake, in a motel room, talk turned toward the Iran Hostage Crisis. "Why," my friends asked, "do we have these bombs if we won't use them? Why can't we just nuke Iran?"
Morality aside, I was surprised that I had to explain the geopolitics of the situation and why such an attack would result in a global thermonuclear exchange. Post-1991, I never would have expected to have such conversations again.
We can't wish nuclear weapons away. More specifically, we can't wish the massive numbers of strategic nuclear weapons away. They exist. People have sadly become accustomed to forgetting their existence and — not that this was ever that true — stopped understanding how this all works together and just how little there is that's actually keeping global thermonuclear war from happening. And most of what that is? The fear of these weapons and the fear of ever letting that genie out of the bottle. People that are inclined to fuck around and find out will, god forbid, take most of the rest of us with them. So let's not be so casual about risking a billion or so lives.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:12 PM on April 5, 2022 [13 favorites]
Yes, the situation in Ukraine is intolerable. But global nuclear holocaust would not be less intolerable. Trying to fight nihilism with nihilism has never turned out well.
posted by rikschell at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 4:23 PM on April 5, 2022 [5 favorites]
Thanks for your reasonable words, Ivan Fyodorovich. Some of the 80s Action Hero posturing, "fuck around and find out!" type comments in these threads makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:26 PM on April 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:26 PM on April 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm just tired of the fear. Decades and decades of this. It's really just me being entirely not wanting this fear anymore. Nightmares and sleepless nights are back with me now. Forgive me for feeling resentful and wanting this situation resolved.
posted by hippybear at 4:34 PM on April 5, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:34 PM on April 5, 2022 [4 favorites]
If there's one thing the last decade or so has taught me, it's that it can *always* get worse. Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, that the world can't possibly find any more sticks to beat you with, whoop, here's another one. And Ukrainians have that far worse than I.
So I really empathise with the desire to just rip off the bandaid, to face the fear and get this over with, to save lives; I wish it too, I want Putin and his murderous accomplices to actually face real consequences, to end their war crimes for good. But I also know too well how badly that can go wrong, how it could spread to the whole world instead. Wars escalate so damn easily. Ukrainians too, may think it couldn't possibly be worse; but the suffering and loss, overwhelming as it is right now, would be multiplied many times over if only one nuclear weapon detonates in a Ukrainian city. And Putin, if he faces not just a grinding stalemate, and an eventual withdrawal after some face saving deal, but a real threat to himself, to his rule - I can absolutely see him deciding to take it there, to take us all down with him.
As Russian soldiers accumulated on the border of Ukraine, in their 10s of thousands, I didn't want to believe he'd be mad enough to actually do it - it HAD to be sabre rattling to try and force concessions in the Donbass. I think I was far from alone thinking that, and many politicians across Europe have realised far too late what a monster they have tied their energy economies to.
Putin has told us who he is, has shown us what he is, as have the Russian army. We should believe them. We have to carry on fighting him economically, give Ukraine the weapons to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, for as long as it takes - but in such a way that we don't make nuking Ukraine and/or all of us seem a better option than the alternatives. There just isn't a quick solution that doesn't risk making it a million times worse. For the poor souls being tortured and murdered in Ukraine right now, and the ones that will be, I so wish there was one, but there just isn't a quick solution that doesn't also carry an insane risk of a catastrophe that would dwarf all others our species has ever faced.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 5:15 PM on April 5, 2022 [7 favorites]
So I really empathise with the desire to just rip off the bandaid, to face the fear and get this over with, to save lives; I wish it too, I want Putin and his murderous accomplices to actually face real consequences, to end their war crimes for good. But I also know too well how badly that can go wrong, how it could spread to the whole world instead. Wars escalate so damn easily. Ukrainians too, may think it couldn't possibly be worse; but the suffering and loss, overwhelming as it is right now, would be multiplied many times over if only one nuclear weapon detonates in a Ukrainian city. And Putin, if he faces not just a grinding stalemate, and an eventual withdrawal after some face saving deal, but a real threat to himself, to his rule - I can absolutely see him deciding to take it there, to take us all down with him.
As Russian soldiers accumulated on the border of Ukraine, in their 10s of thousands, I didn't want to believe he'd be mad enough to actually do it - it HAD to be sabre rattling to try and force concessions in the Donbass. I think I was far from alone thinking that, and many politicians across Europe have realised far too late what a monster they have tied their energy economies to.
Putin has told us who he is, has shown us what he is, as have the Russian army. We should believe them. We have to carry on fighting him economically, give Ukraine the weapons to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, for as long as it takes - but in such a way that we don't make nuking Ukraine and/or all of us seem a better option than the alternatives. There just isn't a quick solution that doesn't risk making it a million times worse. For the poor souls being tortured and murdered in Ukraine right now, and the ones that will be, I so wish there was one, but there just isn't a quick solution that doesn't also carry an insane risk of a catastrophe that would dwarf all others our species has ever faced.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 5:15 PM on April 5, 2022 [7 favorites]
"I'm just tired of the fear. Decades and decades of this. It's really just me being entirely not wanting this fear anymore. Nightmares and sleepless nights are back with me now."
I understand.
Last night I dreamt I was in a passenger jet trying to evade a missile. Unrealistic, but it was a dream and, of course, the lack of realism allowed for a very extended period of fear.
Frequent lately have been dreams of mushroom clouds in the distance. A repeated theme has been of fleeing or being far from cities that are or will be bombed — I think the night before last I dreamt I was in the remote mountains somewhere but then there was the flash and I braced against the shock wave.
I'm partly to blame — although I suppose, as a Gen-Xer and native New Mexican, it's part of my heritage. I have family and friends who've worked at Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories; I'm an amateur scholar of nuclear weapon history and its science. I've watched most of the declassified nuclear test footage. So, my subconscious has a great deal of fodder.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:26 PM on April 5, 2022 [5 favorites]
I understand.
Last night I dreamt I was in a passenger jet trying to evade a missile. Unrealistic, but it was a dream and, of course, the lack of realism allowed for a very extended period of fear.
Frequent lately have been dreams of mushroom clouds in the distance. A repeated theme has been of fleeing or being far from cities that are or will be bombed — I think the night before last I dreamt I was in the remote mountains somewhere but then there was the flash and I braced against the shock wave.
I'm partly to blame — although I suppose, as a Gen-Xer and native New Mexican, it's part of my heritage. I have family and friends who've worked at Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories; I'm an amateur scholar of nuclear weapon history and its science. I've watched most of the declassified nuclear test footage. So, my subconscious has a great deal of fodder.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:26 PM on April 5, 2022 [5 favorites]
But I also know too well how badly that can go wrong, how it could spread to the whole world instead
Well, yes, obviously and my comment above wasn't intended to promote an escalation of the direct violence for this very reason. I guess it does show that nuclear deterrence still works, because those that matter understand the inevitable consequences of pushing back against Russia by joining the fray.
My key fear is that all this detente relies on sane people with their fingers hovering above the nuclear trigger. I'm not convinced that Putin has the same level of concern about consequences, though. It's hard to see an alternative to continuing to allow Ukraine to fight the fight for all of us and help them in any way that won't push Putin over the edge.
posted by dg at 5:52 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, yes, obviously and my comment above wasn't intended to promote an escalation of the direct violence for this very reason. I guess it does show that nuclear deterrence still works, because those that matter understand the inevitable consequences of pushing back against Russia by joining the fray.
My key fear is that all this detente relies on sane people with their fingers hovering above the nuclear trigger. I'm not convinced that Putin has the same level of concern about consequences, though. It's hard to see an alternative to continuing to allow Ukraine to fight the fight for all of us and help them in any way that won't push Putin over the edge.
posted by dg at 5:52 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Motorola! World's largest exclusive electronics manufacturer presents... Atomic Attack! [50m, 1950]
(Youtube just hands me things sometimes. I don't know why.)
posted by hippybear at 9:14 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
(Youtube just hands me things sometimes. I don't know why.)
posted by hippybear at 9:14 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
That Nuclear Vault yt channel has suddenly begun posting videos again after nearly a year hiatus. This is a YouTuber who knows their audience.
Although perhaps the DOE has just declassified another tranche of films.
Yes, I've subscribed for many years. Why do you ask?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:04 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Although perhaps the DOE has just declassified another tranche of films.
Yes, I've subscribed for many years. Why do you ask?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:04 PM on April 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Rhodes is a good writer, but this isn't some objective truth. This view—that nuclear weapons are so categorically different from other weapons as to be useless for anything but deterrence—is a popular line of thinking in the West, and goes all the way back to Bohr and some other early nuclear figures.
But this is a fundamentally bad rhetorical move used by many people, because either the Bohrian/Einstein argument is right, or it isn't. The fact that the Western establishment and Putin both actually agree that nukes are necessary is used as a way to relativize the entire debate. Either nuclear development poses an existential risk to humanity, or it doesn't. This is an empirical question, and hence has an objective answer, independent of whatever consensus or camp different human groups subscribe to. What actually happens to humans on Earth is a sociological question and has a scientific answer independent of people's views on it.
Moreover, an easy way to see why the military/Western pro-nukes view is wrong is because their argument always omits the opportunity cost analysis. "If we forgo nukes, then they win" is the zero-sum presupposition that is never deconstructed by those adherents.
posted by polymodus at 12:11 AM on April 6, 2022
But this is a fundamentally bad rhetorical move used by many people, because either the Bohrian/Einstein argument is right, or it isn't. The fact that the Western establishment and Putin both actually agree that nukes are necessary is used as a way to relativize the entire debate. Either nuclear development poses an existential risk to humanity, or it doesn't. This is an empirical question, and hence has an objective answer, independent of whatever consensus or camp different human groups subscribe to. What actually happens to humans on Earth is a sociological question and has a scientific answer independent of people's views on it.
Moreover, an easy way to see why the military/Western pro-nukes view is wrong is because their argument always omits the opportunity cost analysis. "If we forgo nukes, then they win" is the zero-sum presupposition that is never deconstructed by those adherents.
posted by polymodus at 12:11 AM on April 6, 2022
And the thing to understand is that this reasoning applies to all (strategic) nuclear powers. A nuclear power must not be proven to be unwilling or unable to use their nuclear weapons because, if so, the threat they pose to everyone else is greater than the costs associated with total war waged by everyone else to disarm them.
This reasoning only really applies if NATO troops cross the border into Russia or attack targets in Russia using standoff weapons. That's when it would start to look like Russia was unwilling or unable to use their nukes.
The two problems with actually doing that are that there is no guarantee that Russia would see things the same way. They probably would (the US didn't escalate when Soviet and Chinese pilots intervened in Korea and Vietnam, so there is precedent), but probably isn't good enough when it comes to nuclear war. And secondly, it would constrain Ukraine's freedom of action. Right now, Ukraine can attack military assets inside Russia as they are able and deem necessary. Not so much if NATO became directly involved.
posted by wierdo at 12:31 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
This reasoning only really applies if NATO troops cross the border into Russia or attack targets in Russia using standoff weapons. That's when it would start to look like Russia was unwilling or unable to use their nukes.
The two problems with actually doing that are that there is no guarantee that Russia would see things the same way. They probably would (the US didn't escalate when Soviet and Chinese pilots intervened in Korea and Vietnam, so there is precedent), but probably isn't good enough when it comes to nuclear war. And secondly, it would constrain Ukraine's freedom of action. Right now, Ukraine can attack military assets inside Russia as they are able and deem necessary. Not so much if NATO became directly involved.
posted by wierdo at 12:31 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
Either nuclear development poses an existential risk to humanity, or it doesn't.
Two different things:
- Nukes can kill everyone and everything
- Nukes will kill everyone and everything because of X, Y or Z.
There is no empirical scientific data that can show, for example, 'If country Z drops a nuclear weapon on country Y, country X will respond with nuclear weapons on country Z." It may happen is not the same as it will happen. Predicting the decisions of politicians by reasoning is guesswork — being confident of those future events is I think not really justifiable.
posted by UN at 1:00 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
Two different things:
- Nukes can kill everyone and everything
- Nukes will kill everyone and everything because of X, Y or Z.
There is no empirical scientific data that can show, for example, 'If country Z drops a nuclear weapon on country Y, country X will respond with nuclear weapons on country Z." It may happen is not the same as it will happen. Predicting the decisions of politicians by reasoning is guesswork — being confident of those future events is I think not really justifiable.
posted by UN at 1:00 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
They probably would (the US didn't escalate when Soviet and Chinese pilots intervened in Korea and Vietnam, so there is precedent), but probably isn't good enough when it comes to nuclear war
1951, Little thing called MIG alley and the only nuclear escalation was from MacArthur for this, that, and wanting to drop an atom bomb, just a small one. He got fired.
posted by clavdivs at 1:26 AM on April 6, 2022
1951, Little thing called MIG alley and the only nuclear escalation was from MacArthur for this, that, and wanting to drop an atom bomb, just a small one. He got fired.
posted by clavdivs at 1:26 AM on April 6, 2022
For the record, I meant to write that the Russians probably wouldn't escalate with nukes as long as NATO stays outside of Russian borders and doesn't attack anything inside Russia with standoff weapons and wouldn't need to in order to maintain credible deterrence.
Putting ourselves in a position where a mistake or deception could easily cause such a red line to be crossed may not be wise, however.
posted by wierdo at 2:38 AM on April 6, 2022
Putting ourselves in a position where a mistake or deception could easily cause such a red line to be crossed may not be wise, however.
posted by wierdo at 2:38 AM on April 6, 2022
i'm going to keep slapping that rattlesnake upside the head
after all, that rattlesnakes can bite me and rattlesnakes will bite me are two different things, right?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:22 AM on April 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
after all, that rattlesnakes can bite me and rattlesnakes will bite me are two different things, right?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:22 AM on April 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's possible to catch a rattlesnake without getting bitten. If a rattlesnake enters one's home, it'd be rather silly to give up and move to a new one.
posted by UN at 5:20 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by UN at 5:20 AM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
For the record, I meant to write that the Russians probably wouldn't escalate with nukes as long as NATO stays outside of Russian borders
Isn't Russia's position that Ukraine (indeed, all of the former Soviet Union states) is part of Russia?
posted by mikelieman at 6:01 AM on April 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
Isn't Russia's position that Ukraine (indeed, all of the former Soviet Union states) is part of Russia?
posted by mikelieman at 6:01 AM on April 6, 2022 [2 favorites]
Not as an announced war aim, or justification for invasion. Conquest by gaslight. We're here to save you from yourselves. Surely once all the globalist interlopers, nazis and gender-free undesirables are purged an uncorrupted referendum will reflect the true desire of the people to re-integrate with Russkiy Mir; whether as a nominal client state and protectorate, or an outright possession.
as long as NATO stays outside of Russian borders
The longer this goes on, the more I wonder if some kind of EU Stabilization Force is an option. To just go sit on territory in the west of Ukraine, e.g. up to the whichever north/south highway makes sense; without actively seeking engagement, freeing up Ukrainian forces and deterring retaliation against nearby population centers. As a part of the strategic/nuclear chess-and-tennis match (i.e. outside the logic of regular warfare). It's a special military operation, not a war? Two can play at that game.
Sort of a unilateral peacekeeping mission, I suppose. And structured in a way that its presence there isn't an action by NATO (or otherwise by a force with direct nuclear capability); but an attack on it would mean attacking at least some NATO members' forces (as deployed for the EU mission, and supported by NATO surveillance and etc over the border).
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:14 AM on April 6, 2022 [3 favorites]
as long as NATO stays outside of Russian borders
The longer this goes on, the more I wonder if some kind of EU Stabilization Force is an option. To just go sit on territory in the west of Ukraine, e.g. up to the whichever north/south highway makes sense; without actively seeking engagement, freeing up Ukrainian forces and deterring retaliation against nearby population centers. As a part of the strategic/nuclear chess-and-tennis match (i.e. outside the logic of regular warfare). It's a special military operation, not a war? Two can play at that game.
Sort of a unilateral peacekeeping mission, I suppose. And structured in a way that its presence there isn't an action by NATO (or otherwise by a force with direct nuclear capability); but an attack on it would mean attacking at least some NATO members' forces (as deployed for the EU mission, and supported by NATO surveillance and etc over the border).
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:14 AM on April 6, 2022 [3 favorites]
The longer this goes on, the more I wonder if some kind of EU Stabilization Force is an option. To just go sit on territory in the west of Ukraine, e.g. up to the whichever north/south highway makes sense; without actively seeking engagement, freeing up Ukrainian forces and deterring retaliation against nearby population centers.
Agree with this. A temporary non-NATO (US/EU) special peacekeeping operation to stop genocide is how it could be labelled.
posted by UN at 7:55 AM on April 6, 2022
Agree with this. A temporary non-NATO (US/EU) special peacekeeping operation to stop genocide is how it could be labelled.
posted by UN at 7:55 AM on April 6, 2022
Milley Proposes Rotational Forces in Permanent Bases Across Eastern Europe, U.S. Department of Defense News, Jim Garamone, April 5, 2022 (emphasis mine):
posted by cenoxo at 1:12 PM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
The future of American presence on the eastern flank of NATO may revolve around rotational forces in permanent bases, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House Armed Services Committee today. "Actual presence is always a good deterrent relative to a given threat," said Army Gen. Mark A. Milley. Milley and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III testified before the committee on the fiscal 2023 defense budget request [*].*The full House Armed Services Committee video is at: Defense Secretary & Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Testify on President's 2023 Budget, C-SPAN, April 5, 2022. (Note the subtopic video links in the ‘Points of Interest’ right sidebar, and the CC transcript links below the video window.)
The United States already employs rotational units in the Baltic Republics and Poland. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, more have deployed to the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. At the latest NATO Summit in March, leaders agreed to study the alliance's troop posture in Europe.
Representatives asked Milley about the possibility of American troops based permanently in the front-line states with Russia. "My advice would be to create permanent bases but don't permanently station," he said. This gives the effect of permanence by cycling rotational forces through these permanent bases.
By doing that, the military does not incur the costs of family moves, post exchanges, schools, housing and so forth, Milley said. "So, you cycle expeditionary forces through forward-deployed permanent bases," the chairman said. "And I believe that a lot of our European allies, … are very, very willing to establish permanent bases.”…
posted by cenoxo at 1:12 PM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
A temporary non-NATO (US/EU) special peacekeeping operation to stop genocide is how it could be labelled.
Label it how you like, Putin is going to see it as aggression against Mother Russia and then it's on like Donkey Kong.
posted by dg at 6:10 PM on April 6, 2022
Label it how you like, Putin is going to see it as aggression against Mother Russia and then it's on like Donkey Kong.
posted by dg at 6:10 PM on April 6, 2022
Discussion of art and music is good.
So the Attack on Titan "Final" Season, Part 2 wrapped up* last week, and it has leaned heavily into a mutually assured destruction metaphor. It, uh.. does not paint a rosy picture for what happens when a combative personality gets ahold of the power to end the world.
posted by pwnguin at 7:30 PM on April 6, 2022
So the Attack on Titan "Final" Season, Part 2 wrapped up* last week, and it has leaned heavily into a mutually assured destruction metaphor. It, uh.. does not paint a rosy picture for what happens when a combative personality gets ahold of the power to end the world.
posted by pwnguin at 7:30 PM on April 6, 2022
Representatives asked Milley about the possibility of American troops based permanently in the front-line states with Russia. "My advice would be to create permanent bases but don't permanently station," he said. This gives the effect of permanence by cycling rotational forces through these permanent bases.
By doing that, the military does not incur the costs of family moves, post exchanges, schools, housing and so forth, Milley said. "So, you cycle expeditionary forces through forward-deployed permanent bases," the chairman said.
Left unsaid: it avoids violating the letter of...
Summary - Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation
Section IV covers military issues. In this section, the members of NATO reiterate their statement of 10 December 1996 that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspects of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so.(My emphasis)
NATO also reiterates its 14 March 1997 Statement indicating that in the current and foreseeable security environment, NATO plans to carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, the Alliance will have to rely on adequate infrastructure to allow for reinforcement if necessary.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:34 PM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
From today's Marketplace radio show -- apparently the US buys Russian uranium:
Some U.S. lawmakers, unhappy with American nuclear power plants’ reliance on imported Russian uranium, are pushing for a ban on those purchases. About 16% of the uranium that fuels the electricity-generating facilities comes from Russia, and an additional 30% is imported from Russia’s partner nations Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.posted by pwnguin at 8:39 PM on April 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm concerned that just as the Russians used their claims of Ukrainian atrocities against Russians in the Donbass to justify their invasion, they're laying the groundwork through their claims of Ukrainian responsibility for the Russian atrocities in Bucha and other areas liberated from the Russians, along with their claims of widespread Nazi beliefs in Ukraine to justify a nuclear attack on Kyiv or other Ukrainian targets. Their apparent attempts to lay the groundwork for a false flag chemical or biological attack also worries me for this same reason.
I hope the Chinese have enough sense to look at this situation and tell the Russians that if they start using nuclear weapons in this conflict that they will instantly stop all support for Russia.
posted by Reverend John at 8:12 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
I hope the Chinese have enough sense to look at this situation and tell the Russians that if they start using nuclear weapons in this conflict that they will instantly stop all support for Russia.
posted by Reverend John at 8:12 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
Putin’s War Is a Death Blow to Nuclear Nonproliferation — Russia has shown that an attacker with nuclear arms is fundamentally safe., Foreign Policy Argument; Andreas Umland & Hugo von Essen (analysts at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs [WP]); March 21 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 10:08 PM on April 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
One of the most dangerous and far-reaching repercussions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the subversion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) [WP]— perhaps the most critical multilateral agreement for the survival of humanity. Since its first attack on Ukraine in 2014, Russia’s actions have put the logic of the treaty to prevent the spread of atomic weapons on its head. Because Ukraine once possessed nuclear weapons but gave them up when it joined the NPT in 1994, Russia’s renewed aggression makes it look as if the treaty’s purpose is to keep weak countries defenseless and prey to the nuclear-weapon states. Russian President Vladimir Putin said as much at the start of the war, when he announced that he had put his country’s nuclear forces on alert and issued ominous threats to anyone daring to get in Russia’s way....Details follow in the article.
posted by cenoxo at 10:08 PM on April 8, 2022 [2 favorites]
That is an example of what Wolfgang Pauli called something so dumb that “it's not even wrong”.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:32 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:32 PM on April 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
(If you hit the Foreign Policy paywall – even with an archive.org link – try re-opening Putin’s War Is a Death Blow to Nuclear Nonproliferation in your browser’s incognito mode.)
posted by cenoxo at 7:17 AM on April 9, 2022
posted by cenoxo at 7:17 AM on April 9, 2022
(This Foreign Policy article is also reprinted at The Business Standard. Apologies for the messy cite.)
posted by cenoxo at 7:31 AM on April 9, 2022
posted by cenoxo at 7:31 AM on April 9, 2022
Bloomberg Opinion: Niall Ferguson, April 3, 2022 – Seven Worst-Case Scenarios From the War in Ukraine: Most conflicts end quickly, but this one looks increasingly like it won’t.The repercussions could range from global stagflation to World War III.
[Click ‘No thanks’ on Bloomberg’s sign-in pop-up, an archive.org link also works.]:
posted by cenoxo at 8:38 AM on April 9, 2022
[Click ‘No thanks’ on Bloomberg’s sign-in pop-up, an archive.org link also works.]:
Consider the worst-case scenario.Seven arguments follow in the article.
I have argued here before that the global situation today more closely resembles the 1970s than any other recent period. We are in something like a new cold war. We already had an inflation problem. The war in Ukraine is like the Arab states’ attack on Israel in 1973 or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The economic impact of the war on energy and food prices is creating a risk of stagflation.
But suppose it’s not 1979 but 1939, as the historian Sean McMeekin has argued? Of course, Ukraine’s position is much better than Poland’s in 1939. Western weapons are reaching Ukraine; they did not get to Poland after Nazi Germany’s invasion. Ukraine faces only a threat from Russia; Poland was partitioned between Hitler and Stalin.
On the other hand, if one thinks of World War II as an agglomeration of multiple wars, the parallel starts to look more plausible. The U.S. and its allies must contemplate not one but three geopolitical crises, which could all happen in swift succession, just as the war in Eastern Europe was preceded by Japan’s war against China, and was followed by Hitler’s war on Western Europe in 1940, and Japan’s war on the U.S. and the European empires in Asia in 1941. If China were to launch an invasion of Taiwan next year, and war were to break out between Iran and its increasingly aligned regional foes — the Arab states and Israel — then we might well have to start talking about World War III, rather than just Cold War II.
How would you feel if you seriously thought World War III was approaching?…
posted by cenoxo at 8:38 AM on April 9, 2022
“Could you elaborate?”
The NPT and non-proliferation in general was never "if you don't try to get nuclear weapons, we who have them won't threaten you".
I don't even know where to start about how this is so apparently naive that it's not even credible to claim anyone might ever believe it.
Without that entirely false premise, the argument that non-proliferation has been "turned on its head" and that it will no longer work doesn't follow.
Iran and North Korea know very, very well that if they have nuclear weapons, they will become largely immune from direct military action by other nuclear powers. This is why it takes an enormous amount of both carrot and stick to keep them from R&D and why, thus far, this is just barely working.
No one — absolutely no one — believes in a supposed future benevolence from nuclear powers if one refuses to join their club. There are levels of realism in international relations, but this idea is so unrealistic as to be absolutely fantastical and never has been nor will be the case.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:28 AM on April 9, 2022
The NPT and non-proliferation in general was never "if you don't try to get nuclear weapons, we who have them won't threaten you".
I don't even know where to start about how this is so apparently naive that it's not even credible to claim anyone might ever believe it.
Without that entirely false premise, the argument that non-proliferation has been "turned on its head" and that it will no longer work doesn't follow.
Iran and North Korea know very, very well that if they have nuclear weapons, they will become largely immune from direct military action by other nuclear powers. This is why it takes an enormous amount of both carrot and stick to keep them from R&D and why, thus far, this is just barely working.
No one — absolutely no one — believes in a supposed future benevolence from nuclear powers if one refuses to join their club. There are levels of realism in international relations, but this idea is so unrealistic as to be absolutely fantastical and never has been nor will be the case.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:28 AM on April 9, 2022
Also, Niall Ferguson? Really? Whatever credibility he might once have had, he squandered it long ago. And that's putting it generously.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:34 AM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:34 AM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
How would you feel if you seriously thought World War III was approaching?…
This is a bullshit rhetorical shift that underscores the grifty flavor of Ferguson's punditry. "WWIII" signifies a full nuclear exchange and then living in the ruins as most people understand it, not "another global conventional war that redraws the map on multiple continents."
The latter version is something the defense community has been actively debating for a while now in terms of climate change and resource wars (energy, water) and what happens if globalization retreats.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:47 AM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
This is a bullshit rhetorical shift that underscores the grifty flavor of Ferguson's punditry. "WWIII" signifies a full nuclear exchange and then living in the ruins as most people understand it, not "another global conventional war that redraws the map on multiple continents."
The latter version is something the defense community has been actively debating for a while now in terms of climate change and resource wars (energy, water) and what happens if globalization retreats.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:47 AM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
I personally would be entirely fine if a WWIII was a conventional war with zero or at most one nuclear bomb being used, to everyone's collective horror. If we could defeat Russia through conventional means (which I think by now is becoming glaringly obvious we could), then that would be nice.
The state of the current Russian military for the current battle they are fighting does make one wonder about the state of their nuclear arsenal. It's just... like, who wants to pull the arm on that particular slot machine?
posted by hippybear at 1:59 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
The state of the current Russian military for the current battle they are fighting does make one wonder about the state of their nuclear arsenal. It's just... like, who wants to pull the arm on that particular slot machine?
posted by hippybear at 1:59 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
A conventional WWIII would result in atrocities of the kind we're seeing in Ukraine happening around the world as conflict spreads to untrained forces in peripheral theaters and local scores are settled in the absence of rule of law and suspension of civil society, if you're not indulging in ahistorical fantasy.
Maybe you're looking for the feelings thread?
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:47 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
Maybe you're looking for the feelings thread?
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:47 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
No, I think the atrocities being committed here are horrific and inhumane but also understandable in the context of war. In a way that nuclear devastation can never be. If I had to pick, I know which way i'd go.
This is my feelings thread.
posted by hippybear at 2:52 PM on April 9, 2022
This is my feelings thread.
posted by hippybear at 2:52 PM on April 9, 2022
That's from the perspective of the survivors. Being repeatedly raped in front of your family who are being forced to watch and then murdered might be a worse way to go than vanishing in a flash of light and heat. A conventional world war will spread that around the world, if the last two are prologue. That should be emphasized when considering the desirability of broadening the conflict out of outrage.
Whether or not we can defeat Russia conventionally is irrelevant; because they are a nuclear power which is the reason this thread exists. So people don't have to cope with that in the main war thread. I get it generates some dissonance. (Maybe that wasn't the best modding decision, but here we are...)
Kindly, that is why this is not your feelings thread. We were talking about whether or not Ferguson is to be taken seriously. We are talking about nuclear war. We are not talking about Iron Eagle fantasies.
You are posting a lot about your feelings (many of which I share), and there's a place for that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:01 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
Whether or not we can defeat Russia conventionally is irrelevant; because they are a nuclear power which is the reason this thread exists. So people don't have to cope with that in the main war thread. I get it generates some dissonance. (Maybe that wasn't the best modding decision, but here we are...)
Kindly, that is why this is not your feelings thread. We were talking about whether or not Ferguson is to be taken seriously. We are talking about nuclear war. We are not talking about Iron Eagle fantasies.
You are posting a lot about your feelings (many of which I share), and there's a place for that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:01 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
That said, as we near the two month mark maybe we should have a military/geopolitical review and prognostication thread to talk about the various scenarios short of nuclear war that don't belong in the main thread....It's been long enough for some substantive stuff to start to come out, and there's an understandable urge to talk about all that. I feel it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:12 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:12 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, we're talking about nuclear war. Ferguson is such a latecomer to this conversation as to be laughable. If discussing an alternate to nuclear war is verboten here, then that is a new rule created very recently.
Nuclear war has been so incredibly present for me that it was a comment from me that caused one of the earlier Ukraine threads to be shut down as "poisoned" and also to have been denounced subsequently also as being "poison" in threads.
You will not shut me down here. This is the thread I am here for. Sorry if my "feelings" are tangled up with nuclear war -- I dare you to be in your mid-50s and NOT feel that way.
posted by hippybear at 3:19 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
Nuclear war has been so incredibly present for me that it was a comment from me that caused one of the earlier Ukraine threads to be shut down as "poisoned" and also to have been denounced subsequently also as being "poison" in threads.
You will not shut me down here. This is the thread I am here for. Sorry if my "feelings" are tangled up with nuclear war -- I dare you to be in your mid-50s and NOT feel that way.
posted by hippybear at 3:19 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm in my 40s. I have the cold war brain worms. I understand what you're saying. I dare you to take a breath and listen to someone else for a minute.
Gaming out conventional scenarios is a derail here, by my understanding; although there's enough to say about that for another thread. Maybe there's a lot more to say about that. As how much is there to say about nuclear war, ultimately?
But that's not how this thread started, and not what I thought what we were doing here. It would take the thread in a whole different direction; we'd want to start linking all kinds of recent non-nuclear analysis...
I personally think it should all go in the main thread. But whatever. Ferguson is a schmuck, though. I'll stand by that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:25 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
Gaming out conventional scenarios is a derail here, by my understanding; although there's enough to say about that for another thread. Maybe there's a lot more to say about that. As how much is there to say about nuclear war, ultimately?
But that's not how this thread started, and not what I thought what we were doing here. It would take the thread in a whole different direction; we'd want to start linking all kinds of recent non-nuclear analysis...
I personally think it should all go in the main thread. But whatever. Ferguson is a schmuck, though. I'll stand by that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:25 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
Personally, while I agree that it's appropriate and necessary to weed out of these threads egregious doomsaying and similar stuff which is both inflammatory and psychologically damaging for many people, I also strongly agree that, in a conflict like this one, it makes no sense at all to attempt to discuss the implications of the war while keeping conventional/nuclear separate. I think this is, um, so incoherent and so unrealistic as to be fantastical.
But here we are.
I do respect the feelings of those who feel that it's necessary to make this practical distinction. I'm neutral on this particular disagreement (about whether we ought to be able to discuss a conventional WWIII), but I do think it's just as important in this thread as elsewhere to try to be sensitive of other people's limits regarding how specific and graphic hypotheticals they can stand.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:57 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
But here we are.
I do respect the feelings of those who feel that it's necessary to make this practical distinction. I'm neutral on this particular disagreement (about whether we ought to be able to discuss a conventional WWIII), but I do think it's just as important in this thread as elsewhere to try to be sensitive of other people's limits regarding how specific and graphic hypotheticals they can stand.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:57 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]
Again, and I'm trying not to be a broken record here—bear in mind that not everyone necessarily regards "nuclear war" as the harbinger of the Apocalypse.
There may be people who think (relatively) little about popping off a 10kt-yield nuke, and the authority to do so may have already been delegated to them, e.g. if certain parts of Donbas were to get overrun and Ukrainian forces were to advance on the (1991) Russian border.
The Western fascination with "nuclear weapons" as a class is dangerous. It is not clear that the Russians think about a 10kt tactical nuclear package in an artillery shell, and a 1MT strategic package in an ICBM, as being the same things or even members of the same class of things.
While Westerners tend to view all nuclear weapons as similar, and envision a natural escalation path up them, an alternative view is that they are essentially just increasingly big weapons, part of an otherwise linear escalation.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:10 AM on April 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
There may be people who think (relatively) little about popping off a 10kt-yield nuke, and the authority to do so may have already been delegated to them, e.g. if certain parts of Donbas were to get overrun and Ukrainian forces were to advance on the (1991) Russian border.
The Western fascination with "nuclear weapons" as a class is dangerous. It is not clear that the Russians think about a 10kt tactical nuclear package in an artillery shell, and a 1MT strategic package in an ICBM, as being the same things or even members of the same class of things.
While Westerners tend to view all nuclear weapons as similar, and envision a natural escalation path up them, an alternative view is that they are essentially just increasingly big weapons, part of an otherwise linear escalation.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:10 AM on April 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
That is a good point (and pretty harrowing). And another problem with 'assume a conventional WWIII' scenarios...the current war has made it pretty plain that Russian forces -- at least as constituted for this invasion -- are no longer a peer threat for NATO as deployed vs. on paper; and that may make a direct confrontation even more undesirable from the nuclear viewpoint.
I've been avoiding linking this Peter Zeihan guy because he gives off weird Americanist intellectual dark web Reagan-fan vibes; but he has some content out there that's proved at least partially insightful in terms of predicting this war. Or maybe he's a stopped clock. He's a macro-econ/population studies type who does realist geopolitics, more or less.
Ukraine and Nukes [3/22/22]: "[Russia is] not nearly the threat we always thought they were, and that's a problem...they need to block the [strategic gaps in NATO countries]...we now know that in any direct confrontation between American forces and Russian forces, the Russian forces will be obliterated. And that will leave the Russians with a very difficult choice to make: humiliating, horrible strategic surrender and withdrawal; or escalate to the nuclear question."
Nukes, Massacres & Preparing for the Next War: update after retreat from Kyiv and reporting from Bucha.
Some further recent material, containing some overlapping commentary; he has standard talking points. (No endorsement intended of any weird youtuber's compilation channel.)
Everything Went Wrong for Russia in Ukraine | Peter Zeihan
The End of Odessa, Ukraine? | Peter Zeihan (on the possibility that Russia is regrouping for a grab at Odessa, strangling shipping and bringing Moldova back under threat).
This talk presents the wider geopolitical viewpoint he seems to have been advocating for the last decade or so (in a few different books, with another due out this summer): Changing Character of War [Mar 7, 2022; Ft. Benning Maneuver Warfighter Conference] Here it is cued to the fertilizer and oil discussion that turns to Russia, and the war in Ukraine before returning to global demographics (and then some dubious commentary on U.S. politics at the end).
Also, addressing the "Myth of NATO Provocations." [4/7/22]
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:00 AM on April 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
I've been avoiding linking this Peter Zeihan guy because he gives off weird Americanist intellectual dark web Reagan-fan vibes; but he has some content out there that's proved at least partially insightful in terms of predicting this war. Or maybe he's a stopped clock. He's a macro-econ/population studies type who does realist geopolitics, more or less.
Ukraine and Nukes [3/22/22]: "[Russia is] not nearly the threat we always thought they were, and that's a problem...they need to block the [strategic gaps in NATO countries]...we now know that in any direct confrontation between American forces and Russian forces, the Russian forces will be obliterated. And that will leave the Russians with a very difficult choice to make: humiliating, horrible strategic surrender and withdrawal; or escalate to the nuclear question."
Nukes, Massacres & Preparing for the Next War: update after retreat from Kyiv and reporting from Bucha.
Some further recent material, containing some overlapping commentary; he has standard talking points. (No endorsement intended of any weird youtuber's compilation channel.)
Everything Went Wrong for Russia in Ukraine | Peter Zeihan
The End of Odessa, Ukraine? | Peter Zeihan (on the possibility that Russia is regrouping for a grab at Odessa, strangling shipping and bringing Moldova back under threat).
This talk presents the wider geopolitical viewpoint he seems to have been advocating for the last decade or so (in a few different books, with another due out this summer): Changing Character of War [Mar 7, 2022; Ft. Benning Maneuver Warfighter Conference] Here it is cued to the fertilizer and oil discussion that turns to Russia, and the war in Ukraine before returning to global demographics (and then some dubious commentary on U.S. politics at the end).
Also, addressing the "Myth of NATO Provocations." [4/7/22]
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:00 AM on April 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
"...that will leave the Russians with a very difficult choice to make: humiliating, horrible strategic surrender and withdrawal; or escalate to the nuclear question."
it's pretty clear to me that this scenario has only one plausible outcome and it ain't any form of surrender.
posted by dg at 7:27 PM on April 10, 2022
it's pretty clear to me that this scenario has only one plausible outcome and it ain't any form of surrender.
posted by dg at 7:27 PM on April 10, 2022
Best piece I've seen this week: Mind the Escalation Aversion by Amy Nelson. Nelson argues that over-focus on escalation concerns is needlessly hampering aid to Ukraine. Notably, "public discussion of potential Western moves to support Ukraine is no longer a useful messaging tool...continued public discussion of policy options allows Putin an opportunity to make deterrent threats of escalation in advance."
More to read: here's a blog post from Cheryl Rofer surveying a variety of recently published popular opinion pieces. Rofer argues against Nelson that escalation risks are generally being underestimated.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:11 AM on April 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
More to read: here's a blog post from Cheryl Rofer surveying a variety of recently published popular opinion pieces. Rofer argues against Nelson that escalation risks are generally being underestimated.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:11 AM on April 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
Russia’s non-proliferation disinformation campaign, Abigail Stowe-Thurston, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 22, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 5:27 AM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
…Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Intelligence Service Director Sergei Naryshkin, have repeatedly accused Ukraine’s government of seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear capabilities. These narratives have been spread on Kremlin-friendly media channels and online to rationalize the country’s invasion.Details in the article.
Even though specific claims about Ukraine seeking WMD are blatant falsehoods laced with inconsistencies, they should not be dismissed as inconsequential; they muddy the waters, making the truth more difficult to discern. Consequently, such false claims are wholly consistent with the aims of Russia’s broader disinformation strategy: to undermine global nonproliferation norms and institutions. Furthermore, US and allied intelligence suggests that Russia could take drastic action to follow up on its deceptive claims about Ukraine’s intentions, perhaps even preparing to use chemical weapons in a “false flag” attack after which Russia would try to pin the blame on Kyiv.
The Russian government has implemented—and continues to implement—its disinformation strategy across several different fronts. Russian officials and media outlets have inflated (or completely invented) threats posed by Ukraine that would justify a Russian invasion, including the presence of weapons of mass destruction and attempts to fabricate evidence that Ukraine was prepared to attack Russia. Russian leaders accompanied these efforts to fabricate and spread false narratives with attempts to obscure facts, sow confusion, and interrupt or reduce confidence in factual reporting.
These mutually reinforcing initiatives were executed on a massive scale—what some observers call a “firehose of falsehood”—as Russia unleashed a network of bots, trolls, state-affiliated media organizations, and official spokespeople to flood the information space with false and misleading narratives.
The goal is not to persuade audiences to believe a specific Kremlin-approved version of events, but to challenge observers’ ability to trust any narrative regardless of the supporting evidence—or lack thereof…
…the Russian government does not need to convince domestic or international audiences that a specific narrative is true. It only needs to make truth difficult to discern.
posted by cenoxo at 5:27 AM on April 12, 2022 [3 favorites]
…the Russian government does not need to convince domestic or international audiences that a specific narrative is true. It only needs to make truth difficult to discern.
And if you are watching those 1420 videos you will see that so many Russians have thrown in the towel in this way. "Everyone lies" "There is so much bullshit it is impossible to know what is really going on"
That is a win for the Russian government, flooding the zone.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:57 AM on April 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
And if you are watching those 1420 videos you will see that so many Russians have thrown in the towel in this way. "Everyone lies" "There is so much bullshit it is impossible to know what is really going on"
That is a win for the Russian government, flooding the zone.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:57 AM on April 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
I thought the WMD accusations against Ukraine were a cynical echo of the first Gulf War and how the US lied to the ENTIRE WORLD ON LIVE TELEVISION about Iraq having WMDs and were going to be using them soon. I mean, yes, Russia is lying, but Russia has also used Iraq as the response when anyone says anything about what Russia is doing.
posted by hippybear at 9:48 AM on April 13, 2022
posted by hippybear at 9:48 AM on April 13, 2022
I assume you mean the second Gulf War, since the first was pretty much straight up about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
And although I realize that one has already lost the argument against the propaganda when trying to explain the differences in the two cases, in the case of Iraq you had a country with a recent history of invading it's neighbors,using chemical weapons, and blocking UN inspections of it's suspected WMD programs.
None of this justified the US decision to invade Iraq, but even so the two cases shouldn't be considered comparable by any reasonable observer.
posted by Reverend John at 11:28 AM on April 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
And although I realize that one has already lost the argument against the propaganda when trying to explain the differences in the two cases, in the case of Iraq you had a country with a recent history of invading it's neighbors,using chemical weapons, and blocking UN inspections of it's suspected WMD programs.
None of this justified the US decision to invade Iraq, but even so the two cases shouldn't be considered comparable by any reasonable observer.
posted by Reverend John at 11:28 AM on April 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
That is true, and I was mistaken. Thank you for correcting the record.
posted by hippybear at 11:30 AM on April 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 11:30 AM on April 13, 2022 [2 favorites]
From the main Ukraine war thread:
I wonder if there is any hope of communicating directly with Russian troops or the Russian people about what Putin is getting them into and the emptiness of his justifications for this war.
posted by Reverend John at 9:30 AM on April 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Also, Russia demands US and NATO stop arming Ukraine.Clearly we are entering a dangerous phase of this war, with Russia becoming increasingly desperate. I fear they will resort to a tactical nuclear strike on a Ukrainian target near the NATO borders, possibly at a transportation hub or military base where NATO weapons shipments might be transported or delivered.
The WaPo prints informed speculation that Russia might extend attacks on weapon delivery outside Ukraine, which could end up triggering Article 5 and massively escalate the war.
posted by rikschell at 7:05 AM on April 15
I wonder if there is any hope of communicating directly with Russian troops or the Russian people about what Putin is getting them into and the emptiness of his justifications for this war.
posted by Reverend John at 9:30 AM on April 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
The younger and more online the Russian in question, the more likely they know what's going on. You can get that from the 1420 videos [where do you get your news from], comparing the responses from people of different ages, or here's another vlogger explaining why he just left. It seems like a lot of younger people were already used to circumventing content blocks purely for entertainment purposes (although I guess that also selects for some amount of preexisting Western alignment, and probably reproduces the urban/rural divide).
When it comes to the older generations, I would expect it to be much harder. Both due to the media they use, and the way people are.
My own Mom, who was involved in antiwar and civil rights stuff in the 60s and 70s and knows Dr. Strangelove line by line, is now complaining about the lack of direct intervention by NATO (and Israel!?!) and saying Putin can't be allowed to act with impunity because of nukes; without really wanting to think through what that means.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:58 AM on April 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
When it comes to the older generations, I would expect it to be much harder. Both due to the media they use, and the way people are.
My own Mom, who was involved in antiwar and civil rights stuff in the 60s and 70s and knows Dr. Strangelove line by line, is now complaining about the lack of direct intervention by NATO (and Israel!?!) and saying Putin can't be allowed to act with impunity because of nukes; without really wanting to think through what that means.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:58 AM on April 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
now complaining about the lack of direct intervention by NATO (and Israel!?!) and saying Putin can't be allowed to act with impunity because of nukes
I have both been there for a few weeks now, but also am terrified of how things could unfold if the madman decides to be more insane than usual that day.
posted by hippybear at 3:27 PM on April 15, 2022
I have both been there for a few weeks now, but also am terrified of how things could unfold if the madman decides to be more insane than usual that day.
posted by hippybear at 3:27 PM on April 15, 2022
Broken arrow? It's been reported that sunken Russian cruiser Moskva was carrying two nuclear weapons (cruise missile warheads). It sank in only 50-100m of water, which Reddit claims is reachable for scuba divers with the right equipment.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:14 AM on April 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:14 AM on April 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
Easily. These guys are fun, if you're interested in deep rebreather diving (usually caves if not industrial).
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:31 AM on April 16, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:31 AM on April 16, 2022
And that depth range you could likely do it open circuit on mixed gas, as seen on this black sea dive [90s techno warning] to the wreck of the Gagara sub off Crimea, which is at 60M. But rebreathers are less clumsy.
Broken arrow aside, that ship is also a mass grave.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:56 AM on April 16, 2022
Broken arrow aside, that ship is also a mass grave.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:56 AM on April 16, 2022
CNN's Jim Sciutto on Twitter
(Canadian lawyer) Michael Bond on Twitter does a credible job of backtracking the rumor. Basically, someone said there 'could have been' nukes, and if there were it was usually two.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:32 AM on April 16, 2022 [4 favorites]
New: US does not believe sunken Russian cruiser Moskva was carrying nuclear weapons, according to latest US intel assessment two senior US officials tell me. US has been monitoring Russian forces for unusual movement of nuclear weapons & have not detected such movements to date
(Canadian lawyer) Michael Bond on Twitter does a credible job of backtracking the rumor. Basically, someone said there 'could have been' nukes, and if there were it was usually two.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:32 AM on April 16, 2022 [4 favorites]
Would Russia Use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon in Ukraine? Al Mauroni [*], Modern War Institute (at West Point) Opinion, 03.16.22:
*Director of the US Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies; author of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the U.S. Government’s Policy (2016); and writer at War On The Rocks.
posted by cenoxo at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
Recent nuclear saber rattling by Russian President Vladimir Putin is forcing the West to confront a question that even many national security professionals have been able to ignore for decades: Would Putin actually use tactical nuclear weapons? More specifically, would he order a tactical nuclear strike on Ukrainian military forces out of frustration that his military forces have failed to achieve their objectives? Assessing that possibility requires a reevaluation of certain assumptions that is long overdue.Reasons why follow in the article.
In the current context, Putin could view nuclear weapons use as necessary to ensure Russian national security interests are not derailed by overt Western military support to Ukrainian efforts—which would be in line with stated Russian doctrine. One course of action could be a so-called demonstration strike with a single low-yield nuclear detonation in Ukraine or over the Black Sea to serve as a dramatic warning that resistance to Russia’s military campaign must be ended, backed by the compellent threat of further tactical nuclear attacks. There is no question that Putin has already signaled the use of nuclear weapons as an option, and he has stated his (alleged) concern about nuclear weapons being stationed in Ukraine for use against Russia.
Aside from the question of whether a Russian nuclear strike is credible as an aspect of future military operations in Ukraine, there are ample reasons that prudent policy must consider the threat of Russian nuclear weapons use as credible….
*Director of the US Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies; author of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the U.S. Government’s Policy (2016); and writer at War On The Rocks.
posted by cenoxo at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
I wonder if there is any possibility to get some of the few large countries that still support Russia to make a statement, publicly or privately, that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would make Russia a pariah. I'd hope India or China would recognize that the normalization of the use of tactical nuclear weapons could be very harmful for their interests too.
posted by Reverend John at 4:02 PM on April 16, 2022
posted by Reverend John at 4:02 PM on April 16, 2022
You know, based on how well this war has gone for Putin, I think it is safe to assume the Russian nuclear stockpile may not be in the best state of readiness. But is that 10% functional, or 10% bad? Does Russia even know? Does Russia even have the confidence in its own ICBM system's maintenance to feel safe firing them at anyone?
On some level I want the entire willing world to assemble their forces and just all move into Ukraine to push out Russia. Tear off the fucking band-aid and let's see what happens.
I don't know exactly how many sides the die should have if we were to roll one in this manner, but I think the odds are less horrific than utter global devastation, especially if responses can be prevented.
posted by hippybear at 3:19 PM on April 17, 2022
On some level I want the entire willing world to assemble their forces and just all move into Ukraine to push out Russia. Tear off the fucking band-aid and let's see what happens.
I don't know exactly how many sides the die should have if we were to roll one in this manner, but I think the odds are less horrific than utter global devastation, especially if responses can be prevented.
posted by hippybear at 3:19 PM on April 17, 2022
Poll: Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling is rattling neighbors’ nerves, Lauren Sukin & Alexander Lanoszka, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 15, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 4:28 PM on April 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
…How has the war reshaped Central and Eastern Europeans’ perceptions of nuclear risk? In March, we polled citizens in Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia with the goal of learning more about their thoughts on nuclear weapons.[1] Our findings paint a mixed picture. Citizens fear the nuclear implications of Russia’s war in Ukraine, abhor nuclear weapons, and worry about Russian nuclear safeguards. At the same time, they want their governments to acquire nuclear weapons.More in the article.
…[discussion of poll results]…
[1] We conducted an online public opinion survey using Lucid’s Marketplace platform in Romania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. 1,385 people responded. The sample is nationally representative (using block quotas on age and gender) in Romania and Poland but not in the Baltic countries. The samples were balanced on key demographics and attitudes, such as political ideology. Our results control for these variables.
posted by cenoxo at 4:28 PM on April 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
Federation of American Scientists > Status of World Nuclear Forces – Who owns the world's nukes?
posted by cenoxo at 4:58 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: nine countries possessed roughly 12,700 warheads as of early-2022.Stats, tables, graphs, and analysis follow in the article.
Approximately 90 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States, who each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles; no other nuclear-armed state sees a need for more than a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security.
Globally, the overall inventory of nuclear weapons is declining, but the pace of reductions is slowing compared with the past 30 years. Moreover, these reductions are happening only because the United States and Russia are still dismantling previously retired warheads.
In contrast to the overall inventory of nuclear weapons, the number of warheads in global military stockpiles––which comprises warheads assigned to operational forces––is increasing once again….
posted by cenoxo at 4:58 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
(I see that OP justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow linked this FAS article at the top of this thread, my apologies. It’s worth repeating, though.)
posted by cenoxo at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by cenoxo at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
I've been living with this dread for over 50 years and thought it was all in the past, barring some extra-governmental possible one-off. But now, it's all back, and I am very very resentful about it and just sort of want it to be over one way or another. Sorry, it's an unpopular opinion, I know.
posted by hippybear at 5:18 PM on April 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 5:18 PM on April 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
On some level I want the entire willing world to assemble their forces and just all move into Ukraine to push out Russia. Tear off the fucking band-aid and let's see what happens.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens...
Randy Newman, "Political Science"
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:26 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Let's drop the big one and see what happens...
Randy Newman, "Political Science"
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:26 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Literally not what I'm saying... I'm more curious, would THEY actually do it if we went into Ukraine? It's not like Putin is ignorant of the stakes.
posted by hippybear at 5:55 PM on April 17, 2022
posted by hippybear at 5:55 PM on April 17, 2022
“I don't know exactly how many sides the die should have if we were to roll one in this manner, but I think the odds are less horrific than utter global devastation, especially if responses can be prevented.”
The (non)readiness argument — that many of Russia's missiles and warheads aren't functional — has the fundamental flaw that MAD requires truly massive redundancy. Also, these warheads are so much more powerful: ranging from 150 to 4,000 kilotons compared to the ~12 kilotons used in WWII. A single ICBM has 6-10 MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles).
In an all-out strategic strike scenario — which is the escalatory risk — if Russia launched, say, 300 missiles, with a 50% failure rate (surely much too high), each with an average of 3 warheads with a 50% failure rate, that results in 225 warheads still functional. Let's say that 10% of those are intercepted (much too optimistic), that leaves about 200 warheads. Let's be optimistic and assume the average yield for those 200 warheads is only 300 kilotons.
That gives a result of 200 targets hit with weapons that are each about 15x as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Let's say half of those 200 targets are within large urban areas — that's 100 European and North American cities effectively destroyed with possibly around 4 million people killed instantly and another 20 million shortly thereafter.
Then there would be the hundreds of millions of deaths that would result within a year or so from massive global shortages of food and medicine and the regional wars that would likely follow.
After that, who knows? I'd guess a loss of 20% of the remaining world population within ten years, so about 1 billion deaths, for maybe 1.5 billion total.
Also, these numbers don't include the US's retaliation, nor the nuclear weapons fired by other nuclear powers in the (in some cases, opportunistic) confusion that follows. I'd suppose that would eventually probably double or triple, at least, the casualties I've estimated. So maybe half the global population dead within ten years. And all this speculation has been very optimistic.
These are the numbers of everyday lives, ended in unimaginable misery, we're talking about when people gamble that, well, if we declare all-out war against Russia, it probably won't resort to nuclear weapons and, if it does, half of them won't work.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:50 PM on April 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
The (non)readiness argument — that many of Russia's missiles and warheads aren't functional — has the fundamental flaw that MAD requires truly massive redundancy. Also, these warheads are so much more powerful: ranging from 150 to 4,000 kilotons compared to the ~12 kilotons used in WWII. A single ICBM has 6-10 MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles).
In an all-out strategic strike scenario — which is the escalatory risk — if Russia launched, say, 300 missiles, with a 50% failure rate (surely much too high), each with an average of 3 warheads with a 50% failure rate, that results in 225 warheads still functional. Let's say that 10% of those are intercepted (much too optimistic), that leaves about 200 warheads. Let's be optimistic and assume the average yield for those 200 warheads is only 300 kilotons.
That gives a result of 200 targets hit with weapons that are each about 15x as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Let's say half of those 200 targets are within large urban areas — that's 100 European and North American cities effectively destroyed with possibly around 4 million people killed instantly and another 20 million shortly thereafter.
Then there would be the hundreds of millions of deaths that would result within a year or so from massive global shortages of food and medicine and the regional wars that would likely follow.
After that, who knows? I'd guess a loss of 20% of the remaining world population within ten years, so about 1 billion deaths, for maybe 1.5 billion total.
Also, these numbers don't include the US's retaliation, nor the nuclear weapons fired by other nuclear powers in the (in some cases, opportunistic) confusion that follows. I'd suppose that would eventually probably double or triple, at least, the casualties I've estimated. So maybe half the global population dead within ten years. And all this speculation has been very optimistic.
These are the numbers of everyday lives, ended in unimaginable misery, we're talking about when people gamble that, well, if we declare all-out war against Russia, it probably won't resort to nuclear weapons and, if it does, half of them won't work.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:50 PM on April 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
“Literally not what I'm saying... I'm more curious, would THEY actually do it if we went into Ukraine? It's not like Putin is ignorant of the stakes.”
This has been said before, but a war between NATO and Russia couldn't be limited to Ukraine. Both Russia and NATO have critical facilities on their own territory that would necessarily be utililized in such a conflict. So Russia and Polish and Romanian and Baltic and Turkish territory and cities would be in play. And NATO would win, overwhelmingly.
So, Russia, with its southern and eastern cities already bombed and its forces mostly incapacitated or destroyed, is going to do . . . what?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:58 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
This has been said before, but a war between NATO and Russia couldn't be limited to Ukraine. Both Russia and NATO have critical facilities on their own territory that would necessarily be utililized in such a conflict. So Russia and Polish and Romanian and Baltic and Turkish territory and cities would be in play. And NATO would win, overwhelmingly.
So, Russia, with its southern and eastern cities already bombed and its forces mostly incapacitated or destroyed, is going to do . . . what?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:58 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
I am entirely aware of everything you just said, Ivan. Truly. Thanks for laying it all out, but really, I'm fully aware of what I'm talking about. That's why Ukraine is being destroyed day by day.
posted by hippybear at 7:37 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:37 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
I figured you were, but maybe to others it's new.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:38 PM on April 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:38 PM on April 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Putin has threatened nuclear action. Here's what Russia is actually capable of., NPR - All Things Considered [with transcript], March 8, 2022. NPR's Sarah McCammon asks Hans Kristensen [FAS bio], director of the Nuclear Information Project [FAS page] at the Federation of American Scientists, what we know about Russia's nuclear stockpile and capabilities:
For more details about Russian nuclear weapons, see the following report:
posted by cenoxo at 7:51 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
…More in the interview/transcript. Let’s hope saber rattling and flag waving doesn’t drown out reason and diplomacy.
MCCAMMON: So what are Russia's nuclear capabilities three decades after the Cold War?
KRISTENSEN: The best estimate, I would say, is that they have just about 4,500 nuclear warheads in their military stockpile. They have some others that have been retired and await dismantlement. But those are the ones they could actually use.
MCCAMMON: That's a big number. It sounds like a lot. What is the impact of that? What does that mean?
KRISTENSEN: Well, it's split between sort of long-range strategic forces - that's the focus of it - that can be used in an exchange with the United States long-distance. But they also have a large inventory of short-range, so-called tactical nuclear weapons that are intended for use sort of locally, more in regional scenarios.
MCCAMMON: It's been a long time since the Cold War era. Do we know what kind of shape these weapons are in?
KRISTENSEN: Yeah, they're fully operational or fully functioning. The strategic forces are, most of them, deployed on their launchers. But the tactical weapons, they're in central storage - or at least the warhead's in central storage. So if Russia decided to use nuclear weapons in a scenario in Europe, it would first have to haul these warheads out and bring them to the launchers. But despite Russia's threats, the intelligence community has not seen any changes in the way that the Russians operate their nuclear forces. So it's a verbal threat, but they don't see any movement on the ground that indicate he's actually making preparations for that.
MCCAMMON: If Russia were to deploy nuclear weapons, you've talked about two different types. What type do you think they would be?
KRISTENSEN: Oh, of course, they will start small if it came to that. And then depending on where things going, they could turn up the heat. And if it goes all the way, it would reach strategic force levels, and that would be the big one….
For more details about Russian nuclear weapons, see the following report:
BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTSNote the subject/filter/pdf tabs across the top of the report.
2022, VOL. 78, NO. 2, 98–121
https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2038907
NUCLEAR NOTEBOOK
Russian nuclear weapons, 2022
Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda
posted by cenoxo at 7:51 PM on April 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Call me an armchair general if you must, but I know enough to say with confidence that the American way of war, which is how NATO fights, calls for air superiority. No ifs ands or buts.
Air superiority doctrine -- and absolute practicalities given the aircraft currently in service, even if you wanted to ignore doctrine due to the nuclear confrontation risk -- require that the first mission performed is suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD). That means striking ground based radars and launchers that are within Russia.
It is not possible to confront Russia in Ukraine without attacking targets over the border. So understand that is what calling for NATO throw Russia out of Ukraine means -- at least air attacks on Russia itself.
Let's say after a warning Moscow responds by nuking Kyiv. Now what? The world teeters on the brink, Moscow's demands if anything stiffen and the Ukrainian people have suffered a more unspeakable tragedy than a ten year proxy war could inflict in a moment.
I understand all the feelings but the escalatory ladder goes nowhere good.
War on the Rocks: the False Allure of Escalation Dominance
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:10 PM on April 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
Air superiority doctrine -- and absolute practicalities given the aircraft currently in service, even if you wanted to ignore doctrine due to the nuclear confrontation risk -- require that the first mission performed is suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD). That means striking ground based radars and launchers that are within Russia.
It is not possible to confront Russia in Ukraine without attacking targets over the border. So understand that is what calling for NATO throw Russia out of Ukraine means -- at least air attacks on Russia itself.
Let's say after a warning Moscow responds by nuking Kyiv. Now what? The world teeters on the brink, Moscow's demands if anything stiffen and the Ukrainian people have suffered a more unspeakable tragedy than a ten year proxy war could inflict in a moment.
I understand all the feelings but the escalatory ladder goes nowhere good.
War on the Rocks: the False Allure of Escalation Dominance
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:10 PM on April 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Several deleted. Hippybear, please dial back the commenting here. You've stated your point of view, and that's fine, but now you are repeatedly pulling the conversation back around to your feelings about it, dominating the discussion flow, and taking a lot more space than other commenters. I understand the feeling of anxiety about this ... many of us share that acutely, but do try to be mindful about over-commenting, and not become dug in here. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:06 AM on April 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:06 AM on April 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
Call me an armchair general if you must, but I know enough to say with confidence that the American way of war, which is how NATO fights, calls for air superiority. No ifs ands or buts.
Air supremacy, in point of fact (also known as air dominance). The difference is that in air superiority, you win every dogfight; in air supremacy, the other side can't even keep their planes in the air long enough to have dogfights.
And the primary way to get from superiority to supremacy is, as noted, SEAD.
posted by Etrigan at 6:08 AM on April 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Air supremacy, in point of fact (also known as air dominance). The difference is that in air superiority, you win every dogfight; in air supremacy, the other side can't even keep their planes in the air long enough to have dogfights.
And the primary way to get from superiority to supremacy is, as noted, SEAD.
posted by Etrigan at 6:08 AM on April 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
A lot of that nomenclature is more important for peacetime powerpoints; arguably superiority is the minimum needed to allow ground forces to fight as expected and without taking unsustainable losses, supremacy would be the ultimate aim (though US forces are definitely accustomed to it).
The main idea was that SEAD will be the first thing that happens if any NATO (or EU) force intervenes, and it cannot be confined to Ukraine's borders. (And the Western SEAD capability is at something of an ebb right now too, though it's improving again.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:38 AM on April 18, 2022
The main idea was that SEAD will be the first thing that happens if any NATO (or EU) force intervenes, and it cannot be confined to Ukraine's borders. (And the Western SEAD capability is at something of an ebb right now too, though it's improving again.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:38 AM on April 18, 2022
A lot of that nomenclature is more important for peacetime powerpoints
Okay, I'll just say this and then be done: I have been in the room with generals (non-armchair variety) when someone says "air superiority" and a great hullabaloo ensues, and while there may have been a PowerPoint slide showing at the time, it wasn't in peacetime. Air supremacy isAmerican NATO doctrine. Air supremacy requires SEAD. Air supremacy cannot be won by the Air Force alone. Air supremacy includes making sure that there are no drones reporting friendly ground movements. Air supremacy involves joint operations all the way down to direct fire effects, which is the nomenclatureistic way of saying somewhere between a dozen and a hundred people in American NATO uniforms standing in the actual place where the other side used to have an operational anti-aircraft battery saying into their radio words to the effect of "Site is secured. Threat is neutralized."
I am agreeing with you. I am also clarifying as to why, ifthe US NATO goes into Ukraine, it means the US NATO going into Russia.
posted by Etrigan at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
Okay, I'll just say this and then be done: I have been in the room with generals (non-armchair variety) when someone says "air superiority" and a great hullabaloo ensues, and while there may have been a PowerPoint slide showing at the time, it wasn't in peacetime. Air supremacy is
I am agreeing with you. I am also clarifying as to why, if
posted by Etrigan at 7:13 AM on April 18, 2022 [9 favorites]
Hah, that hullabaloo sounds very plausible from what I've read and other people's stories. (It's interesting that baseline force protection is now thought of as requiring supremacy though.) I'm not arguing with you either -- and this probably isn't the place to dig into whether complete supremacy is achievable up against Russia's border (where do you stop? etc), or what it would look like if NATO forces had to fight with less complete dominance (even after crossing the border).
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:25 AM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Everything that Etrigan notes is consistent with my understanding of US doctrine as well, but I would just caveat it by saying that there's considerable, er, interest in some corners of the academic-defense-industrial complex about how one would fight a ground war without effective SEAD and ensuing air supremacy.
In part because right now, there is a significant gap in air defenses both on the US/NATO and "near-peer adversary" (cough Russia/China cough—although as many have pointed out, there was what appears to have been a significant overestimation of Russian capabilities by the US defense complex) sides.
For instance, there aren't many effective defense systems against high-speed cruise missiles or ballistic missiles capable of terminal maneuvers (those are the two categories that generally comprise "hypersonics", which is a term that I don't really like). Small UAVs also tend to exploit a "low and slow" air defense gap, have very small radar signatures, and can cost significantly more to shoot down with a traditional SAM system than they cost to produce. The "Switchblade" drones reportedly given to Ukraine by the US are as close to an Iain M. Banks "knife missile" as you are likely to encounter in reality; they allow you to basically conduct targeted strikes on high-value targets (let's not call them assassinations... but really, assassinations) with impunity on an opposing force unless they're continually sitting in a bunker.
So anyone contemplating a ground war today pretty much needs to assume they will be dealing with those threats on an ongoing basis, not just as part of some initial suppressive offense. This may not be true in 5 or 10 years (lord knows enough money and effort are being thrown against the problem by many parties), but it's largely the case right now.
I am personally of the opinion that there are steps NATO could take that would help the Ukrainians without necessarily conducting strikes on Russia proper. As we have seen, logistics are a major part of a party's ability to wage war; logistics in the US military are largely provided by (or with the substantial aid of) contractor support. You can deploy contractors where you can't send actual green-suiters for various reasons. NATO countries located close to Russia could also start running constant, aggressive air patrols and stimulate Russian air defenses. (You can do this with balloons dangling the right shape of aluminized fabric, among other ways.) Every hour that the Russians fly an aircraft in order to eyeball a NATO aircraft, or inspect a balloon to see what that weird radar signature is, is an hour of flight time that they can't use in Ukraine. Combined with effective sanctions, it will accelerate the degradation of their operable fleet.
If you can't break the machine with a sledgehammer, pouring sand in the gears will also do the same thing, just more slowly. We've got a lot of sand.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:45 PM on April 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
In part because right now, there is a significant gap in air defenses both on the US/NATO and "near-peer adversary" (cough Russia/China cough—although as many have pointed out, there was what appears to have been a significant overestimation of Russian capabilities by the US defense complex) sides.
For instance, there aren't many effective defense systems against high-speed cruise missiles or ballistic missiles capable of terminal maneuvers (those are the two categories that generally comprise "hypersonics", which is a term that I don't really like). Small UAVs also tend to exploit a "low and slow" air defense gap, have very small radar signatures, and can cost significantly more to shoot down with a traditional SAM system than they cost to produce. The "Switchblade" drones reportedly given to Ukraine by the US are as close to an Iain M. Banks "knife missile" as you are likely to encounter in reality; they allow you to basically conduct targeted strikes on high-value targets (let's not call them assassinations... but really, assassinations) with impunity on an opposing force unless they're continually sitting in a bunker.
So anyone contemplating a ground war today pretty much needs to assume they will be dealing with those threats on an ongoing basis, not just as part of some initial suppressive offense. This may not be true in 5 or 10 years (lord knows enough money and effort are being thrown against the problem by many parties), but it's largely the case right now.
I am personally of the opinion that there are steps NATO could take that would help the Ukrainians without necessarily conducting strikes on Russia proper. As we have seen, logistics are a major part of a party's ability to wage war; logistics in the US military are largely provided by (or with the substantial aid of) contractor support. You can deploy contractors where you can't send actual green-suiters for various reasons. NATO countries located close to Russia could also start running constant, aggressive air patrols and stimulate Russian air defenses. (You can do this with balloons dangling the right shape of aluminized fabric, among other ways.) Every hour that the Russians fly an aircraft in order to eyeball a NATO aircraft, or inspect a balloon to see what that weird radar signature is, is an hour of flight time that they can't use in Ukraine. Combined with effective sanctions, it will accelerate the degradation of their operable fleet.
If you can't break the machine with a sledgehammer, pouring sand in the gears will also do the same thing, just more slowly. We've got a lot of sand.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:45 PM on April 18, 2022 [7 favorites]
there's considerable, er, interest in some corners of the academic-defense-industrial complex about how one would fight a ground war without effective SEAD and ensuing air supremacy....So anyone contemplating a ground war today pretty much needs to assume they will be dealing with those threats on an ongoing basis, not just as part of some initial suppressive offense. This may not be true in 5 or 10 years (lord knows enough money and effort are being thrown against the problem by many parties), but it's largely the case right now.
I found this presentation to verge on cringey, but I know Col. Antal's been around the defense establishment for a while; here's his recent Ft. Benning talk cued to his discussion of the vulnerability of current command and control to top attack by drone and etc.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:09 PM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
I found this presentation to verge on cringey, but I know Col. Antal's been around the defense establishment for a while; here's his recent Ft. Benning talk cued to his discussion of the vulnerability of current command and control to top attack by drone and etc.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:09 PM on April 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
(if the link doesn't work right try 15m ["mask or die"] and 1h8m [looking forward] .)
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:18 PM on April 18, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:18 PM on April 18, 2022
Here are two recently updated U.S. Congressional reports focusing on nuclear weapon capabilities of the United States and Russia:
posted by cenoxo at 4:15 PM on April 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Doctrine, Forces, and ModernizationThe reports’ table of contents are hyperlinked internally. Footnotes are included, but there’s no index. More about author Amy F. Woolf.
Updated April 18, 2022
Amy F. Woolf, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45861
PDF, 46pp.
Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons [Tactical]
Updated March 7, 2022
Amy F. Woolf, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL32572
PDF, 48pp
posted by cenoxo at 4:15 PM on April 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
New York Times
“So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.”
According to a Pentagon statement yesterday, NATO has been providing aircraft "platforms and parts" to Ukraine. Platforms means whole aircraft. "Platform is an airplane in this case. They have received additional aircraft and aircraft parts to help them, you know, get more aircraft in the air."
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, "officially Ukraine did not receive new aircraft from partners." They actually said the word officially.
This could mean helicopters. It could mean the MIG-29 deal was completed, or is back under discussion. It could be a vague nothingburger. It certainly means NATO has stopped making public statements about exactly what help it's providing then imaging a red line against providing help. Good.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:27 AM on April 20, 2022 [2 favorites]
“So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.”
According to a Pentagon statement yesterday, NATO has been providing aircraft "platforms and parts" to Ukraine. Platforms means whole aircraft. "Platform is an airplane in this case. They have received additional aircraft and aircraft parts to help them, you know, get more aircraft in the air."
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, "officially Ukraine did not receive new aircraft from partners." They actually said the word officially.
This could mean helicopters. It could mean the MIG-29 deal was completed, or is back under discussion. It could be a vague nothingburger. It certainly means NATO has stopped making public statements about exactly what help it's providing then imaging a red line against providing help. Good.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:27 AM on April 20, 2022 [2 favorites]
Reuter's Idrees Ali on Twitter
April 20 (Reuters) - Russia said on Wednesday it has test-launched its new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, a strategic weapon President Vladimir Putin said had no analogues elsewhere and would provide food for thought for those who try to threaten Russia.posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:24 AM on April 20, 2022
• Arms Control Implications of the War in Ukraine (I), Michael Krepon, Arms Control Wonk, April 5, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 3:47 PM on April 20, 2022 [4 favorites]
Let’s start with the good news. We’re not out of the woods yet, but the war in Ukraine, like those preceding it, is again demonstrating that nuclear weapons are not useful in warfare. If Vladimir Putin authorizes a mushroom cloud in this war, he would lose more than he would gain. If he doesn’t, the norm of No Use will be reaffirmed. And arms control will have a future….• Arms Control Implications of the War in Ukraine (II), Michael Krepon, Arms Control Wonk, April 11, 2022:
No good story in the field of arms control is properly appreciated, especially the Nonproliferation Treaty. And no good story comes without a dark under-shadow. (Think of the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing, followed by even more testing underground.)More in the articles.
Amidst the unrelievedly tragic news coming out of Ukraine, there is an important positive result in the making. It’s that wars of aggression may be foiled — even when the aggressor possesses nuclear weapons and the victimized state does not.
Another positive story, despite the carnage, loss of life, and massive refugee flows, is that the seven-decade-long track record of No Use of nuclear weapons in warfare may well be extended. It’s not over yet, but there is reason to hope that these symbolically weighted and supremely dangerous weapons will again prove to be unusable on the battlefield…
posted by cenoxo at 3:47 PM on April 20, 2022 [4 favorites]
> RS-28 Sarmat Russian super-heavy ICBM (Wikipedia).
RC-135 Jets Flew Unprecedented Mission To Spy On Russia’s New ICBM - Having two Cobra Ball spy planes observe the test of the new Sarmat ICBM is, by any measure, an exceptionally unique occurrence., Thomas Newdick, The War Zone, Apr 20, 2022:
posted by cenoxo at 6:20 PM on April 20, 2022
RC-135 Jets Flew Unprecedented Mission To Spy On Russia’s New ICBM - Having two Cobra Ball spy planes observe the test of the new Sarmat ICBM is, by any measure, an exceptionally unique occurrence., Thomas Newdick, The War Zone, Apr 20, 2022:
In a highly unusual move, a pair of U.S. Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball intelligence-gathering aircraft flew together toward the east coast of Russia today. The reason for the two-aircraft mission was the first full-scale test launch of Russia’s new RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), one of the six ‘super weapons’ that were showcased by President Vladimir Putin back in March 2018.More in the article.
[Click to show/hide details:]
…
The two Cobra Balls were observing the Sarmat’s multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) test warheads as they returned to Earth on a designated area at the Kura Proving Ground on the Kamchatka Peninsula, in the Russian Far East.
…
The immediate conclusion of today’s flight seems to be that U.S. intelligence officials were so desperate to collect data on this particular first-of-its-kind ICBM test that they sent two RC-135S aircraft to monitor it.
…
In this instance, the Sarmat ICBM is a big deal, being an entirely new strategic nuclear delivery system that is likely to form the backbone of the Kremlin’s silo-based deterrent in the years to come.
Today’s test launch saw the Sarmat launched from Plesetsk, a cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk Region that’s used both missile tests and space launches. While previous tests had evaluated portions of the system and the ejection procedure, the test today was the first full-scale, end-to-end launch including MIRV deployment.
…
The new missile is planned as the successor to the Cold War-era R-36M Voyevoda ICBM, known to NATO as SS-18 Satan. The Sarmat is accordingly known as SS-X-30 Satan 2 by NATO.
…
Since the invasion began, Russian officials have also not shied away from talking about nuclear weapons, Putin himself announcing that he was putting his country’s nuclear forces on high alert in the first few days of the campaign.
…it’s not unreasonable to assume that today’s test of a new ICBM is also intended as a signal to the West of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and its continued modernization.
posted by cenoxo at 6:20 PM on April 20, 2022
I don't doubt that it was intended as a signal, but was it demonstration of readiness, or the one finished one he had and he thought it might be scary to look at?
All these moments of not-knowing. Like one of those russian nesting dolls. Is THIS as far in as it goes? Oh, not yet, there's more? Ah, I see. And how does THIS one twist to open?
posted by hippybear at 6:37 PM on April 20, 2022
All these moments of not-knowing. Like one of those russian nesting dolls. Is THIS as far in as it goes? Oh, not yet, there's more? Ah, I see. And how does THIS one twist to open?
posted by hippybear at 6:37 PM on April 20, 2022
I don't think it's quite that mysterious. If you google Sarmat serial production you'll find official Russian press releases reflecting that its introduction kept being put off for more testing, though the necessary upgrades to manufacturing facilities were complete a few years ago.
And given the sanctions and the global electronic supply issues, it's probably going to be difficult to churn a bunch out rapidly right now.
The existing ICBM forces are more than enough to worry about.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:44 PM on April 20, 2022
And given the sanctions and the global electronic supply issues, it's probably going to be difficult to churn a bunch out rapidly right now.
The existing ICBM forces are more than enough to worry about.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:44 PM on April 20, 2022
The existing ICBM forces are more than enough to worry about.
Right, which is why I feel like this is another shirtless-on-horseback-photo thing for Putin. It's meaningless, but he thinks it makes him look strong
posted by hippybear at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2022
Right, which is why I feel like this is another shirtless-on-horseback-photo thing for Putin. It's meaningless, but he thinks it makes him look strong
posted by hippybear at 7:47 PM on April 20, 2022
Also, did we have to code name the damn thing Satan? How about 'Shitbag?'
"Today Vladimir Putin proudly announced the successful test launch of Russia's most advanced Shitbag missile...."
From the main thread: Hopefully Ukraine will get some of the newer HIMARS systems as well. These are the future of mobile artillery.
I've been wondering if the reluctance around supplying HIMARS (or the bigger and longer-range version) might be that having a large numbers of surface to surface missiles flying around near the border (or over it) could lead some Russian early warning systems to tragically misunderstand what's going on; or just be overwhelmed (you don't really want your increasingly threatened nuclear adversary to be unable to classify launches...).
Although I guess with rocket artillery you don't really know until it lands either way.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:49 AM on April 21, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Today Vladimir Putin proudly announced the successful test launch of Russia's most advanced Shitbag missile...."
From the main thread: Hopefully Ukraine will get some of the newer HIMARS systems as well. These are the future of mobile artillery.
I've been wondering if the reluctance around supplying HIMARS (or the bigger and longer-range version) might be that having a large numbers of surface to surface missiles flying around near the border (or over it) could lead some Russian early warning systems to tragically misunderstand what's going on; or just be overwhelmed (you don't really want your increasingly threatened nuclear adversary to be unable to classify launches...).
Although I guess with rocket artillery you don't really know until it lands either way.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:49 AM on April 21, 2022 [1 favorite]
Although I guess with rocket artillery you don't really know until it lands either way.
Russia has been firing off plenty of ordinance that can be equipped with nuclear warheads already, for example the Искандер (SS-26 Stone)
posted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on April 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
Russia has been firing off plenty of ordinance that can be equipped with nuclear warheads already, for example the Искандер (SS-26 Stone)
posted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on April 21, 2022 [2 favorites]
I figured, so you don't know what it's armed with until it lands. But, they presumably know what they fired; and it's headed away from them.
I was wondering if maybe the West was reluctant to supply rockets to Ukraine that would be fired towards Russia or maybe into Russia, either out of potential for a false early warning or propagandized missile remnants.
Sounds like whatever concerns there were are starting to be overcome, which is good.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:36 PM on April 21, 2022
I was wondering if maybe the West was reluctant to supply rockets to Ukraine that would be fired towards Russia or maybe into Russia, either out of potential for a false early warning or propagandized missile remnants.
Sounds like whatever concerns there were are starting to be overcome, which is good.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:36 PM on April 21, 2022
Is there any understanding of what the Russian command 'generals' think the response from the west would be if there was a tactical nuke? There is the Lavrov and Putin saber rattling which is disturbing but is hopefully (evil) bluster. There is not really an actual wired 'button', does the chain of command have a grasp of the history and reality of a nuke strike? Is that a question that can even be realistically asked?
(edit: ok, first link.. but still)
posted by sammyo at 5:12 AM on April 27, 2022
(edit: ok, first link.. but still)
posted by sammyo at 5:12 AM on April 27, 2022
« Older Wry observations about life in the Glizglorb... | The importance and credibility of gobbledegook Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Focus on issues relevant to the Russo-Ukrainian war. This thread is intended in part to take stress off of the Ukraine threads.
- In the tradition of Dr. Strangelove, jokes are good. They are a way of remaining human despite inhumane subject matter.
- Discussion of art and music is good. The warnings provided by anti-nuclear art from Threads to Wargames are part of the reason why we are still alive.
- Anchor speculation in evidence whenever possible. For example, comments about Putin’s state of mind could be accompanied by links.
- Be kind. Some of us live in regions which might be targeted by tactical nuclear weapons. All of us are under threat. Tread lightly.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:13 AM on March 29, 2022 [19 favorites]