"We're all going to die someday."
April 29, 2022 3:47 PM Subscribe
Russian state TV hosts discussed the possibility of a war that expands outside of Ukraine on Tuesday, and Margarita Simonyan, journalist and head of RT, told viewers that a nuclear war would be OK because "we're all going to die someday." [Newsweek, yes, I know but the reported it first] This is the new nuclear war thread.
Russia has already launched nuclear and chemical attacks on UK soil. It does seem the rest of the world has resolved to let Russian people continually threaten humanity with annihilation.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:02 PM on April 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:02 PM on April 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Radioactive isotopes are not nuclear weapons. That's quite the leap.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 4:04 PM on April 29, 2022 [56 favorites]
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 4:04 PM on April 29, 2022 [56 favorites]
I'd put radioactive isotopes in the league of chemical attacks, really. There was nothing nuclear about the attack, even though it did involve radioactive substances.
posted by hippybear at 4:19 PM on April 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:19 PM on April 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
First, does anyone know a good resource for non-political, serious discussions of the war in Ukraine? I'm looking for technical details of the war effort. WarCollege is great and generally has informed users but restricts discussion on recent events.
Second, I see no reason to believe Russia is doing nothing but bluff. Sure Seven Days to the River Rhine literally had Russia nuking West Germany then rushing across a nuclear wasteland to the Rhine. It is largely believed today that really nothing about the plan was feasible with or without nuclear weapons. During the collapse of the Soviet Union there were also orders to destroy cities that were ignored by commanders. There is no reason to believe that the military, while firmly behind Putin, are so vested in Ukraine they're willing to risk even in a limited nuclear war.
But I also think that Ukraine should increase their attacks inside Russia as Putin has done all he can to keep the war as remote as possible, using Syrian fighters, propping up the Ruble, etc. I wonder how much support the average Russian will have if they see how fallible their defenses are.
posted by geoff. at 4:20 PM on April 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Second, I see no reason to believe Russia is doing nothing but bluff. Sure Seven Days to the River Rhine literally had Russia nuking West Germany then rushing across a nuclear wasteland to the Rhine. It is largely believed today that really nothing about the plan was feasible with or without nuclear weapons. During the collapse of the Soviet Union there were also orders to destroy cities that were ignored by commanders. There is no reason to believe that the military, while firmly behind Putin, are so vested in Ukraine they're willing to risk even in a limited nuclear war.
But I also think that Ukraine should increase their attacks inside Russia as Putin has done all he can to keep the war as remote as possible, using Syrian fighters, propping up the Ruble, etc. I wonder how much support the average Russian will have if they see how fallible their defenses are.
posted by geoff. at 4:20 PM on April 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Russian propaganda has gotten to the level of "Ukrainians much be genocide destroyed if they won't join Russia, because Ukrainians don't really exist", and so the country has entered a mental state where "no reason to believe" anything is any more feasible. The entire country there has spent 2 months soaking in a media hot tub of "Ukrainians are Nazis and must be destroyed, and the West that is supporting them is evil and wants Russia dead". So.... yeah, I'm not sure logical trains of thought apply.
posted by hippybear at 4:25 PM on April 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:25 PM on April 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
Jesus, I hate this timeline.
I heard a speaker on NPR this morning note that the Russian citizenry had yet to experience the real cost of Putin’s war, i.e. bodies of their children coming back from the front in bags. They noted the internal citizen protests over the bodies coming back from Afghanistan. And those numbers pale in comparison to Russian casualties in Ukraine. His point was that Putin will soon have to deal with hos own people rising up against the war.
All that sounds a whole lot like a bunch of magical thinking, frankly. And, I really don’t think Putin has any qualms about dealing violently against his own people. Still, one can hope more pressure starts coming from inside Russia.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:36 PM on April 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
I heard a speaker on NPR this morning note that the Russian citizenry had yet to experience the real cost of Putin’s war, i.e. bodies of their children coming back from the front in bags. They noted the internal citizen protests over the bodies coming back from Afghanistan. And those numbers pale in comparison to Russian casualties in Ukraine. His point was that Putin will soon have to deal with hos own people rising up against the war.
All that sounds a whole lot like a bunch of magical thinking, frankly. And, I really don’t think Putin has any qualms about dealing violently against his own people. Still, one can hope more pressure starts coming from inside Russia.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:36 PM on April 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
Believe me when I say to you, I hope the Russian loves his sanctioned children too. Maybe keep an eye for when they head to a convenient basement with the yellow black and rectangular symbol.
posted by credulous at 4:44 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by credulous at 4:44 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Tangential to the aside in the description, have any of you here who are also on Reddit noticed that, like, all the politics, world news and Ukraine links are to Newsweek there? (At least the posts that make it to the r/popular)
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:03 PM on April 29, 2022
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:03 PM on April 29, 2022
Perhaps we are all forgetting that Putin has been leading us into the climate apocalypse as well? Didn't want to forget that part. Rather than pivot from gas, we seem to be emitting more methane than ever.
posted by eustatic at 5:04 PM on April 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 5:04 PM on April 29, 2022 [10 favorites]
No Way
There is something frightening, like a Hollywood monster movie, about the thought of a robot tsunami-bomb creeping along the sea floor
posted by clavdivs at 5:14 PM on April 29, 2022
There is something frightening, like a Hollywood monster movie, about the thought of a robot tsunami-bomb creeping along the sea floor
posted by clavdivs at 5:14 PM on April 29, 2022
Honestly, I wanted to link to other sources for this, but every article looked at referred back to the Newsweek article.
And really, I don't know about Newsweek, like, for the past many years. That's why I remarked about it in the post. But the old nuclear war thread closed earlier today and I needed a seed to start the thread.
My sincere hope is that there will be many much better links here over the next month.
posted by hippybear at 5:23 PM on April 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
And really, I don't know about Newsweek, like, for the past many years. That's why I remarked about it in the post. But the old nuclear war thread closed earlier today and I needed a seed to start the thread.
My sincere hope is that there will be many much better links here over the next month.
posted by hippybear at 5:23 PM on April 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't think this can end until Russia is occupied by Ukraine, all the people Russia kidnapped are located and repatriated, Russia devolved into independent States based on their historical boundaries before Russia annexed them, and Russia is disarmed. In any event, there's no reason for Ukraine to stop at any of the old borders once they get the Russian army on the run.
posted by mikelieman at 5:30 PM on April 29, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 5:30 PM on April 29, 2022 [13 favorites]
Does anyone know what happens if the conflict/imperialism spreads to Moldova?
posted by Selena777 at 5:32 PM on April 29, 2022
posted by Selena777 at 5:32 PM on April 29, 2022
Link round up!
'The United States has supported successful mediation in 11 vicious conflicts since 1990: Could Ukraine make it an even dozen?'
'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'
'World Nuclear Association'
'Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation'
'Salisbury poisoning: What did the attack mean for the UK and Russia?' (BBC)
posted by clavdivs at 5:37 PM on April 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
'The United States has supported successful mediation in 11 vicious conflicts since 1990: Could Ukraine make it an even dozen?'
'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'
'World Nuclear Association'
'Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation'
'Salisbury poisoning: What did the attack mean for the UK and Russia?' (BBC)
posted by clavdivs at 5:37 PM on April 29, 2022 [15 favorites]
One can always covnt on clavdivs
posted by hippybear at 5:43 PM on April 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 5:43 PM on April 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
If the slovenly maintenance and upgrading of their military also extends to their nuclear arsenal it might not be that much of a threat any more. I'm pretty sure the US is well apprised in this matter. I'm also sure that Russia knows the US knows as well. Perhaps little more than theater now...
posted by jim in austin at 6:14 PM on April 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 6:14 PM on April 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
Also in regards to a nuclear attack, Soviet nuclear doctrine assumed a large force of A and A+ troops swarming into NATO territory, at a loss, and then followed up by conscripts. There's no indication that the Russians have anywhere near the forces mobilized right now. One doesn't just wantonly nuke an enemy, they need forces to then go and occupy the gains. Nuclear detonation is nowhere near as radioactive as a power plant disaster. Even a limited nuclear attack is a green light for NATO forces to swarm into anywhere that's impacted. Keep in mind that Russians are having trouble with a coordinated tank attack. Not a coordinated air, sea and land battle.
We shouldn't minimize the effects of a nuclear exchange but also be cognizant that there's a lot of people besides Putin in Russia that actually do have something to lose. Even the rabid Nazis at the end of WWII ignored Hitler's more extreme orders to level Germany. At a point in the Cold War the Soviet Union may have been able to engage in a full scale nuclear war and come out something of a winner but it is clear they're having trouble occupying a much smaller and disadvantaged neighboring country.
posted by geoff. at 6:26 PM on April 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
We shouldn't minimize the effects of a nuclear exchange but also be cognizant that there's a lot of people besides Putin in Russia that actually do have something to lose. Even the rabid Nazis at the end of WWII ignored Hitler's more extreme orders to level Germany. At a point in the Cold War the Soviet Union may have been able to engage in a full scale nuclear war and come out something of a winner but it is clear they're having trouble occupying a much smaller and disadvantaged neighboring country.
posted by geoff. at 6:26 PM on April 29, 2022 [9 favorites]
The narrative (as far as I understand it) within Russia at the moment is for nuking sites within Ukraine, being the object of the focussed genocide. I think the narrative from there goes that the Evil West would then nuke back at Russia in retaliation and then Russia would nuke other Western targets and it would go from there.
I don't see anything reported so far that talks about nuking sites outside of Ukraine unless countries other than Ukraine are directly engaging with Russia on some level. They may change that.
posted by hippybear at 6:32 PM on April 29, 2022
I don't see anything reported so far that talks about nuking sites outside of Ukraine unless countries other than Ukraine are directly engaging with Russia on some level. They may change that.
posted by hippybear at 6:32 PM on April 29, 2022
Russian media stirs up a lot of things but the reality is that all the tactics and strategy so far stayed closed to Soviet military doctrine to a fault.
I think the biggest thread right now to the US in particular are some of our allies who have a vested interest in not necessarily seeing a US-led hegemony in Europe. A drawn out Syrian style conflict may be the best outcome for some nations.
posted by geoff. at 6:38 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think the biggest thread right now to the US in particular are some of our allies who have a vested interest in not necessarily seeing a US-led hegemony in Europe. A drawn out Syrian style conflict may be the best outcome for some nations.
posted by geoff. at 6:38 PM on April 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
would nuke other Western targets and it would go from there.
Even the Russians know from there is no where. The Russian focal point of using nukes in it's narrative is ancillary, theatre to bolster confidence that the illegal war can continue without threat of Russians being invaded, because, nukes. As geoff pointed out, Chernobyl is more of a nuclear threat then a small tactical nuke and if used, every country will swarm in and Russia will disintegrate as a country without a retaliation. Notice the Ukrainian industrial sector is being encircled, Russia wants that Intact it's worth billions and billions. If Putin's objective is to make Russian people more nihilistic and fearful with nuclear talking points, he forgot who "his" people are.
posted by clavdivs at 7:05 PM on April 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
Even the Russians know from there is no where. The Russian focal point of using nukes in it's narrative is ancillary, theatre to bolster confidence that the illegal war can continue without threat of Russians being invaded, because, nukes. As geoff pointed out, Chernobyl is more of a nuclear threat then a small tactical nuke and if used, every country will swarm in and Russia will disintegrate as a country without a retaliation. Notice the Ukrainian industrial sector is being encircled, Russia wants that Intact it's worth billions and billions. If Putin's objective is to make Russian people more nihilistic and fearful with nuclear talking points, he forgot who "his" people are.
posted by clavdivs at 7:05 PM on April 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
Anyone counting on any sort of scenario involving a limited nuclear attack by the US is foolish. As I recall, US war fighting doctrine calls for overwhelming force - in other words, if you’re going to attack something, you don’t half-ass it, you ATTACK. If nukes start flying, you don’t go limited, because you have one chance to try to stop the other side from an effective counter attack (which, in the case of nuclear war, you are highly unlikely to stop the enemy from sending a bunch of nukes your way) and also stop the other side from neutralizing your ability to counter them. There’s the obvious question of how well the Russian nuclear arsenal would perform in light of what we’re seeing from their equipment in Ukraine. I would wager on the side of enough of it working to kill nine figures worth of Americans. Whatever the case, I hope we never find out.
posted by azpenguin at 8:15 PM on April 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 8:15 PM on April 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
Cold War scholar here (MA History, SJSU). A full caveat: this is educated guesswork based on my studies, which are skewed towards 1950s-1970s SRBMs and MRBM NATO forces (Honest John, Pershing).
Generally, it's believed that the Norad Doctrine is oriented towards counter-force, while Russian Federation and PRC is oriented towards Counter-Value, and UK and French forces are oriented to second-strike/retaliation.
What this means, more or less: Russian weapons are targeted at political, population, economic, and logistical centers, more so than at military targets; whereas traditionally, US arsenals have prioritized military targets.
Nuclear war vaguely takes place in three stages: initial strike is supposed to be done with ICBMs (hardest to block), then follow up/ tactical engagement takes place with Air Forces (highest versatility), and finally the submarines make the last or final retaliatory strikes (stealthiest).
This in turn means that a Russian military attack against NATO, generally speaking, will be aimed at the effect of maximum death and political disruption. Not only Washington and Brussels and Stuttgart, but also Rotterdam, Jacksonville, and Hamburg (major port cities). By contrast.
Current operational estimates for silo is 50 R-36 systems, six major silo fields, 3-4 major sub bases, 2 major strategic bomber bases.
The weakest part of the Russian tripod is their air-force: 36 Tu-160 Lebed, vaguely comparable to the B-1 Lancer.
So first strike is the R-36 systems (10 war head MIRVs). It is likely that the TU-160s will be comparably unsuccessful. Then you have the strikes from the Akula, Oscar, and Borei: 15 SBLM and 8 SSGNs. These will be more likely to be targeted towards military command targets: Rammstein, Norfolk, etc.
Meanwhile, on the US Side, we have 450 Minutemen III systems distributed across 8 major launch areas, mainly in the Dakotas and Nebraska; that's first strike, and in my opinion, our Missile Wings are the weak leg of the US nuclear tripod. B2s and B1s will be doing the majority of the work, basically hitting any plausible Russian air-field. Then the Ohios and Virginias will be used if there's still any Russians left firing.
The two big X-factors are the Stanislav Petrov factor (officers refusing orders) and the maintenance operational factor of Russian forces, and then of course there is the general tempo of the attacks. But generally speaking, the Russian Federation does not have the ASW capacity to prevent a second strike, meaning that a Russian attack WILL doom Moscow and every Russian military base.
So a Russian nuclear strike at this point would be the ultimate zero sum game: destroying your own country, government, and people in the hope of destroying Western civilization beyond the threshold of what we students of nuclear theory call 'die-back', which is the point at which society is no longer able to function as an information-level society (though I doubt that a pre-industrial level die-back would be attained).
One thing that I've studied is that, from my understanding of fallout and dispersal, nuclear winter is exaggerated as a human extinction event. Human mass famine event, yes; it would be comparable to the volcanic winter of 1536 or 1816. Most nuclear winter models assume that there's no force to ever put the fire-storms out; sustained firestorms don't really happen.
Overall TL,DR: Eastern Seaboard is fucked and gone, as are the Low Countries/Rhineland. Russia gets annihilated. China and India have a free hand to operate as the West focuses on the occupation and permanent dismantlement of the remains of Russia. World hunger, food rationing, collapse of regimes previously supported by USA/NATO/RusFed. Hundreds of millions, not billions dead in the exchange, though exceeding casualties of WW2; the really casualties would be from the decade of hunger and the consequent global re-alignment of nearly every nation in the Northern hemisphere.
Politically, I'd say it ends in a Children of Men/ Handmaiden's Tale scenario for the mid-21st century: an array of Authoritarian regimes in the USA and Europe engaging in imperialism and conquest to sustain the reconstruction of their shattered nations, Russia extinct, a second Race for Africa between Europe and the PRC. Democracy, if it does survive, will be a mostly South American phenomena.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 8:27 PM on April 29, 2022 [107 favorites]
Generally, it's believed that the Norad Doctrine is oriented towards counter-force, while Russian Federation and PRC is oriented towards Counter-Value, and UK and French forces are oriented to second-strike/retaliation.
What this means, more or less: Russian weapons are targeted at political, population, economic, and logistical centers, more so than at military targets; whereas traditionally, US arsenals have prioritized military targets.
Nuclear war vaguely takes place in three stages: initial strike is supposed to be done with ICBMs (hardest to block), then follow up/ tactical engagement takes place with Air Forces (highest versatility), and finally the submarines make the last or final retaliatory strikes (stealthiest).
This in turn means that a Russian military attack against NATO, generally speaking, will be aimed at the effect of maximum death and political disruption. Not only Washington and Brussels and Stuttgart, but also Rotterdam, Jacksonville, and Hamburg (major port cities). By contrast.
Current operational estimates for silo is 50 R-36 systems, six major silo fields, 3-4 major sub bases, 2 major strategic bomber bases.
The weakest part of the Russian tripod is their air-force: 36 Tu-160 Lebed, vaguely comparable to the B-1 Lancer.
So first strike is the R-36 systems (10 war head MIRVs). It is likely that the TU-160s will be comparably unsuccessful. Then you have the strikes from the Akula, Oscar, and Borei: 15 SBLM and 8 SSGNs. These will be more likely to be targeted towards military command targets: Rammstein, Norfolk, etc.
Meanwhile, on the US Side, we have 450 Minutemen III systems distributed across 8 major launch areas, mainly in the Dakotas and Nebraska; that's first strike, and in my opinion, our Missile Wings are the weak leg of the US nuclear tripod. B2s and B1s will be doing the majority of the work, basically hitting any plausible Russian air-field. Then the Ohios and Virginias will be used if there's still any Russians left firing.
The two big X-factors are the Stanislav Petrov factor (officers refusing orders) and the maintenance operational factor of Russian forces, and then of course there is the general tempo of the attacks. But generally speaking, the Russian Federation does not have the ASW capacity to prevent a second strike, meaning that a Russian attack WILL doom Moscow and every Russian military base.
So a Russian nuclear strike at this point would be the ultimate zero sum game: destroying your own country, government, and people in the hope of destroying Western civilization beyond the threshold of what we students of nuclear theory call 'die-back', which is the point at which society is no longer able to function as an information-level society (though I doubt that a pre-industrial level die-back would be attained).
One thing that I've studied is that, from my understanding of fallout and dispersal, nuclear winter is exaggerated as a human extinction event. Human mass famine event, yes; it would be comparable to the volcanic winter of 1536 or 1816. Most nuclear winter models assume that there's no force to ever put the fire-storms out; sustained firestorms don't really happen.
Overall TL,DR: Eastern Seaboard is fucked and gone, as are the Low Countries/Rhineland. Russia gets annihilated. China and India have a free hand to operate as the West focuses on the occupation and permanent dismantlement of the remains of Russia. World hunger, food rationing, collapse of regimes previously supported by USA/NATO/RusFed. Hundreds of millions, not billions dead in the exchange, though exceeding casualties of WW2; the really casualties would be from the decade of hunger and the consequent global re-alignment of nearly every nation in the Northern hemisphere.
Politically, I'd say it ends in a Children of Men/ Handmaiden's Tale scenario for the mid-21st century: an array of Authoritarian regimes in the USA and Europe engaging in imperialism and conquest to sustain the reconstruction of their shattered nations, Russia extinct, a second Race for Africa between Europe and the PRC. Democracy, if it does survive, will be a mostly South American phenomena.
posted by LeRoienJaune at 8:27 PM on April 29, 2022 [107 favorites]
What a day for an eschaton.
posted by longtime_lurker at 8:38 PM on April 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by longtime_lurker at 8:38 PM on April 29, 2022 [8 favorites]
Geoff — First, does anyone know a good resource for non-political, serious discussions of the war in Ukraine?
Try the daily thread in r/CredibleDefense. The discussion is generally light on politics and focused more on mechanics of the war itself.
posted by nathan_teske at 8:57 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Try the daily thread in r/CredibleDefense. The discussion is generally light on politics and focused more on mechanics of the war itself.
posted by nathan_teske at 8:57 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Paula Poundstone, at her Denver comedy appearance show tonight, reminded us that we were all going to die some day. No nukes mentioned, though.
posted by kozad at 10:06 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by kozad at 10:06 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Noam Chomsky continuing series, latest interview from yesterday:
"Propaganda Wars Are Raging as Russia’s War on Ukraine Expands"
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-propaganda-wars-are-raging-as-russias-war-on-ukraine-expands/
posted by polymodus at 10:09 PM on April 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
"Propaganda Wars Are Raging as Russia’s War on Ukraine Expands"
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-propaganda-wars-are-raging-as-russias-war-on-ukraine-expands/
posted by polymodus at 10:09 PM on April 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
After seeing his last interview, I'm not very interested in anything further Chomsky has to say about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
posted by tclark at 10:18 PM on April 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by tclark at 10:18 PM on April 29, 2022 [20 favorites]
If it's the same interview I read, I thought it was fine.
posted by polymodus at 10:37 PM on April 29, 2022
posted by polymodus at 10:37 PM on April 29, 2022
Well actually thinking again, regarding last week's Chomsky interview (which apparently he was excoriated over Twitter for), the passage that I took issue with was this one also regarding nuclear weapons:
Russia does have advanced weapons, which can destroy (though evidently not conquer), so the Ukraine experience is held to indicate. For Finland and Sweden, abandoning neutrality and joining NATO might enhance the likelihood of their use. Since the security argument is not easy to take seriously, that seems to be the most likely consequence of their joining NATO.
First, the Ukraine experience is held to indicate what? Second, the security argument absurdity is brought up about 2 paragraphs before this part, but still I actually found this paragraph very hard to parse and I'm not sure I understood it fully.
posted by polymodus at 10:49 PM on April 29, 2022
Russia does have advanced weapons, which can destroy (though evidently not conquer), so the Ukraine experience is held to indicate. For Finland and Sweden, abandoning neutrality and joining NATO might enhance the likelihood of their use. Since the security argument is not easy to take seriously, that seems to be the most likely consequence of their joining NATO.
First, the Ukraine experience is held to indicate what? Second, the security argument absurdity is brought up about 2 paragraphs before this part, but still I actually found this paragraph very hard to parse and I'm not sure I understood it fully.
posted by polymodus at 10:49 PM on April 29, 2022
Madness.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:54 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 10:54 PM on April 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Chomsky in that interview and others chooses some nations as worthy of self-determination (Cuba) and others get thrown under the bus (Ukraine). He criticizes Ukraine for 'provoking' Russia by associating with NATO (self-determination is verboten, Ukraine is not Cuba after all). Cuba does get a pass for liberating itself from the nuclear superpower next door (not provocative at all?).
And so on with all the other examples given.
posted by UN at 12:11 AM on April 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
And so on with all the other examples given.
posted by UN at 12:11 AM on April 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
The war between Russia and Ukraine is swiftly evolving into a war between Russia and NATO. In one respect, this is good: It gives Ukraine a higher chance of repelling Moscow’s invasion and even winning. In another respect, it is risky: The wider the war spreads, and the more Russia seems to be losing, the more compelled Vladimir Putin may feel to lash out with extreme violence.
Fred Kaplan
April 29, 2022
Fred Kaplan is the smartest person in the room. I can't say it's a pleasure to read him, as the topic is about as dark as can be. So it's not a pleasure to read him but rather a good thing to be informed by an apolitical man who knows this piece of humanity better than anyone else I've ever come across.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Fred Kaplan
April 29, 2022
Fred Kaplan is the smartest person in the room. I can't say it's a pleasure to read him, as the topic is about as dark as can be. So it's not a pleasure to read him but rather a good thing to be informed by an apolitical man who knows this piece of humanity better than anyone else I've ever come across.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Yeah Chomsky for all his plaudits either has a blind spot or isn't super credible here on Ukraine. It's frustrating to read these interviews and come to the conclusion that he's lost a step or two.
posted by Carillon at 1:03 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Carillon at 1:03 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I disagree, I think I'm pretty well read in general and the points he is making seems to be lost on a lot of people, especially those that lack context reading his other works or watching his previous lectures (i.e. lectures from 5 years ago). I don't want this to be a debate/debunk Chomsky thread (beyond the extent that he often discusses nuclear implications from a leftist pov), going over the same PowerPoint talking points that tankies and neoliberals have been launching at each other over the last several months over Chomsky's words. But I will offer my view which is that when COVID happened, a similar thing happened with Agamben. Agamben was pilloried on social media, by his fellow academics, for apparently not understanding the COVID and the science. Even I've commented very critically against Agamben. But 2.5 years later it turned out Agamben was right about Homer Sacer in its application to a pandemic world, and I think that Agamben is having the last laugh. So what I would be for is a kind of discussion on a politically-charged source such as Chomsky is to elevate the discourse rather than resort to the same problematic talking points being used by different factions that all call themselves left/leftist.
posted by polymodus at 3:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 3:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Hol' up. Are y'all talking about Noam Chomsky, famed linguist?
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:27 AM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:27 AM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
turned out Agamben was right about Homer Sacer in its application to a pandemic world, and I think that Agamben is having the last laugh.
I fixed that for you. Being right about the core of conservatism and succinctly framing the endgame around in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind and out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect is truly foundational.
I'm not seeing how he gets the last laugh by attempting to apply this thinking to any COVID restrictions. The pandemic changed and - maybe - passed. Shanghai style lockdowns were more rational pre vaccination and treatment options. Observing that a powerless individual in Shanghai or Rome is bound by such restrictions is clear, but nowhere do I see a justified last laugh because it's very likely the restrictions did (and may still) also protect the greater society and the individual being locked down.
posted by abulafa at 4:10 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
I fixed that for you. Being right about the core of conservatism and succinctly framing the endgame around in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind and out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect is truly foundational.
I'm not seeing how he gets the last laugh by attempting to apply this thinking to any COVID restrictions. The pandemic changed and - maybe - passed. Shanghai style lockdowns were more rational pre vaccination and treatment options. Observing that a powerless individual in Shanghai or Rome is bound by such restrictions is clear, but nowhere do I see a justified last laugh because it's very likely the restrictions did (and may still) also protect the greater society and the individual being locked down.
posted by abulafa at 4:10 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Hasn't Putin done everything he said he would from the outset of this war? (Not saying he has done it successfully, just that when he said he would invade, he invaded, etc.)
I don't want to participate in the doomsaying or wargaming, but this scares me. I would be happy if someone could point out an example of him bluffing.
posted by mumimor at 4:20 AM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't want to participate in the doomsaying or wargaming, but this scares me. I would be happy if someone could point out an example of him bluffing.
posted by mumimor at 4:20 AM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Is that really a thing we need?
In an ideal world, no.
posted by acb at 4:23 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
In an ideal world, no.
posted by acb at 4:23 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Is that really a thing we need?
In case you mean this earnestly, there was general rejection of discussion of nuclear concerns in the general Ukraine War threads. Some of us find the conscious omission of such an obvious concern frustrating, but we're all trying to be humane to each other, making a thread where we can hash out the existential threats without forcing others to contend with them seems the best option.
If that's not your thing, I'm sure there's a recent Ukraine-no-nukes thread to be found.
posted by abulafa at 5:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
In case you mean this earnestly, there was general rejection of discussion of nuclear concerns in the general Ukraine War threads. Some of us find the conscious omission of such an obvious concern frustrating, but we're all trying to be humane to each other, making a thread where we can hash out the existential threats without forcing others to contend with them seems the best option.
If that's not your thing, I'm sure there's a recent Ukraine-no-nukes thread to be found.
posted by abulafa at 5:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
If anything, Agamben's turn about covid shows the limits of his approach, just as Foucault's brief enthusiasm for neoliberalism in the late seventies showed a limit in his. Just because you have a really great hammer does not mean that every problem will always be a nail, even if you can still hit it with a hammer. In both cases, it felt very last-war - the foucauldian problems of post-war socialism-light were actually not going to be solved by neoliberalism, the problems of state overreach entwining with necessary measures to stop what is no doubt the first of many pandemics/climate crises/etc are not going to be completely philosophically resolved by appealing to the Homo Sacer framing.
posted by Frowner at 6:23 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 6:23 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
30m ago
13.57
Russia believes the risks of nuclear war should be kept to a minimum and that any armed conflict between nuclear powers should be prevented, the Tass news agency quoted a foreign ministry official as saying on Saturday.
Vladimir Yermakov, the foreign ministry’s head of nuclear non-proliferation, said all nuclear powers must stick to the logic laid out in official documents aimed at preventing nuclear war.
“Russia clearly follows this understanding,” Yermakov was quoted as saying.
From the Guardian live feed
posted by mumimor at 6:28 AM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
13.57
Russia believes the risks of nuclear war should be kept to a minimum and that any armed conflict between nuclear powers should be prevented, the Tass news agency quoted a foreign ministry official as saying on Saturday.
Vladimir Yermakov, the foreign ministry’s head of nuclear non-proliferation, said all nuclear powers must stick to the logic laid out in official documents aimed at preventing nuclear war.
“Russia clearly follows this understanding,” Yermakov was quoted as saying.
From the Guardian live feed
posted by mumimor at 6:28 AM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
That would be good news. Their television programs are preparing the populace for nuclear war, however. Using language like "we go to heaven, all the West just disappears" or some other religious imagery. And the Orthodox church is participating in the calls for Ukrainian genocide.
I hope Yermakov is speaking truth, but with Russia, it's hard to know.
posted by hippybear at 6:32 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I hope Yermakov is speaking truth, but with Russia, it's hard to know.
posted by hippybear at 6:32 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
The Guardian view on Putin’s nuclear threats: Russia is losing in Ukraine - Editorial
With 2,000 tactical warheads at his disposal, we must hope the Russian president’s warnings are tactical.
posted by adamvasco at 6:35 AM on April 30, 2022
With 2,000 tactical warheads at his disposal, we must hope the Russian president’s warnings are tactical.
posted by adamvasco at 6:35 AM on April 30, 2022
I think I picked the wrong decade to stop sniffing glue.
posted by chavenet at 6:36 AM on April 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 6:36 AM on April 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
So long as it remains "just" supplying arms and training, even openly, we remain firmly within post-WWII precedent. We can only hope that we remain within said precedent and Russia takes a potential loss in Ukraine the way the US took their loss in Vietnam. Well, we can also hope that it doesn't take Russia nearly as long as it took the US to realize that continuing to fight when it's clear that a favorable outcome is impossible without resorting to weapons of mass destruction isn't worth the blood or treasure.
posted by wierdo at 6:41 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by wierdo at 6:41 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think it’s exactly the opposite of good news. What I think Yermakov is claiming is that Russia is entirely within its rights to genocide Ukraine, and if any other nuclear powers attempt to stop them by any means, it is Russia’s prerogative to punish such interference via nuclear escalation.
“Russia believes the risks of nuclear war should be kept to a minimum” should be read as “if you know what’s good for you, butt the fuck out”. It’s not a reassurance. It’s a threat.
posted by notoriety public at 6:43 AM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
“Russia believes the risks of nuclear war should be kept to a minimum” should be read as “if you know what’s good for you, butt the fuck out”. It’s not a reassurance. It’s a threat.
posted by notoriety public at 6:43 AM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Why would all these oligarchs be killed, alongside their families? Forgive my ignorance here.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:49 AM on April 30, 2022
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:49 AM on April 30, 2022
I think I picked the wrong decade to stop sniffing glue.
Mucilage and white glue, as any librarian can tell you, are both edible and nontoxic.
posted by y2karl at 7:52 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Mucilage and white glue, as any librarian can tell you, are both edible and nontoxic.
posted by y2karl at 7:52 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I used to soak up everything Chomsky. I recently learned about his denial of the genocide in Cambodia. And now he is being a moron on Ukraine. He's a damn idiot.
posted by nestor_makhno at 7:54 AM on April 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
posted by nestor_makhno at 7:54 AM on April 30, 2022 [16 favorites]
Mucilage and white glue, as any librarian can tell you, are both edible and nontoxic.
Ah, for the olden days, when they would sell a 7 year old a plastic model with solvent glue that they would assemble in their bedroom with the door closed. Good times!
posted by hippybear at 8:02 AM on April 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
Ah, for the olden days, when they would sell a 7 year old a plastic model with solvent glue that they would assemble in their bedroom with the door closed. Good times!
posted by hippybear at 8:02 AM on April 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
nuclear war would be OK because "we're all going to die someday."
We have a new sub-variant of The Urgency of Normal manifesto!
posted by srboisvert at 8:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
We have a new sub-variant of The Urgency of Normal manifesto!
posted by srboisvert at 8:13 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Toluene is the stuff in particular. I worked in an oil analysis lab when I was 20. One of the stations used toluene as a solvent and despite powerful fume hoods, if you spilled any, even if you cleaned it up immediately, you’d get dosed enough that you’d feel it.
posted by notoriety public at 8:14 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by notoriety public at 8:14 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Why would all these oligarchs be killed, alongside their families? Forgive my ignorance here.
It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:16 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:16 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
No, I'm actually asking. Please, if you understand this dynamic, I would appreciate insight.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:37 AM on April 30, 2022
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:37 AM on April 30, 2022
As a warning to the others to not get out of line.
posted by tclark at 8:40 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by tclark at 8:40 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Or, if the hypothesis about Putin dying is correct, perhaps so that he can take them with him into the afterlife. After all, one might need a line of credit in the next world...
posted by acb at 8:42 AM on April 30, 2022
posted by acb at 8:42 AM on April 30, 2022
TFR, I won't even pretend to understanding of the situation surrounding these deaths, but I'd bet the farm on money, power, control, and secrets being involved.
posted by BlueHorse at 8:44 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by BlueHorse at 8:44 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
As a warning to the others to not get out of line.
Or just having expressed slight a doubt about the war at a dinner party of close trusted friends.
posted by sammyo at 8:56 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Or just having expressed slight a doubt about the war at a dinner party of close trusted friends.
posted by sammyo at 8:56 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ok so no one actually knows, got it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:08 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:08 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
CS-1, NIF, space lasers, Iron Dome, X-37-B. Just throwing out tech optimism. Is it possible that if a first strike occurred that the majority of ICBM's could be neutralized? Even a few/one is incomprehensibly bad, but while Reagan's StarWars missile defense system was crazypants at the time, tech has advanced vast magnitudes and a few hundred missiles destroyed in the air seems maybe not so much fictional.
posted by sammyo at 9:25 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 9:25 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ok so no one actually knows, got it.
You were expecting something better than informed speculation?
posted by tclark at 9:31 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
You were expecting something better than informed speculation?
posted by tclark at 9:31 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
That’s…a lot of oligarchic family annihilation. Don’t these people have security guards and security cameras scanning the grounds? The FSB aren’t trained ninjas; their idea of a damaging autograph is “signature unclear”.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:48 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:48 AM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Good lord, why do these threads keep filling up with Chomsky fanboys “well actually”ing us about why his analysis on the Ukraine isn’t as puddle-deep as it appears?
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:55 AM on April 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 9:55 AM on April 30, 2022 [20 favorites]
Ok so no one actually knows, got it.
You were expecting something better than informed speculation?
Yes? Certainly wasn't expecting snarky rudeness, that's for sure. Have fun.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:08 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
You were expecting something better than informed speculation?
Yes? Certainly wasn't expecting snarky rudeness, that's for sure. Have fun.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:08 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Ok so no one actually knows, got it.
This isn't snarky rudeness? My answer was an honest answer to your honest question. My snarky rudeness is only in response to yours.
posted by tclark at 10:17 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
This isn't snarky rudeness? My answer was an honest answer to your honest question. My snarky rudeness is only in response to yours.
posted by tclark at 10:17 AM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Putin?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:18 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 10:18 AM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Why would you expect something more than informed speculation about events that happen in Russia ? It's not like Russia is an open society at the moment.
posted by Pendragon at 10:23 AM on April 30, 2022
posted by Pendragon at 10:23 AM on April 30, 2022
I didn't see this post before I hacked together (it's been a while) and put up this FPP, which is about a 36 year old music video that is, perhaps, relevant.
posted by Wordshore at 11:42 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 11:42 AM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
It’s worth mentioning again, I think, that Russian nuclear doctrine and its associated thinking is likely very different than US/UK/NATO’s. Particularly with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. They do not seem to regard low-yield tactical weapons as being in the same category as strategic nuclear forces.
This is not irrational. There are lots of weapons that can produce the same level of devastation as a 0.5-1 kt nuke, including a sustained barrage of conventional artillery (admittedly it takes longer). In an urban environment, judicious use of incendiaries can be as destructive as even a larger weapon. (See firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, etc., which were conducted with intentional mixes of incendiary and HE bombs to create and fuel hugely destructive fires and make them difficult to extinguish.) Or, probably looming larger in Soviet thinking, the destruction of Stalingrad and other cities by German artillery and air bombardment. If you’re destroying a city, what matter whether you do it with one big bomb or 1,500 smaller ones?
While modern Russian doctrine does suggest that any use of nuclear weapons must be authorized by the President, he could (and who knows, may have) delegated authority to theater commanders under certain circumstances. (Again, this isn’t totally crazy. The UK effectively delegates — or at least reserves the option for the PM to delegate — nuclear deployment authority to its submarine commanders under certain, albeit apocalyptic, circumstances.)
There is no reason why a nuclear weapon use by Russia must necessarily lead to all-out nuclear war, or strategic retaliation at all. In fact, the Russians probably assume that it wouldn’t be. And that’s why they keep threatening it. They know that the US/NATO have a gap when it comes to tactical nukes, and Ukraine certainly doesn’t have any. So, why wouldn’t they wave that stick around a bit?
They didn’t grow up watching Grave of the Fireflies and Threads. That’s a US/UK thing. And they’ve already showed a willingness to pulverize cities and slaughter civilians and civil infrastructure when it’s convenient to do so. Visiting nuclear war on a people they’ve been propagandized into believing are basically subhuman doesn’t seem like a stretch.
It would probably be good if NATO still had the Pershings or GLCMs or even nuclear TLAMs, because then we’d have an equivalent (but not world ending) stick to wave. But we’ve decommissioned them all. (Technically there are still TLAM warheads in storage, but it’s unclear how quickly they could be integrated into a modern delivery system. The Navy claims it doesn’t have the capability at short notice.)
The Ukrainians are in a situation where they may need to basically just absorb a tactical nuclear strike, or they might as well just surrender and get on getting to the death camps. They seem prepared to take that risk. The least we can do is keep sending whatever weapons they request. Effective missile defense systems would probably be on that list.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
This is not irrational. There are lots of weapons that can produce the same level of devastation as a 0.5-1 kt nuke, including a sustained barrage of conventional artillery (admittedly it takes longer). In an urban environment, judicious use of incendiaries can be as destructive as even a larger weapon. (See firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, etc., which were conducted with intentional mixes of incendiary and HE bombs to create and fuel hugely destructive fires and make them difficult to extinguish.) Or, probably looming larger in Soviet thinking, the destruction of Stalingrad and other cities by German artillery and air bombardment. If you’re destroying a city, what matter whether you do it with one big bomb or 1,500 smaller ones?
While modern Russian doctrine does suggest that any use of nuclear weapons must be authorized by the President, he could (and who knows, may have) delegated authority to theater commanders under certain circumstances. (Again, this isn’t totally crazy. The UK effectively delegates — or at least reserves the option for the PM to delegate — nuclear deployment authority to its submarine commanders under certain, albeit apocalyptic, circumstances.)
There is no reason why a nuclear weapon use by Russia must necessarily lead to all-out nuclear war, or strategic retaliation at all. In fact, the Russians probably assume that it wouldn’t be. And that’s why they keep threatening it. They know that the US/NATO have a gap when it comes to tactical nukes, and Ukraine certainly doesn’t have any. So, why wouldn’t they wave that stick around a bit?
They didn’t grow up watching Grave of the Fireflies and Threads. That’s a US/UK thing. And they’ve already showed a willingness to pulverize cities and slaughter civilians and civil infrastructure when it’s convenient to do so. Visiting nuclear war on a people they’ve been propagandized into believing are basically subhuman doesn’t seem like a stretch.
It would probably be good if NATO still had the Pershings or GLCMs or even nuclear TLAMs, because then we’d have an equivalent (but not world ending) stick to wave. But we’ve decommissioned them all. (Technically there are still TLAM warheads in storage, but it’s unclear how quickly they could be integrated into a modern delivery system. The Navy claims it doesn’t have the capability at short notice.)
The Ukrainians are in a situation where they may need to basically just absorb a tactical nuclear strike, or they might as well just surrender and get on getting to the death camps. They seem prepared to take that risk. The least we can do is keep sending whatever weapons they request. Effective missile defense systems would probably be on that list.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
TWinbrook8 : their idea of a damaging autograph is “signature unclear”.
I have read that “signature unclear” is a signature used by an actual Russian neonazi group and is also a pseudonym of one of the group’s leaders.
posted by syzygy at 1:53 PM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I have read that “signature unclear” is a signature used by an actual Russian neonazi group and is also a pseudonym of one of the group’s leaders.
posted by syzygy at 1:53 PM on April 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The US has 100 tactical nukes deployed in Europe. They are gravity bombs and not precision-guided standoff weapons but there are people whose job it is to be ready to put them onto targets.
If NATO thinks it needs to hold Russian assets at risk using nukes-but-not-city-killers it can do that. There is no scenario where having 500 Pershing II launchers in Germany and/or Poland makes this better for the West.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:36 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
If NATO thinks it needs to hold Russian assets at risk using nukes-but-not-city-killers it can do that. There is no scenario where having 500 Pershing II launchers in Germany and/or Poland makes this better for the West.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 2:36 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
A variable yield SLBM wouldn't be a terrible idea though. Well, within that mindset anyway.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:41 PM on April 30, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:41 PM on April 30, 2022
Sometimes I do wonder if almost everybody's nuclear arsenals have become Potemkin arsenals over the past thirty years or so, leaving North Korea as the only country with bombs that can be reasonably certain to not fizzle.
You can do all the simulation you like, but lots of very important components have had to be replaced, in some cases with reconstituted production capability rather than a direct chain of knowledge. It would be darkly amusing if it had all devolved into a big game of let's pretend.
I don't think it's terribly likely, but it's been a long time since anybody actually checked. We did reliability tests back when we still did nuclear testing, but nothing longer than 15-20 years in a full up test, IIRC.
posted by wierdo at 4:21 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
You can do all the simulation you like, but lots of very important components have had to be replaced, in some cases with reconstituted production capability rather than a direct chain of knowledge. It would be darkly amusing if it had all devolved into a big game of let's pretend.
I don't think it's terribly likely, but it's been a long time since anybody actually checked. We did reliability tests back when we still did nuclear testing, but nothing longer than 15-20 years in a full up test, IIRC.
posted by wierdo at 4:21 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Wasn't there some $FAMOUSSFAUTHOR short story around exactly these lines? Or some prog rock album? I seem to remember this being a plot I've encountered before.
posted by hippybear at 4:33 PM on April 30, 2022
posted by hippybear at 4:33 PM on April 30, 2022
My brother is reading the classic A Canticle for Liebowitz in preparation.
posted by mecran01 at 4:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by mecran01 at 4:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
“Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma.”
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:43 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:43 PM on April 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
NPR Presents A Canticle For Liebowitz in 15 parts [Archive.org link]
posted by hippybear at 4:45 PM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:45 PM on April 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
Nukes are very, very, very precise devices. Even the slightest degradation in the explosive you use or in the electronics controlling the darn-near microsecond timing of the detonations, and your multi-million dollar nuke is now a not-even-very-effective dirty bomb.
posted by tclark at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by tclark at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
WW11
No spoilers, please! I'm not even really started with 3 yet.
posted by hippybear at 5:26 PM on April 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
No spoilers, please! I'm not even really started with 3 yet.
posted by hippybear at 5:26 PM on April 30, 2022 [9 favorites]
Dud MIRVs are decoys, effectively. You still have to attempt to intercept them. Half of half get through and detonate with half their yield and everything is still fucked.
A full exchange will end life as we know it. We can argue about what that means; but imagining it can be avoided through technothriller derring-do and word salad accoutrement is delusional and not a basis for decision-making.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:37 PM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
A full exchange will end life as we know it. We can argue about what that means; but imagining it can be avoided through technothriller derring-do and word salad accoutrement is delusional and not a basis for decision-making.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:37 PM on April 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
I'm not seeing how he gets the last laugh by attempting to apply this thinking to any COVID restrictions. … nowhere do I see a justified last laugh because it's very likely the restrictions did (and may still) also protect the greater society and the individual being locked down.
Because Agamben's argument wasn't just about restrictions, it was more generally about the biopolitics and the political economy of a global pandemic in this era. Further, you might with good intentions argue that certain states' implementations of restrictions were a necessary evil, which immediately leads to the point that many actually existing restrictions and pandemic measures—or lack of measures—had truly inhumane results. Specifically Agamben in his essay discussed people not even being able to attend funerals, to put their dead to rest. And a key subpart of his point was how culturally normalized that was, that we collectively have underplayed those narratives of inhumanity in the context of COVID. Meanwhile people, including myself, jeered at Agamben's lack of comprehension of virology. Agamben's Homo Sacer doesn't just exist in abstract theory; what has been happening in the world, and continues to happen today is an instructive example of that. The pandemic isn't over, the globe is like half vaccinated and it will be 1-2 more years before more people actually stop worrying about COVID.
If anything, Agamben's turn about covid shows the limits of his approach, just as Foucault's brief enthusiasm for neoliberalism in the late seventies showed a limit in his. Just because you have a really great hammer does not mean that every problem will always be a nail, even if you can still hit it with a hammer. In both cases, it felt very last-war - the foucauldian problems of post-war socialism-light were actually not going to be solved by neoliberalism, the problems of state overreach entwining with necessary measures to stop what is no doubt the first of many pandemics/climate crises/etc are not going to be completely philosophically resolved by appealing to the Homo Sacer framing.
First, I think it's ageist to suggest that our intellectual elders are out of touch because the world is "different" today. But more than that, it would a special pleading fallacy to say basically that this crisis is magically, or could be, somehow, different. You have to remember that Chomsky or Agamben aren't the only leftist academics out there—are you dismiss all leftist scholarship in academia for wielding a hammer because neoliberalism was a concept from 1960's? Or are you going suppose it's possible that leftist scholarship itself (the kind that internet tankies do not even read) has actually kept with the times, that Chomsky, Agamben, or Zizek, or the many other living writers that the public doesn't even know about, these people don't just sit in his room in isolation but actually have a methodology, actually have a set of institutional as well as social practices that inform their work? Chomsky himself still has meetings and interviews with people every day, so I've read.
But Frowner if you think "having the last laugh" about an argument necessarily means their idea (e.g. Homer Sacer) was a "complete philosophical" framing then that is counter to the whole point of leftist discourse and dissent. It's implied that nobody has all the answers.
posted by polymodus at 5:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Because Agamben's argument wasn't just about restrictions, it was more generally about the biopolitics and the political economy of a global pandemic in this era. Further, you might with good intentions argue that certain states' implementations of restrictions were a necessary evil, which immediately leads to the point that many actually existing restrictions and pandemic measures—or lack of measures—had truly inhumane results. Specifically Agamben in his essay discussed people not even being able to attend funerals, to put their dead to rest. And a key subpart of his point was how culturally normalized that was, that we collectively have underplayed those narratives of inhumanity in the context of COVID. Meanwhile people, including myself, jeered at Agamben's lack of comprehension of virology. Agamben's Homo Sacer doesn't just exist in abstract theory; what has been happening in the world, and continues to happen today is an instructive example of that. The pandemic isn't over, the globe is like half vaccinated and it will be 1-2 more years before more people actually stop worrying about COVID.
If anything, Agamben's turn about covid shows the limits of his approach, just as Foucault's brief enthusiasm for neoliberalism in the late seventies showed a limit in his. Just because you have a really great hammer does not mean that every problem will always be a nail, even if you can still hit it with a hammer. In both cases, it felt very last-war - the foucauldian problems of post-war socialism-light were actually not going to be solved by neoliberalism, the problems of state overreach entwining with necessary measures to stop what is no doubt the first of many pandemics/climate crises/etc are not going to be completely philosophically resolved by appealing to the Homo Sacer framing.
First, I think it's ageist to suggest that our intellectual elders are out of touch because the world is "different" today. But more than that, it would a special pleading fallacy to say basically that this crisis is magically, or could be, somehow, different. You have to remember that Chomsky or Agamben aren't the only leftist academics out there—are you dismiss all leftist scholarship in academia for wielding a hammer because neoliberalism was a concept from 1960's? Or are you going suppose it's possible that leftist scholarship itself (the kind that internet tankies do not even read) has actually kept with the times, that Chomsky, Agamben, or Zizek, or the many other living writers that the public doesn't even know about, these people don't just sit in his room in isolation but actually have a methodology, actually have a set of institutional as well as social practices that inform their work? Chomsky himself still has meetings and interviews with people every day, so I've read.
But Frowner if you think "having the last laugh" about an argument necessarily means their idea (e.g. Homer Sacer) was a "complete philosophical" framing then that is counter to the whole point of leftist discourse and dissent. It's implied that nobody has all the answers.
posted by polymodus at 5:41 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
One last point of clarification on this, but note also that Chomsky and Foucault were notoriously deeply incompatible, so why bring up Foucault when Chomsky already has been offering his own account of contemporary neoliberalism (especially as context to his assertions re. Ukraine, NATO, and nuclear weapons)? To dismiss Chomskian neoliberalism, what he calls Really Existing Capitalism, for being outdated in somehow the same way as Foucault's and/or Agamben's critiques, is a really flawed move to be making. And it's problematic given that the anti-left have evidently used the "The left is stuck in the 60's" PowerPoint tactic to shut down actual leftist discourse in the public.
posted by polymodus at 5:53 PM on April 30, 2022
posted by polymodus at 5:53 PM on April 30, 2022
There's been enough new commentary building up that I've thought it might be time for a new history/geopolitics/ideology theory oriented thread, but whew that might not go well...
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:54 PM on April 30, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:54 PM on April 30, 2022
Nukes are very, very, very precise devices. Even the slightest degradation in the explosive you use or in the electronics controlling the darn-near microsecond timing of the detonations, and your multi-million dollar nuke is now a not-even-very-effective dirty bomb.
Unless the detonation system is completely fucked you're still reasonably likely to get a couple of kilotons out of your bomb. That's still going to fuck some shit up, even if the radius of total destruction is only like half a mile.
posted by wierdo at 6:32 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Unless the detonation system is completely fucked you're still reasonably likely to get a couple of kilotons out of your bomb. That's still going to fuck some shit up, even if the radius of total destruction is only like half a mile.
posted by wierdo at 6:32 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think the overarching problem is that setting up LOTS of hidden nukes requires a big, airtight organization that never screws up, because if any destination country gets wind of ONE, all hell breaks loose immediately. I could believe a very small number of infiltrated WMDs (nukes or otherwise), similar to the small one-off assassinations that Russia is well-known to have pulled off successfully. But the more of them there are, the further the organizing attention to detail is spread, and the greater number of chances for something to go wrong.
But it feels superfluous. It's hardly necessary unless applied to a target they don't think they could hit via conventional delivery, and THOSE options are well understood, well-developed, and can be secured safe on home territory (or in well-stealthed submarines).
I'm not saying the Russians COULDN'T sneak a nuke into a hostile country. I'm saying that they have better options than that. But if there was some special case (like, say, a former president who can't keep his mouth shut), I could see them sending that very special message From Russia With Love.
posted by notoriety public at 7:18 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
But it feels superfluous. It's hardly necessary unless applied to a target they don't think they could hit via conventional delivery, and THOSE options are well understood, well-developed, and can be secured safe on home territory (or in well-stealthed submarines).
I'm not saying the Russians COULDN'T sneak a nuke into a hostile country. I'm saying that they have better options than that. But if there was some special case (like, say, a former president who can't keep his mouth shut), I could see them sending that very special message From Russia With Love.
posted by notoriety public at 7:18 PM on April 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think if we're living in the "Of course Putin has a network of reliable totally hidden nukes already placed in the US" world, we're probably also living in the "Of course the US has a network of informants and surveillance devices throughout the corrupt Russian military and political system and knows where they all are and has stealthily disabled them" world.
posted by Reverend John at 7:45 PM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 7:45 PM on April 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
First, I think it's ageist to suggest that our intellectual elders are out of touch because the world is "different" today. But more than that, it would a special pleading fallacy to say basically that this crisis is magically, or could be, somehow, different.
But everything is always different. Foucault was wrong because he assumed that what was going to happen was that neoliberalism was going to proceed neatly to solve the problems he saw with the strong-ish trente glorieuses states. He was wrong because he assumed that he understood the present well enough to predict the future. I mean, if you read some of the French intellectual enthusiasms over neoliberalism it's completely laughable now how much they misunderstood - they seem risibly naive because we've lived through it, but of course these were smart, smart people. If anything, the lesson to take away is that very, very smart people can have a strong analysis of time they live through and miss an inflection point when things change.
Things do change. There are inflection points. It's not "all crises were the same until this special one that's different"; it's that all crises are different all the time and therefore it's dangerous to be attached to the powerful explanations of the last crisis. Like, perhaps you remember when Empire was all the go? It seemed to explain so much. Does it explain much now? Maybe it will speak to the times again in ten years.
It's because theory isn't "true" in some absolute sense that it's dangerous to treat everything like it's all biopolitics or whatever; because theory is an interpretive strategy for doing things, it's always going to be time and place bound.
This, by the way, doesn't really have much to do with Chomsky. Chomsky on Ukraine is mostly trying to figure out a situation where Russia, NATO and the US are all bad actors. If Russia, NATO and the US all decided to withdraw from Ukraine tomorrow the Ukraine war would stop, but of course no one is going to do this unilaterally. If all states decided to withdraw from taking anti-pandemic measures in 2020 the pandemic wouldn't stop. Agamben does a lot more than point out that states are bad actors and new bad things are emerging from state actions during the pandemic*.
Chomsky is a no go on this issue, to me, because it simply isn't morally tenable to tell other people that their obligation is to give in and be ruled by an unwanted ruler just because the unwanted ruler wants to rule them. The points he raises aren't bad or incorrect or beneath consideration at all; they're just not something that stacks up very well against what Ukrainians themselves want.
*TBH I think even that position would have been totally wrong about the force of "back to normal". When there was all that Vandana Shiva "the pandemic is a portal" stuff going on, that was what I thought was unrealistic.
posted by Frowner at 7:56 PM on April 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
But everything is always different. Foucault was wrong because he assumed that what was going to happen was that neoliberalism was going to proceed neatly to solve the problems he saw with the strong-ish trente glorieuses states. He was wrong because he assumed that he understood the present well enough to predict the future. I mean, if you read some of the French intellectual enthusiasms over neoliberalism it's completely laughable now how much they misunderstood - they seem risibly naive because we've lived through it, but of course these were smart, smart people. If anything, the lesson to take away is that very, very smart people can have a strong analysis of time they live through and miss an inflection point when things change.
Things do change. There are inflection points. It's not "all crises were the same until this special one that's different"; it's that all crises are different all the time and therefore it's dangerous to be attached to the powerful explanations of the last crisis. Like, perhaps you remember when Empire was all the go? It seemed to explain so much. Does it explain much now? Maybe it will speak to the times again in ten years.
It's because theory isn't "true" in some absolute sense that it's dangerous to treat everything like it's all biopolitics or whatever; because theory is an interpretive strategy for doing things, it's always going to be time and place bound.
This, by the way, doesn't really have much to do with Chomsky. Chomsky on Ukraine is mostly trying to figure out a situation where Russia, NATO and the US are all bad actors. If Russia, NATO and the US all decided to withdraw from Ukraine tomorrow the Ukraine war would stop, but of course no one is going to do this unilaterally. If all states decided to withdraw from taking anti-pandemic measures in 2020 the pandemic wouldn't stop. Agamben does a lot more than point out that states are bad actors and new bad things are emerging from state actions during the pandemic*.
Chomsky is a no go on this issue, to me, because it simply isn't morally tenable to tell other people that their obligation is to give in and be ruled by an unwanted ruler just because the unwanted ruler wants to rule them. The points he raises aren't bad or incorrect or beneath consideration at all; they're just not something that stacks up very well against what Ukrainians themselves want.
*TBH I think even that position would have been totally wrong about the force of "back to normal". When there was all that Vandana Shiva "the pandemic is a portal" stuff going on, that was what I thought was unrealistic.
posted by Frowner at 7:56 PM on April 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
Further, in re "our elders" and ageism: I'm forty-seven. I'm an "elder" in some places. I've noticed people my age become more and more wrong about the present because we inevitably look at it through the lens of the nineties. I know people who have a really smart historical framing about the nineties who really, really don't understand the conditions of activism now. (I'm not saying that I understand them; I'm saying that I can tell when people are totally off the mark.) People accrete the past around themselves and I guess it's both an armor and a prison. This is true even of very smart people who do very important work.
posted by Frowner at 8:07 PM on April 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:07 PM on April 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
I recently learned about his denial of the genocide in Cambodia.
also Bosnia
this is highly relevant to the subject at hand, because of all long-disgraced jokes now living, noam chomsky is the guy you want right by your side if a nuclear war starts. who else would work so hard to convince you it wasn't really happening
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:09 PM on April 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
also Bosnia
this is highly relevant to the subject at hand, because of all long-disgraced jokes now living, noam chomsky is the guy you want right by your side if a nuclear war starts. who else would work so hard to convince you it wasn't really happening
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:09 PM on April 30, 2022 [10 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. This post / thread exists at the very outer fringe of what is acceptable on the site (and honestly would have been deleted as a double if a moderator were on when it was posted) because we absolutely do not intend to have rolling 24/7 Nukes: We're All Going To Die megathreads as a core feature here. But it is here for now, so please try to avoid descending into doom fanfic with confident and absolute statements about secret stuff that Putin has prepared "without a doubt," etc. Please consider starting a Slack channel or similar for the conspiracy / personal predictions stuff.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:56 AM on May 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:56 AM on May 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
A video report with expert interviews in German and English about Putin's threats on nuclear war. The common thread is that the west should take the threat seriously, but not to panic or give into Putin's political blackmailing tactics; the risk of nuclear war is low.
Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, had some interesting words and criticism on the absurdity of the West allowing, if needed, every single Ukrainian to die — but if one Polish soldier dies then it's all-in with NATO and total nuclear destruction. There's a lack of solidarity in the west which is partially due to a 'we got ours!' mentality amongst nations presumably protected by nuclear weapons (my interpretation, her own words are in the interview).
posted by UN at 5:16 AM on May 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, had some interesting words and criticism on the absurdity of the West allowing, if needed, every single Ukrainian to die — but if one Polish soldier dies then it's all-in with NATO and total nuclear destruction. There's a lack of solidarity in the west which is partially due to a 'we got ours!' mentality amongst nations presumably protected by nuclear weapons (my interpretation, her own words are in the interview).
posted by UN at 5:16 AM on May 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
This, by the way, doesn't really have much to do with Chomsky. Chomsky on Ukraine is mostly trying to figure out a situation where Russia, NATO and the US are all bad actors.
Chomsky has now endorsed Trump as the one 'statesman of stature' in the West capable of 'resolving the crisis," so yeah, stick a fork in him.
The points he raises aren't bad or incorrect or beneath consideration
This one is.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:13 AM on May 1, 2022 [28 favorites]
Chomsky has now endorsed Trump as the one 'statesman of stature' in the West capable of 'resolving the crisis," so yeah, stick a fork in him.
The points he raises aren't bad or incorrect or beneath consideration
This one is.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:13 AM on May 1, 2022 [28 favorites]
In the spirit of the previous nuclear war thread, and to hopefully lighten the mood, in reference to the post title:
Kasey Chambers, "We're All Gonna Die Someday"
posted by Reverend John at 10:09 AM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Kasey Chambers, "We're All Gonna Die Someday"
posted by Reverend John at 10:09 AM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
A full exchange will end life as we know it.
(honestly, reading the latest ICC report... well the future's so bright I gotta wear shades)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:32 PM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
(honestly, reading the latest ICC report... well the future's so bright I gotta wear shades)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:32 PM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Notice this maybe good idea in the Kiev Independent:
Today, Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) announced his introduction of a joint resolution that would authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the event that Vladimir Putin escalates his unjust war against our democratic allies
Probably won't pass or get signed but makes for real signaling that some in USA are serious.
posted by sammyo at 6:17 PM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Today, Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) announced his introduction of a joint resolution that would authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in the event that Vladimir Putin escalates his unjust war against our democratic allies
Probably won't pass or get signed but makes for real signaling that some in USA are serious.
posted by sammyo at 6:17 PM on May 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
"Earlier, three missiles arrived early in the morning of April 26. Two of them struck the city’s aluminum plant and killed a security guard. These missiles passed over the nuclear power plant in their flight, which head of state nuclear operator Energoatom warned “threatens a nuclear and radiation catastrophe.”
posted by clavdivs at 7:12 PM on May 1, 2022
posted by clavdivs at 7:12 PM on May 1, 2022
Ahh, I needed some slightly cheesy country music from Australia this morning (Kasey Chambers).
Wikipedia has a long list of songs about the bomb.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:35 AM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Wikipedia has a long list of songs about the bomb.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:35 AM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
This is long (1h30m), but I found it worth watching: Will the Invasion of Ukraine Lead to Nuclear War? What we can do about it, from Watson Institute For International And Public Affairs, with Dr. Ira Helfand and Dr. Michael Klare, both Nobel Peace Prize winners.
posted by hippybear at 11:38 AM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 11:38 AM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think if we're living in the "Of course Putin has a network of reliable totally hidden nukes already placed in the US" world, we're probably also living in the "Of course the US has a network of informants and surveillance devices throughout the corrupt Russian military and political system and knows where they all are and has stealthily disabled them" world.
Sounds like a great time for a Telefon reboot! "The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep. And miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sounds like a great time for a Telefon reboot! "The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep. And miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:07 PM on May 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Youtuber Perun has a new video up about nuclear war and Ukraine: Calling Russia's nuclear bluff - Russian nuclear doctrine & the Ukraine war. Like all of his videos on Ukraine it is surprisingly expert-seeming. His TL;DR is that the use of nukes is unlikely.
posted by surlyben at 8:43 AM on May 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by surlyben at 8:43 AM on May 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Well, Russian TV host, talking about inundating Britain with Tsunami nukes. The fishing is going to be terrible after that, maybe not so many radiation clouds for Russians to inhale later. What I have attempted to say in these threads is that for some entities, there are no rules. They are inherently lawless endgamers. The destruction of Mariupol, rape of all sexes and ages, blatant misrepresentation, and accelerated aggression, point to a depraved lawlessness, which, I think characterizes nuclear war, and the forward motion of the assault on Ukraine, even converting Kherson to rubles and shutting down outside contact, this reads like their threats are more than posturing.
I do not support Russia's warmongering, or warring, we have let this activity happen in our world, for so long. Disrespect of borders goes on, we have not protected a lot of people we should have. The genie is barely in the bottle, but, I have mentioned an instance where I thought nuclear energy may have been used to make a natural catastrophe, maybe there were two, if they have nukes with a different signature, for "underwater work," surely they tested them. I have thought for a long time, the Fukushima tsunami may have come from climage change, and a breached, natural, earthen, underwater dam, somewhere north of Japan. So maybe they were just fooling around to see how much earth and water they could move and to what effect.
I know mods have not been happy with my posts in this thread, but I am a creative type, and there you have it.
posted by Oyéah at 11:22 AM on May 4, 2022
I do not support Russia's warmongering, or warring, we have let this activity happen in our world, for so long. Disrespect of borders goes on, we have not protected a lot of people we should have. The genie is barely in the bottle, but, I have mentioned an instance where I thought nuclear energy may have been used to make a natural catastrophe, maybe there were two, if they have nukes with a different signature, for "underwater work," surely they tested them. I have thought for a long time, the Fukushima tsunami may have come from climage change, and a breached, natural, earthen, underwater dam, somewhere north of Japan. So maybe they were just fooling around to see how much earth and water they could move and to what effect.
I know mods have not been happy with my posts in this thread, but I am a creative type, and there you have it.
posted by Oyéah at 11:22 AM on May 4, 2022
I don’t think it’s even remotely feasible to fake an earthquake with a nuke. The Tohoku earthquake was well characterized as a genuine earthquake, particularly with very large foreshocks occurring starting multiple days before.
However, regarding Russia going Tsunami Bomb Apeshit? I feel like that’s all too plausible.
posted by notoriety public at 12:05 PM on May 4, 2022
However, regarding Russia going Tsunami Bomb Apeshit? I feel like that’s all too plausible.
posted by notoriety public at 12:05 PM on May 4, 2022
Isn't there a huge, precarious rock formation under the Atlantic off the western coast of Africa which, at some point in the next few million years, is likely to catastrophically collapse, triggering a tsunami that would obliterate all human habitation on the eastern seaboard of North America? If lack of radioactivity is not a dealbreaker, Russia (or the comicbook supervillain of your choice) could probably help it along with some conventional explosives.
posted by acb at 12:21 PM on May 4, 2022
posted by acb at 12:21 PM on May 4, 2022
I know mods have not been happy with my posts in this thread, but I am a creative type, and there you have it.
FWIW, we've had a running grey thread where your thoughts and reactions are likely to remain undisturbed unless someone goes out of their way. (And those grey threads are likely to outlast these nuke threads, per the mod note above.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:24 PM on May 4, 2022
FWIW, we've had a running grey thread where your thoughts and reactions are likely to remain undisturbed unless someone goes out of their way. (And those grey threads are likely to outlast these nuke threads, per the mod note above.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:24 PM on May 4, 2022
So, what the "what if" engineers should think through is, using random organic timing, how could an entity, using conventional or unconventional weapons, create the seismic signature of foreshocks, leading up to a natural-seeming event?
They are mining the ocean floor now, horrific. How do their explosions read, if they are using commercial weaponry to excavate? To my knowledge, we haven't tested a lot of nukes, since we last poisoned Utahans. I walked to school in 1965 under dyed, radioactive clouds. Supposedly a suitcase nuke blew off the top of Diddle Peak, during Bush's time, a reliable engineer who worked on Bangerger's pumps reported the flash, and the crack that formed at the base of one of the pumps. And maybe the brine mining for Thorium, is just jive to cover for the inexplicable radiation present, aside from the DU, out on the test range.
Nuclear war is everything that goes into the recipe, even the secret ingredients and events.
posted by Oyéah at 12:33 PM on May 4, 2022
They are mining the ocean floor now, horrific. How do their explosions read, if they are using commercial weaponry to excavate? To my knowledge, we haven't tested a lot of nukes, since we last poisoned Utahans. I walked to school in 1965 under dyed, radioactive clouds. Supposedly a suitcase nuke blew off the top of Diddle Peak, during Bush's time, a reliable engineer who worked on Bangerger's pumps reported the flash, and the crack that formed at the base of one of the pumps. And maybe the brine mining for Thorium, is just jive to cover for the inexplicable radiation present, aside from the DU, out on the test range.
Nuclear war is everything that goes into the recipe, even the secret ingredients and events.
posted by Oyéah at 12:33 PM on May 4, 2022
Underwater nuclear explosions would be detectable; they're monitored for under the applicable test ban treaties.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
And while we're on possibly-real Russian doomsday weapons, anyone remember the late and unlamented Vladimir Zhirinovsky's “Elipton”, which was supposedly some kind of energy weapon capable of obliterating all of not-Russia at the push of a button or something? Whatever happened with that?
posted by acb at 3:58 PM on May 4, 2022
posted by acb at 3:58 PM on May 4, 2022
Total horsepucky that hasn't been mentioned since 1994 (and at the time was implied to be a ray-gun pistol).
I suppose if you wanted to be as generous as possible you might connect it to the debate over potential sound/energy attacks on embassy personnel.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:31 PM on May 4, 2022
I suppose if you wanted to be as generous as possible you might connect it to the debate over potential sound/energy attacks on embassy personnel.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:31 PM on May 4, 2022
Nuclear detonations, whether underground, underwater, in-atmosphere or exo-atmospheric, are all pretty detectable. The US has a huge amount of infrastructure dedicated to looking/listening for detonations as part of treaty-violation enforcement. I don't know if the Russians ever bothered with similar systems (they have radar satellites and IR launch-warning systems, but I'm not sure they cared quite so much about test ban compliance), but there are other states who do. Even an underground blast from a "small" nuke would eventually produce detectable byproducts that would distinguish it from a natural phenomenon.
It would be fairly hard to hide a nuclear detonation. I'm pretty skeptical that any have happened without detection in the modern era... the sole exception being the "1979 Vela Incident", which is a presumed nuclear detonation over some very remote South African islands in the southern Indian Ocean, which nobody has (publicly) taken credit for. The smart money seems to be on the theory that it was a test of a joint SA/Israeli weapon, prior to SA's decision to unilaterally disarm and end its nuclear program.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
It would be fairly hard to hide a nuclear detonation. I'm pretty skeptical that any have happened without detection in the modern era... the sole exception being the "1979 Vela Incident", which is a presumed nuclear detonation over some very remote South African islands in the southern Indian Ocean, which nobody has (publicly) taken credit for. The smart money seems to be on the theory that it was a test of a joint SA/Israeli weapon, prior to SA's decision to unilaterally disarm and end its nuclear program.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
regarding Russia going Tsunami Bomb Apeshit? I feel like that’s all too plausible.
You're talking about Kanyon, a very large nuclear powered torpedo/drone currently being designed by the Russian government. Let's review some of the more extravagant claims made about Kanyon.
1) 100 megaton warhead? That's twice the size of the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, Tsar Bomba. Also, it would need to be a miniaturized 100MT warhead. Tsar Bomba weighed 27 tons and was 8m long by 2m wide. That's a bit large even given speculations about the size of Kanyon. In general, miniaturization of nuclear weapons is the hard part, the reason why weapons testing is necessary. Here's some speculation that a 2MT warhead might be more likely.
2) Speed of 100 knots? Debunked here. Kanyon is not plausibly capable of supercavitation.
3) Tsunami? Says who? Here is a list of all underwater nuclear tests. They are all small, in the 4-30kt range, testing tactical weapons like depth charges. Given the lack of testing at scale, I'm skeptical that there are entirely reliable models of what would happen if a 100MT warhead were detonated underwater.
Kanyon is not scheduled to be deployed until 2027. It does not currently exist, nor do customized submarines capable of carrying it into launch position currently exist. That's 2027 assuming that the Russian armaments industry can deliver, on schedule, technology which is experimental for several different reasons.
More debunking here.
Kanyon doesn't seem to be vaporware - it is a real weapons program. However, it's not magic. It's effectively "the world's slowest and most vulnerable ICBM." I certainly do hope that the various NATO navies are planning countermeasures against this potential future threat. However, you most certainly not do not need to be concerned that Putin will use it to drown the UK tomorrow.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
You're talking about Kanyon, a very large nuclear powered torpedo/drone currently being designed by the Russian government. Let's review some of the more extravagant claims made about Kanyon.
1) 100 megaton warhead? That's twice the size of the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, Tsar Bomba. Also, it would need to be a miniaturized 100MT warhead. Tsar Bomba weighed 27 tons and was 8m long by 2m wide. That's a bit large even given speculations about the size of Kanyon. In general, miniaturization of nuclear weapons is the hard part, the reason why weapons testing is necessary. Here's some speculation that a 2MT warhead might be more likely.
2) Speed of 100 knots? Debunked here. Kanyon is not plausibly capable of supercavitation.
3) Tsunami? Says who? Here is a list of all underwater nuclear tests. They are all small, in the 4-30kt range, testing tactical weapons like depth charges. Given the lack of testing at scale, I'm skeptical that there are entirely reliable models of what would happen if a 100MT warhead were detonated underwater.
Kanyon is not scheduled to be deployed until 2027. It does not currently exist, nor do customized submarines capable of carrying it into launch position currently exist. That's 2027 assuming that the Russian armaments industry can deliver, on schedule, technology which is experimental for several different reasons.
More debunking here.
Kanyon doesn't seem to be vaporware - it is a real weapons program. However, it's not magic. It's effectively "the world's slowest and most vulnerable ICBM." I certainly do hope that the various NATO navies are planning countermeasures against this potential future threat. However, you most certainly not do not need to be concerned that Putin will use it to drown the UK tomorrow.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2022 [6 favorites]
I have no idea what we, or Russia have. I just repeated what some Russian, "Tucker Carlson," said, on Russian TV recently. I am comforted by your knowledge, justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow.
posted by Oyéah at 4:28 PM on May 8, 2022
posted by Oyéah at 4:28 PM on May 8, 2022
My one anxiety is that I'm not convinced that Putin is convinced that anything will be done if he uses nukes. Certainly, the public suggestions I've heard is that the only result will be more sanctions, which is hardly going to dissuade him, especially since the likely answer is that the easiest way to deal with that is to accumulate sufficient resources that you make it hard to keep sanctions, i.e. you quickly use nuclear blackmail to turn any bordering non-aligned states into part of Russia. The *nicest* option after that is merely that everyone who isn't REAL damn secure under a nuclear umbrella realizes that getting nukes is absolutely an existential need. So we end up with a bunch of new slave states and a nuclear race.
I mean, I'm not sure what the hell I'd do either, but the fact is that once you start letting nuclear blackmail work, pretty rapidly you end up with the world divided between nuclear powers and vassal states. And frankly, it's not even what the US/EU would do, it is what Putin *thinks* they would do, and if they haven't at least put a substantial fear into him that there will be military retaliation, well...
Note that in no way do I think that possibility means that Ukraine should just roll over and play dead. Turning yourself into a slave state preemptively is no way to go either.
posted by tavella at 9:43 PM on May 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
I mean, I'm not sure what the hell I'd do either, but the fact is that once you start letting nuclear blackmail work, pretty rapidly you end up with the world divided between nuclear powers and vassal states. And frankly, it's not even what the US/EU would do, it is what Putin *thinks* they would do, and if they haven't at least put a substantial fear into him that there will be military retaliation, well...
Note that in no way do I think that possibility means that Ukraine should just roll over and play dead. Turning yourself into a slave state preemptively is no way to go either.
posted by tavella at 9:43 PM on May 8, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think that Ukraine would be very careful and maybe push Russia out of all its historical territory before 2014, and not try to get further into Russia. Russia could take invasion of their soil as an existential threat, which they've already said would trigger a nuclear attack. But I think Ukraine would be satisfied with reclaiming their land to that extent, and I have not seen any indication from them they would long for anything more*.
*Fire season in Russia notwithstanding.
posted by hippybear at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2022
*Fire season in Russia notwithstanding.
posted by hippybear at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2022
Counterpoint: Ukraine should have no qualms driving on to Moscow, shelling the Kremlin into rubble, disarming them, and liberating every state that Russia has annexed since 1300. Russia picked this fight.
posted by mikelieman at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2022 [4 favorites]
That's certainly up to the Ukrainians, regardless of the choice they make.
posted by hippybear at 6:37 PM on May 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 6:37 PM on May 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
qualms, hell no. though, the foreign fighters have a say. If Ukraine somehow mounted a limited offensive into Russia it is most certainly up to them.
The support they get to do that may not come, so it's safe to say Ukraine most likely will not be shelling the Kremlin. If Russia starts to collapse he-ya take back the 2014 boarders but in that chaos, Russia would most likely just withdrawal.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on May 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
The support they get to do that may not come, so it's safe to say Ukraine most likely will not be shelling the Kremlin. If Russia starts to collapse he-ya take back the 2014 boarders but in that chaos, Russia would most likely just withdrawal.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on May 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
There are strategic reasons for which Ukraine might send forces across the 2014 border, even if they did not plan on actually taking any land on that side of the border. Destruction of Russian offensive capability being the obvious one. Pressing for an end to the war on their terms—including safe return of all the hostages Russia has taken—would be another.
The West needs to let Ukraine go as far as they need to, to get their territory and citizens back.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:58 PM on May 9, 2022 [5 favorites]
The West needs to let Ukraine go as far as they need to, to get their territory and citizens back.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:58 PM on May 9, 2022 [5 favorites]
Driving far into Russia seems highly unlikely. There are a few spots where the northern border bulges that Ukraine might want to take (or at least see demilitarized); some are empty, others have a village or two (and I have no idea how national extraction and language breaks down along that northern border).
Ukrainians are largely adamant that they have no interest in Russia, that's part of discrediting the Russian 'Z' narrative. I also doubt that they are eager to go do more dying outside Ukraine's maximally recognized borders in a campaign that would have a lot less international support, or besiege Russian cities where their relatives live. Ukrainians clearly remember WWII better, and its hard to imagine any appetite for a new Battle of Kursk after turning the tide of this war.
The only reason to take significant amounts of Russian territory (especially if basically undefended) would be to make a potential deal for Crimea easier by handing back borderlands closer to Moscow. Or the return of deportees, and other things important for any permanent status.
I can't imagine the military and intelligence purge Putin would have to conduct to get the populace to swallow that; it can't be his fault.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:40 AM on May 10, 2022
Ukrainians are largely adamant that they have no interest in Russia, that's part of discrediting the Russian 'Z' narrative. I also doubt that they are eager to go do more dying outside Ukraine's maximally recognized borders in a campaign that would have a lot less international support, or besiege Russian cities where their relatives live. Ukrainians clearly remember WWII better, and its hard to imagine any appetite for a new Battle of Kursk after turning the tide of this war.
The only reason to take significant amounts of Russian territory (especially if basically undefended) would be to make a potential deal for Crimea easier by handing back borderlands closer to Moscow. Or the return of deportees, and other things important for any permanent status.
I can't imagine the military and intelligence purge Putin would have to conduct to get the populace to swallow that; it can't be his fault.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:40 AM on May 10, 2022
Also, something's going on in the DPRK.
Journalist Chad O'Carroll [@chadoc]: Multiple sources told NK News that people ordered indoors due to national lockdown/national problem. Large lines of people seen suddenly rushing home at around 2pm this afternoon.
NK News: Lockdown orders issued in Pyongyang due to ‘national problem’
"North Korean authorities apparently instructed citizens not to go outside their buildings and did not specify when the order would be reversed, a source said. NK News understands the orders were likely issued nationwide, although people could still be seen farming alongside the inter-Korean border near Paju on Tuesday around 5 p.m. KST."
Different than DPRK's Covid measures, but on the other hand "a foreign diplomat who worked in Pyongyang told NK News that short-term instructions to stay inside are not unusual, even before the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020."
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:50 AM on May 10, 2022
Journalist Chad O'Carroll [@chadoc]: Multiple sources told NK News that people ordered indoors due to national lockdown/national problem. Large lines of people seen suddenly rushing home at around 2pm this afternoon.
NK News: Lockdown orders issued in Pyongyang due to ‘national problem’
"North Korean authorities apparently instructed citizens not to go outside their buildings and did not specify when the order would be reversed, a source said. NK News understands the orders were likely issued nationwide, although people could still be seen farming alongside the inter-Korean border near Paju on Tuesday around 5 p.m. KST."
Different than DPRK's Covid measures, but on the other hand "a foreign diplomat who worked in Pyongyang told NK News that short-term instructions to stay inside are not unusual, even before the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020."
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:50 AM on May 10, 2022
I think the moment Ukraine steps past the pre-2014 borders a lot of international goodwill and post-war financial support evaporates. They’ve prosecuted the PR campaign with incredible savvy (in addition to Zelensky’s own media background, they likely have the best guidance Western psyops specialists can offer), so there’s really no way they’d be unaware of that. Pull right up to the border with artillery that now outranges the Russian army’s, maybe a handful of air incursions to bomb airfields/runways… but I can’t realistically see more than that.
The best endgame, from what I can make out, is to cede the Donbas villages that genuinely wish to be Russian in exchange for the (tens of? Hundreds of?) thousands of citizens Russia’s kidnapped, *anywhere that does not compromise Ukraine’s considerable untapped mineral and fossil fuel resources*.
This gives Putin something to claim as victory (“we have liberated those who are Russian in spirit” would even be partially true), and costs Ukraine nothing but future headaches. Reclaiming villages that don’t want to be reclaimed is destined to backfire, and as long as those villages aren’t sitting on future oil fields the potential tax revenue loss isn’t worth it. I could easily be wrong but this seems like a case where letting each village choose their own ruler - de facto democracy - is both expedient and in Ukraine’s interest.
At any rate that’s the outcome I’m hoping for: Ukraine is fully capable of getting their old borders back with the hardware they’ve been given and expertise/national unity they’ve developed. No exchange needed. But they’re not getting their people back without negotiations, and those border villages are the only thing Russia wants that Ukraine would be (arguably) better off without.
posted by Ryvar at 6:10 AM on May 11, 2022
The best endgame, from what I can make out, is to cede the Donbas villages that genuinely wish to be Russian in exchange for the (tens of? Hundreds of?) thousands of citizens Russia’s kidnapped, *anywhere that does not compromise Ukraine’s considerable untapped mineral and fossil fuel resources*.
This gives Putin something to claim as victory (“we have liberated those who are Russian in spirit” would even be partially true), and costs Ukraine nothing but future headaches. Reclaiming villages that don’t want to be reclaimed is destined to backfire, and as long as those villages aren’t sitting on future oil fields the potential tax revenue loss isn’t worth it. I could easily be wrong but this seems like a case where letting each village choose their own ruler - de facto democracy - is both expedient and in Ukraine’s interest.
At any rate that’s the outcome I’m hoping for: Ukraine is fully capable of getting their old borders back with the hardware they’ve been given and expertise/national unity they’ve developed. No exchange needed. But they’re not getting their people back without negotiations, and those border villages are the only thing Russia wants that Ukraine would be (arguably) better off without.
posted by Ryvar at 6:10 AM on May 11, 2022
. No exchange needed. But they’re not getting their people back without negotiations, and those border villages are the only thing Russia wants that Ukraine would be (arguably) better off without.
Unless Ukraine pushes on and captures Russian territory. Then the negotiating chip is, "Do you want the liberated parts of Russia back, or do we keep going until we're marching in Red Square, and liberate everything you've annexed since 1300?"
posted by mikelieman at 7:52 AM on May 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
Unless Ukraine pushes on and captures Russian territory. Then the negotiating chip is, "Do you want the liberated parts of Russia back, or do we keep going until we're marching in Red Square, and liberate everything you've annexed since 1300?"
posted by mikelieman at 7:52 AM on May 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
"No, we'll just nuke Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa and your nuclear power plants if you try it, thanks."
Ukraine is thankfully too sensible militarily and too respectful of the lives of its citizens for that to be a serious idea. But some kind of taking and returning territory around the borders is normal enough.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:56 AM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
Ukraine is thankfully too sensible militarily and too respectful of the lives of its citizens for that to be a serious idea. But some kind of taking and returning territory around the borders is normal enough.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:56 AM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
I really feel that surrendering to the terrorists who are kidnapping and killing people, blowing buildings up, and holding cities hostage at nuke-point, and then relying on their honesty and good-faith to not screw you over is never the right way to go, since it will encourage them to continue and others to adopt their successful measures.
posted by mikelieman at 9:49 AM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 9:49 AM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
There's a pretty wide gulf between "surrendering" and fantasies about marching on Moscow.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:17 AM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:17 AM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
It was once a fantasy that Ukraine would still be fighting 75 days later, wasn't it? My concern is that if Russia doesn't lose, lose big, and know they've lost, then they've won. And they'll do it all again. And when they do, more people will die. The only way to get there is to be able to negotiate from a position of strength.
posted by mikelieman at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
Only if you are Vladimir Putin. Ukraine is a country of 40M people. It was always going to keep fighting one way or another.
You are calling for Ukraine to do precisely the thing that Russia says will cause it to employ nuclear weapons.
You're also inviting a formal invocation of the CSTO equivalent of Article 5. Even the most rabid #NATOwave people understand this, but whatever.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
You are calling for Ukraine to do precisely the thing that Russia says will cause it to employ nuclear weapons.
You're also inviting a formal invocation of the CSTO equivalent of Article 5. Even the most rabid #NATOwave people understand this, but whatever.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
That is literally the point of this thread. We stand at a brink, and nobody knows what will happen. Ukraine takes back territory it had before 2014... does Putin regard that as an existential attack on Russia itself, or will he regard that as some kind of comfortable boundary he's willing to lose before launching the nukes?
And if he launches the nukes, where do they go? That's also an interesting question. Would he destroy Kiyv, regarded as "queen of the cities" nearly a millennia before Moscow even is mentioned as a place? Would he pick someplace less important to make his point?
This whole thing is such a spectacular mess. Part of me wants to make popcorn, and part of me wants to start digging a shelter in my backyard.
posted by hippybear at 5:40 PM on May 11, 2022
And if he launches the nukes, where do they go? That's also an interesting question. Would he destroy Kiyv, regarded as "queen of the cities" nearly a millennia before Moscow even is mentioned as a place? Would he pick someplace less important to make his point?
This whole thing is such a spectacular mess. Part of me wants to make popcorn, and part of me wants to start digging a shelter in my backyard.
posted by hippybear at 5:40 PM on May 11, 2022
No, regardless of your loudly ballyhooed and intensely personal death drive the point is this thread is not to call for nuclear war, but rather to discuss the potential for it. Most of us are more concerned with its avoidance.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:43 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:43 PM on May 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
Good lord, you do wax poetic, don't you?
I'm not calling for anything, and I want to avoid everything. But I can do nothing but wait out the events, just like every single other person in this thread.
posted by hippybear at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2022
I'm not calling for anything, and I want to avoid everything. But I can do nothing but wait out the events, just like every single other person in this thread.
posted by hippybear at 5:47 PM on May 11, 2022
Scroll up to the "march on moscow part" 🙄
call for shitposting to be taken seriously, get a serious response
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:51 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
call for shitposting to be taken seriously, get a serious response
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:51 PM on May 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
Wasn't typed by me, isn't up to the person that typed it. *shrug*
posted by hippybear at 5:52 PM on May 11, 2022
posted by hippybear at 5:52 PM on May 11, 2022
Youtuber Perun has a new video up about nuclear war and Ukraine: Calling Russia's nuclear bluff - Russian nuclear doctrine & the Ukraine war . Like all of his videos on Ukraine it is surprisingly expert-seeming. His TL;DR is that the use of nukes is unlikely.
I watched that because some reddit extremely confidently pro-war commenters (think maybe libertarian or centrist political types, probably young white male adults) were circulating it. Just the fact that it is being circulated on social media in those circles way should give anyone pause.
Anyways it was an interesting video but ultimately if you listen to his argument carefully he's not making much of a point at all. His opinion is that is if assuming the standard theories of nuclear warfare, it currently looks to be low probability that outright nuclear use will happen. That's like 4 qualifiers/caveats that he openly admits to using. So it lets him make a very specific point while not saying much at all about the broader issues of nuclear escalation. Like a weather prediction except there's so much we don't know. And then social media totally distorts his message, which I think is the real harm.
posted by polymodus at 2:04 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
I watched that because some reddit extremely confidently pro-war commenters (think maybe libertarian or centrist political types, probably young white male adults) were circulating it. Just the fact that it is being circulated on social media in those circles way should give anyone pause.
Anyways it was an interesting video but ultimately if you listen to his argument carefully he's not making much of a point at all. His opinion is that is if assuming the standard theories of nuclear warfare, it currently looks to be low probability that outright nuclear use will happen. That's like 4 qualifiers/caveats that he openly admits to using. So it lets him make a very specific point while not saying much at all about the broader issues of nuclear escalation. Like a weather prediction except there's so much we don't know. And then social media totally distorts his message, which I think is the real harm.
posted by polymodus at 2:04 AM on May 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Perun also predicted Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because the Russian military hadn’t done the necessary preparations, which would be too extensive to be done in secret.
He was wrong. His facts were right and his reasoning was good, but that’s not enough for any kind of certainty. Putin could do it anyway.
posted by ryanrs at 9:02 AM on May 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
He was wrong. His facts were right and his reasoning was good, but that’s not enough for any kind of certainty. Putin could do it anyway.
posted by ryanrs at 9:02 AM on May 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Part of me wants to make popcorn, and part of me wants to start digging a shelter in my backyard.
On the Beach with hippybear.
posted by y2karl at 1:42 PM on May 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
On the Beach with hippybear.
posted by y2karl at 1:42 PM on May 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I read "On The Beach" when I was 13. How to win in the nuclear war game. Figure out where the first strike will be. Get there with cold champagne, pop the cork, you don't even have to go into the light, it goes right through you!
posted by Oyéah at 4:44 PM on May 15, 2022
posted by Oyéah at 4:44 PM on May 15, 2022
« Older tiktaalik culture | Fire Island Soundtrack Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by loquacious at 3:58 PM on April 29, 2022 [14 favorites]