Its interesting to read some of the other blogs out there these days in regards to the actions going on in Ukraine. There’s definitely a contingent of people who are certain that the current course of action, and the ‘permission’ given to the Ukes to use the US supplied long range munitions, will lead us into a genuine nuclear scenario.
Nuclear weapons are interesting weapons and deterrents. Ostensibly, no one wants to be the first to use them but no one wants to be the last to use them either. What is more liekly to happen if someone launches a (small) nuke at someone….the receiving side and it’s allies restrain themselves form retaliating in kind in the name of the moral high ground? Or they retaliate in kind?
Is the current likelihood of nuclear war, or at least a couple ‘tactical’ or ‘limited’ nuclear uses, higher or lower than what it was during the Cold War?
I was pretty sure the Russians weren’t going to invade Ukraine and I was quite wrong about that. My ability to reasonably predict the future is, obviously, not that great. Do I think someone is going to open up some canned sunshine in this conflict? I really don’t know. I think that it would be alot like the situation the Israelis were (supposedly) in back in ’73 – When their back was to the wall and it looked like they were gonna take it in the shorts, they made a somewhat public show of prepping their nuclear weapons for use and Nixom quickly fired up Operation Nickelgrass and turned on the taps of materiel. I could see the Russians letting the satellites see them moving nuclear munitions to a ‘ready’ position and suddenly US pressure for Kiev to make ‘reasonable compromises’ occurs. Of course, we’d never know about it…but I bet if there’s a dramatic shift in policy towards compromise or appeasement, I’ll bet its because someone put on a show for satellites.
But, do I think anyone will heave a nuke, even a small tactical battlefield nuke, at someone? No,but I’ve been wrong before.
On the other hand, it’s always a good idea to be prepared just in case. And even if thes no nucelar exchange, those preparation work for other non-nuclear disasters as well. I mean, if you’re prepared for WW3.5 youre probably prepared, by default, for lesser things like hurricanes.
“What is more likely to happen if someone launches a (small) nuke at someone…?”
Without knowing who the launcher and target are, it’s impossible to make a prediction. Cultures and mindset are too different among the current acknowledged and suspected nuclear club. Not to mention, what happens if the attack is via a means without a direct and glaringly obvious source – for instance, bomb in a cargo container, bomb in an airliner, etc.
Plus, the whole concept of MAD-based deterrence and restraint is based on assuming rational mindsets, as perceived from a Western perspective. This includes the likely Soviet / Russian leadership outlook; the Chinese are iffier but still not likely to embrace probable personal oblivion. What about cultures that believe death in battle equates to entrance to heaven? Does one hope their leaders are secretly hypocrites?
Well, the post here was in the context of a Russia/Ukraine incident. And, yes, deterrents and that sort of ting only work if all the players share the same values regarding self-preservation.
My main concern at this point is Biden doing something so unbelievably provocative that the Russians feel they have no other choice. Stupidity and pride intersect at the brink of apocalypse.
Maybe. I like to believe that there are people on both sides of the issue who will prevent such things out of a grander sense of humanity. I can’t rely on that, but I like to think its possible. Some leader goes off his rocker, starts demanding that the nukes fly, and a cabal of insiders announce the leader has ‘taken a temporary medical leave for exhaustion’ or some similar type of step-down. I really could see an airplane crash or ‘sudden stroke’ occurring to the world leader who starts rattling his nuclear saber a little too loudly.
Hence Pootie’s 57 saber-rattling incidents since 2022, with zero follow through.
99% chance of a Makarov Retirement Party before his hand gets halfway to the telephone.
The Tic-Tac-Toe futility of nuclear use illustrated in War Games was based on thousands of actual war simulations actually run by the top tiers of our military and government.
When one nuke flies, within about 72 hours, all of them do, from everyone who’s got them, because “use them or lose them”. The more nations who have them, the more that becomes the default scenario.
We’re currently holding at nine nations and counting.
(The US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea, with SAfrica having detonated one, but presumably not holding any in stock. Yet.)
“The only winning move is not to play.”
As far as attitude, at the height of the Cold War, a Soviet Lt. Col., faced with their crappy launch detection apparatus, flat out refused the entirety of his training and orders when their gear was (erroneously) screaming that the U.S. was launching a missile at Russia. His rationale was that that was ridiculous, tensions were low, and it made no sense, so he told his higher ups “BFYTW” when he refused to launch.
He was vindicated by events, and it shows that even the most partisan of people aren’t going to behave like irrational toddlers throwing a tantrum and start slinging nuclear armageddon around like Silly String at a rave.
‘isreal’, the zionist crime syndicate masquerading as a “nation”, cannot afford to toss a nuclear weapon.
.
The response would be unanimous:
* every jew on the planet would be hunted down and exterminated.
I agree with your assessment that nobody actually wants to use a nuclear weapon in this war…. However: The people running things (the deep state seems to be the accepted label for them), are not only insane, but poorly educated as well (despite the fact they believe the opposite). What’s worse, most of them have committed actual actionable crimes. They know if Trump gets in and does all the grand things people want him to (I don’t believe he will, but it’s still a risk), they’re very likely to face some uncomfortable questions surrounding their previous behavior. Depending on how THAT goes, they may be looking at an extended stay at Club-Fed, or worse! I’ve no doubt some of these people have perused the comments section on the internet, googled their own names, and seen the calls for them to be hanged.
Surely that has a way of framing things, when it’s your neck they’re calling for.
I would not put it past any of them individually, nor as a group, to provoke a false-flag attack that involved nuclear material and/or detonation.
They will burn it down in order to rule over the ashes, rather than face the consequences for their actions. Either way they’re dead, might as well take everyone down with me.
Isn’t the idea of “a couple ‘tactical’ or ‘limited’ nuclear uses” similar to being “a little bit pregnant” ?? I’m no expert, but it seems that even a low-yield nuke would be devastating. I’ve read that a tactical nuke might be in the 1 kiloton range, whereas the Nagasaki nuke was 15 kilotons .
There have been some pretty small nukes in the past. The insane Davy Crockett or the SADM come to mind. I think that no one is really keen to start heaving nukes around…you drop a UR-100 on New York City and thats pretty hard to let slide, you set off a tiny nuke with a yield of 20 tons of TNT versus something in the kiloton range, that might be easier to respond to in a less-than-nuclear way.
Smaller yield fission only devices (say 10-100 kT) are easier, technically (if not delivery-wise), than higher yield multistage devices.
Ironically, both are easier than the very small (physically) sub- to few-kT weapons. Both design and manufacture needs to be just about perfect, and they have to be maintained. So I see it much less likely that we’d see those in use first, except maybe on the Russian side. If they kept up the maintenance, still have them in active stockpile, etc.
I was with you in being wrong about the Russians invading Ukraine. I suspect Putin was also in believing that there were enough sympathizers to make the invasion easy…
Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising has a good discussion of the trouble with ‘tactical’ nukes – battlefield conditions will change in the time it takes centralized command and control to release a nuclear weapon.
Additionally, the scale of the nuclear Boogeyman means that any nuclear release has global implications, making even a small nuke essentially Strategic in its effects.
As far as disguising the origin of a nuke, testing of fallout isotope ratios gives a very good idea of where the nuclear material comes from, so unless the weapon was stolen disguising the launch point won’t help much.
I believe Putin is sabre rattling again, but I’ve been wrong before. This is yet another reason I’m glad I don’t live near a big city.
I don’t worry too much about nuclear war.
Keep some electronics in a faraday cage. Have those iodine tablets to not absorb the radiation. Beside that just normal preps.
Incidentally my recent move brought me considerably further from the biggest nuke target in the state. So that is good.
I still believe that if Putin orders nukes, saner people will “put one in his ear”
Terrorists will be the next to use nukes…………….
I think thats the more likely scenario.
Pity that’s not necessarily true with our Obama selected Military leadership here with America’s nukes.
After all, how many times in American History did a General IN CHARGE say to his Chinese counterparts that He’s NOT Allow Trump to use the launch codes.
Not sure but I bet that’s Treason.
Nukes have been used. They will again.
seems it would be less costly and catastrophic to target Russian infrastructure rather than resort to nukes. Like China just cut the undersea cables. Start dropping the carbon fiber bombs on their electric substations and transmission lines and it wouldn’t take long for Russia to cry uncle.
I have to think the US and allies have some kind of satellite killing technology they could shut off Ruskie guidance systems with, like they did in Desert Storm. Bad guys maps went down and not everyone has hard copies like me.
They were using our GPS satellites, so it was easy to shut their access down. Russia and China took that as a lesson and have since put up their own GPS satellite networks. Those satellites are a little harder to get to since they set at about 12,500 miles up.
Beware the false flag attack that leads to escalation. There are too many interest groups out there who want to se large scale war and destruction. The Ukrainians in particular seem to like blowing things up and blaming Russia for it.
There is a lot of talk of nukes but I think the use of chemical or biological weapons would happen FIRST. Mind you that Putin has already employed nerve agents to assassinate his enemies. There is so much talk about the Ukrainian war looking a lot like WW I due to the use of trench warfare. It was chemical weapons that were deployed to get troops out of the trench lines. Also, what are in battlefield trench lines? RATS. Rats carry a number of diseases that Putin probably has in his biological warfare agents repertoire. One other thing, the only biological weapons that are “illegal” under International treaties are those that target humans. A biological weapon that attacks grain fields, or oil or rubber are not covered under the International treaties.
If you look at the last multi-billion dollar aid package to Ukraine from the U.S. it included Chemical defense gear. Other European nations are also providing chemical defense gear to Ukraine. Somebody in the puzzle palace thinks that chemicals or biologicals weapons could be used. Seems like we humans have a propensity to use chemical weapons versus nuclear weapons. But make no mistake that chem/bio agent use is just a gateway WMD. The use of a chemical attack can create a big hole in a defensive line. How do you fix that problem, with a low yield tactical nuclear weapon of course.
I suspect that the U.S./NATO would actually respond conventionally to a Russia chem/bio attack on Ukraine, it is then Russia is more likely to use a tactical nuke.
Even more troubling is the theory that the Covid virus was produced in a Chicom bio-lab. Just think what the Ruskies have cooking up in the same category. Why attack a small number of troops when a more widespread release of a contagious virus into the homeland would negatively affect ALL production of stuff needed to win a war?
That isn’t a “theory”.
And the reason no one ever uses bio-weapons is that “What goes around, comes around.”
Literally, fatally, and to a 100% certainty.
Seems like a general behind the power curve thinking except for MSM propaganda. First Putin launched the SMO when he confirmed Ukes were assembling US/NATO supplied nuclear weapons undercover of radiation at Chernobyl. The parts and enriched Uranium and Plutonium were enough to build at least a dozen if not a score of weapons(depending on yield). Second, Anybody that thinks China Joe is in charge of anything (except molesting children and wondering why his socks are wet is in denial) if Joe is still among the living after his LasVegas emergency evacuation. Third, did anyone notice that the Russians just obsoleted nuclear weapons and any missile defense system? Oreznic(spelling?) otherwise called Hazel was just combat demonstrated(like Hiroshima and Nagaski). All the energy,meter accuracy no nasty side effects. Medium range hypersonic missile with mirved warheads with independent submunitions. Even a 500Kg warhead moving at 10x speed of sound at 4000 degrees C turned a Nuclear Battle hardened Uzmash plant into something the PTB are afraid to even look at (that was without warheads just kinetic dummies)a little plasma energy goes along way. To think this technology has not been applied to longer range missiles is denial. This 1 missile has 6 warheads with each having 6 submunitions which indepently maneuver and target and can be kinetic,conventional or nuclear. There is no defense even on fantasy drawing boards that will work. The expected range covers everything to Ireland,North Africa and Western Asia or Alaska from Asia. Next, remember that the Russians are crushing everything US/NATO can throw at them from wonderwaffen to top tier troops(4 star Admiral/highest ranking SEAL was captured with a huge assortment of high level NATO Officers at Mariopul) from NATO SF including SEALS, French Foreign Legion,SAS,SBS etc. We decided that giving them the home field advantage(logistics wins wars) wasn’t too big a advantage but Russia has been playing nice because it is going to integrate these areas into Russia. Just look at the tactics employed 80 years ago when they DGAF and just wanted to kill Nazi. We have also given him the “We have been Attacked” and “Defend your families and loved ones from the insane hoard” that has kept the recruiting at high levels. Next was the mention of Chemical Weapons,the Ukes have repeatedly used chemical weapons but were disappointed in their effectiveness and were not worth the probable retaliation. Lastly is the asymmetric avenues,the satellite systems have been made legitimate targets from not only giving data,reconnaissance, but direct targeting which Russian Ambassador has called Direct Attacks on Russia. Next is if attacks on utilities occur which is more vulnerable the Nuclear Battle hardened Ukraine/Russian systems or the already collapsing US/UK/European systems? Please this is a rapidly evolving situation that can be contained but insane idiots would rather rule over ashes than live in paradise. Turkey could/is the next front to open.
MAD( mutually assured destruction) was a viable strategy in the 70’s when the primary antagonists were the USA and the USSR. Now there are numerous players who might see an advantage in popping a nuke around Ukraine or Russia. Now in your mind or mine we might see such a tactic as futile but there a number of folks, with bombs, who might envision a different outcome. Who will benefit if the US, Russia and/ or the European union get taken off the table?
Interestingly, back in the 70’s when MAD was the doctrine the Soviets did publish articles in their military journals about fighting AND winning nuclear war. Dont know if they really believed it, or it was to keep us nervous.
“Cui bono?”
Only the Southern Hemisphere.
One nuke popped becomes all of them, in under 72 hours.
Then another six weeks or so to bounce the rubble, until the subs have expended all remaining. That’s about 20K weapons pretty much making anything north of the Equator a nuclear desert for quite awhile. Whatever’s left will resemble conditions around 50,000 B.C. and every dystopian novel you’ve ever read as far as fighting for survival amongst the scant few remaining tribal bands in the wasteland.
And BTW, there’s exactly no one in the Southern Hemisphere “with bombs”.
They’re all located in the Northern Hemisphere.
If one boomer with a partial load defects after the apocalypse to somewhere like Brazil, Australia, etc., however, it’s a whole different ballgame.
First Nuke…….
About 60 miles west of the capital of Ukraine.
Just Sayin’
Not Sayin’
The Soviets absolutely believed they could win a nuclear war. The U.S. subscribe to mutually assured destruction (MAD) but the Soviets absolutely did NOT. Why do we now this? The Soviets spent at least 10 times the amount on civil defense as the U.S. did. The Soviets believed, as did the U.S. intelligence, that 80-90% of the Soviet population would survive an all nuclear exchange. The old civil defense programs of the 60’s/70’s had the U.S. survival rate at less than 50%. It was in the late 70’s early 80’s that FEMA started to plan for “Crisis Relocation”. That is evacuating cities into the rural areas. FEMA believed US survival rates would go up to 80-90%. The crisis relocation planning was a “typical” fema Charlie Foxtrot- and was “officially” stopped but some aspects were kept but were not publicly made available. Based on years of research there are very few if any war game scenarios that don’t have the use of tactical nuclear weapons ending with ICMBs and sub launch missiles being launched.
How have Russian military predictions about their own capabilities gone in say, oh, the last 1000 days?
Just wondering…
At the moment, Vlad seems to be the only Soviet hold-out who still thinks a nuclear exchange is “winnable”.
Personally, I think he’d be the first (and only) casualty of any decision to lunch a nuke. After suffering a tragic “stroke”.
From a sudden Makarov brain hemorrhage.
I second VT’s (above) analysis regarding the new Russian hypersonic, MARV’d missile. Putin no longer needs real nuclear weapons to achieve similar effects, minus the fallout and the bad press. My fear is that the UKRs might develop and use some cobbled together weapon(s). They have the raw materials and the engineering skills. People in their government, especially Zelensky, have already made this threat. ~Supposedly~ Z made this threat when he called on Trump in NY. The pundits say “no way”,akes too long, need thousands of centrifuges, etc. That’s is you are building a “program”, but if you just want two or three, maybe not. And, how do we know they have not been working on this for the past 3 years? That’s my fear, crazy people with their back to the wall have little to lose.