Outcome of nuclear escalation and general Nuclear concerns Ukraine - Russia

In My Humble Opinion
61

I don’t think that Putin has a mustache, and the laws of physics clearly state that a mustache must be twirled while making such a statement.

But, in reality, no, we cannot accept that. If he gets away with that, then next week, there goes Akron, and then Galveston the week after that. He would simply keep attacking us, as we demonstrated that we will just accept it and not retaliate.

In that particular scenario, which I find fairly unlikely, I would think that the best response would be, “You have attacked us with a nuclear weapon, destroying our city and killing our people. We are launching one nuclear weapon at one of your smaller cities, and will inflict similar damage to you. We have no choice in this matter, as to do other will invite you to continue your attacks on our country. If you choose to continue your attack on our country and to escalate it, so will we, and we will all lose.”

As to the actual matter of reality, we also cannot ignore if they nuke a single city of Ukraine. If we do, then that means that it is now permissible to use nukes in war. Putin won’t settle for one nuke on Kyiv, he’ll follow with a few more, and target other cities as well.

And maybe we retaliate in kind and proportion, involving third parties in this. He nukes Kyiv, we nuke Minsk. He nukes Lviv, we nuke Mogilev. We start nuking his allies when he nukes ours, and he may not have many friends anymore.

I don’t see that as the response we go with, but it should be. Once nukes get on the table, there are no longer any humane responses left.

62

See “The Day They Got Boston” by Horace Gold (an accidental strike by the USSR against the US - the USSR gives permission for the US to strike the “equivalent” USSR city, but equivalence is so hard to judge, leading to a slow motion escalation-through-negotiation)

63

Who’s going to give the order? Are you sure they’re authorized? Are you sure they’re who they say they are? How is the order going to be given? The EMP will fry all unprotected electronic equipment; I’m not sure what it’ll do to the ability of the atmosphere to permit through the air transmission of electronics signals.

Those sub commanders are unlikely to launch without orders.

64

This is why you protect important equipment. I don’t have a security clearance to be able to say with any certainty, but I suspect anything related to continuity of operations/chain of command after a nuclear strike is likely to be well-protected against EMP damage.

The longest lasting effect of an EMP generated by a high-altitude nuclear detonation is only in the tens/hundreds of seconds:

And then it’s over. To cause an EMP, the nuclear weapon has to be detonated at high altitude. For example, the Starfish Prime test detonated a nuke at an altitude of 250 miles. So you wouldn’t expect a destructive blast wave on the ground, or the creation of large amounts of fallout. If your comms equipment survives the first couple of minutes after the onset of the EMP, then it’ll be fine after that.

65

He might, however, be suicidal. And with complete egomania, a suicide by taking the entire world with him might be how he’d like to go.

66

A post was merged into an existing topic: Russia invades Ukraine

67

One has to wonder how many of their nukes – strategic or tactical – would work.

68

If 1% of their 6,000 nukes work, that’s still 60 cities obliterated. Not great.

69

This is my big nightmare. If Russia pushes the button on one and it blows up in the silo, what will Putin do next? If the nuke leaves the silo but crashes and/or explodes over Russia, what will Putin do next? Some of the better made nukes could even hit their targets notwithstanding their poor condition.

Personally, I’m praying that replacing the nuclear material as scheduled was too expensive so they didn’t bother. Hopefully the warheads are pretty degraded by now.

70

They wouldn’t be able to even attempt to launch all of those. Only slightly more than a quarter of their bombs are actively deployed.

As of early 2022, we estimate that Russia has a stockpile of approximately 4,477 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces, which is a slight decrease from last year. Of the stockpiled warheads, approximately 1,588 strategic warheads are deployed: about 812 on land-based ballistic missiles, about 576 on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and possibly 200 at heavy bomber bases. Approximately another 977 strategic warheads are in storage, along with about 1,912 nonstrategic warheads. In addition to the military stockpile for operational forces, a large number—approximately 1,500—of retired but still largely intact warheads await dismantlement, for a total inventory of approximately 5,977 warheads.

71

I think that there is middle ground between ending life on earth and having no consequences for Nuking Kiev, namely a conventional attack by NATO forces on Russia. Chances are Russian responds with a full on first strke which we reciprocate, and MAD runs its course, but this leaves open the possibility that enough people on the Russian side also don’t want to commit suicide and so take out Putin before the world goes up in flames.

72

Man, that’s a pretty thin middle ground. I don’t pretend to know Putin’s mind after this whole nutso “Let’s try to take over all of Ukraine with 1/3 of the forces necessary in a best case scenario” nonsense. Trying to penetrate the mind of a madman seems to be a fool’s game, especially after he starts nuking things in the current age.

But yeah, if that’s our middle ground, that’s where I would go. Annihilate everything you can find of Russia’s in Ukraine with conventional arms, let it be known that the next move will be to annihilate anything near their borders that can pose a threat, and put every early warning system on high alert. If you see other aggressive positioning from conventional forces, annihilate them. If you see any indication of a strategic launch, your options are very limited, but you tried to avoid it as much as you could. Good luck, everybody.

73

A conventional attack on Russia is likely to trigger a nuclear response regardless of who’s in power.

74

Agreed. That way lies madness.

75

Probably. But a nuclear strike is guaranteed to trigger a nuclear response regardless of who’s in power. I agree with scabpicker that its a pretty thin middle ground but its probably the best we got.

76

if a full scale nuclear exchange is initiated, im all in favour of focusing all of our nuke on putin himself. Yeah, the people of Moscow (assuming that’s where he is at the time) will have a very bad day. But it saves untold millions of innocent humans from death. Ok, “we” don’t “win.” But for fucks sake, we got him out of power. Isn’t that enough? Why do we have to kill everyone else? For revenge?

77

What makes you think Putin is in Moscow?

78

Moscow, specifically, is unimportant for my point. Target Putin with everything. Or a large number of things. Spare the population at large.

79

In the event of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, I imagine we’d probably be using weapons with yields of kilotons rather than megatons, and specifically targeting government, defense, and infrastructure rather than the population at large - it’s a lot easier to launch a precision strike today than it was 50-60 years ago when we would’ve been dropping city-killers out of bombers because there was no way to predict where the ordnance would be when it went off. Tens of millions of civilians would undoubtedly die, but the explosions themselves won’t be what does most of them in.

Killing Putin himself with a nuke seems unlikely - by the time a strike is imminent he and most of the senior apparatchiks will have decamped to a well-insulated bunker in an Undisclosed Location, just as I expect that our president and the Top Men in the government will have also done, and even if we know the location of that location it may be so well-protected as to survive a nuclear strike. The mission at that point isn’t to defeat the man so much as destroy his ability to continue his attack or exercise his power.

80

Where is Putin?