Thanks: that was a fascinating read.
How exactly does Putin/ the Kremlin/ Russia use nukes in any way that actually helps them? A nuclear gotterdammerung that’s basically global suicide provides nothing but a fleeting, bitter sense of satisfaction to the instigators for the last hour of their lives. Similarly, it’s because this would be so obviously useless and pointless that threatening to do it is of little credibility. Further still, I doubt Putin has an actual hard-wired button that launches nukes without any other human input, so a nuclear chain of command would have to carry out the launches; and no matter how well vetted for obedience and patriotism, they might decide it’s a fool’s errand and that Putin and his immediate cronies can go to Hell.
The West has spent seventy-five years perfecting deterrence and it apparently works. There’s no way that Russia could credibly for example threaten to nuke Poland unless it stopped all shipments of arms and equipment through its territory. The most I can see Russia doing is simply slaughtering Ukraine and withdrawing from a scorched wasteland. And the least-bad result that could come of that would be the entire world declaring the Putin regime an outlaw pariah state even more isolated and reviled than North Korea, Iran or Gaddafi’s Libya. More likely, an undeclared war would break out like the one the USA waged against German U-boats in 1940-1941, in which any projection of strategic Russian power outside of its borders would be interdicted, including the destruction of ships, subs and bombers.
I kind of figured that could be the Plan B: launch a nuke at Kyiv, say with a shrug, well, that’s what happens when you put up a fight, and eventually make a demand of this or that other nation, with a breezy hey, were you guys thinking of putting up a fight? Because, see, best-case scenario for you would be that you put up as good a fight as Ukraine did, and then you get nuked with a shrug like they did; worst-case scenario, you, uh, don’t manage to put up nearly as good a fight as Ukraine did. Or — and hear me out on this, really mull it over for a moment — just do what I’m asking WITHOUT a fight, because, y’know, (a) it’s not that big a request, in light of everything; and, remember, (b) this may not be all that plausible a threat from anyone else, but keep in mind that you’re hearing it from the man who already done nuked Kyiv with a shrug.
'Zactly.
Which is why we’re fighting & for with Ukraine now. And why if Putin does do something that monumentally stupid as to nuke Kyiv, the NATO-side retaliation will make that the final significant act of Putin’s regime.
What will they do?
Certainly not nuke Moscow. If NATO sends in troops to Russia, does Russia use nukes to repel them? Does Putin stop at anything to repel NATO troops and planes?
There is one factor here that is very important, though — does Russia have a nuclear arsenal worthy of the name?
Russia has (on paper) more nuclear weapons than the US does. Russia’s defense budget for the whole of their military was 60 billion dollars in 2021. The US spends just in the maintenance of their nuclear weapons 70 billion dollars per year. Even not taking into account the pervasive corruption and stealing and embezzling that plagues Russia at all levels, the accounting does not make sense.
I do not see Russia right now as having a working nuclear arsenal. How many red lines have already been crossed during this war, red lines that Russia said would bring horrendous consequences?
Honestly, the Russian nuclear arsenal does not worry me.
It’s important when comparing dollar amounts across countries to recall that official exchange rates mean little when comparing the prices of non-traded goods like military labor, secret laboratories, and military-industrial complexes. A dollar’s worth of rubles may buy a hell of a lot more bang there than a dollar’s worth of dollars buys here.
Although as you suggest, rampant corruption has the salutary effect of greatly inflating all their costs as measured in their money.
The whole Russian nuclear enterprise is probably pretty rickety as you suggest. But they only need to get a couple of them to work, even if they have to be delivered by truck, to really upset the global geopolitical apple cart.
I would be more sanguine if the various sources of fresh radioactive material could be shut down; inevitable unstoppable natural radioactive decay will render weapon cores nonfunctional eventually and very low-yield long before they become fully nonfunctional.
I believe there is much truth in what you argue: nothing works in RuZZia, it is a dysfunctional state, I don’t believe the military is any good anymore, if it ever has been in the last fifty years. Everybody said at the beginning of the war in Ucraine that they would win hands down, and see how that has worked out so far.
But I would not bet the house on not a single A-bomb coming through and working, and that is their last trump card, and they are playing it. Well, that, and the tanTrump trump card… Nihilism is a scary ideology in the hands of someone who has nothing to lose, not least because they have nothing left at all.
Even if they get one nuke or two somewhere near where they would be intended to go… next thing would be the annihilation of Russia, in exchange for a comparatively small damage to the other side.
Putin may be a nihilist. The others in his circle (who would rather be able to eventually spend their millions somewhere) are likely to resist that, I think.
My personal feeling is that between the pitiful state of Russia’s military at all levels, and the greedy ones in the corridors of power… it is unlikely that Russia would be in a position to really use nukes.
Again, just my personal appreciation of the situation.
There is reason to be trepidations. But one assumes it is more work to maintain nuclear proficiency than, say, keep trucks functional.
Well, factorywise, sort of. As a female, I once ran 26 machine shops for the company I worked for, after apprenticing in one of the shops. I can operate the machinery and give me materials, tools and the shop and I can build whatever [I got bored one down season and we pulled and rebuilt the engine on my mustang, and I normally don’t do cars =) ] I could have made anything from MP443 Grach to a tank, ammunition to appliance parts. [shrug] Women can handle pretty much anything industrially, or even agriculturally - we have machinery so we don’t depend on a big hulk to muscle stuff around =) Women can pilot tanks, jets, drive transport vehicles, and carry a gun [one of my roomies, she married and emigrated to Australia in 2000 had been an MP in the army]
The problem is not in the women, but in the MEN that are in power, and control the resources of the country.
Heh, I’m not sure changing the gender of the kleptocracy would fix the situation, either.
If only 10% of Russia’s nukes are functional that’s still a very big problem for the rest of the world if they decide to start using them. Think of recent missile attacks on various cities in Ukraine - even if 90% of them are intercepted the 1 or 2 that get through can cause enormous damage. Now imagine that 1 or 2 as nuclear.
If North Korea can build functional nukes with their shitty economy then Russia can certainly build and maintain some.
It doesn’t worry me to the extent it did two years ago, but I still have concerns.
So is this a waiting game, then?
That is, assuming the nuclear capability gets more degraded with each passing year, is the West essentially waiting Russia out, and feeling a little bit safer every year, or every decade, until we’re relatively certain that they don’t have the ability to attack with nuclear weapons?
We’ll never get to the point of 100% guaranteed safety, of course, but if we reach the point that everyone involved, including the Russians, understands that their nuclear threat is just that, a threat with very little force behind it, can we then consider Russia just another backward country?
At such a point, I imagine NATO will declare Crimea, for example, Ukrainian territory and do what’s needed to expel Russian forces from Crimea (and other moves that NATO currently is unwilling to impose on a nuclear-capable Russia).
Probably not. They are building new stuff now. Until they quit trying to build new stuff and trying to maintain old stuff we’ll have to respect the potential their weapons represent. Even if we apply some discount to how many are functional vs how many they own.
NK seems to have bought itself absolute assurance from external regime change with a mere handful. Iran wants the same. There is essentially no scenario where Russia ever will be plausibly reduced to less than a handful until / unless they renounce the whole nuclear effort and give them all up under international supervision to be destroyed someplace outside the country. And that ain’t happening any sooner than a century from now. If then.
So no, NATO is not going to be re-annexing Crimea any time soon.
But if their economy gets wracked, can they afford to be building new stuff? That’s what I’m getting at. Of course no one short of the CIA insiders can possibly say how much nuclear building they are or aren’t doing, and not even the CIA can say with much certainty, but it’s a fact whether we know it or not. Unless you’re maintaining that they certainly will be investing in maintaining a viable nuclear arsenal even if the Russian populace is living on dried mucilage and pond scum.
My view is if teeny tiny NK with all its economic challenges can build nukes now and keep doing so, vastly larger Russia with a vastly larger head start can certainly keep doing so at a similar low level.
Am I fearing a new generation of 10s of thousands of MIRVed hypersonic manevuering reentry vehicles deployed on ICBMs, subs, and in orbit? No.
Can they build a half-dozen new basic bombs in, say, 2040 and smuggle them into Europe or the USA? Heck yeah.
But the strength of their economy is only one factor. We also know that there’s massive corruption in Russia. So, sure, they could afford the money to build some new ones, but that money never makes it to the Nuclear Weapons Factory, because at every step of the process, someone steals some of it.
To avoid this, Russia would have to clean up its massive corruption, and if it were capable of cleaning up the corruption, they would of necessity be a very different country afterwards. Putin himself is corrupt as hell, and he’s surrounded himself with supports who are just as corrupt. People like that are fundamentally incapable of fixing such problems.
Well, we know there are opposition groups in Russia, because they keep getting arrested.
So, one of those people, who is smart enough to avoid arrest. I don’t have any names in particular, but I’m sure they exist. If not, well, we’re all completely fucked.
How many of them have to work in order for it to be a problem?