I meant to quote @Horatius post but somehow missed:
How de we respond if Russia and China start throwing nukes at each other?
IMO, that is a worst-case scenario.
Russia and China’s combined ICBM inventory is sufficient to cause an extinction event. Russia reportedly has enough to do it by themselves.
That was the context of my “alarmist” statement.
In contrast, a massive exchange limited to the Northern Hemisphere (Russia + US) might not doom people in the Southern Hemisphere.
A period of 51 years of above/below ground testing in various remote locations vs 24/48 hours, possibly a few weeks of concentrated fire?
This is off topic to this thread though, and I think we should move on.
Honestly I’m a little freaked out at the 2000 number over 50 years. That’s an average of one nuclear detonation every 9 days for 50 years straight. Yikes.
Estimates of the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal vary widely, but the middle of the road estimate is in the hundreds, or comparable to Britain’s or France’s nuclear arsenal.
And while the explosion of ~1000 thermonuclear warheads in the Northern hemisphere would not be a good thing fallout-wise, it would not be guaranteed doom for non-targeted countries.
@LSLGuy@Lumpy
I can’t find any studies in the public sphere that verify the plausibility of an extinction event using the worlds current nuclear arsenal.
Numbers I’m now reading are the loss of two billion after an all-out exchange between India and Pakistan, and around 5 billion if Russia and the US expended their entire inventory on each other.
There are some models that indicate that nuclear winter could last anywhere from 2-10 years resulting in a collapse of the food chain and causing a catastrophic global famine.
All horrendous stuff, but not necessarily the end of humanity.
Thanks for fighting my ignorance.
Two billion dead from an exchange just between India and Pakistan? Seriously? That more or less presumes the near-extinction of the combined populations of India and Pakistan, in addition to a hefty number of fallout deaths in China. All this inflicted by a combined arsenal of ~300 weapons many of which may be low-yield.
At the moment, I think that the 10 tactical weapons being discussed isn’t going to get us a death toll in the billions, although there is absolutely a non-zero chance that using any nuclear weapon could escalate to a MAD level exchange, and talked about this back in #49 (lots of other poster opinions on this possibility as well).
I don’t think that even Putin wants to go to that level, but as I stated previously, you take the first step, which prompts a response, which makes the next more likely, and so on. No one wants to back down, and eventually, well, unless the West capitulates (leading to endless nuclear blackmail across the world) or someone arranges Putin to step down for the good of the nation (unlikely but not impossible) it just keeps getting worse.
Do I think the Ukraine War is the most likely trigger? Not at this time but still all too possible. Do I think Putin would find it ideal to have a third party make the decision to use a tactical nuke for him and then disown said third party but use the threat of another such incident to finally demand peace on his terms and the West reluctantly compromising far past the guidelines that the Ukraine would otherwise accept? Yep.
How much a Putin ass kisser would you have to be to go along with this? “Oh, I’ll make a unilateral decision to nuke Ukraine, that will end well!” What circumstances would have to happen for that to make sense to anyone who isn’t literally insane?
Belarus may or may not want to hijack a few nukes for their own arsenal, but I can’t imagine them being so in Putin’s pocket that they’d nuke Ukraine for him, all by themselves.
Now, a Russian unit in Belarus nuking Ukraine, and then blaming Belarus, that I could see happening. But I don’t think anyone outside of Russia would believe that lie for a second.
That was more along the lines of what I envisioned. Give Belarus nukes (status to be determined), then launch a tactical weapon from within the borders against Ukraine.
And no, no one in their right minds would believe it, but would it give enough of a fig leaf for China and India to say they don’t want to “rush into action”? Probably.
And honestly, if Russia were to try that, this would probably be the best possible use of nuclear weapons.
Because it would give NATO a legitimate excuse to go absolutely apeshit on every non-Ukrainian military force in Ukraine. Once a nuke flys, no one could claim that NATO airstrikes are an “escalation”; they’ll be a moderate and restrained response, instead.
Not that I want this to happen, but if it does, I think it will play out very differently than Putin thinks it will.
I’ve said it before, nukes work best as a deterrent. “We can’t risk doing X, they might respond with a nuclear attack!” Well, once they’ve actually used a nuke, we might as well do X, since it’s already the worst case scenario.
Xi is many things, including dictatorial and ruthless. But he’s not insane. He’d know damn well what Putin did, and he’d also know that if he did it once, he could do it again. Possibly with China as his target. That’s not something any sane leader will tolerate. If anything, he’d use it as a justification for just outright taking whatever Russia has that China wants, instead of settling for just buying it at a steep discount.
Using nukes, even tactical ones, is not the actions of someone rational. But I do think Putin has tied himself to this war to a degree we’re all surprised by. And for him Russia losing is him losing, something he may well be willing to take irrational steps to avoid, even if the consequences may well an epic disaster.
And while we were all (okay, myself and most others including professionals) surprised at how we were all wrong about Putin’s actual invasion plans, he was probably surprised at how firm the West has been in supporting the Ukraine. He seemed to be expecting a fast invasion, and a western capitulation after the fact such as happened in 2014.
He may well think, given a paucity of conventional options, that if faced with nuclear escalation, the West WILL cave in their support, giving Putin anything of a win to take home, even if it’s just holding onto the territory they currently have in their possession.
Do I think it likely? Still no, as I said from post 1, but he’s NOT getting the response from the saber rattling to date that he wanted, and this is a next step - putting weapons in the theater. And his troops are bogged down, with no sign of a fast resolution. And it makes him look weak. Putting the nuclear weapons forward makes him at least look strong and prepared in his terms.
Nuclear bluffing is well within Putin’s wheelhouse. But what good would actually using them be? What would he nuke, and what would it accomplish (presuming his officers follow orders to detonate)? How would nuking Kyiv help his war effort? Or Ukrainian forces in the Donbas? Or, hypothetically, a Ukrainian force that’s reclaiming territory in Crimea?
ISTM that none of this would actually help Russia win the war – rather, using nukes would just accelerate Russia’s loss (and Putin’s end).
The detonation of a tactical nuke (even 2 or 3) is hardly the worst case scenario. Probably better hold off on the “Cool! Now NATO can bomb the shit out of them!” philosophy.
