How close are we to war breaking out in Europe?

[Spandex]

This is meant to be encouraging

Excuse me if I'm not encouraged

Which, in turn, could eventually become a strategic nuclear exchange, but I don't think that is guaranteed at all.

When doing risk assessments you look at two things: likelihood and consequence. If something is high likelihood but low consequence you might not take too many measures to stop it. If something is low likelihood but high consequence you do all you can to stop it.

I can't think of anything humans have control over that has a higher consequence than a strategic nuclear exchange. It is literally the end of the world as we know it. So even if the likelihood is very low, the consequence means we have to do everything possible to remove the risk of it happening.

 

[Aladdin]

My fear, and it is fear, is that Russia has a vast nuclear weaponry in comparison with the US. And that once they start..they might not stop. They being both Russia and the US.

I watched / read this last night and felt that it described what is the current situation.

A terrifying animation shows how 1 'tactical' nuclear weapon could trigger a US-Russia war that kills 34 million people in 5 hours

"Plan A" is a hypothetical yet eerily plausible scenario imagined by nuclear weapons experts. It shows 91 million deaths and injuries in hours.

www.google.com

The immediate effects are obvious but the repercussions on millions of people are massive. Radiation poisoning millions. Food and water poisoned by radiation. Sun blocked out so cooling happens. Crops fail... famine.
It's a devastating end.

 

[Pickman's model]

Excuse me if I'm not encouraged


When doing risk assessments you look at two things: likelihood and consequence. If something is high likelihood but low consequence you might not take too many measures to stop it. If something is low likelihood but high consequence you do all you can to stop it.

I can't think of anything humans have control over that has a higher consequence than a strategic nuclear exchange. It is literally the end of the world as we know it. So even if the likelihood is very low, the consequence means we have to do everything possible to remove the risk of it happening.

If only we'd do the same for climate change, which is happening and could make every last one of us extinct

 

[Spandex]

If only we'd do the same for climate change, which is happening and could make every last one of us extinct

Absolutely

 

[andysays]

Russia and the US both threatening to use nuclear weapons...in Europe.
So Europe would end up what? A wasteland?
And since when has a nuclear war ever been anywhere close to logical?

Fucking terrifying

Maybe I will regret asking this question, but can you link to something confirming that the US has actually threatened to use nuclear weapons.

 

[existentialist]

Excuse me if I'm not encouraged


When doing risk assessments you look at two things: likelihood and consequence. If something is high likelihood but low consequence you might not take too many measures to stop it. If something is low likelihood but high consequence you do all you can to stop it.

I can't think of anything humans have control over that has a higher consequence than a strategic nuclear exchange. It is literally the end of the world as we know it. So even if the likelihood is very low, the consequence means we have to do everything possible to remove the risk of it happening.

I think the point I was trying to make in my post is that a limited nuclear exchange is NOT "literally the end of the world as we know it". So I don't entirely agree with your conclusion.

 

[Spymaster]

But a red line would have been crossed, and I am certain that such a use would prompt NATO to seriously escalate its (conventional) response - indeed, I would hope that it did, because failing to do so would only encourage Russia to up the stakes even further). Which, in turn, could eventually become a strategic nuclear exchange, but I don't think that is guaranteed at all.

Cold comfort, perhaps, and no consolation to those in the vicinity of the nuclear explosion, but perhaps not as overwhelmingly bleak as we might imagine.

It's also worth noting that the nuclear threat we're all terrified of tends to be perceived as a situation where an entire nation is flattened by the detonation of nuclear weapons. But the reality is somewhat less apocalyptic, at least generally. A typical 50kT tactical nuke (roughly the size of the weapons in Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal) would break windows (light blast radius - 1psi overpressure) over an area of some 170 sq.km - for comparison, the land area of Ukraine is somewhat over 600,000 sq.km. Locally, the effect would be devastating, but we'd be a long way from turning Europe into a wasteland.

Yes. There'd be a minimum of two nuclear detonations (one each way) but as you say, not necessarily apocalyptic. Of course there are nuclear weapons that can take out entire cities but your common-or-garden atomic bomb would probably only just about raze Brixton. Having said that, Russia is more likely to hit Bracknell than London. You don't nuke capital cities because you need a government left to surrender. That's why Tokyo wasn't hit nuked in 45.

 

[planetgeli]

It's also worth noting that the nuclear threat we're all terrified of tends to be perceived as a situation where an entire nation is flattened by the detonation of nuclear weapons. But the reality is somewhat less apocalyptic, at least generally. A typical 50kT tactical nuke (roughly the size of the weapons in Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal) would break windows (light blast radius - 1psi overpressure) over an area of some 170 sq.km - for comparison, the land area of Ukraine is somewhat over 600,000 sq.km. Locally, the effect would be devastating, but we'd be a long way from turning Europe into a wasteland.

This is meant to be encouraging.

Not encouraged. The nuclear threat I fear doesn't flatten all before it, but it flattens enough to cause climate change, fuel and food shortages, the breaking down of infrastructure to the point it either becomes a free for all (who are left) or some dystopian fascist like rule by our overlords.

It won't stop at two bombs this time.

 

[existentialist]

Did you hear a rich Russian dude on BBC4 R4 PM last week? I've looked for it but can't find it. The Russian was claiming that he was the victim of xenophobia and that he was simply a UK citizen paying UK taxes living in a UK house, running a UK business generating UK jobs that pay UK income tax and UK NI.

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" (as said in connection with another bit of Russian dubiousness, nearly 60 years ago)

 

[Spandex]

I think the point I was trying to make in my post is that a limited nuclear exchange is NOT "literally the end of the world as we know it". So I don't entirely agree with your conclusion.

I just don't like the way nuclear war, limited or total, has entered the outer limits of possible at the moment. In my mental risk assessment it's been in the 'not going to happen' column since the 80s. About as unlikely as an alien invasion or huge meteor strike or global pandemic... oh, wait. Maybe I need to revisit my mental risk assessment.

 

[existentialist]

I just don't like the way nuclear war, limited or total, has entered the outer limits of possible at the moment. In my mental risk assessment it's been in the 'not going to happen' column since the 80s. About as unlikely as an alien invasion or huge meteor strike or global pandemic... oh, wait. Maybe I need to revisit my mental risk assessment.

I think it's always been closer than that (huge meteor strike, anyway). I was fairly obsessed with this back in the 1980s, and I think we all tended to look at the worst-case scenarios, out of fear, and maybe also because that was the best case to be made against nuclear escalation, for all the good that did.

I think we continue to base our assumptions about what would happen if a single nuclear weapon was used on the MAD idea that any use of a nuclear warhead would automatically and irreversibly result in a full nuclear exchange - I'm just not so sure that that's what would happen.

 

[Aladdin]

'Limited' Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows the limits of nuclear deterrence

www.scientificamerican.com

"No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power. Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.) It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war."


I used the NUKEMAP on Oxford.
The results are horrific.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.

nuclearsecrecy.com

Particularly the ocer 11000km thermal radiation radius.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes. There'd be a minimum of two nuclear detonations (one each way) but as you say, not necessarily apocalyptic. Of course there are nuclear weapons that can take out entire cities but your common-or-garden atomic bomb would probably only just about raze Brixton. Having said that, Russia is more likely to hit Bracknell than London. You don't nuke capital cities because you need a government left to surrender. That's why Tokyo wasn't hit in 45.

You've been reading books by Boris Johnson if you think Tokyo wasn't hit

 

[Pickman's model]

Spymaster Google operation meetinghouse

E2A I'll save you the trouble Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

 

[Spymaster]

You've been reading books by Boris Johnson if you think Tokyo wasn't hit

Fair point.

Post edited.

 

[existentialist]

'Limited' Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows the limits of nuclear deterrence

www.scientificamerican.com

"No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power. Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.) It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war."


I used the NUKEMAP on Oxford.
The results are horrific.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.

nuclearsecrecy.com

Particularly the ocer 11000km thermal radiation radius.

A couple of things, there.

First of all, nuclear power station accidents are a rather different thing, as they tend to produce a lot of very long-lasting isotopes from large quantities of fissile material (compared to a nuclear weapon) that can be seriously problematic, in a way that isn't necessarily the case with a nuclear detonation (and particularly an airburst, which maximises damage, but produces a lot less long-lasting fallout). The two aren't really all that comparable.

A typical tactical nuclear weapon would have a yield of around 50kT. Using Wellerstein's map, that gives you a thermal radiation radius of some 3km.

(I used a 50kT ground burst for that, so we're maximising the fallout plume. Which you will note heads north-west towards Russia itself - another reason they might be quite reluctant to use it).

Yes, it would be devastating for those within the blast radius, but the point I am trying to make here is that, in terms of casualties and damage done, it isn't quite a quantum leap up from, say, the damage done to Dresden as a result of the RAF firebombing attacks.

I note from your quote that Russian sources say they would regard the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon as the start of a full MAD nuclear exchange, but we don't know if that applies in practice. And it may well be that NATO would say similar things, but in practice would be doing everything they could to hold back from a major escalation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 11000km thermal radiation radius - I'm assuming that's a typo, and you're referring to the 1psi overpressure radius that you might expect from a typical SS-25 800kT (not a tactical weapon) nuclear detonation.

 

[existentialist]

Spymaster Google operation meetinghouse

E2A I'll save you the trouble Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

TBF, I took Spymaster's comment to be referring to the use of a nuclear weapon over Tokyo.

But it's a good example of the point that there's quite an overlap between the destructive power of conventional explosives/incendiaries and that of nuclear bombs.

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF, I took Spymaster's comment to be referring to the use of a nuclear weapon over Tokyo.

But it's a good example of the point that there's quite an overlap between the destructive power of conventional explosives/incendiaries and that of nuclear bombs.

I know he meant a nuclear device but when you're talking about houses made of wood and paper dropping incendiary bombs will do much the same, without radiation. But the point was his claim about you won't try to whack the government.

 

[Spandex]

in terms of casualties and damage done, it isn't quite a quantum leap up from, say, the damage done to Dresden as a result of the RAF firebombing attacks.

Again, that's not very reassuring. The firestorms in Dresden and Tokyo were absolutely horrific. The raid on Tokyo 9th/10th March 1945 by some estimates killed more people than the bomb on Hiroshima. The carnage they caused encouraged US leaders to consider the use of nuclear bombs as acceptable - not that much difference in terms of numbers killed, but much lower risk to the attacking airforce.

It's these little steps that lead to escalation. If I can do this, then I can do that. If I can kill 100,000 people with conventional bombs, why not kill 100,000 people with a nuclear bomb? If I can drop one nuclear bomb then I can drop more. If they can drop them then so can we. If they use small ones, we can use bigger ones. It's a slippery slope that no-one should consider stepping on.

 

[Aladdin]

'Limited' Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows the limits of nuclear deterrence

www.scientificamerican.com

A couple of things, there.

First of all, nuclear power station accidents are a rather different thing, as they tend to produce a lot of very long-lasting isotopes from large quantities of fissile material (compared to a nuclear weapon) that can be seriously problematic, in a way that isn't necessarily the case with a nuclear detonation (and particularly an airburst, which maximises damage, but produces a lot less long-lasting fallout). The two aren't really all that comparable.

A typical tactical nuclear weapon would have a yield of around 50kT. Using Wellerstein's map, that gives you a thermal radiation radius of some 3km.
View attachment 314217
(I used a 50kT ground burst for that, so we're maximising the fallout plume. Which you will note heads north-west towards Russia itself - another reason they might be quite reluctant to use it).

Yes, it would be devastating for those within the blast radius, but the point I am trying to make here is that, in terms of casualties and damage done, it isn't quite a quantum leap up from, say, the damage done to Dresden as a result of the RAF firebombing attacks.

I note from your quote that Russian sources say they would regard the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon as the start of a full MAD nuclear exchange, but we don't know if that applies in practice. And it may well be that NATO would say similar things, but in practice would be doing everything they could to hold back from a major escalation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 11000km thermal radiation radius - I'm assuming that's a typo, and you're referring to the 1psi overpressure radius that you might expect from a typical SS-25 800kT (not a tactical weapon) nuclear detonation.

I used the NUKEMAP and put in Oxford. The link doesn't show the reaults so here are screen shots.




See the last bit? Thermal radiation ..11300kmsquared..

 

[Aladdin]

This might show better

 

[ouirdeaux]

I had assumed the oli- referred to oil, as in oleaginous

You are confusing Greek and Latin. I advise you to stop immediately.

 

[Spymaster]

I used the NUKEMAP and put in Oxford. The link doesn't show the reaults so here are screen shots.
View attachment 314220View attachment 314221View attachment 314222View attachment 314223



See the last bit? Thermal radiation ..11300kmsquared..

That's a 50 megaton bomb though. The biggest ever exploded and about a thousand times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima.

 

[existentialist]

I used the NUKEMAP and put in Oxford. The link doesn't show the reaults so here are screen shots.
View attachment 314220View attachment 314221View attachment 314222View attachment 314223



See the last bit? Thermal radiation ..11300kmsquared..

You've used Tsar Bomba as your nuclear warhead - 50MT. There is no weapon of that yield in anyone's nuclear arsenal. And, when that one was dropped, it was touch and go whether the aircraft that dropped it (it was far too big to go onto a missile bus) would survive.

 

[Aladdin]

You've used Tsar Bomba as your nuclear warhead - 50MT. There is no weapon of that yield in anyone's nuclear arsenal. And, when that one was dropped, it was touch and go whether the aircraft that dropped it (it was far too big to go onto a missile bus) would survive.

Oh.. ok.

Phew...

I think..

 

[spitfire]

You've used Tsar Bomba as your nuclear warhead - 50MT. There is no weapon of that yield in anyone's nuclear arsenal. And, when that one was dropped, it was touch and go whether the aircraft that dropped it (it was far too big to go onto a missile bus) would survive.

I think you've probably seen this existentialist but for anyone that wants to learn more about the Real MOAB check this out.

 

[a_chap]

You've used Tsar Bomba as your nuclear warhead - 50MT. There is no weapon of that yield in anyone's nuclear arsenal. And, when that one was dropped, it was touch and go whether the aircraft that dropped it (it was far too big to go onto a missile bus) would survive.

Worth bearing in mind that the Tsar Bomba was deliberately down-graded by the use of lead instead of further fissile material in the third stage. It was originally intended to have double the output: a barely-fathomable 100Mt

Edited to add: useless factoid of the day - at the peak of its nuclear "burning" the Tsar Bomba had an energy output equivalent to 1% of the sun's output. Can't recall where I read that (it was years ago) s don't ask me.

 

[Aladdin]

Its not great even with a smaller bomb

 

[existentialist]

Oh.. ok.

Phew...

I think..

I don't want you to think I'm just batting your concerns away for no good reason. But - as I think I said upthread - we've tended to focus on worse-case assumptions about nuclear war, and that can significantly skew the way we conceive of it. While that might not matter for a bunch of people on a web forum, it does tend to result in us being a lot more anxious about things than perhaps we need to be, or is good for us to be. I did that anxiety thing through the late 70s and 80s, before - slowly - coming to the realisation that nuclear war does not have to be some existential abyss from which we would never escape.

It suits the likes of Putin - arguably, rather more than the West - for that idea to prevail, hence the fact that it has been him making those not-so-veiled threats about it, and to some extent, if the West takes those threats completely at face value, we end up completely powerless. It always reminds me of that bit in The Wizard of Oz, where the wizard is using shadowplay and loud voices to make himself sound like a terrible threat, when the reality turns out to be otherwise.

There's also the issue of practicality. Nuclear weapons aren't quite the same as iron bombs, which you can make, and then pretty much stash in a warehouse for 20 years, get them out, and use them. Quite aside from the missiles themselves - which require considerable effort and expense to keep at a state of readiness - the warheads need fairly constant maintenance on a regular cycle, as do the control systems and electronics. Given what we have begun to see in regard to mundane and comparatively cheap things like vehicle tyres, how confident can we be that the corrupt establishment in Russia has not infested that part of the military responsible for the costly (and thus lucrative, corruption-wise) business of maintaining their nuclear arsenal? It could be that the command and control systems are not up to snuff (Russia's encrypted battlefield communication systems turn out to be dependent on the very 3/4G networks they have been destroying in Ukraine, for example), or that adequate maintenance on the very fragile rockets that launch the missiles has not been done - perhaps only half of them would even get out of the silos. And, if some of the bombs themselves turn out to be "fizzles" due to lack of maintenance, that's another factor to consider. And it's likely that the top end of the hierarchy is not fully in the picture - if some regional commander is trousering the cash supposed to be supporting the refurbishment cycle on missiles, bombs, etc., it's likely that no-one will know about it until the missile blows up on the pad, or the bombs fail to detonate, etc., etc.

There are a lot of other options other than the worst-case one.

 

[a_chap]

By a staggering co-incidence this book just happened to happened to be on the floor next to me.



London after The Bomb