Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Potential nuclear scenario

Apropos of nothing, US intel wants to improve low-dose radiation detection
IARPA unleashes TEI-REX to better track nuclear sources
Register. Fri 30 Sep 2022
The research arm of US intelligence has begun investigating methods for spotting low doses of ionizing radiation to better protect American service personnel and provide evidence of nuclear technology use.

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) announced the start of Targeted Evaluation of Ionizing Radiation Exposure (TEI-REX) on Friday, which will look for non-invasive methods of determining radiation exposure in low doses through samples including hair, skin, sweat, and saliva.
Click to expand...
 
maomao said:
Well they do seem to have kept their air force out of harm's way but it's surely still dwarfed by NATO's air power? On paper at least, the USA's combined air forces are three times the size of Russia's. At the point of all out air war with the west then it's nukes or nothing surely? What about that plan to nuke a Nato member and hope that article five doesn't hold? They keep saying the UK on those nutty Russian chat shows but surely not the one country with an independent nuclear force?
Click to expand...
Isn't most of the US' Air power on the mainland? They'd need to get that over to Europe first whereas Russia doesn't have several thousand miles of North Atlantic to block an initial massed aerial assault... But that is highly dependent on what nick the rest of the RUAF is in...
 
Nylock said:
Isn't most of the US' Air power on the mainland? They'd need to get that over to Europe first whereas Russia doesn't have several thousand miles of North Atlantic to block an initial massed aerial assault... But that is highly dependent on what nick the rest of the RUAF is in...
Click to expand...

Thing is it's not as if they haven't tried to use air power in Ukraine, it's just been hard. So imagine trying to use that in areas where NATO has stuck a bunch of ground to air defences already (along with good radar etc). Then factor in several effective air forces that have exercised together, have good stocks of guided, long-range weapons, good support. And they'd probably be committing their defensive forces for that too, be a huge gamble.
 
The Russian's presumably have to factor in that if they do provoke NATO into overt participation they will lose a huge amount of their capacity capability. So probably most of their air force, the black sea fleet and a lot of their attack submarines round the world. How do they try to keep enough forces to prevent other potential rivals taking the opportunity to start nibbling away at territory?
 
From a food perspective...I would think that irradiating the Ukraine would cause massive famine in Europe, and many parts of Africa and according to a quick google search; China, Belarus, Poland, Turkey and Georgia.
It would also effect Russia.

So....If Putin wants the most bang for his bomb...he may be looking to nuke elsewhere.

I've had this horrible dread that they will nuke under the sea off the southwest coast of Ireland. Cutting all comms & internet cables while they're at it , between Europe & the US...
One big enough to cause a tsunami off the west coast...I evem surmised that if I were a nut job like Putin I would choose a specific day .. like 11/11/22..


But I am known to be a massive worry wort...so..hopefully someome will see to it that Putin doesn't do something insanely meglomaniacal
 
Last edited:
Cid said:
Thing is it's not as if they haven't tried to use air power in Ukraine, it's just been hard. So imagine trying to use that in areas where NATO has stuck a bunch of ground to air defences already (along with good radar etc). Then factor in several effective air forces that have exercised together, have good stocks of guided, long-range weapons, good support. And they'd probably be committing their defensive forces for that too, be a huge gamble.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of massed cruise missile strikes with the nuclear bombers in the air as a "we're not fucking around" gesture. Of course that could backfire with NATO shooting down the entirity of their piston-engined strategic bomber fleet and then they're probably in the territory of going nuclear regardless...
 
Last edited:
Even if the unthinkable were to happen, I can’t imagine the nuclear exchange extending beyond Western Europe + the US. It’s unlikely Putin would have the desire or capability to try to nuke NATO countries outside of Europe. China meanwhile would have no reason to get involved, nor would any nuclear power to attack them if it stayed out of it. So probably no existential threat to the rest of the world if it’s contained to Russia, Western Europe and the US. Unless of course Putin decided try to take everyone with him and ordered a full deployment of all their nukes targeting everyone, or obliterating both Poles, in which case most coastal areas might be fucked.
 
T & P said:
Even if the unthinkable were to happen, I can’t imagine the nuclear exchange extending beyond Western Europe + the US. It’s unlikely Putin would have the desire or capability to try to nuke NATO countries outside of Europe. China meanwhile would have no reason to get involved, nor would any nuclear power to attack them if it stayed out of it. So probably no existential threat to the rest of the world if it’s contained to Russia, Western Europe and the US. Unless of course Putin decided try to take everyone with him and ordered a full deployment of all their nukes targeting everyone, or obliterating both Poles, in which case most coastal areas might be fucked.
Click to expand...
I've seen speculation that large parts of the russian nuclear arsenal simply wouldn't work, which is some comfort.

China may appear to be the biggest beneficiary if Europe and north america got wiped out. Whilst it would be able to continue, unabated, it's policy of seeking to exploit Africa's resources, it's main markets of Europe and North America would be pretty fucked.
 
Some rumours/ chatter in the press today about Putin transporting a nuclear bomb to the Russia/ Ukraine border to conduct a nuclear test as a final warning/ desperate bluff. I guess it would be a very small yield warhead if he were really to do it? I mean, are there any unpopulated areas across the border large enough to ensure no there’s fallout risk to the population? You’d imagine he would at least try not to irradiate his own citizens…
 
T & P said:
Some rumours/ chatter in the press today about Putin transporting a nuclear bomb to the Russia/ Ukraine border to conduct a nuclear test as a final warning/ desperate bluff. I guess it would be a very small yield warhead if he were really to do it? I mean, are there any unpopulated areas across the border large enough to ensure no there’s fallout risk to the population? You’d imagine he would at least try not to irradiate his own citizens…
Click to expand...
"It's all for the greater glory of Russia, tovarich. When you chop down a forest, some chips will fly."
 
T & P said:
Some rumours/ chatter in the press today about Putin transporting a nuclear bomb to the Russia/ Ukraine border to conduct a nuclear test as a final warning/ desperate bluff. I guess it would be a very small yield warhead if he were really to do it? I mean, are there any unpopulated areas across the border large enough to ensure no there’s fallout risk to the population? You’d imagine he would at least try not to irradiate his own citizens…
Click to expand...
Let's hope it's just a potemkin nuclear train.
 
Dystopiary said:
Let's hope it's just a potemkin nuclear train.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am not privy to Putin’s state of mind, but I think a nuclear test would actually be more unlikely than Russia using a tactical nuke in anger. In a way it could actually be interpreted as desperate posturing. Barking dog and all of that…
 
T & P said:
Some rumours/ chatter in the press today about Putin transporting a nuclear bomb to the Russia/ Ukraine border to conduct a nuclear test as a final warning/ desperate bluff. I guess it would be a very small yield warhead if he were really to do it? I mean, are there any unpopulated areas across the border large enough to ensure no there’s fallout risk to the population? You’d imagine he would at least try not to irradiate his own citizens…
Click to expand...

Be hilarious * if Ukrainian SF managed to steal it…

* actually more fucking terrifying than hilarious….
Although it would be a bit funny…
 
A380 said:
Be hilarious * if Ukrainian SF managed to steal it…

* actually more fucking terrifying than hilarious….
Although it would be a bit funny…
Click to expand...
Though not as terrifying as it ultimately landing in the hands of any of the highly dodgy range of foreign fighters, Russian convicts fighting to commute their sentence, or mercenaries currently trading shots down there.
 
WhyLikeThis said:
It looks like if a “tactical“ nuke is used Russia will be spank by NATO using conventional means.

www.theguardian.com

Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

Former CIA director and retired army general says Moscow’s leader is ‘desperate’ and ‘battlefield reality he faces is irreversible’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Actually that seems to be a pretty good level of response, both at the current standoff level, and actual action to be taken if Russia were to go through with it.

If there was to be a NATO nuclear retaliation strike, even if it was just a single low yield single explosion, red lines would have been crossed by both sides and the chances of an immediate escalation resulting in a devastating widespread nuclear exchange would be very significant, even though nobody really wants that.

But the threat of a devastating conventional counteroffensive that would wipe out most of their armed forces on the ground and ruin their military capabilities for years to come but does not pose any kind of existential threat to Russia or its cities and civilian population would almost certainly be the end of Putin, likely at the hands of his own military.
 
T & P said:
Actually that seems to be a pretty good level of response, both at the current standoff level, and actual action to be taken if Russia were to go through with it.

If there was to be a NATO nuclear retaliation strike, even if it was just a single low yield single explosion, red lines would have been crossed by both sides and the chances of an immediate escalation resulting in a devastating widespread nuclear exchange would be very significant, even though nobody really wants that.

But the threat of a devastating conventional counteroffensive that would wipe out most of their armed forces on the ground and ruin their military capabilities for years to come but does not pose any kind of existential threat to Russia or its cities and civilian population would almost certainly be the end of Putin, likely at the hands of his own military.
Click to expand...
This seems measured and somewhat sensible but would they really march their forces into a warzone that's just seen the enemy use nukes on the ground? If he's gonna cross the rubicon and use them then it's only putting more juicy targets on the board
 
paul mckenna said:
This seems measured and somewhat sensible but would they really march their forces into a warzone that's just seen the enemy use nukes on the ground? If he's gonna cross the rubicon and use them then it's only putting more juicy targets on the board
Click to expand...
Someone in the Russian military hierarchy thought it was a good idea to send troops into Chernobyl and dig trenches in known contaminated ground, with (apparently) serious consequences for some of them. I really don't think we can assume that Putin will consider the wellbeing of his troops against a potential threat such as this to be all that significant.
 
From a technical standpoint, am I right to think that unlike conventional unexploded ordnance, which remain highly volatile even after many decades, nuclear warheads intercepted early, say destroyed in flight or crashing on the ground, are inherently unlikely to detonate accidentally?

Radiation leakage is another matter I guess, but if a Tu-160 bomber or a Russian ballistic missile loaded with nukes was hit mid flight and came crashing down. would the warheads be expected to detonate when hit by the intercepting kill vehicle, or when they crash on the ground?
 
Yes to question 1 and no to question 2 (yes, scattering the core around will lead to some degree of local contamination).

However there are conventional insensitive high explosives which are formulated to be resistant to accidental detonation.

One use of such is as part of a physics package, which contributes to their being one point safe - designed to fail to detonate (ie no nuclear yield) other than precisely when intended to do so (particular arming, release and environmental conditions met).

There are examples of this happening in both tests (eg Bluegill/Starfish) and during exercises (eg Palomares) - warheads destroyed/damaged in both cases with no yield.
 
existentialist said:
Someone in the Russian military hierarchy thought it was a good idea to send troops into Chernobyl and dig trenches in known contaminated ground, with (apparently) serious consequences for some of them. I really don't think we can assume that Putin will consider the wellbeing of his troops against a potential threat such as this to be all that significant.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about American troops being sent in..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aladdin
Nuclear battery...lasts 50 years..allegedly
2
Replies
36
Views
833
NoXion
NoXion
farmerbarleymow
Old British nuclear films
Replies
1
Views
229
farmerbarleymow
farmerbarleymow
2hats
IRAS satellite potential collision (29Jan2020)
Replies
15
Views
742
spitfire
spitfire
H
Freeman Dyson Dies, rocket powered by nuclear bombs and other stuff
Replies
1
Views
398
pogofish
pogofish
Crispy
Dragonfly: Nuclear powered flying drone to explore Titan
Replies
9
Views
661
2hats
2hats
Back
Top Bottom