Use of nuclear weapons soon?

[MigL]

Surely Russian Generals must realize that if Russia uses nukes, even tactical battlefield low yield types, that would be the worst thing that could happen to Russia ( although not as bad as what would happen to Ukraine ).
So they have a choice to make.
Do they try to prop up V Putin's ego, or do they relegate Russia to be shunned by the rest of the World, and become even more of a 'shit-hole' country ( in the words of a former President ).
 

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do they try to prop up V Putin's ego, or do they relegate Russia to be shunned by the rest of the World, and become even more of a 'shit-hole' country ( in the words of a former President ).

I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around whether a coup in Russia would improve or worsen the current conditions out in the theater. Would Putin’s replacement, someone who’d make Machiavelli look like Mother Teresa by comparison for having planned and pulled off such a thing… be even worse.

[LaurieAG]

Sabre Rattling

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Sabre Rattling

That only works, when your john thomas looks invincible, not everyone is afraid of the sight/fight.

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Surely Russian Generals must realize that if Russia uses nukes, even tactical battlefield low yield types, that would be the worst thing that could happen to Russia ( although not as bad as what would happen to Ukraine ).
So they have a choice to make.
Do they try to prop up V Putin's ego, or do they relegate Russia to be shunned by the rest of the World, and become even more of a 'shit-hole' country ( in the words of a former President ).

Problem is: Who's left to do it? Putin does the same as Trump or any other megalomaniac: surrounds himself with like-minded (i.e. crazy) minions and keep firing people who contradict or disappoint him. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-lost-fired-generals-since-ukraine-war-uk-intelligence-2022-8

International shunning is the least of their problems at this point. They're losing all the smart, qualified and competent people who make the economy work, as well as able-bodied youth. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/russia-s-brain-drain-is-officially-underway-1.1788197  A good deal of the money has already left; this https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/news/companies-leaving-russia-gdp-exports-fdi , on top of the canny Russian mafiosi's already having stashed their nesteggs and investments outside the country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumps-businesses-are-full-of-dirty-russian-money-the-scandal-is-thats-legal/2019/03/29/11b812da-5171-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html This one's fun:

Quote

What I mean is that for more than three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to the Russian Mafia held the deeds to, lived in or ran criminal operations out of Trump Tower in New York or other Trump properties. I mean that many of them used Trump-branded real estate to launder vast amounts of money by buying multimillion-dollar condos through anonymous shell companies. I mean that the Bayrock Group, a real estate development company that was based in Trump Tower and had ties to the Kremlin, came up with a new business model to franchise Trump condos after he lost billions of dollars in his Atlantic City casino developments, and helped make him rich again.

The whole country's about to fall down around their ears, and they're still rattling those rusty old sabers. There's no telling what it will take to back them into self-immolation on a global funeral pyre.
 

 

[Janus]

On 10/8/2022 at 4:05 PM, Peterkin said:

He has zero chance of winning Ukraine. And he has an ego the size of the moon, and he's terminally ill. If he can't have what he wants - making the Russian Empire Great Again

 

In any terms that matter, he's already lost, and did the moment Ukraine didn't fall within a few days of the start of the attack.  The action ended up having the opposite effect he wanted. It solidified NATO, and actually influenced two nations, previously reluctant to do so, to join.  It exposed the Russian military as being a paper tiger( It has lost its position as being considered the third most powerful military, with other nations now in the running for that honor).  Instead of strengthening the Russian Empire, it has crippled it.

Even He were to finally prevail in terms of capturing Ukraine on the battlefield, all he will have done is have taken some ground.  The major goals of the invasion have already evaded him.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

In any terms that matter, he's already lost, and did the moment Ukraine didn't fall within a few days of the start of the attack.  The action ended up having the opposite effect he wanted. It solidified NATO, and actually influenced two nations, previously reluctant to do so, to join.  It exposed the Russian military as being a paper tiger( It has lost its position as being considered the third most powerful military, with other nations now in the running for that honor).  Instead of strengthening the Russian Empire, it has crippled it.

Even He were to finally prevail in terms of capturing Ukraine on the battlefield, all he will have done is have taken some ground.  The major goals of the invasion have already evaded him.

True.  Putin's ego is such that I'm not entirely confident that he will be able to grasp the magnitude of all his losses that you describe.  Like Trump, he may prove to have that pathological knack for declaring a win where none exists, and boast that the retaking of Ukrainian soil is a glorious step towards reunification of the old Empire.  I'm not sure he would even be that concerned about retaking irradiated soil, though I still haven't seen evidence that he's quite that demented.  

One of the tragedies of Hiroshima, beyond the horrendous deaths, is that its geography was such that a lot of the radioactive plume blew out to sea and vanished.  I've always had this nagging fear that some ruthless leader will see that as a way to think, "Hey, it's not that hard to contain the effects of a nuclear blast, it will just be a few square miles, we'll be fine...." and block off any awareness that detonations in the middle of a large landmass have very different consequences.  I give credit to Putin for not suffering from kind of this delusion, but as INow and others noted, the NEXT guy could be better at blocking off inconvenient facts in their quest for glory.  

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Janus said:

Even He were to finally prevail in terms of capturing Ukraine on the battlefield, all he will have done is have taken some ground.  The major goals of the invasion have already evaded him.

Yeah. A whole lot of pain for no gain. 

That's what happens when we let ourselves by ruled by the least sane of our species.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

 One of the tragedies of Hiroshima, beyond the horrendous deaths, is that its geography was such that a lot of the radioactive plume blew out to sea and vanished.  I've always had this nagging fear that some ruthless leader will see that as a way to think, "Hey, it's not that hard to contain the effects of a nuclear blast, it will just be a few square miles, we'll be fine...." and block off any awareness that detonations in the middle of a large landmass have very different consequences.  I give credit to Putin for not suffering from kind of this delusion, but as INow and others noted, the NEXT guy could be better at blocking off inconvenient facts in their quest for glory.  

...and potentially the extra deaths and suffering of course back in 1945 and beyond (just in case anyone not knowing you misreads that)

Agree the next guy could be worse. Most of the "bravest" (cowards in this case) willing to speak out in Russia against how the "special operation" is going seem to be pushing a harder stance against Ukraine, and the Kremlin seems to have far more tolerance on that side than moral stances against killing Ukrainians, civilian or otherwise.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Moontanman]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

True.  Putin's ego is such that I'm not entirely confident that he will be able to grasp the magnitude of all his losses that you describe.  Like Trump, he may prove to have that pathological knack for declaring a win where none exists, and boast that the retaking of Ukrainian soil is a glorious step towards reunification of the old Empire.  I'm not sure he would even be that concerned about retaking irradiated soil, though I still haven't seen evidence that he's quite that demented.  

One of the tragedies of Hiroshima, beyond the horrendous deaths, is that its geography was such that a lot of the radioactive plume blew out to sea and vanished.  I've always had this nagging fear that some ruthless leader will see that as a way to think, "Hey, it's not that hard to contain the effects of a nuclear blast, it will just be a few square miles, we'll be fine...." and block off any awareness that detonations in the middle of a large landmass have very different consequences.  I give credit to Putin for not suffering from kind of this delusion, but as INow and others noted, the NEXT guy could be better at blocking off inconvenient facts in their quest for glory.  

I think this illustrates just how many nuclear bombs have been detonated since their advent in 1945. 

 

[TheVat]

My god that time lapse is eerie.  I remember the final test ban was in 1996, but I guess not everyone signed onto that one.

[TheVat]

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-bombs-us-safest-place-protection-1750293

(Text of article below video)

I find some of the scenarios of survival presented in this article bordering on absurd.  And the notion of "rebuilding." Rebuild what, exactly?  With what food supply?  Newsweek does its readers a disservice, giving a false idea that a few places blessed by distance from strategic targets, favorable wind patterns and rain shadows, and what? A decade of canned goods for all? An amazing supply of engineers, educators, physicians, stored gas and diesel and heavy equipment? will somehow rebuild civilization as we know it.  

My favorite expert quote in the article was:

Quote

I would want to be in a place where it is easy to dig a shelter or adapt an existing structure to provide protection if fallout was to be scattered over the land. I suspect that even if the nearest bomb detonation was a long way away that you might need to shelter for some days to reduce your radiation exposure," said Foreman.

Days?  Really?  I rarely use emojis, but....😂

It gets better here:

Quote

"A railway tunnel would be a good place to hide if you know for sure that the trains will not be moving around. Another option would be to park a car above a motor mechanics inspection trench. Pack the inside of the car with sacks of soil. Then go under the car. The soil in the car and the fact you are underground would then shield you from gamma rays."

Sure, pal, heading to Home Depot as soon as the mushroom cloud s appear!  Oh, wait, the intense multiple EMPs fried my car's electronics.  

More handy tips....

Quote

A good place to be would be in an area which is in a rain shadow, the Rocky Mountains cause the rain clouds to release their water as rain. If you go further east from the Rockies then you will end up in a rain shadow," Foreman said. "I would want to be in a rain shadow as rain can bring a lot of fallout out of the sky.

"I would want to be in an area where there is clay soil and some underground water which I can drill a well into. I would want a supply of groundwater after the nuclear war is over, by using water which has passed through soil and rocks the vast majority of the radioactivity will be filtered out of it.

"Also if you put some clean clay type soil in a bucket with rain water then stir it up then the majority of the radioactivity will bind tightly onto the clay. This would allow you to decontaminate the water."

Aside from the idiocy of thinking you can drill a deep aquifer well after the fact, someone needs to point out that that east-of-Rockies rain shadow zone (where I live) is bristling with missile silos and heavy bomber bases and other attractive targets to an adversary in a nuke exchange.  And lots and lots of loose dry surface soil...

 

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-bombs-us-safest-place-protection-1750293

(Text of article below video)

I find some of the scenarios of survival presented in this article bordering on absurd.  And the notion of "rebuilding." Rebuild what, exactly?  With what food supply?  Newsweek does its readers a disservice, giving a false idea that a few places blessed by distance from strategic targets, favorable wind patterns and rain shadows, and what? A decade of canned goods for all? An amazing supply of engineers, educators, physicians, stored gas and diesel and heavy equipment? will somehow rebuild civilization as we know it.  

My favorite expert quote in the article was:

Days?  Really?  I rarely use emojis, but....😂

It gets better here:

Sure, pal, heading to Home Depot as soon as the mushroom cloud s appear!  Oh, wait, the intense multiple EMPs fried my car's electronics.  

More handy tips....

Aside from the idiocy of thinking you can drill a deep aquifer well after the fact, someone needs to point out that that east-of-Rockies rain shadow zone (where I live) is bristling with missile silos and heavy bomber bases and other attractive targets to an adversary in a nuke exchange.  And lots and lots of loose dry surface soil...

 

Yes, it's all a bit Dr Strangelove: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10-20 million killed, tops." (Buck Turgidson.)

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I would want to be in a place where it is easy to dig a shelter or adapt an existing structure to provide protection if fallout was to be scattered over the land.

I would want to be at ground 0.

[TheVat]

In case Peterkin's formatting above is not clear, that quote begins several paragraphs of expert opinion I was greeting with skepticism.

Not sure about the ground zero thing.  I understand the motivation, but just haven't firmly committed.  

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes, it's all a bit Dr Strangelove: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10-20 million killed, tops." (Buck Turgidson.)

Buck Turgidson, yes.  Perfect. 

[MigL]

Over 2000 nuclear explosions since 1945.
A large number above ground.
The Earth is still habitable.

I don't mean to make light of the situation or possibility, but quit being such a pessimist 🙂 .
( I'll take my chances; I don't want to be at ground 0 )

Edited October 15, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

It's a matter of perspective. My So and I in our 70's, with multiple health issues. I have a fairly accurate assessment of how much we could dig, gauge and struggle for survival in a post-apocalyptic environment. It just ain't worth the aggro. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

[Moontanman]

I have to admit my apartment is almost like it was designed to be a fallout shelter! I live on the bottom floor, the floor above me is concrete, my bathroom is in the center of the apartment, it is big enough to hole up in for a couple weeks, I could fill the bathtub with water to run the toilet, I have 6 cases of bottled water already stored there, I could set up shelving units to hold canned foods and my apartment faces away from potential strike zones ie the state ports, a military terminal, and a nuclear power plant.   

[Sensei]

Pro V.P. people the main motto is: "Après moi, le déluge".. ("After me, the flood")