Or you make no fly zone for Russian forces and fly zone
for Ukrainian air and missile assets.
So, you do what NATO air power is designed to do, well. And do it within couple hours of time- not a pin prick, lots of stealth and lot’s of non stealth [and it’s over quickly]. And then of course the follow on of maintaining the no fly zone.
“And then of course the follow on of maintaining the no fly zone.”
Do you seriously want a nuclear war? Direct NATO involvement will lead to strikes on NATO bases, with good reason.
Please volunteer to fight for the Ukes. Leave the rest of us out of it, thanks.
If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die. Period. No matter what it takes.
Otherwise, China will use nukes. North Korea will use nukes. Iran will use nukes. Etc, etc.
“If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die.”
Assuming we still have a competent CIA/DIA etc. sounds like a situation warranting an engineered coup or assassination.
I look forward to hearing how Internet superheroes plan to take care of this personally.
“If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die. Period.”
“If Biden uses nukes, then Biden must die. Period”
“If Xi uses nukes, then Xi must die. Period”
Do you realize how stupid that statement was? Jingoism is not helpful right now, and de-escalation usually doesn’t involve death threats.
This appears to be addressing the Russian nuclear threat.
Tit for tat at that point is a failure. Does reminding Russia of our capabilities serve as a deterrent? It might but having to use those capabilities is the least desirable option and good military diplomacy would focus on a pre-nuclear exchange.
“if Putin is like others of his generation and profession — and his behavior suggests that he is — he will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if he believes doing so is the only means to preserve his power as dissent increases within his own ranks and military options dwindle.”
Putin should be given a clear path to exit the war. Russia’s military has been gutted and they are no threat to NATO.
The author thinks that Putin would only resort to nuclear and chemical weapons if the threat to him was existential, then the solution to prevent that is to not create that scenario.
The author thinks that Putin would only resort to nuclear and chemical weapons if the threat to him was existential, then the solution to prevent that is to not create that scenario.
Agreed, but in order to get there we eventually are going to have to get heavy handed with Ukraine, else they won’t stop until the mushroom clouds rise from their soil. Someone needs to explain this to them, and if that happens maybe nobody is coming to the rescue… This is by far probably the more likely scenario than the one I posted below, which is far more worst case. We really don’t have a dog in this fight, we should not pretend otherwise and the world will be better off for it.
Agreed, but in order to get there we eventually are going to have to get heavy handed with Ukraine,
Why? Ukraine isn’t an existential threat to Russia or even Putin’s career.
Why? Ukraine isn’t an existential threat to Russia or even Putin’s career.
Unfortunately, the point is not how we see it, but how Putin sees it. In other words, reasoning with the unreasonable.
Unfortunately, the point is not how we see it, but how Putin sees it. In other words, reasoning with the unreasonable.
Which let us note hasn’t been revealed yet. I don’t buy that he actually sees Ukraine or even NATO as an existential threat to Russia.
But even if he does, so what? Keep in mind that this is a moving target even if he really does happen to believe this right now. The actual solution is to just not have crazy people like that in power.
Frankly, I don’t see a better solution than the present. Russia isn’t genuinely threatened and pressure on Putin is ratcheted up by his own hand. If that results in nuclear war? Well, it would have likely happened anyway with greater advantage to Russia.
Why wouldn’t the loss of Crimea (or even the total loss of one of the newly annexed regions) be seen by Putin as an existential threat to his career?
We should done that more than 8 months ago.
But late is better than continuing to not do the obvious.
Joe Biden’s caretakers are dumber than rocks, and they will be losing the election,
Putin should be given a clear path to exit the war.
That box is checked – leave Ukraine.
Sun Tzu said to give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. He knew a thing or two about war.
That’s not a golden bridge. That’s Putin getting killed. So he’s not the to go for that.
Look three things…
1)A nuke, even a tactical nuke in Ukraine is like pooping on your own doorstep. Eventually you have to clean it up, and oh yea the neighbors are looking.
2) Ukraine is in no mood to negotiate with the big guy next door who already came by a few years back and stole their back yard. They are in the mood to take it back. Can you blame them?
3) We are in no position to pressure Vlad because we shut down the biggest reversal in oil production since forever. We can change that but it we take time and a willing administration or at least an overwhelming Congress.
We could just not respond and see how many Russians and Russian children inside Russia’s borders get sick and die from the radioactive clouds & fallout that inevitably drifts their way. This is (was) some of the most fertile farm ground in all of Europe. Whomever the radiation doesn’t get the follow-on famine will.
Worse still somehow maybe the Ukrainians get their hands on mobile IRBMs with thermobaric warheads. With the Ukrainian leadership killed off in the nuclear strike it will be a truly random act outside of almost anyone’s control when a missile attack destroys a Russian city. You want that Vlad? You want to strike first on NATO? Which of course denies supplying them…
But actually probably the complete economic embargo, impound and blockade that would follow would eventually do Vlad in. It would take time but it would work. People can’t eat munitions.
This analysis sounds about right to me. You have to have a strong response of some kind or we will forevermore be held hostage to tinpot dictators with nukes. (Iran and North Korea come to mind.) The key thing is letting him know secretly how we intend to respond. And it has to be something that he believes his regime would not survive. Something like, destroying his Baltic fleet, establishing absolute air superiority over Ukraine, and interdicting his supply lines. Then we would continue providing all necessary arms to the Ukrainians while they mop up. No attacks on the recognized territory of Russia and no NATO soldiers on the ground.
I think surfacing a ballistic missile sub in the Persian Gulf was the wrong message. We should not appear to be making an existential threat to Russia. Just his armed forces that are in Ukraine. A better move would be to ensure there are at least two aircraft carriers that are close enough to quickly respond conventionally. Maybe forward position some bombers in Poland, too.
The risk of further escalation is always there, of course. What you’re hoping to do is convince him we WILL respond and that he is more likely to remain in power if he DOESN’T use a nuke. You just have to take the risk because appeasement or performative measures will never work on Putin.
“Knowledgeable source?” Hm. 34 years in the CIA. Hm. 34 years ago was 1988, right? So he’s ridden the sled downhill for his whole career. And his two big exemplars are Bill Clinton’s SecDef, who presided over dismantling the defense apparatus. and David Patraeus who… oh, let’s see, was convicted of “mishandling classified documents” and seemingly handed them over to a reporter. And I understand pussy was involved? These are not people to be trusted, and neither is the author. I’m glad I live more than 50 miles from the nearest plausible target.
100 miles is not far enough.
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but these are not antimatter bombs we’re talking about, they’re known, as-deployed Russian and Chinese weapons systems.
I did look at a personal worst-case scenario, a 5Mt ground pounder on Durham, NC, 50 miles upwind. That would drop a fatal plume over my house, if I didn’t get out of Dodge (or in this case Sassafras Fork) right away. Amusingly, the plume would still be deadly when it reached the Hamptons! Countering this, there are no systems with 5Mt warheads that can reach here. Also, there’s nothing in Durham worth any warhead (Duke University? Don’t be silly). Most likely (and not very), a 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles due south) which would destroy teh airport and scientific industria; park, knock down Raleigh (5 mi east) and set thermal pulse fires in Durham, 20 mi west). I would probably notice the explosion from my house. The nearest actual strategic target is 150 miles southeast of here. The nearest certain target is 200 mi due east.
The global worst case is under debate. How likely are these weapons to actually work? I have the wherewithal to build a fallout shelter that can protect me and mine from the probable and prompt aftereffects of a typical contemporary WW3 scenario. Long term? I’d die from infrastructure failure when my meds ran out in several months. Then again, I’m 72. How long can I last anyway?
According to the late physicist Freeman Dyson (personal correspondence) the largest nukes in any nuclear power’s operational inventories these days have a yield of no more than about half a megaton. Given latter day precision delivery systems nothing larger was deemed “necessary” to more than destroy the (human) world, and so they were dispensed with.
Not true now, and never true, and it doesn’t matter how famous the Kool-Ade drinker may have been. Currently, the 60 or so Topol-M ICBMs are loaded with 1MT warheads. Destroy the world? Sheesh. How do you think that would work?
In any case, it makes my case for me. A 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles away) would wake me from my afternoon nap. A 300 kt airburst over Central Park would kill 2 million people in one second.
I chose the hypothetical 5Mt Chinese weapon just to illustrate my personal worst case scenario. Maybe I should have chosen the SS-18’s supposedly loaded with 20Mt warheads instead, but that’d probably put my lawnmower in low earth orbit…
In any case, it makes my case for me. A 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles away) would wake me from my afternoon nap. A 300 kt airburst over Central Park would kill 2 million people in one second.
Our last greatest generation of nukes, the MX Peacekeeper could dispense up to 10 (12, but limited by treaty to 10) 300kt thermonuclear bombs (W87s) over dispersed targets or timed to coincide on a single target with enough spacing to avoid weapon fratricide. MIRV’ing was considered a far more ‘effective’ approach than simply upping the yield of a single device, both for size (mass), reliability, maintainability and flexibility. Of course stuffing them into a ‘dunce pack’ basing mode made them a ‘use it or lose it’ proposition. Although air-burst helps reduce fallout, you’ll still get plenty from pressure wave bounce-up (reflected off the ground).
I live about 1/2 mile from a prime military target, so I won’t even have to bother opening the fridge to get my roasted wienies. Um, this is not a tactical weapon by any stretch of the imagination although there are plenty in the Russian inventory that can get up near 200kt in yield.
“What was that?! And why am I floating above the clouds playing a harp??”
In addition to whatever is left of the Russian arsenal (the few dozen Topol-M warheads I mention) the US’ small B-2 fleet carried gravity bombs (up to 16 per plane) with yields “up to” 1.2 megatons. According to NewSTART, each bomber == one warhead. Wonder who thought of that one?
Am I arguing against your “case”? I don’t think I was. My source for the half megaton allegation, as I said, was Freeman Dyson. Perhaps he was mistaken as to the exact megatonnage. But then, who are you?
Beyond that, I said human world. Destroying most of the human world, in large measure, via nuclear weapons would be difficult, but straightforward: you and your opponent(s) land your their thousands of half megaton or so sized warheads on every conceivable population, transportation, and industrial center till you run out of nukes, the epitome of MAD.
I read one time (wish I still had a pointer to it) that given that kind of broad nuclear weapons distribution, significant targets had gotten so scarce at one point that a nuke had been allocated to vaporize a vacant field that was thought might supposedly be used as an airfield in an emergency. It would be hard to survive that over a large portion of the world’s continents, I think.
Well at least we have a solution to global warming…
Who am I? A has-been science fiction writer (it was just a hobby) who worked for DoD in the 1980s. Truthfully, I think Dyson was lied to and probably just liked passing it on. I think I know who you are, but it’s up to you to dox yourself, if you wish.
The idea that, somehow, the world (or human world if you prefer_ could have been destroyed many times over back when their were 60,000 warheads was also a “fairy tale,” if you will. If you had, in say 1983, carefully distributed every warhead to every population center on earth, then detonated them all simultanously at midnight, there still would have been plenty of survivors. I wrote a short story (published in Asimov’s in 1996) called “Age of Aquarius” (available as an Amazon ebook as a standalone) that’s worth a read. I do know what I’m talking about.
How many people here have seen a live nuclear weapon, mounted on its active delivery system, in person? I have. You still here bombloader?
Not sure what an IAEA inspection proves. Ukraine could just stuff a lot of firemen’s uniforms, gloves and boots from Chernobyl into an empty missile warhead.
I had a funny fantasy about all this. In 1989 the Soviet deployed a handfull of R-36M2 missiles with 20MT warheads as an answer to “Star Wars.” Those missiles and warheads still exist and are on the books, though I have my doubts about maintenance. Still, the fissile material and fusion jackets would be okay. So take them apart, replace the HE lenses and repackage for deployent as Poseidon “torpedos” (see Status-6) and Bob’s yer vaporized uncle. I think there were 12 such warheads. Just enough for the 2 known subs.
What you conventional hit in Ukraine is Russia anti air defenses.
This is still a major Russian strength in Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4
Or you make no fly zone for Russian forces and fly zone
for Ukrainian air and missile assets.
So, you do what NATO air power is designed to do, well. And do it within couple hours of time- not a pin prick, lots of stealth and lot’s of non stealth [and it’s over quickly]. And then of course the follow on of maintaining the no fly zone.
“And then of course the follow on of maintaining the no fly zone.”
Do you seriously want a nuclear war? Direct NATO involvement will lead to strikes on NATO bases, with good reason.
Please volunteer to fight for the Ukes. Leave the rest of us out of it, thanks.
If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die. Period. No matter what it takes.
Otherwise, China will use nukes. North Korea will use nukes. Iran will use nukes. Etc, etc.
“If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die.”
Assuming we still have a competent CIA/DIA etc. sounds like a situation warranting an engineered coup or assassination.
I look forward to hearing how Internet superheroes plan to take care of this personally.
“If Putin uses nukes, then Putin must die. Period.”
“If Biden uses nukes, then Biden must die. Period”
“If Xi uses nukes, then Xi must die. Period”
Do you realize how stupid that statement was? Jingoism is not helpful right now, and de-escalation usually doesn’t involve death threats.
This appears to be addressing the Russian nuclear threat.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/highly-unusual-disclosure-made-of-u-s-ballistic-missile-submarines-presence-in-arabian-sea
Tit for tat at that point is a failure. Does reminding Russia of our capabilities serve as a deterrent? It might but having to use those capabilities is the least desirable option and good military diplomacy would focus on a pre-nuclear exchange.
“if Putin is like others of his generation and profession — and his behavior suggests that he is — he will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if he believes doing so is the only means to preserve his power as dissent increases within his own ranks and military options dwindle.”
Putin should be given a clear path to exit the war. Russia’s military has been gutted and they are no threat to NATO.
The author thinks that Putin would only resort to nuclear and chemical weapons if the threat to him was existential, then the solution to prevent that is to not create that scenario.
The author thinks that Putin would only resort to nuclear and chemical weapons if the threat to him was existential, then the solution to prevent that is to not create that scenario.
Agreed, but in order to get there we eventually are going to have to get heavy handed with Ukraine, else they won’t stop until the mushroom clouds rise from their soil. Someone needs to explain this to them, and if that happens maybe nobody is coming to the rescue… This is by far probably the more likely scenario than the one I posted below, which is far more worst case. We really don’t have a dog in this fight, we should not pretend otherwise and the world will be better off for it.
Agreed, but in order to get there we eventually are going to have to get heavy handed with Ukraine,
Why? Ukraine isn’t an existential threat to Russia or even Putin’s career.
Why? Ukraine isn’t an existential threat to Russia or even Putin’s career.
Unfortunately, the point is not how we see it, but how Putin sees it. In other words, reasoning with the unreasonable.
Unfortunately, the point is not how we see it, but how Putin sees it. In other words, reasoning with the unreasonable.
Which let us note hasn’t been revealed yet. I don’t buy that he actually sees Ukraine or even NATO as an existential threat to Russia.
But even if he does, so what? Keep in mind that this is a moving target even if he really does happen to believe this right now. The actual solution is to just not have crazy people like that in power.
Frankly, I don’t see a better solution than the present. Russia isn’t genuinely threatened and pressure on Putin is ratcheted up by his own hand. If that results in nuclear war? Well, it would have likely happened anyway with greater advantage to Russia.
Why wouldn’t the loss of Crimea (or even the total loss of one of the newly annexed regions) be seen by Putin as an existential threat to his career?
We should done that more than 8 months ago.
But late is better than continuing to not do the obvious.
Joe Biden’s caretakers are dumber than rocks, and they will be losing the election,
Putin should be given a clear path to exit the war.
That box is checked – leave Ukraine.
Sun Tzu said to give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across. He knew a thing or two about war.
That’s not a golden bridge. That’s Putin getting killed. So he’s not the to go for that.
Look three things…
1)A nuke, even a tactical nuke in Ukraine is like pooping on your own doorstep. Eventually you have to clean it up, and oh yea the neighbors are looking.
2) Ukraine is in no mood to negotiate with the big guy next door who already came by a few years back and stole their back yard. They are in the mood to take it back. Can you blame them?
3) We are in no position to pressure Vlad because we shut down the biggest reversal in oil production since forever. We can change that but it we take time and a willing administration or at least an overwhelming Congress.
We could just not respond and see how many Russians and Russian children inside Russia’s borders get sick and die from the radioactive clouds & fallout that inevitably drifts their way. This is (was) some of the most fertile farm ground in all of Europe. Whomever the radiation doesn’t get the follow-on famine will.
Worse still somehow maybe the Ukrainians get their hands on mobile IRBMs with thermobaric warheads. With the Ukrainian leadership killed off in the nuclear strike it will be a truly random act outside of almost anyone’s control when a missile attack destroys a Russian city. You want that Vlad? You want to strike first on NATO? Which of course denies supplying them…
But actually probably the complete economic embargo, impound and blockade that would follow would eventually do Vlad in. It would take time but it would work. People can’t eat munitions.
This analysis sounds about right to me. You have to have a strong response of some kind or we will forevermore be held hostage to tinpot dictators with nukes. (Iran and North Korea come to mind.) The key thing is letting him know secretly how we intend to respond. And it has to be something that he believes his regime would not survive. Something like, destroying his Baltic fleet, establishing absolute air superiority over Ukraine, and interdicting his supply lines. Then we would continue providing all necessary arms to the Ukrainians while they mop up. No attacks on the recognized territory of Russia and no NATO soldiers on the ground.
I think surfacing a ballistic missile sub in the Persian Gulf was the wrong message. We should not appear to be making an existential threat to Russia. Just his armed forces that are in Ukraine. A better move would be to ensure there are at least two aircraft carriers that are close enough to quickly respond conventionally. Maybe forward position some bombers in Poland, too.
The risk of further escalation is always there, of course. What you’re hoping to do is convince him we WILL respond and that he is more likely to remain in power if he DOESN’T use a nuke. You just have to take the risk because appeasement or performative measures will never work on Putin.
“Knowledgeable source?” Hm. 34 years in the CIA. Hm. 34 years ago was 1988, right? So he’s ridden the sled downhill for his whole career. And his two big exemplars are Bill Clinton’s SecDef, who presided over dismantling the defense apparatus. and David Patraeus who… oh, let’s see, was convicted of “mishandling classified documents” and seemingly handed them over to a reporter. And I understand pussy was involved? These are not people to be trusted, and neither is the author. I’m glad I live more than 50 miles from the nearest plausible target.
100 miles is not far enough.
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but these are not antimatter bombs we’re talking about, they’re known, as-deployed Russian and Chinese weapons systems.
I did look at a personal worst-case scenario, a 5Mt ground pounder on Durham, NC, 50 miles upwind. That would drop a fatal plume over my house, if I didn’t get out of Dodge (or in this case Sassafras Fork) right away. Amusingly, the plume would still be deadly when it reached the Hamptons! Countering this, there are no systems with 5Mt warheads that can reach here. Also, there’s nothing in Durham worth any warhead (Duke University? Don’t be silly). Most likely (and not very), a 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles due south) which would destroy teh airport and scientific industria; park, knock down Raleigh (5 mi east) and set thermal pulse fires in Durham, 20 mi west). I would probably notice the explosion from my house. The nearest actual strategic target is 150 miles southeast of here. The nearest certain target is 200 mi due east.
The global worst case is under debate. How likely are these weapons to actually work? I have the wherewithal to build a fallout shelter that can protect me and mine from the probable and prompt aftereffects of a typical contemporary WW3 scenario. Long term? I’d die from infrastructure failure when my meds ran out in several months. Then again, I’m 72. How long can I last anyway?
According to the late physicist Freeman Dyson (personal correspondence) the largest nukes in any nuclear power’s operational inventories these days have a yield of no more than about half a megaton. Given latter day precision delivery systems nothing larger was deemed “necessary” to more than destroy the (human) world, and so they were dispensed with.
Not true now, and never true, and it doesn’t matter how famous the Kool-Ade drinker may have been. Currently, the 60 or so Topol-M ICBMs are loaded with 1MT warheads. Destroy the world? Sheesh. How do you think that would work?
In any case, it makes my case for me. A 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles away) would wake me from my afternoon nap. A 300 kt airburst over Central Park would kill 2 million people in one second.
I chose the hypothetical 5Mt Chinese weapon just to illustrate my personal worst case scenario. Maybe I should have chosen the SS-18’s supposedly loaded with 20Mt warheads instead, but that’d probably put my lawnmower in low earth orbit…
In any case, it makes my case for me. A 300kt airburst over RDU (56 miles away) would wake me from my afternoon nap. A 300 kt airburst over Central Park would kill 2 million people in one second.
Our last greatest generation of nukes, the MX Peacekeeper could dispense up to 10 (12, but limited by treaty to 10) 300kt thermonuclear bombs (W87s) over dispersed targets or timed to coincide on a single target with enough spacing to avoid weapon fratricide. MIRV’ing was considered a far more ‘effective’ approach than simply upping the yield of a single device, both for size (mass), reliability, maintainability and flexibility. Of course stuffing them into a ‘dunce pack’ basing mode made them a ‘use it or lose it’ proposition. Although air-burst helps reduce fallout, you’ll still get plenty from pressure wave bounce-up (reflected off the ground).
I live about 1/2 mile from a prime military target, so I won’t even have to bother opening the fridge to get my roasted wienies. Um, this is not a tactical weapon by any stretch of the imagination although there are plenty in the Russian inventory that can get up near 200kt in yield.
“What was that?! And why am I floating above the clouds playing a harp??”
In addition to whatever is left of the Russian arsenal (the few dozen Topol-M warheads I mention) the US’ small B-2 fleet carried gravity bombs (up to 16 per plane) with yields “up to” 1.2 megatons. According to NewSTART, each bomber == one warhead. Wonder who thought of that one?
Am I arguing against your “case”? I don’t think I was. My source for the half megaton allegation, as I said, was Freeman Dyson. Perhaps he was mistaken as to the exact megatonnage. But then, who are you?
Beyond that, I said human world. Destroying most of the human world, in large measure, via nuclear weapons would be difficult, but straightforward: you and your opponent(s) land your their thousands of half megaton or so sized warheads on every conceivable population, transportation, and industrial center till you run out of nukes, the epitome of MAD.
I read one time (wish I still had a pointer to it) that given that kind of broad nuclear weapons distribution, significant targets had gotten so scarce at one point that a nuke had been allocated to vaporize a vacant field that was thought might supposedly be used as an airfield in an emergency. It would be hard to survive that over a large portion of the world’s continents, I think.
Well at least we have a solution to global warming…
Who am I? A has-been science fiction writer (it was just a hobby) who worked for DoD in the 1980s. Truthfully, I think Dyson was lied to and probably just liked passing it on. I think I know who you are, but it’s up to you to dox yourself, if you wish.
The idea that, somehow, the world (or human world if you prefer_ could have been destroyed many times over back when their were 60,000 warheads was also a “fairy tale,” if you will. If you had, in say 1983, carefully distributed every warhead to every population center on earth, then detonated them all simultanously at midnight, there still would have been plenty of survivors. I wrote a short story (published in Asimov’s in 1996) called “Age of Aquarius” (available as an Amazon ebook as a standalone) that’s worth a read. I do know what I’m talking about.
How many people here have seen a live nuclear weapon, mounted on its active delivery system, in person? I have. You still here bombloader?
….And now we have…. Dirty Bombs!
Not sure what an IAEA inspection proves. Ukraine could just stuff a lot of firemen’s uniforms, gloves and boots from Chernobyl into an empty missile warhead.
I had a funny fantasy about all this. In 1989 the Soviet deployed a handfull of R-36M2 missiles with 20MT warheads as an answer to “Star Wars.” Those missiles and warheads still exist and are on the books, though I have my doubts about maintenance. Still, the fissile material and fusion jackets would be okay. So take them apart, replace the HE lenses and repackage for deployent as Poseidon “torpedos” (see Status-6) and Bob’s yer vaporized uncle. I think there were 12 such warheads. Just enough for the 2 known subs.