I've just read a post on Quora where the author says Putin will not order a nuclear strike anytime soon on Kiev or elsewhere in Ukraine. The two main reasons are apparently 1) because nuclear weapons are not considered effective against modern cities (he doesn't mention the tactical use against military battalions in open ground though) and says that hundreds of missiles would be needed to level Kiev. 2) Russia has very likely not maintained its nuclear arsenal; after just twenty years of non-maintenance a nuclear warhead is useless--maintenance entails replacing the explosive envelope around a radioactive uranium/plutonium core, this explosive device is extremely high precision and very costly to produce, and they typically need replacing every five years. Russia probably has some launch-ready missiles, but given the known levels of corruption and diversion of military funds, enough to show to inspectors from the Kremlin. So if they did launch a nuke, two things will happen. Ukraine will keep fighting and Russia will have invited nuclear annihilation from the West. The author concludes that Putin knows his best option is to maintain a fear of them being used, which he also knows their use would be a suicidal move for Russia and might mean his demise at the hands of his generals if he did give an order to use them against Ukraine. What do you think?
Surely (1) is nonsense, isn't it? What reason is there to think a "modern" city would not be destroyed by a missile with multiple warheads, each of over 100kT yield?
Yeah I admit that is questionable. But there are only two real-world examples of nuclear weapons exploded over cities and neither of them was a modern city, Hiroshima was mostly wooden houses and buildings; the author claims the explosion would have destroyed about 2-3 sq km directly, the blast wave would have flattened a lot more and then it all burnt anyway. He claims that a modern city would mostly survive because it wouldn't burn. Also a lot of civilians would survive, more than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, it would still be devastating, but he claims it would not look anything like either of the Japanese targets. This author also claims over thirty years of experience analysing nuclear threats. I'm "only" repeating what they said.
"The Briefing Room", this evening on BBC Radio 4, was about the war. Lawrence Freedman, emeritus Prof of War studies at King's London, was of the opinion that escalating to battlefield nukes would serve no purpose in winning the war, since they are only useful against high troop concentrations, which are not a feature of Ukrainian tactics, informed as they have been by British military training (apparently!). The backlash however, involving, as it might, full Western participation, would be catastrophic for Russia. So he thinks that if Putin is rational he will not escalate to nukes. The overall tone of the programme was that there is no good outcome for Russia. Voices of dissent are beginning to be heard within the country about the conduct of the war, in spite of the clampdown on unauthorised commentary.
I was mainly referring to (2). Regarding (1) I agree that it's hard to defeat an enemy by just using conventional missiles but in this context we would be talking about tactical nuclear warheads on these missiles and I really doubt that Russia has "thousands" of working tactical nuclear warheads (if any at all). I don't think they can get the big nuclear bombs updated in large part but less the small ones. Regarding surviving nuclear weapons (arfa brane's comments above) in a "modern" city, it's comparing apples to oranges. The bombs that were used against Japan were mere firecrackers compared to the size of today's nuclear bombs. I've read though that today, if you are more than 15 miles away from the direct hit (depending on terrain and other factors) if you had warning and went into your basement for 2 days, you would be likely to survive the actual blast. You might have no water, food, heat, etc but it's likely you would survive the initial blast. The real threat, IMO, is a crazy dictator who is dying (Putin?) and just doesn't care. That's the only scenario where one would use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or any other country. Putin could just as easily launch such weapons against the U.S. in that scenario. You have to hope that there is one sane person in the chain of command in such a case. The saving grace (if there is one) would be what is discussed in (2). The greatest danger, from what I've read and this is an unknown of course, is what an all out nuclear war would do to the Earth's atmosphere regarding blocking out the sun over large areas for extended periods of time but I have to guess that no one really knows regarding this scenario. We have had ash events like Mt. St. Helens, we also have clouds routinely so talk about it causing the next Ice Age, while probably possible, are also probably overblown? I don't want to find out the answer however.
after what we've seen of the russian military over the past few months thinking the people in charge of maintaining the nukes were somehow immune to the graft and corruption that was rampant among the ranks does'nt seem like a winning bet. who knows how many would be in a usable state. also consider they seem to be rather cavalier attitude towards nuclear safety, i doubt they have many usuable nukes strategic or otherwise.
It has certainly been an eye-opener to see how badly the army has performed. And the reports of them scavenging soldiers from penal colonies and press-ganging captured Ukranians suggest they have still not learnt that coerced soldiers won't fight well and will desert at the first opportunity. It's bizarre they think they can get people to risk death in battle on this basis, for a cause in which they have no interest. Terror and coercion seem to be the only tools they've got - from Putin down.
i think the big concern is if russia degrades its military in ukraine to the point moldavia and georgia decide to feel froggy and get their territory back, cause thats when the desperation is really gonna hit vladdy
Indeed. He may go all mystical slav on us and become self-destructive, like Hitler. Rationality is not necessarily to be presumed. One hopes, however that back-channels between Western and Russian military remain open, to help the Russian military leaders remain rational, as they may in the end determine what happens.
We already see things kicking off along the Azerbaijan/Armenia border. There could be a few suppressed conflicts that re-erupt, if Russia is distracted or exposed as militarily weakened.
If they were rational in the first place, let alone remain rational, then they wouldn't be suffering the issues in Ukraine as they are, which by a number of accounts seem to be due to the irrationality of not following their usual military playbook. The same Azerbaijan/Armenia border that has seen skirmishes for the past 30 years ever since the dissolution of the USSR, and that saw a 6-week war as recently as 2020? I'm not sure Russia's recent military ineptitude has much, if anything, to do with those things "kicking off". But, in a similar vein, I'm not sure it has much to do with the recent skirmishes also seen in the past few days on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan either, as they've also had border disputes since the collapse of the USSR. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it has everything to do with it. the russian led CSTO was part of keeping those in check. with russia spending its strength in ukraine it no longer has the strength to intervene there if it still wants to prosecute its war in ukraine. the countries are acting as if they would with out russian influence.
Not demonstrably so. The current situation and activity in those regimes is no different than it has been for the past decade or two - periods in which Russia wasn't fighting in Ukraine. They had border skirmishes during those periods, even a 6-week war in 2020! They're still having border skirmishes. If they do X while Y is in place, and they do X while Y is not in place, it's reasonable to assume that Y really doesn't have much influence on whether they do X (with Y in this case being the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Russia are still capable of providing "peacekeepers", and brokering peace, in these regions. The countries have been acting like this for the past few decades! If you're saying that this is them acting as if they would without russian influence then you would seem to be saying that they have never had russian influence. Again: if they act the same whether Y is in place or not, Y is not an influence to the way they act.
you are going to claim the Azerbiajianis would risk striking russian troops which they you know they just did without russia showing its weakness in ukraine? they why hadn't they done it before? yeah if you ignore all the details there is no difference between them. but the details aren't the same. yes because Georgia having a referendum on whether or not to try and militarily take back south ossetia and abkhazia is business as usual. just because you don't want russian weakness to mean the world is a more chaotic and dangerous place doesn't make it true.
No. They didn't just do that. They hadn't, and haven't, before or now. Of course there are differences, but if the cause is just (in their view) they will always come up with reasons and excuses. They have done so in the past, and they will do so in the future. Sure, when there is a full scale conflict, more than there has been in the past, you can come back and tell me "told you so", but as of now you have zip other than shifting sands upon which people build one excuse after another for what they do. And this is related to which of the two existing conflict zones I referred to? Of course there are going to be some cases of people taking on board Russia's ineptitude, becoming emboldened, etc, and possibly even with Ukrainian influence to try and drag them into the conflict. But I specifically referenced two areas. Georgia wasn't one of them. And I said otherwise??
That's interesting. According to the accounts I have read, the Russian have been following their military playbook of attempted motorised blitzkrieg (failed), long range artillery bombardment, and tight control of all operational decisions from the top. It has not served them very well and they can't change the last bit, which is the most fundamental, as it would require a total retraining - and probably a re-selection - of the entire officer corps. You may be right about these skirmishes in the 'stans. Some commentators are attributing recent upsurges to opportunism, due to the war, but they could be over-interpreting, I suppose.
The source I read suggested that they effectively tore up the playbook with regard control structure and having the necessary things in place before engaging etc. So maybe "playbook" was the wrong term by me, as that implies the tactics rather than structure etc. Aye, there'll certainly be some opportunism, but they'll generally find any excuse to skirmish if that's what they want to do. If not Russia's apparent military ineptitude, something else, such that it becomes just the excuse du jour rather than anything meaningful.
you are trying to have a completely different conversation than the one that was happening. you are arguing that since the conflicts predate russians invasion of ukraine that war has nothing to do with whats happening. im arguing that these conflicts are specifically flaring up again right now because russia has shown its unwilling or unable to interact. also there is the fact the armenians are treating it as different. you harping on its an excuse only shows you don't understand the point being made. you have basically acknowledged my argument as correct and than used that is correct to try and say im wrong. i was never talking about root causes but specifically why everything is flaring up now which is russia is weak and where they would put their thumb on the scales isn't going to happen so they are going at it.
