How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be(time.com) |
How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be(time.com) |
It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today.
It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media.
In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then.
[0] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...
Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that might just be too long.
When I see many different people parroting the same unusual scientific claim on Internet sites, I tend to think there's a single source with an agenda. I hope this isn't true, because it made me worry that some organized group was trying to promote the idea that "nuclear war isn't so bad," which is... yikes.
But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people need...)
I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.
"the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..."
"The film eventually premiered at the National Film Theatre in London, on 13 April 1966, where it ran until 3 May.[4] It was then shown abroad at several film festivals, including the Venice one where it won the Special Prize. It also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967."
[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have.
Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.
[0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...
The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own."
Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.
> the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease
Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?
As time goes on, the current generation will become more and more removed from the original conditions that resulted in the nuclear arms race, and more disconnected from the potential realities that nuclear war could introduce.
At a time when Russia continues to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, it seems appropriate to continue reminding folks about what this actually entails. I suspect the average "let them try" commenter on Facebook/Twitter has very little concept of what this actually means.
If there's one category that warrants scary writing, nuclear war would be that category. It's pretty much impossible to explore the topic without touching on some rather terrifying implications.
Game theory shows us that war should only occur because of these unknowns (each side believes they will win). Thus given this new tech and the uncertainty on both sides, MAD is arguably weaker than ever before.
It's not scare journalism to remind people of this.
No thank you!
If money is no object then yes it can be done. One can order massive amounts of freeze dried food and store a lot of treated water. Officially it is good retaining 97% nutrients and taste for 25 years. Unofficially it's good until the container decomposes. I have enough to last about a year of daily consumption and that was a serious investment but has more nutritional value than gold or silver.
There are a few companies that can do custom orders and there is one consumer company that sells an assortment of different size freeze dryers [1]. Watch videos on how those work before contemplating getting one as they are noisy and involve time and effort. My local grocery store sells a few generic meat, egg and vegetable freeze dried foods, butter, beans, etc... Even some unhealthy stuff I guess for psychological effect as comfort food.
Nutristore [2] is one of the more affordable brands I get. Tastes better than MRE's from the 90's but can be bland. One must add their own desired seasonings or sauces. There are other brands that have better taste and more options but they also cost a lot more. All of this requires adding water. One should watch videos on how to properly treat water for prolonged storage.
Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones.
Then there was the American Patriot air-defence system that couldn't even protect itself while expending 16 (or was it 32?) missiles. And the American HIMARS systems whose missiles routinely get intercepted
And we haven't heard much lately about the M777 artillery which were found to be very fragile when forced to 'shoot n scoot'. I've read somewhere that apparently the moving hooks are attached to the end of the barrel (!) instead of the wheeled-base and so causes stress on the still-hot barrels while towing during that shifting. And which routinely get taken out by Lancets.
Then there were the Turkish Bayraktars that were were so famous in the first weeks of the war. They are never heard about anymore, Thery just weren't up to the task.
And of course the anti-tank missiles which couldn't even punch a hole in the thin top armour of a tank when fired directly down on the tank from a bedroom window. And anyway, a lot of those had dead batteries too.
It's been said that Western weapons are designed to be profitable, and Russian weapons are designed to be effective. I'm rapidly being converted to that point of view. Tom Cruise and 'Top Gun' not withstanding.
Even if the NATO Alliance weapons deployed in Ukraine don't work ideally, the total economic and technical power of the west has the ability to overcome these failures and build better for war to a much greater degree than the fragile, comparatively tiny economy of Russia can manage, and on a large scale, economic sustainability is what wins wars. Just ask the Germans after both of the World Wars they kickstarted.