The Invasion of Ukraine

[Woodchopper]

I bought iodine tablets today. They only had "supplement"-type ones, but the pharmacist told me that next week they will be getting some high-dose ones of the kind that might be prescribed for thyroid issues. He didn't say if there had been an uptick in demand.

Basically I am assuming that it is now more likely than not (with the less-than-half representing the situation where someone bumps off Putin) that there will be a strategic nuclear exchange with several hundred million Europeans ending up dead in the next 3-6 months. If I survived that then I don't know if I would want to go on living. But it would seem silly to die of radiation poisoning (and yes, I know that iodine won't be the only thing I'll need) if they only, say, blow up Barcelona and I'm sitting downwind of the fallout.

Mrs sTeamTraen and I have our first trip to the UK for over two years planned for this coming Wednesday, based near London. I've told her I'll take a view on Tuesday on whether I'm going or not. Perhaps it would be better to be closer to ground zero rather than further away.

We should definitely be worried about a large scale nuclear war that would affect Spain. But I’d put the chances of it much lower than 50/50. The nuclear armed states have managed to avoid a nuclear war over the past 77 years since they were first used. Everyone in the chain of command knows that they and their society would be destroyed if they started a nuclear war.

We’ve seen avoidance today. NATO just refused a Ukrainian request to establish a no fly zone. That’s because it’s going to avoid any direct combat between NATO and Russian forces. Likewise, Russia isn’t going to attack areas in Poland etc used to provide supplies to Ukraine. Both sides are aware of where they will cross a line and risk escalation to direct combat. So far both have avoided crossing it.

At the moment NATO and Russia are like a married couple having an argument. They’re both calling each other c.nts, but both are also careful not to say that one wants a divorce.

But of course we should be worried. People are prone to error and misperception. Ive got full strength iodine tablets at home. But they were bought a few years ago.

[lpm]

What??!!

The risk of nukes is too small to measure.

You're more likely to travel to plague island, pick up our next Covid variant and die of that.

Or be run over forgetting that buses drive on the left.

[Stranger Mouse]

What??!!

The risk of nukes is too small to measure.

You're more likely to travel to plague island, pick up our next Covid variant and die of that.

Or be run over forgetting that buses drive on the left.

Mistakes happen

[jimbob]

What??!!

The risk of nukes is too small to measure.

You're more likely to travel to plague island, pick up our next Covid variant and die of that.

Or be run over forgetting that buses drive on the left.

The risk of a nuclear incident in Ukraine however is significantly higher

[jimbob]

This, about 50 seconds in isn't likely to help Putin seem strong and in command of the situation - or even what he's supposed to do in his own scripted TV appearance.

Can't be good for his medium-term prospects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auJxrmNErIA

That’s quite extraordinary.

Worrying mention earlier in the week by Russian media that the USA have lost control of chemical weapons facilities in Ukraine. On pm an analyst said that suggested the Russians are preparing to use them, the mention on USA in that context a few days earlier will give them the pretext.

I was wondering if they would consider WMDs. We know that they kept a programme going after they should have destroyed them all, because of their novichok attacks

[Stranger Mouse]

I wondered if they would detonate some form of nuclear device and then blame it on Ukrainians

[bob sterman]

What??!!

The risk of nukes is too small to measure.

You're more likely to travel to plague island, pick up our next Covid variant and die of that.

Or be run over forgetting that buses drive on the left.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread - Russia very explicitly has an "escalate to de-escalate" nuclear doctrine - that specifically says they may use nuclear weapons in a limited/tactical manner (e.g. in a battlefield context) "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

The risk is there - difficult to quantify - but the risk is non-trivial.

[lpm]

Come on folks, steady down.

Obviously risk >0. Getting yourselves worked up about the tiny risks making it >0 is not time well spent.

Just take 10 kph off your driving speed and your total risk of sudden death will be back to where it was a year ago.

[Herainestold]

I would say the chances of nuclear conflagration are less than 50% but greater than 1 in 10.
Pretty scary.
I am trying to see if I can get to Australia, if I can get a visa, If I can afford it. Can only stay for three months.
This could go on for a long time.

[lpm]

50%?

Divide by 1,000. 0.05%.

Still too high. Another 1,000. 0.00005%.

Too tiny to be meaningfully measured.

[Herainestold]

50%?

Divide by 1,000. 0.05%.

Still too high. Another 1,000. 0.00005%.

Too tiny to be meaningfully measured.

Its a judgement call and it depends on your risk tolerance.
Much like Covid. What can you do to protect yourself and what can the government do to protect you?

[monkey]

The way I see it is that the risk of nuclear bombs going splodey hasn't changed much in absolute terms, but everyone's just been reminded of it being a possibility.

[Grumble]

Not realistically worried about nukes, but am worried about chemical weapons, as used recently in Syria.

Putin has demonstrated that’s a line he doesn’t know is there.

[Nickynockynoonoo]

Tell me about iodine please. Is it for water purification?

[lpm]

Eat the tablets.

Your thyroid fills up with iodine. A non radioactive isotope of iodine.

So your thyroid doesn't want any more.

And hence your thyroid doesn't absorb any of the radioactive iodine isotype hanging around after nuclear holocaust.

Which is an insane reason to get iodine tablets. They're appropriate after your nearby nuclear power plant leaks - giving the locals iodine tablets will reduce thyroid cancer at a population level.

They will do nothing to protect you from fallout. Radioactive iodine will be a joy to absorb, compared to breathing in the other sh.t blowing in the ashes.

[EACLucifer]

I wondered if they would detonate some form of nuclear device and then blame it on Ukrainians

Don't know about nuclear, but they/their puppets did exactly that with gas attacks in Syria, and various useful idiots in the west lapped it up.

[EACLucifer]

Not realistically worried about nukes, but am worried about chemical weapons, as used recently in Syria.

Putin has demonstrated that’s a line he doesn’t know is there.

It doesn't help when America goes on about redlines, then ignores when they are crossed.

[bob sterman]

Come on folks, steady down.

Obviously risk >0. Getting yourselves worked up about the tiny risks making it >0 is not time well spent.

Just take 10 kph off your driving speed and your total risk of sudden death will be back to where it was a year ago.

My assessment is that the risk is considerably less than some have suggested. However, considerably more than you are suggesting.

Given Russia's clearly stated nuclear doctrine and posture, Putin's statements and behaviour - I think the risk that tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine is somewhere in the 1-5% range.

There are various ways this could arise - e.g. in response to NATO intervention or if Ukrainian forces were to get the upper hand and were in a position to start destroying significant portions of the invading Russian forces. The latter could arise if NATO countries significantly increased the supply of weapons systems (e.g. air defence systems and aircraft) to Ukraine and the Russians experience significant logistical problems that left their forces vulnerable.

Unfortunately, then - gaming exercises carried out by the US military to explore escalation / de-escalation strategies when tactical nuclear weapons are used in a conventional war tend to end the same way - to quote a US general "It ends bad"...

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/02/1 ... -pub-80987

And the current asymmetries in technology, intelligence gathering and conventional forces make nuclear escalation more likely - not less likely. Russia has to factor in the possibility that NATO conventional forces could, in principle, destroy a significant part of Russian's military capabilities fairly rapidly.

[secret squirrel]

On the subject of the nuclear risk, I think some people may be overestimating how much of a rational process initiating nuclear strikes is. I don't know what the current protocols are, but if you believe Ellsberg's book The Doomsday machine, during the Cold War general high alert period, actors quite low down the chain of command were often in principal capable of unilaterally initiating a strike, which could easily escalate to full scale nuclear war. Both sides adopted a 'fail deadly' philosophy, and accidents could very easily have happened. A world where nuclear systems are 'on alert', even if nobody seriously intends to use them, is still a very dangerous place.

If nothing else, the last few years should have taught us how quickly the unthinkable can become the inevitable.

[bob sterman]

On the subject of the nuclear risk, I think some people may be overestimating how much of a rational process initiating nuclear strikes is. I don't know what the current protocols are, but if you believe Ellsberg's book The Doomsday machine, during the Cold War general high alert period, actors quite low down the chain of command were often in principal capable of unilaterally initiating a strike, which could easily escalate to full scale nuclear war. Both sides adopted a 'fail deadly' philosophy, and accidents could very easily have happened. A world where nuclear systems are 'on alert', even if nobody seriously intends to use them, is still a very dangerous place.

If nothing else, the last few years should have taught us how quickly the unthinkable can become the inevitable.

The flip side of this (I hope) is that individuals lower in the chain of command might be able to prevent the use of tactical nuclear weapons (e.g. if Putin orders a strike in Ukraine).

However, the control structures for strategic forces (e.g. ground based ICBM, SLBMS) are likely more robust. And of course submarine crews will have been at sea for weeks / months - and completely isolated from information about the unfolding situation in Ukraine.

[jimbob]

I wondered if they would detonate some form of nuclear device and then blame it on Ukrainians

Don't know about nuclear, but they/their puppets did exactly that with gas attacks in Syria, and various useful idiots in the west lapped it up.

That's what I am worried about.

The novichok attacks in Salisbury, which were very carelessly-implemented, could have killed hundreds. It also demonstrated that Russia has undeclared chemical weapons - in fact a whole class of them, when it was supposed to have destroyed all nerve agents.

[Sciolus]

Tell me about iodine please. Is it for water purification?

In the context of a nuclear power station core catching fire, iodine is a serious problem:
Radioactive isotopes of iodine are created as fission products, so are present in the core. Iodine is volatile so is easily released to the air in a fire. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days, which means it delivers a large dose over the first few days then basically disappears after a couple of months. Principal pathways are inhalation of the plume itself, and ingestion of milk and fresh fruit and vegetables from where it has settled on the ground. Iodine is used in the thyroid, so any that is ingested/inhaled gets shunted there. If there is an excess, e.g. from taking stable iodine tablets, the excess just gets excreted. Concentration of radioiodine in the thyroid can lead to thyroid cancer, which however is generally treatable in a decent healthcare system.

In the context of nuclear weapons, iodine is about number 28 on your list of problems.

[secret squirrel]

The flip side of this (I hope) is that individuals lower in the chain of command might be able to prevent the use of tactical nuclear weapons (e.g. if Putin orders a strike in Ukraine).

However, the control structures for strategic forces (e.g. ground based ICBM, SLBMS) are likely more robust. And of course submarine crews will have been at sea for weeks / months - and completely isolated from information about the unfolding situation in Ukraine.

This is true, but there's an important asymmetry in that if e.g. the launch order goes out to all the nuclear subs, then all of them have to disobey to prevent a launch, but you only need one sub to launch by mistake.

[Stranger Mouse]

Footage from Meltipol. If feel almost as sorry for the Russian soldiers as I do for the Ukrainians
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/150 ... 82946?s=21

[lpm]

Come on folks, steady down.

Obviously risk >0. Getting yourselves worked up about the tiny risks making it >0 is not time well spent.

Just take 10 kph off your driving speed and your total risk of sudden death will be back to where it was a year ago.

My assessment is that the risk is considerably less than some have suggested. However, considerably more than you are suggesting.

Given Russia's clearly stated nuclear doctrine and posture, Putin's statements and behaviour - I think the risk that tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine is somewhere in the 1-5% range.

There are various ways this could arise - e.g. in response to NATO intervention or if Ukrainian forces were to get the upper hand and were in a position to start destroying significant portions of the invading Russian forces. The latter could arise if NATO countries significantly increased the supply of weapons systems (e.g. air defence systems and aircraft) to Ukraine and the Russians experience significant logistical problems that left their forces vulnerable.

Unfortunately, then - gaming exercises carried out by the US military to explore escalation / de-escalation strategies when tactical nuclear weapons are used in a conventional war tend to end the same way - to quote a US general "It ends bad"...

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/02/1 ... -pub-80987

And the current asymmetries in technology, intelligence gathering and conventional forces make nuclear escalation more likely - not less likely. Russia has to factor in the possibility that NATO conventional forces could, in principle, destroy a significant part of Russian's military capabilities fairly rapidly.

What possible target for a tactical nuke could there be inside Ukraine?

It's messy engagements in multiple areas. There's no big cluster of Ukrainian military might, building up to sweep through Russian forces.

What you going to do, nuke the two guys rushing out to fire an anti-tank missile then running back to a cellar?

Chemical weapons aren't likely either. Putin has to think about China's responses in all of this.

And then you've somehow got to go from a tactical nuke in Ukraine to the 50% chance of Barcelona getting wiped out in the subsequent nuclear holocaust. What possible pathway is there?

Londoners are going to be killed by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. But that's via the increase in energy prices. Worrying about nuclear holocaust is nothing compared to the increase in poverty facing Britain.