The Invasion of Ukraine

[shpalman]

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

Not the ones who aren't observing the ceasefire.

[bjn]

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.

"Escalate to de-escalate". Nuke a less important town to prove you mean it, the intention is that you intimidate the Ukrainians into surrendering. It's not a tactical move designed to win an engagement on the battlefield, it's strategic move. If their advance is sufficiently bogged down for long enough, or they are actually pushed back, I can easily imagine it happening. There is also the "If Russia can't have it no-one can." angle.

It's an insane thing to do, but you are assuming that they are acting rationally, they aren't.

[bob sterman]

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.

Yes - that's actually the concern I had - sorry didn't make it clear. Sensible people on land may intervene/disobey if Putin orders attacks they consider unacceptable.

But there is much less chance of there being a link in the chain from Putin to sub-launches - that could or would disobey.

[El Pollo Diablo]

My mum told me the other day that apparently my dad's opinion on nuclear war during Cold War I was that it'd be better to be outdoors and obliterated straight away than trying to hide and dealing with fallout, both societal and radioactive.

Lpm is still correct, though, the risk is minimal still, and we shouldn't be overfussing about it at this point. And yes, it's all well and good thinking about thyroid absorption but it won't stop your skin slowly melting off.

Still, nothing to worry about though.

[bob sterman]

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.

The "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is of course mad. But don't shoot the messenger - the Russians came up with it and published it. They believe that they could deter further conventional attacks through limited use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

How do you get from this to Barcelona getting nuked? Well US nuclear doctrine is to respond with overwhelming force to any use of nuclear weapons against its forces.

And if you read the article I linked to above - US military gaming exercises have shown that these sort of exchanges almost invariably lead to all the way to all out nuclear war.

This is not wild speculation - this is just following published Russian and US nuclear doctrine / posture statements. Nuclear deterrence depends entirely on the actors being willing, and motivated to do exactly what they have publicly said they will do - and to expect the actors to deviate from their stated doctrines is optimistic.

There is an escalation ladder that once they are on it - it is almost impossible to get off.

[bjn]

Speculation, does Russia want NATO to send in troops? It gives a post-hoc "Told you so!" justification domestically, and it can then get on and invade the Baltics in 'retaliation'.

At which point we are probably f.cked as it all goes sideways very very quickly.

Putin really needs to fall off a balcony onto some bullets.

[Sciolus]

It's sufficiently foreseeable that Russia will use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, or even elsewhere, that governments in the rest of the world need to be planning their response. The response to a full-blown nuclear attack has been extensively documented, but for a limited demonstration of nuclear force, IMO the response should be:
Continue to refrain from military involvement or escalation for the time being.
Total and immediate isolation. No money, goods or services whatsoever (except news information) in or out. Yes, Germany, no more gas for you.
Any country not engaging in the isolation effort is considered a party to the atrocity and shares in the isolation. I'm looking at you, China.
Declaration that henceforward, any member of the government, military administration or armed forces is considered a war criminal unless they immediately quit their posts.
Only handing over total government control to UN forces will end the isolation.

There are enough details to iron out make that workable that it needs to be planned in advance.

[bob sterman]

Good analysis here...

Former MI6 Chief On the Ukraine & Russia Conflict | Oxford Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5lzKVn3sc

[Bird on a Fire]

Speculation, does Russia want NATO to send in troops? It gives a post-hoc "Told you so!" justification domestically, and it can then get on and invade the Baltics in 'retaliation'.

At which point we are probably f.cked as it all goes sideways very very quickly.

Putin really needs to fall off a balcony onto some bullets.

The best option for NATO seems to be to keep this going as slowly as possible until Russia has no money left?

Any escalation has the risk of triggering a chain reaction. Surely what they're trying to do is support Ukraine as much as possible without actually getting involved, while continually hammering on the sanctions?

They must be really, really pissed off at Johnson's "30 days to evade sanctions" crap.

[Grumble]

Speculation, does Russia want NATO to send in troops? It gives a post-hoc "Told you so!" justification domestically, and it can then get on and invade the Baltics in 'retaliation'.

At which point we are probably f.cked as it all goes sideways very very quickly.

Putin really needs to fall off a balcony onto some bullets.

If Putin is assassinated it would make things worse, not better.

[Woodchopper]

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

The concern isn’t that so much that Russia would use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. It’s that it would use a nuclear weapon to coerce NATO.

For example, here’s a nuclear blackmail scenario. Putin demands that NATO members immediately seal the border with Ukraine and cease all aid shipments and receiving refugees.

That request is denied, so the Russian response is to explode a nuclear weapon in Western Europe which doesn’t cause many casualties or damage, but does terrify the voters. Such as over the North Sea or Baltic Sea - close enough so that people in costal areas see the flash and all are affected by fallout but not close enough that there are mass casualties. Alternatively, a high altitude detonation could similarly terrify people without killing hundreds of thousands.

The rationale would be that NATO would be unwilling to risk an all out war, and so would henceforth do as Moscow asks. However this is a very risky strategy. What if the US, France or UK does respond in kind?

I don’t think that this scenario is either the most likely or even likely at all. But we should be concerned about catastrophic events that are unlikely to occur.

If you’re tempted to suggest that Russia wouldn’t ever cross the nuclear threshold, these are the guys who just attacked a nuclear power station.

[Stranger Mouse]

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

The concern isn’t that so much that Russia would use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. It’s that it would use a nuclear weapon to coerce NATO.

For example, here’s a nuclear blackmail scenario. Putin demands that NATO members immediately seal the border with Ukraine and cease all aid shipments and receiving refugees.

That request is denied, so the Russian response is to explode a nuclear weapon in Western Europe which doesn’t cause many casualties or damage, but does terrify the voters. Such as over the North Sea or Baltic Sea - close enough so that people in costal areas see the flash and all are affected by fallout but not close enough that there are mass casualties. Alternatively, a high altitude detonation could similarly terrify people without killing hundreds of thousands.

The rationale would be that NATO would be unwilling to risk an all out war, and so would henceforth do as Moscow asks. However this is a very risky strategy. What if the US, France or UK does respond in kind?

I don’t think that this scenario is either the most likely or even likely at all. But we should be concerned about catastrophic events that are unlikely to occur.

If you’re tempted to suggest that Russia wouldn’t ever cross the nuclear threshold, these are the guys who just attacked a nuclear power station.

They are also the ones who made nuclear threats against those who had the audacity to complain about novichok assassination attempts and murders.

[dyqik]

If you’re tempted to suggest that Russia wouldn’t ever cross the nuclear threshold, these are the guys who just attacked a nuclear power station.

Many nuclear power stations are fairly isolated in Western Europe, and many are right on the coast (e.g. Dungeness), so there's the option of a conventional attack on one as a terror weapon. A decommissioned one would do.

[lpm]

The forum's gone mad.

These risks exist, of course, at the tiny fraction of a percent level. But nowhere near the plan for it level. Fly to Australia? Get iodine tablets?

Plan for real threats, like a Covid variant or power cuts.

[dyqik]

The forum's gone mad.

These risks exist, of course, at the tiny fraction of a percent level. But nowhere near the plan for it level. Fly to Australia? Get iodine tablets?

Plan for real threats, like a Covid variant or power cuts.

I agree the risk is not the most important one you're going to see. And also one that you can't do anything much to avoid. It's not worth spending any time on yourself.

But it is one that NATO etc. need to spend time on

[Bird on a Fire]

Is there a handy online tool to see the extent of damage from nuclear detonations at locations of my choosing?

I'm not especially worried about Lisbon being bombed, and it's 10km to anywhere strategic anyway so meh. Everywhere else is downwind.

Just for shiggles, like.

ETA I found this. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Only problem is I have to choose my own megatons. So like, a Hiroshima in Lisbon would be fine, but a Tsar Bomba would really mess up my town somewhat.

[stańczyk]

Is there a handy online tool to see the extent of damage from nuclear detonations at locations of my choosing?

I'm not especially worried about Lisbon being bombed, and it's 10km to anywhere strategic anyway so meh. Everywhere else is downwind.

Just for shiggles, like.

ETA I found this. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Only problem is I have to choose my own megatons. So like, a Hiroshima in Lisbon would be fine, but a Tsar Bomba would really mess up my town somewhat.

The Tsar Bomba was the ultimate "my willy is bigger than yours" and was completely useless as a weapon. No country has any nukes of that size any longer. The maximum these days is about 3MT but even those would be used only against hardened targets such as the other side's ICBM silos. For cities it is safe to assume a maximum of about 1MT but probably smaller nukes would be used for somewhere like Lisbon (if it was bombed at all).

[Bird on a Fire]

Cool, thanks. No need for iodine tablets round here, then.

[bjn]

The forum's gone mad.

These risks exist, of course, at the tiny fraction of a percent level. But nowhere near the plan for it level. Fly to Australia? Get iodine tablets?

Plan for real threats, like a Covid variant or power cuts.

Again, you are assuming that those in charge in Russia are thinking rationally.

[EACLucifer]

Real uptick in Russian planes getting shot down today, including a Sukhoi 34 and reportedly a Sukhoi 30. One of the crew of the former was captured, and though I'm obviously not going to link to pictures of him, it appears he once posed for pictures with Assad, and was involved in Russia's heinous bombing campaign in Syria.

[Brightonian]

Real uptick in Russian planes getting shot down today, including a Sukhoi 34 and reportedly a Sukhoi 30. One of the crew of the former was captured, and though I'm obviously not going to link to pictures of him, it appears he once posed for pictures with Assad, and was involved in Russia's heinous bombing campaign in Syria.

So a no-fly zone being enforced by proxy, by giving Ukraine loads of anti-aircraft missiles?

[EACLucifer]

Real uptick in Russian planes getting shot down today, including a Sukhoi 34 and reportedly a Sukhoi 30. One of the crew of the former was captured, and though I'm obviously not going to link to pictures of him, it appears he once posed for pictures with Assad, and was involved in Russia's heinous bombing campaign in Syria.

So a no-fly zone being enforced by proxy, by giving Ukraine loads of anti-aircraft missiles?

Best way to do it. Same effect, less risk of escalation. Current confirmed total for the last just over a day is five jets and three helicopters.

Not clear how many Stingers have reached the front lines yet, but Ukraine already had some shoulder-launched stuff in service, for example one of the helicopter shootdowns over the big reservoir north of Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion was with a Soviet era Igla.


ETA: initially understated number of jets shot down. Source is oryxspionskop.

[headshot]

My mum told me the other day that apparently my dad's opinion on nuclear war during Cold War I was that it'd be better to be outdoors and obliterated straight away than trying to hide and dealing with fallout, both societal and radioactive.

This is 100% my approach. Better to be standing under it than 20 miles away.

[lpm]

Again, you are assuming that those in charge in Russia are thinking rationally.

You are assuming they would be irrational and stupid.

[Woodchopper]

Again, you are assuming that those in charge in Russia are thinking rationally.

You are assuming they would be irrational and stupid.

That’s how I’d describe the invasion of Ukraine. An irrational aim implemented incompetently.