Scrutable

sTeamTraen wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:13 pm 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:00 pm 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:00 pm 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.

Grumble wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 6:48 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:20 pm 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:00 pm 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:33 pm 50%?

Divide by 1,000. 0.05%.

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

Too tiny to be meaningfully measured.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:34 pm I wondered if they would detonate some form of nuclear device and then blame it on Ukrainians

Grumble wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:12 am 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:11 pm 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.

secret squirrel wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:54 am 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.

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:38 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:34 pm 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.

Nickynockynoonoo wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 1:32 am Tell me about iodine please. Is it for water purification?

bob sterman wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:41 am 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.

bob sterman wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:14 am

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:11 pm 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.