The main counterargument I see to this happening goes like: any world leader calling for nuclear armageddon will not be obeyed/will be assassinated because they cannot convince the entire chain of command to commit suicide. This seems flaky to me. One other thought I had is that perhaps that we are not capable of nuclear armageddon, because this has not been tested end-to-end, although ICBMs and nukes have been tested quite extensively.
What does HN think? Could it happen? And why do we assume that the tech is sufficiently advanced to e.g. take out every major city at the push of a button?
“I returned to civilization shortly after that and went to Cornell to teach, and my first impression was a very strange one. I can't understand it any more, but I felt very strongly then. I sat in a restaurant in New York, for example, and I looked out at the buildings and I began to think, you know, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth... How far from here was 34th street?... All those buildings, all smashed — and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless.
But, fortunately, it's been useless for almost forty years now, hasn't it? So I've been wrong about it being useless making bridges and I'm glad those other people had the sense to go ahead.”
-Richard Feynman
I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation.
My assumption is that the intervening, enabling step is tactical nukes.
Somebody somewhere decides that a kilotone-range tactical nuke (as opposed to megaton range ICBM) is justifiable on the battlefield, will bring swift victory, and other side won't dare escalate further.
So now you're breached the "nuclear" threshold in a way you tell yourself is "limited" and "tactical" and "justifiable", but other side certainly doesn't perceive it as such, and brings "proportional response" otherwise you'll just go ahead and do it again, and off we go from there.
So yes, it 100% could happen. I'm hoping it doesn't.
edit: A bit of a read, but basically, Tactical Nukes have historically been a more practical aspect of Russian Military Doctrone.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.8?seq=1#metadata_in...
A useful analogy is individual risk. Consider a doctor giving a new treatment to a sick patient. It has some uncertainty, some risk including death and some potential gain including being healed. But it's possible to reason about the tradeoff and learn to better estimate this over time.
However, to a single patient, while there are both risk and potential benefit, the realized outcome is absolute: Either he lives or he dies. The mental model is very different from the doctors' because both scenarios are extremely charged.
In nuclear war, you are always the patient who either lives completely or dies completely. I guess that makes everyone humble. Or at least, it should.
The only way to disarm the world of nukes is to unite under a rational, evidence and incentives based, benevolent world government. There's literally no other way to get rid of nukes if you've studied it.
Even if every nation disarms they all live under the threat of another building them in secret. As soon as one of them suspects as much the race is back on to re-arm.
We grow up in a world where are lead to believe that our leaders are leading because they are smarter than we are and that they actually have a plan for everything.
While not entirely untrue, our leaders (if you can call them that) are nevertheless dumb apes like you and me.
Will the dumb apes start nuclear armageddon? Improbable, so far. But implausible? Not completely.
I think the superpowers are fumbling big time with non-proliferation. If we have N nuclear-capable nations, there is N²/2 possibilities for conflicts between them. As superpowers break their promises toward smaller countries that gave-up on nukes, N will only grow, and so the risk of nuclear armageddon.
The nuclear super-powers are in a situation where they have enough nukes to obliterate each other - many, many times over. But obviously no-one wants to take that chance - even with all the modern anti measures they have.
I think both sides are willing to accept pretty substantial losses, if it means avoiding an all out nuclear war.
I guess you didn't grow up under the cold war? Typical nuclear weapons are 10-20 megatons of explosive force and can destroy everything within a city-wide radius or more. There is the capability to deliver 100-200 megaton mega weapons too (they have been tested in the 60's, look up Tsar Bomba).
Delivery devices like ICBMs include dozens of these warheads in independently target-able munitions--the idea is that one big missile can be shot down, but a shower of dozens and dozens of warheads is impossible to stop when only one needs to hit. These missiles can launch from undetectable nuclear-powered submarines laying in wait anywhere on 70% of the globe (even under a sheet of arctic ice).
As far as numbers go they were vastly reduced in the 90s, but both the US and Russia have enough nuclear munitions left to destroy every major city in the world.
Theories like nuclear winter have been disproven. Radiation is down to reasonable levels 10 minutes after explosions and down to zero well within 48 hours. What really sets nuclear weapons apart from conventional bombs is the yield to weight factor, making it possible to send them around the world with little effort and in some/great quantities. Nuclear weapons that leave much radiation would not have caused a large explosion (you want to use all of the energy for the burst). The effect will mostly be localized to the burst area and dependent on it being a surface or air burst).
The fear and uncertainty about nuclear weapons is only beneficial to those that have them and especially those that threaten to use them.
So while my background isn't really nuclear weapons per se, I'm better read on this than most.
This is the first time in my 36 years of life that I think that there is greater than a 0.5% chance that some kinda of nuclear attack happens in the next 30 days. Almost certainly one or two tactical nukes to scare the hell out of Europe, but still. Fog of war is a real thing and there are a lot of well-intentioned hackers really taking the gloves off against Russia right now, so this could escalate further.
I'm not alone on this. Where the world goes after this looks grim. I'm trying to control my anxiety and focus on work but so much suffering is in the balance. Even a 1% chance of nuclear attack is too much.
The likelihood is that the EU and US will not directly intervene in Ukraine much like we didn't for the last invasions of Crimea and Georgia. Because of the history of the country and it's importance in the world landscape, it's difficult to escalate to a point of a nuclear conflict.
Personally, I would be more worried about Taiwan. Taiwan is similar in that they also maintain their independence from the other country (in this case China), yet (I feel) the world would be willing to go to war over controlling interest in this country, or, at least keeping it independent and neutral. Much of the world's most high tech, complex and expensive chips come from Taiwan and if China or another country would invade this would send shockwaves across the world as everything now is technology that requires many many chips. A country such as the US can't magically create a "fab" without years, if not decades of time investing in on the infrastructure and processes needed to fabricate these highly complex chips.
Historically, hot wars are often about power. This could be due to energy (such as oil and natural gas supplies) but the new power-base is technology. You control the chips that everyone needs, you control the world. Same goes with many other things like the software too but that's another topic.
Here's a good read on the subject: https://time.com/6102879/semiconductor-chip-shortage-tsmc/
I would agree that forces wouldnt push the big red button if theyre informed of what actually happening, unfortunately I think most in those positions are kept in media silence.
what if theyre told their hometown is being nuked? Id expect retaliation from most people.
Nucular fallout is thing that I'm not sure about. Technically more efficient bombs are cleaner, but I didn't go too deep into this and I'm not even sure there's conclusive data.
Overall I don't think it's anywhere enough to completely wipe out humanity. Not even majority of people would be killed. But definitely it would effect everyone. Even current events already effecting everyone.
https://ken-follett.com/books/never/
As for the tech, it's really not that advanced. V-2 rockets started raining down on London in 1944, Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened in 1945.
There is too much opportunity for an unstable individual to rise to power in a nuclear enabled country, and for said individual to have access to a nuclear arsenal.
We have a lot of really smart people in the world, and we really need to figure out some safety mechanism to make sure we don’t get wiped out by some such individual.
I remember on Turkish TV they have mentioned that in theory if more than 5 nukes drops in the same area that would affect the integrity of earth crust(lithosphere?). No matter wha if its simulation or vr I am definitely asking refund.
So, yes. And no. Who really knows.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...
If people think it isn't, they risk it. And thats how it happens.
I mean, how can you spend "last minutes" answering on a forum instead of spending it on something more meaningful?
I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him.
He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, just one, to make a point, and to avoid the consequences of MAD (since target of this attack, also fearing MAD, would not want to respond in kind. They would prefer to keep the losses at one city and avoid MAD).
So that's my fear. One strike, to a major city, with a first-of-its kind hyper glide entry vehicle to which no country has a deterrent.
The rationale (if you can call it that) is that no country would want to continue with sanctions against Russia after that point, for fear of the same happening to them.
Disclaimer, I live in the heart of Seattle, so I must admit this has been keeping me up at night.
1. How likely is it that Putin will want to use nuclear weapons?
- I don't think he is that mad, but who knows? If the pressure inside Russia starts to rise, protests expand and a win in Ukraine starts to get more and more unlikely.. Cornered animals start to lash out. If he thinks it's his last chance to save himself or his legacy, he may go that far. Do I think he would attack a NATO country? No. But maybe he would attack Ukraine and hope that would somehow save him.
2. How likely is it, that his orders will be followed?
- He seems to have surrounded himself with yes-man, so I don't think some higher up would stop him. But just like with Stanislav Petrov it's often people down the line who, when faced with the actual consequences of their actions, choose to do the right thing.
3. How likely is it, that they will hit/explode?
- I have no sources, and it's just a personal feeling: I think the U.S. and probably even China have technologies to shoot down any Russian nuclear missile attacks. Looking at some UFO videos, which have popped up, and my belief that those aren't alien but advanced military aircraft, I think this would be a good bet to make. Whether they would use it to save Ukraine and show their (technological) hand is another question. But I would say the chance of a Russian nuclear missile hitting a NATO country and exploding is pretty low.
4. How likely is it, that it will trigger a response?
- If it explodes in Ukraine, who knows. The war in Ukraine would be over at that point, I think it would more likely trigger an (extreme) non-nuclear response, which would result in Russia being made unable to further attack and Putin and his inner-circle being obliterated. If they attack a NATO country, all bets are off.
It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button.
The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.
> With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons: > - in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also > - in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.
As long as NATO doesn't nuke something first or the very existence of Russia is not threatened, they should not use nukes.
From this part on I am speculating only, but I believe if Putin would press the red button the officers would have the right to refuse to execute the order.
In the cold war era, Russia was the enemy, and any war would have been existential. I do not think that is the case any longer. The enemy now is merely the Putin regime, not Russia and it's people.
It is possible that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons if he is desperate, but the world will not respond with armageddon, but instead with every effort to remove the regime, and I expect the Russian people will be a part of that effort.
In fact I predict Putin will not last the year as it is.
One is an unintended escalation to a nuclear war that nobody wanted. This has almost happened several times, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Able Archer 83. It is not impossible that Russian and NATO forces end up shooting at one another (say an aerial incursion, intentional or not, along the Polish-Ukrainian frontier) and this escalates to nukes because each side believes the other is going for it.
Another scenario is that Russia, faced with a quagmire in Ukraine without a clear path to an exit, decides to use a nuclear weapon in a “tactical” context (i.e. to achieve a limited military goal such as destroying the entrenched Ukrainian forces in the east). The possibility of tactical nuclear warfare has been debated since the Korean War, with many strategists believing this would inevitably escalate to a full strategic nuclear exchange (how can anyone know that you plan to stop after just 1-2 nukes?). How would NATO respond if Putin did this in Ukraine, which is not under the NATO nuclear umbrella? How about if he did it in, say, Poland as part of the escalation scenario described above? Again I think Putin understands MAD and that this is not very likely, but in a situation of military desperation (with Russia seeing no path to conventional victory and no way to deescalate without a dangerous loss of face), perhaps it can’t be ruled out.
The third and (in my opinion) scariest scenario is that Putin reaches a position where his political survival (and perhaps his very literal survival—there’s no retirement home for deposed dictators) is at stake and that he feels he has no way out. A combination of military quagmire and economic pain from sanctions could eventually face the regime with a loss of support from elites and masses alike. Putin could conceivably see no non-nuclear way to force an end to international sanctions and support for the Ukrainian resistance, and no way to fold his chips and end the war without making his domestic position even worse (who’s more vulnerable: a despised dictator, or a despised dictator who just made himself look weak?). If this happens, the nuclear blackmail could seriously ratchet up, as Putin could see nuclear blackmail against the West as his only lever for ending the pressure without a self-defeating show of weakness. At that point, would it be possible to deescalate? Would the West see negotiation with a nuclear hostage-taker as an invitation for further nuclear blackmail in the future? If his bluff is called, what would Putin do if he truly believes he has nothing to lose? Would the chain of command carry out his order, especially in a scenario where he may already be losing support from the military? This to me is the darkest scenario because we could no longer assume that all sides want to deescalate from all-out nuclear war.
I think Russia's opposition to a defensive alliance is that they have been planning the full invasion for quite some time. Ukraine never joined a military alliance because Russia guaranteed their independence and thusly kept NATO at bay and not 'on their front porch'. When Crimea happened... it made sense for crimea to be their own republic. But Russia's own actions and breaking of their diplomatic commitment is what brought the defensive alliance to the forefront.
As part of the plan to invade non-nato entities, they needed big allies to use as an umbrella. China's no limit alliance is giving them the breathing room to invade.
The expected cyber war never showed up, it seems all hackers turned on russia. Even conti melted down. This only leaves an infowar.
It seems to me, the attempt to crush Russia via sanctions is a primary goal. If a nuclear power can be crushed under sanctions and prevent war. It tells the entire world that war is no longer allowed. Borders are what they are, start building tall. Get free trade going.
The war in Ukraine isnt going well for Russia. They cant touch Romania or Finland. Georgia is rushing to get into the EU to avoid a similar fate. Yes Russia is threatening nuclear war over these but Russia probably cant touch it.
The big wildcard seems to be china. If they invade Japan, South Korea, Australia, India. Which is the fear... that will be World War 3. I can also tell you... that fight will be so broken... Nukes will fly.