Nuclear War

[kenneal - lagger]

,,.......
The most precious of my items, multimeters, to check what things may have survived are contained within four layers of metallic surroundings, a metal shed, a metal filing cabinet, a metal toolbox and then wrapped in foil just to be sure.

"Ah! To be sure, to be sure, to be sure!". As they say across the water.

[BritDownUnder]

A dishwasher failed recently and since this is of the two drawer “dishdrawer” variety and covered in a stainless steel coating this has also been used as a cupboard for some more frequently used power tools.

[Catweazle]

A dishwasher failed recently and since this is of the two drawer “dishdrawer” variety and covered in a stainless steel coating this has also been used as a cupboard for some more frequently used power tools.

Good point about power tools, modern cordless tools use brushless motors with electronic commutation and the batteries have electronic management systems built in. Don't forget the chargers.

[BritDownUnder]

There's no end to microchips. I am not sure where I read it and what definition they have for 'chips' but it was estimated there are a trillion chips in existence around the world.

[adam2]

The risk of nuclear war does seem to be increasing

"But if he is faced with defeat President Putin isn't the kind of leader who would say: we made a mistake. Let's go home. The nightmare comes from his threats to use nuclear weapons. It would be foolish not to take those threats seriously."

That is a quote from this news report
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62884668

[Catweazle]

Does anyone know how a tactical nuke would be used ? I assume it would be along the lines of "pull back all your troops from a town, let the enemy flood in, then vaporise them".

[Default0ptions]

“A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW) is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic ... ar_weapon

i.e. not really a game changer compared to conventional weapons. Just has the “it’s a nuke!” as added value

[adam2]

In my view the use of even a single tactical nuclear weapon IS a game changer. The effects are far more widespread than any likely conventional weapon, and a very dangerous line has been crossed.

I don't think that even putin is mad enough to use a nuke against a NATO country, so that leaves two other options. Firstly use a nuke against Ukraine with a warning to surrender or face more.
Alternatively supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group who COULD use it against the west. "putin could say "nothing to do with us, the western imperialists have got what they deserved from the brave freedom fighters"
Another more remote possibility would be to target Sweden or Finland, as those countries are not yet NATO members.

[PS_RalphW]

I suspect if Putin decided to use a nuke, it would be dropped on central Kyiv, centred on the parliamentary building. Sized large enough to ensure no one in central government survived.

[adam2]

I suspect if Putin decided to use a nuke, it would be dropped on central Kyiv, centred on the parliamentary building. Sized large enough to ensure no one in central government survived.

Agree, the parliament probably has a bunker, but there might not be enough time to reach it, and I doubt that it can withstand a direct hit.

[clv101]

I suspect if Putin decided to use a nuke, it would be dropped on central Kyiv, centred on the parliamentary building. Sized large enough to ensure no one in central government survived.

I'm not really clear why this didn't happen on day ~one. An instant and total decapitation of the government plus a warning to the West that 'we're not mucking about' would likely have lead to complete and rapid collapse of Ukraine's military and the West would have been so socked military aid would not have been forthcoming fearing that if Kyiv can be nuked out of the blue, then London, Paris or Washington could be next.

But, no, Putin's strategy... well, what even was his strategy! The Day One nuke, might have killed 100,000 people in a week - but how many people have died in 8 months of conventional war?

[Default0ptions]

I'm not really clear why this didn't happen on day ~one. An instant and total decapitation of the government

That is the standard model for a US/NATO intervention. But Putin didn’t do that, did he?

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm not really clear why this didn't happen on day ~one. An instant and total decapitation of the government

That is the standard model for a US/NATO intervention. But Putin didn’t do that, did he?

Do tell us where!! I'm all ears.

[BritDownUnder]

In my view the use of even a single tactical nuclear weapon IS a game changer. The effects are far more widespread than any likely conventional weapon, and a very dangerous line has been crossed.

I don't think that even putin is mad enough to use a nuke against a NATO country, so that leaves two other options. Firstly use a nuke against Ukraine with a warning to surrender or face more.
Alternatively supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group who COULD use it against the west. "putin could say "nothing to do with us, the western imperialists have got what they deserved from the brave freedom fighters"
Another more remote possibility would be to target Sweden or Finland, as those countries are yet NATO members.

The West certainly needs to flag what might happen if Russia goes nuclear. They probably should have flagged a bit earlier what might have happened if Russia were to invade Ukraine rather than just offering to evacuate Zelensky.

I would suggest suitable non-nuclear retaliation against Russia in case they go nuclear in Ukraine...

- Attack and destroy any and all Russian submarines and surface naval vessels on detection that are not in Russian ports or 12 mile limit. Russian civilian ships are boarded and confiscated. Crews handed over to Ukraine as hostage swaps.
- Attack and destroy any and all Russian aircraft regardless of civilian or military that are in international airspace in the North Atlantic or Eastern Pacific Oceans.
- NATO forces immediately enter Ukraine.
- Destruction of Russian fleet at Sevastopol.
- Begin selective destruction or disablement of Russian satellites.

There you go. A nice non-nuclear response.

Actually I favour just giving the Ukrainians tactical nukes right now.

[Default0ptions]

I'm not really clear why this didn't happen on day ~one. An instant and total decapitation of the government

That is the standard model for a US/NATO intervention. But Putin didn’t do that, did he?

Do tell us where!! I'm all ears.

Baghdad, the former Yugoslavia, anywhere they chose in Syria, many more Iraqi cities, Libya, ongoing and continuous drone attacks killing more civilians than targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan . . .

Now why didn’t Vlad start with ‘shock and awe’ on Kiev, and then Lviv, or systematically destroy most of the critical infrastructure over the whole country?