Honestly.
Why would you want to survive the armageddon?
It may start in Europe, but it won't end there. Biden keeps saying that there will be "catastrophic consequences" if Putin uses even 1 nuke. What do you think that means? I'm sure he's been asked, and then was contradicted by his handlers, but I think it's obvious what would happen:
Russia sets off a tactical nuke over a city in Ukraine--maybe one now claimed by Russia.
A NATO country then sets one off over Moscow to show Putin that "we mean business"!
Russia then begins strikes against NATO countries (now that WW3 has begun), beginning with the one that Putin believes hit Moscow.
And the rest of the dominoes begin to fall.....
Don't forget that Russia and the USA aren't the only players. North Korea seems to be revving up their nuclear capability. Under Trump, they could barely get a missile off the ground. Under biden, they're able to reach the USA. Then there's Iran who biden wants to make nuclear deals with.
There would not be a retaliatory strike by NATO in response to Russian use of tactical nukes in Ukraine.
That's not going to happen,
Then what would be a "catastrophic consequence" (as biden put it)? Calling him a terrorist or war criminal? Seizing more of his yachts? Giving another billion dollars to Ukraine?
The only catastrophic thing biden can do anymore is make a speech. It'll have the WH staff scrambling to walk back anything he says.
Here's an article with some ideas: Herbs for Radiation Protection, Repair and Remediation (Lew Rockwell article).
There are a lot of stages between throwing a few nukes (which has been done before) and an all-out-everybody-who-has-nukes free-for-all global nuclear war. If two or three tactical nukes are detonated without any nation totally panicking, but taking a moment to wait and see, the war is likely to stop. That will happen if nothing is ever seen coming over an ocean in any direction. Nobody is completely crazy, and a lot of people in those chains of command want to live.
Remember the world went through a couple of decades of hundreds (maybe thousands) of nuclear tests in the ocean, on land, and even in space. So, nuclear detonations 'way over thataway, even a number of them, don't spell the end of the world over here.
Whatever exchanges occur, moreover, will be in the Northern Hemisphere, and the deadliest radiation decays quite rapidly.
When we were working out the plans for national "enduring deterrence" and putting those plans into place, we figured that a distance of 250 miles from the nearest detonation and 60 days of food and water (which actually requires quite a surprising lot of water when you include necessary washing and sewage...not so much food) with some very careful sanitation makes survival very, very probably.
Then the best long-term bet is getting down to South America as quickly as possible.
I doubt travel will be easy once the bombs start going off.
There are a lot of stages between throwing a few nukes (which has been done before) and an all-out-everybody-who-has-nukes free-for-all global nuclear war. If two or three tactical nukes are detonated without any nation totally panicking, but taking a moment to wait and see, the war is likely to stop. That will happen if nothing is ever seen coming over an ocean in any direction. Nobody is completely crazy, and a lot of people in those chains of command want to live.
Remember the world went through a couple of decades of hundreds (maybe thousands) of nuclear tests in the ocean, on land, and even in space. So, nuclear detonations 'way over thataway, even a number of them, don't spell the end of the world over here.
Whatever exchanges occur, moreover, will be in the Northern Hemisphere, and the deadliest radiation decays quite rapidly.
When we were working out the plans for national "enduring deterrence" and putting those plans into place, we figured that a distance of 250 miles from the nearest detonation and 60 days of food and water (which actually requires quite a surprising lot of water when you include necessary washing and sewage...not so much food) with some very careful sanitation makes survival very, very probably.
Then the best long-term bet is getting down to South America as quickly as possible.
Most of them will live since those in chains of command would be the ones who know what's going on and would be in military underground bunkers when the detonations happen.
Nobody in uniform is counting on surviving in a bunker. No bunker is rated to survive a direct nuclear strike, and all the command and control bunkers are amply targeted on both sides. Moreover, our loved ones are also at those same targets...the people who, in our hearts, we are committed to protect.
Basically, those in the nuclear forces are more aware than anyone that a total nuclear exchange is a "lose" for what we hope to protect. Why do you think in the past that even Soviet nuclear troops more than once did a "Wait, is this real?" double-take back in the Cold War?
A total nuclear exchange is far, far less likely now that it was in the 80s, even if the likelihood of one or two tactical uses is more likely.
I hope you're right, but once those one or two tacticals are used, I hope it doesn't become easier to use more. After all, if a couple tacticals prove to not end the world, why not do a third, and a fourth? There's nothing like real-world use to learn the actual effects of their use. Until now, it's all been computer simulations and theories.
You mentioned those in the nuclear forces, but you left out those at the very top who seem to think that they are somehow immune to the effects of war since they aren't the actual "troops on the ground", and are used to getting what they want, and being relatively immune to consequences. Those at the top in NK, China, Russia, and yes, even the USA.
You seem to think that after the first explosion they're going to think, "Gee, whiz, that was keen! Let's do it again!"
To be fair, someone not fully informed about the important reasons and careful (if not always successful) safety calculations for each of the nuclear test shots in the 40s-60s might think the weapons researchers had such a Dr. Strangelove mentality.
You seem to think that after the first explosion they're going to think, "Gee, whiz, that was keen! Let's do it again!"
Nope.
I've always been amazed at how giddy some civilians get about war.
To be equally fair, nuclear targeting is also done for important reasons with careful application--and safety--calculations.
This is particularly true for tactical use of nuclear weapons, because the point of existence of tactical nuclear weapons is the ability to use them in a way to prevent a larger nuclear conflagration.
There would be no point to tactical nukes if the expectation were that the use of them would immediately lead to a general worldwide nuclear exchange. A tactical nuke would be used only if the surrounding political situation provided a reasonable expectation is that it would stay at the tactical level.
First, you should look up what "giddy" means, as it doesn't fit with anything I said.
Do you not believe that if a NATO country is hit with a military strike of any kind by Russia, we would not respond in kind? Then why not if it was a nuclear strike?
That's a complicated dance, you reckon? I'd rather just two-step it. Wouldn't that be better? (Don't I wish...)Indeed. By the way your post reminds me, in a good way, of Hermann Kahn’s classic texts on nuclear strategy such as Thinking About the Unthinkable. Kahn proposed a 16-step, later increased to 44-step, Ladder of Nuclear Escalation, which outlines the probable phases of a nuclear war, which I think it is helpful to reflect on. Distressingly in the past year we have moved from the first rung to at least the seventh rung on this ladder.
- Ostensible Crisis
- Political, Economic and Diplomatic Gestures
- Solemn and Formal Declarations
- Hardening of Positions – Confrontation of Wills
- Show of Force
- Significant Mobilization
- "Legal" Harassment – Retortions
- Harassing Acts of Violence
- Dramatic Military Confrontations
- Provocative Breaking off of Diplomatic Relations
- Super-Ready Status
- Large Conventional War (or Actions)
- Large Compound Escalation
- Declaration of Limited Conventional War
- Barely Nuclear War
- Nuclear "Ultimatums"
- Limited Evacuations (20%)
- Spectacular Show or Demonstration of Force
- "Justifiable" Counterforce Attack
- "Peaceful" World-Wide Embargo or Blockade
- Local Nuclear War – Exemplary
- Declaration of Limited Nuclear War
- Local Nuclear War – Military
- Unusual, Provocative and Significant Countermeasures
- Evacuation (70%)
- Demonstration Attack on Zone of Interior
- Exemplary Attack on Military
- Exemplary Attacks Against Property
- Exemplary Attacks on Population
- Complete Evacuation (95%)
- Reciprocal Reprisals
- Formal Declaration of "General" War
- Slow-Motion Counter-"Property" War
- Slow-Motion Counterforce War
- Constrained Force-Reduction Salvo
- Constrained Disarming Attack
- Counterforce-with-Avoidance Attack
- Unmodified Counterforce Attack
- Slow-Motion Countercity war
- Countervalue Salvo
- Augmented Disarming Attack
- Civilian Devastation Attack
- Controlled General War
- Spasm/Insensate War
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?