The main dis-incentive against using a nuclear device is: What exactly do you do next, because I don’t see how it wins this war whether or not the West retaliates in kind, unless that is, Putin (and his lieutenants) decide to go out in a blaze of glory? I suspect his lieutenants would opt to retire to their luxury dachas to write their memoirs about how the Russian people let them down.
Aaron James
1 year ago
You used to be able to buy the device these guys use – in USA, called ‘The Magic 8 Ball. You shook an 8 ball and held it upside down and a multi sided die inside floated up out of black liquid inside, to a clear window, and you read the answer:
”The Magic 8 Ball may look easy, and it is too – easiest fortune-telling device available. All you do is ask a question, shake it slightly (although most sources suggest refraining from doing so), and then you turn it over and read its response through that little window at its base. Right? But what are all the answers and what do they all mean? A standard Magic 8 Ball has a total of 20 answers – 10 affirmative, 5 non-committal and 5 negatives. The Magic 8 Balls responses (explained in detail below) are very carefully and statistically designed to be accurate and each of them mean something much more than they seem to say.You can trust its answers too, just as much as your intuitive voice tells you to.”
Better than the Delphi Oracle, which was always correct – but you never knew that till you had done the wrong thing because it was so obscure you always misunderstood it, and Then the meaning became clear when it was too late. And here are the possible 8 Ball answers……….
”Affirmative Answers Non – Committal Answers Negative Answers It is certain – Reply hazy, – try again – Don’t count on it – It is decidedly so – Ask again later – My reply is no – Without a doubt – Better not tell you now – My sources say no – Yes definitely – Cannot predict now – Outlook not so good – You may rely on it – Concentrate and ask again – Very doubtful – As I see it, yes – Most likely – Outlook Good.”
There you go.. the real secret the ”The Swift Centre” does not want you to know how they figure these predictions out – and why the predictions end up right about as often as a coin toss….
Rather like the advice to government from civil servants – couched so vaguely that it can be adapted to fit any scenario. ‘I told you so!’
Why has no-one remade ‘Yes, Minister’?
Utter bullocks. These “forecasters” are no different to the Imperial College “Covid modellers” who produced “scientific data” for lockdown. That went really well didn’t it? It destroyed what little was left of the public’s faith in science. Similar things could be said about the climate change modellers, although a better description for those people would be religious fanatics.
As for Pootin’s nuclear arsenal, – as someone who has worked in the nuclear industry, and as a historian of engineering science, I have little faith that they will work as desired, – much like the rest of the Russian army or the state itself. As we have seen recently.
Nuclear weapons are not designed and engineered to be used. They are designed to be stored on a shelf for a typical shelf-life of thirty years and then retired of old age. Their purpose is to frighten the enemy. Like the bogymen of childhood. They have to be serviced (like a vehicle) every few years because parts degrade and need renewal. Typically, the tritium content loses half its potency in 3 years, and almost all modern weapons use tritium. Then there are the more mundane parts such as safety locks. How many readers here will be confident that a secure door lock to their house will work reliably after thirty years of non-use. And does anyone remember who the keyholder is?
People should be less hysterical. If disaster strikes and s**t happens, then it happens, and there will be good people who survive to rebuild better. Now if only that could be said of Truss and her doomed government.
I agree. This whole article is interesting, but I doubt it has any validity. Is this even a computer model? It seems most of the math can be done by hand, with the ‘inputs’ being basically a few ‘experts’ guessing how much of a chance of X given Y. The actual best guesses about the chances of a Russia using a nuclear weapon successfully are produced by intelligence services of nations like the US, Britain, etc. and sitting on the desks of the President, PM, etc., and if we ever see them, it will be long past the point where anyone cares. My guess is Putin knows he’s losing and is just barking as loudly as possible in the hopes somebody will actually believe him and push for peace negotiations.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
William Shaw
1 year ago
It would be more interesting to hear what the experts consider a nuclear blast would achieve militarily in Ukraine and politically both in Russia and the rest of the world. How would India and China react? What would NATO do? What would be the reaction of the Russian people? A battlefield nuclear bomb doesn’t seem to achieve much militarily given the large amount of sparsely populated territory involved.
On a more practical level, Ukraine is very large and very flat. The civilian population is widely dispersed in small settlements with few cities. The only large and valuable targets are Kiiv, Odessa and a few other cities.
Tactical nuclear weapons intended for use against opposing armies are not at all useful in this situation because the target armies are so well dispersed in small packets, with large empty spaces between them. Cities are the only targets worth a nuclear weapon, but these are not militarily significant targets.
Anyone who has seen photographs of Hiroshima etc in our National Archives will know that the roads and railways were left mostly intact. In Hiroshima, a few electric trams were running within three days. All that was required was restoration of electric power. The photographs of Hiroshima show that bridges, power and telecommunication masts were also left mostly intact, requiring little effort to restore power, telephones and transport.
Enormous myths have grown about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the effects on well-built infrastructure were less devastating than generally believed. If that was untrue there would be little point in constructing bunkers. Although the costs in human life are not exaggerated.
But of course in Ukraine, the cities are not in truth military targets, but political ones. A fact not lost on Putin’s generals.
The mythbuilders are at it again with the neutron bomb. They existed in the form of artillery shells, but after the end of the Cold War they were discontinued from stockpiles. Any survivors are in museums.
If Putin does have one “squirreled away” it will have died of old age. Read the above on regular servicing. The only survivors will be in museums and impossible to resuscitate.
Unfortunaltely this resource is becoming more and more CNN-like (or crap-like if you want). Well, “It is so because I say so” might work for lazy-brained consumers, I guess. Up to some point at least.
“Ukrainian forces have recently retaken much of the ground that was captured by Russia in the first months of this year” is a nice phrase to start the article but last time I checked it was around 6,000 sq km against 108,000 sq km occupied and lost with the last annexation (not counting Crimea event in ’14). So take this math and grease your propagandistic face with it, dear author, and if your math level really states that 6,000 is indeed much of 108,000 you better ask your wife to take care of your family finances.
The problem is, all of Russia’s gains were in the first few weeks of the war, when its professional army still existed. That’s no longer the case.
Sort of like saying in 1942:
“Germany’s sure to win! Look at all the ground they’ve taken!”
Nice try, though.
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Everyone reading the above should remember that when the Russians first invaded, the great majority of “experts” predicted they would defeat Ukraine in a heartbeat. As the 3-time Prime Minister of the UK Robert Gascoyne (1830-1903) put it: “No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.”
Mark Duffett
1 year ago
I find Janne Korhonen’s arguments that we shouldn’t worry too much about nuclear escalation compelling. “nuclear weapons simply aren’t very useful for any practical military or political purposes. There is very little to be gained using them that would outweigh the risks.”
martin logan
1 year ago
Pretty simple dynamic, really.
If Russia uses a nuke, NATO destroys the Russian air force and Navy, using standoff weapons.
We’ve already messaged that to the Kremlin.
And Russia will have to comply.
Putin has ingeniously made Russia an insignificant power, along the lines of Iran or North Korea.
No wonder they all get along so well!
Richard Needleman
1 year ago
This discussion is divorced from reality. Read Putin’s words and not the fearmongering of the West–the ones who have been constantly talking of nuclear weapons. Putin said the doctrine was that nuclear weapons could be used only in two circumstances: 1. A direct nuclear attack on Russia and 2. An attack by others on Russia which posed a clear threat to the existence of Russia as a nation. Ukraine is incapable of either. No Western leader would say anything different.
The main dis-incentive against using a nuclear device is: What exactly do you do next, because I don’t see how it wins this war whether or not the West retaliates in kind, unless that is, Putin (and his lieutenants) decide to go out in a blaze of glory? I suspect his lieutenants would opt to retire to their luxury dachas to write their memoirs about how the Russian people let them down.
You used to be able to buy the device these guys use – in USA, called ‘The Magic 8 Ball. You shook an 8 ball and held it upside down and a multi sided die inside floated up out of black liquid inside, to a clear window, and you read the answer:
”The Magic 8 Ball may look easy, and it is too – easiest fortune-telling device available. All you do is ask a question, shake it slightly (although most sources suggest refraining from doing so), and then you turn it over and read its response through that little window at its base. Right?
But what are all the answers and what do they all mean? A standard Magic 8 Ball has a total of 20 answers – 10 affirmative, 5 non-committal and 5 negatives. The Magic 8 Balls responses (explained in detail below) are very carefully and statistically designed to be accurate and each of them mean something much more than they seem to say.You can trust its answers too, just as much as your intuitive voice tells you to.”
Better than the Delphi Oracle, which was always correct – but you never knew that till you had done the wrong thing because it was so obscure you always misunderstood it, and Then the meaning became clear when it was too late. And here are the possible 8 Ball answers……….
”Affirmative Answers Non – Committal Answers Negative Answers It is certain – Reply hazy, – try again – Don’t count on it – It is decidedly so – Ask again later – My reply is no – Without a doubt – Better not tell you now – My sources say no – Yes definitely – Cannot predict now – Outlook not so good – You may rely on it – Concentrate and ask again – Very doubtful – As I see it, yes – Most likely – Outlook Good.”
There you go.. the real secret the ”The Swift Centre” does not want you to know how they figure these predictions out – and why the predictions end up right about as often as a coin toss….
Rather like the advice to government from civil servants – couched so vaguely that it can be adapted to fit any scenario. ‘I told you so!’
Why has no-one remade ‘Yes, Minister’?
Nobody has remade “Yes, Minister,” because only fiction gets remakes – this show is clearly some sort of documentary!
Very good John!
Utter bullocks. These “forecasters” are no different to the Imperial College “Covid modellers” who produced “scientific data” for lockdown. That went really well didn’t it? It destroyed what little was left of the public’s faith in science. Similar things could be said about the climate change modellers, although a better description for those people would be religious fanatics.
As for Pootin’s nuclear arsenal, – as someone who has worked in the nuclear industry, and as a historian of engineering science, I have little faith that they will work as desired, – much like the rest of the Russian army or the state itself. As we have seen recently.
Nuclear weapons are not designed and engineered to be used. They are designed to be stored on a shelf for a typical shelf-life of thirty years and then retired of old age. Their purpose is to frighten the enemy. Like the bogymen of childhood. They have to be serviced (like a vehicle) every few years because parts degrade and need renewal. Typically, the tritium content loses half its potency in 3 years, and almost all modern weapons use tritium. Then there are the more mundane parts such as safety locks. How many readers here will be confident that a secure door lock to their house will work reliably after thirty years of non-use. And does anyone remember who the keyholder is?
People should be less hysterical. If disaster strikes and s**t happens, then it happens, and there will be good people who survive to rebuild better. Now if only that could be said of Truss and her doomed government.
I agree. This whole article is interesting, but I doubt it has any validity. Is this even a computer model? It seems most of the math can be done by hand, with the ‘inputs’ being basically a few ‘experts’ guessing how much of a chance of X given Y. The actual best guesses about the chances of a Russia using a nuclear weapon successfully are produced by intelligence services of nations like the US, Britain, etc. and sitting on the desks of the President, PM, etc., and if we ever see them, it will be long past the point where anyone cares. My guess is Putin knows he’s losing and is just barking as loudly as possible in the hopes somebody will actually believe him and push for peace negotiations.
It would be more interesting to hear what the experts consider a nuclear blast would achieve militarily in Ukraine and politically both in Russia and the rest of the world. How would India and China react? What would NATO do? What would be the reaction of the Russian people? A battlefield nuclear bomb doesn’t seem to achieve much militarily given the large amount of sparsely populated territory involved.
On a more practical level, Ukraine is very large and very flat. The civilian population is widely dispersed in small settlements with few cities. The only large and valuable targets are Kiiv, Odessa and a few other cities.
Tactical nuclear weapons intended for use against opposing armies are not at all useful in this situation because the target armies are so well dispersed in small packets, with large empty spaces between them. Cities are the only targets worth a nuclear weapon, but these are not militarily significant targets.
Anyone who has seen photographs of Hiroshima etc in our National Archives will know that the roads and railways were left mostly intact. In Hiroshima, a few electric trams were running within three days. All that was required was restoration of electric power. The photographs of Hiroshima show that bridges, power and telecommunication masts were also left mostly intact, requiring little effort to restore power, telephones and transport.
Enormous myths have grown about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the effects on well-built infrastructure were less devastating than generally believed. If that was untrue there would be little point in constructing bunkers. Although the costs in human life are not exaggerated.
But of course in Ukraine, the cities are not in truth military targets, but political ones. A fact not lost on Putin’s generals.
What about a Neutron Bomb (ERW) on Kiev? Assuming Putin has one squirrelled away somewhere.
The mythbuilders are at it again with the neutron bomb. They existed in the form of artillery shells, but after the end of the Cold War they were discontinued from stockpiles. Any survivors are in museums.
If Putin does have one “squirreled away” it will have died of old age. Read the above on regular servicing. The only survivors will be in museums and impossible to resuscitate.
Thanks.
Unfortunaltely this resource is becoming more and more CNN-like (or crap-like if you want). Well, “It is so because I say so” might work for lazy-brained consumers, I guess. Up to some point at least.
“Ukrainian forces have recently retaken much of the ground that was captured by Russia in the first months of this year” is a nice phrase to start the article but last time I checked it was around 6,000 sq km against 108,000 sq km occupied and lost with the last annexation (not counting Crimea event in ’14). So take this math and grease your propagandistic face with it, dear author, and if your math level really states that 6,000 is indeed much of 108,000 you better ask your wife to take care of your family finances.
The problem is, all of Russia’s gains were in the first few weeks of the war, when its professional army still existed. That’s no longer the case.
Sort of like saying in 1942:
“Germany’s sure to win! Look at all the ground they’ve taken!”
Nice try, though.
I find Janne Korhonen’s arguments that we shouldn’t worry too much about nuclear escalation compelling. “nuclear weapons simply aren’t very useful for any practical military or political purposes. There is very little to be gained using them that would outweigh the risks.”
Pretty simple dynamic, really.
If Russia uses a nuke, NATO destroys the Russian air force and Navy, using standoff weapons.
We’ve already messaged that to the Kremlin.
And Russia will have to comply.
Putin has ingeniously made Russia an insignificant power, along the lines of Iran or North Korea.
No wonder they all get along so well!
This discussion is divorced from reality. Read Putin’s words and not the fearmongering of the West–the ones who have been constantly talking of nuclear weapons. Putin said the doctrine was that nuclear weapons could be used only in two circumstances: 1. A direct nuclear attack on Russia and 2. An attack by others on Russia which posed a clear threat to the existence of Russia as a nation. Ukraine is incapable of either. No Western leader would say anything different.
Just came across this excellent article by a former Russian diplomat, who resigned because of the war. Really great insights, though I’m a bit sceptical of his wife going back, risking her life, just to get her kitten. Probably too late for anyone here to notice 🙁
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/sources-russia-misconduct-boris-bondarev?