Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

Indifference I would have thought. There was a much wider acceptance that some things were just out of your control, and there was a ready supply of grandparents who could tell you about much more awful things than sudden obliteration

I honestly find that hard to believe (the indifference part).

Edit: I’ve just noticed @najaB has responded with some actual info.

 

[takno]

I honestly find that hard to believe (the indifference part).

Edit: I’ve just noticed @najaB has responded with some actual info.

I should possibly have been more careful with my words. Clearly people watched it, but it would have been much less something that left people personally terrified. At the same time, I was younger then, and as a result personally much less likely to be scared by things. Maybe adults were wondering around permanently petrified and I just don't remember it

 

[najaB]

I should possibly have been more careful with my words. Clearly people watched it, but it would have been much less something that left people personally terrified. At the same time, I was younger then, and as a result personally much less likely to be scared by things. Maybe adults were wondering around permanently petrified and I just don't remember it

My family left the UK that summer so I don't have any personal recollection of it, but my understanding is that you are correct that it didn't induce mass panic, but it definitely fed into the general sense of inevitable doom of the the era. It also helped to turn public opinion back in favour of the CND after the beating it took over the Greenham Common protests.

 

[Strathclyder]

I watched Threads at school at the age of 13 or 14 during a humanities lesson. This was long after the Cold War had ended but it was/is still terrifying. I can only imagine how people reacted to it when it was released!

As did I at around the same age as part of a social studies class, we got as far as the bombs being dropped and the immediate aftermath. To say I was unsettled by it would be a gross understatement.

 

[Cloud Strife]

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1580842881853845504/photo/1

(link to a Twitter infographic, showing that Russia has only around 600 precision missiles left from a stock of 1800 at the beginning of the war)

If this is true, then Russia has lost the war. These are the only things they have that can genuinely terrorise Ukraine, and while the Iranian kamikaze drones can be built easily, it's only a matter of time before the Ukrainian air defences are able to deal with them due to their very low tech nature.

 

[TheEdge]

I'd be very annoyed to be a Russian serviceman watching these weapons being used on civilians and not the Ukrainian military.

But as has been said in a now viral quote from a Ukrainian soldier, "We're very lucky they're so f****ing stupid"

 

[Cdd89]

If this is true, then Russia has lost the war

If Russia has lost the war - rather than being in an unattractive position from which they can negotiate a face-saving exit (and I agree that we are probably past that point, thanks to continuous escalation) - then I think we are in a potentially really dangerous situation.

My concern is around the war falling out of the control of Moscow, with local commanders having been given tactical nuclear weapons (to sidestep the matter of Putin directly calling for their use) and being in a position where they would either have to hand such a weapon over to Ukraine, or where they otherwise cannot retreat, and therefore use them for survival.

I am at the point where I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons is now likely, and the only hope is that their use doesn’t escalate into the use of larger strategic nuclear weapons. In this regard, the fact Russia is not quite an international pariah (as they deserve to be) is the only saving grace, as at least they have something to lose. Very scary IMO. The world desperately needs a negotiated way out rather than “fighting to its conclusion”.

 

[najaB]

My concern is around the war falling out of the control of Moscow, with local commanders having been given tactical nuclear weapons (to sidestep the matter of Putin directly calling for their use) and being in a position where they would either have to hand such a weapon over to Ukraine, or where they otherwise cannot retreat, and therefore use them for survival.

The US, UK and other NATO members keep a very close watch on Russian nuclear weapons movement (as the Russians do, to a lesser extent, on ours). There has been zero indication that any low-yield weapons have been moved out of storage and into the field and I can't imagine that any order could be issued without the collective 'us' knowing about it.

This is not something to be losing sleep over.

 

[Annetts key]

The tactical nuclear weapons are all well within Russia and are in storage, so a forward Russian military command has no access or control over any nuclear weapon.

 

[TheEdge]

Another bit of misunderstanding happening here is the size of a "tactical nuclear weapon", while its not defined but these are not small weapons at all. During the Cold War there were some tiny nuclear weapons which were the sort of thing you could fire across a few fields to blow up a bunker or out of a piece of field artillery to something tens of kilometers away.

Modern tactical weapons are not. You are talking about warheads on cruise missiles and Scud style systems which have 50-100 kiloton yields, these are for levelling large facilities like airbases and naval bases or, more likely in Russian usage, doing serious damage to a city or obliterating a small town. For comparison the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 21kt and 15kt respectively.

These are weapons whose use is sanctioned by government, not ad hoc by field commanders.

 

[Ediswan]

For comparison the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 21kt and 15kt respectively.

I believe it was the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

 

[TheEdge]

I believe it was the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

Look at me mixing up bombs...

 

[Pete_uk]

I once imported a watermelon from Ukraine to Poland, much to the absolute bewilderment of the customs officer on the border. Everyone else was smuggling industrial amounts of cigarettes and alcohol, and we presented this large watermelon.

That put a smile on my face! A great story.

 

[najaB]

Look at me mixing up bombs...

To be fair, if you were anywhere near ground zero it wouldn't really make that much difference.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If Russia has lost the war - rather than being in an unattractive position from which they can negotiate a face-saving exit (and I agree that we are probably past that point, thanks to continuous escalation) - then I think we are in a potentially really dangerous situation.

My concern is around the war falling out of the control of Moscow, with local commanders having been given tactical nuclear weapons (to sidestep the matter of Putin directly calling for their use) and being in a position where they would either have to hand such a weapon over to Ukraine, or where they otherwise cannot retreat, and therefore use them for survival.

There's no way Russia will entrust local commanders with nuclear weapons. It would go against the entire centralised nature of the Russian forces (which is largely why they're incurring tremendous losses), and it would also contravene their policy on using weapons.

I don't think Putin can get Russia out of this mess now, but I do think a new leader can.

I am at the point where I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons is now likely, and the only hope is that their use doesn’t escalate into the use of larger strategic nuclear weapons. In this regard, the fact Russia is not quite an international pariah (as they deserve to be) is the only saving grace, as at least they have something to lose. Very scary IMO. The world desperately needs a negotiated way out rather than “fighting to its conclusion”.

While no-one has said this directly, the prevailing view is that NATO has very firmly told Russian military commanders that they can expect a brutal response to any attempt to use nuclear weapons. Taking the weapons out of storage would be detected quickly, and given that the Russians can't deal with a fraction of what NATO has to offer, they're not likely to risk it. It's worth pointing out that Russia hasn't even retaliated for the repeated attacks within actual Russia (not Crimea) recently, which rather shows the poor state of the Russian military.

There's also one other issue that shouldn't be ignored: it's by no means certain that these weapons are in working condition. If a tactical nuke was to blow up within Russia, we'd have a bloody civil war within days.

 

[Cdd89]

There's no way Russia will entrust local commanders with nuclear weapons. It would go against the entire centralised nature of the Russian forces (which is largely why they're incurring tremendous losses), and it would also contravene their policy on using weapons

Not ordinarily, but a desperate Putin might view this as a way of threatening them to force a settlement while trying to skirt responsibility for their use. “I’ve supplied commanders in regions controlled by Russia before the conflict with the localised facility to defend Russian territory, this will be as a last resort only” etc. From there, even if there is no intention to fire, it could easily escalate into this.

The argument that the Russian military would ignore his commands is a strong one but only in relation to an order to carry out a major strike. I’d suggest that more subtle escalations setting things up for, but not actually ordering, localised strikes, are a different matter.

I think we are several steps away from it, but I can see a path to it as he runs out of options and his bluff is called on ‘lighter’ nuclear threats

 

[brad465]

While the exact motivation isn't clear, this could be a further sign of a mutiny brewing in Russian ranks:

Belgorod shooting: Gunmen kill 11 in attack on Russian trainee soldiers

Two attackers opened fire on recruits who had volunteered to fight in Ukraine, local media report.

www.bbc.co.uk

At least 11 people have been killed after an attack at a Russian military training ground on Saturday.
During a firearms training session, two men opened fire on a group who had volunteered to fight in Ukraine, state-owned news agency Ria reported.
The attackers were from a former Soviet republic, the Russian defence ministry said, but did not give further details.
They were also shot dead during the incident in the Belgorod region of Russia, which borders Ukraine.
A further 15 people were wounded.
"During a firearms training session with individuals who voluntarily expressed a desire to participate in the special military operation [against Ukraine], the terrorists opened fire with small arms on the personnel of the unit," Ria cited a defence ministry statement as saying.
"As a result of the shooting, 11 people were fatally wounded. Another 15 people with wounds of varying severity were taken to a medical facility," it said.
Last month Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a mobilisation of 300,000 Russians who had previously done compulsory military service.
The order sparked protests across Russia, and a surge of people attempting to leave the country.
Defence minister Sergei Shoigu announced in early October that more than 200,000 reservists had already been drafted.

 

[Trackman]

I'm

The US, UK and other NATO members keep a very close watch on Russian nuclear weapons movement (as the Russians do, to a lesser extent, on ours). There has been zero indication that any low-yield weapons have been moved out of storage and into the field and I can't imagine that any order could be issued without the collective 'us' knowing about it.

This is not something to be losing sleep over.

I would say a very close eye as well.
It's not a case of rolling them out and off they go.

While the exact motivation isn't clear, this could be a further sign of a mutiny brewing in Russian ranks:

It's becoming bad isnt it? and its not going to get any better.
I think the quote I read on bbc news is that is was volunteers from the old Russian eastern bloc.

 

[najaB]

“I’ve supplied commanders in regions controlled by Russia before the conflict with the localised facility to defend Russian territory, this will be as a last resort only”

Not going to happen outside of a Hollywood movie.

 

[DustyBin]

Another bit of misunderstanding happening here is the size of a "tactical nuclear weapon", while its not defined but these are not small weapons at all. During the Cold War there were some tiny nuclear weapons which were the sort of thing you could fire across a few fields to blow up a bunker or out of a piece of field artillery to something tens of kilometers away.

Modern tactical weapons are not. You are talking about warheads on cruise missiles and Scud style systems which have 50-100 kiloton yields, these are for levelling large facilities like airbases and naval bases or, more likely in Russian usage, doing serious damage to a city or obliterating a small town. For comparison the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 21kt and 15kt respectively.

These are weapons whose use is sanctioned by government, not ad hoc by field commanders.

Are you sure this is correct in regard to the yield of these weapons? I’ve read articles and listened to “experts” on TV stating they range from 1kt to 15kt (with Hiroshima used for context). I’m not saying you’re wrong, but there’s some widespread misreporting if what you say is true.

Edited to say that many warheads have variable yields which blurs the line somewhat between tactical and strategic. I’m not sure if the delivery system is as much the defining factor as the yield?

 

[Annetts key]

As there is no actual official definition, in practice, the yield of a tactical nuclear weapon can be anything you like…

As an example, the B61 bomb has many variants, and different Mods within this. The Mod 3 can be 0.3, 1.5, 60, or 170 kt according to Wikipedia.

 

[DustyBin]

As there is no actual official definition, in practice, the yield of a tactical nuclear weapon can be anything you like…

As an example, the B61 bomb has many variants, and different Mods within this. The Mod 3 can be 0.3, 1.5, 60, or 170 kt according to Wikipedia.

This is the kind of thing I made reference to above. Surely though there’s a point at which a warhead ceases to be tactical? I would have thought 170kt would do so much damage over a such a wide area that it’s classed as strategic? You’d certainly not want to be anywhere near the detonation! (I’m not sure how far away you’d need to be though?).

 

[Giugiaro]

(I’m not sure how far away you’d need to be though?).

This gives you an idea of the closest distance you could be of a 0.3kt nuke airburst without injury.

The same simulation for a 1.5kt bomb.

And again for 60kt.

Finally, 170kt.

Also, the 1.5kt was the lowest one that the simulation calculated fallout if the nuke was surface burst.

 

[Strathclyder]

This gives you an idea of the closest distance you could be of a 0.3kt nuke airburst without injury.

The same simulation for a 1.5kt bomb.

And again for 60kt.

Finally, 170kt.

Also, the 1.5kt was the lowest one that the simulation calculated fallout if the nuke was surface burst.

I know this is the extreme end of the scale, but the simulation of what would happen if the originally planned 100Mt Tsar Bomba (the actual bomb was pegged back to 'just' 50Mt without the uranium-238 fusion tamper originally figured into the design) were dropped on London (also tried it for Glasgow) is apocalyptic, regardless of it being a airbourne blast (airburst) or a surface blast. That's one site I'm loathe to spend too much time on; darkly fascinating is how I'd describe it.

 

[najaB]

I know this is the extreme end of the scale, but the simulation of what would happen if the originally planned 100Mt Tsar Bomba (the actual bomb was pegged back to 'just' 50Mt without the uranium-238 fusion tamper originally figured into the design) were dropped on London (also tried it for Glasgow) is apocalyptic, regardless of it being a airbourne blast (airburst) or a surface blast.

Pretty much why the Soviets decided that it wasn't a practical weapon. It was simply too big and destructive to ever be used.

 

[Strathclyder]

Pretty much why the Soviets decided that it wasn't a practical weapon. It was simply too big and destructive to ever be used.

Yep, Tsar Bomba was more of a show of force (dare I call it willy-waving?) more than anything even remotely practical that could be used in the field of warfare.

 

[uglymonkey]

Any thing over the Tzar bomb ( and it suffered from it to an extent) is that it's so big the blast and most of the expended energy is vented upwards into the upper atmosphere and eventually space, so it is less destructive on the ground than a smaller yield bomb.

 

[DustyBin]

There’s a bit of “noise” on social media about various countries including Kazakstan and China telling their citizens to leave Ukraine. Needless to say there is also a lot of speculation as to why. A bit of research reveals that these instructions were issued at least 5 days ago, almost certainly as a result of the renewed attacks on Ukrainian cities. It looks as though a couple of media outlets have jumped on this (belatedly) and are trying to make a story out of it……

 

[Annetts key]

Anything to sell a story newspaper/click bate…

 

[Giugiaro]

And there's a lot of conflicting information about Iranian support for the Ukrainian war.

The news yesterday said that Iran is preparing to send support to Russia, but they did send it already while denying so.
Is this the case of "repeating news to make it news again" or is Iran actually preparing a massive weapons delivery under the rug?