Russia invades Ukraine

[najaB]

The alleged leaked FSB report discussed around page 62 of this thread (early March) casts a huge amount of doubt on the state of Russia’s nuclear weapons

You don't need a lot of weapons to work to ruin everyone's day. Not to mention that many failure mechanisms could result in worse outcomes than if they had - e.g. instead of warheads landing on RAF Brize Norton they end up hitting central Oxford, Swindon or Slough.

 

[Ediswan]

Not something I would care to call his bluff on,
but if his army is pants, why should his nuclear
weapons be any better?

Due to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Russia has not fully tested any nuclear weapons since 1996.

Before then, tests were a lot more common than many people realise:

 

[ainsworth74]

Due to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Russia has not fully tested any nuclear weapons since 1996.

Then again neither has anyone else currently involved in this situation...

I'm not sure I'd put much weight in Russian nuclear weapons not working. Unless the failure rate is something spectacular like 99.99% enough would still get through to do sufficient damage that we're not likely to enjoy the aftermath. And I have few doubts that ours (that is US, UK and France) will work in sufficient numbers that the consequent fall in global temperatures will trigger famines on scale the likes of which we have never seen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A lot of people were very worried in regard to “who’s next” when the invasion began, thinking Ukraine would hold out for a week at most and we’d be left facing an emboldened, aggressive Russia that may choose to put its large, modern military (cough!) to use elsewhere. It’s clear at this point however that Russia isn’t capable of taking on NATO, or even any individual member state with a reasonably sized, well trained, modern military (Poland for example).

I think the focus of NATO’s “trip-wire” doctrine can now be on deterrent (which was always a factor anyway), rather than slowing an (initially) unstoppable Russian advance across Europe. The gap in military capability appears to have widened since the end of the Cold War, although few people in NATO and seemingly nobody in Russia actually realised……

I think that's largely true in terms of any immediate threat to NATO - Russia's army is no match for any NATO country, but that still leaves other worries. Russia is certainly going to learn lessons from the war, and I wouldn't be surprised to find in 5 years' time their army is in somewhat better shape - especially because we don't know what help they might get from China. And even if their army is in no match to take on Western countries, it will likely still be amply capable of propping up dictators or helping to install pro-Russian regimes in parts of the Middle East, or poorer countries in Asia. Then there is Russia's skill at propaganda and ability to influence extremist groups in the West, or carry out attacks such as the Novichok one (Probably reduced for now, but Ukraine won't stay so prominently in the public eye in the West forever). And of course we have China, just as keen as Russia on spreading authoritarianism around the World and a close ally of Russia (Albeit more inclined to use 'soft power' rather than going to war directly). China plus Russia alone means that about 1/5 of the World's population are being deliberately fed propaganda that makes out what Russia is doing in Ukraine is fine - and both countries have security council vetoes. So I would say in the long run we still have a lot to worried about in terms of the threat from authoritarianism - and it's still going to be vital to find a way to see Russia's regime removed from power.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

I'm not sure I'd put much weight in Russian nuclear weapons not working. Unless the failure rate is something spectacular like 99.99% enough would still get through to do sufficient damage that we're not likely to enjoy the aftermath. And I have few doubts that ours (that is US, UK and France) will work in sufficient numbers that the consequent fall in global temperatures will trigger famines on scale the likes of which we have never seen.

I wonder if one other factor to think about - and which possibly may have occurred to more astute members of Russia's military - is whether, if Russian equipment is in such awful condition, there is any risk that any nuclear warheads fired against the West could, due to technical failures, not merely miss their target, but actually detonate while still over Russia, or a neutral country?

 

[jon0844]

You don't need a lot of weapons to work to ruin everyone's day. Not to mention that many failure mechanisms could result in worse outcomes than if they had - e.g. instead of warheads landing on RAF Brize Norton they end up hitting central Oxford, Swindon or Slough.

I am not sure you'd notice much difference in Slough.

 

[Darandio]

I wonder if one other factor to think about - and which possibly may have occurred to more astute members of Russia's military - is whether, if Russian equipment is in such awful condition, there is any risk that any nuclear warheads fired against the West could, due to technical failures, not merely miss their target, but actually detonate while still over Russia, or a neutral country?

If you launched a nuclear attack against the West then you wouldn't really need to worry about your warheads detonating over your own territory.

 

[brad465]

Not something I would care to call his bluff on,
but if his army is pants, why should his nuclear
weapons be any better?

It's a very interesting thought. I wonder how far the corruption has sunk in Russia.

There was an episode of The Simpsons where Sideshow Bob stole a nuclear bomb and threatened to detonate it, he did set it off, but the explosion was a "puff of smoke" and a load of rats running out of it. He then read on the side a best before date of November 1959.

 

[philosopher]

I wonder if one other factor to think about - and which possibly may have occurred to more astute members of Russia's military - is whether, if Russian equipment is in such awful condition, there is any risk that any nuclear warheads fired against the West could, due to technical failures, not merely miss their target, but actually detonate while still over Russia, or a neutral country?

I do wonder if Russia’s massive nuclear arsenal is why Russia’s armed forces have performed so badly in their invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s military budget is about the same as the UK’s but they have over 5000 nuclear warheads, compared to around 200 for the UK. I assume nuclear weapons are pretty costly to maintain, so their vast nuclear arsenal means they have very little to spend on the rest of their military.

 

[najaB]

I assume nuclear weapons are pretty costly to maintain, so their vast nuclear arsenal means they have very little to spend on the rest of their military.

Not really. They are a considerably cheaper than the equivalent conventional force - which is why we have them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you launched a nuclear attack against the West then you wouldn't really need to worry about your warheads detonating over your own territory.

Haha, good point. And I would suggest that is of course precisely the reason why we probably don't need to fear Russia launching nuclear weapons if we got more actively involved in defending Ukraine.

 

[dgl]

I wonder if one other factor to think about - and which possibly may have occurred to more astute members of Russia's military - is whether, if Russian equipment is in such awful condition, there is any risk that any nuclear warheads fired against the West could, due to technical failures, not merely miss their target, but actually detonate while still over Russia, or a neutral country?

That's something I've always wondered about in regards to North Korea, that any missile they had would be able to reach it's intended target.
Plus I wonder how all the Oligarch's in various European countries would react to their investments being flattened by their own country, I wonder if Putin has that in mind, money talks at the end of the day.

 

[Loppylugs]

You don't need a lot of weapons to work to ruin everyone's day. Not to mention that many failure mechanisms could result in worse outcomes than if they had - e.g. instead of warheads landing on RAF Brize Norton they end up hitting central Oxford, Swindon or Slough.

Aw, thanks, that really pisses me off. I've already paid in advance for my cremation....

 

[Annetts key]

You don't need a lot of weapons to work to ruin everyone's day. Not to mention that many failure mechanisms could result in worse outcomes than if they had - e.g. instead of warheads landing on RAF Brize Norton they end up hitting central Oxford, Swindon or Slough.

I wonder if one other factor to think about - and which possibly may have occurred to more astute members of Russia's military - is whether, if Russian equipment is in such awful condition, there is any risk that any nuclear warheads fired against the West could, due to technical failures, not merely miss their target, but actually detonate while still over Russia, or a neutral country?

For ICBMs, they are quite complex. So it depends on which part fails.
Possibilities include:

• Guidance programming failing - no point in launching if you can’t program the guidance system…
• Launch system (such as when fired from a submarine) working. If it can’t be ejected, it’s not going anywhere…
• Rocket propulsion system. These can be using solid fuel or liquid fuel and oxidiser. Rocket systems themselves can be rather complex. If the propulsion does not fire, it’s not going to go very far… Or if the propulsion system fails while in flight, it will fall short.
• While in flight, the guidance and navigation systems, along with the control fins (control surfaces) all have to work. Otherwise it will either fall short, or go off course.
• The arming system has to work, otherwise it’s only a flying dirty bomb.
• Final stage separation. Some missiles have multiple warheads, so they have to separate from the main body of the missile.
• To start the nuclear reaction, conventional explosives have to compress the nuclear material. If any failure prevents the nuclear material from being fully and completely compressed, a full nuclear reaction will not take place. In other words, there will not be the intended nuclear explosion.

If for whatever reason, some failure prevents the nuclear reaction from taking place, the warhead will make a mess when it lands, but nowhere near the intended destructive power.

As you can see, these things are far more complex than they appear.

And yes, it is possible that a nuclear missile could detonate while still over Russia.

 

[Pete_uk]

I agree wholeheartedly with 'Annetts key's long post earlier.

 

[ainsworth74]

The reality remains, however, that unless the failure rate is frankly absurdly high (implausible so) that the damage wrought by Russian weapons would still be far more than any nation would be willing or, apart from perhaps the US, to bear. Quite apart from the effects of flattening Russia upon the global climate. The reality is that of course some weapons will fail. I have no doubts that that some NATO missiles and warheads would fail to operate properly. These are extremely complex weapon systems that, whilst they've been rigorously tested, are like any complex system and will suffer failures. But the rate of that failure is likely to be so low as to not really make a material difference. Some provincial city in darkest Siberia might be spared because it only had a single warhead targeted on it and that warhead was a dud. But it won't matter because hundreds of other warheads on other cities, infrastructure, military and political targets will have functioned flawlessly.

I really wouldn't get side tracked onto this line of thinking, there is no evidence to suggest that the entirety of Russia's strategic nuclear forces are unusable.

 

[najaB]

I really wouldn't get side tracked onto this line of thinking, there is no evidence to suggest that the entirety of Russia's strategic nuclear forces are unusable.

Indeed. They don't need 100% reliability to ruin our day/week/year/decade.

 

[Annetts key]

I really wouldn't get side tracked onto this line of thinking, there is no evidence to suggest that the entirety of Russia's strategic nuclear forces are unusable.

I agree that no sane person would want to take the risk that a nuclear armed ICBM war is survivable based purely on enough missiles failing to work as designed.

But at the same time, the west should not swallow all the lies, mistruths, double speak and other nonsense that comes from Putin or the Kremlin.

As I’ve said before, Putin does not want to die. Unless you have any evidence that shows different. So he will not want a nuclear war. As he knows he could not win a nuclear war. Even if he were to survive, there is no point in being the ruler of a country that is now a nuclear wasteland.

But he will always try to scare the west. He will bully, lie, distract and basically use any language which he thinks will further his interests. And one of his interests is doing everything he can to dissuade the west from getting further involved.

 

[ainsworth74]

So he will not want a nuclear war.

I'd be stunned if anyone wanted a nuclear war. The risk isn't that someone calmly decides that they need to use nuclear weapons, the risk is miscalculation. We've come close on multiple occasions to accidental release of nuclear weapons even during times of peace (the Norwegian 1995 rocket incident for instance). During a crisis that risk increases substantially. The Cuban Missile crisis nearly went nuclear because a Soviet submarine commander decided that he should use a nuclear torpedo against US Navy ships that were hounding him and his submarine, only the refusal to authorise the use of the weapon by his flotilla commander who was on board with him prevented it's use. The US thought they were under a massive Soviet first strike because someone accidently played a training tape in the North American Aerospace Defense Command computers. Another incident a few months later triggering a similar false alarm was caused by the failure of a computer chip costing a few cents. Then there's the famous incident where Soviet early warning detected US launches which turned out to be reflections on high altitude clouds (Stanislav Petrov's finest hour). Any of those could easily have lead to a nuclear war that no-one actually wanted.

It's all well and good saying how "Putin doesn't want a nuclear war", I'm quite sure he doesn't. But that isn't the only way a nuclear war starts and indeed is probably the least likely way it starts. It probably starts because in a crisis someone under the pressure of having to decide how to respond to this radar or satellite warning now, this minute, because within the next few minutes you might be dead makes a horrific mistake.

 

[Cowley]

I'd be stunned if anyone wanted a nuclear war. The risk isn't that someone calmly decides that they need to use nuclear weapons, the risk is miscalculation. We've come close on multiple occasions to accidental release of nuclear weapons even during times of peace (the Norwegian 1995 rocket incident for instance). During a crisis that risk increases substantially. The Cuban Missile crisis nearly went nuclear because a Soviet submarine commander decided that he should use a nuclear torpedo against US Navy ships that were hounding him and his submarine, only the refusal to authorise the use of the weapon by his flotilla commander who was on board with him prevented it's use. The US thought they were under a massive Soviet first strike because someone accidently played a training tape in the North American Aerospace Defense Command computers. Another incident a few months later triggering a similar false alarm was caused by the failure of a computer chip costing a few cents. Then there's the famous incident where Soviet early warning detected US launches which turned out to be reflections on high altitude clouds (Stanislav Petrov's finest hour). Any of those could easily have lead to a nuclear war that no-one actually wanted.

It's all well and good saying how "Putin doesn't want a nuclear war", I'm quite sure he doesn't. But that isn't the only way a nuclear war starts and indeed is probably the least likely way it starts. It probably starts because in a crisis someone under the pressure of having to decide how to respond to this radar or satellite warning now, this minute, because within the next few minutes you might be dead makes a horrific mistake.

That’s exactly it. The fact that we’re even here contemplating the possibility is because there are people out there with a metaphorical finger over the button preparing for a launch if something happens.

It’s the nervousness and scaling up of preparedness that could cause a mistake to happen, and it will be a mistake rather than a decision to start using nukes to win a particular battle out in the field I believe.

I haven’t felt this kind of nervousness before because even though I grew up in the Cold War era it was only later that we found out about a lot of the stuff you’ve mentioned above.
This feels different.
I’m not saying it’ll happen, but it does make me a bit nervous!

 

[Annetts key]

People outside the nuclear military may well feel nervous.

I would expect the military staff responsible for the nuclear weapons to have been fully trained and are fully aware of not reacting in haste.

It’s been nearly 60 years since the Cuban Missile crisis. One would rather hope and expect that both the Russian and the western military responsible for their respective nuclear weapons systems are fully trained, equipped and know all the procedures that are in place to prevent any unintended launch of any nuclear weapons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s been nearly 60 years since the Cuban Missile crisis. One would rather hope and expect that both the Russian and the western military responsible for their respective nuclear weapons systems are fully trained, equipped and know all the procedures that are in place to prevent any unintended launch of any nuclear weapons.

I think we can be reasonably sure that's true of the US, the UK, France etc.

But you've seen how incompetent Russia's military is, right? I'd not be so sure.

 

[Annetts key]

I think we can be reasonably sure that's true of the US, the UK, France etc.

But you've seen how incompetent Russia's military is, right? I'd not be so sure.

I presume you’re now living in a nuclear bunker then?

There is a big difference between being on or near a front line of a war / battle/ whatever and being a long distance away in a stable controlled environment where there is no direct threat to you. And where your duties are routine.

 

[najaB]

One would rather hope and expect that both the Russian and the western military responsible for their respective nuclear weapons systems are fully trained, equipped and know all the procedures that are in place to prevent any unintended launch of any nuclear weapons.

Bolded word noted.

 

[Annetts key]

Bolded word noted.

”and expect”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume you’re now living in a nuclear bunker then?

I don't have access to one. Though some would argue ground zero is the best place to be, because a post-nuclear-war world would not be somewhere worth living.

”and expect”

I don't.

 

[najaB]

The US thought they were under a massive Soviet first strike because someone accidently played a training tape in the North American Aerospace Defense Command computers.

Funny you mention that, this just popped up in my YouTube feed:

 

[DustyBin]

I don’t think there’s any significantly enhanced risk of a nuclear conflict here. Putin inevitably sabre rattled at the beginning of the invasion as he knew full well that NATO could easily derail his (anticipated) straightforward takeover of Ukraine. It was a reminder that things could escalate to that level if anybody stuck their noses in. He wanted/wants it to happen no more than we do. The deterrent is doing it’s job; NATO isn’t attacking Russian forces in Ukraine and Russia isn’t taking pot shots at NATO aircraft flying along the Ukrainian border. An accidental conflict could of course occur but there have been lessons learned after each previous incident, starting with the Cuban missile crisis which frankly scared everybody into making sure lines of communication are always available.

 

[najaB]

The deterrent is doing it’s job; NATO isn’t attacking Russian forces in Ukraine and Russia isn’t taking pot shots at NATO aircraft flying along the Ukrainian border.

Exactly. However, if we were to declare and, more importantly, enforce a no-fly-zone the equation would change significantly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think there’s any significantly enhanced risk of a nuclear conflict here. Putin inevitably sabre rattled at the beginning of the invasion as he knew full well that NATO could easily derail his (anticipated) straightforward takeover of Ukraine. It was a reminder that things could escalate to that level if anybody stuck their noses in. He wanted/wants it to happen no more than we do. The deterrent is doing it’s job; NATO isn’t attacking Russian forces in Ukraine and Russia isn’t taking pot shots at NATO aircraft flying along the Ukrainian border. An accidental conflict could of course occur but there have been lessons learned after each previous incident, starting with the Cuban missile crisis which frankly scared everybody into making sure lines of communication are always available.

I don't think there is a substantial elevated risk at the moment (it may be slightly elevated), but I do think that if NATO got directly militarily involved, i.e. actually shot at Russian targets whether inside Russia or not, then there definitely would be. That's why they aren't doing and are instead helping "on the sly" with equipment and sanctions.

 

[DustyBin]

Exactly. However, if we were to declare and, more importantly, enforce a no-fly-zone the equation would change significantly.

True, which as why I have been opposed to it from the start. As perverse as it sounds under the circumstances there are “rules” here. Whilst some people believe NATO should declare and enforce a no-fly-zone it’s simply not a risk worth taking; again the deterrent is therefore working.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

I don't think there is a substantial elevated risk at the moment (it may be slightly elevated), but I do think that if NATO got directly militarily involved, i.e. actually shot at Russian targets whether inside Russia or not, then there definitely would be. That's why they aren't doing and are instead helping "on the sly" with equipment and sanctions.

Again, you’re absolutely correct.