Nuclear war has become thinkable again... we need a reminder of what it means

[babylonsister]

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/nuclear-war-has-become-thinkable-again-we-need-a-reminder-of-what-it-means?CMP=share_btn_fb

Nuclear war has become thinkable again – we need a reminder of what it means
Paul Mason

As Trump faces down North Korea, it’s alarming to think that most of the world’s nuclear warheads are now in the hands of men who are prepared to use them
‘This sudden mania for speaking of nuclear warfare, among men with untrammeled power, should be the No 1 item on the news.’

Monday 17 April 2017 09.45 EDT
Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 03.43 EDT


Last week, Donald Trump deployed his superweapon Moab, the “mother of all bombs” – 10 tonnes of high explosive detonated in mid-air in such a way as to kill, it is claimed, 94 Isis militants. The Russian media immediately reminded us that their own thermobaric bomb – the “father of all bombs” – was four times as powerful: “Kids, meet Daddy,” was how the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today put it. But these are child’s play compared with nuclear weapons. The generation waking up to today’s Daily Mail strapline – “World holds its breath” – may need reminding what a nuclear weapon does.

The one dropped on Hiroshima measured 15 kilotons; it destroyed everything within 200 yards and burned everybody within 2km. The warhead carried by a Trident missile delivers a reported 455 kilotons of explosive power. Drop one on Bristol and the fireball is 1km wide; third-degree burns affect everybody from Portishead to Keynesham, and everything in a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash is contaminated with radiation. In this scenario, 169,000 people die immediately and 180,000 need emergency treatment. Given that there are only 101,000 beds in the entire English NHS, you can begin to imagine the apocalyptic scenes for those who survive. (You can model your own scenario here.)

But a Trident missile carries up to eight of these warheads, and military planners might drop them in a pattern around one target, creating a firestorm along the lines that conventional Allied bombing created in Hamburg and Tokyo during the second world war.

I don’t wish to alarm you, but right now the majority of the world’s nuclear warheads are in the hands of men for whom the idea of using them is becoming thinkable.

For Kim Jong-un, it’s thinkable; for Vladimir Putin, it’s so thinkable that every major Russian wargame ends with a “nuclear de-escalation” phase: that is, drop one and offer peace. On 22 December last year, Trump and Putin announced, almost simultaneously, that they were going to expand their nuclear arsenals and update the technology.


more...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/nuclear-war-has-become-thinkable-again-we-need-a-reminder-of-what-it-means?CMP=share_btn_fb

[Lee-Lee]

1. Russia's "Nuclear De-Escalation" is a frightening new doctrine

It basically is this-

If Russia is engaged in a fight, let's say in theory they invade more of Ukraine, and the US or another nuclear power intervenes to the point they are losing they will make limited nuclear strikes, maybe just one or two, then immediately say "OK, lets back down now, you withdraw your forces before this gets more out of hand." This is based on the assumption that if they strike a western nation only at a military target or two then we won't respond with more strikes risking a strike on population centers.

For example they would do a strike on a US Carrier battle group at sea, or on a remote US or allied base like Edwards AFB or Diego Garcia. Limited or no civilian casualties, only military, huge shock value.

They have published this doctrine publicly and made sure it is known that all their war games and simulations end using that scenario now.

It is, essentially, a blackmail to the world to not try and stop anything they want to do militarily because they always have the nuclear option on the table as a matter of doctrine.

Were if anyone but Putin I would call it a bluff. But he would do it in a heartbeat if he thought it would bring the end he wants.

[frankieallen]

2. I doubt it, Trump is itching to use a nuclear weapon, and Putin knows this.

There is no way Putin would risk total annihilation by launching a nuclear weapon.

[nycbos]

3. The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost..

... if you keep it a secret.

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Blue_Tires]

4. brilliant brilliant movie