Europe at War

[Madiel]

European powers carving up the world between them... yes, that worked MARVELLOUSLY in Africa.

[steve ridgway]

Correction: it took Americans to show the French how to deal with a defeated Germany.

Indeed.

[JBS]

European powers carving up the world between them... yes, that worked MARVELLOUSLY in Africa.

And even better in the Middle East...

[Todd]

Correction: it took Americans to show the French how to deal with a defeated Germany.

I was not referring to the Great War.  After Europeans bungled the armistice so badly, Americans had to come in and reimage magnanimous-ish victory less than a generation later.  We still live in that world.  It must now fade away, having outlived its usefulness.

[Florestan]

tactical nucleair bombs we survive too

That's doubtful, Harry. A tactical nuke is still a nuke, not a grenade. It can produce millions of deaths instantly and as many in the decades to come and  it can turn large areas into waste lands in which nobody would be able to live for the rest of the foreseeable future. Imagine it dropped on Amsterdam, what do you think would happen to the whole Netherlands and how will you survive it?

[Todd]

That's doubtful, Harry. A tactical nuke is still a nuke, not a grenade. It can produce millions of deaths instantly and as many in the decades to come and  it can turn large areas into waste lands in which nobody would be able to live for the rest of the foreseeable future. Imagine it dropped on Amsterdam, what do you think would happen to the whole Netherlands and how will you survive it?

You can simulate that if you want: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

In Amsterdam, the estimated death toll of a 0.3 kiloton surface blast is 4310, and injuries number 6550.  I am not familiar with Russian tactical nuclear capabilities or yields, but the weapons are designed specifically to reduce the area of destruction and are primarily designed for battlefield use. 

The reporter Hans Nichols stated last Friday on Washington Week that he had become unnerved by the loose talk surrounding nuclear weapons in official Washington circles.  There have always been people who wanted nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies.

[Todd]

A forty year old cartoon has resurfaced.  This time everyone has learned their lesson.

[Florestan]

You can simulate that if you want: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

In Amsterdam, the estimated death toll of a 0.3 kiloton surface blast is 4310, and injuries number 6550.  I am not familiar with Russian tactical nuclear capabilities or yields, but the weapons are designed specifically to reduce the area of destruction and are primarily designed for battlefield use.

The only Russian option is Topol and it yields 755,720 deaths and 762,880 injuries.

The reporter Hans Nichols stated last Friday on Washington Week that he had become unnerved by the loose talk surrounding nuclear weapons in official Washington circles.  There have always been people who wanted nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies.

You should hear the language used on Russian TV --- totally delirious. The latest example is threatening the UK with sinking them into the sea by use of a Poseidon thermonuclear submarine missile which would cause a 500-meter tsunami wave. Last week they said that a nuclear war is no big deal because eventually we will all die but Russians would go to Heaven and their enemies to Hell. I doubt anything even renotely similar has been said in Washington.

[Todd]

I hope we'll never have to check the estimations against reality.

No sensible person wants to find out.

Last week they said that a nuclear war is no big deal because eventually we will all die but Russians would go to Heaven and their enemies to Hell. I doubt anything even renotely similar has been said in Washington.

Certainly not publicly, and it is highly doubtful that such proclamations would be made in private, but one never knows.  Mr Nichols' point was that there has been a demonstrable shift in tone among people who make important decisions. 

[Todd]

The only Russian option is Topol and it yields 755,720 deaths and 762,880 injuries.

That is not a tactical nuclear weapon.

[MusicTurner]

Plans from the Eastern Block discovered recently, and published in a study here just a couple of months ago, found one plan that meant an attack with 131 nuclear bombs just on tiny Denmark. Denmark has had a strategic importance due to controlling traffic to the Baltic Sea, etc. The bombing effect would equal about 900 bombs on Great Britain (and 50,000 on the surface of Russia itself). Obviously, it would mean total annihilation, and the nuclear polution and winter afterwards would take care of the rest, maybe a few people surviving say on places like St. Helena, the Falklands and Pitcairn Island, plus perhaps in some underground facilities.

The only other plan generally known to the public here contained an initial bomb on the historical town of Roskilde, 30 km away from Copenhagen, and then demanding complete surrender.

Most likely these plans are still existing, as regards the overall bombing effect and targets generally. As well as others; I guess computer powers have multiplied individual scenarios.

[Florestan]

That is not a tactical nuclear weapon.

Actually, I don't quite understand the difference between tactical and strategical nuke. Which is which?

[Harry]

Actually, I don't quite understand the difference between tactical and strategical nuke. Which is which?

Less powerful than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are intended to devastate enemy targets in a specific area without causing widespread destruction and radioactive fallout. The United States began developing lightweight nuclear warheads in the 1950s.

[Florestan]

Less powerful than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are intended to devastate enemy targets in a specific area without causing widespread destruction and radioactive fallout. The United States began developing lightweight nuclear warheads in the 1950s.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not tactical, then.

[Todd]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not tactical, then.

No.  The distinction ends up being basically worthless.  Tactical nuclear weapons have never been deployed.  No one knows how a war would escalate were they used.  The theory is that a war may not escalate if tactical nuclear weapons are used.  People can rationalize anything.

The US still has and develops tactical nuclear weapons, but it has also come up with a different approach to warfare.  US conventional weapons have destructive capacity sufficient to mimic the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons.  People can rationalize anything.

[Florestan]

No.  The distinction ends up being basically worthless.  Tactical nuclear weapons have never been deployed.  No one knows how a war would escalate were they used.  The theory is that a war may not escalate if tactical nuclear weapons are used.  People can rationalize anything.

The US still has and develops tactical nuclear weapons, but it has also come up with a different approach to warfare.  US conventional weapons have destructive capacity sufficient to mimic the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons.  People can rationalize anything.

Most Romanian commentators consider that the truly paranoid nuclear rhetoric of the Russians is just propaganda for internal consumption and that the top military commanders are rational enough not to allow the use of nukes even if Putin orders it (which they also say is unlikely). I do hope they are right.

[Todd]

Most Romanian commentators consider that the truly paranoid nuclear rhetoric of the Russians is just propaganda for internal consumption and that the top military commanders are rational enough not to allow the use of nukes even if Putin orders it (which they also say is unlikely). I do hope they are right.

I still think a nuclear escalation is unlikely.  It strikes me as the most intense form of saber rattling. 

[Todd]

Here's something a bit bizarre, Noam Chomsky saying that Donald Trump is the one senior statesman who has a sensible plan for Ukraine.  And Chomsky still thinks Trump may be the most dangerous man alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YeRX6ZYXH0

[drogulus]

     The nuclear bluff is not believed, not by Russian TV commentators and not by Western governments. Nothing would stop Russia from using a tactical nuclear weapon if it made sense to do so. What we see is an attempt at a nuclear bluff which is not turning out as badly. It just didn't work.

     Russia would like to find a way out of this disaster before the US heavy weapons arrive at the front lines in large numbers. If Russia can be said to have a bargaining position, it will only worsen.

     Perhaps the US and Russia should talk. Perhaps they are talking right now.

[krummholz]

Here's something a bit bizarre, Noam Chomsky saying that Donald Trump is the one senior statesman who has a sensible plan for Ukraine.  And Chomsky still thinks Trump may be the most dangerous man alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YeRX6ZYXH0

Interesting, but I'm not sure how Chomsky sees that as a possible out at this point, since NATO has in fact expanded since Bush 41 made his similar proposal. Given that I don't see a contraction of NATO as a realistic possibility, I should think that ship has sailed.

Granted, I did not listen to the whole interview as it is quite long.