4 ms·

> As we sit, possible poised on the verge of a nuclear conflict in the Northern Hemisphere, maybe it's time to look at the damaging effects of the electromagnet

> As we sit, possible poised on the verge of a nuclear conflict in the Northern Hemisphere, maybe it's time to look at the damaging effects of the electromagnetic pulse that follows a nuclear detonation. I guess that's what I get for not doomscrolling like I used to, but I wasn't aware we were on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Can someone explain that for me?

closewith 1y ago
Following a devastating recent strike on the air leg of the Russian nuclear triad by Ukranian drones, some analysts believe the use of nuclear weapons by Russian has become much less unlikely.
- hcfman 1y ago
  Somehow I don't see those as related. Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality. That's the utter stupidity behind this belief in MAD keeping us safe.
  - diggan 1y ago
    > Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality Does that mean past usage also wasn't rational? Or it was rational in that case, but impossibly can be rational in the future?
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      I'm not the person you're responding to, but most of the irrationality of nuclear weapons use is when it's nuclear weapons use against an entity which also has nuclear weapons. Any use is going to lead to at a minimum an equally harmful response.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality. It wouldn't be a rational act. It would be an emotional act by an irrational dictator.
  - sharpshadow 1y ago
    Exactly, there is no official communication that the attack on nuclear capable planes is revenged with a nuclear attack. What has been very clearly communicated though is that the attack on the personal transport trains has been counted as a terrorist attack and now Russia is about to declare Ukraine leadership as a terrorist organisation. A change from special operation to a terrorist hunt involves various changes.
    - jajko 1y ago
      Those are just empty names russian tv is making up to amuse less bright part of population. Its just another war, has been since 2014, nothing more and nothing less. Lets not forget in first hours of 2022 invasion there were numerous hunting squads deployed in Kyiv with explicit orders and training to execute all Ukraine's high command, including Zelensky and all his family, and cause chaos on civilian and military infrastructure. There are numerous videos how those guys failed, were caught and mostly executed since they expected a very different situation on the ground (which is valid even as per Geneva convention, as non-marked combatants behind enemy lines would often face). One of many FSB and GRU's failures. If we want to talk about terrorism, list of items on russian side is very, very long and new items are added every day. As I said, empty words and all know it. The closer you look at russia these days at all levels the more similarities with nazi Germany you will find. History really keeps repeating itself with sometimes stunning precision.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  I'd replace "some analysts" with "some alarmists". And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating". Plus, the pre-attack triad cred of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 bombers was pretty limited. Notice that they are turboprops. From the 1950's. Hitting hard against the western nuclear powers (US/UK/France) ain't in their talent set.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating". All other comparable attacks have been considered devastating in history.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      sigh all of that history existed before the development of ICBMs and submarine launched ICBMs particularly. Which happened around the 1960s-ish depending how you count it. ICBMs, and in particular submarine based ICBMs, are what provide nuclear deterrence in a serious fashion. They arrive faster, and are effectively unstoppable at scale.
      - closewith 1y ago
        An attack can be devastating without harming any military capabilities at all. 9/11 was devastating. October 7th was devastating. Pahalgam was devastating. The drone attacks against Russian airbases were highly destructive, caused extreme shock, and were extremely impressive - the literal definitions of devastating. The response will depend on the emotional and political reality within Russia. Although they have not lost their nuclear strike capabilities, they have lost face and now Putin may feel the need to act to retain his strongman hold on the country, or risk being Ceaușescu'd.
        XorNot 1y ago
        And no one responded to any of those with strategic nuclear attacks. Russia certainly hasn't actually ramped up any nuclear rhetoric in response, which it's been happy to do at other times when it would be taken less seriously (and ramped it down significantly in late-2022 after it's US back channels communicated their intentions if any nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism was used in Ukraine).
CalRobert 1y ago
I think the idea is that Ukraine’s attack on Russian nuclear capable bombers weakens Russia’s nuclear triad (plane, sub, and ICBM nukes) and makes the situation less stable. Can’t say I blame Ukraine though.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  It's kind of like WWI. Where some minor player commits some act and the entire Western-Russo world spirals out into war. Only this time we use nuclear weapons instead of trenches and cannons. Would be an interesting case study for Brazilian historians in the future.
  - hcfman 1y ago
    Or New Zealand ones :) I imagine Peter Thiel might be spending more time down there these days :)
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      Not sure Australia-New Zealand make it? In fact, I'm fairly certain they would get hit. Just as certain as I am that North Korea would get hit. I mean, just consider it from our (US) perspective. Any Russian naval assets that are harbored in, say, North Korea; I'm not sure that we could assume they don't mean us any harm. So I'm almost certain our subs launch strikes on North Korea despite them not really being involved directly in NATO-Russian hostilities. I think the same would go for US, (or NATO), bases and NATO naval assets harbored in Australia or New Zealand. There's just no way Russian sub captains let those targets go. I think, in general, having had your nation destroyed is probably more reason for all those guys to fight each other and strike at targets of that nature. Not less.
  - tgv 1y ago
    The killing of Franz Ferdinand was just the starter shot. Everybody was already waiting in the blocks to rush.
diggan 1y ago
Maybe that's based on the "Doomsday Clock" (https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/) being as close to "human extinction" as it has ever been? Not sure, but sounds plausible the author is reading into that.
- bargainbin 1y ago
  Anyone using that exercise in melodramatics as their basis for probability of nuclear war deserves to be laughed it and subsequently ignored.
  - diggan 1y ago
    The author is writing about post-nuclear detonation, of course it's an exercise in melodramatics and theories, that's clear from the onset.
- hollerith 1y ago
  Doomsday clock is not an estimate of nuclear risk these days, but includes risks like climate change.
Nursie 1y ago
There’s been a lot of rattling of nuclear sabres of Russia’s Ukraine invasion. Ukraine managed a pretty effective attack on a few days ago, which is the last time it was brought up in a “you should probably stop supporting Ukraine with money and arms. Also, in unrelated matters, we still have a lot of nukes.” Then there was the short-lived open hostility over Kashmir a few weeks back, with newsreaders everywhere reminding us that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Imminent threat of launch? Unsure. But it’s definitely a bit more … I dunno, ‘present’ than it has been for a while.
polotics 1y ago
classic bully move of saying if you don't hand over the lunch money and keep quiet, he's going to plant that knife in your belly. Except the bully goes to the same school and his daddy (Russian's oligarchy Putin pet masters) really like their jetsetting vacations.
SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
The end of the cold war didn't also end the threat of nuclear war. Russia has threatened to use nukes if aid to Ukraine continues, while they haven't followed through on those threats it's not impossible that they will eventually.
- GJim 1y ago
  > it's not impossible that they will eventually. Please stop believing the ridiculous Russian propaganda. Using even a single tactical nuclear weapon would be game-over for Putin's Russia.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    At some point it could be game over for Putin’s Russia anyway, then what is to stop them. Israel has a policy of the Samson option that they define as destroying the enemy but they also imply they will destroy the world. Russia has made similar statements.
    - GJim 1y ago
      I despair at such naivety.
  - Calwestjobs 1y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOG_7LKWLZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOG_7LKWLZo
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Why? Because you expect we’d nuke them for it? Hadn’t heard this before and honestly am not sure why they don’t at this point, it seems like they have less and less to lose as the war goes on. I read in the NYT a few weeks ago the pentagon estimated the escalation back in dec/jan had a 50/50 shot of going nuclear.
MobiusHorizons 1y ago
We aren’t really. But people bring it up every time Russia sees a setback or embarrassment in the war with Ukraine. Look up operation spider web if you want to know the latest. It was quite an impressive strike by Ukraine on the strategic bombers Russia has been using to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine (some parked very deep in Siberia). They are also part of Russia’s strategic nuclear triad, so some people are concerned this could lead to nuclear war.

closewith 1y ago

Following a devastating recent strike on the air leg of the Russian nuclear triad by Ukranian drones, some analysts believe the use of nuclear weapons by Russian has become much less unlikely.

hcfman 1y ago
Somehow I don't see those as related. Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality. That's the utter stupidity behind this belief in MAD keeping us safe.
- diggan 1y ago
  > Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality Does that mean past usage also wasn't rational? Or it was rational in that case, but impossibly can be rational in the future?
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    I'm not the person you're responding to, but most of the irrationality of nuclear weapons use is when it's nuclear weapons use against an entity which also has nuclear weapons. Any use is going to lead to at a minimum an equally harmful response.
- closewith 1y ago
  > Any use of nukes will not be an act of rationality. It wouldn't be a rational act. It would be an emotional act by an irrational dictator.
- sharpshadow 1y ago
  Exactly, there is no official communication that the attack on nuclear capable planes is revenged with a nuclear attack. What has been very clearly communicated though is that the attack on the personal transport trains has been counted as a terrorist attack and now Russia is about to declare Ukraine leadership as a terrorist organisation. A change from special operation to a terrorist hunt involves various changes.
  - jajko 1y ago
    Those are just empty names russian tv is making up to amuse less bright part of population. Its just another war, has been since 2014, nothing more and nothing less. Lets not forget in first hours of 2022 invasion there were numerous hunting squads deployed in Kyiv with explicit orders and training to execute all Ukraine's high command, including Zelensky and all his family, and cause chaos on civilian and military infrastructure. There are numerous videos how those guys failed, were caught and mostly executed since they expected a very different situation on the ground (which is valid even as per Geneva convention, as non-marked combatants behind enemy lines would often face). One of many FSB and GRU's failures. If we want to talk about terrorism, list of items on russian side is very, very long and new items are added every day. As I said, empty words and all know it. The closer you look at russia these days at all levels the more similarities with nazi Germany you will find. History really keeps repeating itself with sometimes stunning precision.
bell-cot 1y ago
I'd replace "some analysts" with "some alarmists". And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating". Plus, the pre-attack triad cred of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 bombers was pretty limited. Notice that they are turboprops. From the 1950's. Hitting hard against the western nuclear powers (US/UK/France) ain't in their talent set.
- closewith 1y ago
  > And unless you're in the hyped-up headline business, the attack fell well short of "devastating". All other comparable attacks have been considered devastating in history.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    sigh all of that history existed before the development of ICBMs and submarine launched ICBMs particularly. Which happened around the 1960s-ish depending how you count it. ICBMs, and in particular submarine based ICBMs, are what provide nuclear deterrence in a serious fashion. They arrive faster, and are effectively unstoppable at scale.
    - closewith 1y ago
      An attack can be devastating without harming any military capabilities at all. 9/11 was devastating. October 7th was devastating. Pahalgam was devastating. The drone attacks against Russian airbases were highly destructive, caused extreme shock, and were extremely impressive - the literal definitions of devastating. The response will depend on the emotional and political reality within Russia. Although they have not lost their nuclear strike capabilities, they have lost face and now Putin may feel the need to act to retain his strongman hold on the country, or risk being Ceaușescu'd.
      - XorNot 1y ago
        And no one responded to any of those with strategic nuclear attacks. Russia certainly hasn't actually ramped up any nuclear rhetoric in response, which it's been happy to do at other times when it would be taken less seriously (and ramped it down significantly in late-2022 after it's US back channels communicated their intentions if any nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism was used in Ukraine).

CalRobert 1y ago

I think the idea is that Ukraine’s attack on Russian nuclear capable bombers weakens Russia’s nuclear triad (plane, sub, and ICBM nukes) and makes the situation less stable. Can’t say I blame Ukraine though.

bilbo0s 1y ago
It's kind of like WWI. Where some minor player commits some act and the entire Western-Russo world spirals out into war. Only this time we use nuclear weapons instead of trenches and cannons. Would be an interesting case study for Brazilian historians in the future.
- hcfman 1y ago
  Or New Zealand ones :) I imagine Peter Thiel might be spending more time down there these days :)
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    Not sure Australia-New Zealand make it? In fact, I'm fairly certain they would get hit. Just as certain as I am that North Korea would get hit. I mean, just consider it from our (US) perspective. Any Russian naval assets that are harbored in, say, North Korea; I'm not sure that we could assume they don't mean us any harm. So I'm almost certain our subs launch strikes on North Korea despite them not really being involved directly in NATO-Russian hostilities. I think the same would go for US, (or NATO), bases and NATO naval assets harbored in Australia or New Zealand. There's just no way Russian sub captains let those targets go. I think, in general, having had your nation destroyed is probably more reason for all those guys to fight each other and strike at targets of that nature. Not less.
- tgv 1y ago
  The killing of Franz Ferdinand was just the starter shot. Everybody was already waiting in the blocks to rush.

diggan 1y ago

Maybe that's based on the "Doomsday Clock" (https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/) being as close to "human extinction" as it has ever been? Not sure, but sounds plausible the author is reading into that.

bargainbin 1y ago
Anyone using that exercise in melodramatics as their basis for probability of nuclear war deserves to be laughed it and subsequently ignored.
- diggan 1y ago
  The author is writing about post-nuclear detonation, of course it's an exercise in melodramatics and theories, that's clear from the onset.
hollerith 1y ago
Doomsday clock is not an estimate of nuclear risk these days, but includes risks like climate change.

Nursie 1y ago

There’s been a lot of rattling of nuclear sabres of Russia’s Ukraine invasion. Ukraine managed a pretty effective attack on a few days ago, which is the last time it was brought up in a “you should probably stop supporting Ukraine with money and arms. Also, in unrelated matters, we still have a lot of nukes.” Then there was the short-lived open hostility over Kashmir a few weeks back, with newsreaders everywhere reminding us that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Imminent threat of launch? Unsure. But it’s definitely a bit more … I dunno, ‘present’ than it has been for a while.

polotics 1y ago

classic bully move of saying if you don't hand over the lunch money and keep quiet, he's going to plant that knife in your belly. Except the bully goes to the same school and his daddy (Russian's oligarchy Putin pet masters) really like their jetsetting vacations.

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago

The end of the cold war didn't also end the threat of nuclear war. Russia has threatened to use nukes if aid to Ukraine continues, while they haven't followed through on those threats it's not impossible that they will eventually.

GJim 1y ago
> it's not impossible that they will eventually. Please stop believing the ridiculous Russian propaganda. Using even a single tactical nuclear weapon would be game-over for Putin's Russia.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  At some point it could be game over for Putin’s Russia anyway, then what is to stop them. Israel has a policy of the Samson option that they define as destroying the enemy but they also imply they will destroy the world. Russia has made similar statements.
  - GJim 1y ago
    I despair at such naivety.
- Calwestjobs 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOG_7LKWLZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOG_7LKWLZo
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Why? Because you expect we’d nuke them for it? Hadn’t heard this before and honestly am not sure why they don’t at this point, it seems like they have less and less to lose as the war goes on. I read in the NYT a few weeks ago the pentagon estimated the escalation back in dec/jan had a 50/50 shot of going nuclear.

MobiusHorizons 1y ago

We aren’t really. But people bring it up every time Russia sees a setback or embarrassment in the war with Ukraine. Look up operation spider web if you want to know the latest. It was quite an impressive strike by Ukraine on the strategic bombers Russia has been using to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine (some parked very deep in Siberia). They are also part of Russia’s strategic nuclear triad, so some people are concerned this could lead to nuclear war.