Russia invades Ukraine

[Gloster]

Just read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach, published sixty-five years ago, and you can see just how easy it is to end the world by mistake. And the world has become more volatile in the intervening years.

 

[Ianigsy]

The saving grace of having people as venal and self-serving as Putin and Johnson around in a situation like this is that people who've spent years, if not decades, building up a power base and feathering their own nests tend not to want said nests to go up in smoke.

The trouble is that it needs somebody with equal measures of pragmatism and vision to being about a mutually acceptable endgame and I'm not sure there's anybody like that on the world stage at the moment although Macron seems to covet the role.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The question is whether Putin would order a first strike, and if so under what circumstances. He says he wouldn’t unless Russia faced an existential threat, and for what it’s worth I believe him (for once), however what is meant by “existential threat” isn’t entirely clear.

In practice I think this would almost certainly be the case, but like Russia the UK doesn’t actually state what exactly would trigger a nuclear response.

Russian military doctrine is firmly based around the idea that nuclear weapons are only to be used in the event of an existential threat to the Russian Federation. It's very likely that this means that Moscow is in danger of falling. Putin or any other politician would likely find themselves being told firmly "no" if they tried to use nuclear weapons for anything less than a full on invasion with the rapid collapse of Russian forces. There's also the key issue: what if the weapons fail? A failed nuclear attack that resulted in a devastating nuclear disaster in Russia would almost certainly result in carnage, panic and a military coup.

With the UK, it seems pretty clear that the submarine commanders will have orders to use their own discretion. I'd expect them to head to somewhere safe to try and make contact with a friendly force, especially somewhere like one of the US Pacific bases.

 

[bspahh]

BBC - Press Office - British nukes protected by bicycle lock keys

Press Releases

www.bbc.co.uk

says that:

until they were retired in 1998, the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the bomb itself.

[...]

Newsnight reveals that RAF nuclear bombs were armed by opening a panel held by two captive screws – like a battery cover on a radio – using a thumbnail or a coin. Inside are the arming switch and a series of dials which are turned with an allen key to select high yield or low yield, air burst or ground burst and other parameters. The bomb is actually armed by inserting a cylindrical bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the bomb, although RAF crews were supposed to always work in pairs if they were near the bomb or had the keys for the bomb.

National Archive papers show that, in 1966, Chief Scientific Adviser Solly Zuckerman formally advised Defence Secretary Denis Healey that Britain needed to install PALs on its nuclear weapons to keep them safe.
However, the Royal Navy argued that its officers could be trusted and: "It would be invidious to suggest... that senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders."

Neither the Navy nor the RAF installed PAL protection on their nuclear weapons and the RAF kept their un-safeguarded bombs at airbases until they were withdrawn in 1998.

I wonder if the cylindrical bicycle locks were the ones that can be opened with the body of a ballpoint pen.

 

[DustyBin]

With the UK, it seems pretty clear that the submarine commanders will have orders to use their own discretion. I'd expect them to head to somewhere safe to try and make contact with a friendly force, especially somewhere like one of the US Pacific bases.

That’s only if it comes to letters of last resort though, and even then nobody knows what the order will be except the person who wrote it. As terrible as it sounds I think the order would be to launch, and I also think, knowing the UK would likely have been completely destroyed already, they’d do it. That’s how the deterrent works.

 

[REVUpminster]

Russian military doctrine is firmly based around the idea that nuclear weapons are only to be used in the event of an existential threat to the Russian Federation. .

Putin seems to think Ukraine is still part of the Russian Federation and want's it back.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For those of you old enough to remember "That was the week that was", in one programme they sang....

"God rest ye, merry gentlemen, lie safely in your bed,
The independent British bomb is flying overhead,
It's off to kill the Russians,
When the rest of us are dead,
Oh tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy,
Oh tidings of comfort and joy."

I put this on the thread at the end of April and it nicely fits in with current thoughts on the matter.

 

[scarby]

Just read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach, published sixty-five years ago, and you can see just how easy it is to end the world by mistake. And the world has become more volatile in the intervening years.

Has it? Evidence to support this? There is a difference between feeling that it has become more volatile and it actually becoming more volatile.

 

[DustyBin]

Has it? Evidence to support this? There is a difference between feeling that it has become more volatile and it actually becoming more volatile.

That’s an interesting point actually.

 

[najaB]

Has it? Evidence to support this? There is a difference between feeling that it has become more volatile and it actually becoming more volatile.

While it is only one measure, the Doomsday Clock was at 12 minutes to midnight in 1965 and is 100 seconds to midnight now.

 

[Yew]

Just read Nevil Shute’s On the Beach, published sixty-five years ago, and you can see just how easy it is to end the world by mistake. And the world has become more volatile in the intervening years.

If you read Romeo and Juliet, you will see just how easily a teenage romance can turn into a joint suicide.

Dramatic and emotive novelisations are called fiction for a reason.

 

[najaB]

If you read Romeo and Juliet, you will see just how easily a teenage romance can turn into a joint suicide.

Dramatic and emotive novelisations are called fiction for a reason.

True. However the scenario that lead to the nuclear exchange in the first place - miscalculations, misunderstandings and missed opportunities to de-escalate - is entirely realistic.

 

[Gloster]

Dramatic and emotive novelisations are called fiction for a reason.

But you have to write the fiction first: if you waited until after the war there would be nobody left to write the book. Even if there was, who would read it.

In the book the explanation of the causes show how one small incident can literally blow everything up. It may have been fiction, but that bit is all too plausible.

 

[scarby]

While it is only one measure, the Doomsday Clock was at 12 minutes to midnight in 1965 and is 100 seconds to midnight now.

Had it existed, I wonder where it would have been set in 1941.

 

[Yew]

True. However the scenario that lead to the nuclear exchange in the first place - miscalculations, misunderstandings and missed opportunities to de-escalate - is entirely realistic.

It may be a realistic scenario, but that does not mean that it is the most likely one. I would imagine that "someone sees an unusual reading and presumes it's a false reading" would not make a publisher much money; whereas a fantastical tale of multiple layers of safety systems failing is much more profitable. A good story doesn't mean that situation presented is in any way probable. A butterfly flapping its wings differently thousands of years ago could cause massive repercussions in the present day, but statistically things are more likely to be indistinguishable.

But you have to write the fiction first: if you waited until after the war there would be nobody left to write the book. Even if there was, who would read it.

In the book the explanation of the causes show how one small incident can literally blow everything up. It may have been fiction, but that bit is all too plausible.

Why do I get the feeling that it does not discuss the probabilities of these actions all happening simultaneously?

 

[Requeststop]

I just wish that British and International politicians would use the words Terrorist and Fascist all the time to describe the regime and Army leaders of Russia, as that is what they are, They are words that should be constantly used by all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just wish that British and International politicians would use the words Terrorist and Fascist all the time to describe the regime and Army leaders of Russia, as that is what they are, They are words that should be constantly used by all.

Putin is without doubt a fascist.

The Russian Army is not terrorist, as it is acting on behalf of a state.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Putin is without doubt a fascist.

This brings to mind the Fascist period of Italy under Mussolini in which his party symbol included the imperial Roman empire symbol of power of a bound bundle of wooden rods incorporating an axe. Perhaps Putin is also harking back in his mind of the great days of the past when the Russian empire was a great power.

 

[najaB]

It may be a realistic scenario, but that does not mean that it is the most likely one.

I don't think anyone has said that it's the most likely, just that it's one example of how an unintentional war could start.

 

[Ianigsy]

Had it existed, I wonder where it would have been set in 1941.

It’s also worth remembering that the Doomsday Clock was set up by people with an agenda and the criteria have blurred over the years. I suspect that everybody involved in creating it in 1947 is now just as dead as if the worst had happened, only from different courses.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Putin seems to think Ukraine is still part of the Russian Federation and want's it back.

He might think that, but he's not a military man and never has been. From the Russian military perspective, they're not going to start nuclear war unless there's a grave threat to the existence of Russia.

Now, if you mention chemical weapons or other nasties, I think they're very much on the cards. Slavs in general cannot stand 'losing face', which is a dangerous thing in war.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

He might think that, but he's not a military man and never has been. From the Russian military perspective, they're not going to start nuclear war unless there's a grave threat to the existence of Russia.

Now, if you mention chemical weapons or other nasties, I think they're very much on the cards. Slavs in general cannot stand 'losing face', which is a dangerous thing in war.

And to date, NATO has not made any incursions or attacks on Russian territory.

 

[kristiang85]

Has it? Evidence to support this? There is a difference between feeling that it has become more volatile and it actually becoming more volatile.

I totally agree.

Imagine if 24hr news and social media had existed at the height of the Cold War. If anything, it might have made it more likely the world tipped into war. It would have been incredibly scary to have all that information fed to you 24/7, much of it hyper-unrealistic guff and clickbait.

The world is incredibly peaceful now, even compared to 30-40 years ago.

 

[Giugiaro]

Russian military doctrine is firmly based around the idea that nuclear weapons are only to be used in the event of an existential threat to the Russian Federation. It's very likely that this means that Moscow is in danger of falling. Putin or any other politician would likely find themselves being told firmly "no" if they tried to use nuclear weapons for anything less than a full on invasion with the rapid collapse of Russian forces.

That begs the question: If a civil war erupted in Russia, with Moscow surrounded by rebels, wouldn't that be an existential threat to the Russian Federation and imminent danger of Moscow falling?

Considering how Moscow disregards its people, it wouldn't be too farfetched if the Kremlin decided to nuke dissidents. After all, who pities traitors?

And to date, NATO has not made any incursions or attacks on Russian territory.

It depends on the perspective. In the eyes of Putin, what does Russian territory mean?

As far as we are concerned, it can be all of the former USSR.
And, that being the case, NATO already incurred in Russian territory.

 

[Chingy]

The world is incredibly peaceful now, even compared to 30-40 years ago.

Not comparing the situation to the 70/80's cold war era, as I was only a nipper then so know little about that.

I doubt many would describe the current world a peaceful world currently.

 

[kristiang85]

Not comparing the situation to the 70/80's cold war era, as I was only a nipper then so know little about that.

I doubt many would describe the current world a peaceful world currently.

I don't think the world has ever been peaceful - human nature means there will be a conflict somewhere.

This is a pretty good graph showing that we are in a pretty good place compared to much of the Cold War era.

Although there has been a rise in the 2000s in the Middle East, don't forget the world population has nearly doubled since the 80s.

 

[simonw]

Had it existed, I wonder where it would have been set in 1941.

Well given nuclear weapons didn't exist and few if any believed in global warming in 1941 and giv en that these are the two largest recognised threats, then it would presumably have been set at sometime before sunrise.

 

[nw1]

Putin is without doubt a fascist.

Presumably he suffers from that syndrome in which he labels other people with his own attributes. See the way he's constantly going on about "Nazis" in Ukraine. Takes one to know one

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not comparing the situation to the 70/80's cold war era, as I was only a nipper then so know little about that.

You should have been like me, in my first year at university in 1962, when the Cuban missile crisis reached the ultimate stand-off point, to really understand what real fear of an impending all out nuclear conflict was like.

 

[adc82140]

And to date, NATO has not made any incursions or attacks on Russian territory.

This raises a question. Say for example Putin was stupid enough to invade Lithuania. Would the response of NATO be to bomb the Russians back to their borders, or would they go further and bomb Russian territory?