It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today.
It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media.
In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then.
[0] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...
Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that might just be too long.
When I see many different people parroting the same unusual scientific claim on Internet sites, I tend to think there's a single source with an agenda. I hope this isn't true, because it made me worry that some organized group was trying to promote the idea that "nuclear war isn't so bad," which is... yikes.
But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people need...)
I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.
"the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..."
"The film eventually premiered at the National Film Theatre in London, on 13 April 1966, where it ran until 3 May.[4] It was then shown abroad at several film festivals, including the Venice one where it won the Special Prize. It also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967."
[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
As time goes on, the current generation will become more and more removed from the original conditions that resulted in the nuclear arms race, and more disconnected from the potential realities that nuclear war could introduce.
At a time when Russia continues to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, it seems appropriate to continue reminding folks about what this actually entails. I suspect the average "let them try" commenter on Facebook/Twitter has very little concept of what this actually means.
If there's one category that warrants scary writing, nuclear war would be that category. It's pretty much impossible to explore the topic without touching on some rather terrifying implications.
Game theory shows us that war should only occur because of these unknowns (each side believes they will win). Thus given this new tech and the uncertainty on both sides, MAD is arguably weaker than ever before.
It's not scare journalism to remind people of this.
No thank you!
So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have.
Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.
[0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...
The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own."
Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.
> the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease
Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?
