Let There Be Nukes!

About a month ago Putin made one of his rambling comments about nukes and the media jumped on it with both feet and turned it into a story that has most Americans biting their nails….

And to this day it is still got Americans talking to themselves…..the media did their job and turned this into a major story that convinces people that the possibility of the use of a nuke is imminent….

Why not look at this possibility a little closer…..

The world watched uneasily on Feb. 24 when Russian troops, under the orders of President Vladimir Putin, invaded Ukraine.

“The prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said March 14.

Nearly 70% of Americans surveyed by the American Psychological Association said they “are worried the invasion of Ukraine is going to lead to nuclear war, and that they fear that we are at the beginning stages of World War III.”

Researchers estimate there are approximately 12,700 nuclear weapons spread between nine countries, with the United States and Russia holding the majority.

Researchers and government officials stress that a nuclear attack is very unlikely.

“We are assessing President Putin’s directive and, at this time, we see no reason to change our own alert levels,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Feb. 28.


Is there a real possibility?

Then on 27 February, Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a ‘special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia. According to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to ‘combat’ allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

Putin portrayed this as a defensive response to the imposition of economic sanctions, but outside Russia it is seen as a pathway for Russia to use its nuclear weapons in a first strike surprise attack. This is a highly dangerous situation in which mixed messaging with the potential for misinterpretation could lead to decisions being made under false assumptions – there is a well-documented history of close calls with nuclear weapons.


Senior Policy Director John Erath was quoted in a Newsweek article about how far Russian President Vladimir Putin might go to win the war in Ukraine.

“I don’t think that the Russian leadership and Putin are irrational actors,” John Erath, senior policy director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said. “The use of a nuclear weapon would lead to the possibility of a response that would be disastrous for all.”

“I don’t think it is at all likely that nuclear weapons would be used. Unfortunately, there is a greater chance of a nuclear weapon now than two weeks ago because Putin and some of his top advisers have said explicitly Russia would consider using nuclear weapons,” said Erath. “Chances are still low but are greater than they were, and that is a big problem. There is an increasing likelihood.” Read more\

Personally I think it was chest thumping…..and it had its intention….every news media and think tank took the bait and ran with it.

Next up Chemical weapons…..

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”


17 thoughts on “Let There Be Nukes!

  1. Maybe small nuclear strike would be possible, and dont forget there is also Cernobyl, which could be act as a possible disaster and prediction area too. I think anything is possible, if craziness is taking place furthermore! Best wishes, Michael

  2. Using tactical nukes in eastern Europe would be disastrous for Russia. I suppose it depends if he is willing to allow mutual destruction. But as his main tagets are the grain fields and seaports of Ukraine, why would he destroy them? It’s a hard one to judge at the moment.
    Best wishes, Pete.

  3. “Researchers and government officials stress that a nuclear attack is very unlikely.” — Isn’t this the same kind of reasoning that the researchers and government officials were using when they were saying that even though Putin was putting his war machine into place near Ukraine there was little likelihood that he would actually invade? —

    Then there is this expert telling us, ““I don’t think it is at all likely that nuclear weapons would be used. Unfortunately, there is a greater chance of a nuclear weapon now than two weeks ago because Putin and some of his top advisers have said explicitly Russia would consider using nuclear weapons,” said Erath. “Chances are still low but are greater than they were, and that is a big problem. There is an increasing likelihood.”

    Notice how this “Expert” begins his arguments with “I don’t think it is at all likely that nuclear weapons would be used.” and ends it with “There is an increasing likelihood.”

    If that isn’t a scrambled message and it makes no more sense that the other expert telling us that he does not believe that Putin and His Henchmen are irrational actors when their very actions, in deed, are irrational in the context of maintaining peace in the world. Putin is no more Irrational than Hitler or anybody else like that, I will agree.

    But all this head-in-the-sand-ism by the experts is not helpful at all when everyone can see the insanity of what is happening and seeing that all parties are in denial about the truth of what is taking place and what the path forward is for the aggressors and the victims.

    We have had our Chamberlain moment .. what we are waiting for now is our Pearl Harbor moment.

      1. There should be panic gripping the country … Putin is dangerous … if we are not careful, we might see some of our own examples of Mariupol. People need to wake up and start demanding that Biden stop sending munitions to Ukraine. It is not our fight. But if NATO isn’t careful it could quickly become our fight .. and we are not prepared for it.

      2. It is already our fight….all we need ix the deployment of ground troops and then we will be full member……chuq

      3. The whole thing is starting out just like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. So you are right!

      4. You would think that old farts like me have long memories and they should try something different to keep from being called out. chuq

  4. I dabbled with this subject in a previous post…

    But to the greater point… if Putin uses a tactical battlefield nuke the question will be, just what would be a proportional response, by Ukraine or NATO or the allies? Using such a nuke is obviously by design has some low yield nuclear effect.. but what exactly would be “low yield” since that itself comes in variations. You wanna take out a neighborhood? A small town or a large city? I really have no idea the effects one of these things might have on radiation impact in the target area lasting a period of time, making the target area uninhabitable.. or lasting effects of radiation poisoning and cancer of those outside people the target area. Point being, if Putin uses one of these at any yield the target area is obviously a complete meltdown. There’s no going in after to re-build any time soon, if at all. Right now the Ukrainians are fighting to the last man (or woman)… so when you have a determined enemy like that it’s not likely a battlefield nuke or even a conventional nuke is going to make those folks surrender by any means. It’s the Alamo over there.

    Returning to proportional response, the impulse would be a response to take out the weapons being used to send the nuke over… be it an artillery weapon or a launch site. But given his using a nuke weapon at all just kicks the entire war up a critical notch. There’s much more being initiated here than just lobbing over an artillery shell and then taking out the cannon that lobbed it. We would now have a moral component with international consequences, not to mention a target area contaminated up for years to come… I would think. A proportional response at all means no one really wants to go any further in the eye-for-an-eye thing than is necessary. If Putin uses a tactical nuke locally that’s no reason to respond with a full salvo of ICBM’s onto Moscow… or some measure of common sense might think that.

    But since we are playing a war game scenario here… if Putin used one or two of these things, us, NATO, our allies DO NOT respond with any nukes in kind. NATO should immediately engage with full (conventional) air power on to eliminate missile and/or artillery sites inside Ukraine, and into Russia against artillery and launch positions as they reveal themselves. NATO will dominate the skies in the region right off anyway.
    NATO continues to support the Ukrainians on the ground with full air support, establishing a no-fly over all of Ukraine.
    During this phase likely it’s prudent to not send large numbers of NATO ground troops into Ukraine until the threat of Putin continuing with tactical nukes has been reduced or eliminated.
    In the background every effort should be made, clandestinely, or otherwise, to continue pounding outside news into the Russian public by whatever means possible to try and force internal stress against Putin.

    That’s my “phase one” response to his using tactical nukes.

      1. Honestly, there’s currently one helluva mop up as it is. The results of a nuke, low yield or not, just makes it take longer, and last longer to clean up… including the long term human toll. Clean up might be a while anyway. I would guess a nuke going off anywhere in the world would put the U.S. immediately into Defcon 4. I can’t imagine any mop up would happen until the threats have gone away.

      2. Good point…..I can understand Europe’s apprehension….they would get the brunt….but I still do not think Putin will resort to a nuke. chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.