What Could Be Worse Than Thousands Killed by Russians in Ukraine?

[MineralMan]

How about hundreds of thousands or millions killed in a nuclear exchange in Europe, the United States, and Russia?

That is the question under consideration by NATO and the US. It's an important question. It's a frightening question.

I'm glad it's not a decision I have to make. Very glad.

[brush]

1. That's absolutely the reality. And who knows how long...

the global fallout will last, meaning more deaths in the future?

[MineralMan]

3. Many unknowns, for sure.

It's a heavy dilemma to face. For me, the answer is relatively easy, though. Numbers matter.

Children and adults are starving in Africa. There is genocide in Myanmar. There are deadly civil wars in many nations around the world.

Of course, those don't involve Caucasians, so, I guess we don't need to bring them into the discussion.

[brush]

11. Your last graph nailed it.

[ruet]

13. JFC With the False Equivalency Going on Here.

WE CANNOT GET INVOLVED IN EVERY CIVIL WAR IN EVERY TWO BIT DICTATORSHIP ON EARTH! They don't want us meddling in their affairs. They didn't ask us to be in their countries. If we decided, unilaterally, to involve ourselves in these conflicts it would be bad for all parties. We know this. We have seen the results of 3rd parties getting involved in civil wars. Ukraine is a democracy. Ukraine is being invaded by a foreign power. Ukraine has asked for help. They want us to be there. I'm sorry that you are so terrified but these are disingenuous arguments.

[MineralMan]

16. I see. OK, then...

Do you dispute my numbers in the OP? If so, please explain.

[ruet]

18. You Should Have Left It At The Numbers...

instead of delving into nonsense. They make for a compelling argument. Nongermane whataboutism does not.

[MineralMan]

30. Below, I posted a link to a list of ongoing conflicts.

Here's that link again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

How many of these are in the news?

It's all germane.

[ruet]

38. Civil Wars, Insurgencies and Drug Wars.

You completely disregarded what I said and doubled down. So do you want us to be involved in all of them or should we be involved in nothing? Turn inward for a century maybe.

[MineralMan]

39. What I want is irrelevant, since I have no power to get what I want.

And now, I'm done with the argument between us.

[ruet]

41. "What I want is irrelevant".

LOL! You can't answer that question lest you expose yourself. That crap might go over for some but it's not going to for me. You provide a laundry list of all the bad things in the world that stop us from doing a good thing but, it turns out, you don't really want to do much of anything about anything.

Bye, Felicia.

[brush]

28. Everbody on the planet is involved in a nuclear war. Jesus!

[LuckyCharms]

21. Your last paragraph hit home with me because...

For some reason, this very morning I started asking myself just how bad the other atrocities in the world are, and I came to the conclusion that I don't know.

And the reason I don't know is because I don't pay enough attention.

And I do not feel good about myself in that regard.

K&R for your post.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. That's the reason that paragraph is there.

We don't hear about other conflicts in our daily news. Most of us don't even know they exist. Here's a list of ongoing armed conflicts with casualty numbers, from Wikipedia. I've posted this link before on DU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

[LuckyCharms]

27. Thanks very much for this list, MineralMan. n/t

[MineralMan]

34. You're more than welcome.

[yagotme]

2. Putin cannot be in his right mind.

Not in a civil manner, anyway. He's got that "I'm going to rule the world" thing going, and I don't trust him to NOT push the button, if he actually gets backed into a corner. Perhaps when he's finally gone, his successor will see the madness of nuclear weapons, and Russia can get rid of theirs, and the rest of the world follow suit. Well, it's a dream, anyway.

[MineralMan]

4. He is not. I agree.

Perhaps that is a clue about where we should be looking to stop this insanity. In fact, maybe it is. I don't know.

[LiberatedUSA]

7. I don't suppose we can...

…offer a billion or two dollar reward for the individual or group of individuals who kill him with proof without that being deemed an act of war.

Thinking of that Mel Gibson movie where he took the money his son’s kidnappers wanted and turned it into a reward; which caused them to turn on each other.

[brush]

19. He's crazy all right. But Putin probably has a bunker...

five stories underground beneath rebar and concrete stocked with all the caviar, champagne, food and water he and his entourage will need for the fallout to subside to a livable level...oxygen masks too just to be sure for when they emerge to gloat and say "take that Joe Biden."

But seriously, I'm sure that's in place, as are facilities for our leadership so stock some water and canned food at least. It's getting serious.

[Chainfire]

5. I will only argue with your number, replace the M with a B.

Once the exchange of nuclear weapons gets out of the starting blocks, I believe it would immediately escalate to world wide emptying or arsenals. In for a penny, in for a pound...I am glad that I don't have to shoulder that responsibility. We should be very thankful that we have a decent, mature, experienced, and savvy man leading our nation. Personally, I would rather view the end of ten thousand years of civilization from the comfort and security of my grave.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, I'm thinking of a relatively limited nuclear exchange, actually.

Depending on how much we know, it might be possible to limit the Russian capabilities to some sort of minimum. I don't know if that is possible, but I suspect it is, so that's where my numbers come from.

The Russian ground armies are not very capable, it seems. If that disorganization and low level of preparedness is similar in their strategic forces, they might not actually be capable of a massive nuclear strike, especially if there is a plan to make such a strike impossible from Russia very quickly.

You're correct, though, that a prolonged and extensive nuclear war would be far, far more devastating. I'm just thinking that wouldn't occur.

[yagotme]

10. Require a first strike on their permanent bunkers,

but their mobiles/subs are going to be the real problem. That's why it's set up the way it is. No one strike can remove ALL weapons from reaction.

[MineralMan]

12. Yes. Do we know where their subs are?

I'm guessing that we do. But, I don't know.

[yagotme]

33. Probably Mostly.

It only takes 1...

[MineralMan]

36. But, you see, I'm talking about why

a limited nuclear exchange could occur, rather than an extended global one.

[yagotme]

42. My worry is who is going to set the "limit".

Poo-tin? If we drop a low-yield nuke on his frontline force, he's the type to one-up us, and drop a higher yield on us. And on and on. The only way to keep him from actually responding, is what I said above. First strike on bunkers, take out mobile/air/sub delivery systems. Which will be an all-out endeavor. As in "War Games", nobody is going to win.

[MineralMan]

43. I am not a military strategist, nor do I have any information

about what intelligence we have regarding any of this. So, I am not going to discuss scenarios that might occur.

I can't. Others, however, do have such information. We may well know Vladimir Putin's precise location at all times. That would not surprise me, actually.

[yagotme]

47. Not military, but human nature.

Drop a nuke, or just a MOAB on Poo-tin, it won't go well with the Russian hierarchy. We would have to invade their airspace, be it a plane, or missile, and that's just not kosher politically. Those (still) in command in Russia would probably demand some type of retaliation, Irregardless of their feelings for VP. Would you have thought it OK for Russia to launch a nuke against our White House, when the Orange Menace was in residence? That's what the Russians will feel if we do it to them.

[Chainfire]

40. I am not as optimistic as to how rapidly things could get out of hand.

A prolonged and extensive nuclear war only takes a half hour from start to finish. Not a lot of time for contemplation. If we nuke Moscow, would China figure that they were next and move to strike before it was too late? Of course it is all speculation, you and I may have different brands of crystal balls.

I believe that it could all be triggered by using tactical nukes against massed troops on a local scale. If Putin decided that he was going down, is there any reason to believe that the despot wouldn't want to take the world with him? Crazy people think that way. At least, in his defense, the survivors would always remember his name....

In all fairness, I freely admit that I have become quite cynical and pessimistic in my old age. I hope that I am just a sad old man who is clueless in the understanding of the way the world really works. In my youth, I would have liked to think that upon my deathbed, I would be happy for the prospects for the people that came after me, but as I approach my grave, the future looks dark and forbidding. It may be my own psychosis, but it really looks to me like the good people of the world are losing ground, every day, to the evil among us.

[MineralMan]

44. I have no crystal ball at all.

I simply do not have enough information to generate any sort of model of what might happen. I assume others have far more information than I do, but none of those people are in my circle of acquaintances.

So, I can do nothing but wait and see what happens.

[Chainfire]

45. We are on the same page.

[sarisataka]

6. I saw a study that said

With 60 minutes of the first nuclear attack, it did not matter who or where, 34 million people would be killed in the escalating exchange.

[yagotme]

9. War Games movie.

80's cheesiness, but a lesson is in there somewhere...

[sarisataka]

14. Essentially, I believe it was Princeton

That did the study and concluded that once the first nuclear explosion occurs, action would move faster than analysis. Even countries that are able to determine they are not at risk from the first attack would be fired on by opponents who were unable to reach that same conclusion.

A spiral of escalation is all but inevitable.

[yagotme]

35. After the first 100 or so go off,

the trades winds will take care of the rest of the planet.

[ripcord]

15. So basically Putin has a free hand because we won't stand up to him

I wonder how firm the commitment is from many of the America Firsters to protect all NATO countries, they will probably use the same arguments to try and avoid it.

[MineralMan]

20. Uh, no. His actions so far are limited to Ukraine.

We are supplying arms to Ukraine - we, including NATO. We are supplying material support to the Ukrainians.

The hope is that Russia's attacks will be limited. And so they have been. The Ukrainians have done quite a job of spoiling the Russian's plans.

However, many have died and much has been destroyed. Still, it has not expanded beyond Ukraine, so my question in the OP stands. Which would be worse?

We are trying to prevent the second half of my question. I hope we succeed in that. We should all hope for that.

[ripcord]

32. I'm surprised so many don't see the parallels between now and 1939

We watch the atrocities unfold and are glad it is them not us. When you don't stand up to someone like Putin or Hitler it emboldens them, I know you think the sanctions will work but Putin sees how he kept going despite all that as a victory. We all know the sanctions against him will fall as soon as the attacks stop one way to the other because people are going to make money so there will be no long term consequences for Russia. Since there are no consequences and everyone is obviously afraid of him why shouldn't he continue his push?

[MineralMan]

37. I suggest that you fully understand neither what I'm saying,

nor the realities involved. You want to "stand up to" Putin. We are doing that. And there will be long-term consequences. I am saying that risking a nuclear exchange is not in the cards. Neither you nor I are in charge of any of that, of course.

[ripcord]

46. Som will you say the same thing when a NATO country is attacked?

Will you want to stand up and risk a nuclear strike then?

[Doodley]

24. How would you stand up to a crazy man in a restaurant who has a machine gun aimed at your family?

There is no easy answer.

[ruet]

26. That Seems to Be The Gist.

The US should cut it's $700 billion defense budget by, at least, half and just ramp up production of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. I mean WTF are we doing wasting all of this money on power projection?

[Doodley]

17. Never should the entire survival of the world depend on one or two men. It's only a matter of time

until one will press the button on a whim.

[MineralMan]

22. So it has depended for decades.

So far, the button has not been pushed. With luck, it will not be pushed now, either.

[old as dirt]

23. The fall of a nuclear superpower is what that old Chinese proverb calls "interesting times".

Last time around was scary, and back then this guy was in charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

[cilla4progress]

29. Anyone else feel like

this will never end?

Or not end well?

This all fulfills my prophecy/ prediction: that humans would go mad when the reality of climate collapse became manifest.

Nothing left to lose...

[MineralMan]

31. I have never been a fatalist.

There's always something we can do to limit disastrous results. The question is whether or not we will do that.