Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here’s why Putin won’t use nukes in Ukraine — Pass it on. (Robert X. Cringely)
Robert X. Cringely ^ | March 2022 | Robert X. Cringely

Posted on 10/02/2022 4:55:54 PM PDT by dennisw

If you are wondering what the damage of such a limited nuclear war would look like, the Chernobyl nuclear accident from 1986 provides a pretty good example, since that disaster site lies between Kiev and Russia and Belarus. Above you’ll find a map showing the Cesium 137 fallout from Chernobyl. If you want to know what bombing Kiev would do, just move the Chernobyl spot down and a little to the right and see where the blotches fall.

But tactical nukes aren’t a nuclear accident, you say, the map would be different. Yes, it would be BIGGER. Chernobyl melted DOWN while bomb and missile and artillery fallout bounce UP into the atmosphere and spread much farther.

Most of the fallout of a Kiev attack, in fact, would land in Russia. The cities of Bryansk (427,000 population), Kaluuga (338,000), Kursk (409,000), Orel (324,000), and Tula (468,000) would all be hit, not by weapon strikes, but by fallout. That’s just under two million people exposed in those five cities, not counting folks in the countryside between.

Two million is approximately the population of Kiev, or was before a lot of those people fled west.

We can estimate civilian deaths from radiation, from heat, from atmospheric over-pressure, but I’ll just jump here to the bottom line that about one million Russians would die from such a nuclear attack, both directly and through greatly increased cancer deaths in later years.

So a nuclear attack on Kiev would kill more Russians than Ukrainians.

Moving the attack to, say, Odessa would kill more Ukrainians, but it would completely destroy the Ukrainian agricultural economy for a century and still kill tens of thousands of Russians.

Now consider the supposed military justification for such an attack. Ukraine clams to have killed 15,000 Russian soldiers while Russia says its losses are more like 1500. I don’t care which number is correct because Putin killing one million of his own people to avenge 1500 or 15,000 deaths makes no sense.

He’s just whining.

The Russians are not evacuating those five cities, so Putin is either willing to lose a million Russian citizens or he has no real intention of launching nukes.

I’m guessing it’s a bluff.

And what if it isn’t a bluff? What if Putin actually goes ahead and pushes that button saying — as bullies are wont to do — “Look what you made me do.”

IF Putin pushes that button, it will set in motion a series of very quick events as half a dozen nations take action not against Russia, but against Putin personally. Navy SEALS and Chinese commandos will fall from the sky, but Putin will already be dead, killed by his own people, whether any nukes are actually launched or not.

EXCERPT ^^^^^^^^^^^


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bloggers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 10/02/2022 4:55:54 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Robert X. Cringely-—— Remember this guy. I was a PBS series he did circa 2002 (actually 1996) about Microsoft and the early computer companies

wiki-—
Cringely in two documentaries based on his writings: Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires (1996) and Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet (1998)


2 posted on 10/02/2022 5:01:55 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Yeah, I don’t see it happening either, but I have a real suspicion that Putin’s going to obliterate Kiev or something and then stand back and see what the west does.


3 posted on 10/02/2022 5:11:25 PM PDT by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

What Cringely wrote about the fallout from Putin using nukes on the Ukraine would fall on Russia is correct. The prevailing winds are from the west. If Putin would use nukes, then he would end up killing thousands of his own people.

The question is: Is he desperate or mad enough to do it?


4 posted on 10/02/2022 5:11:32 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

I may be completely wrong but I was under the impression that Russia had a supply of tactical nukes; suitcase bombs that I would imagine could be delivered by drones.

Would these lead to widespread radiation contamination or be more limited? These would be the kind of nukes they might imagine would not lead to Armageddon.

Hope someone can enlighten me here.


5 posted on 10/02/2022 5:26:33 PM PDT by organicchemist (Without the second amendment, the first amendment is just talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Putin is looking for a way out and he can save face and his life in the aftermath of this folly. And the West isn’t giving it to him. The only way nukes work for him is if the media can convince people that it came from Ukraine.


6 posted on 10/02/2022 5:30:38 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (DJT24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: organicchemist

An EMP attack over the battlefield is possible. A high altitude nuke blast. Would we count this as a nuclear attack, or not?

I think not. We would not respond with a conventional nuclear missile, but we might do a retaliatory EMP blast ourselves over Russia.


7 posted on 10/02/2022 5:37:26 PM PDT by Not_Who_U_Think
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Not_Who_U_Think; All
Yup. And EMP would not kill anyone directly and leave no nuclear footprint. For EMP reference everyone should read: One Second After.
8 posted on 10/02/2022 5:57:13 PM PDT by Cobra64 (Common sense isn’t common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

There have been many Robert C Cringelys. They have always been IT rumor guys, hardly expert.


9 posted on 10/02/2022 6:13:29 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (What was 35% of the Rep. Party is now 85%. And it’s too late to turn back—Mac Stipanovich )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Putin’s on death’s door, so what the hell does he care? But the Russians might want to live somewhat longer.


10 posted on 10/02/2022 6:19:52 PM PDT by Theophilous Meatyard III
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not_Who_U_Think

Whatever happened to good old Neutron Bombs?


11 posted on 10/02/2022 6:59:29 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: organicchemist

There was a description of a US tactical nuke that took five men to carry it via HALO drop.

Then it had to be assembled on the ground.

That was during the Vietnam War. It would have disrupted the Ho Chi Minh trail if used.

I’m not sure what the Russians have.


12 posted on 10/02/2022 7:04:58 PM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

He used to have a column in InfoWorld magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely


13 posted on 10/02/2022 7:07:08 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; bitt; ...

P


14 posted on 10/02/2022 7:10:13 PM PDT by bitt (<IMG SRC=' 'width=50%> )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Let’s say Putin orders his officers to nuke a target (either at the West or Ukraine or both), I think they are not going to carry it out. They might turn on Putin instead.


15 posted on 10/02/2022 7:14:24 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

The smaller the nuclear weapon the tighter the tolerances have to be and the more often the weapons have to be overhauled. There minimum sizes for critical mass and hence yields of bombs. The Russians have shown the world that they aren’t very good at following through with maintenance schedules for their conventional weapon systems and logistics. I can’t imagine their nuclear weapons are any better maintained, especially as they have so many of them. The smaller weapons are more likely to be duds or dirty bombs.


16 posted on 10/02/2022 7:15:10 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

There were about 100 atmospheric tests in Nevada, not counting underground tests that vented or “Plowshare” events. Radioactive elements from those tests covered most of the US east of the site to varying degrees. Yes, there were problems, but not the apocalypse envisioned here.


17 posted on 10/02/2022 7:17:07 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf; organicchemist

As early as the 1950s army Special Forces had backpack nukes.


18 posted on 10/02/2022 7:19:16 PM PDT by ansel12 (NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Putin isn’t going to use nukes because doing so would make Russia politically radioactive. Nobody will buy their energy and Russians will be eating grass.


19 posted on 10/02/2022 7:20:50 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Yes, prevailing winds are from the West. But Putin could presumably wait until favorable winds happen.


20 posted on 10/02/2022 7:30:11 PM PDT by AZJeep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson