If COVID taught us anything, the government is going to let these drugs expire useless, incinerate them, refuse to replenish them, and import loads of fakes when an actual crisis hits.
Snark aside, this may not be the case this time around. Relevant snippet:
> 2004 Project Bioshield Act and $290 million in Project BioShield designated funding to purchase this supply of the drug. Amgen will maintain this supply in vendor-managed inventory. This approach decreases life-cycle management costs for taxpayers because doses that near expiration can be rotated into the commercial market for rapid use prior to expiry and new doses can be added to the government supply.
I'm guessing $290M covers both the cost of the drugs as well as storage for some number of years. Would be nice to know for how long.
> If COVID taught us anything, the government is going to let these drugs expire useless, incinerate them, refuse to replenish them, and import loads of fakes when an actual crisis hits.
That’s a very weird take on this. So what should the government do in your opinion? Launch some nukes preemptively just so people could say “oh, at least we didn’t waste those anti-radiation medicines! we caused nuclear conflict, but who cares, drugs didn’t expire”?
Considering that the adversary is shifting their strategic bombers, sent their biggest sub with nuclear torpedoes into the sea, and the nuclear train is on the move towards Ukraine, this sounds like a good idea, no?
It's an especially stupid thing to point out when that's not the case here, as OP points out. Like, why even mention it then? There is enough negativity/pessimism around, no reason to add to it.
I am not trying to be negative. I mean, what’s brewing is not a subject to throw jokes around. It’s a genuine question, considering current geopolitical issues, when is the right time to prepare for a crisis if not now?
I'm not clear on why you have such a negative take on the response to the pandemic in general. I thought the speed of development and delivery of the mRNA vaccines was nothing short of unprecedented. A lot of things went wrong, but drug development and delivery wasn't one of them IMO.
> speed of development and delivery of the mRNA vaccines was nothing short of unprecedented
That was the only thing that was better than expected.
We were flying completely blind at the start of the pandemic (when there was a chance of containment) because the CDC had a completely flawed test and banned every other alternative.
I'd ask which country wasn't? We were dealing with a novel virus. Even China which has dealt with new viral outbreaks before (I'm ignoring any insinuation of their foreknowledge of covid), is STILL struggling.
Literally every country in Southeast Asia had far, far fewer deaths because they were able to contain the spread far better than the US. Just spend 2 minutes looking at the statistics.
Australia had 15,000 total deaths compared to the US's 1 million.
> Even China which has dealt with new viral outbreaks before (I'm ignoring any insinuation of their foreknowledge of covid), is STILL struggling.
Struggling is a relative term. China has reported 5k deaths from COVID. Even if you don't believe numbers from the CCP, even 10x that (50k deaths) is far, far better than the US.
Right now, China is "struggling" because they're still clinging to zero-covid policies. They'll lock an entire neighborhood down over a few cases.
As you probably know, these things grow exponentially, so containing the spread at the very start is really, really crucial.
We were completely blind during the start of the pandemic due almost entirely to failures by the CDC.
Statistics flatten reality. Masking is much more appropriate (and followed) in Asia. Australia had less movement.
The reality is that precautions were not followed in the US for the sake of "liberty" and that had consequences
I really don't see how we could be less "blind". What were we supposed to see? You haven't outlined anything that these other countries "saw" that we didn't.
> able to contain the spread far better than the US
In my opinion a good deal of this was due to the fact that this entire event turned political from the very start. I am not being dramatic when I say that politicians, due to party and ideological loyalty, quite literally, killed people. It's hard to estimate how many. The number certainly has to be between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.
> We were completely blind during the start of the pandemic due almost entirely to failures by the CDC.
No, we were not. The instant Trump closed the door to travel from China I knew we were in for an event that was several standard deviations away from the norm. Ideology aside, a POTUS does not make a move like that in isolation. The data had to be absolutely overwhelming.
As an informed observer I was paying attention. The instant I thought "this is several standard deviations from the norm" I took action. I ordered a supply of food and other necessary items (and yes, masks) to last several months. I covered my immediate and extended family (because nobody listens and everyone who gets their information from mainstream media is living in a fantasy made-up of lies).
If I remember correctly, that was mid January 2020. All of my supplies arrived and were put away before the panic started. We barely had to go to the market for a year.
Regarding politicians killing people. A lot of those videos have been deleted from YouTube and other places. They can be hard to find. Here's a few that are still up. All after Trump's travel ban (again a "tilt" event in terms of SD from the mean).
Just like the normal flu
We should relax
We don't think it's going to be as bad as it is in other places
We have been ahead of this from day one
Go about your lives
Go about your business
There has to be prolonged exposure
Just wash your hands
No need to do anything special
We want New Yorkers to go about their daily lives
Ride the subway, ride the bus, go see your neighbors
We have the equipment
It's not like we are dealing with something we haven't dealt with before
We have the ability to address this
We have the capacity to keep this contained
Like the normal flu
The local risk is low
Our preparedness is high
Go about your lives
No indication to be using masks
We have measures
We have screening
No indication that going through the subway is a risk factor
No indications to be using masks
False sense of security
The risk is low
These are just some of the links I kept as I chronicled this historical event. A lot of the links I recorded have been deleted.
If you do watch these, pay attention to the dates. Keep in mind that Trump and his team sounded the alarm in early January and the Chinese travel ban went into effect at the end of January.
These people, in very real terms, caused hundreds of thousands of people to become infected. When panic ensued, masses of people left the NY area, carrying the virus everywhere in the country. Yes, these politicians likely killed hundreds of thousands of people. I think that much is without dispute. Nobody talks about it, of course. Because ideology and party are more important than lives. As a classical liberal/libertarian I find this kind of thing to be in a range between revolting and criminal.
To maybe help defuse: it looks to me like dntrkv was actually agreeing with you (and talking about dereg's post), but it seems like you misunderstood, and then alex_young probably misread you as being dereg given your reply.
Collecting potassium iodine is not going to save Americans, that’s for sure. The amount of preparation for the American people to survive would be next to extraordinary. Most people these days do not have what it takes, and certainly our government does not, either.
The thing is that even if the missile defense system works 100% successfully for a nuke approaching the United States, the electromagnetic pulse above is enough to disable all electronic devices in the US. Like the trajectory of the plume covers the vast majority of the US, no matter what direction the nuke comes from.
At the altitudes they would typically be intercepted at (for ICBMs amyways), it would likely be dispersed over most of a hemisphere and likely somewhat weak... until there are multiples.
Good thing the US government does not have an incentive to lie in this case. Oh, wait. Maybe they want to avoid having taxpayers start panicking and rioting in the streets.
We are in the fog of war. The ground truth of such matters will be elusive until that fog lifts. In the meantime, no one should believe the propaganda spouted by their government without extraordinary proof.
Governments often have a tendency to think of stockpiles as indefinite items without a lifetime. But everything has a lifetime, as any good engineer would know.
"Let's stockpile nuclear emergency meds" is a good opportunity to forget about expirations and, 50 years from now, say "we're covered because in 2022 we stockpiled them and nothing happened since". Thankfully, as GP points out, this appears not to be the case... this time. But it did happen with Covid (and not just to the US! Many governments were guilty of this thinking)
Yes but that’s not a good argument against buying them now, instead it’s an argument in favour of setting up a replenishment programme for some fraction of the reserve every year after some initial delay.
what do you mean? We did not have stockpiles of drugs because the drugs were not known and it took quite a bit of research to figure out what works and what does not.
It wasn't the drugs that were the problem, but, instead, timely boneheadedness:
May 2018 The Trump Administration disbands the White House pandemic response team.
July 2019 The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) epidemiologist embedded in China’s disease control agency left the post, and the Trump Administration eliminated the role.
Oct. 2019 “Currently, there are insufficient funding sources designated for the federal government to use in response to a severe influenza pandemic.”
Jan. 22, 2020 “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
Please don't start. It happened, we learned from it, we're moving on...
>May 2018 The Trump Administration disbands the White House pandemic response team.
Ah yes, yet another person who a) uses Snopes to "fact check" and b) looked at the Snopes piece's headline and nothing else. One would think reading only that, or the Twitter thread (!) the piece is based on, that to save money (or because the Trump administration hated science, or something) the entire "US Pandemic Response Team" agency was eliminated and everyone in a large DC office building was fired.
Actually reading the contemporary NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/tom-bossert-t... and Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0... articles the Snopes piece cites in the body, they seem to have been a handful of people in one team in the National Security Council hierarchy, that the new National Security Advisor reassigned to related agencies, as part of a desire to have his own hierarchical structure. Ziemer resigned because he wanted to keep his team the way it was.
COVID19 was not a surprise; that is, it was known to exist in China some time before the first cases appeared in the US. It is not unreasonable for a government to assemble a team to respond to something like a pandemic as needed, as opposed to having people dedicated solely to the purpose and nothing else. And that's exactly what the US did, implementing the ban on non-American travelers who'd been to China in late January 2020, among other things.
You may or may not agree with this. But please don't claim that this is somehow prima facie proof of the Trump administration's malfeasance/evilness.
I got this from a dishonest liberal rag known as Reuters, not Snopes.
The Trump administration indeed eliminated the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit, known as the “pandemic response” team. Some of its members were reassigned to roles that included pandemic response, but the change had only one single honest purpose, which was to placate Trump's obsession with undoing whatever President Obama's administration set up. There was no other purpose than that, and the government lost some experts in so doing. It was a pretty stupid thing to do, though the Trump Administration later claimed they were "streamlining," to cover up for what can only be described as tribal boneheadedness.
They do. N95 masks have a 10 year shelf life. You can argue about the usefulness of that shelf life (it's been done to death), but it's there, and when the pandemic hit loads of governments were faced with expired masks.
Emergency management people think about stuff like this and plan for it.
Not sure what the COVID reference is, but vaccination storage and management was initially very complex (requiring ultra cold temperatures and special handling) and given the insanity of the media environment, it was essential that vaccine be available for people who showed up, which meant wasting unused vaccines.
My point is that the political imperative leads politicians on both ends to take on many unfunded liabilities without planning for continuity or completion. I'm hoping that the extended storage for this is well accounted for and immunized against the whims of the next administration.
You quoted the important part. Specifically, this paragraph negates your post.
> 2004 Project Bioshield Act and $290 million in Project BioShield designated funding to purchase this supply of the drug. Amgen will maintain this supply in vendor-managed inventory. This approach decreases life-cycle management costs for taxpayers because doses that near expiration can be rotated into the commercial market for rapid use prior to expiry and new doses can be added to the government supply.
Read it carefully. Doses that approach expiration will be rotated into the commercial market and replenished with fresh doses.
There is very little cost to the supplier in doing that. They get to sell a healthy dose of medication for full retail value and the government always has a fresh, healthy supply. FIFO (First in, first out).
Most companies try to reduce the value of the products they have on hand to save in taxes and keep their operation lean. The government is basically stepping in and saying "We will make it worth your while to keep a bunch of this on hand. Just guarantee me X number of fresh doses and we're happy."
Yup. Here the government is not really maintaining a stockpile as conventionally imagined, but paying industry to rotate inventory through a buffer which is the size of the desired stockpile. Seems like this strategy would have avoided the 'expired PPE' problem we faced at the beginning of the pandemic.
To be fair, California's government required companies to have n95s to deal with wildfire smoke. Those masks were readily available and deployed during covid. It's not always doom and gloom.
Next time your preferred party (whichever one it may be) is looking to cut spending, just remember that everything looks necessary. Then someone gets appointed "to make the tough choices", and we're back at square one.
Drugs in pill form don't really expire, they just lose efficacy.
And if stored well it takes a long time.
I cant find it right now but someone found some pills that had been stored like 50 years in sealed containers and testing for the activr ingredient showed they were still like 80% or more good.
> If COVID taught us anything, the government is going to let these drugs expire useless, incinerate them, refuse to replenish them, and import loads of fakes when an actual crisis hits.
What are you referring to? The US vaccine development, production, and distribution went quite well, all things considered. I remember the loudest complaint being that we weren’t giving away enough of our supply to other countries.
Tens of thousands of people died at the beginning of the pandemic due to lack of medical and PPE supplies. Nurses were wrapping themselves in garbage bags and searching out construction masks.
I think the question is whether this surge of investment will lead to future complacency or whether the stockpile will be managed and maintained at this level into the future. The US trashed a bunch of masks without replacing them a few years before the pandemic - presumably because someone decided we were spending 'too much' on it.
I hope this is just paranoid anxiety, but never underestimate the power of the federal government's ability to disappoint via reckless reactionism.
Not back-filling all in all was probably a reasonable decision at the time. On the other hand, a lack of on-shore manufacturing capacity to address any on-demand needs is less forgivable. How could we not have a scenario that would have exposed that?
That was the alarming part I saw at the beginning of the pandemic. I had no idea that medical mask/PPE manufacturing had been moved offshore to the extent that it had. It would seem to me to be a capability that any country should have as part of their national biodefense strategy.
What manufacturing hasn't been moved offshore? The majority of it to a country we're told is an enemy? Could the pro-globalization global elites be any less accountable?
You were doing fine until "global elites". There's no organized cabal driving this outcome, just greedy humans solving for local optima that are globally suboptimal
Perhaps. From my vantage point, global elites and greedy humans are synonyms. That is, the greedy who - for their own benefit - pushed the globalization agenda, cleaned up financially, and now are too busy counting their booty to own their role in our current sideways-ness. That latter disconnect is common of elites of any sort.
We're on the same page.
p.s. It doesn't have to be "organized". When there's a common goal, and finite paths to that ends, human behavior automagically begins to synchronize and optimize. Another way to envision it is starlings. No conspiracy, yet highly (enough) organized and "in sync."
I hate to break it to you but all humans are greedy. It's a feature, not a bug, and it is in our DNA. Some just don't have an avenue to manifest said greed but would very likely do so if given the opportunity.
Just like you can't expect a woodchuck to not chuck wood, don't expect humans to not be greedy. That will only result in disappointment and resentment.
Rather than trying to fix greed, embrace its inevitability and modify your goals so that you create systems which channel that greed into positive externalities.
We're getting off-topic. I never said it was a bug. What it is, it is. Regardless, some obviously lack self-control to a fault. And regardless of the feature, that doesn't give anyone a free pass on accountability.
I have no problem with greed per se. I also have no problem with those who want to lead. But with those decisions comes responsibility and accountability. Bug? Feature? Not my concern. I'm simply not willing to give out free passes either way.
Yeah, lots of reactionary blasting of your comment from people who didn't realise your point was that in future, if the stocks aren't used, some smartass politician is going to be "see!?! we didn't need it! why should we replace the expired stuff?" and leave the stocks at a state where the usefulness for an emergency is nil.
Unfortunately, there's no incentive when spending taxpayer money for the person who "buys" insurance for tail risk events.
> If COVID taught us anything, when an actual crisis hits.
To be fair, nuclear crisis is not at all like COVID. It's one of those things that you can kinda see coming on the horizon. It's increasingly unlikely that, aside from a small scale nuclear attack, nuclear war will spring up without tons of advanced warning; for example, in the forms of degenerating relations between nuclear powers, and saber-rattling. Spending money on up-keep for these drugs isn't the best use of funds, and should only be done during periods of high tension.
And yes, as a society, our preparation for a COVID-like event was weak (in the US, in no small part due to Trump's efforts to reverse Obama-era preparations).
Except there are cases where nuclear emergencies do just pop up, take the Sendai earthquake in Japan for instance. Having some of the drugs ready to go seems like a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.
I carry a pack of KI in my EDC backpack and a second in my checked luggage. I figure with the amount of travel I do, my odds of having "shit pop off" when I'm traveling are pretty high (rather, the odds of it happening are low (<1%/yr, even this year), but if it is happening, it will most likely happen during travel/away from home). I've got an AirBoss gas mask, bug out bag, firearm, 2 weeks of food, 4 weeks of water cached (or more) in a few client offices around the US.
You have multiple guns at client offices? Also you live in Puerto Rico? If you want to be safe during a crisis event, moving out of Puerto Rico is probably way more important than all this role playing you seem to be doing.
Not just sniper fire, wasn't it to deal with being hit by multiple .338 Lapua rounds? Maybe it was .308, but still, ridiculous. I need to re-read that thread, gosh it was hilarious.
Haha, that reminds me of what my hang gliding instructor told me right before I took my first solo flight. I was very anxious despite good preparation and kept asking him edge case questions, and he cut me off and said "listen, what you need to do is get up in the air, and then... don't suck."
I'm sure it's a total coincidence that there is a ready made excuse to justify KI rationing for people who are not military age in the event that we actually need to distribute the pills.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but after the "noble lie" about masks not being necessary in early 2020, a government website telling me we don't need as much medicine for people too old or too young to fight seems rather dubious.
Your theory is poorly formed or poorly expressed. The site there suggest giving overwhelming priority to the very young.
Edit: Folks, the FDA page I link prioritizes children over people of fighting age. It lists lower doses for children because they are physically smaller but repeatedly states that they are at higher risk of harm.
The life boats on the titanic were for kids and elderly first too. They said the same thing about COVID with masks and vaccines for the first 6-12 months.
It’s coming from an agency with messaging that significantly factors in priorities given limited supply.
Of course kids and old people
will be heavily preferenced in these guidelines. They always are. That doesn’t mean they should be valued the same way by individual citizens.
Anyone who cares enough, evaluated their own risks, and can afford to prep is obviously not starting from the same perspective of some generic recommendation going to hundreds of agencies across the country. You can argue risk levels but I doubt you could honestly dismiss the utility of personally supply for people in non-high risk groups.
Thinking it's bullshit and that they will ignore it is a totally different conspiracy theory than misreading the guideline and thinking it prioritizes people of fighting age over children.
Those at highest risk are infants and children, as well as pregnant and nursing females because of the potential for KI to suppress thyroid function in the developing fetus and the newborn.
The original comment may have it backwards but the idea/outcome is the same, their point stands. Still good to note the Gov messages what’s in their interest at the expense of individuals.
Their point is about false rationing for people that aren't of fighting age. The FDA isn't recommending that, they are recommending giving particular attention to children because they are especially vulnerable!
Like why even believe that nuclear weapons are real or that potassium iodide is protective if you think that things are so far out of wack? The government is largely responsible for that knowledge.
Because for normal, working age men, being sucked beneath a freezing, 5km+ deep ocean is just something you shrug off.
Honestly, prioritising kids I get for sure, and pregnant women - but old people? Not so sure about their claim to a seat in the lifeboat, or a KI tablet in short supply.
I don't think the FDA page is pre-rationing those substances. The United States, largely, does this on its own through economic activity because doing it through policy would be controversial, as you've shown. You would know these as Strategic National Stockpiles: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-strategic-stockpil...
Wow, I actually didn't realize adult >40 was so much less indicated to take it than 18-40. I knew it was mainly an issue for children. I wonder if that's due to decreased thyroid activity, less lifespan to develop issues with thyroid cancer before dying of other causes, or what.
I have a packet of KN94 in my pack (more for "required for compliance for covid" randomly happening, but also for this), and some gloves (nitrile 2x and 1x mechanicswear for shooting/climbing/hot/cold). Tyvek suit would be more hassle to carry vs. the benefit than I'm willing to do.
Yeah, bigger than I'd want to carry in the backpack I carry everywhere which also contains 1-2 laptops, trauma kit, etc. I'd just sacrifice whatever clothing was exposed when it happened. There's plenty of other clothing in the world.
For preventing the radioactive fallout from touching you and remaining there any level is appropriate since the fallout is in the form of dust or rain which can't pass through these suits.
Obviously radiation will pass through it, for protection against that you need lead based suits.
Yeah. Have a few in my backpack, one in the car, a whole bunch at home. I get that you wouldn't have one 3 years ago but most people have N95 nowadays, even if it's just leftover.
I don't understand why you seem to think that gov't stockpiles don't end up in the hands of government employees and medical professionals as they are intended to, or that the storage conditions of N95 by the gov't is any less suitable than commercial warehouses?
Unless these N95s are being stored in a bog, I have a hard time understanding how they're "turning brown" and "deteriorating" in the span of two years.
If you're in the blast wave, yes. If you're in the fallout zone, you can do things to mitigate your exposure. Then again, you may think the ones gone with the blast wave were the lucky ones.
I'm appalled after decades of massive anti nuclear war protests and shuttle diplomacy that our 'leaders' are now almost casually sliding into the abyss of nuclear wars
Attacking a much smaller neighboring country and failing so miserably that they have to start making nuclear threats is hardly casual. That's a professional-tier fuckup. Given the apparently irrational decision making that's going on in this situation, we can only prepare in whatever ways we can.
During the cold war, the leadership of America made sure to try to deescalate, maintain multiple communications channels, and keep open favorable outlets to peaceful outcomes. It seems like a notable shift that none of these seem to be very prominent today.
What kind of face-saving option should we offer Putin? Keeping in mind that we don't run Ukraine's diplomacy for them...
The Cold War featured American and Soviet pilots shooting at each other during the Korean War, supplying arms isn't nearly as big an escalation as supplying fighters.
It’s not so much about face saving as it is about maintaining some form a transition path to a more peaceful state. And to understand what path might be an option one has to have some forum of frank discussion - likely not with the leaders themselves but with high enough level people from both sides that they are at high enough level to see the lay of land.
The decision-making involved was quite rational if you assume Putin was operating with incomplete information. Had the war ended in two weeks, as it looked like it was going to right at the start, he would have met his domestic goals.
But then it turned out that Ukraine was more prepared than Russian intelligence thought, and Europe started flooding it with weapons. Given that Russia isn't taking the war half as seriously[1] as Ukraine is, none of what's happening is irrational or surprising.
[1] By design. Putin didn't want an existential conflict that required actual sacrifice on the part of his constituents, he just wanted an easy victory to cement his popularity. He's now stuck in a situation where he has few good options.
If The Tale of the Crosseyed Lefthander from Tula taught anything, it was not to polish rifles with sand. But the memo's still not getting through despite the upgraded steel fleas.
Weakening the army and making sure everyone below you is incompetent is actually a great way of preventing coups. Convincing your international competition to be incompetent is much more difficult!
>>"He also rotted Russia from the inside, putting only incompetent but loyal acolytes everywhere."
Not really. I recommend talking to Russians of certain age. What they say is something like "sure, Putin is far from perfect, but he saved us from the 90's"
I don't think most people understand how bad things were there after the wall fall. The usual human reaction is turn to a strong man that put some order in the chaos.
> decision-making involved was quite rational if you assume Putin was operating with incomplete information
This is stupid strategy. Military men millennia ago were beyond it. The fog of war is real. One maintains exit ramps. Fully committing at the onset of a war you unilaterally start is blunder, full stop.
Part is the fundamental weakness of dictatorship, a weakness our ancestors addressed with monarchy. (Bush and Nixon could walk away from failed wars their successors wrapped up without fear for their lives. As could Roman consuls.) But a larger part is broad stupidity, concentrated at the Kremlin.
They only survive because they're propped up by western powers. If someone had won their reelection that would have never happened. The tzar probably included that in his calculus but had his timetable delayed by the pandemic.
I agree with the general sentiment, but once you start calling in conscripts and mobilizing the population, it’s assumed you’re taking the war seriously.
I think you should clarify that by a much smaller country you mean largest country in Europe.
You also seem to be purposefully misinterpreting the OP's point about what is being considered "casual". Whether you think Putin is irrational or not has no bearing on the fact that most of our leaders seem to be treating a potential nuclear war after decades of shuttle diplomacy indeed very casually.
Russia could have had peace any time by leaving Ukraine. Instead they've lost somewhere north of 50 thousand men in 6 months and equipment numbers that are more reminiscent of WWII then a regional battle. There is an amazing amount of copium in your post.
If you break into my house and hurt my family, and then I start kicking your ass to the front door successfully, I'm not going to be interested in negotiations either.
If you've not noticed, Russia's negotiations are about as worthless as used toilet paper.
Irrational in what sense? Ukraine is a pro-American country that’s steadfastly moving towards NATO membership.
If the US attacked Canada because China overthrew the government, installed a pro-Chinese president, and started making stronger legal pacts, bonds, and certifications with China would that be irrational?
Being anti war is fine, and amicable. But don’t get it twisted. Putin is acting rationally
> China overthrew the government, installed a pro-Chinese president
The first problem is that this "analogy" is not an accurate parallel to what happened in Ukraine. The US had no boots on the ground whatsoever.
There were mass protests, and then the elected parliament removed the president. Later, the people by a wide margin freely elected the current president, who is ardently against Russian interference.
There's not a democratic outcome here where "China" is illegitimately foisted upon the people of Canada.
> If the US attacked Canada ... would that be irrational?
No, because the US has the capability to invade Canada.
What's irrational about Putin is the self-defeating nature of his decision making. Both self-defeating for his country, as well as for the stability of his regime which translates into his personal safety.
He's embarrassed himself and his country, pushed Ukraine more towards the West, and achieved none of his strategic objectives.
I hope he is just behaving irrationally because of bad advice. The alternatives are more scary, because then the madman thing might not be an act.
I do think they were slightly involved. They invested a few billion dollars into pro-democracy organizations inside Ukraine, starting in the early 1990s, and held close diplomatic relations with Ukrainian politicians. None of this is abnormal, it's the standard practice of US soft influence.
But it's not even close to an exhaustive explanation. The Ukrainians have agency, they have their own media ecosystem, they are capable of forming their own opinions. They saw Putin as the dictatorial thug that he is. Putin achieved that by himself by invading Georgia, poisoning his opponents overseas, rigging elections and assassinating journalists.
Anyways, this isn't relevant to the question of Putin's rationality.
It may have been rational to start the war from Putin's perspective but in no world it is rational to continue to pile in resource when they are obviously losing both the war and any remaining political influence globally.
At this point the war is continuing purely to fuel the ego of a dying dictator.
Putin's irrationality is his insistence that Russia can take on the US as a major imperial player. Whatever you think of US imperialism (not a huge fan, personally) the reality is that the US is a hegemon which has the resources to run the largest military and intelligence operations on the planet.
Russia isn't, and doesn't. Russia isn't even close. So it uses political subversion instead of outright militarism. Which - it turns out - is possibly the one domain where it's competitive with the US. For not all that much money, some info war campaigns, and the help of internal allies, Russia almost got itself a two term president with eyes on a permanent dictatorship.
Nice plan. Didn't quite work.
But Putin decided to go ahead anyway. Which is insane. Every single goal - weakening NATO, weakening the EU, building closer relationships with China, India, and Turkey, strengthening Russia internally, cementing his own position in history as Tsar Vladimir I, saviour of the Empire - has failed, disastrously and counterproductively.
So now Putin has two choices. Admit defeat and have an unfortunate accident with a window, or burn everything to the ground out of spite and frustration.
He's not going for Option 1. So it's up to everyone else to make sure Option 2 doesn't happen.
> Attacking a much smaller neighboring country and failing so miserably that they have to start making nuclear threats is hardly casual.
I assume he's talking about the US and the UK strong-arming Ukraine away from peace talks that had a chance at ending this conflict back in May. All the hawkish talk from Biden this whole time has been about dethroning Putin, leaving no face-saving diplomatic exit for him except escalation between nuclear powers, and that's exactly what's happening. The lessons of the past 70 years have gone out the window.
The sentiment is understandable but probably has nothing to do with the story. The US routinely buys these kinds of drugs for preparedness programs, has done so long before Ukraine was an issue, and planned this specific acquisition last year, when the drug in question was approved for the purpose.
I'm guessing that in Putin's world view, what happens to the world after he dies is truly irrelevant. I.e., what he experiences is all that really matters, and he expects simple oblivion upon death.
If that's his perspective, then we all might just be NPCs to him.
I'm not excited about someone with little time to live, and existential dread / nihilism, having nukes.
Edit: This is pure speculation on my part. I have no reliable info on Putin's worldview.
He actually seems to be taking the traditional Russian long view. They didn't get that big through clever land deals, after all.
One curiosity through this whole thing that seems to have gotten memory-holed: Boris Johnson, playing the role of Henry Kissinger, killing an early peace deal and keeping this mess going. Putin might have been looking just to keep NATO out of Ukraine. If that was the case (maybe not, see above) then this extended war might have been avoided.
> Boris Johnson, playing the role of Henry Kissinger, killing an early peace deal and keeping this mess going. Putin might have been looking just to keep NATO out of Ukraine.
This is odd revisionism. You can look back at articles that took place during the negotiations in late March and early April and see exactly what the Russians were saying then. The big sticking point was that Russia wanted Ukraine to agree to giving control of the Donbas and Crimea to Russia[1] before any meeting between Zelensky and Putin, while Ukraine wanted to discuss those two during a direct meeting between the two presidents.
You can see the Russian foreign minister[2] as well as the head Russian negotiator[3] saying that Ukrainian proposals were unacceptable because they didn't agree to give up territory before Zelensky and Putin even met. A few days later, Putin called the peace talks a dead end because Ukrainians wouldn't cede territory and complained about crimes in occupied territories[4].
This was never about Ukraine, any settlement would be met by further escalation when he felt ready. Probably when the west was more fractured, insular, nationalistic and our democratic institutions more fragile.
The second worst outcome is teaching Putin - and all other nuclear armed authoritarian governments - that all you need to do is threaten usage of nuclear weapons and you get what you demand. Within months China will demand Taiwan be handed over under threat of nuclear attack. Maybe eventually they'll demand the same of Australia - easy to do if you want the resources and know that threat of nukes gets you a country handed on a platter.
What do you propose can be done to resolve this?
Probably China and India are the only parties now able to influence Putin to back down.
@andrewstuart Resolution is the same as the way all wars eventually end (or preferably never start) - diplomacy and agreements. We are in a period of catastrophic diplomatic failures after decades of successful MAD standoff balance
As a German, that's not how our last war ended. Neither did the more recent Iraq war, or Libya. Plenty of wars end with the utter defeat of the opponent.
Russia won't be "utterly" defeated in the same way as Iraq, Germany or Libya. But they don't have to be to be brought to the negotiating table by the lack of ability to continue.
Who cares? I didn't say that, nobody wants that, and it is completely unnecessary. The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan either, and the withdrawal of the US from those countries was not negotiated.
It is perfectly enough to throw out the aggressor or make their losses to big for them to want to stay.
Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out.
This kind of bad-faith argument of trying to find something in the words to argue against when you very well know what we are talking about is making public discussion such a chore.
>The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan
I was in Afghanistan, and yes we were. I walked I don't know how many patrols in that country and watching how we left was a remarkable embarrassment that makes me finally understand what Vietnam Vets felt like, which is the last war the United States truly lost.
>Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out.
I can't parse what this means, but I do speak a little German if you want to clarify. To "beat" the Russian military at this stage would require full NATO mobilization and World War III. I've made other comments on this website expressing my skepticism of the wisdom of NATOs involvement here, but I'll sum it up as this: Ukraine is not worth a bunch of cities in eastern Europe turning to glass. That's the reality, and you should note that the US Military has a pretty severe recruiting problem right now. We can't fight this war without a draft, and at some point the true nature of NATO will show through the clouds, which is that the United States has been paying for the continental security of the entire European continent for 50+ years.
Rheinmetall designed the new main gun for the M-1 Abrams, I guess.
Your definition of "utterly defeated" is very different and moving of goal posts from what the OP that I replied to used. OP used it in an absolute term, the country itself had to be defeated, like Germany in 1945. And I argued that that was not necessary. Now you don't attack anything at all of my argument, you just move the goal somewhere else. Your scenario is exactly the same that I used. Unless you want to argue that the US capitulated - and not just withdrew from Afghanistan - and Taliban now rule in Washington?
Could we please argue in good faith and not try to play with words and definitions to "win" some Internet discussion and show some anon commenter how wrong they are, using all kinds of dark methods?
How is that relevant to the comments you are replying to?
China does not need nuclear weapons to take Taiwan, and for both military and political reasons it would be incredibly stupid for them to resort to nuclear threats. And as mentioned they have a no-first-use policy.
> Russia does not have a "no-first-use commitment"
Sorry, you are correct. My general point was what Moscow says about its nuclear policy isn't particularly informative for predicting its behaviour. China has analogy in its breached commitments to Hong Kong.
Russia's list of what is acceptable use of nuclear power is actually pretty vague and includes "use of conventional weapons to pose an existential threat to Russia."
Putin said that dealing with street gangs in his youth taught him that when a fight is inevitable, he should strike first. Now we have a significant nuclear escalation on its way to Ukraine.
> Probably China and India are the only parties now able to influence Putin to back down.
The problem is, if Putin loses the war, he will lose power, and possibly even his life [1]. This makes him more likely to use nukes, as his life is endangered without a victory. Under this circumstance the only way out is to give him a "small victory".
That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.
> The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate.
We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! Which brings us to the second point:
> Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war
Typical victim-aggressor reversal. It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor.
By the way, I speak a bit of Russian, have been to both Russia and Ukraine - East and West of the country - multiple times and have connections to people doing business there since the 1990s and we regularly converse. I'm not as knowledgeable as a real insider, but I'm also far form an armchair commenter. Also, I was a mix of sympathetic and willfully ignorant towards Russia all the way until 24 February. And it was Russian behavior during and accompanying the war, not that I (initially) cared much about the fate of Ukraine I have to admit. I realized I had suppressed and filtered a lot over the years, like most others.
> I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
I agree - we need to be much more forceful and less forgiving to Russian threats and atrocities!
> NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join!
NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership. They decide based on strategic considerations, like whether Russia would see allowing a member to join as a threat. NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable. In fact, many people predicted this would happen decades ago if NATO were to expand this way.
This is not excusing the aggressor's behaviour, this is a simple recognition that if you poke a bully, he's going to punch you in the face. This doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up to him, but it does mean that if you have a fragile peace with a nuclear bully, you should be careful about how you threaten that peace. We should have learned these lessons decades ago during the cold war, but seemed to have forgotten them.
> It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor.
Yes, that's a primary reason NATO was formed. Of course they want membership, that's perfectly normal and predictable. Ukraine would have joined long ago too but everyone recognized that that would have been a serious provocation, and ultimately a bad idea. It seems they thought they could incrementally creep towards Russia's borders and Russia wouldn't notice. They thought wrong.
> NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable.
This is a persistent myth that is not reality, the soviet president at the time even says that no such promise was ever made.
The majority of political and diplomatic agreements are more informal and not encoded in written law, and often happen via back channels. Your own article acknowledges such an understanding existed:
> To be sure, the former Soviet president [Gorbachev] criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990
If your quibble is with my use of the term "agreement" vs. "assurances", then we can just agree that there was no formal agreement, but that doesn't really change the argument. If this understanding didn't exist, why didn't Ukraine join NATO years ago? Because there was an understanding going back to the 1990s that Russia felt threatened by NATO and that expanding in this fashion could provoke an escalation of hostilities between nuclear powers, and this was sort of thing should probably be avoided lest we start another cold war or worse.
To be clear, I'm sure this is merely one excuse Putin among many is using, the point being that not giving loons excuses to legitimize their actions is generally a good idea.
> The Massandra Accords set the stage for the ultimately successful trilateral talks. As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia...
> 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
> To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.
> 2009 Joint Declaration by Russia and the United States
> Russia and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 confirming that the security assurances made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum would still be valid after START expired in 2009.
> NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership
You avoid the topic you find inconvenient because it completely destroys your strange notions: The nations asked NATIO to join.
There is no reason not to protect them from their aggressive neighbor!!
Why does it make any sense in your mind to let them be the victims of Russia and claim that this is somehow "correct"?
If Russia does not want NATO so close, maybe they should try a different approach towards their neighbors? Just an idea. It works for a lot of other countries who have zero fear towards a much stronger neighbor.
> There is no reason not to protect them from their aggressive neighbor
There is, and that is antagonizing Russia into a conflict. We don't have to let them be victims of Russia, as we aren't with Ukraine, but we also don't have to antagonize Russia. We can just agree to leaves these countries as neutral buffer zones.
The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating.
Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
Ukraine applied to NATO AFTER they got their land annexed, not before. Also, before Feb 24th, Ukraine is still years away from being accepted into NATO.
So no, whatever the real reason for the SMO was (highly likely to be oil), it was not because Putin/Russia was scared of being attack by NATO, and the agreement to not joining NATO will not stop the invasion.
I fail to see what this has to do with the Baltics, which is what you asked about. Ukraine was making plenty of overtures to NATO and NATO's continued encroachment was definitely a threat to Russia. I'm not sure how you can so definitively conclude that Putin was not worried about this encroachment.
Edit: I mean, just look at the recent history of Ukraine's friendly intermingling with NATO just prior to the invasion:
You can certainly argue that this was just an excuse for Putin to invade, but there's little evidence to be so confident in that conclusion, and plenty of countervailing evidence.
The root of this thread is rejecting the idea of appeasement. Escalation that ultimately ends in appeasement is not a counterargument but evidence that appeasement is a valid strategy for ending a conflict when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you’re saying we should escalate and then appease, ok, but almost everyone I have engaged with on this is under the grip of a very poorly conceived Hitler analogy leading them to say that we must never, ever appease dictators. Meaning, I suppose, that as long as Putin remains in power, we must continue to escalate until he either gives up or nukes us all. What could go wrong?
I feel as though this is hand waving away the problem.
Nobody is saying that appeasement is a good idea in an absolute sense. We're saying that we have two highly risky choices in front of us.
Appeasement is obviously problematic. You set a precedent that nuclear blackmail works. You give their nationalists bloodthirst for their next imperial expedition. You improve Putin's popularity. You doom the Ukrainians inside the currently occupied territories. You effectively kick the can down the road.
But you really do need to detail how it's going to play out when a man with no conscience, a questionable grasp on reality, who has a well-stocked bunker, and has nukes, gets pushed into a corner in the sense of losing face and facing the threat of removal. You can't just say "appeasement is bad" and not deal with this whole problem.
Hitler didn’t have nukes. The minimum level of appeasement to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons may be the optimal strategy. There is no guarantee that the post nuclear game theory doesn’t converge on dictators grabbing all land that isn’t part of an existing nuclear defense pact.
This is downvoted but is clearly true game-theorerically. If you have an autocratic governance structure, the logic of nuke use is highly specific to the preferences of the individual in power and the context of the situation. Appeasement (however defined) may be the optimal strategy depending on that person's age and other factors.
As someone from the balkans... what do you do when some other nuclear superpower decides to bomb eg. yugoslavia or invade eg. afghanistan or syria, libya, iraq, iraq again, etc?
Replace "threaten usage of nuclear weapons" with "threaten exit from the global finance system under the force of the largest military ever assembled on earth" and you have US policy for the past century.
We failed to contain Putin in any of his previous assaults and now here we are. Our options are to continue to reward an aggressive tyrant or stand up to him. You are free to believe that Putin will become satisfied with some level of territory and influence but history provides ample evidence that Putin will not stop.
It's also telling to read the top two tone-deaf comments here on HN talking about preparedness as if one is going on a fishing expedition instead of addressing the elephant in the room that is potential nuclear war.
Agreed, the top comment about the bug out bag is peak HN. Have fun with that buddy. I know a post nuclear war is gonna suck and none of my skills will transfer, I'll just wait to die.
Agreed, but the era of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) deterrent principle has come to an end.
Until very recently, everyone agreed that nuclear weapons could not be used because the outcome would be that everyone is destroyed.
Putin has ended that era because appears unconcerned by the prospect of MAD.
MAD only works if all sides agree that they do not want to be destroyed. Putin appears to not care.
So, the equation has changed and we all need to rethink the new equations. It may be as simple as - "there will be a nuclear war because a madman has the keys and is willing to press the button".
MAD is an insane game of chicken that we always knew could be tested by madmen, zealots and gamblers.
The Russian leader certainly does care about the risks. However, the nature of the game rewards him for acting that he does not, and the other players for reciprocating. Up to a point, that is. MAD is not a good or stable game.
MAD applies if all sides are actually at risk of being destroyed.
A close historical precedent for the current situation is the US against Japan in which the nuclear power didn't have a reason to destroy its enemy (indeed, worked to rebuild it immediately after), and the enemy couldn't retaliate on par. So there was no escalation and instead a quick capitulation.
If Russia uses tactical nukes against Ukraine, it matters how it uses them. Presumably it would like to use them as the US did, so it can take Ukraine without destroying it and put a faster end to the war than otherwise possible.
The US can then concede, escalate the proxy war by giving Ukraine tactical nukes, or strike Russia directly. The latter still looks mostly like MAD to me.
A nuclear proxy war limited to tactical nukes is.. unfortunately all too easy to imagine, with some precedent in the Turkish/Cuban missile crisis. That could then escalate until Russia dominates with its strategic nukes, but presumably Ukraine would capitulate before that. The lesson of high cost to Russia would also be there for future reference.
Seems more likely that every country would shut down trade with Russia, and Ukraine would keep fighting a conventional war with even better weapons than they have now.
Putin wants everyone to think that, the reality is that this is almost certainly a ruse. I believe it was Nixon that wanted the Soviets to think he was mad and might press the button at the slightest provocation but it was a lie to get them to back off. There’s no evidence that Putin is suicidal. This is a nuclear steering contest which you can only win by not blinking because Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a smoldering ruin with his own bones a melted pile in the middle.
Putin also said that West only respects power and that the US only talks to Russia because Russia is the only country that can destroy it in half an hour. He might be going to demonstrate his power next so that the West "finally understands".
So, because we understand Russia can destroy us in half an hour we talk to them but Putin’s going to use nukes to make us finally understand Russia can destroy us in half an hour? That makes no sense.
If he uses them then the other powers will need to severely hurt Russia directly otherwise they’d be encouraging Pakistan or India to exchange nukes, North Korea on the south or on Japan, or China on Taiwan or anyone. This would cause WWIII sooner or later so best to risk it sooner by punishing Russia to discourage the guarantee of it later. Basically, the use of nukes at all no matter what kind is a violation of MAD. If Putin wants to do that then we’d need to be back to thinking he’s suicidal, which we don’t. He wants us to give in so he can salami tactic his way into Poland, Moldova, and the Baltic states which would also lead to WWIII so we might as well keep helping the Ukrainians and steer down Putin back to the pre-2014 Russian border because if that doesn’t work then it’s WWIII anyway.
How would Putin even deploy nukes on the battlefield? Are their any targets large enough to warrant a tactical nuke strike? I don’t see it increasing his chances of winning. He could hit Kiev with strategic nukes I guess but he dooms all of Russia no matter what. Really, his nukes are useless here. He gains nothing by using them and risks everything.
Tactical nukes are 1-7x Hiroshima so they are by no means small ones. One can demolish a large city. Strategic nukes are for taking down whole countries at once.
I don't think he cares about conquering Poland, he's not even interested in conquering Western Ukraine (that used to be Poland before WW2). If there is any nuke targeted at a NATO country I bet the first will be Poland just to make the rest of NATO think through if Poland is worth full nuclear war or not. Russia has the escalate-deescalate doctrine anyway. Nobody is going to punish Russia militarily, that would be a suicide for any country that would attempt it. The only way out of this mess is diplomacy and not further escalation from both sides as we see. I think the current world "leaders" lost their minds already and are far from statesmen of old that were willing to compromise on their objectives in order to prevent the unthinkable.
> I don't think he cares about conquering Poland. he's not even interested in conquering Western Ukraine (that used to be Poland before WW2).
Who’s buying that line after columns of Russian troops tried to blitzkrieg Kyiv earlier in the war? Not to mention that eastern Ukraine is useless to Russia from a strategic perspective. They need to secure the Polish gap, the entirety of the Carpathian Mountains down to the Bessarabian gap, and across to the Baltic coast through the Baltic States. That shrinks the Russian border down to a limited and highly defensible size. Putin has long bemoaned that Russia gave all that up when the Soviet Union split up.
Nplate was apparently only approved for this purpose last year, and HHS has been talking about acquiring it since then. That might be the whole story here.
If you Google around, you'll find HHS documents from 2021 talking about this allocation.
My take on the current situation as someone who's watched the conflict since 2014 (both professionally and casually):
Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal is serving its intended purpose right now: Scaring Westerners. If you listen to Putin's speeches, he's been remarkably consistent. He cares about Russia's place in the world, addressing how it's not treated as an equal partner (by his and other Russians' measure), the desire for a multipolar world, and general nationalistic sentiments.
Nuclear threats raise the ambient level of seriousness with which the general Western public, and by extension its governments, must take Russia. Getting that benefit only costs vocalizing the occasional reminder. So, from a game theoretic perspective, it makes sense to do so. Those purposes aren't served by actually using nuclear weapons.
The problem is that everyone is aware of this, which in turn makes the threat useless - because if everyone agrees that its primary purpose is to scare and not to be used, nobody is scared anymore. This can only be countered by increasing the threat, and there are not so many ways to do it. So we are still quite close to having dramatic consequences that are not primarily intended but more the consequence of still ultimately ignoring the gravity of this all
A side question: how does one plan urban surviving? I'm sure even a nuclear war won't wipe out any of the major governments out there so stability would be re-established maybe in a few weeks. But the initial chaos could be deadly to whoever survived the initial blast.
I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. Radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep, and in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided possibly for one hundred years.
Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
A computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously. There would be much time, and little to do. With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.
Is this still technically true? Since the movie was released, both sides developed bunker busters to dig deep into fortified military installations. If salt mines did become part of the continuation strategy, you would think they would be likely to be targeted in an exchange.
I don’t know that this plan was ever technically true at any time. Instead it highlighted to me the absolute futility in avoiding destruction in the event of thermonuclear war. It may still be a plausible best bet in this abhorrent scenario. Surely you must imagine any perceived reinforced bunker gap would have been addressed in some inconspicuous military funding bill in the past 60 years.
I'm no expert, but I think the general idea is: don't be caught out in the open when the blasts go off -- you're likely to be blinded and/or burned even before the shock wave gets to you.
If you survive the initial blast, then "skyshine" becomes the main threat. Radioactive elements resulting from the nuclear reaction emit gamma rays that can go through most materials including walls. Best bet is to either be underground or under something made of cement. Basements generally aren't very good shelter, but you might be able to improvise something workable -- like hiding under a sturdy table surrounded and covered by sand bags or whatever dense materials are immediately at hand.
Fires also might be a problem. You might be forced to leave your shelter if everything is burning.
The worst radiation is in the first hour or so, and unfortunately that's time you'd normally be spending trying to get somewhere safe or improvising shelter. It falls off over the next few days or weeks. It's hard to know exactly when it's safe to come out without a device to measure gamma radiation (which can actually be built out of basic materials) or government reports which you might be able to receive by radio or something.
Radioactive ash is a problem. Use masks to avoid breathing it in, and don't eat or drink anything that might be contaminated. Peeling fruit is usually good enough. If you can leave the area, it's probably a good idea to wash yourself thoroughly and throw away your contaminated clothes.
Being near a nuclear blast isn't necessarily certain death. For some people it will be, but there will always be a large radius around the blast where people could survive if they're reasonably lucky and/or do the right things.
Inside, in the most inside part of wherever you can get to within 10 minutes of the blast (before the fallout starts snowing down). If you stay sheltered, you can survive. Try to minimize airflow. Try to stay inside for 2 weeks. The first hours are by far the worst.
If you're outside 10 minutes after the blast, and it starts snowing, you've probably already gotten a fatal dose and will likely die a painful death from acute radiation syndrome within the next two weeks.
What kind of structure can you avoid the initial flash and heat wave (if not the concussive / overpressure blast wave)?
Concrete? Brick? Can you just get behind a 6 inch concrete wall and you are OK from the flash and heat wave? What if you dive under the water (in a pool or whatnot)?
Heavily-reinforced concrete and/or underground. The more rebar, the better.
Jumping in a pool won't help much if you're in the big part of a pressure wave, I'd guess, since the water would probably all be removed.
Anywhere near a 20 psi overpressure thermonuclear blast near the target is going to be rough. Survivors will likely be on the outskirts of wherever it hits, being honest.
The amount more powerful a modern big fusion bomb is than what we dropped on Japan in 1945 boggles the mind. It's almost impossible to conceive of how bad they are.
Like, if a huge one was dropped on San Fran, about a million people would be dead immediately, plus some unknown potentially large number more due to fallout.
Yeah new bombs are crazy. No loss of cool if you're not--you're a nuke physicist, that's cool enough--but are you The Nukemap guy? Wow! That site is great, but scary.
No I'm not Alex wellerstein the nuclear history professor. He has like 44k followers on Twitter and a blue tick. I only have like 10k and no blue tick ;'(
You need about two weeks for radiation levels to drop. Ideally you are underground or have several walls and air filtering between you and contaminated regions.
Past that, food becomes a meaningful issue since your topsoil is quite irradiated.
You will probably have a shorter lifespan by a decade or so but obviously much longer than perishing immediately.
You will almost certainly die either in the first few minutes, or in the first few weeks following nuclear war, because our society is built on a house of cards of global supply chains, which will all go directly, and irreversibly (at least, within timelines that will matter to your survival) straight to shit.
Some of the architects of the war might survive in their hardened bunkers, if they are out of the way enough. I'm of a mind that they should not be allowed to outlive their constituents, but this does not seem to be a popular opinion.
Sounds like my brick and wooden basement is not going to work. Also the air filtering is not good enough. I guess the real chance is to learn survival, live far away from cities, preferably close to mountains and try to live by hunting for two weeks? Guess I can also keep a vehicle and some gas too after those two weeks. Anything more would need a proper shelter.
Just make sure the air situation is sorted. You really don't want to leave cover during that time. Two weeks is not a lot of food to stock.
Even experienced hunters have bad days. Hunting requires cooking and hunting is a riskier activity for injury. Nobody is around immediately post nuke to sew you back together.
Air filtering is partially helped by the fact that most people nowadays have some supply of good masks, which can ensure that any radioactive dust stays outside of you instead of giving you lung cancer.
Underground (reinforced concrete) is the only chance to survive, albeit slim. After you lucked out, you'd still need prepared bags of water, long-term rations, radiation monitor, heavy-duty tools to dig out, mask + hazard suit, batteries, Faraday cage for any electronics to survive etc. Sirens are unlikely to help, the government would have to interrupt any broadcasts and tell you about nukes coming.
It really depends on how far you are from the nearest blasts, and how big they were, and which way the winds are blowing. Even in a massive nuclear exchange, there will still be places in the United States hundreds of miles from the nearest blast. Those people could be fine if they take adequate protection from fallout, and if they can survive supply chain collapse and who knows how long of nuclear winter and poor agricultural output.
Makes sense. I'll start surveying the buildings in surrounding areas. Could also be fun to search for building records. I guess I also need an axe to cut open the doors because those buildings are usually locked.
My plan is to go to anywhere subterranean (basement levels in my building) and having enough food & water for 4 to 5 days. That should be enough to avoid the initial radiation harms.
With brick and wooden basement I'm not sure if it's good enough to keep radiation out. In a war probably there will ne blasts in all directions so wind always bring some radiation. I'm not sure what kind of air filtering can keep radiation out...
KI and Prussian blue (both in measured capsule form) are a standard part of my first aid kit. I don't see anything alarming about HHS being prepared; quite the opposite.
My tinfoil hat spider sense is tingling with this. If the government wanted 250 mil of anti nuke meds don’t you think they’d keep that quiet? So they are publishing this for… some purpose, but I can’t imagine why. Just to cover bases? Just to share news? To drive stock? To scare the public? The list goes on. Someone help me understand the logic behind this maneuver.
It's just like all military things. It's just an insurance. For ex. all Europe counrys have armys. Most countrys never had a war in the last 50 years and military gear was just used to play war. We in Switzerland paid billions for our F18 jets. They never shot a single shot to an enemy, but still, we pay billions again to buy new F35 jets.
Putin is definitely going to do something when he feels cornered, who is going to stop him? He's already had everyone against him pushed off buildings.
There is a lot to know about nuclear war and how to survive one, and reading the comments there seems to be a lot of ignorance. I'm ignorant too. What I do know is that if things escalate into total nuclear war between the US and Russia it may NOT be the end as we know it. But you should know some things to be prepared. Like where the likely targets are, what kinds of bombs will hit those targets, and the effects of those bombs. It would be helpful to understand a little about practical nuclear fusion and fission, the fission products that plutonium decays into, and how it combines with dust to form fallout. It's good to know what alpha and beta particles are, what gamma radiation is, the impact on the body.
I think this is necessary research if you want to make the best decision because, yes, sometimes the government does lie to you (see: Covid PPE lies in 2020) and you have to make your own choices. In the Covid case it was an obvious lie that could be penetrated by understanding the basics of disease transmission and epidemology - stuff you can learn in an evening.
I've done a bit of this research, and the odd thing to me is that, from what I've read, potassium iodide (KI) only protects the thyroid from being harmed by I-131. The key question is how the radioactive I-131 gets into your body in the first place. I think its fallout, but I'm not sure. I mean, how could significant amounts of iodine enter your body? You'd have to breath a lot of radioactive dust, and at that point is your thyroid really your primary concern?
But there are lots of other questions. Like, why only iodine? Why only protect the thyroid? Because there are other fissile products, and there are many other organs in the body, some of which you need to live. Plus, I-131 is used intentionally as medicine, so why defend so hard against something that is not necessarily even lethal?
I don't know the answers, yet. In the interim, one possibility is that KI is a placebo to help people feel like they're "doing something" even though the pill might help defend one very small vulnerability in the pantheon of challenges you face if a nuke goes off nearby (or if fallout sprinkles on you or your house or the farm that grows your food). But honestly, if you're eating fallout dust you're putting a strong beta emitter into your stomach and I'm a little unclear how a well-protected thyroid helps you at that point.
> The key question is how the radioactive I-131 gets into your body in the first place. I think its fallout, but I'm not sure. I mean, how could significant amounts of iodine enter your body? You'd have to breath a lot of radioactive dust, and at that point is your thyroid really your primary concern?
I-131 is a primary product of fission. With an 8 day half life it's intensely radioactive. And it bioaccumulates in the thyroid. Thyroid hormones triiodothyronine and thyroxine contain iodine. So iodine is a trace nutrient, at 150ug/day.
I'm sure there was lobbyists involved in this deal but that doesn't make it a bad deal. The drug manufacturer may have been in conversation with HHS about their needs and realized this was an opportunity and capitalized to everyone's mutual advantage. We spent a shitload of money on COVID tests and treatments to the great benefit of everyone.
Ask why Rheinmetall Defence already had the last two years such good very years and who bought all the munition. It's worth a couple of minutes and read the last few annual reports.
Prominent news organizations, such as CBS and Newsweek, have reported on the nuclear train (albeit, referring to it as "not independently verified").
If you're going to claim that it was debunked by the Director of the CIA, you're going to need to provide a link, please - ideally to a credible news organization or the CIA itself. I did a quick google and it came up with nothing, so it's very possible I'm not searching in the right way.
> Prominent news organizations, such as CBS and Newsweek, have reported on the nuclear train (albeit, referring to it as "independently verified").
I'm not sure what articles you're referring to, but the first CBS article I found[1] says it could not be "independently verified".
>A video shared online of a train in Russia carrying equipment belonging to a Russian military unit that handles nuclear weapons should be taken as a message to the West, a military analyst says. The video, which a U.S. official told CBS News could not be independently confirmed, shows an armored personnel carrier with a cannon attached, as well as another vehicle belonging to the unit, being transported on the train, the analyst said.
The newsweek article[2] doesn't mention any sort of verification, and is repeating whatever the polish military analyst says.
Thank you. People like the above poster are justifiably scared, but it's important to maintain rationality in times like these instead of going into hyper-vigilance mode and seeing every crazy Twitter post as confirmation of the apocalypse.
The entire world is looking for a reason to freak out, so they're seeing big, scary shapes in the clouds. Most mass media would love to see the masses freak out, so the problem is exacerbated. The entire train claim came from some nobody in Poland who had no idea about the context of what they were looking at. This train track is commonly active, and even more so during Russia's nuclear training exercises that occur every autumn.
>"We don't see any practical evidence today in the U.S. intelligence community that he's moving closer to actual use, that there's an imminent threat of using tactical nuclear weapons," CIA director William Burns told CBS News Monday.
>"What we have to do is take it very seriously, watch for signs of actual preparations."
The nuclear train story came out Sunday and this quote is from Bill Burns on Monday.
>"We don't see any practical evidence today in the U.S. intelligence community that he's moving closer to actual use, that there's an imminent threat of using tactical nuclear weapons," CIA director William Burns told CBS News Monday.
is different than
"that is not a train used by the nuclear organization, they are not moving weapons, etc "
He specifically does not address the claim. Which to me, is a red flag of lying by omission.
Personally, I never took the initial story super seriously, and view articles like this suspiciously.
Only slightly off topic but Newsweek was purchased by a weird Korean cult similar in structure to Scientology, so you should move them off your "prominent news org" mental map. Several of the higher ups at the org are under federal indictment and the current owner/operator who came in with the cult seems to be a bit of a psychopath.
Ahh a conspiracy theorist. You must know all of their dark plans that the sheeple could never see. How original of you. The world definitely needs more people like you.
The west makes the critical mistake of seeing this conflict as about Ukraine. Putin sees the war as a single front in a much larger pending conflict with the west. He firmly believes this conflict must occur for Russia to have a place in the future geopolitical order 100 years from now. In his mind, there is no distinction, or tactical advantage, between using a nuclear weapon in Poland versus Ukraine. I argue, Putin is far more likely to use a nuclear weapon against a NATO target in a Baltic state than use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. A nuclear attack on a Baltic state would be far more palatable to the Russian people versus using a nuclear weapon against people who are viewed as "Russian". More importantly, he thinks about history in terms of decades and centuries. Using a nuclear weapon within what he considers Russian territory is untenable in the broad historical arc he has created.
Launching a nuke only makes sense if Putin just wants to try and end the world? A tactical nuke isn't likely to change the strategic direction of the war, it's just escalation for the sake of escalation. He's already losing the war. Launching a nuke in Ukraine or NATO does not mean that NATO respond with nukes. They can respond with conventional weapons and end the war within a week.
Plus there's a non-zero chance that the chain of command refuses to carry out the order and undermines all internal authority that Putin has.
I agree, NATO will never respond with nukes, even if a nuke is launched directly into NATO territory. NATO understands this is a 0 sum outcome. And it's not needed.
I think the risk is that those around Putin (regime), and Putin himself to an extent, believe that a world without Russia is not worth having. And to the regime, Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin. The question is, if there is a 100% chance that should he lose this conflict that his regime will collapse and a 99% chance that Russia could survive a nuclear war on equal footing with the west which will he choose?
Even a full scale nuclear war will not end the world, many millions, likely billions will survive. It will just be nothing like the world before.
MAD is there for a reason, anyone who thinks that a nuclear attack within territory of a NATO country or forces within the areas that fall under Article 5 won’t trigger a nuclear response is kidding themselves.
And not only that eroding the threat of MAD makes the world a far dangerous place because it makes a first strike more likely.
That said even if the conflict goes nuclear there are different levels of escalation a targeted nuclear attack on say a military target would likely trigger a proportional response even if it’s a nuclear one.
And outside of NATO the US would very likely respond with a retaliatory nuclear strike against a nuclear strike on its forces where ever they might be.
The point is that they don't "need" to respond with nukes. They can trigger article 5 and start a conventional war and achieve the same or better outcome; possibly without even putting boots on the ground. For example, NATO could (likely) sink the remainder of Russia's Black Sea fleet within a few days of triggering article 5. And/or they could actually establish a no fly zone and be fully justified in doing so.
Responding with a full on nuclear assault because someone first strikes with a Nuke that's smaller then those used in WWII doesn't make sense. You can probably do more damage with chemical, biological, or cyber warfare then a nuke like that (unless targeted at a dense population center).
Not only would they need too but they would must response with nukes because if they don’t it makes the world a much less safe place.
If Russia thinks it can use nukes without a nuclear response they’ll use them, this is literally the entire concept of MAD and any erosion of it brings us closer to a nuclear war.
And if the US thinks it can make a nuclear response without a larger nuclear response...
Remember the mindset of Putin. "What good is a world without Russia?" It's better to have no world than a world where Russia is not a central player.
Just how Putin is losing the war exactly? I'm curious to know since that's the only thing I hear since may. It seems that rather than making Russia back down, they are doubling down. This move is basically saying that we're entering a new phase: nuclear war.
They have lost more land in the last three weeks then they have gained in a some ungodly large amount of time (three months? more?). They look like they are going to lose Kherson in mere weeks at this point.
Additionally older and older equipment is being seen on the frontline every month we are already seeing armoured units in Kherson that have mostly T62s instead of the usual T72z
They pulled back from Kyiv after becoming overly stretched, then their Kharkiv front collapsed, then they lost Lyman, now they're losing Kherson. It's becoming a pattern. They've had no significant gains in a long time, only losses.
But their propaganda tells them that the Ukrainians who are fighting are neo-Nazis. So a nuke that kills the army isn't going to be seen as bad. There could also be changing sentiment towards Ukraine within Russia, I've heard murmurs about that (but no good polling, yet).
That was 2 cities, and there was still the entirety of global civilization still functioning beyond them, providing a means of recovery and a hope for the future.
Global civilization wasn't really still functioning this was the end of WWII. Europe was in shambles and the more industrialized parts having been carpet bombed, the Germans Italians British and French had lost/were losing their empires. China had just been broken first by civil war then by the Japanese. Pretty much the only industrialized nation to come out not broken was the US.
The people who survive, usually. It's obviously scale dependent, but I can't imagine not wanting this around just in case. Many humans will survive initially and we will need everyone we can to try and find a way to survive.
Not sure this would be Russia's rationale behind starting an exchange considering how much they would benefit from global warming through the unlocking of farmland and livable territory.
And likewise, not sure it would favor the United States all that much either since 1/8th of our landmass is in Alaska. It'd probably be a wash for the US but certainly Russia has no reason to use nuclear weapons to halt or reverse global warming.
I could see this conspiracy theory being slightly more believable for an exchange between India and Pakistan, though. And by slightly, I mean only mildly less laughable.
Thousands of lifes and millions if not billions affected to various degree in order to slightly cool down our planet (I think the point of reducing emissions is not to prevent global warming but to rather keep the air we breathe not too contaminated?)? Jokes aside, maybe the nuclear tests in the 30s,40s and 60s were the reason why the globe has become slightly colder to begin with, and what is being observed now is just out planet recovering from a reasonably rough century of forceful cooling down inflicted by nuclear events?
Nuclear weapons don't magically cool the planet, and "a little nuke" doesn't cool it "less than a big nuke". Nuclear winter is caused by smoke, dust and ash blocking out sunlight.
The trust barrier for holding onto nuclear weapons is much higher than the trust barrier for artillery. Ukraine has a history of corruption and bribery issues. The current regime seems fine but 20 years from now?
For most of the war only about 30-40% of the arms we sent actually made it to the war effort. The rest appears to have been sold off to the black market. That doesn't seem fine to me.
>Back in April, he estimated that just "30-40%" of the supplies coming across the border reached its final destination. But he says the situation has significantly improved since then and a much larger quantity now gets where it's supposed to go.
> Ohman relies largely on unofficial channels to deliver his supplies
And this statement is supposed to mean what? That actual deliveries are higher than 30-40%? It's just a guess at this point for how many weapons actually reach Ukrainians who are actually fighting.
Snark aside, this may not be the case this time around. Relevant snippet:
> 2004 Project Bioshield Act and $290 million in Project BioShield designated funding to purchase this supply of the drug. Amgen will maintain this supply in vendor-managed inventory. This approach decreases life-cycle management costs for taxpayers because doses that near expiration can be rotated into the commercial market for rapid use prior to expiry and new doses can be added to the government supply.
I'm guessing $290M covers both the cost of the drugs as well as storage for some number of years. Would be nice to know for how long.