Nuclear Weapons Watch Thread

[wjfox]

Well, this doesn't look good at all.

35 years of reductions in nuclear weapon stockpiles has suddenly and abruptly begun to reverse.

[caltrek]

Nuclear Notebook: How many nuclear weapons does North Korea have in 2021?
by Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda
July 21, 2021

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2021-07 ... e-in-2021/

Introduction:

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) North Korea has made significant advances over the past two decades in developing a nuclear weapons arsenal. It has detonated six nuclear devices––one with a yield of well over 100 kilotons––and test-flown a variety of new ballistic missiles, several of which may be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to targets in Northeast Asia and potentially in the United States and Europe. However, there is considerable uncertainty about which of North Korea’s missiles have been fielded with an active operational nuclear capability.

It is widely assumed that North Korea has operational nuclear warheads for medium-range missiles. However, it is unclear whether it has managed to develop fully functioning nuclear warheads that can be delivered by long-range ballistic missiles and, following violent atmospheric reentry, detonate as planned. That said, just because North Korea has not yet publicly demonstrated a capability to deliver a functioning nuclear reentry vehicle on a long-range ballistic missile does not necessarily indicate that it is not working on developing one or could not field one in the future. It is clear from its development efforts and public statements that North Korea ultimately intends to field an operational nuclear arsenal capable of holding regional and US targets at risk.

Due to the lack of clarity surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program, agencies and officials of the US intelligence community, as well as military commanders and nongovernmental experts, struggle to assess the program’s characteristics and capabilities. Based on publicly available information about North Korea’s fissile material production and missile posture, we cautiously estimate that North Korea might have produced sufficient fissile material to build 40 to 50 nuclear weapons and that it might possibly have assembled 10 to 20 warheads for delivery by medium-range ballistic missiles.

The article goes into a lot of further detail some of which I did not read. What I did read simply further documents and explains its summary conclusions as contained in the cited introduction.

[raklian]

Well, this doesn't look good at all.

35 years of reductions in nuclear weapon stockpiles has suddenly and abruptly begun to reverse.

The Chinese are rapidly increasing their nuclear arsenal as well.

[caltrek]

The 2021 Nuclear Year in Review
by Susan D’Agostino
December 27, 2021

https://thebulletin.org/2021/12/the-202 ... g-stories/

Introduction:

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the 2021 nuclear year off to a rousing start when she—for good reason—spoke with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the [nuclear] launch codes.” On a brighter note, that same month the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force, though none of the nuclear states have signed.

In February, George Shultz, one of President Ronald Reagan’s most trusted advisors during the Cold War, passed away. “If I could choose one American to whom I would entrust the nation’s fate in a crisis,” Henry Kissinger once said, “it would be George Shultz.”

In March, all eyes turned to North Korea’s short-range ballistic missile tests, which violated UN Security Council resolutions and threatened South Korea and the world. The month also marked the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, prompting some concerned scientists to remind the public and policymakers that a similar incident could happen again. This year also marked 75 years since the United States tested nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, though the country has yet to right the wrongs committed against the Marshallese people and their land.

In April, the United Kingdom raised its nuclear stockpile limits, “reversing two decades of progress towards a smaller and more transparent UK arsenal.” Also in April, Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility was sabotaged—allegedly by Israel—amid talks on reviving the Iran nuclear deal. Meanwhile, Japan announced a plan for releasing Fukushima’s wastewater into the sea, even before reestablishing public trust in that process.

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden injected the nuclear landscape with a dose of cautious optimism when they reaffirmed the Reagan-Gorbechev statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Those at the US National Nuclear Security Administration must have been whistling while looking at their shoes, the sky, or anywhere but their $505 billion expenditures for sustaining and modernizing nuclear warheads and production facilities.

[wjfox]

‘No one can win a nuclear war’: Superpowers release rare joint statement

January 4, 2022 — 12.30pm

China, Russia, the UK, the United States and France have agreed that a further spread of nuclear arms and a nuclear war should be avoided.

According to a joint statement released on Tuesday morning (AEDT), the five countries – permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – said they considered it their primary responsibility to avoid war between the nuclear states and to reduce strategic risks, while aiming to work to create an atmosphere of security.

“We declare there could be no winners in a nuclear war, it should never be started,” the Russian-language version of the statement read.

An English-language version was released by the White House.

“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the statement reads. “We also affirm that nuclear weapons – for as long as they continue to exist – should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/no- ... 59lmf.html

[erowind]

.

[caltrek]

‘No one can win a nuclear war’: Superpowers release rare joint statement

More on that:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/ ... -statement

Extract:

(Common Dreams) None of the five countries, nor any of the other four nuclear powers, signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—a landmark 2017 agreement outlawing nukes that took effect last January and has been ratified by 56 nations.

Peace advocates reacted to the leaders' statement by noting the yawning chasm between their words and actions.

"As Greta Thunberg said, 'blah, blah, blah,'" Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, tweeted in response to the leaders' proclamation. "They write this 'nice' statement but [are] doing exactly the opposite in reality. They're in a nuclear arms race, expanding nuclear arsenals, spending billions on modernizing, and constantly prepared to start a nuclear war."
…
Russia—which, with over 6,000 warheads, is home to the world's largest nuclear arsenal—is modernizing its missile delivery systems while developing two new types of intercontinental ballistic missiles, including the road-mobile RS-26 Rubezh, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
…
In a move that disarmament campaigners called a violation of Britain's NPT obligations, Prime Minister Boris Johnson last year announced a plan to increase the size of the nation's nuclear arsenal by up to 40%.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-12 ... -expansion

Introduction:

(Arms Control Association) China is accelerating its development of strategic nuclear warheads in an effort to amass 700 by 2027 and 1,000 by 2030, more than doubling last year’s estimate, according to the U.S. Defense Department’s 2021 China military power report.

Viewed alongside recent revelations about the construction of at least 250 new missile silos in northwestern China, the annual report highlights a concerning nuclear buildup. Last year, the Pentagon estimated that Beijing had a total nuclear warhead stockpile in the low 200s and projected it would at least double over the next decade. (See ACT, October 2020.)

China is “investing in, and expanding, the number of its land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear delivery platforms and constructing the infrastructure necessary to support this major expansion of its nuclear forces,” according to the report, which covers developments through 2020.

“Our number-one pacing challenge is the People’s Republic of China,” said Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby on Nov. 5.

[caltrek]

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the World's Future
by Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner
January 11, 2022

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022 ... lds-future

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) Late January of this year will mark the first anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This momentous international agreement, the result of a lengthy struggle by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and by many non-nuclear nations, bans developing, testing, producing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. Adopted by an overwhelming vote of the official representatives of the world's nations at a UN conference in July 2017, the treaty was subsequently signed by 86 nations. It received the required 50 national ratifications by late October 2020, and, on January 22, 2021, became international law.

Right from the start, the world's nine nuclear powers—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—expressed their opposition to such a treaty. They pressed other nations to boycott the crucial 2017 UN conference and refused to attend it when it occurred. Indeed, three of them (the United States, Britain, and France) issued a statement declaring that they would never ratify the treaty. Not surprisingly, then, none of the nuclear powers has signed the agreement or indicated any sympathy for it.

Even so, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has acquired considerable momentum over the past year. During that time, an additional nine nations ratified it, thus becoming parties to the treaty. And dozens more, having signed it, are expected to ratify it in the near future. Furthermore, the governments of two NATO nations, Norway and Germany, have broken free from the U.S. government's oppositional stance to the treaty and agreed to attend the first meeting of the countries that are parties to it.

In nations where public opinion on the treaty has been examined, the international agreement enjoys considerable support. YouGov opinion polls in five NATO countries in Europe show overwhelming backing and very little opposition, with the same true in Iceland, another NATO participant. Polling has also revealed large majorities in favor of the treaty in Japan, Canada, and Australia.

caltrtek's comment: I can see refusing to ratify the treaty, but to "press other nations to boycott the crucial 2017 UN conference and" to have "refused to attend it" seems ludicrous. I would think that all countries would see it in their own interests to encourage others to pursue the goals of the treaty, even if they themselves refuse to ratify because of worries regarding conflict with certain other countries.

[caltrek]

To Avert 'Global Nuclear Holocaust,' U.S. Groups Demand Abolition of ICBMs
by Jake Johnson
January 12, 2022

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/ ... tion-icbms

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) More than 60 U.S. organizations issued a joint statement Wednesday calling for the total elimination of the country's land-based nuclear missiles, warning that the weapons are both an enormous waste of money and—most crucially—an existential threat to humankind.

Organized by the advocacy groups RootsAction and Just Foreign Policy, the statement argues that intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are "uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war."

"There is no more important step the United States could take to reduce the chances of a global nuclear holocaust than to eliminate its ICBMs," continues the statement, which was signed by Beyond the Bomb, Global Zero, Justice Democrats, CodePink, and dozens of other anti-war groups.

"Everything is at stake," the groups warn. "Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and inflict catastrophic damage on the world's ecosystems with 'nuclear winter,' inducing mass starvation while virtually ending agriculture. That is the overarching context for the need to shut down the 400 ICBMs now in underground silos that are scattered across five states—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming."

The statement comes just two weeks after President Joe Biden signed into law a sprawling military policy bill that allocates billions of dollars to research, development, and missile procurement for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, an initiative that is expected to replace the current Minuteman III ICBMs in the coming years.

[caltrek]

What If Nuclear Deterrence Fails
Linda Pence Guntner
January 12, 2022

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/12 ... nce-fails/

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) “Long live deterrence to dissuade nuclear attacks” blasted the headline on Gwynne Dyer’s December 6, 2021 column in The Hill Times. And then came this subheader:

“It’s not absolutely foolproof, but it has protected us all from nuclear war for 75 years.”

There is just one obvious problem with this statement. In order for deterrence to work, it has to be absolutely 100 percent foolproof. The consequence of it being less than that is beyond catastrophic. It could amount to the end of life on earth as we know it. That’s one hell of a gamble. And it’s a gamble that is not morally defensible on any level. It’s one that should never be taken.

As we wrote on the cover of our pamphlet —The Myth of Deterrence: Why nuclear weapons don’t deter or protect and aren’t really weapons at all — “The only way to be 100% certain of nuclear deterrence is to have 100% nuclear weapons abolition.”

Trusting in nuclear deterrence is a risk of such monumental humanitarian consequences that it changed the entire dialogue around disarmament, prompting a new civil society movement to push the United Nations to adopt, sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The TPNW worked — and came into law in January 2021 — precisely because the issue of nuclear weapons was viewed from the perspective of their humanitarian consequences if used.

[wjfox]

[Yuli Ban]

Continuing from the Ukraine War thread, I mentioned this in the Accelerant Theory post that it's entirely possible nuclear winter is MORE likely with fewer, weaker warheads than it was in the 80s when we had something like 70,000 warheads with hundreds in the megaton range.
It's like setting fire to a bush. In one case, you use a bottle-rocket. In the other, you use C4.
In just about no situation is the C4 going to start a fire because it will have blown to bits everything that COULD have burned.

It's entirely plausible to think that, if nuclear war ever broke out, even cities like London or New York City could be hit by hydrogen bombs that are still measured in kilotons. IIRC, the largest warhead today is a Chinese weapon that's 5 megatons in strength, and I just don't see China getting involved in any of this.
The days of weapons like Tsar Bomba are basically over. And like I said, that's not necessarily a good thing. London getting struck with a 750 kiloton warhead would certainly destroy it pretty badly, but not so much that there's nothing left to burn in a massive firestorm as compared to if it were struck by a 20 megaton warhead.



I'd rather we not find out who is wrong save at some future point in the safety of advanced virtual reality.

[caltrek]

Now that the situation in the Ukraine has been mentioned in this thread, below is an interesting article I came upon not too long ago relating to the risk of escalating that conflict. It is really a shame that we are now back to Cold War type confrontations in which local hot wars and other crises threaten to go nuclear. It is like the one step forward two steps back problem of modern history being revisited.

A Top Advocate for a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine Has Some Baggage
by Dan Friedman
March 12, 2022

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -fly-zone/

Conclusion:

(Mother Jones) There is reason to question not only the arguments in support of a no-fly zone in Ukraine, but also the motives of advocates of the idea. Many are former senior government officials, sophisticated operatives who understand that there is little chance that the Biden administration and NATO allies will take the risk of assuming that Vladmir Putin, who has said a no-fly zone would be an act of war, is bluffing. Freed of responsibly for avoiding World War III, advocates like former Sen. Joe Lieberman can call opponents of a no-fly zone “morally wrong” and overly fearful, drubbing them with responsibility for Russia killing Ukrainian civilians. These arguments, as national security reporter Spencer Ackerman writes, seem disingenuous and are likely to make prudence more politically painful for Biden, even if they don’t sway him. But that is not the problem of hawkish advocates, who reap rewards, including appearances on cable news shows, for their tough talk.

Some people advocating for a no-fly zone in Ukraine, probably, have the best intentions. But the fact that a leading advocate of that position (Kurt Volker) appears to have misled Congress last time he got involved in Ukraine’s national security is one more reason to treat these arguments skeptically.

[Maximus]

Well, we're not going to be able to avoid this discussion forever it seems.

So my thoughts on it haven't changed since my Walpurgisnacht panic attack back in 2014: do hope that one of three things is the reality if nuclear war breaks out—

• Most nuclear weapons are defective, intercepted, and small-yield. Nuclear winter fails to materialize. Agriculture, though reduced, remains. An exchange of less than 1,000 working warheads total, with the vast majority being Hiroshima-sized or smaller, would be devastating but survivable for humanity and possibly even civilization. It'd irreversibly change us, but in the end, life would indeed go on...
• You live in a place that will be bombed. I'm not so lucky, as I live in nondescript small city (less than 25,000 people) away from military installations, missile silos, or important targets. I'll almost certainly just lose electricity and hear the dull thump of civilization falling around me. I don't even live in the fallout zone...
• The USicans or Ruskies were being naughty naughty little children and developed things they shouldn't have. Things like cobalt bombs. In which case, I speak no hyperbole when I say "everyone dies." In that case, we won't worry about our end for long. I call this one "Clean Slate Theory" because it means that those in power decided that, should nuclear war happens, we ought to just start Earth off as a clean slate again. In which case maybe the birds, octopi, or chimps will develop civilization again someday.

For whatever reason, the US intel doesn't think nuclear war is happening though. They're not buying into the idea Putin's actually gone MAD.

I agree, we should have this conversation, given Russia's unilateral escalation in rhetoric with implied threats of nuclear war (over sanctions lol) and raising its nuclear alert status.

1. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world at ~6400. However, of those 1,456 are currently active (and these are just warheads, not actual ICBMs). They need to be mounted on ICBMs or other launch mechanisms, which further reduces the amount of targets to choose from. In a nuclear exchange, neither side would get to use their entire stockpiles, so already we've cut down the amount of possible apocalypse. Like you say, of those 1456 some will likely be defective, or intercepted. Now consider this also; Russia needs to neutralize targets in many countries all over the world. From the US, to Canada, to pretty much all of Europe, and probably even other US allies like Israel, Japan, and Australia. In each of those countries, there are hundreds of targets, from civilian centers, to military bases, to shipyards, steel processing factories, mines, and so on. Also, no single strike is guaranteed to suceed, so multiple ICBMs need to be assigned to important targets. So Russia's arsenal would really be stretched quite thin, and wouldn't achieve all its objectives. The US and NATO on the other hand, can focus only on targets in Russia, of which there are far fewer. For reference, the US has an active inventory of 1,357 warheads. The UK has 120 active warheads. France has 280 warheads. The US and NATO wouldn't come out of it looking pretty, but Russia would be a lot worse off. Unless China decides to join in. But why would they risk their necks? Their two biggest threats are taking each other out, if they just hide in bunkers and come out in a few years, the world will be theirs for the taking.
2. The idea of nuclear winter is from studies done the 80s. Needless to say, models have improved greatly since then, and they seem to show that it might not be as apocalyptic as thought. Yes, it would end the warring nations and result in freezing temperatures for a year or two probably, but maybe there is hope other nations would survive.
3. Well if those weapons are used, then indeed we're all screwed. Russia also said it was working on some apocalyptic radioactive tsunami bomb a few years ago. Maybe this would be an incentive for China and others to bomb both Russia and the US in this scenario, to ensure such doomsday devices aren't released from either side.

...
Well, that's some terrifying reading. Another study published just last year says this:

Soot aerosols spread globally after they are injected into the upper atmosphere, blocking shortwave radiation and causing global cooling. In NW-150Tg, a nearly 120 W m−2 reduction in global mean monthly downwelling solar radiation is simulated (Fig. 1a), accompanied by a nearly 10 °C reduction in global mean monthly surface temperatures over the course of the next two years (Fig. 1b). The spatial patterns of temperature (Fig. 1c) and precipitation (Fig. 1d) anomalies are characterized by extreme cooling and reduced precipitation over most of the globe.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00088-1

I've also been reading up on criticisms of nuclear winter, and mostly it comes down to this: how likely is it areas hit by nukes will catch fire. I mean, really catch fire. Raging firestorms that go on for days and spew soot into the upper atmosphere. That's all nuclear winter is apparently. Nothing to do directly with the nukes themselves, rather, it's a consequence of firestorms started by them. The question of course is, how reasonable is the firestorm assumption? This Wikipedia article does a good job of summarizing both points of view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#2021). Basically, researchers don't agree on this assumption. It seems most models rely on a worst-case scenario assumption regarding firestorms, including how long the soot remains in the atmosphere and other factors. Everything would have to go disastrously wrong. Take for example the 2021 study above:

We examine in total 6 nuclear war scenarios. In the United States and Russia nuclear war scenario, 150 Tg of pure black carbon is injected into the 150 hPa to 300 hPa layer over the United States and Russia as a worst case scenario.

I mean, there are good reasons for this assumption. Yes, we need to make nuclear war look like insanity, because even without apocalyptic nuclear winter, hundreds of millions would still die from the actual blasts, radiation, collapsed supply chains, collapsed food chains and so on. Second, the worst-case models may be right. The firestorms may last weeks, and the soot they inject into the atmosphere may linger there for years. I certainly don't want to find out if they're wrong or not.

I feel like this discussion is derailing this thread though, it would be nice to have a thread for discussing this topic though given it's likely to become an everyday part of our lives now we're in Cold War 2.0. Is there a thread already?

Migrating over some relevant posts from the Ukraine-Russia War thread.

[caltrek]

If Putin Were to Use Nuclear Weapons, What Would Follow?
Stephen Peter Rosen
March 23, 2022

https://www.thebulwark.com/if-putin-wer ... ld-follow/

Introduction

(The Bulwark) Yesterday, Kremlin and White House officials answered questions about what might happen if Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine goes nuclear.

When asked by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour about the conditions under which Putin would order the use of nuclear weapons, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov replied, “if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be.” This quickly led to speculation about whether Putin might consider a threat to the continuation of his regime as sufficiently “existential” to warrant the use of nuclear weapons.

In White House press briefing room yesterday, a reporter asked National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan whether President Joe Biden would discuss with other NATO leaders the possible use by Russia of nuclear weapons. “Well, President Putin, in the early days of the conflict, actually raised the specter of the potential use of nuclear weapons,” Sullivan replied. “We are constantly monitoring for that potential contingency. And of course, we take it as seriously as one could possibly take it.” Biden likely would be discussing “potential responses” with NATO leaders, Sullivan said.

So far, President Biden has chosen to proceed calmly. On March 11, he warned that “Russia would pay a severe price” if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine but remained silent about nuclear weapons (although senior administration spokesmen acknowledged that possible Russian nuclear use was being closely watched). Any military preparations, if there are any, were not announced. The strategy was to ignore the nuclear threat as if it had not been made. This may have been the wisest course, but it may have had the effect of further convincing Putin that he has to do something that cannot be ignored. This week, Biden intensified his rhetoric, saying that Putin’s “back is against the wall” and that Russian propaganda about Ukraine supposedly having biological and chemical weapons is “a clear sign he is considering using both of those.” He reiterated the unspecific threat of “severe consequences.”

[wjfox]

Russia reasserts right to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine

Sat 26 Mar 2022 14.56 GMT

The Kremlin again raised the spectre of the use of nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine as Russian forces struggled to hold a key city in the south the country.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who is deputy chairman of the country’s security council, said Moscow could strike against an enemy that only used conventional weapons while Vladimir Putin’s defence minster claimed nuclear “readiness” was a priority.

The comments on Saturday prompted Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in an appearance by video link at Qatar’s Doha Forum to warn that Moscow was a direct threat to the world.

Russia is deliberating bragging they can destroy with nuclear weapons, not only a certain country but the entire planet.

Russia has approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads – the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. In an interview on Saturday, Medvedev said Russia’s nuclear doctrine did not require an enemy state to use such weapons first.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... e58-pinned

[raklian]

Russia reasserts right to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine

Sat 26 Mar 2022 14.56 GMT

The Kremlin again raised the spectre of the use of nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine as Russian forces struggled to hold a key city in the south the country.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who is deputy chairman of the country’s security council, said Moscow could strike against an enemy that only used conventional weapons while Vladimir Putin’s defence minster claimed nuclear “readiness” was a priority.

The comments on Saturday prompted Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in an appearance by video link at Qatar’s Doha Forum to warn that Moscow was a direct threat to the world.

Russia is deliberating bragging they can destroy with nuclear weapons, not only a certain country but the entire planet.

Russia has approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads – the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. In an interview on Saturday, Medvedev said Russia’s nuclear doctrine did not require an enemy state to use such weapons first.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... e58-pinned

Russia is playing a very dangerous game.

NATO hasn't informed Russia what its "red line" is. If Russia uses nukes even on a very small scale, it might mean the end of Russia's current regime. I don't know what Medvedev is thinking. He can't be stupid enough to think they won't face any significant consequences if they deploy them.

Even they don't use them at all and this is all just a bluff, Putin's regime won't last very long because the West will never forget this threat even it is an empty one. As long as Putin or a Putin-sympathizer is in power, Russia will remain an isolated pariah with China likely abandoning it until Russians rise up and replace Putin with someone else. It will take something on the level of a Navalny presidency to reverse all that self-inflicted damage, diplomatically and economically.

[Yuli Ban]

[caltrek]

Join the Global Call to Reject Nuclear Weapons

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/no ... 5/?wcpXZsb

Entire Letter:

Open Letter From Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and Citizens of the World Against War and Nuclear Weapons:
We reject war and nuclear weapons. We call on all our fellow citizens of the world to join us in protecting our planet, home for all of us, from those who threaten to destroy it.

The invasion of Ukraine has created a humanitarian disaster for its people. The entire world is facing the greatest threat in history: a large-scale nuclear war, capable of destroying our civilization and causing vast ecological damage across the Earth.

We call for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of all Russian military forces from Ukraine, and for all possible efforts at dialogue to prevent this ultimate disaster.

We call on Russia and NATO to explicitly renounce any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, and we call on all countries to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to ensure that we never again face a similar moment of nuclear danger.

The time to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons is now. It is the only way to guarantee that the inhabitants of the planet will be safe from this existential threat.

It is either the end of nuclear weapons, or the end of us.

We reject governance through imposition and threats, and we advocate for dialogue, coexistence and justice.

A world without nuclear weapons is necessary and possible, and together we will build it. It is urgent that we give peace a chance.
----------------------------------
Signatories list of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates:

His Holiness The Dalai Lama (1989)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1985)
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (2017)
Juan Manuel Santos (2016)
Kailash Satyarthi (2014)
Leymah Gbowee (2011)
Tawakkul Karman (2011)
Muhammad Yunus (2006)
David Trimble (1998)
Jody Williams (1997)
Jose Ramos-Horta (1996)
Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs (1995)
Óscar Arias Sánchez (1987)
Lech Walesa (1983)
American Friends Service Committee (1947)
International Peace Bureau (1910)

----------------------------------
This campaign is launched in collaboration with IPPNW.
Posted: 23 March 2022

The link above the quote box includes an opportunity to express support for the message of the letter.

[caltrek]

Ukrainian Experts: Russian Use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons A Real Possibility
April 7, 2022

https://www.eurasiareview.com/07042022- ... -analysis/

Extract:

(The Jamestown Foundation via Eurasia Review) Following the March 29 round of Russian-Ukrainian peace negotiations, held in Istanbul, a cautious optimism crept into the rhetoric of the Russian delegation. However, this was swiftly followed by harshly negative criticism in the Russian media that negotiations are happening at all. That sharp public rebuke, combined with revelations of Russian war crimes in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha (BBC News—Russian service, April 3), raised new doubts about whether any peaceful resolution to the conflict is possible at the moment. Given this, some Ukrainian experts fear that the risk of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine is increasing.
…
Against this background, some Ukrainian military experts have suggested that the risk of Russia employing nuclear or chemical weapons against Ukraine is growing. They noted that the Russian authorities are preparing the population for such a scenario and suggested that Moscow does not believe it will be held accountable for its actions (Defence-ua.com, April 2). The experts’ conclusion should be seen in tandem with examples of the extreme dehumanization of Ukrainians in the Russian media (RT, March 26) and Russia’s increasingly aggressive war propaganda, which render a peaceful resolution to the conflict unlikely.
…
Ukrainian military specialist Anton Mikhnenko noted, in an interview with this author on April 2, that Putin has no political reason to deliver a nuclear strike, since, in such an event, he would lose even the support of China and other non-European countries. However, in a military sense, the Russian elites may consider such an outcome quite conceivable, given that the psychological barrier against the use of tactical nuclear weapons, unlike strategic ones, has already been removed.

“One of the signs indicating that they have decided to launch a nuclear strike could be the deployment of radiological, chemical and biological protection units to the territory of Ukraine, which would ensure the subsequent disinfection of the contaminated territory before the Russian troops go on the offensive,” the Ukrainian analyst believes. However, Mikhnenko admited that such an offensive may not happen if Putin does not plan to seize the entire territory of the country but only hopes to break the resistance of the Ukrainians so that they abandon the regions already captured by Russia (Author’s interview, April 2).