'How Should the U.S. Respond to Putin's Nuclear Provocation?
[...] suggests that Putin's order—conducted on television and captured on video—is a measure aimed as much at a domestic Russian audience as it is at the West. He may be hoping to produce a kind of Cold War rallying around the flag among the Russian people. Or, at the least, to increase the sense that protest during a nuclear crisis is even more traitorous than usual.
Had Putin wanted to send a message solely to NATO, he could have merely given the order to the Russian chain of command, and Western intelligence and defense sources would have picked it up immediately. We know what such an order sounds like and what kind of activity would follow it.
[...]
[...] Putin is playing an insanely dangerous game here. He's holding a weak hand and yet threatening to go all-in. This is yet more evidence that years of isolation, in which his only contact is with sycophants and security guards, has taken its toll on his mental state.
For now, the [...] American answer should be to do nothing. This might seem counter-intuitive: The Russians have gone to an alert, and it would seem only prudent to answer this with a reciprocal raising of U.S. alert status. But this Cold War reaction is, I suspect, exactly what Putin wants. He's in a jam and he's trying to look strong[...] Putin would like nothing better than to take everyone's mind off Ukraine and focus us all on a game of nuclear chicken.'
https://www.theatlan...ocation/622943/
'If even a "small" nuclear war were to break out, tens of millions of people would die after the initial blasts. A blanket of soot would wrap the rays of the Sun and cause a nuclear winter, destroying crops all over the planet and plunging billions into famine. In the northern hemisphere, there would be such severe ozone depletion from the nuclear smoke that organisms would suffer from increased exposure to damaging ultraviolet light. While things would not be as bad in the southern hemisphere, even well-positioned countries like Australia would face the ripple effects [...]
"A large nuclear exchange would not only kill millions of people and contaminate wast areas with radioactive fallout but potentially also have longer-term climatic effects."'
https://www.alternet...022/02/nuclear/
#PutinSolvesGlobalWarming!
The 'small nuclear war' scenario they're citing is apparently based on an India-Pakistan nuclear war. Not clear if Putin could get NATO without the US to surrender after a nuclear attack without nuclear retaliation from France or the UK, or how many of the missiles would be stopped by shields.
'The group looked at several scenarios. Those range from a US–Russia war involving much of the world's nuclear arsenal, which would loft 150 million tonnes of soot into the atmosphere, down to the 100-warhead India–Pakistan conflict, which would generate 5 million tonnes of soot6. The soot turns out to be a key factor in how bad a nuclear winter would get; three years after the bombs explode, global temperatures would have plummeted by more than 10 °C in the first scenario — more than the cooling during the last ice age — but by a little more than 1 °C in the second.'
https://www.nature.c...586-020-00794-y
If the US doesn't get ready... how much of an advantage would that given Putin in a nuclear war? Unfortunately Biden seems to genuinely believe he's going to heaven. So nuclear armageddon might not seem so terrible... a clean flash, straight to the heavenly light.