Posted by: shadowbanned | Mar 13 2023 16:57 utc | 279
Just curious, have you ever lived under 70’s communism, because I have and the dissonance between the theoretical melody and atonal reality was jarring.

Posted by: Milites | Mar 13 2023 20:58 utc | 304

@shadowbanned | Mar 12 2023 23:47 utc | 162
On a planet where summer ice packs are becoming a rarity, large fast submarines being easily tracked and vulnerable to small missiles except while under ice are as much a waste of resources as Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in combat against space capable hypersonic missile welding opponents. Slow nuclear drones as hunter-killers and missile platforms not requiring frequent replenishment are a much better investment. I heard somewhere that the US are investing heavily in building expensive CVBGs and manned submarines, and Russia is not. There are possibly reasons for this that you do not seem to have considered.

Posted by: Hermit | Mar 13 2023 22:05 utc | 306

Norwegian @ 217
If global temps had dropped 15C and it had remained that way for a thousand years it would freeze the entire world ocean.
Assuming you saw that somewhere and did not just make it up I looked around and sure enough temps in central Greenland (ice cores?) went down 15C. Central Greenland. This is not even interesting. Why do you prattle on with subjects you clearly do not understand?

Posted by: oldhippie | Mar 13 2023 23:02 utc | 308

This, together with air rushing in, results in an uplift, taking soot, dust and other products of the thermonuclear detonations directly into the stratosphere, where it never rains. There it will cool and precipitate out into dust particles that will remain in the stratosphere for decades, 9ccluding the sun and cooling the planet.
Posted by: Hermit | Mar 13 2023 21:47 utc | 305
Am no scientist but this is my understanding too except would add a qualifier: when you say ‘air rushing in’ I believe it is something like a 250mph tornado for many miles around the blast of the modern Big Guy nukes because of the virtual vacuum formed by the instant hotter-than-sun nuclear explosion. This windstorm will throw up huge amounts of soil matter literally pulverized into tiny particles, and probably also construction matter similarly pulverized. Some people here seem to be thinking of how much particulate matter is in the explosion itself rather than grocking the huge winds generated which will throw up enormous quantities of dust which in turn will spur cloud formation some believe for decades following. That cloud formation will cause massive cooling over time as surface temps drop steadily and ocean temps along with them of course.
Nobody knows for sure, but they DO know what happens with one major blast and it seems few of us have been given a reasonably clear picture even of that.
And all the above entirely overlooks any possible radiation poisoning spread world wide by dozens if not hundreds of such explosions at once, all larger than anything previously dropped on heavily populated areas with urban construction a-plenty to pulverize and disseminate.

Posted by: Scorpion | Mar 14 2023 0:20 utc | 310

@Outraged | Mar 12 2023 16:54 utc | 46
I read a report here weeks ago that RF is rotating their forces out after about four months. They go to Russia, get real sleep and maintain their equipment. The train others and train on any new equipment or methods. Would you rather that the person who was packaging your supplies understood experientially how important it was to do it correctly?
If it is true, it would explain why hundreds of thousands reservists didn’t suddenly appear on the battlefields. It would also enable them to appear suddenly as experienced combat veterans. What general wouldn’t love to have that as a backup/reserve force?
A related question about Wagner’s forces. Does he have more than one force active in Ukraine? I presume that the force that took the East side of Bukhmut are sitting on warm beaches somewhere today, blowing some of their hard earned bonus. Are there other Wagner forces operating elsewhere in Ukraine?

Posted by: barstool | Mar 14 2023 2:37 utc | 312

@Down South | Mar 13 2023 2:46 utc | 187
As I’ve said before, Russia is intentionally not closing the caldron around Bukhmut because they want Ukraine to send them more soldiers to kill. It’s easier than having to search for them and chase them down.
Ukraine hasn’t had any significant offensive movement of forces in weeks. The last two blue arrows on the maps that I have seen were troops going to reenforce an already defended position that was coming under attack. It’s easier for Russia if they can attract Ukrainians instead of chasing them.

Posted by: barstool | Mar 14 2023 5:02 utc | 314

@ Aleph_Null | Mar 13 2023 17:54 utc | 289
Don’t forget Malcolm Bradbury’s savage and hilarious takedown of “post-modernism,” _(My Strange Quest for) Mensonge_.
(Many people apparently think that Lodge was Bradbury, or vice-versa.)

Posted by: John Kennard | Mar 14 2023 5:21 utc | 316

@barstool | Mar 14 2023 5:02 utc | 314
Sun Tzu said, in The Art of War, 7. MANEUVERING wrote,

When you surround an army, leave an outlet free.
This does not mean that the enemy is to be allowed to escape. The object, as Tu Mu puts it, is “to make him believe that there is a road to safety, and thus prevent his fighting with the courage of despair.” Tu Mu adds pleasantly: “After that, you may crush him.”

Posted by: Hermit | Mar 14 2023 9:43 utc | 318

@ barstool | Mar 14 2023 2:37 utc | 312
See post in March 14, 2023, Ukraine – Media Start To Acknowledge Reality Thread.
Re Wagner’s forces, they run 6 month contracts(IIRC), overwhelming majority professional veterans, drawn from former voluntary contract RF Soldiers/NCO/Officers (Former military Professionals by choice & career, as opposed to annual conscript obligation intakes). There are detachments elsewhere in Theater, overseas, even covert teams/individuals similar to covert SpecOPs/SAS/etc posing as civilians, for example. Many after enjoying a decent break re-up for another 6 month contract, rinse and repeat.

Posted by: Outraged | Mar 14 2023 14:50 utc | 320

Posted by: Roman | Mar 13 2023 17:56 utc | 291
Your comment was posted on the Paul Craig Roberts site:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2023/03/14/questions-for-mr-putin-from-a-russian/

Posted by: Scorpion | Mar 14 2023 22:56 utc | 322

@FieryButMostPeaceful | Mar 15 2023 11:19 utc | 323
Those combustible things in the vicinity of a detonation that are not vaporized are burned and when there is fuel available to establish a fireball the resulting burn area exceeds even the light blast radius, because, as we saw in e.g. London’s Great Fire, the Chicago Fire, and the aforementioned Tokyo and Dresden fireballs, the heat of an urban fireball creates an expanding combustion area. For example, a US W80 with a 150 ktonne TNT equivalent explosion detonated at 1660m to optimize the 5km blast damage would be expected to vaporize 0.5 km² and incinerate everything flammable in an area of about 200 to 300 km^2. A 100 Mtonne detonation would be expected to vaporize around 120 km² and incinerate some 25,000 to 30,000 km². More than enough to result in the effects I mentioned.
The difference between an ordinary fire and a firestorm is heat which determines the products released into the atmosphere where they force warming, and the stratosphere, where they cause cooling. A sufficient level of heat injects products of combustion into the stratosphere. Nuclear detonations differ from fires in that all nuclear detonations release sufficient heat to ensure stratospheric injection.
I recommend Charles G. Bardeen, Douglas E. Kinnison, Owen B. Toon, Michael J. Mills, Francis Vitt, Lili Xia, Jonas Jägermeyr, Nicole S. Lovenduski, Kim J. N. Scherrer, Margot Clyne, Alan Robock (2021-09-10). Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 126, Issue 18 e2021JD035079. “>https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035079 to your attention.
From that we can see that “In this study, two types of wars are simulated: a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and a global nuclear war between the United States and Russia. The regional war follows the 5 Tg of soot scenario described in Toon et al. (2019) using 44 15 kt-weapons with urban targets in a war lasting 3 days and is similar to that used by Mills et al. (2008, 2014). Smoke is emitted instantaneously when a target is attacked.
The global war follows Coupe et al. (2019) and is similar to that used by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007). It assumes that 150 Tg of soot is emitted uniformly over the continental US and Russia. The war lasts 7 days and the smoke emissions ramp down linearly during that time. As was done in previous studies, these wars are assumed to start on May 15th of the first year. Coupe et al. (2019) and Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) did not include weapon counts or yields needed for determining NOx emissions, so we have performed sensitivity tests with weapons inventories from: Toon et al. (2008), Kristensen and Korda (2020a, 2020b), and NRC (1985).”
…
” Plain Language Summary
Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies.”
The earth is already a stressed biosphere, in the midst of the worst extinction event in it’s history (measured by known species loss per year) and approaching many tipping points. Which is why few existing species are likely to survive even a relatively small regional war involving limited numbers of atmospheric deployment of thermonuclear devices. No keystone species, which are uniquely dependent on the health of the entire 7nderlying ecosystem, has been known to survive such an extinction event.We have no reason to imagine that humans would be an exception.
Maybe you could try to restrain projecting your Dunning-Kruger with added obnoxiousness and try to recognize that scientists who understand and model such events, and risk managers who analyze the potential impact, might know more than you about their subjects.

Posted by: Hermit | Mar 15 2023 17:26 utc | 324

optimize the 5km blast damage would be expected to vaporize 0.5 km² and incinerate everything flammable in an area of about 200 to 300 km^2

That’s only about about 15-20 km and doesn’t incinerate everything, like concrete and metal and asphalt which is 95% of a city.

A 100 Mtonne detonation would be expected to vaporize around 120 km² and incinerate some 25,000 to 30,000 km². More than enough to result in the effects I mentioned.

Lol, there has never been a 100 MT bomb. And the average payload currently in the arsenal is 0.5% of that yield.
Stop with this nonsense.

From that we can see that “In this study, two types of wars are simulated: a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and a global nuclear war between the United States and Russia. The regional war follows the 5 Tg of soot scenario described in Toon et al. (2019) using 44 15 kt-weapons with urban targets in a war lasting 3 days and is similar to that used by Mills et al. (2008, 2014). Smoke is emitted instantaneously when a target is attacked.
The global war follows Coupe et al. (2019) and is similar to that used by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007). It assumes that 150 Tg of soot is emitted uniformly over the continental US and Russia. The war lasts 7 days and the smoke emissions ramp down linearly during that time. As was done in previous studies, these wars are assumed to start on May 15th of the first year. Coupe et al. (2019) and Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) did not include weapon counts or yields needed for determining NOx emissions, so we have performed sensitivity tests with weapons inventories from: Toon et al. (2008), Kristensen and Korda (2020a, 2020b), and NRC (1985).”

8Tg of soot emitted into atmosphere annually which is 5% of total anthropogenically produced aerosol
That’s 5% aerosol which is about 160 Tg. PER YEAR.
I can still see the sun amidst a clear blue sky. How did I do that? May be nuclear winter from total yield of 1000 megatons is nonsense???
I like how science, facts and reality make a mockery of the propaganda you post.

This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover

Debunking you’re own propaganda. You can almost see the the authors of that publication trying to push this extinction myth hard.
The ozone crisis of the 90s is gone now. How about that, ozone replenishes itself.
Look if you want to kill all humans, biological weapons are a far better bet. Stop insulting my intelligence with this nonsense.

Maybe you could try to restrain projecting your Dunning-Kruger with added obnoxiousness and try to recognize that scientists who understand and model such events, and risk managers who analyze the potential impact, might know more than you about their subjects.

I recommend a bachelor’s degree in common sense BEFORE an education in science and risk management.

Posted by: FieryButMostPeaceful | Mar 17 2023 2:26 utc | 326

Your inability to differentiate between local and global, let alone between the atmosphere and the stratosphere precludes meaningful discussion on this issue

The math illiterate clearly can’t read numbers.
I’ll paste my comment one more time, though I still don’t think you’ll get it.

From that we can see that “In this study, two types of wars are simulated: a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and a global nuclear war between the United States and Russia. The regional war follows the 5 Tg of soot scenario described in Toon et al. (2019) using 44 15 kt-weapons with urban targets in a war lasting 3 days and is similar to that used by Mills et al. (2008, 2014). Smoke is emitted instantaneously when a target is attacked.
The global war follows Coupe et al. (2019) and is similar to that used by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007). It assumes that 150 Tg of soot is emitted uniformly over the continental US and Russia. The war lasts 7 days and the smoke emissions ramp down linearly during that time. As was done in previous studies, these wars are assumed to start on May 15th of the first year. Coupe et al. (2019) and Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) did not include weapon counts or yields needed for determining NOx emissions, so we have performed sensitivity tests with weapons inventories from: Toon et al. (2008), Kristensen and Korda (2020a, 2020b), and NRC (1985).”

8Tg of soot emitted into atmosphere annually which is 5% of total anthropogenically produced aerosol
That’s 5% aerosol which is about 160 Tg. PER YEAR.
“Local or global” doesn’t matter when the net quantity is the same. In fact, if it’s “global”, I.e. spread across the global the effect is minimized.
I have to ask you even read your own citations or do you just not undertand numbers?

The ozone crisis was ameliorated by a concerted and very expensive global effort. If we had not addressed it, we would be in an unprecedented UV crisis as well as the myriad other existential threats we have created.

Once again, ozone spontaneously replenishes itself. Once the source of the depletion is gone i.e. bombs are done exploding, it eventually recovers . Plus, none of your citations predict human extinction. If only you read the stuff you post.

You don’t seem to know very much about nuclear weapons either. There is no theoretical limit to the size of a high-yield thermonuclear device. For example, the Tsar Bomba of 1961 was designed to yield some 420PJ (100 Mtonnes TNT equivalent). When tested, in order to limit fallout, they removed the uranium-238 fusion tamper. Even without this, the yield exceeded 250 PJ (over 50 Mtonne equivalent).

Ok, mister I-can-solve-multi-particle-nuclear-hamiltonian-expert-in-all-things-nuclear point to the country which has 100+ megaton war head deployed in strategic ICBMs and ready to go.
If not, I recommend “simulating” this million Tsar Bomba war in your imagination with the internet turned off because some of us live in the real world.

You appear to be basking in misplaced pride, while mistaking stupidity for common sense, ignorance for education and belligerence for wit. In Russian there is a lovely word that encapsulates this kind of pig-ignorance, некультурный (nekulturny uncivilized) which English lacks, but which appears to apply. Which part of the Southern USA do you call home? If you exemplify it, I want to be sure to avoid it.

Once again, quite a mouth for a math-illterate.
I’ll leave you to it.

Posted by: FieryButMostPeaceful | Mar 17 2023 17:11 utc | 328

Ozone is predicted to heal
Nope ozone replenishes itself. The current hole takes about 40 years. While that nuclear doomsday article a few comments ago predicted only 10 years if I’m correct.
One more thing, here’s an excerpt from an earlier comment.

It assumes that 150 Tg of soot is emitted uniformly over the continental US and Russia.
Posted by: Hermit | Mar 15 2023 17:26 utc | 324

“Assumes”.
“ASSUMES”!!!
Words fail.
And people believe this.

Posted by: FieryButMostPeaceful | Mar 17 2023 17:35 utc | 330

This is what I said

Once again, ozone spontaneously replenishes itself. Once the source of the depletion is gone i.e. bombs are done exploding ( or CFCs ), it eventually recovers

Added text in bold.
There is nothing I said that contradicts anything you cite.
The very link you posted agrees with what I said — when the source of depletion is gone (bombs or CFCs) the ozone replenishes. (They used to word recovers, but it means the same thing because we are not adding anything just removing the source of depletion, the recovery happens on it’s own)
Once again, learn to read your own citations.

Posted by: FieryButMostPeaceful | Mar 18 2023 4:37 utc | 332