Russia-Ukraine faceoff: Why everyone should be concerned
As an African from a third-world country, it is easy to just stay neutral and watch as events unfold in the ongoing face-off between Russia and Ukraine, two countries that use to be parts of the old USSR. I try to avoid as much politics as possible. However, in this case, we are talking about a potential nuclear war if things deteriorate further. A nuclear war will affect all and sundries as far as the world biodiversity of plants, animals, and humans is concerned.
With the continued call for a no-fly zone order to be imposed over Ukraine from different quarters, the two leading countries in terms of nuclear warheads may end up being pitted against one another. Even though a lot has been done to ease the tension as far as a potential nuclear war is concerned, neither the United States nor Russia signed an agreement of "no first deployment. Meaning that neither of the two countries is bound to wait to be nuclearly attacked first before launching a nuclear weapon.
The first and the only time a nuclear weapon was used in war was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. An enriched uranium bomb of about 64kg was dropped and the devastating effects that followed are still being talked about as of today because no single weapon in history has produced such effects. Currently, the country with the smallest nuclear weapons, North Korea, seems to have like forty times the ones used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two leading countries, Russia and the United States have a combination of nuclear weapons that is thousands of times the multiple of what was used in Japan.
If a nuclear war breaks out between the two largest stockpilers of nuclear warheads, it is not likely that the entire world will survive from the direct and multiplier effects of the bombs. The effects of a potential nuclear war have been modeled by a couple of researchers and the predictions are not something any living organisms will ever dream of. The effects are mainly of two types:
- Direct effect
- multiplier or indirect effects
The direct effects have to do with the destruction of lives and properties that the immediate explosions of the nuclear bombs cause. Depending on the target, thousands, millions, or even billions of people could die from the direct effects of explosions, fireballs, and radiation poisoning. The direct effect also includes the generation of electromagnetic radiation that would damage all electronics, taking humanity back to the pre-civilization era.
The indirect effects are what should probably get people in third world countries concerned. Depending on the magnitude of the nuclear warhead used and the places targeted, nuclear autumn or winter could follow. A significant amount of the smoke, dust and particulate matter generated from explosions will find its way to the upper stratosphere. The implication is that the rays of the sun that reach the earth will become limited, resulting in a lower average temperature of the earth.
A significantly lower average temperature of the earth means that crop production will suffer and years of famine would be the result. According to estimates, billions of humans could be lost to famine. Note that the nuclear autumn may not affect the entire planet.
According to models, if 5 to 50 million tons of smoke is able to find its way to the upper stratosphere, it is enough to cause nuclear autumn. Beyond that, a nuclear winter may result.
Nuclear winter is like an apocalypse. The entire world is predicted to suffer a more significant drop in temperature. The hydrological cycle of the planet would be significantly altered by this massive drop in temperature and some parts of the World may experience incessant precipitation while some other parts may not witness any. Extreme hunger would be the order of the day and the few survivors may wage war against each other in competition for the little resources left. In other words, a nuclear winter may put an end to humanity entirely.
While a nuclear war between two nuclear lilliputians may result in nuclear autumn, the US and Russia only need to use less than 20% of their stash in order to cause a nuclear winter.
TL:DR
Everyone should be concerned about a potential nuclear war between the US and Russia which may result from the ongoing face-off between Russia and Ukraine. A nuclear war between the two world nuclear warhead giants will:
- Wipe out the two countries, at least
- Generate electromagnetic radiation that will damage all forms of electronics
- Cause nuclear winter which is characterized by a significant drop in temperature, food production, etc.
According to reports, 50 to 90% of the world's population may be lost, assuming it is not 100%.
Resources
Posted with STEMGeeks
The people doing V2K with remote neural monitoring want me to believe this lady @battleaxe is an operator. She is involved deeply with her group and @fyrstikken . Her discord is Battleaxe#1003. I cant prove she is the one directly doing the V2K and RNM. Doing it requires more than one person at the least. It cant be done alone. She cant prove she is not one of the ones doing it. I was drugged in my home covertly, it ended badly. They have tried to kill me and are still trying to kill me. I bet nobody does anything at all. Ask @battleaxe to prove it. I bet she wont. They want me to believe the V2K and RNM in me is being broadcast from her location. And what the fuck is "HOMELAND SECURITY" doing about this shit? I think stumbling over their own dicks maybe? Just like they did and are doing with the Havana Syndrome https://ecency.com/fyrstikken/@fairandbalanced/i-am-the-only-motherfucker-on-the-internet-pointing-to-a-direct-source-for-voice-to-skull-electronic-terrorism
To me, dialogue should be the only way to stop this problem from escalating.
We can't afford to have a repetition of what happened in Nagasaki.
Thanks for sharing bro
What happened in Nagasaki would a drop in the ocean compared to what could happen.
Yes, like @gentleshaid said, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is nothing; you might even make a pretty strong argument that it was the best solution to the problem, and it was ultimately good for Japan:
Russia invaded Ukraine because they knew it wouldn't lead to nuclear war and no one is suggesting to nuke Russia.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/bulletin-science-and-security-board-condemns-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-doomsday-clock-stays-at-100-seconds-to-midnight/
So, you are confident that Putin will not resolve to nukes if a no-fly zone is imposed above Ukraines airspace?
I want to know where your confidence is coming from as Putin clearly stated the implications of NATO involving itself in this war.
No. I'm confident NATO will not enforce a no fly zone ober Ukraine. I'm also confident NATO will not involve itself directly in this war.
It seems like you are forgetting Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
So I want to know why you assume NATO is going to start a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine?
No. Its actually the other way round. If Putin launches a nuclear warhead, it is almost certain NATO will reply accordingly. Putin actually appears like someone that will rather go nuke than be defeated in a war.
Provided NATO doesn't change its mind and take direct military intervention in Ukraine, why would Putin suddenly escalate and nuke Ukraine or a NATO country?
Do you think Russia is losing the war in Ukraine so badly?
It doesn't look like Russia was expecting the level of resistance it is facing currently and this might get the tempers of Putin flying. Also, will the entire world watch on helplessly and allow the Ukrainians to be massacred?
This post has been manually curated by @steemflow from Indiaunited community. Join us on our Discord Server.
Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating to @indiaunited. We share 100 % of the curation rewards with the delegators.
Here are some handy links for delegations: 100HP, 250HP, 500HP, 1000HP.
Read our latest announcement post to get more information.
Please contribute to the community by upvoting this comment and posts made by @indiaunited.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for new Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
I do not think the nuclear line will be crossed. All concerned sides know this will be the end of our world... This being said, I only see two possible exists to this war, and none of them is appealing..
I really hope so. But if nuclear countries keep producing presidents like Putin, the future is genuinely bleak.
Mind sharing the two possibilities? I'm curious
In fact, I discussed the exact same problem with a colleague earlier today. He was not so sure about the outcome. He mentioned that if Putin ends up of having no choice but surrendering, then he may deicde to move on with nuking the world. The reason is that he may prefer having no world over a world without Russia... I am not a big fan of this analysis, but I must admit that this is a possibility.
To satisfy your curiosity, here are my two solutions.
What else could it be?
As it is currently, 1 looks more likely unless something significant happens. As long as civilian casualties are minimized, I don't Ukraine is getting helped beyond weapon donations.
As for 2, you are implying that Europe helps by sending troops? I don't think that will happen without NATO getting involved. No European country will take a unilateral decision to send troops to Ukraine.
By #2, I actually considered a NATO operation. The shortcut was a bit abusive, I agree.
Concerning #1, it may take time and there, civilians will pay a high price. However, they already do in particular as they are shelled regardless of what they do by Russians. So... there is nothing looking bright through the window...
Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!
Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).
You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support.
https://twitter.com/Faisal90508153/status/1501095383187214337
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
This is the reason why it's crazy to suggest that the US and Europe ever wanted to go to war with Russia. Even now, when Putin gave them ample reasons to go to war, still no one will do it. And they said before that they will not impose a no-fly zone, and they repeat the same every time Zelensky asks for a no-fly zone. No one will ever risk going to war with a nuclear superpower, no matter how much Putin insists that they're 'surrounding' Russia, whatever that means. (Sure, there will be countries around Russia. There have always been countries around Russia. It's hard to dig a moat around a whole country.)
Putin, on the other hand, whatever his true intentions are, at least sounds very trigger-happy when it comes to nuclear weapons. (And he also has biological and chemical weapons.) He at least insinuates that it's worth risking the annihilation of the human race over Ukraine. No other country behaves like this.
So it seems to me that Putin is the one mostly at fault here, and I suspect he'd be the one to first push the button, the reason being that his conventional military forces would be quickly disposed of by the combined forces of NATO, so he'd be left with no other choice, except of course losing the war (that he started).
The real issue here is not Ukraine. It's clear the West decided to let Putin have it, rather than risk the whole human race, which is very reasonable. The real problem is: what if Putin keeps going? What if he attacks Moldova next? At what point do we go to war, and almost certainly into a nuclear war? Our best hope, I believe, in that terrible scenario, is for Russian people to march to Kremlin, or someone close to him to assassinate him like Lindsey Graham called for. I see no other reasonable way out, IF he keeps going.
You have summed it up perfectly. Although I also try to understand Putin's paranoia based on the antecedents of the US. No one will sleep well knowing fully well that there are enemies holding missiles, artilleries et al, by his windows. Nevertheless, his utterances and behavior cannot be excused.
I hope a permanent solution is found soon. Actually, I think the entire world needs to be nuclearly disarmed. Another weapon should serve as deterrence.
What about your "no first deployment" idea? Is there a chance anything like that could come about?
The problem is, realistically, the countries most in need of nuclear weapons are the ones that would be easily defeated if they didn't have the nukes. Russia, for instance, will 'easily' lose a conventional war - so why would it ever give up its nuclear arsenal? Same with North Korea. And even then, there's biological weapons, chemical weapons... We're fixated on nuclear, but I don't know if biological weapons aren't as big a problem that we just choose not to talk about, maybe because of lack of clear information about what's currently possible.
Few days ago as I was reading, I have seen what would be the area that might get affected if a nuclear missle or bomb has been sent from Russia to Ukraine and the I can say the radius is just huge, I mean I live the middle east which isn't really that close and it is supposed to wipe the whole country which is insane.
I've never read before about nuclear winter and so, and to be honest that sounds scary, I'm thinking who is that crazy to start some shit like that in the first place.
Many have been arguing that nuclear bombs are just deterragainst war but I say that's bullshit. You don't keep something that can annihilate the entire planet as deterrence. All it takes is one crazy fellow becoming the commander in cheif.