HHS purchases $290M worth of drugs for nuclear emergencies
aspr.hhs.gov
aspr.hhs.gov
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.
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).
see section 3 “The Atrophy of Vigilance in the Strategic National Stockpile”
https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/23p...
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?
"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)
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.
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/869238O/3m-health-care-p...
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.”
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 Post https://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.
PS - No, Trump did not "cut the CDC budget" either. https://apnews.com/d36d6c4de29f4d04beda3db00cb46104
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.
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.
Just my take, obv.
You must've been living under a rock then.
Here's a few articles to jog your memory.
- https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-official...
- https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01269
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/health/coronavirus-masks-...
> 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.
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.
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).
"There is no reason not to take the subway,..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbPPGrZH3VY
"About 60% of new cases coming out of the NY metropolitan area"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdKLx5MhTpk
"Everything is fine" "Precautions have been taken" "Fear is racially motivated" "Coronavirus is under control in the US"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmllqkU6j2k
This is a big one:
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.
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.
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.
This was debunked by the US Gov.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, there's no incentive when spending taxpayer money for the person who "buys" insurance for tail risk events.
I hope this is just paranoid anxiety, but never underestimate the power of the federal government's ability to disappoint via reckless reactionism.
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."
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.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/nyregion/monkeypox-vaccin...
> 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."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/25/apple-and-facebook-face-mask...
Obviously radiation will pass through it, for protection against that you need lead based suits.
And there’s still big piles around in warehouses, turning brown and rubber straps deteriorating.
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.
Such unlikely claims would need a source.
If I had an office and my contractor had a little stash like that I'd think it was kind of weird.
Another cache is in my retail gun shop (I'm a part-owner, not actually working there).
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/bioterrorism-and-drug-preparedness...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RPOEASRTW9330/ref...
Understatement of the year.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or maybe he's just better at "madman theory" than Nixon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
I think you should read up on the Cuban missile crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why? The Vietnamese can beat the US then so can the Ukrainian. I'd argue the Ukrainian got much better weapon (and most importantly, intel) support.
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?
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".
[1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/09/30/exp-gps-1002-khodor...
Given we haven't all died in nuclear fire yet, I'd say diplomatic tactics have worked just fine.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: I mean, just look at the recent history of Ukraine's friendly intermingling with NATO just prior to the invasion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...
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.
Sounds like a great argument for all countries that can to acquire nukes.
No we have not!
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 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.
This is a persistent myth that is not reality, the soviet president at the time even says that no such promise was ever made.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
> 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.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapo...
> 1994 Trilateral Statement
> 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.
Followed by
> 2014 Russian Annexation of Crimea
Russian aggression and lies have no limits.
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, 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.
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.
Moscow also guaranteed Ukraine’s security in the Budapest memorandum. Stated policy is a poor predictor of their actions.
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.
It gives credence to Moscow’s no-first use commitment ringing hollow.
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.
Those will likely be his only two options very soon if not already.
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.
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.
He was afraid of the Army, which is why it always treated it like shit, except for vanity projects.
Which is why they have hypersonic missiles and nuclear powered torpedoes, but no socks, uniforms and guns for recruits.
Book: The Steel Flea, Nikolai Leskov, 1881
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.
It is like a bio-weapon and will eventually take out your own troops.
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.
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.
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
At this point the war is continuing purely to fuel the ego of a dying dictator.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And there was Nixon, who was busy trying to convince the world he was a madman willing to launch a nuclear strike to get what he wanted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Richard_Nixon
Perhaps is just isn’t as visible now - but it seems like back channels keep getting intentionally shut.
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.
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.
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].
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-nazi-demand-for-ukrai... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20220407172040/https://www.reute... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20220403075439/https://www.reute... [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20220414093437/https://www.reute...
The people around him might care too. It's not like in old Egypt where the servants were burried with the pharaon.
If you Google around, you'll find HHS documents from 2021 talking about this allocation.
It looks like they may traditionally buy these types of drugs around this time of the year. Here’s one from 6 years ago.
That being said, I don't love what the foresight sees.
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.
If you're curious about building a kit, I'd consult sf72.org if you're in the Bay Area.
Does anyone know where to hide if sirens sound?
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.
If there's a confirmed warhead inbound, I'm standing on a rooftop. I don't want to live in the hellscape that'll follow.
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.
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.
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.
Prepped wisdom is to have a bag ready to go with everything you need to survive for 24 hours after a major incident.
https://ia800501.us.archive.org/35/items/NuclearWarSurvivalS...
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.
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.
JUST GO INSIDE
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)?
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.
Simulated map here:
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=2300&lat=37.7564509&...
Suddenly a lot of people are going to find wisdom in the second amendment.
If you're not deployed, your base is about to get hit. Bye."
Congress has its own nuclear winter resort for billions of dollars.
We know that because of the one they retired/declassified, so you can be sure there is a new one for 100 times the price
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenbrier
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.
The price for Romiplostim (nplate) is around 8000 - 12000 USD.
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.
Here, I will share some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131 (This was the best link to start with on wikipedia to research KI specifically, it turns out.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0wwCb0c8Q (Charming 1950's filmreel about basic nuclear fission/fusion concepts and how bombs work)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHBb25lzNVM (Ted-Ed, basic, short video that basically says, "Get inside and stay there for 24 hours").
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-nuclear-weapons-train-vi...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/nukes-nuclear-weapon-train-russia-u...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-1.6605262
>"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.
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.
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olive...
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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
I guess all those preppers who used to look kinda crazy now looking smart.
EB has a surprisingly short and to-the-point summary of it. https://www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-winter
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.
Since Russia reneged on the protection deal when they were removed, it seems like what they signed is moot.
From a game theory perspective, doesn't this restore MAD?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-fr...
>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.
That estimate is from Jonas Ohman, a CEO of a Lithuanian charity, and it's estimate from back in April. That is not a figure with any authority.
Also,
> 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.