Nowhere to hide: How a nuclear war would kill you–and almost everyone else
thebulletin.org
thebulletin.org
I spent my childhood in the 1970s and 1980s terrified of nuclear war.
I’m not going to do that again.
If vile, selfish, psychopathic maniacs make the decision to end the world then so be it.
It'll prove for certain that humanity doesn’t deserve the world anyway, the rest of life on earth is better off without us.
I’m not going to give them my happiness and life. They’ll have to take it.
“In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. ‘How are we to live in an atomic age?’ I am tempted to reply: ‘Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.’
In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.
This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.”
In any event, here is a rousing, uplifting song which is guaranteed to cheer you up: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
Since you're quoting Lewis and mentioning prayer, it's at least debatable whether we're all going to die, depending on your understanding of 1 Thessalonians 4 and how it relates to John 12 and other parts. :)
But I agree with you. Arms control is useful and people should work on it, but for those that don't feel called to worrying about nuclear war isn't productive.
This song suck so much that I can barely listen to it even today.
And this was in France, a country that was not that engaged in the child war on a day to day basis (at least for a 15 yo).
I am afraid it's not just the vile selfish psychopathic maniacs, but also the general population, incensed by the media. For example, one might have thought that if the avoidance of a nuclear war were people's priority number one, then the Western media (supposing Russia is the lost cause) would have demanded, every day and from every corner, that the leaders of their countries must avoid any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe. That people would be marching on the streets with slogans demanding restraint. But that's not what is happening. The voices repeatedly cautioning their audience about the danger of a nuclear war are few and far between — Tulsi, Tucker, Eric Weinstein — and they are treated as traitorous or crazy.
I guess the question is, would that military have performed as woefully if we had "avoided any escalatory steps regarding the ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe"? Would Ukraine have been able to resist as well if we had ignored their cries for help?
Your question might be rephrased to "what's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes, and you have nuclear weapons", or to "what's your response to a country that invades another country and threatens nuclear strikes if you come to its assistance". Which are both good questions, but different ones.
Sorry for asking, but how is this part relevant to the question? If the invading country were led by someone nice, or if its invasion were not a part of an ongoing revanchist campaign, would the answer to the invasion be any different?
My response as a private person would be no response. In an imaginary scenario where I had any political power, my response would be similar to that of India, China, Mexico, Cuba, Egypt, or United Arab Emirates. It probably makes me a bad person.
Equally I would want the current combatants to take a step back and have a grown up discussion about NATO expansion, security guarantees, ending the bloodshed - you know the boring nitty gritty stuff. I'm not dumb enough to cheer on a nuclear strike, regardless of who launched it.
I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything.
Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later.
I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014.
We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.
Nothing, other that the fact that while there are countries with which the would-be emperor has territorial disputes, he has not expressed any ambitions reaching beyond those. It is a common sentiment expressed in the Western European countries that if the the aggressor is not stopped now, he will continue westwards indefinitely, engulfing more and more countries, Genghis-like; when there is no real reason to think that he would. History is a good teacher about the past, but is powerless to predict the future.
No matter. I am dismayed by how eagerly people shift their attention from the threat to their very physical existence to questions of politics or history which seem petty in comparison. However repulsive the Muscovite tyrant might be; however dark or immoral; are we really considering collective suicide among the possible answers?
The generality of your statement "History is a good teacher about the past, but is powerless to predict the future." is highly questionable. Those who do not learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes, as is commonly said.
If anything, then the dictator is missing his history classes or did not learn properly. Otherwise he might not have acted the way he does. History could have told him a thing or two about the chances of his failing invasion or what he navigated himself into.
We are about to see another winter war, of which I can recall at least 3 failed attempts in history in similar settings: Napoleon, Nazi Germany and Soviet-Finnish War. Probably there are many more examples throughout history. Better to learn a lesson from that, than repeating things.
> [...] when there is no real reason to think that he would.
Are you serious? Like, watch a documentary or 2 about what happened in other nations, Georgia and Moldova for example, before Ukraine. Or read up on the dictator's self-declared goals and "Russian World". Compare to Nazi Germany a little and you will see the similarities. Saying, that there is no real reason to think he would not stop is ignoring so much history.
I've been wondering the same. History at school is very rarely taught as a serious academic discipline — rather, its job it seems, much like the job of the English (or any other) literature, it to shape a general cultural identity in a student. I am almost sure that among professional historians there is a common belief that it is not history's job to provide people with lessons that they can apply to solve current or future problems — I seem to remember Niall Ferguson complain precisely of that attitude among the historians at Oxford, which was largely why he, as a rebellion, started the applied history project.
> Those who do not learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes, as is commonly said.
It is also commonly said (and attributed to von Bismark) that what we learn from history is that no one learns from history.
> If anything, then the dictator is missing his history classes or did not learn properly. Otherwise he might not have acted the way he does. History could have told him a thing or two about the chances of his failing invasion or what he navigated himself into.
The dictator had plenty of other historical examples to draw upon. He could have remembered how the nascent state of Ukraine, which emerged after the fragmentation of the Russian Empire, was retaken by force by the Soviet Russia – also, by the way, engaged in a winter campaign (there is an interesting novel by Mikhail Bulgakov — The White Guard — depicting those events). Or he could have remembered the recent events of 2014, when Russia effortlessly and bloodlessly took Crimea. History, as has so frequently been said, is a whore and a harlot.
> Are you serious? Like, watch a documentary or 2 about what happened in other nations, Georgia and Moldova for example, before Ukraine. Or read up on the dictator's self-declared goals and "Russian World". Compare to Nazi Germany a little and you will see the similarities. Saying, that there is no real reason to think he would not stop is ignoring so much history.
I did say in my previous comment that there are countries with which Russia might conceivably have territorial quarrels. Those are the countries of the former Soviet Union, and those are the countries that you named. I have not heard any noises from Russia that would suggest that it is coveting Germany, France, the UK, or even Poland. If you have read anything different in the dictator's self-declared goals, then I would happily be educated.
> Compare to Nazi Germany a little
I understand the appeal of that comparison; I truly do; but surely you must see that the comparison is purely rhetorical, made due to the universal hatred of — and universal familiarity with the story of — the Nazi Germany. Why not compare with the Soviet Union (which was largely feared) or with the Russian Empire (which was less so)?
It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defensive".
NATO is just another military organization, whose business is war. And just as any other military, it will be (and has been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations ) used as a political tool.
NATO and Russia aren't allies (at best), which makes NATO a threat for Russia, simply by definition. Pinky-promising that NATO won't be used as a threat or a political tool obviously doesn't count, since there are quite enough precedents of the contrary. These are just boringly objective risk-management calculations and conclusions that any manager would reach.
> I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg.
Do you really feel like Panama or Luxembourg are fair examples, instead of countries like the US, that actually has military capability?
You wouldn't deny that there are quite a lot of instances of people trying to protect themselves from the US and NATO, would you? How come?
Really, it all boils down to a dangerous supremacist idea that there is only one culture enlightened and wise enough to use its military capabilities, and it is widely accepted in the western bubble. This concept is just so desired, that it erases any kind of reflection on how one can pave the road to hell with good intentions.
The conflict in Ukraine, for example, was born out of a public push (by the US, mostly) for it to join NATO, even before all the bad stuff started. Ironic, really, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The criticism towards NATO in Lybia mostly boils down to NATO overstepping and going out of scope of the resolution. And clearly, it's not Russia, China or the US who should decide for Africa.
What about Syria? The US is relying on NATO infrastructure for its operations there. Who invited them?
What about Yugoslavia? This is an especially noteworthy case, judging by how hard the western propaganda tries to erase it from history. Just ask a Serbian whether they feel like NATOs depleted uranium munitions felt "defensive", or what they think of the narrative that current conflict in Ukraine is the first serious conflict in Europe since WWII.
Srsly, what is it going to take to drop an idiotic supremacist image of NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war.
Probably quite a lot, since it was born in a culture with a history of inventing supremacist ideologies, deaf to an idea that some might not really see it as a universal good, but rather as just another quasi-empire, minding it's own political and economic benefit before anything else.
Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat and don't feel like being ochlos to NATO's demos. But what do these subhuman unenlightened savages understand, am I right? /s
Turkey could have provided those bases for the US to use in Syria NATO or not. Indeed, they didn't just provide them because they're NATO, the US still had to make an agreement.
I think the Syrian Kurds were pretty keen on the US being there, and the Kosovo Albanians in Yugoslavia. If I recall that one correctly, Russia also sent a peacekeeping force at the same time.
> Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat
Sure, but that doesn't mean they should. They can see the US as a threat, or an actor such as France. But the Polish army is unlikely to be bullying them around.
It's also impossible to please. When Western countries didn't step in to conflicts and genocide they're criticized, when they do they're criticized. Should they have just let the Serbs do whatever in Kosovo?
> NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war.
I've never seen it that way. It's a tool of war and tools of war are also tools of defense. My country is not a NATO member.
It simply doesn't correlate with your worldview, that is why you are being all dismissive.
> Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join.
Note the "in order to force them to join" clarification. Cuz one can't say simply say "NATO doesn't invade", right? Why would NATO spend additional resources, bother with citizenships, social infrastructure or take on any additional responsibilities, when they can just instill a loyal government? E.g. why would the US bother with providing Iraqis the perks of American citizenship, when they can just order the new government whatever they want.
IMO, the pattern of invading faraway states, crushing them, and then leaving without taking any responsibility, after establishing a puppet state colony, is a much more evil thing than squabbles between neighbors over who gets to be responsible for some territory and who will have to spend money on healthcare for people on it.
> Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. > NATO is not some "supremacist idea"
Riiiiight, "begging", but its definitely 100% "not supremacist". Hard to argue with that kind of a worldview. I've linked the list of NATOs military operations somewhere above. Can you tell me how much of them have anything to do with Russia and how much seem suspiciously aligned with someone's (not pointing fingers) political and economic goals?
> Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014
The US had started pushing Ukraine towards NATO much earliear than that, actually. At first it happened during Bush administration, which caused one of the first huge alienations of a newborn Russian Federation from NATO. Look it up, it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy that had been brewing for a rather long time.
Also, just note how mundanely you talk of the regime change and "puppets". You don't see how that could be related to local security infrastructure deterioration, do you?
I wonder what you make of the US politicians publicly promising Ukraine protection and NATO membership, but then declining it as soon as it became a place they'd need to actually defend, rather than a place where they can deploy their infrastructure, conveniently just after the INF treaty had been dissolved.
NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone.
Think very carefully and tell me how is expanding NATO to the Russian borders in the interests of original NATO members?
Can you elaborate how NATO is a threat to itself and everyone else?
It would appear Putin is the greatest threat to Russia and everyone else. He is the one ignoring Russia's own territorial treaties. He is the aggressor invading sovereign states. NATO alliances are defense pacts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties.
As for whose fault is what — honestly, would you care, if either Russia launches nukes or NATO does so preemptively, and then the other side inevitably retaliates, and our world dies in flames — would you really care whose fault it would have been? Would it really matter to you?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-troops-...
Remember NATO is a defense alliance which must be invited in. And afterward doesn't grant the new inductee any power to threaten other sovereign states.
Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors?
Yes. In this case, both parties consent to threatening each other with their nuclear arsenals. They consent to gradually raising the stakes in this poker game, and eventually calling each other's bluff. It may very well turn out that one of the two is bluffing. Or it may not. I really don't care all that much to find out which.
> If someone is accosted we don't say they--as a victim--share half the fault.
> ... trespassing and destruction justified?
> ... a blank check to annex neighbors?
We are speaking different languages here. You are talking the language of ethics and apportioning the blame. I am talking the language of survival, which I think the article in the title post talks as well.
If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion the bodyguard and the intruder start firing at each other from a rocket launcher, explode a cistern full of gas, and as a result the intruder dies, the bodyguard dies, your neighbor dies, and you die — would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, the bodyguard's fault, or your neighbor's fault? I know I wouldn't.
> Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors?
Both no and yes, depending on which way you turn the question. It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means.
This is absurd. NATO is a defensive pact voluntarily entered into. Russia's neighbors want in not because of Western provocations but because of Putin.
> If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion...
Framed this way I would be the intruder, the one deciding to escalate an already dangerous situation. And therefore I would be the foolish one, putting everyone's lives at risk for my own selfish goals.
> would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, ...
It's kind of irrelevant once the moment is reached. The world isn't there yet. And it's Putin with his foot on the gas accelerating toward destruction.
> It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means.
Then every nation around Russia must have nukes or an alliance with a nuclear power. Putin is the one pushing them into doing so, and he's proven that any treaty with Russia is worthless. So there's no point trying to ally with them.
I fail to comprehend why you would say so.
The parent's (D_Alex's) thesis, if I may presume so much as to formulate it, is that (1) NATO is a threat because it is "expanding eastward", i.e. admitting countries that are more likely to have a military confrontation with Russia; in which case NATO will be obliged to come to their aid, in which case we are all dead. This is similar to how WW1 and WW2 started, only people didn't have the capacity to destroy all human life on Earth then, as they seem to have now.
Your thesis is that (2) Putin/Russia is a threat because it has nuclear weapons, which it can use, in which case we are all dead.
I am not disputing thesis 2; but it does not, in any way, undermine the validity of thesis 1. Both thesis 2 and thesis 1 may be true at the same time; and it is thesis 1 that I was responding to in the subthread started by D_Alex.
Countries need to apply to join NATO. NATO doesn't try to get them in under any circumstances. Ukraine had been begging to join and NATO still hadn't let them. If NATO was an aggressive imperial force then Ukraine would have already been in it.
The only real honest reason I can imagine Russia doesn't want countries to join NATO is because it wants the option left open to be able to attack them at some point.
President Merkin Muffley : Well, I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.
Dr. Strangelove : Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be vital that top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Heil! Actually, they would breed prodigiously, yeah? There would be much time and little to do. With a proper breeding techniques and a ratio of, say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could interact their way back to the present gross national product within, say, 20 years.
Thankfully, you have your trusty PipBoy.
Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe this is a matter of definitions, but this feels alarmist to me. I have to think that there are many believable scenarios (e.g., in Ukraine) where "only" one to ten nuclear detonations would be employed. That seems like a "small" nuclear war and while it would undoubtably have many negative repercussions, it would not end world civilization.
Why do you think it would not escalate? Do you have a crystal ball?
I don't know anything about anything, but there have been many regional conflicts over the last 100 years that have remained regional. I don't see how the technology used to fight those regional conflicts changes anything.
Perhaps the social connotations of those technologies is significant enough that using some rather than others is "triggering" enough that non-combatants can't help but get involved. <shrug>
I agree that these exist.
I do not believe that they are as significant as the general public believes. After all, there have been more than 500 nuclear weapons detonated world-wide in the open atmosphere. [0]
If these non-local effects are very large, why would we take Russia's threats of using nuclear weapons against a neighbor as credible?
[0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally
Even if the chance is tiny, you don't want to risk a nuclear conflict because there is no going back to the world that we live in after that. I am always dumbfounded at the lack of awareness that having a direct conflict with a nuclear power increases the risk of nuclear war.
And what happens next? It's not like there is some kind of enforced rule that WMDs aren't to be used unless the other side doesn't use them. Strategic WMDs deter against a total loss to a foreign power, by any means, not just other WMDs, don't they?
Based on what exactly? Like, how do you imagine a successor would appear while the US devastates Russian army and how would they "have less face to lose" when their military is devastated?
It is unlikely that anyone will be replacing Putin in the heat of battle, and its hard to imagine a "less face to loose" situation - it's not like it's for one person to decide and Russian politics doesn't work that way either - there is no tradition to reset politics every few years with a new talking head. No idea how mr "Less face to lose" would be able to do something like that without starting a civil war.
What matters is what happens next. Russia razing Europe and the US in nuclear fire if they feel they are cornered have nothing to lose. Good luck with pushing things this far.
After all, the MAD strategy did keep us safe during the cold war while giving up their nukes did bring Ukraine an invasion.
Like General Milley secretly telling the Chinese government that Trump wouldn't be able to use nukes against them? He hasn't been tried for treason, so some people clearly don't think it's that important.
We all understand SI prefixes now. I wish people would stop using "thousands of kilometres" (geography) and "millions/billions of kilometres" (astronomy) and instead just use Mm, Gm, and Tm.
Which is why nukes are inherently unuseable and prevent WorldWars. They are the gametheory six-shooters of international politics. He who owns them is equal to each creature under the sun owning a gun. Which means he gets ignored by the bullies in the alley.
Unfortunatly, they do not create the ability to empathy in these flawed creatures who rules us, thus they are still capable to send others en mass to die for silly dreams of greatness, once they do not fall under the protective shade of the mushroom.
Unless, there were a system to peacefully dispose of them every 4 years, once their disability to govern properly is proven beyond a doubt.
Edit: stupid math error 10x radius is 100x area
"changes in ocean temperature to the Arctic sea-ice are likely to last thousands of years—so long that researchers talk of a “nuclear Little Ice Age.”"
Pretty sure that's a very BIG climate change. End of global warming though.
I'm not sure that's the most likely scenario, however or at least the only one worth considering. There are some scenarios in which nuclear weapons would be deployed without triggering a wider deployment. In those cases, survival will not only be possible, but likely. What the world looks like after such an event is another question.
Think about how the pandemic played out. Ask most people what that would look like prior to 2020 and you'd get some version of Outbreak or Contagion. Reality was not just different but far messier. Now that we're in it (on the other side of it?) those models look almost quaint.
It could be the same way with a nuclear exchange. The arsenals are very old, for one thing. Misfires and other unexpected events could derail responses. Then there's disbelief. There have been incidents in which those in the chain of command said "no". So a partial exchange isn't exactly impossible.
Then there's the motivation for detonating a nuke. Why do it? To terrify your opponent. To bring them to the negotiating table. To end whatever conflict has erupted quickly. You only do something like that if you're sure there will be no strike launched at you. There are places in the world in which this might be a possibility.
Tactical nuclear weapons are sometimes cited as a trigger, and there's bee a lot of talk about that in Ukraine. But the size of the weapon you need to deploy, and the proximity of that deployment to the side launching the strike makes little military sense. It's escalation with not much payoff. It could work as a weapon of terror, but only if the other side plays along.
There's also timing to consider. There's a tendency to think of a nuclear exchange as climactic event with the launch of thousands of missiles over the course of a day or two. The track record on predicting the duration of wars is quite bad. Young men were falling over themselves to enlist for WWI because they were afraid it would be over so quickly they wouldn't have time to see action. Afghanistan was supposed to be an in-and-out thing. Victory in Iraq was famously proclaimed by the US president years before the US finally withdrew in shame.
A nuclear war can last decades, centuries maybe. The first country to break the taboo makes it that much more likely that another will follow suit. Does this always mean escalation to the the point of launching thousands of weapons? Did the world's current nuclear war start in 1945?
Anyone seen Jeff Bezos in person lately? Peter Thiel? Other billionaires? If their missing from public life it’s cause they’re at their doomsday hideaway.
Peter Thiel’s doomsday retreat is in New Zealand. He became a New Zealand citizen just so he could buy it. I’ll bet you $5 he’s in NZ right now.
“At Davos a few years ago [surveys] showed us that the good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more,” she said.
“So we can come together and design and do beautiful things together.
“The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So we can lead but if people aren’t following we aren’t going to get to where we want to go.”
They definitely have a bunker, and probably feel like a few nukes handles some population issues.
Even with an all-out exchange, expect Mt. Pinatubo levels of effect. A couple of bad, or even 'missing' summers, perhaps, but nothing like months of darkness, or a decade of winter that older models proclaim.
Not to say we should be any less averse to any kind of nuclear exchange; obviously many millions would die either directly, or from the impact on systems and infrastructure.
Apart from cities, there's barely anything here and across almost the entire country are small towns like 75-100kms apart that mostly are all self contained.
I like the odds here...get a day or two out of a major population centre and your chances of being near a nuclear explosion are almost zero.
And then do it again, for the next conquest? And then other dictators like Iran, North Korea and China do it as well?
Diplomacy could have stopped this war. Period.
Russia set up on the border and invaded anyway because they are completely untrustworthy.
EDIT: Downvoted because "dead civilians are diplomacy", got it ..
How, exactly?
Putin on the other hand could stop this war at any time. Maybe you should direct your "diplomacy" message at him instead of at the "Western political circles".
LE: Don't forget this war started in 2014 with Russia's invasion of Crimea. And Russia was also the one who broke the Minsk Agreements, in 2022.
A lot of peoples lives could have been saved.
Maybe you don't know about the Minsk accords:
... didn't need to exist had Russia not invaded in the first place.
Unjustified unprovoked war and all that…
But, like now, nobody listened...