The big question on many people's minds now is: "Will Vladimir Putin use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?"
My
most trusted source on Vladimir Putin Is Professor William Craft
Brumfield, head of the Russian Studies Department at Tulane University. He has
been a personal friend of Vladimir Putin for over 20 years. Putin likes him so
much that he awarded him the Russian Medal of Friendship. This is the highest
medal that Russia can bestow on a foreigner. Professor Brumfield said to me
during a luncheon discussion in New Orleans in May of this year:
"Putin is a sane and rational man. He will not engage in first strike use
of nuclear weapons."
We have seen the news media and television stations filled with a large
number of experts speculating on what Putin will do with respect to nuclear
weapons and Ukraine. As far as I can tell, none of these people personally
knows Putin.
This morning the FT of London came out with an interview hosted by Gideon
Rachman. The subject of the interview was Alexander Gabuev. He is a Russian
scholar highly regarded worldwide. He is a senior Fellow at the Carnegie
Endowment, He knows Russia well although his true area of academic
specialization is China.
He said some fascinating things in the interview. He believed that
Putin could be pushed to the point of firing nuclear weapons on Ukraine. He
also said something surprising. Despite the corruption and inefficiency in
Russia, the massive system of shelters and by bunkers where Russian people
could take shelter during a nuclear weapons exchange. He did offer some hope.
He said that at the point Putin was ready to fire nuclear weapons, Putin would
talk to President Biden. A summit conference would be arranged in Washington, DC
to stop the use of nuclear weapons. A deal would be made to stop the war.
I found a fascinating study on what a nuclear war would do to the US,
Europe, and Russia. Princeton University performed the study. Here is the
study:
·
Follow
Lived in High Above EarthSep 25
How long would a nuclear war last?
Report & Images: Screencap from the
Princeton University simulation. Provided by The Daily Digest.
First
strike: 2,6 million casualties:
According
to the Princeton simulation, Russia would attack first with approximately 300
nuclear warheads and short-range missiles, striking NATO bases and troops. NATO
would respond with around 180 warheads carried by aircraft over Russian
objectives. Casualties? 2.6 million in the span of three hours.
Second
strike: 3.4 million casualties
With
Europe in ruins, NATO launches 600 warheads from US soil and submarine-based
missiles aimed at Russian nuclear forces. Russia counterattacks with missiles
launched from silos, submarines, and road-mobile vehicles. This conflict
continuation would last only 45 minutes and have a toll of up to 3.4 million
victims.
Third
step: Total annhiliation
NATO and
Russia, following the scenario elaborated by Princeton University, would launch
attacks on important economic and population centers to hamper the other side's
recovery. Five to ten nuclear warheads would be used for each city.
Thermonuclear warfare would kill 85.3 million people in 45 minutes.
Death
toll: 34.1 million
The study
estimates that, in total, a nuclear war would immediately affect 91.5 million
people, which would cause 34.1 million deaths and 57.4 million wounded within
the first four or five hours.
Repeating
Hiroshima
The
landscape after the conflict would be something like that: Hiroshima in 1945,
when an atomic bomb dropped by the United States leveled an entire city. Over
800,000 people died and some 70,000 were wounded. Those affected by radiation
would raise the death toll over the following years.
No comments:
Post a Comment