Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[jmm99]

then we should be considering the risk to them of directly confronting Russia.

We did that, of course, during the Cold War. The last Cold War study on that was in 1990.

Nuclear Attack Planning Base - 1990
Federal Emergency Management Agency
April 1987

The Nuclear Attack Planning Base 1990 was an official estimate of the potential physical effects of a Soviet nuclear attack on the population of the United States, including detailed county-by-county assessments of damage due to blast overpressure, fire and radiation.

A copy of the approximately 500 page publication, originally marked Limited Distribution and Not for Public Release, was released in April 2005 with the following caveat: "This publication was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, for its academic and historical value only."

•Executive Summary
•Cover Page
•Front Matter, Table of Contents
•Part 1: Project Overview
•Part 2: Project Development
•Part 3: Risk Definitions (1.67 MB PDF file)
•Annex A: Direct Effects & Fire Risk, Statistics and Maps (4.2 MB PDF file)
•Annex B: Fallout Risk, Statistics and Maps (6.1 MB PDF file)

Is the Ukraine worth a nuclear exchange now ? - a very good question to ask Americans, I'd say. While we're at it, what about Germany, UK and France ? Should we trade the Midwest for Italy ?

Of course, we get bellicose statements from Russian politicos - anyone have the link for the local Russian politician who a few days ago promised they would incinerate us. And, we have it from Mirhond Batch #1:

Good idea from the first glance, but in the long run, when virtually all who are already considering to migrate, leave the country, Putin&Co will get society dominated with die-hard supporters. When they finally figure out that their cause is lost, the'll nuke you, and I'am only half unseriuos.

Actually, this "ultimate threat" by nutjob fanatics of the "use them or lose them" persuasion is not that "ultimate". If it seems the case, the only logical COA is to employ a massive first strike to cut down on the number of their missiles that can reply. That revisits the "ultimate" game of chicken, where the enemy shows up drunk and high, cuts his brake lines, lashes himself in the seat, lashes down the throttle and throws away the steering wheel. The obvious response is to kill the crazy SOB by any means feasible - breaking all the "rules" of that "game".

Not having been that impressed by the "Better Red than Dead" campaigns of the Cold War, that type of threat does not impress me now; but it is a risk that Americans should at least wrestle with in dealings with Russia - and China, for that matter.

Why you keep throwing this kind of bone to me:

There would be no need for either one of those units to go anywhere but Shopko ...

is beyond me - sending them into combat is not my problem - they didn't sign up to become mall ninjas.

Regards

Mike