There's an article on the BBC News website today entitled "Would Putin press the nuclear button?" You might expect that to turn out to be a routine ask-the-question-and-then-say-the-answer-is-no piece, but quite the reverse - the conclusion is that there are circumstances in which there might well be a nuclear escalation. It's pointed out that Putin said in 2018 that if someone tried to "annihilate Russia", the global nuclear destruction that would follow would be regrettable but "why do we need a world without Russia in it?"
In the real world, of course, there is no prospect of Russia being annihilated, but it just depends on how broadly Putin interprets that concept. He might, for example, feel it covers an outcome in which Russia fails to reconstruct its former Empire by meeting its military objectives in Ukraine. Now, to be clear, if nuclear war is triggered because Ukraine successfully defends its independence and Putin gets in a huff about it, there's nothing much anyone can reasonably do. Ukrainians can hardly be expected to allow an invader to trample all over them just to try to keep one man's temper under control. This is the scenario that initially made the Trump presidency so frightening - that one man's personality defects could directly lead to the end of human civilisation. It turns out that Trump had a 'filter' (probably due to the fear of Trump Tower being blown up), but perhaps Putin doesn't, if he can openly speak of circumstances in which the world would no longer be "needed".
So Armageddon-by-temper-tantrum is one thing, but a nuclear reaction sparked by avoidable western recklessness would be a different matter entirely. Blair McDougall, the ex-Better Together chief who famously finished third in what he called a "two-horse race" in the East Renfrewshire constituency five years ago, called the other day for NATO countries to take direct military action against Russia in Ukraine, on the basis that it we don't go to war with Putin now, we'll inevitably end up at war with him later on when he's stronger. That's uncannily similar to the rhetoric of the right-wing hawks of the Cold War era who used to say that a Soviet invasion of western Europe was inevitable (clearly it wasn't, as it turned out) and therefore we had to pre-empt it by attacking the Soviet Union. If that advice had been heeded, it's likely that none of us would be here now - there would have been total nuclear destruction at some point in the sixties, seventies or eighties. By the same token, if Blair McDougall gets his way, there's a very significant risk that we'll all be dead within a few short weeks. This isn't just yet another example of "McDougall sounding off" - it really is by far the most insanely irresponsible thing that he's ever said or done. You don't help Ukraine by turning it into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
A nuclear-armed world is not the choosing of the pro-independence movement in Scotland. Hardly any independence supporters have any sympathy at all for the concept of nuclear deterrence. (Possible rare exceptions include the SNP's neocon duo of Alyn Smith and Stewart McDonald, but even they feel the need to use carefully coded language about the subject.) It's the Blair McDougalls of this world who have left us with Trident on the Clyde, and it's McDougall's chums in the GMB who fatuously regard "maturity" as meaning an acceptance that nuclear weapons should be thought of as a job creation scheme for Helensburgh, and regard "immaturity" as meaning the belief that we should take some account of the millions of men, women and children whose lives would be snuffed out if the weapons were actually used.
And if you believe in a nuclear world, as McDougall does, you have to play by the nuclear rules. That means nuclear-armed states can, at most, engage in proxy wars with each other. The non-participant state in a proxy war can certainly provide arms, training and other logistical and diplomatic support to its proxy, just as we're seeing in Ukraine right now. But what you can't ever do is have the nuclear states in direct conflict with each other, because as soon as that happens the risk of nuclear war becomes unacceptably high. For all the recent sneering about how Russia is now a downgraded power, and a mere sidekick to China with "an economy the size of Spain's", it remains the case that Russia has more nuclear weapons that any other country on the planet - slightly more even than the United States.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP FUNDING: At the risk of turning this into an online bazaar, I have an exciting (well, semi-exciting) new way that bargain-hunters can help support this blog. I realised recently that I have a few Amazon gift e-vouchers piling up in my inbox, and as much as it's always nice to stock up on purple cardigans and French arthouse films, actual money would probably be of more use at this point. So I'd be willing to pass the vouchers on in return for, let's say, 90% of their face value. If you'd like to get a small discount on your purchases and help Scot Goes Pop at the same time, drop me a line at my contact email address of: icehouse.250@gmail.com
I fear the prospect of any nuclear disarmament has receded in my lifetime and I expect yours (I'm a good bit older than you). After Putin upped the nuclear ante then I suspect most will be thinking 'what would he do if he was the only one in control of nuclear weapons'.
ReplyDeleteOf course you could make the same argument of the USA side. The only real solution is they all go or we stay with the MAD scenario, I suspect the latter will prevail.
Not related to the article is some with the idea we would only be nuked because we have weapons here. I suspect the whole UK will be nuked in a all out war, it's not a big island and if the 6400 warheads is accurate it would only take a few, probably less than 20) to wipe out the whole island.
I'm not advocating nuclear weapons, the risk of an accident is too great for them to be so close to populated areas, but anyone thinking we would be safer in a war without them here is deluding themselves.
Do you really think Britain is safer than Switzerland or Ireland? If so, I'd have to respectfully disagree.
DeleteJimN
Delete" I suspect the whole UK will be nuked in an all out war."
That may well be the case but it may not be. It may be that only one or two or three would hit the UK in an all out war. Or it may only be a short exchange of missiles and not all out war. The truth is that no one really knows what would happen.
So on balance Faslane makes us an important target not a deterrent if a war starts. However, I would prefer my point not to be proven in practice.
I don't believe I said Britain was safer than anyone, Russia will have strategic targets and Scotland and NI (which will have an effect on Ireland) will be targets. Scotland even if independent whilst still connected by land to England and having a fairly strategic position in the North Sea plus it would be supplying much of England's energy will still be a target.
DeleteWhen we go down the nuclear route I suspect there is no escape anywhere (South America may be the best bet), it's just either a quick death or a slow painful one.
To me that doesn't sound like a great argument for the retention of nuclear weapons.
DeleteIncidentally, Switzerland is unusual in that not only is it neutral, it also developed a very extensive system of fallout shelters during the Cold War. It fully intended its population to survive if at all possible.
DeleteI expect not to be around much longer with the incompetence of our Glorious Leaders in Mother England.
ReplyDeleteI am in the Laich of Moray equidistant between Tory England's military stations at RAF Lossie and Kinloss so my ass is well radioactive grass sooner than later I expect.
Is that my hair dropping out already?
James, with regards to fundraising what you need is a sob story like Mr Kavanagh that you can keep milking eg you have a very sore left knee and you have to buy a new car that is an automatic.
ReplyDeleteIt matters not to me whom Jame's political allegiance lies with as I reside in Australia now. I still enjoy his insightful thoughts on many of the matters he discusses. I may not agree with all, but his argument is always sound. This particular paper he has written is an excellent portrayal of the present situation, it is therefore regrettable that IFS makes such an immature comment.
ReplyDeleteMelb Don
DeletePlease have no regrets on my behalf but think on your own posts on WGD. James Kelly's argument may always be sound in your opinion but the same certainly cannot be said about some of the stuff you have posted in the past.
I know what Mr Kavanagh is.
Thank you for replying to my post in your normal denigrating fashion. You state you know what Mr Kavanagh is? Apart from Mr Kavanagh being a human being with a disability, perhaps you could enlighten the readers of this blog with your intellectual insight on this matter?
DeleteMelb Don
DeleteSo you think your "immature comment" wasn't denigrating do you.
Perhaps if you read my previous comments on this blog you would know my views on Mr Kavanagh - I've expressed them plenty of times. No intellectual insight needed so you should be up to the task. Just keep yourself busy and read through previous comments you will find what you want.
A final point for you Don - I will take your concern about immature and denigrating comments as genuine when I see you raising similar concerns on WGD. Until then bye bye.
Stick to your guns IFS. The Duggers don't only want to censor dissent in the kennel, they want to silence real Indy supporters on other blogs too. The truth hurts which is why unionist shills like Lomax are wandering around the various pro-indy blogs with his asinine 'put-downs' in a desperate attempt to save Queen Nicola's devolutionist skin.
DeleteHave I upset you IFS, if so it was not meant. I don't wish to debate this with you as I have unfair advantage. May I ask Felix (is that the cat) what he believes a shill to be? Suggest he seeks a dictionary definition, he may be surprised.
DeleteWell thank you for your words of support Felix.
DeleteDon, when he is not nursing a hangover, should reflect on the fact that mad liar Skier believes that people like Don and Campbell of Wings fame should not be allowed any say on Scottish matters as they reside elsewhere. Will Don challenge the Irish Skier or is he too busy looking words up in his dictionary?
Melb Don as you said “I reside in Australia now”.
DeleteWhich definition would you choose, cobber? A huckster, a con man, a plant, a stooge? Stick to the kangaroo wrangling and leave Scotland's future to those who haven't abandoned it.
DeleteTHE BRITISH POT CALLING THE RUSSIAN KETTLE BLACK
ReplyDeleteThe British state propaganda broadcaster the BBC has been reporting that the Russian state propaganda broadcaster has been telling its population lies and amazingly a lot of the people believe their lies. Aye we know what that feels like in Scotland but unlike in Russia the people are told to pay a license fee to get their propaganda in the UK.
Actually, Jamie Iverson was never the British High Commissioner in Malawi. Please be better informed.
DeleteTonya Davies
DeleteWhit?..... Are you from a parallel universe?
If you are going to talk about a) Jamie Iverson and/or b) Malawi, please ensure you have your facts right. Thank you.
DeleteTonya Davies πππππππ
DeleteNo idea what you are going on about. Are you a WGD troll trying out something new.
π€‘π€‘π€‘π€‘π€‘π€‘ The clowns are out and about on your blog this pm James.
Personal abuse in place of reasoned defence of scurrilous allegations. Shame!
DeleteTonya Davies - you are mad as a hatter - no idea what you are going on about but I guess it is good for a laughπ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£
DeleteA POSITIVE MINDSET OR A DELUSIONAL MINDSET
ReplyDeleteCapella on WGD says: " Kate Forbes will publish the economic analysis and 10 year plan today. Ten years takes us through a referendum and transition to independence."
Forbes says they will have a ruthless focus on delivery. Well that will be a first for Sturgeon's gang.
Delusional stuff by Capella or inspirational positive thinking - take your pick.
The WGD muppets Jack Collatin and Dr Jim are moaning once again about the BBC and its English programming. More specifically all the English football shown in Scotland. Like me they do not care much for the TV broadcast in to Scotland as it is English TV.
ReplyDeleteSo why do the both of them not take their complaints to their darling FM Sturgeon and get her to do something about it? The reason is cognitive dissonance. Their wee minds want to stay away from the fact that Sturgeon thinks the BBC is just jolly grand. She says the BBC is a valued and key institution.
So Sturgeon/Dr Jim/Jack Collatin want RT banned but they don't want the BBC banned.
independence supporters - nope - more like a selfie obsesssed wannabee celebrity and a couple of fawning groupies.
Now many, if not all, of the WGD numpties just can't stand the BBC due to its anti independence and propaganda broadcasting in Scotland. James Mills reports on WGD that Sturgeon has been praising a BBC journalist for uncompromising and honest reporting from Ukraine. James Mills notes that this same journalist does not do the same when reporting about Scottish independence and the SNP.
DeleteNobody comments on Sturgeon praising BBC journalist as a negative - nobody comments at all - cognitive dissonance. So even when Sturgeon praises the hated BBC the numpties just accept/ignore it.
I say again, is this the action of a national leader for independence? If Sturgeon thinks the BBC will suddenly be fair during Indyref2 she is deluded just like the people who thought Sturgeon having a column in the hated Daily Record ( remember the Vow) would help it come over to support independence. The truth is she is just propping up the BBC credentials as a honest broadcaster and only a Britnat would want that.
Another excellent article James. I suspect the calls for NATO to intervene will grow stronger as every week of the horror of war is broadcast into homes. Also it may be that Putin wants to partition Ukraine from Kyiv to Odessa in the south rather than take over the whole country or just some of the south east of Ukraine. However, does anyone really know what Putin wants.
ReplyDeleteImposter at 10.16am.
Deleteπππππππ
DeleteThe imposter is back at 1.25pm. I'm guessing it could be peachmelba or the tosser Lomax this time. Just so many diddies to choose from.
Peach Melba? How very immature compared to Don's powerful argument (he called me Felix the Cat, you know - I'm devastated by his witπππ).
DeletePS Can anyone explain what Tonya is on about!!!?