This is the sequel to the previously-published article “Little Boom, BIG BOOM.”

There are many places to explode a nuke from below the surface up to space and each way has different impacts, and fallout.  Let’s start with space and extreme high altitudes.  The primary reason for a large nuke up there is to produce an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).  EMP is a brief massive overcharge of an electrical pulse into electrical devices and energy grids.  Since most electrical stuff only has minimum shielding to protect from “normal” electrical pulses having a huge pulse fries the device and systems.  A space explosion will be a low fallout event because the only fallout comes from the remnants of the bomb.  In 1962 the US set off a nuke ~250 miles high and caused part of Oahu’s electrical grid to fail 740 miles away.  The good part was there was a nifty aurora visible for the residents to admire.  There are all sorts of estimates of how much damage would be caused by a designed EMP event.  It is probably safe to say that if one was detonated over Ukraine their power grid and electrical devices would be fried, and various NATO nations would be impacted as well.  I don’t know the Euro energy grid but I suspect that being in southern Europe will keep your computer or telephone safe.  If you are concerned keep them unplugged unless you are actively charging them.  That should keep them safe.

On the other extreme is a deep water nuclear attack.  The papers are squawking about an attack in the Black Sea would set HUGE tsunamis across the sea basin.  I think they doth protest too much.  From US open air testing we know that a larger bomb set off in relatively shallow water forms a huge water column which can lift ships into it until gravity brings them back to the surface and their destruction.  The width of the water column is narrow and the ocean fairly quickly mitigates the waves generated. But the energy required for a tsunami fantasy is much more than even what the largest nuke ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), produced.  The 2011 Japan earthquake produced ~500MT of energy and the 2004 Indonesian earthquake produced ~260MT of energy.   So what happens if Russia tries a smaller nuke to impact Odessa with a tsunami?  They could cause some damage, but then also hurt themselves by damaging Crimea, land they claim, and at least one NATO member.   Plus there is the political fallout which I will touch on later.

What about more “standard” nuclear attacks?  Russian military doctrine calls for the use of nukes to protect the state or “core interests” and the doctrine advocates for early and first use.  Let’s examine the basics.  The basic types are surface and air bursts.  Surface bursts are nuclear attacks where the weapon fireball touches the ground.  These attacks create lots of fallout because the heat from the fireball sucks a great deal of material up and irradiates it.  Much of this irradiation is short term with an immediate risk of 48-72 hours.  Airbursts explode high enough the fireball does not touch the ground and below 100,000 feet above sea level. The amount of fallout from an airburst is much reduced compared to a groundburst. (Opening picture is a groundburst.)

Both types of attack will destroy through blast, heat, shrapnel, and close to the epicenter of the detonation, immediate radiation.   Long-term health issues, including death, can arise from contact with fallout with the general rule being more = worse.  But even here a great deal depends on how much contact with fallout you experience and exactly what the fallout is made of.  A dust sized particle of plutonium or uranium lodged in a lung pretty well guarantees lung cancer at a minimum.   On the other hand if a few days after a blast you get some irradiated soil on your skin and quickly wash it off it will probably not cause any long term issues. There is dispute about this. But since the US has not conducted any open air tests with large number of test subjects aka Soldiers for over half a century this will probably remain in dispute for now.  Both the Hiroshima (Little Boy) and Nagasaki (Fat Man) devices have been credited with around 100,000 deaths each from impacts of the explosion and immediate radiation (~90 days post event).  Leukemia started spiking four to six year later until a decade out and around then (1955) the long term cancers started appearing.  There are studies showing strong causation of increased leukemia (46% higher than the norm) and cancer (~10% above the norm) in bombing survivors.  There are no high quality studies showing a measurable increase in cancer for children of survivors conceived after the bombing.  The obvious gap in long term nuclear risks are the studies only study two events a few days apart for mid 15Kt range weapons.  What happens with a dozen, or dozens, of “small” nuclear attacks across Ukraine?  There is no way to know, but can we look at Chernobyl for lessons?  Nope.  Since the Soviets celebrated the heroes who died from radiation trying to stop and contain the accident- they are best seen as people as below the blast in a bomb.  There is an undeniable spike in the number of thyroid cancers among the young who lived near the power plant when the accident occurred.  But since the form of exposure was different from a bomb, and Soviet scientific methods are best considered very poor, the accident is of little use to study the impacts of a nuclear war in Ukraine.  If Putin does go nuclear with weapons in Ukraine stay well north or south of the latitude of Ukraine and stay well up the prevalent winds and you’ll be fine.

I am sure than your local pharmacia would normally have iodine pills on the shelf.  I am not sure about now.  Another source of iodine should be at the outdoors sports shops.  Iodine tablets or tinctures are traditional water purification methods used by backpackers and mountaineers.  I still use them since they are lighter than filters and have no moving parts.

Will the use of nukes by Putin increase his military advantage?  That is an interesting question with no clear answer.  It depends on how the nuclear weapons are employed, where they are employed, Ukraine soldier and civilian reactions etc.   The very power of nuclear weapons can create more problems than they solve.  Imagine a very small nuclear weapon of only 200 tons being used. Even that small of a nuke is 20 times as powerful as the most massive conventional bombs used in a war. If used in a city then up to a square kilometers of that city will turn into an impassable obstacle in the near term.  You get the same result if used in a forest.  Take out a major dam?  Downstream will be scoured of bridges and suffer short term flooding.  Upstream of the dam you may open mobility corridors after the mud firms up.  Remember that Russian troops are limited in their ability to pass through radioactive areas as well.  Tanks and armored personnel carriers provide decent to good shielding, but they can raise dust clouds while passing through mud bogs.  The crews will breathe in and be covered by radioactivity if you pass them too close to the explosion areas and downwind footprints.  This will not amuse the Russian troops, even if the military provides them with “anti-radiation” pills, aka amphetamines.   None of this means that there are not any appropriate military targets for tactical nukes, it just points out nukes aren’t a panacea weapon.

It is doubtful that small scale nuclear weapons use will cause the Ukraine military or civilian morale to collapse.  The odds are just like throughout history these attacks will pull the people together for a period of years.  In order to shatter morale the attacks will need to be severe, ongoing, and ruthless with the Ukrainians getting in zero counterblows.  While Ukraine has no nuclear weapons it has proven itself to be remarkably adept at pursuing asymmetrical attacks upon Russian assets. I doubt they have lost this capability since last weekend.

Moving up to Putin using Hiroshima/Nagasaki sized weapons on an urban center.  The same issues occur, especially if Putin wants to annex the territory.  He would be responsible for either putting the city back together which is expensive.  Or he could abandon the city and let it remain a ghost town which is politically rough since he “liberating” these areas from Ukrainian oppression.  This is way to sneak into a short discussion about the largest impact of nuclear weapons- they are much more political weapons than military weapons.

So what if Vlad decides to use a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, or one of the four territories he “annexed.” For a host of reasons and history since August 1945 nuclear weapons have assumed outsized political dimensions.  These reasons are the main things keeping Putin (or other earlier national leaders) from using nukes.  The foreign policy impacts of ordering the first wartime use of a nuke since 1945 would be large.  Smaller nations otherwise not giving a shit about the current war would be forced to distance themselves from Putin to keep markets with the West open.  Large nations like India would have to distance themselves from Russia for at least a period of time for similar reasons.

Even Xi, would have to publicly distance Russia for a while.  This is even more so since Xi, who in front of his closest leaders, would support Putin’s use since it could lower the limits to his own use of nukes – would need to focus international public anger away from China for their support of Russia to date. Plus I imagine there will be a personal anger by Xi towards Putin for putting him in this position.

In the West and USA the odds are that it would cement providing military and economic aid to Ukraine for a significant period.  Whatever support Russia currently enjoys in the West would vanish in an instant.  I don’t think it will bring in direct Western military attacks on Russia, especially if the sole nuke use is a tactical attack and not busting up a city. But that use by Vladimir “now worse than Hitler” Putin would all but guarantee a long war and turning the currently frozen Russian funds in the West into seized forever funds.  Russia’s people would probably see loss of all access to the rest of the world, and it is not beyond possibility we would see the forced return of all Russian passport holders to Russia. Did these people give Putin advice? Nope.  But returning citizens to their origins is common during a war and doing so in this case is low risk and high domestic return for politicians.

Would the blowback from outside Russia lead to a loss of domestic support?  That is an interesting question and possibly of great interest to Putin if he has any grasp of reality. Most Russians outside the large cities are isolated from western media and until the “mobilization” have overwhelmingly supported the government.  The mobilization efforts have made some fractures but media reports are fairly uniform in showing support is still widespread in greater Russia.   The Russian elites have been more impacted by Western reaction to the war than the rural masses.  What will be the “elite” reactions to Russian nuke use?  It will be a critical question.  Putin probably can’t withstand for any significant time a large internal popularity collapse and external isolation.  Plus Russian history is rich with elites being thrown by other elites- and despite communist propaganda it wasn’t the proletariat that ran the November 1917 revolution.

If Russia starts internally melting there will be impacts in Western Europe. Any remaining energy coming from the country will likely cease.  There will be attempts to flee and those who make it over the borders will start the next European refugee crises.  The odds are stacked way against the next Russian leader being a western orientated reformer.  And whomever takes control in order to get domestic support will absolutely not assist with any post nuke cleanup or any meaningful post conflict assistance to Ukraine.  That burden will fall on Europe.  The US will compare the weapons delivery costs between the USA and EU and should tell the EU to get right on that cleanup.  This should lead to higher taxes in the EU.

In sum any Russian use of nukes will lead to impacts in Europe.  But unless you are in or around Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic states your chance of health issues from radioactivity are likely low.  Hits to your pocketbooks and perhaps societal issues from increased refugees are pretty certain.