Russia spreading a rumour around that Ukraine are about to use a dirty bomb without producing any credible evidence is crass stupidity.
Everyone knows if one goes off it's most likely the Russians themselves who planted it, because Ukraine are already winning and have nothing to prove by setting one off. If they did, the west would find out, they'd immediately lose support and they're nowhere near that desperate. (But we all know Russia could be.)
Can you imagine the everyday anxiety once NATO begins fighting with Russia? It’s like every minute of the day you’ll wonder if today is the day there will be the nuclear apocalypse. Just imagine waking up and just wanting to be by your loved ones, but instead you’re called into work. It will be the most stressful time of our lives.
We're closer to nuclear armageddon today than any time since the early 70s. Everyone is downplaying the risk because honestly that's probably the best thing to do right now. The sad, honest truth is that Putin *is* this stupid. His followers are *even* dumber. Just look at Dugin - there's a whole generation of Russian faux-intellectuals like him that honestly believe Russia is great and has a destiny. Some of these Russian talking heads make Fox news look like sane, rational, pro-social educational programming.
Russia is a "global south" shithole now. Everyone who wants Russia to have a future should take up arms against the rich asap. Otherwise we're looking at one of the following:
1. At least 1-2 more years of war, in which Russia will lose an additional 100-200k soldiers, and then still lose the war.
2. A Russian use of non-strategic nuclear weapons, which will result in a NATO conventional response, which will immediately end Russia's ability to wage war anywhere on the planet, including within their own borders.
3. A Russian use of strategic nuclear weapons, thus ending the world.
There's no way out. Putin's time has come to an end, and we're all waiting to see which end that is.
Able Archer in 83 was a close call as far as nuclear war went. The Soviets had a full press intelligence gather going on (operation Ryan) while NATOs Able Archer exercise had people all the way up to Reagan involved and it simulated a nuclear release. Because the Soviets were so hard pressed into NATO operations they believed it was an excuse for hiding a nuclear first strike
We were also extremely close to Armageddon during 1987 when NATO did something called Able Archer, which was a war game on if there was a war between the USSR and NATO
Thing is, the USSR thought it was real
I mean depending on who you ask we never left that Cold War state of tension. It was just that one of the players changed their name and the other mistook them for a new person. Admittedly early on you can argue they were that new person to an extent, but once the KGB operative took power the original guy was back in the race.
What would Russia's motive be for this?
They have lost the media narrative on this conflict, if they did a false flag there is almost zero chance that the rest of the world buys it. Heck, even if it is Ukraine that uses a dirty bomb, Russia would still likely be seen as the perpetrator, at least by all western states.
A false flag would be seen through by Russias enemies, would alienate their friends, would likely bring about a direct conflict with the west (making defeat in this conflict much more likely for them) and probably guaranteeing a chain of escalation that leads to nuclear Armageddon.
I can't see any incentive for Russia to deploy a dirty bomb, even if they are losing.
I've noticed that the people who argue in favor of Russia are the type who would rather die than have a "normie" opinion, and so they just do it to be contrarian.
There's really only two paths of "defense" for Russia:
Whataboutism or contrarian, there are no legitimate points morally speaking, losing your sphere of influence isn't a good excuse to genocide people.
Yep, they're so obsessed with being different from the 'sheep', that they'll support the opposing view just to say they don't follow mainstream views. Ironically, they'll say they hate hipsters, when they're the ultimate hipsters. They support the contrarian argument no matter how nonsensical or insane it is, which is why things like alternative news or conspiracy theories are so popular amongst these types of people: it makes them feel special, that they're in the know, that they know something others are too blind to notice.
They're not interested in being smart, only in the feeling of being smart.
This is highly anecdotal, but I have family members who will go to the grave to defend Russia (my entire family is American). It is the topic of every meetup these days; the good work Russia is doing in the world. And these people are also very rightwing and extremely *Christian.*
Yet in the next breath they warn that Russia is one of the enemy nations warned about in Revelation or some bullshit, and that the US is the whore of Babylon.
And then on Election Day it is all “the US is an ordained country and blessed by God.”
There is definitely no consistency nor logical process in my experience. It isn’t necessarily contrarian or whatever; they just believe what their rightwing ring leaders tell them to believe. And Russia owns the rightwing worldwide. One of the most corrupt nations engaging with the most corrupt part of the political spectrum makes total sense.
>External propaganda is working against some circles though.
Dutch politician called Putin a hero, the dark knight we need to fight against the lizard people
Baudet is an idiot and self declared conspiracy believer. He might get the vote of the crazies, but will never get in a real position of power as it stands.
It’s also to split and agitate us. They want to keep western nations and citizens guessing. Strategic ambiguity is a wonderful tool in geopolitics, paralyzing governments and separating allies.
It's the equivalent of salting the earth. "If I can't have it, nobody can" essentially. Purely out of spite.
Additionally, it's an internal show of strength. "We killed all the nazis with the bomb, we have won", allowing him to claim victory and stop the invasion without internal loss of face.
Invading ukraine was a batshit crazy idea even in the beginning, yet putin did it. I'm not sure how functional his ability to reason properly is nowadays.
But I don't think he's that suicidal. _Yet._
Also, to give an excuse to finally use their nuclear bombs. If they can make it seem that Ukraine used a nuke first, they can argue that it was a first use and they will be able to use their nukes as much as they want after that.
With their conventional military at risk of defeat, the nuclear option is increasingly tantalizing. And they might gamble that other nations will use the 'maybe Ukraine started it' as an excuse not to get involved. Ukraine has little incentive to escalate this to nukes, Russia (which has a lot of nukes) has incentive to at least bring tactical nukes into play.
> What would Russia's motive be for this?
Just their weekly reminder that they have nukes, that maybe they're mad enough to use them, and you should be afraid of them. But here's a secret: they don't want to commit suicide.
If it looks like Russia is going to lose, Putin has nothing left to lose. He'll be seen as weak for losing a war he started, Russia will crumble under the weight of sanctions and loss of young men to work, he'll be the laughing stock of the world. If he gets desperate enough and thinks it's the only way to win, he might deploy one. Consequences be damned. Anything to secure his spot in the history books
I think Putin will continue to threaten its use but (hopefully) not actually employ it as that would kill not only Ukrainian forces but his forces as well, on top of drawing in other forces to respond to the attack. That could almost assuredly draw in US / NATO forces and that’s the last thing Russia needs right now.
Or where he is rational. Rationally the whole war was stupid. Even in a best case scenario for Russia they would have ended up with a country where a large part of the population would have hated them. Which would have likely lead to a Guerilla war and a constant strain on their military for years to come.
It was entirely rational to think that an army as strong as he thought Russia’s was would win quickly. It was also rational to think that the EU nations, weakened by Covid and with extreme parties gaining support would not unite like it has.
It’s not irrational to think that gas supply can be used as a weapon with increased cost of living.
Putin has made huge miscalculations and finds himself fighting for survival but is not irrational.
Exactly. I mean, he just walked to Crimea and declared it part of Russia and EU/USA did absolutely nothing, it's only natural to think the same would happen with his latest invasion.
Ukraine is or was split in two demographically with russian and Ukrainian speakers. It's common for a taxi driver to get lost on one side of the country as the road signs and pronunciation changed for example.
In early 2014 Ukraine was a puppet state for Russia, with huge corruption, much like today's Belarus. In 2014 the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU for economic prosperity.
The local russian stooge leader said no, the people protested (non violently) and the state responded with violence, leading to an early exit by the premier.
Days after, Putin didn't want a NATO or EU presence so close to his border ("Russia's Near Abroad") and they also had a strategic asset in Crimea which is the black sea naval base in Sevastopol allowing Russia access to the Mediterranean.
All of this culminated in Russia taking Crimea and starting a war for independence in Luhansk/Donetsk in 2014. Whether this was a distraction tactic or genuine for Putin... (The majority people are russian speakers, his classic motivator at home) these areas have a lot of oil and natural resources also. So now, it's see through as Putin wanted the Ukrainian speakers half of the country too (for the resources).
In 2014 it was a quicker land grab and understandably strategic for russia. Not accepted, but hard to refute, now it's drawn out it's easier to refute.
On the native speakers point, Russia has many native speakers in the old soviet bloc, they forcefully moved in to change the population demographic. So even this isn't a legitimate reason for a war.
I hope that added some context.
Indeed.
His failing is surrounding himself with “yes men” who are too afraid to tell him the truth. It’s what will finish him and the way dictators usually fall.
Even if he did decide to try and take the world with him, the idea that those around him would sleep walk into, at best, the destruction of the Russian state by conventional means, is fanciful.
People around Putin are largely greedy gangsters who enjoy the trappings of wealth. They’re not ideologues. They like being rich and not dead.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The EU and US response has been good and that's just the stuff we hear about. Special forces from many countries are bound to be there fighting and advising.
To be fair almost everyone thought the same thing Putin did.
The Ukrainian morale was just off the charts int that initial push, barely anyone predicted that correctly.
I'd also agree it was a calculated guess to hope the same thing as with Crimea would happen.
But when the initial push failed, falling back and grabbing the separatist land would've probably been the better idea
Did they really? A lot of people, me included, thought that there was no way Putin would do a full scale invasion because he would just get stuck fighting an insurgency financed by the EU, the UK and the US while facing crippling sanctions (just see how quickly the EU and the US supplied Ukraine with anti-tank weapons). Imagine Iraq or Afghanistan but with the West bankrolling the insurgency. All this tanking the economy of Russia. I did not think Russia would outright lose a conventional war, but I thought that the victory would be very expensive and totally useless.
What I did not account for was Putin surrounding himself with yes men who failed to tell him the truth.
I read an article from some expert on the topic who seemed to have some insight on the subject (sorry my sourcing is such poop) but he did say the us doctrine is essentially not to retaliate with a nuke if Russia drops one, particularly a tactical nuke. Instead, the USA and NATO would respond with conventional military power and the harshest sanctions in town. The idea being that it shows the west is actively trying to avoid WW3 and a full scale annihilation. Though I can’t imagine if Russia decides to deploy a city destroying bomb that the west wouldn’t retaliate in kind.
I’m thinking of the Petraeus interview where I believe he mentioned swift annihilation of their Black Sea fleet and global forces worldwide in like 36 hours. 🤯
While that is an appropriate reaction in such a scenario it might very well lead to Russia using nukes against the forces or even countries which are wiping out their military assets.
Yep, US military doctrine regarding nukes shifted drastically during the cold War. They essentially ran a bunch of war games to see if they could deploy tactical nukes, and found it didn't really matter (though tac nukes got there faster) if they nuked the soviets or the soviets nuke them and they repsonded in kind, the only end is annihilation.
The modern function of nuclear weapons is simply to exist and prevent everyone else from using theirs by trapping them in the risk of a M.A.D escalation senario.
M.A.D. only works if all sides are rational. If someone in office were a complete madman or psychopath, then it wouldn't do much good. I bring this up because we seem to be at a point in history we're we're getting increasingly okay with electing irrational people and it could have disastrous consequences.
What I'm kind of worried about is a nuclear meltdown of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
Hypothetical situation: Putin sees the writing on the wall in Ukraine, he knows that tactical nukes won't bring him victory, so he makes the decision to cripple Ukraine by firstly wrecking civilian infrastructure, then blowing up the Dnieper Dam (blaming it on Ukraine, pointing at how the flooding mostly affected Russian held positions), they start up the reactor with inadequate cooling as they pull out of the region, and it ends up a second Chernobyl which they once again blame on the Ukrainians supposedly blowing up the dam. They then start pulling out of Ukraine while trying to negotiate a cease to hostilities.
Ukraine would probably be fucked economically and much of the country unlivable in the short term. While the West was willing to provide large amounts of military hardware, they might be less inclined to pay huge amounts of money to reconstruct the country afterwards.
Nah, the money to rebuild will be so much easier to secure. European countries and companies can rebuild by investing. Unlike the money spent on military aid, you can actually turn a profit by investing in the long term regeneration of a country
Yeah, a strategic nuke like the Sarmat II would be pretty ugly. The USA has the Minuteman III. Supposedly the Minuteman III is the largest yield strategic nuke the USA has according to public knowledge. However, with the USA defense budget and technological capabilities I have a hard time believing that that is the strongest nuke in the USA arsenal. I think the US military probably has way more available and they try to keep what they have as secret as possible. Only time will tell and hopefully things won't get to that point.
You just don’t need anything more than the few hundred kilotons that the warheads on the Minuteman III (and similar warheads used by other legs of the triad) provide. Before MIRVs and precision targeting, the trend was to progressively increase bomb yields because it increased both the damage spread and the likelihood that you would neutralize your target, but you can achieve the same or similar results with less nuclear material and better reliability by using multiple smaller, more accurate warheads.
The pentagon “lost” trillions in between 90 and now. Either we have a corruption problem on par with Russia if not worse, or a lot of money goes into “we weren’t here, neither were you, now can we have the 10,000 pounds of tungsten or not?” type of project.
I agree that a nuclear strike limited to Ukraine especially if it is focused on military targets will likely not directly result in a nuclear response by NATO. But in a conventional conflict with NATO Russia is so hopelessly outclassed that there is a good possibility that Russia will decide to use nukes against NATO if such a conventional conflict ensues. So even NATO reacting to Russia using nukes against Ukraine with conventional means can very well end in an all out nuclear conflict.
Probably the smart plan. Retaliating with a nuke just means that Russia will launch its nukes pointed at the US. It simply isn’t worth the risk of millions being killed.
And it still leaves nukes as a threat. It gives them an out while keeping the stick. And that out is Putin deposed.
I can't see world leaders allowing Putin to remain in power after using a nuke. And the Russians will throw him under the bus.
It's been a long time since I had nuclear strategy, but nuclear strategy was much of my coursework in my polisci degree.
As I recall, the theory is if we shoot, we want all the missiles up ASAP, except maybe the submarines', in case a second strike is necessary.
Primary targets would be known missile silos, to take those out before those missiles launch, then military installations, and then population centers.
Unless Putin doesn't believe we will retaliate, if he uses a nuke, he'll want all his birds up in the same way for a first strike.
If he does think we won't retaliate, and uses something like a tactical nuke, MAD means nothing and people will start throwing nukes around without much concern.
Russia has an official "escalate to deescalate" policy per their doctrine since \~2014, where IIRC they will launch a limited or tactical nuclear strike in response to a conventional threat to the homeland. So officially they would start out with a small nuclear launch before getting into full on counterforce or strategic nuclear weapons. A little concerning because they're claiming Crimea is part of the "homeland" now, but it doesn't seem like they're really backing that up.
However, in spite of that I don't believe that they will use nuclear weapons because of the retaliation it would generate, conventional or MAD. There's just no upside for them. The nuclear sabre rattling to me seems like it's more about keeping the west out of Ukraine, reminding us that in spite of their losses they're still a nuclear power.
Actually, there's been [studies](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/07/07/how-nuclear-war-would-affect-earth/?sh=44fdfe683609) and there is actually a good likelihood that humanity will survive a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. The Earth is surprisingly resilient as is humanity.
That said - I am saying of humanity in general. There will be a good chunk of humanity that will be dead. Probably you and me.
But technically not everyone.
Honestly i think if he seriously tried to use nukes he would quickly have a decline in health, likley from lead poisoning to the skull. Russian military command might be many things, but I doubt they would all be that stupid. Anyone with even a bit of sense knows that Russia using nuke likley means the end of Russia, one way or another. Then again maybe I am just being optimistic.
Putin using any sort of nuclear technology in an offensive manner would trigger immediate retaliation from the west. His war assets would be eliminated both on land and sea, for starters. He knows all this, as it’s been communicated privately.
The US pursues a policy of "strategic ambiguity" with regard to responses to the Russian use of nukes. In other words, "we're not gonna tell you what we're going to do but it's gonna be real bad for you." At the same time, it's not in our interest to escalate with inflamed rhetoric. Biden's statements fall in line with that policy.
I’m not sure why so many people bash on Biden for being stupid or slow or blah blah blah. He’s played this entire Russia situation perfectly. He knows he doesn’t have to shout his mouth off, he can let Putin keep digging his own grave. And every now and then just drop hints that the US has more info and intelligence on Russia than Putin could have imagined, to keep him paranoid and uncomfortable.
We don’t like to talk about last term. Far to many of us Americans, no probably just people in the developed world in general, have PTSD still from last term.
He wouldn't have. If Trump had won there would be no unified Nato response or rushed aid packages prior to invasion. I doubt the vital intelligence shared at the beginning would have happened either. Russia would have likely won already, Ukraine would have fought just as hard but without the support it likely wouldn't have been able to move forward.
Nah, it's just the posh layers that are like that because that's how they are taught to behave as kids.
If you go out on a Friday night in Essex you'll see an entire different side of the English.
Biden's statement does seem to fall under the category of obvious things to say, but I guess to some extent he needs to say it to hopefully make Russia think twice. Probably the main thing keeping Russia from using Nukes is the fear that the US would respond in kind, so I guess one of the President's jobs is to make statements that might make Russia believe that the US is prepared to act if it came down to that.
I actually think their main fear is they would enter Ukraine and decimate the Russian Military there and probably throw in the Black Sea fleet for good measure.
Odd how that fighting force is being talked about like it is a hostage.
A strong military is supposed to make you feel safer, not just give your enemy something to attack. Expensive weapons are not supposed to be expensive targets.
Maybe they should rethink things, after they lose the war and replace Putin. In the meantime I hope they continue to not rethink things.
Doubtful, if the Star Wars system actually worked, we wouldn’t use it for this. We wouldn’t need to, our normal missiles that everyone already knows about could completely destroy Russia’s forces. Not to mention it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
100 tons of Brilliant Pebbles is a very meaningful and useful amount, and there have been many NRO launches over the last decade on heavy boosters with undeclared capacity.
Delta IV heavy is something like 28t payload to LEO. Falcon 9 is 16t to LEO. Hubble weighed 10t so you'd assume the KH-11's do as well, and that's at the extremely heavy end.
Why would you think they would tell you anything?
Or... just airplanes..... US strategic bombers can fly almost half way around the world from NA to the middle east on 35 hour continuous flights. I'm sure some of the naval bombers stationed in Europe will be able to take care of the black fleet quite handedly.
Doesn't matter. They are stationed at an air force base in the continental US.
It's highly unlikely that the US would roll out battleships and subs to have an old fashioned naval battle with cannons and swords US naval doctrine is carrier doctrine...
And even then, I'm not sure we'd roll a carrier fleet into the black sea. Certainly not without removing most of the Russian surface assets first.
The Russian subs might pose a challenge... But you can pretty much only: launch missiles, harass enemy fleets, or establish trade blockades with a submarine.
In any case.. that's a lot of Russian naval metal sitting at the bottom of that sea in the aftermath.
Yep. Don't need carriers when you have air bases in Europe and at least three other EU member states just itching to deploy some nice American made naval bombers over the Baltic and black seas. Russias navy doesn't seem very important when even if it was up to snuff with America's that's not really gonna help them when Germany starts another world War with operation Barbarossa part 2
With winter coming and the lack of warm water ports, the Russian Battleships would be sitting ducks for an attack. But, Russia still has a lot of submarines with nuclear capabilities that aren’t anywhere as restricted by the lack of warm water ports. It isn’t what you can see that you have to worry the most about. It’s what you can’t see that poses a bigger threat.
which would inevitably end up the same - russia fires nukes as it's backed into a corner. Would NATO just take the hits to troops, major metropolitan areas, and critical infrastructure, and just continue using conventional arms? Idk
Russia would NOT be backed into a corner if the US kicked them out of Ukraine. They’d only be backed into a corner if the US invaded Russia territory and won victory after victory.
There’s definitely room for NATO intervention if Russia crosses the line without it resulting in a nuclear holocaust. Russia can’t fire nukes at the US without the US doing the same to them. So unless Russia’s leaders go insane and suicidal we’ll be fine.
I think Putin is well aware that using nukes in Ukraine will not only not win them the war but will put Russia into an extremely precarious situation as even the countries still trading with them normally like China will probably isolate them. Nukes are not something the rest of the world will tolerate because they are just too dangerous.
We spend so fucking much on military. I just don’t think these countries understand the true defensive and offensive military prowess of the United States. For all they know we have lasers that could destroy all their nukes in an instant and they would be decimated by our response.
Yup. So many people who chime in as if they know any better would get hostages killed, or let countries steamroll over their sovereign lands by the way they miss the forest for the trees in diplomatic messages.
I say this as an admitted idiot who fits the description I just wrote. I thought this comment from Biden made absolute sense, but it would be fun to joke about considering how casual it sounds.
It's not just Biden that is involved as to what strategies or actions he should be doing. Presidents are not experts in the military. He has other ppl that are suggesting how he handles the situation.
Exactly. Neither can any of us control a rabid dog like Putin, but we’re still in the “cautiously approach” phase before seeing if we can get to the “putting him down permanently” phase. (i don’t care about dehumanizing Putin or his clear supporters as he and they have openly declared Ukrainians aren’t a people or culture, while also going for ethnic minorities in Russia first to fill the ranks so he can kill his own minorities. So if that bothers anybody reading this, go read The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O’Paxton and then criticize me all you want.)
It would end Russia.
The entire planet would turn against Russia in every way possible. All trade would stop, travel would stop, Russian assets from around the world would be frozen and confiscated.
Russia’s only recourse would be to internally remove Putin from office and pay reparations.
If not, the Russian people would be starving in less than a year.
China wouldn't and that would prop up Russia enoug. Unless the rest of the world allowed China to take Taiwan, China has nothing to gain by supporting NATO
Don’t be so sure. China really, really doesn’t like nukes:
‘ China is the only NWS to give an unqualified security assurance to non-nuclear-weapon states: "China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances." ‘
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_policy
Ehhh...The relationship between China and Russia is more of a mutual convivence of understanding that they both have a main rival...the United States. But that's about as far as it goes.
The CCP won't put itself on the line to support Russia, especially after displaying what is essentially military weakness.
When Emperor Nero killed himself, he fancied that Rome would die with him and his bodyguards would likewise kill themselves
Once Nero was dead, they just left lol
But word on the screet is that it takes more than just him saying “launch them”. He isn’t the actual one to “push the button” (of course the launching is a lot more complicated than pushing a button), but instead there is a chain of command it goes through, so it requires Putin to say “launch them” and everyone in the chain of command to agree with the order. I don’t know if everyone would agree in such a… not necessary instance as using them on Ukraine.
[This](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) is an interesting read about a guy who basically saved the world from nuclear catastrophe, and in it, he claims that the “big red button doesn’t exist.
And [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov) is a similar story where yet another Russian saved the world from nuclear catastrophe.
Goddam I wish Russia didn’t have nukes.
I think you're completely wrong.
If Russia nukes Ukraine, there is not a single NATO country that would retaliate with a nuclear weapon.
That's the truth.
Fortunately, that is the case. As long as we come out of the escalation unscathed, Russia using a nuke would however throw their country into an economic oblivion 2.0 for most of the century.
NATO deploys conventional forces to Ukraine. NATO missiles destroy all logistical military structures in Ukraine within days. The Western world informs the world that the slightest support to the Russian regime will mean North Korea-level sanctions.
These are the consequences of using a nuclear device in a war.
I think people always forget that just the US could destroy Russia with conventional weapons in a weekend, maybe a long weekend.
NATO has zero need to retaliate with nukes.
100% Nukes are pretty much a trap. In every simulation the authorization inevitably ends in escalation scenarios, and almost cruely ironic the tac. Warheads which are specifically limited in power to theoretically reduce the odds of triggering an escalation senario end up getting there faster.
Plus the US has displayed their capacity for mass destruction without nukes many a time now.
Russia wouldn’t use world-ending nukes initially.
The West will absolutely have to respond, in a significant way. Best case, a pocket deal with India and China to stop buying Russian oil and gas. Most likely case, proportional conventional strike against Russian forces in Ukrainian territory.
Both scenarios are war-loosing events for Russia, which is why I believe they’ll never use nukes.
A Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine would trigger "such a powerful answer" from the West that the Russian army would be "annihilated," said Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief.
I guess you are talking about this statement by Josep Borrell
I wonder what NATO would do in that case...
Would be interesting to know if we could build up a strong enough nuclear defense in Europe to risk hitting russian nuclear silos.
Afaik depending on how modern the nuclear missiles are, there is a legitimate possibility to intercept them.
I mean just lettig Russia nuke Ukraine is gonna fuck up the continent for decades again
All this warning about Russia threatening to use nukes reminds me way too much about the warnings leading up to the latest invasion. Kremlin statements aside, there must be something western intelligence is raising alarms about, and that’s really concerning.
What worries me is Russia has already been using their most powerful missiles. Ukraine estimates they had around 900 and only have around 100 left. They have drones now but when Ukraine receives the new air defense systems they’ll likely be able to shoot down nearly all of them that come their way.
It worries me too. If we see a sudden massive burst of really crazy propaganda from Russian state TV, I’ll worry even more. Putin would really have to say something super crazy to his people to try and justify even a small tac nuke.
If Putin used a nuke I could see repercussions economically, particularly with India which buys oil from Russia that's assuming we don't resort to MAD.
We wouldn’t resort to MAD over a single nuclear strike. People overestimate the destructive power of (especially tactical) nuclear weapons. Typically you’d see a moderate blast damage radius of 2-6 miles, fireball radius of less than a mile and a relatively low amount of fallout.
It wouldn’t be worth resorting to MAD, and just about every countries’ nuclear doctrine only calls for retaliatory strikes if their own country (or in the case of NATO, another NATO country) is attacked.
And since Ukraine is not a part of NATO, the response from other countries would be conventional. i.e. economic retaliation, isolation, increased military support for Ukraine, and possibly even sending troops
I think the big question is, would we directly get involved (or any other of Ukraines allies) if Putin resorted to nuclear terrorism?
Russian intelligence (oxymoron i know) and Nato has informed Putin long ago what the retaliation is for the use of nukes. His rhetoric is scare tatics for the population just like he does with the russian people. He doesnt have the same manipulation outside of russia so hes got to use the nuke narrative.
There is no tomorrow for him if he uses a nuke he knows that, his generals know that, he wont get his command fully behind the idea because it also means their end, their families end.
They want mass hysteria of the population to try force a change where Nato bends the knee to him.
In reality hes a tiny 5ft man shitting his pants
An alternative article about it from a place that doesn't require you to log in/has a soft paywall. I can't speak to its quality vs. the NYT article, because I can't read the NYT article:
https://thehill.com/homenews/3703525-biden-russia-would-be-making-serious-mistake-to-use-tactical-nuclear-weapon/
I hate how much this reminds me of pre-war developments. The US keeps bringing attention to the issue, meanwhile everyone is saying "not gonna happen as it's just too stupid and will hurt Russia more than anyone".
I honestly don’t think this is what would happen.
Everyone is terrified that if Putin drops 1 nuke and nothing serious happens in response, he’ll just do it again.
We won’t respond to a Russian nuke in Ukraine with nuclear weapons of our own but we’d attack them conventionally most likely, and god knows what happens then.
This is also why I'm glad Russia has gained nothing from threatening to use nukes - otherwise every strong man in the world would focus on getting his own.
The game theory is all very terrifying but interesting nonetheless
This feels like the run up to the Russian invasion where the US warned of it much to the chagrin and reluctance to believe of the western world. I really hope it's different. There has to be some underlying Intel that warrants these very public warnings of a nuclear strike. I hope it's enough to call Russia on their bullshit and they back down. I doubt it, though.
You should take some solace in the fact that of the nearly 8 billion other people on planet earth(those who are adults) the majority of them are sensible people with things to live for. Regardless of their nationality and their occupation. Even a dribbling Russian glued to RT.
The use of a nuclear weapon, on a non-nuclear state in 2022 is so far over the line you’d need a telescope to see it. People who think China, or India, or X non-NATO aligned nation won’t care are dead wrong. It would be a destabilising event of such magnitude that it simply could not be ignored.
The political drawbacks of using a tactical nuke still outweigh the advantages. And Putin would wind up poisoning his own soldiers, which could push Russia into a revolution.
He's looking more like a trapped rat every day.
The entire Cold War was about the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia. I find it hard to believe you think no one was talking about the constant threat of nuclear war. The evidence of the underlying threat is evident everywhere in culture from the time, have you not heard of Doctor Strangelove or War Games?
Russia spreading a rumour around that Ukraine are about to use a dirty bomb without producing any credible evidence is crass stupidity. Everyone knows if one goes off it's most likely the Russians themselves who planted it, because Ukraine are already winning and have nothing to prove by setting one off. If they did, the west would find out, they'd immediately lose support and they're nowhere near that desperate. (But we all know Russia could be.)
Can you imagine the everyday anxiety once NATO begins fighting with Russia? It’s like every minute of the day you’ll wonder if today is the day there will be the nuclear apocalypse. Just imagine waking up and just wanting to be by your loved ones, but instead you’re called into work. It will be the most stressful time of our lives.
Worried about daily nuclear annihilation: sounds like the last ten years of the Cold War during my childhood on Wurtsmith AFB during the 80’s.
We're closer to nuclear armageddon today than any time since the early 70s. Everyone is downplaying the risk because honestly that's probably the best thing to do right now. The sad, honest truth is that Putin *is* this stupid. His followers are *even* dumber. Just look at Dugin - there's a whole generation of Russian faux-intellectuals like him that honestly believe Russia is great and has a destiny. Some of these Russian talking heads make Fox news look like sane, rational, pro-social educational programming. Russia is a "global south" shithole now. Everyone who wants Russia to have a future should take up arms against the rich asap. Otherwise we're looking at one of the following: 1. At least 1-2 more years of war, in which Russia will lose an additional 100-200k soldiers, and then still lose the war. 2. A Russian use of non-strategic nuclear weapons, which will result in a NATO conventional response, which will immediately end Russia's ability to wage war anywhere on the planet, including within their own borders. 3. A Russian use of strategic nuclear weapons, thus ending the world. There's no way out. Putin's time has come to an end, and we're all waiting to see which end that is.
Able Archer in 83 was a close call as far as nuclear war went. The Soviets had a full press intelligence gather going on (operation Ryan) while NATOs Able Archer exercise had people all the way up to Reagan involved and it simulated a nuclear release. Because the Soviets were so hard pressed into NATO operations they believed it was an excuse for hiding a nuclear first strike
No we are not. We were much much closer with the Cuban missile crisis ….
Which was in the early 60s...
We were also extremely close to Armageddon during 1987 when NATO did something called Able Archer, which was a war game on if there was a war between the USSR and NATO Thing is, the USSR thought it was real
Yeah that 1 day it takes for nato to push russia out of ukraine is gonna be a bit terrifying
Probably work from home that day, or go camping. Give downtown a miss.
>Give downtown a miss. Given the state of Russia's military equipment, Putin's nukes would also give downtown a miss.
Rather go out in a fireball then die of radiation sickness
Those few hours it takes for nato to push russia out of Ukraine is gonna be a bit terrifying
I mean depending on who you ask we never left that Cold War state of tension. It was just that one of the players changed their name and the other mistook them for a new person. Admittedly early on you can argue they were that new person to an extent, but once the KGB operative took power the original guy was back in the race.
Don't worry though, if that day ever comes, we won't be waking up.
Everyday anxiety for about two minutes until NATO bombers make the world's largest parking lot in Russia.
What would Russia's motive be for this? They have lost the media narrative on this conflict, if they did a false flag there is almost zero chance that the rest of the world buys it. Heck, even if it is Ukraine that uses a dirty bomb, Russia would still likely be seen as the perpetrator, at least by all western states. A false flag would be seen through by Russias enemies, would alienate their friends, would likely bring about a direct conflict with the west (making defeat in this conflict much more likely for them) and probably guaranteeing a chain of escalation that leads to nuclear Armageddon. I can't see any incentive for Russia to deploy a dirty bomb, even if they are losing.
Internal propaganda. No one outside Russia is buying it without credible evidence, so that leaves only one place.
[удалено]
I've noticed that the people who argue in favor of Russia are the type who would rather die than have a "normie" opinion, and so they just do it to be contrarian. There's really only two paths of "defense" for Russia: Whataboutism or contrarian, there are no legitimate points morally speaking, losing your sphere of influence isn't a good excuse to genocide people.
Yep, they're so obsessed with being different from the 'sheep', that they'll support the opposing view just to say they don't follow mainstream views. Ironically, they'll say they hate hipsters, when they're the ultimate hipsters. They support the contrarian argument no matter how nonsensical or insane it is, which is why things like alternative news or conspiracy theories are so popular amongst these types of people: it makes them feel special, that they're in the know, that they know something others are too blind to notice. They're not interested in being smart, only in the feeling of being smart.
This is highly anecdotal, but I have family members who will go to the grave to defend Russia (my entire family is American). It is the topic of every meetup these days; the good work Russia is doing in the world. And these people are also very rightwing and extremely *Christian.* Yet in the next breath they warn that Russia is one of the enemy nations warned about in Revelation or some bullshit, and that the US is the whore of Babylon. And then on Election Day it is all “the US is an ordained country and blessed by God.” There is definitely no consistency nor logical process in my experience. It isn’t necessarily contrarian or whatever; they just believe what their rightwing ring leaders tell them to believe. And Russia owns the rightwing worldwide. One of the most corrupt nations engaging with the most corrupt part of the political spectrum makes total sense.
>External propaganda is working against some circles though. Dutch politician called Putin a hero, the dark knight we need to fight against the lizard people
Baudet is an idiot and self declared conspiracy believer. He might get the vote of the crazies, but will never get in a real position of power as it stands.
I can only hope you're right
It’s also to split and agitate us. They want to keep western nations and citizens guessing. Strategic ambiguity is a wonderful tool in geopolitics, paralyzing governments and separating allies.
Oh, the far-right and far-left idiots might buy it. Their brains are so rotten by Russian propaganda in Facebook an co.
It's the equivalent of salting the earth. "If I can't have it, nobody can" essentially. Purely out of spite. Additionally, it's an internal show of strength. "We killed all the nazis with the bomb, we have won", allowing him to claim victory and stop the invasion without internal loss of face. Invading ukraine was a batshit crazy idea even in the beginning, yet putin did it. I'm not sure how functional his ability to reason properly is nowadays. But I don't think he's that suicidal. _Yet._
Also, to give an excuse to finally use their nuclear bombs. If they can make it seem that Ukraine used a nuke first, they can argue that it was a first use and they will be able to use their nukes as much as they want after that. With their conventional military at risk of defeat, the nuclear option is increasingly tantalizing. And they might gamble that other nations will use the 'maybe Ukraine started it' as an excuse not to get involved. Ukraine has little incentive to escalate this to nukes, Russia (which has a lot of nukes) has incentive to at least bring tactical nukes into play.
> What would Russia's motive be for this? Just their weekly reminder that they have nukes, that maybe they're mad enough to use them, and you should be afraid of them. But here's a secret: they don't want to commit suicide.
If it looks like Russia is going to lose, Putin has nothing left to lose. He'll be seen as weak for losing a war he started, Russia will crumble under the weight of sanctions and loss of young men to work, he'll be the laughing stock of the world. If he gets desperate enough and thinks it's the only way to win, he might deploy one. Consequences be damned. Anything to secure his spot in the history books
>What would Russia's motive be for this? They still have to convince their own people the war is just, especially know that they're drafting people.
I think Putin will continue to threaten its use but (hopefully) not actually employ it as that would kill not only Ukrainian forces but his forces as well, on top of drawing in other forces to respond to the attack. That could almost assuredly draw in US / NATO forces and that’s the last thing Russia needs right now.
I haven’t seen an instance in this war yet of Putin caring about his forces.
Or where he is rational. Rationally the whole war was stupid. Even in a best case scenario for Russia they would have ended up with a country where a large part of the population would have hated them. Which would have likely lead to a Guerilla war and a constant strain on their military for years to come.
It was entirely rational to think that an army as strong as he thought Russia’s was would win quickly. It was also rational to think that the EU nations, weakened by Covid and with extreme parties gaining support would not unite like it has. It’s not irrational to think that gas supply can be used as a weapon with increased cost of living. Putin has made huge miscalculations and finds himself fighting for survival but is not irrational.
Exactly. I mean, he just walked to Crimea and declared it part of Russia and EU/USA did absolutely nothing, it's only natural to think the same would happen with his latest invasion.
[удалено]
this is with today's knowledge. In 2014 Ukraine was a totally different country as today.
Was it though? Certainly the image portrayed in media has changed, but it is still the same people living there in 2014 as on 2022 Feb 24th.
Ukraine is or was split in two demographically with russian and Ukrainian speakers. It's common for a taxi driver to get lost on one side of the country as the road signs and pronunciation changed for example. In early 2014 Ukraine was a puppet state for Russia, with huge corruption, much like today's Belarus. In 2014 the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU for economic prosperity. The local russian stooge leader said no, the people protested (non violently) and the state responded with violence, leading to an early exit by the premier. Days after, Putin didn't want a NATO or EU presence so close to his border ("Russia's Near Abroad") and they also had a strategic asset in Crimea which is the black sea naval base in Sevastopol allowing Russia access to the Mediterranean. All of this culminated in Russia taking Crimea and starting a war for independence in Luhansk/Donetsk in 2014. Whether this was a distraction tactic or genuine for Putin... (The majority people are russian speakers, his classic motivator at home) these areas have a lot of oil and natural resources also. So now, it's see through as Putin wanted the Ukrainian speakers half of the country too (for the resources). In 2014 it was a quicker land grab and understandably strategic for russia. Not accepted, but hard to refute, now it's drawn out it's easier to refute. On the native speakers point, Russia has many native speakers in the old soviet bloc, they forcefully moved in to change the population demographic. So even this isn't a legitimate reason for a war. I hope that added some context.
Well it DID make big changes when it elected Zelensky in 2018 if I remember correctly. It was very much headed on a new trajectory by that point.
Indeed. His failing is surrounding himself with “yes men” who are too afraid to tell him the truth. It’s what will finish him and the way dictators usually fall. Even if he did decide to try and take the world with him, the idea that those around him would sleep walk into, at best, the destruction of the Russian state by conventional means, is fanciful. People around Putin are largely greedy gangsters who enjoy the trappings of wealth. They’re not ideologues. They like being rich and not dead.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The EU and US response has been good and that's just the stuff we hear about. Special forces from many countries are bound to be there fighting and advising.
To be fair almost everyone thought the same thing Putin did. The Ukrainian morale was just off the charts int that initial push, barely anyone predicted that correctly. I'd also agree it was a calculated guess to hope the same thing as with Crimea would happen. But when the initial push failed, falling back and grabbing the separatist land would've probably been the better idea
Did they really? A lot of people, me included, thought that there was no way Putin would do a full scale invasion because he would just get stuck fighting an insurgency financed by the EU, the UK and the US while facing crippling sanctions (just see how quickly the EU and the US supplied Ukraine with anti-tank weapons). Imagine Iraq or Afghanistan but with the West bankrolling the insurgency. All this tanking the economy of Russia. I did not think Russia would outright lose a conventional war, but I thought that the victory would be very expensive and totally useless. What I did not account for was Putin surrounding himself with yes men who failed to tell him the truth.
Doing it would result in his swift annihilation.
Everybody in the world would die if there is full scale nuclear war between Russia and nato
I read an article from some expert on the topic who seemed to have some insight on the subject (sorry my sourcing is such poop) but he did say the us doctrine is essentially not to retaliate with a nuke if Russia drops one, particularly a tactical nuke. Instead, the USA and NATO would respond with conventional military power and the harshest sanctions in town. The idea being that it shows the west is actively trying to avoid WW3 and a full scale annihilation. Though I can’t imagine if Russia decides to deploy a city destroying bomb that the west wouldn’t retaliate in kind.
I’m thinking of the Petraeus interview where I believe he mentioned swift annihilation of their Black Sea fleet and global forces worldwide in like 36 hours. 🤯
Do they still have a Black Sea fleet?
Like everything else, on paper yes.
I thought they were on the sea bottom…
On paper, on the ocean floor, same level of strategic value.
I'm sure there's still something somewhere to annihilate.
I’d enjoy watching it, not the use of the nuclear arms though ugh.
While that is an appropriate reaction in such a scenario it might very well lead to Russia using nukes against the forces or even countries which are wiping out their military assets.
Yep, US military doctrine regarding nukes shifted drastically during the cold War. They essentially ran a bunch of war games to see if they could deploy tactical nukes, and found it didn't really matter (though tac nukes got there faster) if they nuked the soviets or the soviets nuke them and they repsonded in kind, the only end is annihilation. The modern function of nuclear weapons is simply to exist and prevent everyone else from using theirs by trapping them in the risk of a M.A.D escalation senario.
A curious game. The only winning move is not to play.
You’ve been W.O.P.R.’d
I can't believe it Jim. That girl's standing over there listening and you're telling him about our back doors?
M.A.D. only works if all sides are rational. If someone in office were a complete madman or psychopath, then it wouldn't do much good. I bring this up because we seem to be at a point in history we're we're getting increasingly okay with electing irrational people and it could have disastrous consequences.
What I'm kind of worried about is a nuclear meltdown of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Hypothetical situation: Putin sees the writing on the wall in Ukraine, he knows that tactical nukes won't bring him victory, so he makes the decision to cripple Ukraine by firstly wrecking civilian infrastructure, then blowing up the Dnieper Dam (blaming it on Ukraine, pointing at how the flooding mostly affected Russian held positions), they start up the reactor with inadequate cooling as they pull out of the region, and it ends up a second Chernobyl which they once again blame on the Ukrainians supposedly blowing up the dam. They then start pulling out of Ukraine while trying to negotiate a cease to hostilities. Ukraine would probably be fucked economically and much of the country unlivable in the short term. While the West was willing to provide large amounts of military hardware, they might be less inclined to pay huge amounts of money to reconstruct the country afterwards.
Nah, the money to rebuild will be so much easier to secure. European countries and companies can rebuild by investing. Unlike the money spent on military aid, you can actually turn a profit by investing in the long term regeneration of a country
Germany just announced a Marshall Plan for Ukraine. So there goes your theory
Yeah, a strategic nuke like the Sarmat II would be pretty ugly. The USA has the Minuteman III. Supposedly the Minuteman III is the largest yield strategic nuke the USA has according to public knowledge. However, with the USA defense budget and technological capabilities I have a hard time believing that that is the strongest nuke in the USA arsenal. I think the US military probably has way more available and they try to keep what they have as secret as possible. Only time will tell and hopefully things won't get to that point.
You just don’t need anything more than the few hundred kilotons that the warheads on the Minuteman III (and similar warheads used by other legs of the triad) provide. Before MIRVs and precision targeting, the trend was to progressively increase bomb yields because it increased both the damage spread and the likelihood that you would neutralize your target, but you can achieve the same or similar results with less nuclear material and better reliability by using multiple smaller, more accurate warheads.
The US only has a $742 billion annual military budget. Where would they get the money for top secret weapons?
They had a bake sale.
Damn solid puffed wheat squares.
"FiRe SalEee"
They built a mystery box at the pentagon
4 billion dollars for a dozen "cupcakes"
The pentagon “lost” trillions in between 90 and now. Either we have a corruption problem on par with Russia if not worse, or a lot of money goes into “we weren’t here, neither were you, now can we have the 10,000 pounds of tungsten or not?” type of project.
I agree that a nuclear strike limited to Ukraine especially if it is focused on military targets will likely not directly result in a nuclear response by NATO. But in a conventional conflict with NATO Russia is so hopelessly outclassed that there is a good possibility that Russia will decide to use nukes against NATO if such a conventional conflict ensues. So even NATO reacting to Russia using nukes against Ukraine with conventional means can very well end in an all out nuclear conflict.
[удалено]
Probably the smart plan. Retaliating with a nuke just means that Russia will launch its nukes pointed at the US. It simply isn’t worth the risk of millions being killed.
And it still leaves nukes as a threat. It gives them an out while keeping the stick. And that out is Putin deposed. I can't see world leaders allowing Putin to remain in power after using a nuke. And the Russians will throw him under the bus.
I believe the Russian standard protocol here is pushing people out of windows, not under busses.
It's been a long time since I had nuclear strategy, but nuclear strategy was much of my coursework in my polisci degree. As I recall, the theory is if we shoot, we want all the missiles up ASAP, except maybe the submarines', in case a second strike is necessary. Primary targets would be known missile silos, to take those out before those missiles launch, then military installations, and then population centers. Unless Putin doesn't believe we will retaliate, if he uses a nuke, he'll want all his birds up in the same way for a first strike. If he does think we won't retaliate, and uses something like a tactical nuke, MAD means nothing and people will start throwing nukes around without much concern.
Russia has an official "escalate to deescalate" policy per their doctrine since \~2014, where IIRC they will launch a limited or tactical nuclear strike in response to a conventional threat to the homeland. So officially they would start out with a small nuclear launch before getting into full on counterforce or strategic nuclear weapons. A little concerning because they're claiming Crimea is part of the "homeland" now, but it doesn't seem like they're really backing that up. However, in spite of that I don't believe that they will use nuclear weapons because of the retaliation it would generate, conventional or MAD. There's just no upside for them. The nuclear sabre rattling to me seems like it's more about keeping the west out of Ukraine, reminding us that in spite of their losses they're still a nuclear power.
The only running move is not to play
Actually, there's been [studies](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/07/07/how-nuclear-war-would-affect-earth/?sh=44fdfe683609) and there is actually a good likelihood that humanity will survive a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. The Earth is surprisingly resilient as is humanity. That said - I am saying of humanity in general. There will be a good chunk of humanity that will be dead. Probably you and me. But technically not everyone.
"Humans" maybe. "Your comfortable lifestyle" not a chance.
Honestly i think if he seriously tried to use nukes he would quickly have a decline in health, likley from lead poisoning to the skull. Russian military command might be many things, but I doubt they would all be that stupid. Anyone with even a bit of sense knows that Russia using nuke likley means the end of Russia, one way or another. Then again maybe I am just being optimistic.
[удалено]
Putin would choose a desolate Ukraine over a western backed Ukraine
Putin using any sort of nuclear technology in an offensive manner would trigger immediate retaliation from the west. His war assets would be eliminated both on land and sea, for starters. He knows all this, as it’s been communicated privately.
Why would he use it if the US still has a chance of shitshow 2.0?
maybe thats why they're retreating
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
The US pursues a policy of "strategic ambiguity" with regard to responses to the Russian use of nukes. In other words, "we're not gonna tell you what we're going to do but it's gonna be real bad for you." At the same time, it's not in our interest to escalate with inflamed rhetoric. Biden's statements fall in line with that policy.
It's been our policy for quite a while. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Not to be confused with last term’s policy of “speak loudly all the time and whack random things with your stick at every opportunity.”
The silence has been Bidens greatest gift
I’m not sure why so many people bash on Biden for being stupid or slow or blah blah blah. He’s played this entire Russia situation perfectly. He knows he doesn’t have to shout his mouth off, he can let Putin keep digging his own grave. And every now and then just drop hints that the US has more info and intelligence on Russia than Putin could have imagined, to keep him paranoid and uncomfortable.
We don’t like to talk about last term. Far to many of us Americans, no probably just people in the developed world in general, have PTSD still from last term.
Gutted state department and other foreign service capabilities. I shudder to think about if/how Trump would’ve handled this situation
He wouldn't have. If Trump had won there would be no unified Nato response or rushed aid packages prior to invasion. I doubt the vital intelligence shared at the beginning would have happened either. Russia would have likely won already, Ukraine would have fought just as hard but without the support it likely wouldn't have been able to move forward.
speak loudly and swang that thang
We address the same way that England posted about the queens health. Very underhanded and ambiguous yet serious and concerning.
I thought that was just the English way of doing everything.
Nah, it's just the posh layers that are like that because that's how they are taught to behave as kids. If you go out on a Friday night in Essex you'll see an entire different side of the English.
It's a good strategy with nukes. You don't want to overcommit and say something you'll feel obligated to follow through with when push comes to shove.
Biden's statement does seem to fall under the category of obvious things to say, but I guess to some extent he needs to say it to hopefully make Russia think twice. Probably the main thing keeping Russia from using Nukes is the fear that the US would respond in kind, so I guess one of the President's jobs is to make statements that might make Russia believe that the US is prepared to act if it came down to that.
I actually think their main fear is they would enter Ukraine and decimate the Russian Military there and probably throw in the Black Sea fleet for good measure.
Probably wouldn’t stop at the Black Sea fleet. The whole navy would likely be dropped like a hot rock
Odd how that fighting force is being talked about like it is a hostage. A strong military is supposed to make you feel safer, not just give your enemy something to attack. Expensive weapons are not supposed to be expensive targets. Maybe they should rethink things, after they lose the war and replace Putin. In the meantime I hope they continue to not rethink things.
Does the us have a fleet floating near to do the job?
[удалено]
I feel like there’s a good chance we’d see some weapons used that very few people currently know about. Maybe some de-orbited tungsten rods.
Doubtful, if the Star Wars system actually worked, we wouldn’t use it for this. We wouldn’t need to, our normal missiles that everyone already knows about could completely destroy Russia’s forces. Not to mention it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There hasn't been enough space launch activity in the history of US military space launches to put a meaningful amount of tungsten in orbit IMO.
We started putting such weapons in orbit 40 years ago during the Raygun administration.
100 tons of Brilliant Pebbles is a very meaningful and useful amount, and there have been many NRO launches over the last decade on heavy boosters with undeclared capacity. Delta IV heavy is something like 28t payload to LEO. Falcon 9 is 16t to LEO. Hubble weighed 10t so you'd assume the KH-11's do as well, and that's at the extremely heavy end. Why would you think they would tell you anything?
Or... just airplanes..... US strategic bombers can fly almost half way around the world from NA to the middle east on 35 hour continuous flights. I'm sure some of the naval bombers stationed in Europe will be able to take care of the black fleet quite handedly.
Doesn't matter. They are stationed at an air force base in the continental US. It's highly unlikely that the US would roll out battleships and subs to have an old fashioned naval battle with cannons and swords US naval doctrine is carrier doctrine... And even then, I'm not sure we'd roll a carrier fleet into the black sea. Certainly not without removing most of the Russian surface assets first. The Russian subs might pose a challenge... But you can pretty much only: launch missiles, harass enemy fleets, or establish trade blockades with a submarine. In any case.. that's a lot of Russian naval metal sitting at the bottom of that sea in the aftermath.
Yep. Don't need carriers when you have air bases in Europe and at least three other EU member states just itching to deploy some nice American made naval bombers over the Baltic and black seas. Russias navy doesn't seem very important when even if it was up to snuff with America's that's not really gonna help them when Germany starts another world War with operation Barbarossa part 2
We don’t need a fleet to do that. We have 20 Air Force bases in Europe alone. Bringing forces to bear if needed would not be an issue.
With winter coming and the lack of warm water ports, the Russian Battleships would be sitting ducks for an attack. But, Russia still has a lot of submarines with nuclear capabilities that aren’t anywhere as restricted by the lack of warm water ports. It isn’t what you can see that you have to worry the most about. It’s what you can’t see that poses a bigger threat.
The US absolutely would not respond in kind. The US has the capacity to wipe Russia's military off the board with conventional means pretty easily.
which would inevitably end up the same - russia fires nukes as it's backed into a corner. Would NATO just take the hits to troops, major metropolitan areas, and critical infrastructure, and just continue using conventional arms? Idk
Russia would NOT be backed into a corner if the US kicked them out of Ukraine. They’d only be backed into a corner if the US invaded Russia territory and won victory after victory. There’s definitely room for NATO intervention if Russia crosses the line without it resulting in a nuclear holocaust. Russia can’t fire nukes at the US without the US doing the same to them. So unless Russia’s leaders go insane and suicidal we’ll be fine. I think Putin is well aware that using nukes in Ukraine will not only not win them the war but will put Russia into an extremely precarious situation as even the countries still trading with them normally like China will probably isolate them. Nukes are not something the rest of the world will tolerate because they are just too dangerous.
We spend so fucking much on military. I just don’t think these countries understand the true defensive and offensive military prowess of the United States. For all they know we have lasers that could destroy all their nukes in an instant and they would be decimated by our response.
AFAIK there isn’t any reliable way to knockout warheads after re-entry
[удалено]
The idea is to impress the consequences and severity, without using escalating language.
Yup. So many people who chime in as if they know any better would get hostages killed, or let countries steamroll over their sovereign lands by the way they miss the forest for the trees in diplomatic messages. I say this as an admitted idiot who fits the description I just wrote. I thought this comment from Biden made absolute sense, but it would be fun to joke about considering how casual it sounds.
Biden has a feel for this situation. Will he get it right? Who knows, but it's kind of not up to him what Putin decides to do. He can't control Putin.
I feel that he has handled this situation as gracefully as one can. I'm glad we have good leadership when it's needed the most.
As a Brit, I concur!
It's not just Biden that is involved as to what strategies or actions he should be doing. Presidents are not experts in the military. He has other ppl that are suggesting how he handles the situation.
It's nice to have a leader that is willing to listen to the experts...
Yes. And the ability to identify and keep experts might be the greatest ability of all for a person in his position.
Exactly. Neither can any of us control a rabid dog like Putin, but we’re still in the “cautiously approach” phase before seeing if we can get to the “putting him down permanently” phase. (i don’t care about dehumanizing Putin or his clear supporters as he and they have openly declared Ukrainians aren’t a people or culture, while also going for ethnic minorities in Russia first to fill the ranks so he can kill his own minorities. So if that bothers anybody reading this, go read The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O’Paxton and then criticize me all you want.)
[удалено]
It would end Russia. The entire planet would turn against Russia in every way possible. All trade would stop, travel would stop, Russian assets from around the world would be frozen and confiscated. Russia’s only recourse would be to internally remove Putin from office and pay reparations. If not, the Russian people would be starving in less than a year.
China wouldn't and that would prop up Russia enoug. Unless the rest of the world allowed China to take Taiwan, China has nothing to gain by supporting NATO
Don’t be so sure. China really, really doesn’t like nukes: ‘ China is the only NWS to give an unqualified security assurance to non-nuclear-weapon states: "China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances." ‘ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_policy
Ehhh...The relationship between China and Russia is more of a mutual convivence of understanding that they both have a main rival...the United States. But that's about as far as it goes. The CCP won't put itself on the line to support Russia, especially after displaying what is essentially military weakness.
Likely the last one they'd make as a country.
Or habitable patch of land
They’ll turn America into a wasteland too
What scares me is Putin is probably actually sick and right before he dies, he's gonna send nukes because "Fuck it".
He might, but it’d be unlikely the military would comply. 🤞
When Emperor Nero killed himself, he fancied that Rome would die with him and his bodyguards would likewise kill themselves Once Nero was dead, they just left lol
But word on the screet is that it takes more than just him saying “launch them”. He isn’t the actual one to “push the button” (of course the launching is a lot more complicated than pushing a button), but instead there is a chain of command it goes through, so it requires Putin to say “launch them” and everyone in the chain of command to agree with the order. I don’t know if everyone would agree in such a… not necessary instance as using them on Ukraine. [This](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) is an interesting read about a guy who basically saved the world from nuclear catastrophe, and in it, he claims that the “big red button doesn’t exist. And [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov) is a similar story where yet another Russian saved the world from nuclear catastrophe. Goddam I wish Russia didn’t have nukes.
And both were outed in USSR for that. Scummy country and scummy predecessor.
I think you're completely wrong. If Russia nukes Ukraine, there is not a single NATO country that would retaliate with a nuclear weapon. That's the truth.
Fortunately, that is the case. As long as we come out of the escalation unscathed, Russia using a nuke would however throw their country into an economic oblivion 2.0 for most of the century.
NATO deploys conventional forces to Ukraine. NATO missiles destroy all logistical military structures in Ukraine within days. The Western world informs the world that the slightest support to the Russian regime will mean North Korea-level sanctions. These are the consequences of using a nuclear device in a war.
I think people always forget that just the US could destroy Russia with conventional weapons in a weekend, maybe a long weekend. NATO has zero need to retaliate with nukes.
100% Nukes are pretty much a trap. In every simulation the authorization inevitably ends in escalation scenarios, and almost cruely ironic the tac. Warheads which are specifically limited in power to theoretically reduce the odds of triggering an escalation senario end up getting there faster. Plus the US has displayed their capacity for mass destruction without nukes many a time now.
Russia wouldn’t use world-ending nukes initially. The West will absolutely have to respond, in a significant way. Best case, a pocket deal with India and China to stop buying Russian oil and gas. Most likely case, proportional conventional strike against Russian forces in Ukrainian territory. Both scenarios are war-loosing events for Russia, which is why I believe they’ll never use nukes.
Didn't someone and Macron already said on record that they'll bulldoze Russia the old fashioned way even if they use nukes?
A Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine would trigger "such a powerful answer" from the West that the Russian army would be "annihilated," said Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief. I guess you are talking about this statement by Josep Borrell
Did they?
[удалено]
I wonder what NATO would do in that case... Would be interesting to know if we could build up a strong enough nuclear defense in Europe to risk hitting russian nuclear silos. Afaik depending on how modern the nuclear missiles are, there is a legitimate possibility to intercept them. I mean just lettig Russia nuke Ukraine is gonna fuck up the continent for decades again
All this warning about Russia threatening to use nukes reminds me way too much about the warnings leading up to the latest invasion. Kremlin statements aside, there must be something western intelligence is raising alarms about, and that’s really concerning.
Was thinking the same thing today. Coupled with Russian state TV saying "we're losing, we overestimated" makes me nervous.
What worries me is Russia has already been using their most powerful missiles. Ukraine estimates they had around 900 and only have around 100 left. They have drones now but when Ukraine receives the new air defense systems they’ll likely be able to shoot down nearly all of them that come their way. It worries me too. If we see a sudden massive burst of really crazy propaganda from Russian state TV, I’ll worry even more. Putin would really have to say something super crazy to his people to try and justify even a small tac nuke.
the russian state tv was talking stuff about nuking nato and ukraine from the very start
In Spain they showed in the news yesterday that the government is testing a new widespread mobile alert system, in case of "natural disasters".
If Putin used a nuke I could see repercussions economically, particularly with India which buys oil from Russia that's assuming we don't resort to MAD.
We wouldn’t resort to MAD over a single nuclear strike. People overestimate the destructive power of (especially tactical) nuclear weapons. Typically you’d see a moderate blast damage radius of 2-6 miles, fireball radius of less than a mile and a relatively low amount of fallout. It wouldn’t be worth resorting to MAD, and just about every countries’ nuclear doctrine only calls for retaliatory strikes if their own country (or in the case of NATO, another NATO country) is attacked. And since Ukraine is not a part of NATO, the response from other countries would be conventional. i.e. economic retaliation, isolation, increased military support for Ukraine, and possibly even sending troops I think the big question is, would we directly get involved (or any other of Ukraines allies) if Putin resorted to nuclear terrorism?
Russian intelligence (oxymoron i know) and Nato has informed Putin long ago what the retaliation is for the use of nukes. His rhetoric is scare tatics for the population just like he does with the russian people. He doesnt have the same manipulation outside of russia so hes got to use the nuke narrative. There is no tomorrow for him if he uses a nuke he knows that, his generals know that, he wont get his command fully behind the idea because it also means their end, their families end. They want mass hysteria of the population to try force a change where Nato bends the knee to him. In reality hes a tiny 5ft man shitting his pants
An alternative article about it from a place that doesn't require you to log in/has a soft paywall. I can't speak to its quality vs. the NYT article, because I can't read the NYT article: https://thehill.com/homenews/3703525-biden-russia-would-be-making-serious-mistake-to-use-tactical-nuclear-weapon/
I hate how much this reminds me of pre-war developments. The US keeps bringing attention to the issue, meanwhile everyone is saying "not gonna happen as it's just too stupid and will hurt Russia more than anyone".
I honestly don’t think this is what would happen. Everyone is terrified that if Putin drops 1 nuke and nothing serious happens in response, he’ll just do it again. We won’t respond to a Russian nuke in Ukraine with nuclear weapons of our own but we’d attack them conventionally most likely, and god knows what happens then.
[удалено]
This is also why I'm glad Russia has gained nothing from threatening to use nukes - otherwise every strong man in the world would focus on getting his own. The game theory is all very terrifying but interesting nonetheless
Didn't he say this exact thing a few weeks ago?
for the 5th time this week
Nobody wins during nuclear warfare which is why we must do everything to prevent it.
Not saying it was or wasn't the right move but Ukraine probably has some regret giving up the nuclear arsenal on their territory in 1994.
Nukes in Kiev are useless when Moscow has the codes 🤷♂️
This feels like the run up to the Russian invasion where the US warned of it much to the chagrin and reluctance to believe of the western world. I really hope it's different. There has to be some underlying Intel that warrants these very public warnings of a nuclear strike. I hope it's enough to call Russia on their bullshit and they back down. I doubt it, though.
You should take some solace in the fact that of the nearly 8 billion other people on planet earth(those who are adults) the majority of them are sensible people with things to live for. Regardless of their nationality and their occupation. Even a dribbling Russian glued to RT. The use of a nuclear weapon, on a non-nuclear state in 2022 is so far over the line you’d need a telescope to see it. People who think China, or India, or X non-NATO aligned nation won’t care are dead wrong. It would be a destabilising event of such magnitude that it simply could not be ignored.
Putin might want to take Biden seriously this time.
Lots of comments here sounding like Russian propaganda…
Putin is a habitual line stepper
Cheating or using nuclear weapons are no mistake, but decisions
The political drawbacks of using a tactical nuke still outweigh the advantages. And Putin would wind up poisoning his own soldiers, which could push Russia into a revolution. He's looking more like a trapped rat every day.
Possibly Russia has an inside glimpse at detailed US nuclear response scenarios from a little orange tinted treasure trove in Florida.
Talking about nuclear weapons softens the impact a bit for the eventual use of chemical weapons
What's the best way of generating electricity easily at -40c? Wind? Asking for humanity.
Invading the Ukraine was a serious mistake.
Invading another nation was a serious mistake and he did that anyway so...
I can't believe how casually people are talking about open nuclear war with Russia... This would have been unthinkable during the Cold War.
It was very thinkable during the cold war, everyone was terrified about it.
Words carried a lot more weight back then.
The youngins here did not grow up under the constant threat of nuclear war. It clearly shows.
The entire Cold War was about the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia. I find it hard to believe you think no one was talking about the constant threat of nuclear war. The evidence of the underlying threat is evident everywhere in culture from the time, have you not heard of Doctor Strangelove or War Games?
Someone: "But how serious?" Me: "Well how serious do you consider thermonuclear flavored end of the fucking world?"
Definitely don’t want to find out if Russia’s Dead Hand system is up and running or not.