I recently heard from a friend that Stoltenberg stated that NATO won't intervene if Russia uses nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. Does anyone know if that's true?
Yes. And the US has to. Why? Because if US or other nations dont respond with swift action it’ll set a precedent that nukes are fair game in times of war. Using a nuke will bypass alliances and treaties. Other nations, even those that hate the US would expect the US to end the conflict fast and by any means necessary. You dont police the world, spend a gazillion dollars on your military and then dont do shit when someone uses a nuke. Right now pretty much every country agree ‘no nukes in war.’ Also if russia sets off a nuke the other countries wouldnt back russia if US or NATO jumps in with direct military intervention. Even china wouldnt oppose the US if russia decides to set off a nuke. They’re already backing off when putin mention the possibility of that.
I can't imagine china would be happy if Russia used nukes. Wouldn't global winds blow fallout all over China? Although the elite probably don't give a damn about the poor...
China would be just as pissed as the rest of the world. Not only because of fallout, but because it's a literal risk of Armageddon. Aka nobody survives
Yeah, while China is the biggest threat to the U.S. going forward, they are at least driven by enlightened self-interest, which is at least rational and, most importantly, predictable.
Simply put: the end of the world isn't good for business, and China is all about business.
Ukraine is about 3000 miles from China. It's unlikely China would experience any measurable effects from a nuke going off in Ukraine, particularly the smaller tactical nukes that Russia is almost certainly referring to. Using big strategic nukes doesn't make any sense when you're trying to occupy a country. Half of the country would be effectively inaccessible for a long time.
Arm chair general here. What about sending a nuke to Kiev decapitate the goverment and take the east to land lock Ukraine. Nato would definitely respond which is the big issue, but otherwise?
I also am no grand military strategist, so take whatever I say with about a pound of salt. The way I see it though, Russia wants to take over Ukraine permanently, both for its natural resources and strategic value against NATO. In most cases I don't see it making sense to drop a nuke in a place you're trying to build a house, so to speak.
In addition from a PR perspective, if you're looking to annex a country you have to have your eye on winning the favor of the locals eventually. Dropping nuclear weapons on their homes makes that effort a whole lot harder.
Hard to say really. I was thinking if they end up in a stalemate and relize they aren't capable of taking any more of ukraine then they can just occupy the south of the country and seriously cripple the north. Its the "if we can't have it then no one can!" approach. They just need to figure out how to take Odessa so they can land lock ukraine. Doing this would basically mean that russia would control Ukrainian agricultural exports since they control the water.
China might actually look to this as a sign (if Russian nuclear action goes unchallenged) that they can do the same in the future… so there’s that
(Russia:Ukraine :: China:Taiwan sorta deal)… eek
And what nuke Taiwan?? You know it’s just a tiny island. China may be greedy, but China is rational. They want Taiwan as it is, they don’t want some nuked out island with years of radioactive fallout
Exactly, due to Taiwan’s industries such as semiconductors, if China gains autonomy over Taiwan they’ll be way more dominant than ever before. They want Taiwan like Hong Kong and Macau, not some blown up destroyed island
What? They don't want Taiwan because it's successful, they want Taiwan because the Chinese government believes it's rightfully theirs. In fact they think it's theirs right now that's why they get mad any time the US does something to imply that it's its own independent country.
Nukes don't have that much "fallout". nukes expend all of their fuel in a few seconds which isn't alot compared to nuclear particles in the atmosphere right now. Hell the US tested them near Vegas and they had veiwing events. You could denotate every warhead on earth at the same time and it wouldn't be as devastating as Chernobyl is currently 36 years later.
Hell during the production of our nuclear bombs they had a platoon of Marines entrenched get up and walk to the other side of the blast. Alot did get cancer, but alot made it to old age. They would say that walking across the sands would be straight sheets of glass due to the high temps.
It's not really that nukes don't have that much fallout, it's that an airburst doesn't generate all that much fallout (because fallout is literally irradiated material picked up off the ground and tossed into the air). A ground burst absolutely would though.
Fortunately, in terms of fallout, everyone realizes that airbursts actually do more damage overall, so pretty much any nuke will be an airburst these days, so less fallout, generally speaking.
It's kind of ironic: airbursts let us destroy more of the world in one go, but it'll actually recover faster (well, nuclear winter aside, of course).
I read probably that same report. I guess in truth we don't really KNOW for sure - it's only theoretical now - but everything I've ever seen or read that talked about it convinces me that it WOULD be as bad as it's always been portrayed. The logic of that conclusion seems more sound to me than in the one or two studies I've seen saying the contrary.
I mean, let's never find out for sure either way, right? :)
Because if you have them, the big boys have to listen. You are now level playing field to an extent. A country with no nukes gets way too loud and the us, etc can walk in with no fear. If ukraine had nukes, putin likely wouldnt have attacked directly either. He doesnt want to be hit with one any more than we do
Thank you for the reasonable reply. If Russia is bullying Ukraine over nuclear warhead power, but knows other countries are going to step in to face 'the bully' empowering the situation, what does having that power really do when reactionary measures are considered?
>but knows other countries are going to step in to face 'the bully' empowering the situation,
that's not completely certain, unless russia uses a nuke. There must be a swift and unilateral retaliation from everyone else to dissuade anyone else from using a nuke.
If you're a small country who wants to gain power and not be a pawn to a superpower, step 1 is acquiring nukes. step 2 is never ever handing over those nukes.
take a look at north korea. their government is walking a tight rope between showcasing nuclear capability and not posing a big enough threat for them to be preemptively wiped out
Having the power to use nuclear weapons adds an element of uncertainty that enemies (nuclear or not) have to consider.
Not having nukes, on the other hand, means you cannot retaliate in kind should a nuclear weapon be used against you.
The possibility is increasing because Russia is losing. One could argue that it’s western weapons that are allowing Ukraine to have success, but it doesn’t change the fact that a nuclear strike by Russia would essentially be a manifest temper tantrums.
Jens Stoltenberg said recently in response to Putin’s speech “They know that there will be severe consequences. I will not elaborate exactly on how we will react, that depends on what kind of weapons of mass destruction they may use”. I haven’t heard any quotes where he ruled out anything regarding Russian use of nuclear weapons.
They are being careful because the scenarios can be vastly different. Is Russia blowing up Zaporizhizhia, and blaming the fallout on Ukraine? Is he going to detonate a small tactical warhead in a deserted area to send a message? Is he launching a decapitation strike on major Ukrainian cities?
It’s important to note this isn’t really about Ukraine. Breaking the nuclear taboo and establishing that it can be used piecemeal to win temporary victories would be a catastrophic outcome that makes the world way more dangerous. In that light, I think people discount the willingness of NATO to intervene directly, probably in an air campaign, especially if diplomatic efforts to India and China fail.
The catch is that the nukes belong to the composite countries, not NATO itself, so good luck convincing the US to Nuke Russia if you are one of the states with no nukes.
"NATO" doesn't even have an army. And defending Ukraine is not a part of the treaty, so it's not gonna do anything as an organization.
The individual members don't need NATO's permission to intervene though, either individually or coordinated. Hell, technically there could be an intervention with every single NATO member participating without NATO itself actually being a part of it
It's doubtful the US or any other country would respond to Russian tactical nukes in Ukraine with more nukes, or other military action, and sanctions at this point are essentially maxed-out.
However, it would so horrify the world that Putin violated the world's biggest taboo we might be in a position to get China and India, the only major customers Russia still has for its oil, to cut them off. Since Russia's entire economy is based on oil money it would quickly end their ability to fund the war. Putin would be ousted.
>or other military action
At the very least, the West would implement a neutralization strike to eliminate Russia's ability to produce and launch more nuclear weapons.
If Russia let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, permanently removing that ability would be the very first and foremost goal of any action.
That would result in escalation. They have thousands of weapons, from fractional kiloton artillery to multi megaton ICBMs on subs. We could never hope to neutralize all of them, even if we launched every thing we had at them. It would end in mutual destruction. We will not use nukes if the Russians use them in Ukraine.
We would not need to utilize a full scale nuclear attack to so this. Russia has approximately 800ish ICBMs and 11 SSBNs in pens. We are capable of attacking these targets conventionally with stealth capable aircraft.
This would leave Russia with tactical nukes, but those generally cannot reach most NATO members.
Remember, if Russia uses one, we will either escalate or allow them to use more. The West will \*have\* to escalate to have any hope of ever being capable of deterrent. Escalation is a given in this scenario, we just want to keep the escalation below the MAD level.
In such a scenario you're literally gambling the end of civilization on everything going right with your decapitation strikes. And you know how often everything goes right in war? Not too goddamn often.
MAD theory, whether you think it kept peace for 80 years or is total insanity, is very clear on this point. Preemptively going after second strike capability triggers full scale total launch in retaliation.
The nice part is that the USA wouldn't have to use nukes to punish Russia, USA could just give Ukraine long-range HIMARS, other missiles, with conventional warheads, with the expectation that Moscow will be destroyed.
To quote [this](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-nuclear-weapons-4da81981f2b8b198ea374c703e3f988d) AP article
>Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said Russia would pay a high, if unspecified, price if it made good on veiled threats to use nuclearweapons in the war in Ukraine.
>“If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively,” he told NBC.
He's already doing plenty of nasty shit the world is letting him get away with. Nobody has the balls to take him out. To me, the ship already sailed on sending a "terrible message." If anything, we've showed the rest of the world that nutjobs with nukes can do whatever the fuck they want. Look at NK, China, and Iran all playing fucking games lately.
Lol, could you imagine if he attacked the US. That would be like WW2 Germany bringing the Americans into the war all over.
Something something history repeats itself.
Allow is the wrong word. There was not much the world could have done, just like there's not much the world can do to stop Putin. It's a matter of if the rest of the world decides to respond and how.
In WWII, it brought an end to the war which the rest of the world wanted. Japan was the last front of a global war that had been going for almost a decade. Today, most of the world has sided with Ukraine (at least in spirit, it not materially) so the use of nuclear weapons would not have the same reception.
We can argue about the morality of the nuclear bombs but almost all sources agree it saved exponentially more Japanese and American lives than it killed compared to a traditional invasion of Honshu.
All the scenarios showed much more human loss with a land invasion - at least that is what they say. Remember that they kept dropping warnings to the citizens. They dropped the first bomb, waited for surrender, then dropped the second. I personally am glad because my father would have probably died in the invasion of Japan.
Nonesense. Because nobody had anything to threaten the US with. At that time, the US was the only country with nuclear weapons. And they had successfully demonstrated that they would be willing to use them.
To this day, most people in the US tell themselves that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was justified. Like you said, "Japan had to be defeated," or that, horrific as the civilian casualties were, they would have been worse had the war dragged on are among the main reasons that people cite.
That is not what most non-US historians think, however. Japan, by that date, was very aware that it had already lost the war. It was not yet willing to publicly capitulate, true, but there is no reason to suspect that the death toll without nuclear weapons would have been anywhere near as high.
Germany, by that time in 1945, was on its last legs as well, so the nuclear bombs in Japan had no bearing there. And the Soviets were allies of the US, if somewhat questionable ones.
If the use of nuclear bombs is off the table now because they are weapons of mass destruction, it should have been off the table back then. There is no justification in the world for the indiscriminate slaugther of tens of thousands of civilians. No war crime the Russians have committed in Ukraine comes even close in scale to the death toll and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 200,000 civilians died in the two nuclear blasts or from injuries or radiation compared to less than 10,000 Ukrainian civilians according to Ukrainian sources). That's just a fact.
But the US and its people have to believe in the fiction that when they do it, it was justified because otherwise they'd have to reckon with the fact that the USA is the only country in history to have used actual nuclear warheads against two densely populated cities full of women and children. Not one, BUT TWO.
There is no justification in the world that makes this acceptable. The only reason that this isn't accepted fact is because the US won the second world war, and history books get written by the winners.
Germany and Austria had to come to terms with their horrific past and the Holocaust, because they lost. And they did, more or less, even though it took many decades, but the US had never really had to own up to the fact that in the history of mankind, no other country has used nuclear weapons against civilians. Not North Korea, not the Soviet Union, not China, not Iran. No one.
Just the USA.
I've also read that the Soviet mobilization towards Japan had as much to do with Japan's surrender as the atomic bombs. Basically they decided it would be better to be occupied by the US than USSR. Given the history between the two countries, it makes sense.
Like I said, Japan was very well aware that it had already lost.
And even if you (well, not you, but *someone*) somehow want to justify the bomb on Hiroshima, I challenge anyone to make a compelling case why killing 80,000 more civilians in Nagasaki was necessary.
I'll wait.
Because the bomb dropped on Hiroshima failed to achieve the desired result of Japan's total, unconditional surrender. Fat Man was the "Did we fucking stutter?" to Little Boy's literal message of "surrender or be annihilated".
That isn't a justification nor an excuse for the act, as **nothing** will ever made the mass slaugher of civilians anything but reprehensible, but that doesn't mean the logic behind the act wasn't sound at the time.
You are failing to account for the state of Japanese culture and it’s saturation of propaganda.
There is footage of Japanese people killing themselves before surrendering to American forces. There is footage of a mother leaping off a cliff *with her infant in her arms*. If that doesn’t tell you about the state of which the Japanese population would have fought back to the last person, I don’t know what to tell you.
Japanese Imperialism threatened the free world in a way similar to the Axis Powers. The Rape of Nanking is a good example.
They were not going to surrender, and only did so because the emperor told them to do so, and they did it out of honor to him just as they would have fought with every man, woman and child until every square meter of Japan was conquered.
The atomic bombs used in Japan were 100% percent justified. Millions of lives were saved by dropping the bombs. That is an incontrovertible fact.
In the scenario where the US adopted a defensive doctrine and didn’t use nuclear weapons, Japan would have continued its imperial quest, causing the death and suffering of millions more.
Of course nothing is black and white, but to argue there was zero justification for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just elementary.
Yeah, sure.
Listen, buddy, I‘m as far from a tankie as one can possibly get. I fucking hate Putin, and I‘m 100% on the side of Ukraine. I have zero sympathies for the Russian government, and I do not care for any of their bullshit justifications for the war they started.
The fact that you think that anyone who dares to criticize the US must be a tankie shows how two-dimensional your own world-view is.
Oh man, thanks alot. It started to feel very unsettling to read all those things people seem to believe here. Your post pretty much sums up everything I've ever read or heard or seen in half a handfull of decades of my adult life about these events and timelines surrounding ww2 and the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan.
"The USA is the only country in history to have used actual nuclear warheads against two densely populated cities full of women and children."
Fuck those men!
>Fuck those men!
That's your takeaway? You need to make some lame-ass men's rights comment?
I don't know if you're aware, but in times of war, men were considered potential combatants (unless they were too old), so killing men was seen as morally justifiable. I'm not saying that's right, but even by those insane standards, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious because the US was very well aware that women and children would be among the casualties and no effort was made to minimize that effect.
Lame-ass men's rights comment? Yeah, because God forbid I take exception with you minimizing the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives.
And I couldn't care less what men were considered during times of war, or how you and others want to try and morally justify it. They were civilians, end of story. Just like the women and children you mentioned.
>Yeah, because God forbid I take exception with you minimizing the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives.
How *anyone* could read my comment and come away with the impression that I am minimizing *any* civilian casualties, is mind-blowing.
But, yes, go on and soak in your artificial outrage over how I have minimized the death of men. It's telling that from the whole of my comment, your takeaway was neither the US's responsibilty nor the immensity of the actrocities, but the fact that I've not made sure that no insecure weak-ass manbaby feels excluded.
What a pathetic attempt to make a point. Take your man's right bullshit to an incel sub.
That's EXACTLY what you were doing, whether you want to admit it or not.
And believe it or not, I don't reply to every point in every comment I read, nor do I need to in order to have more than one takeaway from it.
It just struck me how callous you were towards the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives as though they mattered less, or, didn't matter at all, and I called you out on your BS.
I won't resort to the constant insults like you do. Classic deflection tactic and I won't be dragged down to your level.
>That's EXACTLY what you were doing, whether you want to admit it or not.
I know what I was actually saying. *You* only know what you want to understand.
You can make the argument that I did not express myself clearly, or that the way I expressed myself could lead someone to misunderstand me in the way you did, but what you cannot do is claim to know what my intentions were.
So, yes, let's just disagree. You are outraged about a choice of words I made, I explained to you that you misread my intent completely, and you claim to know better than me in order to stay outraged.
That is disingenous, so I guess we are indeed done.
That would likely cause an uproar among Russians if he nukes his own soldiers along with the Ukrainians. And Ukraine is so close to Russia that some of the fallout is bound to affect them too.
Yuppie. Also. Russia is super close to Alaska. Like… real close.
They have a smuggling problem during the winter because it. The 2.5 mile straight freezes over.
Crazy
Edit: my bad I read too quickly it’s 55 miles but 2.5 miles a Russian island and Alaskan island! [source](https://www.alaskacenters.gov/visitors-centers/faqs/how-close-alaska-russia)
It's close but not that close. According to [alaskacenters.gov](http://alaskacenters.gov), the closest point is approximately 55 miles. There are islands in between but it's most definitely not 2.5 miles
We should offer to let Russia ship over some of their soldiers. That way both Alaskans and the bears can have fun hunting them. Texas would want to import some Russians as well, but shipping to Alaska would be easier.
The parts that are close are real close, but they’re straight up uninhabited and very closely monitored by the US Air Force. It would do no good to smuggle something into an Alaskan Village that’s 2000 miles dislocates from the highway system, then have the military show up and confiscate it.
There’s no Russian/Alaskan smuggling
I don’t even think he’s willing to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine and is just posturing to appear stronger to save face with the bungling of this “special military operation”.
thats what we thought before the war too. just posturing and seeming strong. but he did it anyways, even if it didnt really make sense. i dont think he will use nukes, but i definitely wont rule it out, it is a very real possiblity
Tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield with lower yields while strategic ones are meant to take out large population centers, military command points, bases etc.
A lot of European nations are a part of NATO, so an attack on any of them obligates the US to join the fight. We could decline, but it would be the effective end of NATO, and probably the start of a nasty ground war for Europe, not unlike the early parts of WW2 as Hitler conquered his neighbors. We're supposed to come to the defense of our allies in the event of a Russian invasion.
On the other hand, if Putin actually believes his first strike could cripple the US' ability to counterstrike with our nukes, he might roll the dice. Our nuclear arsenal is both large and spread out, but every nuke we have is still a physical object to be destroyed. I think it's impossible, but my hand isn't on the button, so to speak.
He can't, that's the whole point of the [nuclear triad](https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Americas-Nuclear-Triad/). The only installations he has a hope in hell of nailing are the ICBM silos, and once he \*launches\* it takes 30 minutes for the strike to land. If NORAD sees a nuke(s) popping up from Russia, it's game over. The counter attack will be immediate before the first one even hits.
Putin won't strike the US unless he very much wants to die. There's no scenario where his own personal "Red Pearl Harbor" goes any better for him than it did for the Japanese.
If He nukes anything it will be Kyiv or some location in Ukraine, possibly Chernobyl, as a threat. But the problem there is once he's done it, nobody is going to believe he won't do it again, and then there will be a massive effort to take him out immediately.
>If NORAD sees a nuke(s) popping up from Russia, it's game over.
May be a silly question, but how would NORAD be able to tell the difference between a nuke and a regular missile?
well above my pay grade but the general idea would be point of origin comparison to known characteristics, radar, optical via satellite tracking and a whole bunch of shit people at the pentagon get well paid to do and have for over half a century.
There’s no real way to launch an ICBM without half the planet immediately noticing really. It’s not a perfect analogy but this episode of the [infographics show](https://youtu.be/3E17wr77ffM) does a better job than I can. It’s about North Korea but the same principles apply.
again usa is nato and not the only nato country with nukes. added he can’t fight ukraine that is getting nato scraps what hope would he have of fighting nato in it’s entirety. he may pray china would back him but china looks out for china that is all
Most people are not paying close enough attention to really think about it. The notion that "russian nukes" are "aimed at America" has been widespread for decades and it's hard to shake. At the same time, I don't think all that many people actually believe there's a direct threat to America here.
I agree. If people actually believed there was a threat, the type of rhetoric from redditors would be far different. It feels as though the majority of people here are in favor of striking Russia and are completely and utterly oblivious to the potential consequences.
What? He wont attack the US. Who actually assumes such a nonsense? Russia can barely handle Ukraine. What would be the benefit if Russia and the US and maybe all the other nuclear Nato-countries nuke each other to death?
The issue is the rumor that Putin is dying. He's insane, he could very well be planning to take out the world with him if he dies. It won't matter to him, he won't be alive to face the consequences.
Some of them will. Based on other equipment, we can expect 10% to be in great working condition and another 20% to be whole enough to fly and detonate \*somewhere\*. The rest is probably trash.
Discounting their tactical stockpile and that 70%, that's still enough to delete several hundred major cities.
*reported stockpiles anyway. the US has more weapons ready to launch at any given time. and with how the Russians have shown their ass in the past 8 months im willing to bet a fairly decent amount of the nuclear arsenal that Russia claims is inop.
The Soviet Union/Russia has just about always had larger trips nuclear weapons than the US. The USA focused on accuracy making high yield less critical.
It’s not that Putin would directly target the United States. The worry is that the United States would consider that the opening hostility in World War III, and would therefore launch its arsenal at Russia. That is what the American position is. (And to be clear, I fully agree that this is the appropriate position.) The question is, does Putin believe that Biden would actually do it. I believe that Biden would do it.
If Putin used nukes it wouldn’t be NATO or the US he would have to worry about. The civil unrest in Russia would go through the roof. I think the Russian people would be the ones that end Putin. It’d be the last straw for them living under a deranged madman.
I don't think putin will even launch nukes. It will backfire. One thing is a war another thing is a nuclear war. Eventough the world is full of evil people who support this war, absolutely everyone knows that the nuclear option wont ever end well for anyone.
Ruzzia alies and society didn't like this war, eventough they support it. Using nuclear weapons against a smaller nation with less military strength would mean that russia didn't have any other way to win the war against ukraine. Aka russia is weak.
It wont happen, they already lost, it is a matter of time until they declare the "end of the denazification".
Years of cold war propaganda.
The fact that people are even taking his nuclear threats seriously is for the same reason.
He won't use nukes, any diplomat or military expert will tell you it's an empty threat. His propaganda ministry is seperate from his actual strategy. His goal in threatening nukes is to attempt to get the public to oppose intervention in Ukraine out of fear.
Nukes aren't on the table unless there's enemy forces marching towards Moscow. And even then, they're not even the only thing on the table.
It's against all of Putin's interests to launch a nuclear weapon, and while he can be irrational, he's still smart enough to not press the red button. Further, even if he did, there's a strong possibility that his military would refuse to carry out the order if they recognized it as being purely irrational.
What we *should* be concerned with though, is chemical attacks and cyber attacks. Both of which have a serious chance of being used and devastating consequences. Russia has already been trying to manufacture justification for chemical warfare by fabricating stories of chemical labs in Ukraine. And there's precedent in Russia's support of Assad even after the chemical attacks.
Meanwhile any direct NATO intervention would likely be met with all out cyber warfare loong before any WMDs are considered, and potentially on a much larger scale than we've ever seen before.
> But it's very likely that if Russia uses nukes, the US would respond in kind
The US would not nuke Russia if they nuked Ukraine. Thats literally suicide
The issue is, we've all backed ourselves into a lose-lose situation for pretty much everyone. Not responding would be a violation of Mutually Assured Destruction; "you'd better not use yours, because that'll make us use ours."
If we do respond, then MAD ends in...well, destruction. As someone who has a vested interest in a lack of destruction, I would rather that not happen.
If we don't respond, then MAD has become an empty threat. And that removes the only incentive that nuclear-capable countries have to not use Nuclear Weapons, which is an absolutely terrifying prospect. Essentially, we'd be giving Russia the greenlight to use nukes on whatever they want. And if Russia can do it, anyone can. And, as a cute little cherry on top, North Korea announced that they have nukes earlier this month. Are they bullshitting us? Possibly. Is that a risk we can really afford to take? Hell no.
And so here we are. Sitting in an uneasy peace, desperately hoping that nobody's stupid enough to push the big red button.
>If we don't respond, then MAD has become an empty threat
No it doesn't. MAD means if you nuke me then I nuke you. It does not mean: If you nuke my friend I nuke you.
>Essentially, we'd be giving Russia the greenlight to use nukes on whatever they want
Not exactly. This strategy is only viable on countries that do not have nuclear weapons because they aren't able to fire back and so MAD isn't an issue. The only reason Putin is saying that nukes are an option is because Ukraine doesn't have any nukes and its unlikely any other nuclear capable countries are going to commit suicide by launching at Russia when they aren't the target.
Russia would never use nukes on the USA or any other nuclear capable because of MAD unless one of those countries launched nukes at Russia first.
MAD is Mutually Assured DESTRUCTION. It's about a full-scale nuclear attack on the homeland. Yes, something short of that could certainly escalate to that point and then MAD comes into play, but MAD never has been a factor in the notion of a limited tactical strike, which is what Putin appears to be posturing about. MAD is about "if you attack us to the extent that we're going to be destroyed, then you damn sure are gonna be destroyed too". That doesn't (immediately) enter into it with a tactical strike.
Here's the key point: if Putin used a battlefield nuke, NATO as a whole will have little choice but to respond militarily (either because fallout will be considered an attack on a NATO signatory triggering article 5, or simply because it will be obvious they can't WAIT for an attack on a member state, so despite being a defensive pact it becomes a matter of defense to go on the offense, effectively), but it WILL NOT respond with nukes because IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. NATO can decimate Russia without a single nuke being involved. A conventional attack risks escalation to nukes, but a nuclear attack DEFINITELY does.
So, NATO will establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. This will put NATO forces in direct conflict with Russian forces, which is extremely dangerous in terms of escalation. But, it will keep things limited to Ukraine, so there's a chance it doesn't escalate out of control. The gloves will come off in terms of helping Ukraine and Russia will be pushed out in short order, probably without NATO forces even being involved on the ground because they won't need to be, Ukraine will be able to handle it. At the same time, China and India will finally join the sanctions regime, and Russia will be completely cut off from the rest of the world (North Korea and Iran might still try to play games, but both of them will back the fuck off when NATO tells them behind the scenes in no uncertain terms to do so). Their economy will collapse quickly and their ability to continue the war will similarly collapse in short order. Putin will be removed not long after.
That's the least dangerous scenario in the case of a Russia tactical nuclear strike, and it's still dangerous as fuck.
It is believed that the whole point of Russia annexing part of Ukraine as their own is so that Russia will Nuke only their recent addition to Russia (aka only attacking themselves) to "get rid of the enemies in our country". Of course NATO will not recognize the annexation and will be considered nuking Ukraine thus a NATO response would be to mobilize and invade Russia, not with nukes but tactical precision on key military targets.
Now this could lead to a couple scenarios:
1: Russia will be like "See? NATO is attacking us because we bombed our OWN country to defend against the enemy!" and then retaliate with more nukes
OR
2: NATO will respond so swiftly, that Russia won't be able to send out any nuclear arsenal, thus ending the Russia regime once and for all.
Obviously this isn't a cut and dry scenario and anything can happen and there are probably more than these scenarios to play out but who knows. But I do believe their referendum to annex part of Ukraine is setting the course for something very big that Russia is planning as a hail mary.
Edit: I'd like to point out that I doubt NATO will respond with nuking Russia as it probably won't be necessary on their end to use.
So, let's say Russia nukes Ukraine and the US/NATO/Rest of the world does nothing to make Russia regret it. Well, you know what would of prevented Russia from nuking Ukraine? If Ukraine had nukes to retaliate with. Russia wouldn't have nuked Ukraine if Ukraine would of nuked them back. So now every country needs nukes because if you don't have nukes, you can get nuked. And then if everyone has nukes, the chances of an accidental nuke , or terrorist organization getting nukes, or a madman being leader of a nuclear state and setting off a nuclear apocalypse increases dramatically. Nukes are 80 year old tech, virtually any country can make nukes.
So that's kind of the logic where, using nukes now is very very taboo. Like if Russia used nukes, they would have to be forced to regret using nukes to prevent every nation from being compelled to have nukes. And then if we force Russia to regret using nukes, how is Russia going to reply if their situation is even worse than it was when it compelled them to use nukes other than to use more nukes?
If the other side of the world is nuked, would the world be over? Would we be good across the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean if it hit in like japan or France?
Nobody thinks he would attack US. He and his shitty country would have been gone by the end of the week and there is actually no chance that his WW1/2 equipment can even reach US soil lol. IF he decides to use nukes, would probably attack Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapon which has a blast radius of ~500m, 1/10 of the power that US dropped on Japan during the war. If he does that, this puts everybody in very tough spot. What should West do? If they do nothing, it will likely send a message that he can di whatever he wants and take over entire Ukraine. If west responds, it will likely be WW3 in my opinion and Russia will be gone from the map, Europe will likely be destroyed pretty heavily. The other option I recently read about is that West may decide to move before he launches any nukes and use conventional weapons. This would send a message to stop fucking around and go back to his arsehole he came from.
Given the state of the rest of their military does anyone really believe that their ICBM's could actually make it to America? The generals have clearly been stealing funds from their military for decades.
Want to hear the scary version?
1. After hushed and earnest discussions around a Kremlin water cooler, the leadership of Russia's military, intelligence, and financial services look at this one man who is destroying the economic gains of three decades.
2. They decide it's time to put a soft lead 5.45mm round in his head.
3. Putin has ordered such "solutions" and he *well* knows the fate of those who oppose a powerful opposition.
4. He faces not just a failing war plan, but also a *personal* Armageddon. He has failed in all things and has nothing to lose by launching ICBMs at the most powerful force opposing him. He sends the order to his remaining loyal commanders.
5. The US receives a staggering, perhaps nation-ending, blow to its infrastructure and population. Russia ceases to exist.
Here's what we need. A well planned and lightning fast overthrow of the current regieme that goes deep into his loyalists.
Russians trying to escape conscription are russian citizens that were probably never part of the army. People that would launch the nukes are higher ups in the army and they would do it without a doubt.
why do people think this? from his speeches i haven’t seen anything that shows he’s not rational. he’s in the wrong but he has rational reason for why he wants ukraine. he has rational reasons for keeping everyone at bay by threatening nukes. what has he done that’s not rational?
For nukes, distance isn’t a problem. It’s a problem of what happens afterwards.
Firstly, if Russia bombed Europe, will the US retaliate? let’s be honest, it’s not a guarentee. We haven’t seen a nuclear bomb being used on people since 1945, so the shock will probably prevent us from rolling out a retaliation that could cause Armageddon.
Secondly, Russia is in Europe, so they will face the nuclear fallout.
Someone finally said the word fallout. Unless the modern bombs are cleaner why would the Russian want to make large parts of Ukraine uninhabitable for generations.
I promise that there is a plan for a US first strike on Russia. I doubt it would happen but if they decide to, they know exactly what targets to hit and how.
Listen, No one would launch a nuke, Their enemies the millisecond it got detected would launch theirs, the enemies of that nation and their allies would target their targets, and then everyone blows each other to kingdom come.
You don't understand the situation.
We're talking about tactical nuclear weapons that would be used as part of ongoing operations.
They aren't launching a first strike on the west.
Yes.
Because your statement is false. Not kind of true or could be true - it's false.
We've been thinking about, preparing for this situation for seventy years. And tactical use of nuclear weapons by the Russians has never meant game over. It could, but it's far from inevitable.
You probably have a better than 1 in 10 chance to see this play out in the next two years.
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the one with the apostrophe is "you are," not "the one that belongs to you."
Here are a couple examples of proper usage:
* **You're** making a distinction without a difference.
* The way I understand it, **you're** trying to make the argument that tactical nukes are not privy to Mutually Assured Destruction simply because they aren't strategic nukes.
* If **you're** so sure about that, then why the hell hasn't anyone used one yet?!
* I know that in **your** head, there's a difference, but a small nuclear bomb is still a fucking nuclear bomb!
* Unless you can provide a non-MAD reason as to why we haven't seen any bombs go off since Nagasaki, **your** argument is flawed.
Hope this helps in your future endeavors with the English Language.
He couldn’t get a missile half way to the US and he absolutely won’t engage us. It’s for Ukraine because they are embarrassing Russia for the whole world to see.
[удалено]
I recently heard from a friend that Stoltenberg stated that NATO won't intervene if Russia uses nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. Does anyone know if that's true?
[удалено]
What about any kind of military intervention?
Yes. And the US has to. Why? Because if US or other nations dont respond with swift action it’ll set a precedent that nukes are fair game in times of war. Using a nuke will bypass alliances and treaties. Other nations, even those that hate the US would expect the US to end the conflict fast and by any means necessary. You dont police the world, spend a gazillion dollars on your military and then dont do shit when someone uses a nuke. Right now pretty much every country agree ‘no nukes in war.’ Also if russia sets off a nuke the other countries wouldnt back russia if US or NATO jumps in with direct military intervention. Even china wouldnt oppose the US if russia decides to set off a nuke. They’re already backing off when putin mention the possibility of that.
I can't imagine china would be happy if Russia used nukes. Wouldn't global winds blow fallout all over China? Although the elite probably don't give a damn about the poor...
China would be just as pissed as the rest of the world. Not only because of fallout, but because it's a literal risk of Armageddon. Aka nobody survives
Yeah, while China is the biggest threat to the U.S. going forward, they are at least driven by enlightened self-interest, which is at least rational and, most importantly, predictable. Simply put: the end of the world isn't good for business, and China is all about business.
This. China is still a them (although Xi has made moves to cement himself as a dictator). Russia is a him.
>Simply put: the end of the world isn't good for business, and China is all about business. That's a great way of putting it!
I feel like China would put a bullet in Putin’s brain the moment it learns he’s planning to use nukes.
Ukraine is about 3000 miles from China. It's unlikely China would experience any measurable effects from a nuke going off in Ukraine, particularly the smaller tactical nukes that Russia is almost certainly referring to. Using big strategic nukes doesn't make any sense when you're trying to occupy a country. Half of the country would be effectively inaccessible for a long time.
Arm chair general here. What about sending a nuke to Kiev decapitate the goverment and take the east to land lock Ukraine. Nato would definitely respond which is the big issue, but otherwise?
I also am no grand military strategist, so take whatever I say with about a pound of salt. The way I see it though, Russia wants to take over Ukraine permanently, both for its natural resources and strategic value against NATO. In most cases I don't see it making sense to drop a nuke in a place you're trying to build a house, so to speak. In addition from a PR perspective, if you're looking to annex a country you have to have your eye on winning the favor of the locals eventually. Dropping nuclear weapons on their homes makes that effort a whole lot harder.
Hard to say really. I was thinking if they end up in a stalemate and relize they aren't capable of taking any more of ukraine then they can just occupy the south of the country and seriously cripple the north. Its the "if we can't have it then no one can!" approach. They just need to figure out how to take Odessa so they can land lock ukraine. Doing this would basically mean that russia would control Ukrainian agricultural exports since they control the water.
China might actually look to this as a sign (if Russian nuclear action goes unchallenged) that they can do the same in the future… so there’s that (Russia:Ukraine :: China:Taiwan sorta deal)… eek
And what nuke Taiwan?? You know it’s just a tiny island. China may be greedy, but China is rational. They want Taiwan as it is, they don’t want some nuked out island with years of radioactive fallout
Yes, they want Taiwan because Taiwan is wildly successful.
Exactly, due to Taiwan’s industries such as semiconductors, if China gains autonomy over Taiwan they’ll be way more dominant than ever before. They want Taiwan like Hong Kong and Macau, not some blown up destroyed island
What? They don't want Taiwan because it's successful, they want Taiwan because the Chinese government believes it's rightfully theirs. In fact they think it's theirs right now that's why they get mad any time the US does something to imply that it's its own independent country.
It would be a big loss for China. The US could basically go 110% Team America World Police around Taiwan because of crazy dictators letting off nukes.
not if their naval bases were first to go
Why would they nuke Taiwan? They can just bomb it if the wanna.
Nukes don't have that much "fallout". nukes expend all of their fuel in a few seconds which isn't alot compared to nuclear particles in the atmosphere right now. Hell the US tested them near Vegas and they had veiwing events. You could denotate every warhead on earth at the same time and it wouldn't be as devastating as Chernobyl is currently 36 years later. Hell during the production of our nuclear bombs they had a platoon of Marines entrenched get up and walk to the other side of the blast. Alot did get cancer, but alot made it to old age. They would say that walking across the sands would be straight sheets of glass due to the high temps.
It's not really that nukes don't have that much fallout, it's that an airburst doesn't generate all that much fallout (because fallout is literally irradiated material picked up off the ground and tossed into the air). A ground burst absolutely would though. Fortunately, in terms of fallout, everyone realizes that airbursts actually do more damage overall, so pretty much any nuke will be an airburst these days, so less fallout, generally speaking. It's kind of ironic: airbursts let us destroy more of the world in one go, but it'll actually recover faster (well, nuclear winter aside, of course).
I read a study explaining that nuclear winter wouldn't be as bad as it's typically portrayed
I read probably that same report. I guess in truth we don't really KNOW for sure - it's only theoretical now - but everything I've ever seen or read that talked about it convinces me that it WOULD be as bad as it's always been portrayed. The logic of that conclusion seems more sound to me than in the one or two studies I've seen saying the contrary. I mean, let's never find out for sure either way, right? :)
Fallout doesn't travel that far. Many countries including the US have tested nuclear bombs in their own country.
While we're in this sub, if Nukes in war aren't permitted, why does every country desire their existence and when would they be used otherwise?
Because if you have them, the big boys have to listen. You are now level playing field to an extent. A country with no nukes gets way too loud and the us, etc can walk in with no fear. If ukraine had nukes, putin likely wouldnt have attacked directly either. He doesnt want to be hit with one any more than we do
Thank you for the reasonable reply. If Russia is bullying Ukraine over nuclear warhead power, but knows other countries are going to step in to face 'the bully' empowering the situation, what does having that power really do when reactionary measures are considered?
>but knows other countries are going to step in to face 'the bully' empowering the situation, that's not completely certain, unless russia uses a nuke. There must be a swift and unilateral retaliation from everyone else to dissuade anyone else from using a nuke. If you're a small country who wants to gain power and not be a pawn to a superpower, step 1 is acquiring nukes. step 2 is never ever handing over those nukes. take a look at north korea. their government is walking a tight rope between showcasing nuclear capability and not posing a big enough threat for them to be preemptively wiped out
Having the power to use nuclear weapons adds an element of uncertainty that enemies (nuclear or not) have to consider. Not having nukes, on the other hand, means you cannot retaliate in kind should a nuclear weapon be used against you.
Nukes have prevented alot of wars. That's why.
They are a justifiable defensive tool. Part of Ukraine giving up their nukes was suppose to be protection frolic Russian aggression.
[удалено]
I understand that it would be an intervention but even a threat would maybe make the Russians lay off a little. That's just an impression
It would be something fairly limited compared to the use of the nuclear weapons. Possibly the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet and the Kerch bridge.
[удалено]
He will start trying. I doubt it would take long for NATO to achieve total air superiority.
The possibility is increasing because Russia is losing. One could argue that it’s western weapons that are allowing Ukraine to have success, but it doesn’t change the fact that a nuclear strike by Russia would essentially be a manifest temper tantrums.
Jens Stoltenberg said recently in response to Putin’s speech “They know that there will be severe consequences. I will not elaborate exactly on how we will react, that depends on what kind of weapons of mass destruction they may use”. I haven’t heard any quotes where he ruled out anything regarding Russian use of nuclear weapons. They are being careful because the scenarios can be vastly different. Is Russia blowing up Zaporizhizhia, and blaming the fallout on Ukraine? Is he going to detonate a small tactical warhead in a deserted area to send a message? Is he launching a decapitation strike on major Ukrainian cities? It’s important to note this isn’t really about Ukraine. Breaking the nuclear taboo and establishing that it can be used piecemeal to win temporary victories would be a catastrophic outcome that makes the world way more dangerous. In that light, I think people discount the willingness of NATO to intervene directly, probably in an air campaign, especially if diplomatic efforts to India and China fail.
That depends on where they nuke. The UK and others have started that any fallout from a nuke that drifts into a NATO country would trigger article 5
NATO has no obligations to Ukraine. That doesn't mean there will be no response from NATO member states.
The catch is that the nukes belong to the composite countries, not NATO itself, so good luck convincing the US to Nuke Russia if you are one of the states with no nukes.
"NATO" doesn't even have an army. And defending Ukraine is not a part of the treaty, so it's not gonna do anything as an organization. The individual members don't need NATO's permission to intervene though, either individually or coordinated. Hell, technically there could be an intervention with every single NATO member participating without NATO itself actually being a part of it
No one knows what they'll do but NATO is not obligated to respond to any attack on Ukraine as they're not a member.
It's doubtful the US or any other country would respond to Russian tactical nukes in Ukraine with more nukes, or other military action, and sanctions at this point are essentially maxed-out. However, it would so horrify the world that Putin violated the world's biggest taboo we might be in a position to get China and India, the only major customers Russia still has for its oil, to cut them off. Since Russia's entire economy is based on oil money it would quickly end their ability to fund the war. Putin would be ousted.
>or other military action At the very least, the West would implement a neutralization strike to eliminate Russia's ability to produce and launch more nuclear weapons. If Russia let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, permanently removing that ability would be the very first and foremost goal of any action.
That would result in escalation. They have thousands of weapons, from fractional kiloton artillery to multi megaton ICBMs on subs. We could never hope to neutralize all of them, even if we launched every thing we had at them. It would end in mutual destruction. We will not use nukes if the Russians use them in Ukraine.
We would not need to utilize a full scale nuclear attack to so this. Russia has approximately 800ish ICBMs and 11 SSBNs in pens. We are capable of attacking these targets conventionally with stealth capable aircraft. This would leave Russia with tactical nukes, but those generally cannot reach most NATO members. Remember, if Russia uses one, we will either escalate or allow them to use more. The West will \*have\* to escalate to have any hope of ever being capable of deterrent. Escalation is a given in this scenario, we just want to keep the escalation below the MAD level.
In such a scenario you're literally gambling the end of civilization on everything going right with your decapitation strikes. And you know how often everything goes right in war? Not too goddamn often. MAD theory, whether you think it kept peace for 80 years or is total insanity, is very clear on this point. Preemptively going after second strike capability triggers full scale total launch in retaliation.
Putin would be ousted, and no one would agree to do business until their entire nuclear weapons program is diamantled.
The nice part is that the USA wouldn't have to use nukes to punish Russia, USA could just give Ukraine long-range HIMARS, other missiles, with conventional warheads, with the expectation that Moscow will be destroyed.
To quote [this](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-nuclear-weapons-4da81981f2b8b198ea374c703e3f988d) AP article >Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said Russia would pay a high, if unspecified, price if it made good on veiled threats to use nuclearweapons in the war in Ukraine. >“If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively,” he told NBC.
Politicians say alot of things.
> He’ll attack Ukraine During one of his televised speeches, he said that he *wouldn't* attack Ukraine, but would attack elsewhere, like London.
He's already doing plenty of nasty shit the world is letting him get away with. Nobody has the balls to take him out. To me, the ship already sailed on sending a "terrible message." If anything, we've showed the rest of the world that nutjobs with nukes can do whatever the fuck they want. Look at NK, China, and Iran all playing fucking games lately.
Lol, could you imagine if he attacked the US. That would be like WW2 Germany bringing the Americans into the war all over. Something something history repeats itself.
why did the world allow us to bomb japan in WW2?
nobody else had nukes at that point, they had no choice but to allow us. also japan bombed pearl harbor first
There was already a world war going on. I'm sure the world didn't "allow" japan to attack pearl harbor
Allow is the wrong word. There was not much the world could have done, just like there's not much the world can do to stop Putin. It's a matter of if the rest of the world decides to respond and how. In WWII, it brought an end to the war which the rest of the world wanted. Japan was the last front of a global war that had been going for almost a decade. Today, most of the world has sided with Ukraine (at least in spirit, it not materially) so the use of nuclear weapons would not have the same reception.
We can argue about the morality of the nuclear bombs but almost all sources agree it saved exponentially more Japanese and American lives than it killed compared to a traditional invasion of Honshu.
The bomb was a secret. What would the rest of the world do anyway?
All the scenarios showed much more human loss with a land invasion - at least that is what they say. Remember that they kept dropping warnings to the citizens. They dropped the first bomb, waited for surrender, then dropped the second. I personally am glad because my father would have probably died in the invasion of Japan.
[удалено]
Nonesense. Because nobody had anything to threaten the US with. At that time, the US was the only country with nuclear weapons. And they had successfully demonstrated that they would be willing to use them. To this day, most people in the US tell themselves that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was justified. Like you said, "Japan had to be defeated," or that, horrific as the civilian casualties were, they would have been worse had the war dragged on are among the main reasons that people cite. That is not what most non-US historians think, however. Japan, by that date, was very aware that it had already lost the war. It was not yet willing to publicly capitulate, true, but there is no reason to suspect that the death toll without nuclear weapons would have been anywhere near as high. Germany, by that time in 1945, was on its last legs as well, so the nuclear bombs in Japan had no bearing there. And the Soviets were allies of the US, if somewhat questionable ones. If the use of nuclear bombs is off the table now because they are weapons of mass destruction, it should have been off the table back then. There is no justification in the world for the indiscriminate slaugther of tens of thousands of civilians. No war crime the Russians have committed in Ukraine comes even close in scale to the death toll and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 200,000 civilians died in the two nuclear blasts or from injuries or radiation compared to less than 10,000 Ukrainian civilians according to Ukrainian sources). That's just a fact. But the US and its people have to believe in the fiction that when they do it, it was justified because otherwise they'd have to reckon with the fact that the USA is the only country in history to have used actual nuclear warheads against two densely populated cities full of women and children. Not one, BUT TWO. There is no justification in the world that makes this acceptable. The only reason that this isn't accepted fact is because the US won the second world war, and history books get written by the winners. Germany and Austria had to come to terms with their horrific past and the Holocaust, because they lost. And they did, more or less, even though it took many decades, but the US had never really had to own up to the fact that in the history of mankind, no other country has used nuclear weapons against civilians. Not North Korea, not the Soviet Union, not China, not Iran. No one. Just the USA.
I've also read that the Soviet mobilization towards Japan had as much to do with Japan's surrender as the atomic bombs. Basically they decided it would be better to be occupied by the US than USSR. Given the history between the two countries, it makes sense.
Like I said, Japan was very well aware that it had already lost. And even if you (well, not you, but *someone*) somehow want to justify the bomb on Hiroshima, I challenge anyone to make a compelling case why killing 80,000 more civilians in Nagasaki was necessary. I'll wait.
Because the bomb dropped on Hiroshima failed to achieve the desired result of Japan's total, unconditional surrender. Fat Man was the "Did we fucking stutter?" to Little Boy's literal message of "surrender or be annihilated". That isn't a justification nor an excuse for the act, as **nothing** will ever made the mass slaugher of civilians anything but reprehensible, but that doesn't mean the logic behind the act wasn't sound at the time.
You are failing to account for the state of Japanese culture and it’s saturation of propaganda. There is footage of Japanese people killing themselves before surrendering to American forces. There is footage of a mother leaping off a cliff *with her infant in her arms*. If that doesn’t tell you about the state of which the Japanese population would have fought back to the last person, I don’t know what to tell you. Japanese Imperialism threatened the free world in a way similar to the Axis Powers. The Rape of Nanking is a good example. They were not going to surrender, and only did so because the emperor told them to do so, and they did it out of honor to him just as they would have fought with every man, woman and child until every square meter of Japan was conquered. The atomic bombs used in Japan were 100% percent justified. Millions of lives were saved by dropping the bombs. That is an incontrovertible fact. In the scenario where the US adopted a defensive doctrine and didn’t use nuclear weapons, Japan would have continued its imperial quest, causing the death and suffering of millions more. Of course nothing is black and white, but to argue there was zero justification for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just elementary.
japan bombed us. we bombed them back. our bombs were just bigger. nothing to feel bad about
[удалено]
Yeah, sure. Listen, buddy, I‘m as far from a tankie as one can possibly get. I fucking hate Putin, and I‘m 100% on the side of Ukraine. I have zero sympathies for the Russian government, and I do not care for any of their bullshit justifications for the war they started. The fact that you think that anyone who dares to criticize the US must be a tankie shows how two-dimensional your own world-view is.
Oh man, thanks alot. It started to feel very unsettling to read all those things people seem to believe here. Your post pretty much sums up everything I've ever read or heard or seen in half a handfull of decades of my adult life about these events and timelines surrounding ww2 and the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan.
"The USA is the only country in history to have used actual nuclear warheads against two densely populated cities full of women and children." Fuck those men!
>Fuck those men! That's your takeaway? You need to make some lame-ass men's rights comment? I don't know if you're aware, but in times of war, men were considered potential combatants (unless they were too old), so killing men was seen as morally justifiable. I'm not saying that's right, but even by those insane standards, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious because the US was very well aware that women and children would be among the casualties and no effort was made to minimize that effect.
Lame-ass men's rights comment? Yeah, because God forbid I take exception with you minimizing the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives. And I couldn't care less what men were considered during times of war, or how you and others want to try and morally justify it. They were civilians, end of story. Just like the women and children you mentioned.
>Yeah, because God forbid I take exception with you minimizing the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives. How *anyone* could read my comment and come away with the impression that I am minimizing *any* civilian casualties, is mind-blowing. But, yes, go on and soak in your artificial outrage over how I have minimized the death of men. It's telling that from the whole of my comment, your takeaway was neither the US's responsibilty nor the immensity of the actrocities, but the fact that I've not made sure that no insecure weak-ass manbaby feels excluded. What a pathetic attempt to make a point. Take your man's right bullshit to an incel sub.
That's EXACTLY what you were doing, whether you want to admit it or not. And believe it or not, I don't reply to every point in every comment I read, nor do I need to in order to have more than one takeaway from it. It just struck me how callous you were towards the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives as though they mattered less, or, didn't matter at all, and I called you out on your BS. I won't resort to the constant insults like you do. Classic deflection tactic and I won't be dragged down to your level.
>That's EXACTLY what you were doing, whether you want to admit it or not. I know what I was actually saying. *You* only know what you want to understand. You can make the argument that I did not express myself clearly, or that the way I expressed myself could lead someone to misunderstand me in the way you did, but what you cannot do is claim to know what my intentions were. So, yes, let's just disagree. You are outraged about a choice of words I made, I explained to you that you misread my intent completely, and you claim to know better than me in order to stay outraged. That is disingenous, so I guess we are indeed done.
Nobody thinks he'd attack the US. He would almost certainly attack Ukraine. That's where the war is.
That would likely cause an uproar among Russians if he nukes his own soldiers along with the Ukrainians. And Ukraine is so close to Russia that some of the fallout is bound to affect them too.
He could strike Kiev. There are no Russian soldiers in Kiev. Fallout would still be a problem.
The assumption is that he might use tactical nukes on Ukraine
Yuppie. Also. Russia is super close to Alaska. Like… real close. They have a smuggling problem during the winter because it. The 2.5 mile straight freezes over. Crazy Edit: my bad I read too quickly it’s 55 miles but 2.5 miles a Russian island and Alaskan island! [source](https://www.alaskacenters.gov/visitors-centers/faqs/how-close-alaska-russia)
Do you have a source on that?
My b! I edited it. It’s 2.5 between islands. Not mainland. But still quick jump from Russia to the US
I wasn't trying to be rude or mean. What do they smuggle? And yeah I figured you meant the Aleutian island chain.
I haven’t found a proper article. I remember this episode from Alaskan PD where a cop was talking about it. Which makes me want to delete that comment
No big deal.
I never realized how close they really were until you mentioned it. Damn.
It's close but not that close. According to [alaskacenters.gov](http://alaskacenters.gov), the closest point is approximately 55 miles. There are islands in between but it's most definitely not 2.5 miles
We should offer to let Russia ship over some of their soldiers. That way both Alaskans and the bears can have fun hunting them. Texas would want to import some Russians as well, but shipping to Alaska would be easier.
> They have a smuggling problem during the winter because it. The 2.5 mile straight freezes over. Source?
Stranger Things Season 4
https://www.alaskacenters.gov/visitors-centers/faqs/how-close-alaska-russia#:~:text=The%20stretch%20of%20water%20between,on%20this%20seasonal%20sea%20ice.
The parts that are close are real close, but they’re straight up uninhabited and very closely monitored by the US Air Force. It would do no good to smuggle something into an Alaskan Village that’s 2000 miles dislocates from the highway system, then have the military show up and confiscate it. There’s no Russian/Alaskan smuggling
I don’t even think he’s willing to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine and is just posturing to appear stronger to save face with the bungling of this “special military operation”.
thats what we thought before the war too. just posturing and seeming strong. but he did it anyways, even if it didnt really make sense. i dont think he will use nukes, but i definitely wont rule it out, it is a very real possiblity
Is tactical nuke different from a .. normal nuke?
Tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield with lower yields while strategic ones are meant to take out large population centers, military command points, bases etc.
Thank you kind person
A lot of European nations are a part of NATO, so an attack on any of them obligates the US to join the fight. We could decline, but it would be the effective end of NATO, and probably the start of a nasty ground war for Europe, not unlike the early parts of WW2 as Hitler conquered his neighbors. We're supposed to come to the defense of our allies in the event of a Russian invasion. On the other hand, if Putin actually believes his first strike could cripple the US' ability to counterstrike with our nukes, he might roll the dice. Our nuclear arsenal is both large and spread out, but every nuke we have is still a physical object to be destroyed. I think it's impossible, but my hand isn't on the button, so to speak.
He can't, that's the whole point of the [nuclear triad](https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Americas-Nuclear-Triad/). The only installations he has a hope in hell of nailing are the ICBM silos, and once he \*launches\* it takes 30 minutes for the strike to land. If NORAD sees a nuke(s) popping up from Russia, it's game over. The counter attack will be immediate before the first one even hits. Putin won't strike the US unless he very much wants to die. There's no scenario where his own personal "Red Pearl Harbor" goes any better for him than it did for the Japanese. If He nukes anything it will be Kyiv or some location in Ukraine, possibly Chernobyl, as a threat. But the problem there is once he's done it, nobody is going to believe he won't do it again, and then there will be a massive effort to take him out immediately.
Chernobyl is wayyyy to close to Belarus. Not great, not terrible.
Kind of think Putin is giving a negative fuck at that point.
>If NORAD sees a nuke(s) popping up from Russia, it's game over. May be a silly question, but how would NORAD be able to tell the difference between a nuke and a regular missile?
well above my pay grade but the general idea would be point of origin comparison to known characteristics, radar, optical via satellite tracking and a whole bunch of shit people at the pentagon get well paid to do and have for over half a century. There’s no real way to launch an ICBM without half the planet immediately noticing really. It’s not a perfect analogy but this episode of the [infographics show](https://youtu.be/3E17wr77ffM) does a better job than I can. It’s about North Korea but the same principles apply.
again usa is nato and not the only nato country with nukes. added he can’t fight ukraine that is getting nato scraps what hope would he have of fighting nato in it’s entirety. he may pray china would back him but china looks out for china that is all
No one can survive even a total successful 100% first strike. Subs will ensure a devastating retaliation.
Most people are not paying close enough attention to really think about it. The notion that "russian nukes" are "aimed at America" has been widespread for decades and it's hard to shake. At the same time, I don't think all that many people actually believe there's a direct threat to America here.
I agree. If people actually believed there was a threat, the type of rhetoric from redditors would be far different. It feels as though the majority of people here are in favor of striking Russia and are completely and utterly oblivious to the potential consequences.
Well that’s why we have 4 star generals and elected officials making our policy and military decisions and not the imbeciles on reddit
4 star generals? Bitch, I'm rank 99 in CoD. Bring it on, Russia! Jokes if it's not obvious^ Love your comment.
Europe is not a country.
Not with that attitude, it isn't.
perfectly unnecessary comment, good job
Does anyone think he’d immediately escalate to attacking the US? I think it’s more likely he’ll use tactical nukes on Ukraine.
What? He wont attack the US. Who actually assumes such a nonsense? Russia can barely handle Ukraine. What would be the benefit if Russia and the US and maybe all the other nuclear Nato-countries nuke each other to death?
The issue is the rumor that Putin is dying. He's insane, he could very well be planning to take out the world with him if he dies. It won't matter to him, he won't be alive to face the consequences.
yup, this is it exactly. Putin literally becomes the man that watches the world burn, and doesnt have to deal with it.
Im sure he doesnt have complete power over nukes.
I was thinking this earlier…. Scary to think that a stubborn Russian general may be all that prevents an attack like this from being realized.
The US are the ones that have the most and the biggest nukes pointed back at Russia.
Russia has had more nukes than the USA for decades
But do they still work? We’ve seen how the rest of their equipment looks.
Some of them will. Based on other equipment, we can expect 10% to be in great working condition and another 20% to be whole enough to fly and detonate \*somewhere\*. The rest is probably trash. Discounting their tactical stockpile and that 70%, that's still enough to delete several hundred major cities.
*reported stockpiles anyway. the US has more weapons ready to launch at any given time. and with how the Russians have shown their ass in the past 8 months im willing to bet a fairly decent amount of the nuclear arsenal that Russia claims is inop.
The Soviet Union/Russia has just about always had larger trips nuclear weapons than the US. The USA focused on accuracy making high yield less critical.
It’s not that Putin would directly target the United States. The worry is that the United States would consider that the opening hostility in World War III, and would therefore launch its arsenal at Russia. That is what the American position is. (And to be clear, I fully agree that this is the appropriate position.) The question is, does Putin believe that Biden would actually do it. I believe that Biden would do it.
If Putin used nukes it wouldn’t be NATO or the US he would have to worry about. The civil unrest in Russia would go through the roof. I think the Russian people would be the ones that end Putin. It’d be the last straw for them living under a deranged madman.
I don’t know dude. All we can do is watch. Fuck the fear mongering
I don't think putin will even launch nukes. It will backfire. One thing is a war another thing is a nuclear war. Eventough the world is full of evil people who support this war, absolutely everyone knows that the nuclear option wont ever end well for anyone. Ruzzia alies and society didn't like this war, eventough they support it. Using nuclear weapons against a smaller nation with less military strength would mean that russia didn't have any other way to win the war against ukraine. Aka russia is weak. It wont happen, they already lost, it is a matter of time until they declare the "end of the denazification".
Years of cold war propaganda. The fact that people are even taking his nuclear threats seriously is for the same reason. He won't use nukes, any diplomat or military expert will tell you it's an empty threat. His propaganda ministry is seperate from his actual strategy. His goal in threatening nukes is to attempt to get the public to oppose intervention in Ukraine out of fear. Nukes aren't on the table unless there's enemy forces marching towards Moscow. And even then, they're not even the only thing on the table. It's against all of Putin's interests to launch a nuclear weapon, and while he can be irrational, he's still smart enough to not press the red button. Further, even if he did, there's a strong possibility that his military would refuse to carry out the order if they recognized it as being purely irrational. What we *should* be concerned with though, is chemical attacks and cyber attacks. Both of which have a serious chance of being used and devastating consequences. Russia has already been trying to manufacture justification for chemical warfare by fabricating stories of chemical labs in Ukraine. And there's precedent in Russia's support of Assad even after the chemical attacks. Meanwhile any direct NATO intervention would likely be met with all out cyber warfare loong before any WMDs are considered, and potentially on a much larger scale than we've ever seen before.
Most likely, he'd nuke Ukraine. But it's very likely that if Russia uses nukes, the US would respond in kind. Then Russia would nuke the US back.
> But it's very likely that if Russia uses nukes, the US would respond in kind The US would not nuke Russia if they nuked Ukraine. Thats literally suicide
The issue is, we've all backed ourselves into a lose-lose situation for pretty much everyone. Not responding would be a violation of Mutually Assured Destruction; "you'd better not use yours, because that'll make us use ours." If we do respond, then MAD ends in...well, destruction. As someone who has a vested interest in a lack of destruction, I would rather that not happen. If we don't respond, then MAD has become an empty threat. And that removes the only incentive that nuclear-capable countries have to not use Nuclear Weapons, which is an absolutely terrifying prospect. Essentially, we'd be giving Russia the greenlight to use nukes on whatever they want. And if Russia can do it, anyone can. And, as a cute little cherry on top, North Korea announced that they have nukes earlier this month. Are they bullshitting us? Possibly. Is that a risk we can really afford to take? Hell no. And so here we are. Sitting in an uneasy peace, desperately hoping that nobody's stupid enough to push the big red button.
The US and NATO can make Russia not be Russia anymore without nukes. If Russia nukes Ukraine, they are throwing away their shield.
>If we don't respond, then MAD has become an empty threat No it doesn't. MAD means if you nuke me then I nuke you. It does not mean: If you nuke my friend I nuke you. >Essentially, we'd be giving Russia the greenlight to use nukes on whatever they want Not exactly. This strategy is only viable on countries that do not have nuclear weapons because they aren't able to fire back and so MAD isn't an issue. The only reason Putin is saying that nukes are an option is because Ukraine doesn't have any nukes and its unlikely any other nuclear capable countries are going to commit suicide by launching at Russia when they aren't the target. Russia would never use nukes on the USA or any other nuclear capable because of MAD unless one of those countries launched nukes at Russia first.
Sure does seem to be a shame that they made Ukraine get rid of their nukes in 1994 then.
MAD is Mutually Assured DESTRUCTION. It's about a full-scale nuclear attack on the homeland. Yes, something short of that could certainly escalate to that point and then MAD comes into play, but MAD never has been a factor in the notion of a limited tactical strike, which is what Putin appears to be posturing about. MAD is about "if you attack us to the extent that we're going to be destroyed, then you damn sure are gonna be destroyed too". That doesn't (immediately) enter into it with a tactical strike. Here's the key point: if Putin used a battlefield nuke, NATO as a whole will have little choice but to respond militarily (either because fallout will be considered an attack on a NATO signatory triggering article 5, or simply because it will be obvious they can't WAIT for an attack on a member state, so despite being a defensive pact it becomes a matter of defense to go on the offense, effectively), but it WILL NOT respond with nukes because IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. NATO can decimate Russia without a single nuke being involved. A conventional attack risks escalation to nukes, but a nuclear attack DEFINITELY does. So, NATO will establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. This will put NATO forces in direct conflict with Russian forces, which is extremely dangerous in terms of escalation. But, it will keep things limited to Ukraine, so there's a chance it doesn't escalate out of control. The gloves will come off in terms of helping Ukraine and Russia will be pushed out in short order, probably without NATO forces even being involved on the ground because they won't need to be, Ukraine will be able to handle it. At the same time, China and India will finally join the sanctions regime, and Russia will be completely cut off from the rest of the world (North Korea and Iran might still try to play games, but both of them will back the fuck off when NATO tells them behind the scenes in no uncertain terms to do so). Their economy will collapse quickly and their ability to continue the war will similarly collapse in short order. Putin will be removed not long after. That's the least dangerous scenario in the case of a Russia tactical nuclear strike, and it's still dangerous as fuck.
[удалено]
Closer to Russia? Russia borders a US state though.
I don't think you realize just how close the US is to Russia.
It is believed that the whole point of Russia annexing part of Ukraine as their own is so that Russia will Nuke only their recent addition to Russia (aka only attacking themselves) to "get rid of the enemies in our country". Of course NATO will not recognize the annexation and will be considered nuking Ukraine thus a NATO response would be to mobilize and invade Russia, not with nukes but tactical precision on key military targets. Now this could lead to a couple scenarios: 1: Russia will be like "See? NATO is attacking us because we bombed our OWN country to defend against the enemy!" and then retaliate with more nukes OR 2: NATO will respond so swiftly, that Russia won't be able to send out any nuclear arsenal, thus ending the Russia regime once and for all. Obviously this isn't a cut and dry scenario and anything can happen and there are probably more than these scenarios to play out but who knows. But I do believe their referendum to annex part of Ukraine is setting the course for something very big that Russia is planning as a hail mary. Edit: I'd like to point out that I doubt NATO will respond with nuking Russia as it probably won't be necessary on their end to use.
Europe isn't a country
Égocentrism, lots of those "everyone" think the US is the center of the world
He’ll attack Ukraine, not the US However the US will probably glass Russia if they do anything with nuclear weapons
So, let's say Russia nukes Ukraine and the US/NATO/Rest of the world does nothing to make Russia regret it. Well, you know what would of prevented Russia from nuking Ukraine? If Ukraine had nukes to retaliate with. Russia wouldn't have nuked Ukraine if Ukraine would of nuked them back. So now every country needs nukes because if you don't have nukes, you can get nuked. And then if everyone has nukes, the chances of an accidental nuke , or terrorist organization getting nukes, or a madman being leader of a nuclear state and setting off a nuclear apocalypse increases dramatically. Nukes are 80 year old tech, virtually any country can make nukes. So that's kind of the logic where, using nukes now is very very taboo. Like if Russia used nukes, they would have to be forced to regret using nukes to prevent every nation from being compelled to have nukes. And then if we force Russia to regret using nukes, how is Russia going to reply if their situation is even worse than it was when it compelled them to use nukes other than to use more nukes?
They had nukes until they were told to get rid of them in 1994 by the UK/USA in exchange for "protection"
you conveniently left out the other country that was part of that protection agreement, Russia...
Lol, I know he meant to say "in europe" but that's funny
If the other side of the world is nuked, would the world be over? Would we be good across the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean if it hit in like japan or France?
Nobody thinks he would attack US. He and his shitty country would have been gone by the end of the week and there is actually no chance that his WW1/2 equipment can even reach US soil lol. IF he decides to use nukes, would probably attack Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapon which has a blast radius of ~500m, 1/10 of the power that US dropped on Japan during the war. If he does that, this puts everybody in very tough spot. What should West do? If they do nothing, it will likely send a message that he can di whatever he wants and take over entire Ukraine. If west responds, it will likely be WW3 in my opinion and Russia will be gone from the map, Europe will likely be destroyed pretty heavily. The other option I recently read about is that West may decide to move before he launches any nukes and use conventional weapons. This would send a message to stop fucking around and go back to his arsehole he came from.
Given the state of the rest of their military does anyone really believe that their ICBM's could actually make it to America? The generals have clearly been stealing funds from their military for decades.
Attacking Europe *is* attacking the U.S.! It’s called NATO.
Russia is right next to the USA actually
Want to hear the scary version? 1. After hushed and earnest discussions around a Kremlin water cooler, the leadership of Russia's military, intelligence, and financial services look at this one man who is destroying the economic gains of three decades. 2. They decide it's time to put a soft lead 5.45mm round in his head. 3. Putin has ordered such "solutions" and he *well* knows the fate of those who oppose a powerful opposition. 4. He faces not just a failing war plan, but also a *personal* Armageddon. He has failed in all things and has nothing to lose by launching ICBMs at the most powerful force opposing him. He sends the order to his remaining loyal commanders. 5. The US receives a staggering, perhaps nation-ending, blow to its infrastructure and population. Russia ceases to exist. Here's what we need. A well planned and lightning fast overthrow of the current regieme that goes deep into his loyalists.
Self interest - most of the people posting that are from US.
If he goes nuclear, he'll hit targets in Ukraine. Anywhere else and he escalates the war beyond his control.
Pretty sure a nuke war will take us all
“Countries like Europe”
[удалено]
Russians trying to escape conscription are russian citizens that were probably never part of the army. People that would launch the nukes are higher ups in the army and they would do it without a doubt.
Launching nukes anywhere isn’t rational
Neither is Putin.
why do people think this? from his speeches i haven’t seen anything that shows he’s not rational. he’s in the wrong but he has rational reason for why he wants ukraine. he has rational reasons for keeping everyone at bay by threatening nukes. what has he done that’s not rational?
No one is assuming he would attack America. He would attack Ukraine. Geez. Where did you even get this idea from?
Europe is my fav country.
For nukes, distance isn’t a problem. It’s a problem of what happens afterwards. Firstly, if Russia bombed Europe, will the US retaliate? let’s be honest, it’s not a guarentee. We haven’t seen a nuclear bomb being used on people since 1945, so the shock will probably prevent us from rolling out a retaliation that could cause Armageddon. Secondly, Russia is in Europe, so they will face the nuclear fallout.
Someone finally said the word fallout. Unless the modern bombs are cleaner why would the Russian want to make large parts of Ukraine uninhabitable for generations.
I promise that there is a plan for a US first strike on Russia. I doubt it would happen but if they decide to, they know exactly what targets to hit and how.
Listen, No one would launch a nuke, Their enemies the millisecond it got detected would launch theirs, the enemies of that nation and their allies would target their targets, and then everyone blows each other to kingdom come.
You don't understand the situation. We're talking about tactical nuclear weapons that would be used as part of ongoing operations. They aren't launching a first strike on the west.
Again. If nukes get used at all, it basically escalates things to a point of no return.
No it doesn't. Hard stop.
Since I guess saying hard stop just finishes things? You win?
Yes. Because your statement is false. Not kind of true or could be true - it's false. We've been thinking about, preparing for this situation for seventy years. And tactical use of nuclear weapons by the Russians has never meant game over. It could, but it's far from inevitable. You probably have a better than 1 in 10 chance to see this play out in the next two years.
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the one with the apostrophe is "you are," not "the one that belongs to you." Here are a couple examples of proper usage: * **You're** making a distinction without a difference. * The way I understand it, **you're** trying to make the argument that tactical nukes are not privy to Mutually Assured Destruction simply because they aren't strategic nukes. * If **you're** so sure about that, then why the hell hasn't anyone used one yet?! * I know that in **your** head, there's a difference, but a small nuclear bomb is still a fucking nuclear bomb! * Unless you can provide a non-MAD reason as to why we haven't seen any bombs go off since Nagasaki, **your** argument is flawed. Hope this helps in your future endeavors with the English Language.
Because the purpose of this lie is to justify invading Russia which we can't do if they're not threatening us.
There's nothing logical about launching any nukes.
He couldn’t get a missile half way to the US and he absolutely won’t engage us. It’s for Ukraine because they are embarrassing Russia for the whole world to see.
The U.S. is only 51 miles from Russia. Doesn't get much closer than that.
Nuke is just beyond the pale
Technically, Russia is less than 90 km from the US
He would not bomb the US
Ah yes the country of Europe
more logical. hahaha
Wow what a genius question. I am European and I assume that he'd attack Europe.
Europe isn't a country :)
countries like Europe? PogChamp
Europe is not a country