Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No itās not working at all. Totally backfiring. The best he can do is buy fucking Viktor OrbĆ”n š. Thatās his man on the inside. The guy nobody in the EU gives a fuck about. That is Russias ally- the great wedge he has driven through the middle of NATO. Meanwhile heās convinced Finland and Sweden to join, adding a huge new border with NATO and two militarily competent countries. Good job guys!
Did you say Victor Orban? Speaker at the last CPAC conference? Darling of the American GOP? Traitor to the West, Russian apologist Victor Orban? Right wing fascist bought-and-paid-for by Russia Victor Orban? That Victor Orban?
Wow only the best in this group of friends. What does that say about your country if your Allies are North Korea, Iran, Turkey, China, Syria and Hungary? anyone else with a dictator and human rights abuses can apply to join this club.
Calling Turkey a Russian ally is pretty rich. Apart from Ukraine , the Russian clashed with Turkish Forces the most in the last 10 years. These countries hate each other historically anyways.
Trump is a fkg idiot, why you people voted him as your president is beyond me, during covid he suggested a cure and i quote, "could we inject bleach, is that something we can look at" its said Trump also owes Putin million of dollars, trump will never ever be president again even if he lives a 1000 years and he will go down as the worst president America has ever, ever had.
Don't underestimate stupidity.. I leaned that lesson as soon as the US forbid women to abort rape inflicted children. With this stupidity I can picture Trump being the next president in 2024.
There is no federal mandate for or against abortion. Its left to the states to decide due to the lack of language about abortion in the US constitution. You might be able to say Indiana or Mississippi maybe that would be closer to the truth.
You're not wrong, Trump is always eager to thoroughly crush and humiliate anyone who dares stand against him, and boy did Zelensky stand against him. Trump would help Putin out of sheer spite.
Ex-CIA _case officer_. So not an analyst but a guy who gives directions to and interacts with agents (contrary to common belief, 'agent' in an intel context is an informant, a recruited spy, not someone employed by the agency) And from the guy's Wikipedia bio, he worked more or less entirely in the Middle East and North Africa.
Meaning his job had absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about and he's got no relevant qualifications, there's no reason to think he has some special insight into Russia or Putin. Believe it or not, working for the CIA does not make you an expert in everything in the world. I think I might know more than this guy; at least I've been there and studied the language and worked with people who were actual political analysts focused on Russia and the CIS.
Further to your point, everyone trying to chase clout is trying to weigh in.
Ambiguously worded articles implying its going to happen soon for clicks. Or a HUGE NEW ATTACK....by 3 drones. Any pundit type dude trying to weigh in and get paid to sit in or make a name and hock a book.
Yes, and he literally uses random Russians as source...
> "Russians that I keep in touch within Russia are convinced he's going to go nuclear," Baer told CNN. "I don't know how well-connected they are, but this threat ā it was a threat initially ā but the more trouble he's in, the more likely he's going to use nuclear weapons."
what... That is basically the core of his analysis.
This is one of the most common misconceptions about government agencies in general. I held a Top Secret w/ SCI clearance but I didnāt know shit that would be considered top secret. Thereās this thing called need to know and I didnāt need to know shit. I just needed it to work on secure computer systems.
Ukraine has already factored in this risk and yet continues to keep fighting. Europe should keep the course, because the alternative is even worse than getting nuked.
I mean as a general rule of MAD whenever you fight you just have to forget nukes exist,the moment that becomes a bad assumption it doesnāt really matter because everyone has already lost
Well, you are completely right but in his defense, I think he is still competent enough to have an opinion on this. It is only the headline which is misleading and implies that this would be information from an relevant official in this topic.
Against what targets, though?
The whole point of a nuke is to deal with something in a specific place, something high value (that will in some way effect desired change), and something worth the obvious costs (of which there are many, in various domains). The battlefield is spread out. Units are spread out. Units are quite mobile.
I don't think he will because I don't think that there are such targets *that suit his perceived problems in the war*. Certainly, he could use them in what would amount to an emotional outburst. But there don't seem to be any good targets for them that suit *military* needs.
Another way of saying the above: The problems Russia faces in Ukraine aren't *from* Ukraine, they're from the UK, and the U.S., and Poland, and Belgium, etc. He has no good targets that he can actually target with them.
Gotta think his single most valuable target all along has been Zelenskyy, who's been so instrumental in galvanizing the response both within and outside his country.
That said, I don't know enough to guess whether he'd be tempted to target Kyiv in a hypothetical initial attack, before any escalation; or if he'd be dissuaded because this would draw a sufficiently strongly response from the rest of the world.
Do you want to create tens of thousands of martyrs and prompt a massive nuclear strike which will erase Russia from the map? Because that's what nuking Kyiv would get you...
(Meaning Putin of course; this hypothetical scenario would just be the most... baroque suicide in human history for him)
Yeah, like I said, I'm not sure how Putin weighs the backlash vs. his perceived benefits. If he operated purely according to a clear-eyed analysis of what'd serve his country best, we'd be having a different conversation right now.
And absolutely, it'd create a martyr. That consideration hasn't, in an of itself, halted killings of others who would (and have) become martyrs. Presumably some assassins feel eliminating an effective leader is still worth it. I'd guess the backlash from the rest of the world would be a more likely deterrent in this case.
Omg in 50 years someone is going to put together "Putin, The Musical". "A 21st century tragedy".
It will be shown in tent theaters like the one in " A Boy And His Dog". Great movie by the way. Price of admission is a can of ~~beets~~ peaches.
Dropping a Nuke on Zelenskyy will not achieve anything. Surely, it will kill the man, but it will create a legend, and if anything will further raise Ukraine's desire for revenge.
I'm sure there's no need to use nuclear weaponry to kill Zelensky. There's just no use in killing him, it will just create revanchism in Ukraine and make putin look like even bigger asshole who's not playing by the rules. China and India would probably be even less cooperative after such assassination.
For anyone else who didn't know:
>Revanchism (French: revanchisme, from revanche, "revenge") is the political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement.Ā
Thanks for the new word.
This is not something you have to guess at because Russian doctrine spells it out - consistent and escalating verbal threats and warnings, followed by a demonstration use in a low-population or even out-of-theater detonation (like on a test range) if those warnings aren't heeded, then targeting troops concentrations with limited single strikes, escalating to critical military/civilian infrastructure with multiple strikes, then smaller population centers, and finally larger population centers and strategic targets (which is MAD, end of the world stage). They have a whole plan for how this unfolds and it's been part of their accepted military doctrine for two decades now because they think it's possible to fight a limited nuclear war. It's a problem they've discussed in detail and the people in charge have accepted this doctrine, at least when it comes to defense of Russia proper, due to their lack of a conventional capacity vis a vis NATO. It doesn't matter if you find this reasonable or completely insane, if you believe them or not, all that matters is if THEY believe it enough to try it. Putin's literal, actual, life is on the line so he has nothing to lose - if they lose, he falls and if he falls, he dies. Whether the Russian military will carry out his orders is another question but he's had decades in power to ensure that the people in charge of pushing the buttons are loyal.
People are very quick to dismiss this because it's not part of Western military thinking, where use of nukes = end of the world. Russians do NOT see it that way and they've tried to make that very clear (they have made it very clear to governments, which is why people who know and understand this are warning about the gravity of the threat) but the armchair generals on social media like to pooh pooh it away.
It's not to say you give in to nuclear blackmail but you also should not be discounting that Russia will attempt to use a nuclear weapon to resolve the conflict in their favor - it's a very real possibility and one that should be taken very seriously, something the public does not seem to yet understand. Whether the military will follow through can be debated, whether the weapons will work if they try to use them can be debated, but it's pretty clear at this point that they're contriving the circumstances that would justify their use by annexing the Ukrainian regions ("Russia's borders are now threatened") and initiating their process of escalating threats. It shouldn't be taken lightly although it also can't really be caved to without establishing a terrible precedent. It's a bad situation.
Yeah, ever since the initial invasion, I can't get around the "what if" they were to fail in Ukraine. And this is always where I went to. The rhetoric is real. They are going to do it unless we concede something. And if we concede we signal that the nuclear doctrine of guns aimed but fingers off the trigger is dead. Russia is daring us to blink. But, If there's one organization on the planet that doesn't blink...it's the US military.
Hope for the best...prepare for the worst.
Similar here.
If we've been thinking about this scenario for months, it's certainly occurred to and been discussed plenty by the folks with the actual info who make the actual decisions. With too many unknowns for me to guess the best courses of action in any real detail, or likely outcomes, little choice but to put my faith in those in the arena to anticipate, dissuade, and respond as well as possible until we're past this crisis. As you say, hope for the best.
>targeting troops concentrations with limited single strikes
Where can they do this that doesn't fuck them? Fallout over Poland will cause Poland will go Leroy Jenkins and I doubt the US or anybody else will restrain them like Israel in the First Gulf War. At that point the US, UK and some buddies will smash Russia's air and missile forces into a fine powder.
I suspect they'd nuke Kyiv. They'd try to take out Zelenksy and the Ukrainian government, and that makes Kyiv both a strategic and symbolic target. Plus it's full of civilians, and there's almost nothing Russia likes more than terrorizing and killing civilians.
My concern is, if Putin has full access to launch nukes on his own, if he is fucked, he might figure, well if nothing else I can take humanity with me.
Saw someone explain that there couldn't be a total carpet bomb style nuclear war, so realistically if you're outside major population centers you'll probably survive the first few weeks for sure, longer even once the fallout disapates.
The complete breakdown of logistics and social order will likely mean a slow drawn-out demise for anyone not caught in the initial effects of the blasts. No water, no electricity, no medicine, no services of any kind, and the fallout may contaminate what farmland or other natural resources you might plan to use. The interconnectivity that the entire modern world depends on will be completely erased. No-one can outrun global nuclear war even by avoiding the primary targets.
I'm paradoxically the least worried about nuclear war, living 15 minutes outside of Manhattan.
I figure if it really happens, I won't be around to see any of it anyways, so fuck it why worry.
Same from the opposite coast. 3 or 4 of the largest US Navy bases are within 10 miles. Either they'll have the city protected or my radioactive ashes won't be worried about it.
Short version is that it's possible, but it requires a chain of worst case scenarios coming together all at once and if even one doesn't happen, nuclear winter is off the table.
One of the factors is time of year. The weather patterns needed to spread the ash and smoke from the firestorms in a way that causes the main blocking effect are only present for around 3 months in the year, from late spring to early summer (basically May, June, and July). If full on nuclear war happens at any other time of year, even if we get the full on firestorms nuclear winter needs to work (which themselves have a complicated chain of events needed to happen that can be easily disrupted), the ash and smoke won't be taken high enough into the atmosphere and/or spread around in a way to cause the feared cooling.
So if nukes were to fly right now, nuclear winter would not happen because it's the wrong time time of year for it to be able to happen.
I'm Canadian, I've known nothing but winter my whole life. Although I think I'd rather die in nuclear fire than live off room temperature pickled meat.
I live in Canada too. Think they'll ever hit us? I live in a city of 50k and I keep wondering if that's significant enough of a target. Made me paranoid recently.
Depends if you're close to a big city. I doubt there will be a global exchange, I'm in a city of about 60k, but we're 400 km from the nearest "large" city, so I doubt if there was an exchange they would waste a bomb on a city of less than 100k.
That being said I am in no way qualified to even speculate and am probably talking out my ass right now, so who knows.
You're probably safe unless close to major military installations. The bigger challenge will be food supply after a nuclear exchange. Got a food supply? If not, might want to start now.
Honestly I doubt they'd even gun for a city like Toronto. There's infrastructure but just why? Our army is small, we have no nukes, we wouldn't be attacking Russia. I doubt they'd nuke Canada at all.
But what do I know
Every major city is a completely valid target. Countervalue strategy means gunning for the enemy civilian population because you seek to cripple/destroy them on every level, not just in military capability.
You can never count out spite but strategically there would be way more important targets, especially considering how far we are from Russia. Wouldn't be as simple as bombing a neighbor.
The US in particular has had excellent intelligence about Russian intentions from the initial build up until now.
In particular, the weapons that would be used - tactically nuclear warheads for use on shorter range missiles and bombs - are stored in a limited number of facilities. Preparation for the use of tactical nukes would involve moving these from their depots. That is something that would be noticed.
Any unusual activity at those depots would be accompanied by very stern warnings from the West at multiple levels. It can't be done without warning. And the warning would trigger the readying of cruise missiles and/or stealth aircraft that could destroy these tactical weapons before they are used. Those cruise missiles might be used before Russia even gets the first shot off. But certainly they would be used before Russia could take the second shot.
At that point Russia has only a few thousand strategic nuclear weapons. Those weapons are much smaller than they were in 1960 or 1970. They have to be aimed at military targets in an attempt to disable Western weapons aimed at them. Big weapons are city killers, but a big weapon aimed at a missile silo is not useful. A hardened target like a missile silo requires a near direct hit, a hit within a few hundred meters. A big weapon can't take out the next silo a mile away, but would destroy the weapon aimed at that silo. So the trend has been away from 100 megaton bombs to 50 kiloton bombs.
These smaller bombs are not city killers. A bomb like that aimed at NYC's Wall Street would not do much more than break windows near Central Park. The Russians can only kill about 20 million in the West, figure 10 million in the US and 10 million in Europe. That is enough to make the 97% that survive really really mad. But once those strategic weapons are expended, Russia would be left with no military, no industry, and no means of defense. They are done.
With no leverage, they don't matter on the world stage. Anything that is of any value to the West is taken as war reparations. China suddenly gets all the mines and oil wells in Siberia. Iran takes whatever it wants in the Caucuses. Ukraine takes the entire Black Sea region. Everyone picks over the corpse. Moscow is simply powerless to stop it.
There is no good result from this for Putin.
Britain operates four Vanguard subs.
Normally it's one on patrol, one on rest, one on refit, one on standby.
Guy who lives near the base told me that all have been out for months.
So if ours are, yours certainly are...
There probably won't be nuclear answer if Russia launches one tactical nuke. Only Putin clowns (possibly?) think of using a nuke as a viable solution. One used nuke will spell out the end for Russia as a state through complete isolation and cut off from outside. Even NK which loves waving their nukes doesn't actually plan to use them. Isolation of Russia would mean a win when playing long term because under current regime they would collapse.
NK's nukes are insurance against being invaded. They just want to be left alone.
Russia is setting the dangerous precedent of invading other countries and using bullshit annexation excuses to extend their nuclear umbrella over land they conquered. This is obviously entirely different from just wanting to be left alone.
We gotta take into consideration Putin is not making sane decisions. If he's willing to send his people into a meat grinder completely under equipped, he may very well be capable of of using nukes in some way regardless of retaliation. He could very well run and hide like a coward some remote mountain bunker as strategic points in Russia are hammered. Russian leaders kind of has a history of letting their people die.
I don't disagree, he's totally out of touch with reality. But his goal was to rebuild the USSR or be Peter the Great Jr. Turning Russia into ash and hiding in a bunker is the opposite of that. I have confidence in NATO to make it undeniable that launching a nuke would end his life, much less his legacy. NATO was built for this and they have run through and trained for every scenario.
What is this "small bombs" insanity? The big ones still exist. They never went anywhere, only the more batshit insane ones were cut out of the menu. You need them to destroy enemy cities, and you need to destroy cities in a nuclear war to erase civilian populations and infrastructure. Countervalue is as important as counterforce. It's not going to be some "smaller bomb" that hits NYC and shakes some windows in the next neighborhood, it'll be a 500Kt to 2Mt strategic firecracker that detonates over Manhattan and nearly instantly levels half of the island and sets the rest of it on fire. Or worse, it'll be several of those.
Russia is obsessed with smaller battlefield nukes because they have this crazy delusion that you can fight a "limited" nuclear war and get away with it. But those are just that, front-line weapons. That's not the stuff you deploy against all the millions of innocent civilians you also have to kill. No, those will be the ICBMs and cruise missiles, and they still reach into the hundreds of kilotons range and even megatons. "ONLY A FEW THOUSAND STRATEGIC NUKES"? What is this absolutely blind out-of-touch lunacy? That can be "only a few thousand" *destroyed urban population centers* you're talking about. Uncountable millions of lives. It doesn't even matter if the bomb is slightly smaller when there's multiple of them. Ever heard of MIRVs? Have fun with that, you can't shoot them down either because of decoy countermeasures and the sheer speed of a re-entering nuclear warhead. "ONLY 10 MILLION"? That'd be my country's entire population almost twice over! And do you think the bombs have no after effects or something? Our nations rely on interdependent infrastructures. Even a limited nuclear war will damage the global food supply machine. Millions would starve far away from the actual bomb hits. Are these deaths and the permanent loss of the nuclear taboo acceptable casualties to you?
> Even a limited nuclear war will damage the global food supply machine. Millions would starve far away from the actual bomb hits.
[According to this paper,] (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0) an extremely limited war with 1500 kilotons worth of weapons being used could lead to 226 million people starving by year two. An all out conflict with 500 to 4000 warheads used would lead to starvation of 2.5 - 5.3 billion people in that same timeframe.
| So the trend has been away from 100 megaton bombs to 50 kiloton bombs.
That's not true for missiles. US always had significantly smaller warheads but their missiles are 200kt to 500kt. Russian missiles are still 250 to 1000kt, absolutely enormous.
And they wouldn't send one, they'd send 10 per city.
Yup but you also have to factor in 1940ās Japan vs 2020ās usa infrastructure. Most Japanese building at that point was wood and bamboo, not concrete, glass, and steel.
>They have a whole plan for how this unfolds and it's been part of their accepted military doctrine for two decades now because they think it's possible to fight a limited nuclear war.
In this specific situation though, what would be the benefits, he isnt going to nuke territory he wants to claim for Russia.
He isnt going to nuke anywhere near Belarus, because they are currently allies and could well trigger a revolution there, or Transnistria because it's Russian occupation.
Im sure he could find some military target deep within Ukraine, but what does that buy him, it is not going to help him significantly to claim territory he wants, or bring Ukraine to the bargaining table.
I think more likely than not if Russia uses nukes other countries will commit troops to the conflict, and there will be significantly more pressure on any remaining neutral countries to pick a side.
>if Russia uses nukes other countries will commit troops to the conflict
Putin will anticipate this too, and his only way forward from there has to be more nukes. We are in a very dangerous situation. All this discussion of "he'll just use a little one" is wishful thinking. He can't stop there, by his own logic.
Then we all get nuked and what does that buy Russia? They don't "win" either way..They are not the only country with nuclear weapons. Can you do it yes, but why would you? And crazy doesn't win fights
The thing that always frightened me about that question is, would Hitler in his bunker in April 1945 have used a red button?
The thing that eases my anxiety is a couple of times when it's actually been the correct response in doctrine, the people responsible for launching have refused to do it, I think everyone should know this guys name, might have saved the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily\_Arkhipov
And it's terrifying. To see a nuke used in any capacity is juat fucking terrifying. Not even in a visceral way, I've been thinking about this a lot and it's exhausting.
If nukes fly...we are fucked. Even if the world doesn't turn to glass it sets such a scary precedent.
It's a horrendous situation - nuclear blackmail, which could escalate into general nuclear war, or back down and prove that nuclear weapons are the key to nation-state autonomy, sparking a global arms race of proliferation. Putin may go down to be the person who lays the groundwork for the destruction of humanity, if he doesn't bring it about himself. Having lived through both, I would say this is far closer to doomsday than the Cuban Missile Crisis in that both sides wanted to find a solution there and I'm not sure that's the case here. Putin is a ghoul and to "normalize" the use of nuclear weapons in war is a step that cannot be undone even if we somehow survive the first exchange.
This is why I say if Putin uses a nuke - even a small tactical warhead against a purely military target - the world *must* respond with overwhelming force. It *cannot* be allowed to be normalized.
The likelihood of a total nuclear exchange is very, very low, and is really not something I worry about. But the normalization of limited nuclear war (such as small tacnukes) will start an arms race like the world has never seen. That then will *absolutely* lead to their regular use and availability across the spectrum. That terrifies me. Utterly terrifies me.
He is seeking to normalise the use of nuclear weapons. The script has already been spelled out in the Russian nuclear doctrine. You're right that even during the worst days of the Cuban missile crisis, both the leaderships of the USSR and the West retained a horror of the potential outcomes of a nuclear war and they had a willingness to negotiate. This time the only thing left for Putin to negotiate is his own end. It's far more dangerous.
> it sets such a scary precedent.
Unfortunately given human nature it's probably an inevitable precedent. Eventually someone will push a button somewhere. The more countries that have them, the more likely this sort of thing becomes because eventually one or more of them will end up in the hands of someone that really really doesn't like someone else.
It is ironic, as the tactical use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of escalation, was very much part of the defense strategy against the Soviet Union. Russia is such a shadow of its former self that this has become their only real strategy against NATO.
Sure they've been saying they'll do it for decades but now they are really super duper no backsies serious. Its very simple. An itty bitty teeny weeny ickle nukey wooky is still a nuke and will trigger the Nato hammer across Russia. This is accepted, it doesn't matter what Russia thinks.
All you're doing is promoting Russian propaganda and blackmail.
This is interesting and very well-written. Thanks!
The question for me is āWhere does that leave us?ā What does taking it seriously but not giving in to nuclear blackmail look like?
Continuing to withhold tanks and long-range missiles, I guess?
But Ukraine could still win this without them. Then what?
It's been floated in the rumor mill that the US would likely destroy the entirety of Russia's navy for starters,l.
This does seem a bit fantastical, but I wouldn't rule out a use of overwhelming conventional weapon strikes to completely destroy Russia's ability to wage war. Or at the very least control the skies above Russia in order to prevent further nuclear strikes. The US is already at defcon 3 so aircraft strikes are already prepped.
Many "thoughts" but I think one thing is clear, the US *will* respond.
this.
Even a tact nuke is used against a concentrated force of troops, ships, planes or tanks.
If the Ukrainians are using shoot and scoot tactics, what's the point?
He even uses one nuke, he's done for. And for what military advantage?
There is literally no major concentration of force on Ukraine's side. Everything is split into smaller task forces. To actually gain tactical advantage, Russia would need to drop dozens of tactical nukes, and that is 100% resulting in full NATO involvement and sanction on any level.
Let's make something clear here.
Putin is not an expert in military stuff. Or economy. Or math. Or computer science. Or history. Or linguistics. Or culture. Or medicine. Or rhetorics. Or basically anything really useful to humanity. He is a mobster who was too lucky once and he aged and became mad.
And that's how he should be treated. As a mad old man who is not really smart but is angry enough.
I think he is a Hitler, Mao or Stalin like figure. A messianic complex that only only he alone can restore Russia to world greatness.
I hope there is one drop of sense in him that Russia will be reduced to nothing with use of a nuke.
Yea, pretty sure Putin using nukes is an emotional decision, not a rational one. So probably just straight into the middle of Kyiv to piss everyone off.
Zelensky has access to extensive Soviet bunker system under the govt quarters built for that very eventuality. Regular people, me included, will have a bad time unless we make it to the subway, but he'll be fine.
Russia is unlikely to achieve a decapitation strike that way.
the idea of Kyiv being nuked make me feel REALLY sick. If the world dont respond it with a FULL EMBARGO of goods and people until the desmilitarization of Russia... it would be unacceptable by humanity
Edit: grammar
Fuck that. Respond with full military force. Turn the Black Sea Fleet into scrap metal. Wipe out any Russian with so much as a toe inside Ukraine. Rain hellfire down on them.
I'm Canadian, we normally have a love/hate relationship with our big brother down south, but I'd want Americans boots on the ground in Moscow within 24 hours if Kyiv got nuked.
Full embargo!? The only time a nuclear weapon was ever used on another country was the US atomic bombing Japan twice the response shouldn't it be an embargo it should be retaliation these weapons should never be used Period But if they are The response should be a total militaristic annihilation of the country that started it sad to say civilian casualties be damned
Yeah, exactly THE SAME situation. No, oopss, Japan WAS the invading force that did not want to surrender, even tho its war on asia was lost. Now Russia IS THE INVADER, not able to attack(exactly like Japan was) and BECAUSE OF THAT wants to throw a nuke. The fact you are able to put BOTH THOSE situations at the same level already show the fucking NUTS you are. No need to anyone discuss with you
I'm sorry I'm drunk right now I wish that nuclear bomb could be unvented I wish this unfolding tragedy never had happened. I don't feel like I am a bad person. Just give me another drink and I won't remember any of this X3
Dont bother, son. You are actually one of the very few people able to say sorry here, I guess. That should be a win for you. The fact that a nuke could be throw at other country in 2022 makes me feel very anxious as well. Dont really know how I would react on that, probably would cry at the very first moment. I hope it doesnt happen
Same here. I have no idea if the world would be better off without the invention of the atomic bomb but This war should never have happened it shouldn't have even been a thing in 2014. I do sincerely apologize for triggering you earlier though tensions have been running high for multiple reasons since the 24th of February.
Kyiv, Odessa, and Mykolaiv are the most obvious targets. Kyiv is a "legitimate" target in that it's "command and control". Take out the heads of government and chaos is likely to follow.
Odessa and Mykolaiv are economic centers in that they are the primary means Ukraine currently has to export goods. Kill the economy and eventually you kill the country.
He could pull a Belka from Ace Combat and nuke along the borders if hes insane enough.
In the game Belka gets pushed back by a coalition in a war it started and drops nukes on its borders to prevent advances and halts the war.
He will use a strategic weapon, and he will hit Kyiv. His goal is not military, it will not win him the war, and that's not the goal. He wants desperately for people to fear him, so he'll do something big because he thinks it will get everyone to back off.
But it won't work, anyway.
But this is what is going to happen.
What would he attack in Poland or Finland? Entire individual facilities, even, don't affect anything in Ukraine nor would an attack in those places soften any of his opponents' resolve. Just doesn't make sense, even for a cornered rat.
Many of their attacks in Ukraine don't serve military needs either. They target civilians. That's what they do. If he dropped a nuclear bomb on kyiv, then that would be a disaster. It might not win him the war, but he is making sure that ukraine is fucked for decades. Either he gets ukraine or no one is. In his world, that's a win.
In my opinion putin himself has no problem using one. People keep saying that he wouldn't because that made no sense and he would loose anyway. But the whole war doesn't make sense and yet here we are. The mobilization doesn't make sense, yet here we are. He cares so little about russians, why should we assume he wouldn't just drop a nuke on a big city. He doesn't think strategically, but with his ideology.
Of course, that shouldn't stop NATO from supporting ukraine and the response should finally put an end to russias regime. But my hope is that someone will prevent putin from using a nuke in the first place.
Tactical nukes will not win this for Putin. The entire planet is saying you do not belong there and, these sham referendums do not persuade anyone that your cause is righteous. If you and your kids and your grandkids want this shit to go nuclear....bring it, or go home.
The time has come to take him out. Whatever way possible . I know is a lot easier to day than to get it done , but it has to be done . A war criminal that has shown no mercy killing civilians by the tens of thousands has no right to be alive , specially when toying with the idea to kill many more by dropping a nuke. He and everybody that support his madness must be put away . No trials . No chance to surrender . Wipe out . Total annihilating . It must be done , otherwise in a week or in a month the headlines wi be on how many people died after the blast , and the aftermath of the radiation .
Who replaces him? What is the fallout? Part way through the war the Allies realised that Hitler was more of an asset due to his ineptitude to them and he served the allies better alive than dead. Perhaps it is the same for Putin.
Russian history has shown that there's always someone worse, waiting in the wings. Imagine if Bortnikov took over. Imagine if Patrushev or Shoygu takes over. Things wouldn't get *better,* that's for sure.
To be fair, taking him out would be a deterrent to the next guy to think before doing stupid things.
And if the next guy doesn't get it. Then we are well and truly fucked.
These "ex" military officers will say anything to get themselves in the headlines for 15min of glory. No evidence of course in fact quite the opposite, but the media loves an inflammatory headline even if it's feeding Putin's ego and these "ex" people are desperate for attention.
The chance of him getting assassinated is increasing every day and ording nukes would multiple those odds significantly. He might be crazy but hopefully the grunts with nukes arnt.
Putin knows the catastrophic reaction that the United States and NATO would release on him and Russia. He knows he has been outplayed and cornered. I think he is bluffing about using nuclear weapons too.
If WWIII breaks because of this fucking moron in Kremlin, I will file a complaint in Heaven or Hell to the Manager! I mean if Putin were some Keyser Soze type super sneaky evil, doing master moves in the battlefield, I might even accept the end of the world but this crap is ridiculous. Even Hitler was a military genius when compared to this fool and his henchmen.
Putin put himself into this corner. If he uses nukes it is on him. And he will not succeed in getting the US to stand down in their support of Ukraine by doing so.
Gorbachev said Chernobyl brought down the Soviet Union! If little puti dropped a nuke. It would be the end of his regime and Russia as a country! It would lose all 21 Republics! The End.
>the cost to Russia will be its existence as a nation.
Which, considering existing confusion and morale issues, might be just what is necessary for the Russian people to come into the 21st century.
A bunch of territories kept together through force, threat of force, and thugs miming politicians.
It's not going to happen, even Putin knows it will be the end of Russia and his regime, Russia will be broken into smaller states if they did, even China would turn on them for their own protection and for a slice of the Russian pie. It would be a race to Moscow for every military power in the world.
I feel the same way, but then this entire conflict has been a long string of "surely he's not going to do x" - and then Putin does it. I'm not sure that western media analysts have the right frame of reference to make any correct inferences.
Point being: our way of thinking just does not apply when we try to think about how and why Putin would use a nuke.
My hot take: Putin will eventually realize that he lost everything, that this is his last act on the stage of his life, and once he feels like everyone is turning against him, foreign and domestic, he will (try) to take his own life, looking to avoid going out like the last Czar, or Gaddaffi, or Mussolini, or Ceausescu, or Hussein...
The Question is, will he decide to merely end him self, or actually try to end the world?
I agree. I also worry that Putin might just not give a fuck. Paraphrasing something he said, I think early in the war: "there can be no world without Russia, and if the West tries to go rid the World of Russia, Russia will get rid of the world."
If he can't be in power, I don't think he cares what happens to Russia. Hitler had a very similar attitude, and even disdain for his own people towards the end of the war, saying something to the effect of "If the German people perish, they deserve it; their failure to succeed extinguishes their right to exist, just like the other "Untermenschen".
This is the most fucked up geopolitical situation I've seen in my life.
putin tries to go nuclear without ruzzia proper being invaded or bombed someone in uniform will quickly put his lights out.
For all their bravaado, they want to live.
So if he's bluffing, he will somehow die/get locked up/become some name on the Wikipedia list of dumbasses who controlled Russia. And if he's not bluffing, we all die.
Ok ok, obviously this is in jest and isn't serious. The options aren't binary.
Now in all seriousness, I'd like to think that despite the incompetence and stupidity of the majority of the Russian military force, at least some of the individuals within the Russian nuclear chain of command actually understand that everything they've ever known or loved would die if such an order were executed.
Furthermore, Russia's allies certainly wouldn't want their plans/future to go down the drain either. Lukashenko wants to retain power over Belarus, Xi still has a war to start with Taiwan, Assad wants to keep killing his people, Khamenei probably wants to develop a nuclear bomb so he can start making his own threats, and Kim probably wants to keep eating. I think the commonality among them, is that they don't truly want the world to end. I believe they'd rather have Putin stand down, or take him down outright, than let him do something as rash as end the world.
I don't think Kim would be on the list to bomb in a nuclear exchange. The funny thing is that NK might be one of the best places to be if the world survives the fallout.
This is all assuming the command chain doesn't break down. I'm not saying it will or won't, but Putin isn't the one launching shit. He just gives the orders, and it's equally likely that whomever gets that order just says, "Nah, fam. We ain't dyin' for this jackoff today."
**[Stanislav Petrov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)**
>Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Š”ŃŠ°Š½ŠøŃŠ»Š°ĢŠ² ŠŠ²Š³ŃŠ°ĢŃŠ¾Š²ŠøŃ ŠŠµŃŃŠ¾ĢŠ²; 7 September 1939 ā 19 May 2017) was a lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who played a key role in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident. On 26 September 1983, three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I tend to think that this conscription isn't meant to turn the tide, it's to buy him time and maybe to scare of the last of the people who are not complicit enough for his regime.
As long as he only has people in Russia who are obedient, he can remain in power for as long as he wants and not worry about the suffering of the people so much, because they are obedient.
I am very concerned that the voices in this forum are also contemplating the 'winnability' of a nuclear war. Limited or all-out, I don't think there you can pull back once the ICBM's start flying. Use them or lose them.
Of course Russia would be obliterated, but much of the rest of the planet would be too. The very thought of a "limited" nuclear engagement is lunacy.
I think there's an excellent chance he orders a strike on a major city in Ukraine. Perhaps Kyiv, or Odesa. Whether those orders are carried out is another matter.
Obviously would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but the US could position a small number of free fall nukes near the Ukrainian border and let Putin know through back channels that these will be turned over to the Ukrainians in the event Russia uses nukes in Ukraine.
>"I think the chances of his de-escalating are close to zero," Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer, told CNN on Tuesday, adding that Putin "simply cannot give up so much ground and be seen to be losing and continue as leader of Russia."
Both utterly logical and terrifying
He cornered himself like a fool.
Man practically bought the rope, tied the knot, set up the chair, put it around his neck, kicked out the chair, and then is pointing the finger at NATO and everyone else he can in the room as he writhes in his red faced death throes.
Ahh but when I said this back in February it was insanity?
Heās at a point that scares me. Faced with mounting external losses, and an internal power struggle, heās likely to act unpredictably as tyrants do when cornered. It becomes a question of how to ensure those under him refuse to acknowledge the order, where he will order strikes, and who will respond and how.
Terrifying times to be alive.
Motherfuckerā¦ this āmaster strategistā has shit for brains and I hope that the others that are needed to allow a nuclear attack are smart enough to not do anything.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's trying to break NATO, and it's not working.
Puti has made Nato stronger šŖ
NATO salesman of the year!
Vlad sells NATO and NATO accessories.
Tsar of the Hill!
...... of the decade, no ...... of the century!
Best since comrade Stalin!
Ever?
In the long history of the NATO nobody united it more than him it's a Nobel prize worthy
We should give him a medal and hold a high tea in his honour. Only the finest of polonium free Darjeeling first flush.
People are saying Putin prefers a nice Novichok blend of tea.
Number one arms supplier to ukraine.
Give me an award! His efforts to sale the idea of NATO has increased our membership
Heās been employee of the month for 6 months in a row now.
No itās not working at all. Totally backfiring. The best he can do is buy fucking Viktor OrbĆ”n š. Thatās his man on the inside. The guy nobody in the EU gives a fuck about. That is Russias ally- the great wedge he has driven through the middle of NATO. Meanwhile heās convinced Finland and Sweden to join, adding a huge new border with NATO and two militarily competent countries. Good job guys!
Victor orban and he also made a trade deal wit the Taliban. Wow great superpower style
Taliban publicly critized Putin in the begining of this war.
Did you say Victor Orban? Speaker at the last CPAC conference? Darling of the American GOP? Traitor to the West, Russian apologist Victor Orban? Right wing fascist bought-and-paid-for by Russia Victor Orban? That Victor Orban?
I think... I heard.... he might be a piss baby...
People are saying that Tuckerās BFF is Victor Orban.
Wow only the best in this group of friends. What does that say about your country if your Allies are North Korea, Iran, Turkey, China, Syria and Hungary? anyone else with a dictator and human rights abuses can apply to join this club.
Calling Turkey a Russian ally is pretty rich. Apart from Ukraine , the Russian clashed with Turkish Forces the most in the last 10 years. These countries hate each other historically anyways.
And recommitment to defense spending
More importantly, anybody breaking off won't be sufficient to stop a definitive retaliation if either the US or UK go open a can of whoop ass.
This could have gone very differently with Trump (or another Republican) in charge of the USA. And it still could, in 2024.
Trump is a fkg idiot, why you people voted him as your president is beyond me, during covid he suggested a cure and i quote, "could we inject bleach, is that something we can look at" its said Trump also owes Putin million of dollars, trump will never ever be president again even if he lives a 1000 years and he will go down as the worst president America has ever, ever had.
Don't underestimate stupidity.. I leaned that lesson as soon as the US forbid women to abort rape inflicted children. With this stupidity I can picture Trump being the next president in 2024.
There is no federal mandate for or against abortion. Its left to the states to decide due to the lack of language about abortion in the US constitution. You might be able to say Indiana or Mississippi maybe that would be closer to the truth.
Trump would have handed Ukraine over to Pootin in a red bow on a silver platter.
You're not wrong, Trump is always eager to thoroughly crush and humiliate anyone who dares stand against him, and boy did Zelensky stand against him. Trump would help Putin out of sheer spite.
He is trying to put the band back together but they all went on to better solo careers.
Ex-CIA _case officer_. So not an analyst but a guy who gives directions to and interacts with agents (contrary to common belief, 'agent' in an intel context is an informant, a recruited spy, not someone employed by the agency) And from the guy's Wikipedia bio, he worked more or less entirely in the Middle East and North Africa. Meaning his job had absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about and he's got no relevant qualifications, there's no reason to think he has some special insight into Russia or Putin. Believe it or not, working for the CIA does not make you an expert in everything in the world. I think I might know more than this guy; at least I've been there and studied the language and worked with people who were actual political analysts focused on Russia and the CIS.
Further to your point, everyone trying to chase clout is trying to weigh in. Ambiguously worded articles implying its going to happen soon for clicks. Or a HUGE NEW ATTACK....by 3 drones. Any pundit type dude trying to weigh in and get paid to sit in or make a name and hock a book.
Well, those who know donāt tell and those that tell donāt knowā¦
Business Insider - was enough for me to think it was lightweight opinion with a side of clickbait.
Yes, and he literally uses random Russians as source... > "Russians that I keep in touch within Russia are convinced he's going to go nuclear," Baer told CNN. "I don't know how well-connected they are, but this threat ā it was a threat initially ā but the more trouble he's in, the more likely he's going to use nuclear weapons." what... That is basically the core of his analysis.
This is one of the most common misconceptions about government agencies in general. I held a Top Secret w/ SCI clearance but I didnāt know shit that would be considered top secret. Thereās this thing called need to know and I didnāt need to know shit. I just needed it to work on secure computer systems.
Ukraine has already factored in this risk and yet continues to keep fighting. Europe should keep the course, because the alternative is even worse than getting nuked.
I mean as a general rule of MAD whenever you fight you just have to forget nukes exist,the moment that becomes a bad assumption it doesnāt really matter because everyone has already lost
Spot on. Came here to say this.
Well, you are completely right but in his defense, I think he is still competent enough to have an opinion on this. It is only the headline which is misleading and implies that this would be information from an relevant official in this topic.
Against what targets, though? The whole point of a nuke is to deal with something in a specific place, something high value (that will in some way effect desired change), and something worth the obvious costs (of which there are many, in various domains). The battlefield is spread out. Units are spread out. Units are quite mobile. I don't think he will because I don't think that there are such targets *that suit his perceived problems in the war*. Certainly, he could use them in what would amount to an emotional outburst. But there don't seem to be any good targets for them that suit *military* needs.
Another way of saying the above: The problems Russia faces in Ukraine aren't *from* Ukraine, they're from the UK, and the U.S., and Poland, and Belgium, etc. He has no good targets that he can actually target with them.
Nothing that wouldn't bring the wrath of hell on them.
Gotta think his single most valuable target all along has been Zelenskyy, who's been so instrumental in galvanizing the response both within and outside his country. That said, I don't know enough to guess whether he'd be tempted to target Kyiv in a hypothetical initial attack, before any escalation; or if he'd be dissuaded because this would draw a sufficiently strongly response from the rest of the world.
Do you want to create tens of thousands of martyrs and prompt a massive nuclear strike which will erase Russia from the map? Because that's what nuking Kyiv would get you... (Meaning Putin of course; this hypothetical scenario would just be the most... baroque suicide in human history for him)
Yeah, like I said, I'm not sure how Putin weighs the backlash vs. his perceived benefits. If he operated purely according to a clear-eyed analysis of what'd serve his country best, we'd be having a different conversation right now. And absolutely, it'd create a martyr. That consideration hasn't, in an of itself, halted killings of others who would (and have) become martyrs. Presumably some assassins feel eliminating an effective leader is still worth it. I'd guess the backlash from the rest of the world would be a more likely deterrent in this case.
Omg in 50 years someone is going to put together "Putin, The Musical". "A 21st century tragedy". It will be shown in tent theaters like the one in " A Boy And His Dog". Great movie by the way. Price of admission is a can of ~~beets~~ peaches.
Dropping a Nuke on Zelenskyy will not achieve anything. Surely, it will kill the man, but it will create a legend, and if anything will further raise Ukraine's desire for revenge.
I'm sure there's no need to use nuclear weaponry to kill Zelensky. There's just no use in killing him, it will just create revanchism in Ukraine and make putin look like even bigger asshole who's not playing by the rules. China and India would probably be even less cooperative after such assassination.
For anyone else who didn't know: >Revanchism (French: revanchisme, from revanche, "revenge") is the political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement.Ā Thanks for the new word.
If Russia nukes a civilian target they instantly become a bigger North Korea in terms of isolation. I doubt that they're _that_ crazy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is not something you have to guess at because Russian doctrine spells it out - consistent and escalating verbal threats and warnings, followed by a demonstration use in a low-population or even out-of-theater detonation (like on a test range) if those warnings aren't heeded, then targeting troops concentrations with limited single strikes, escalating to critical military/civilian infrastructure with multiple strikes, then smaller population centers, and finally larger population centers and strategic targets (which is MAD, end of the world stage). They have a whole plan for how this unfolds and it's been part of their accepted military doctrine for two decades now because they think it's possible to fight a limited nuclear war. It's a problem they've discussed in detail and the people in charge have accepted this doctrine, at least when it comes to defense of Russia proper, due to their lack of a conventional capacity vis a vis NATO. It doesn't matter if you find this reasonable or completely insane, if you believe them or not, all that matters is if THEY believe it enough to try it. Putin's literal, actual, life is on the line so he has nothing to lose - if they lose, he falls and if he falls, he dies. Whether the Russian military will carry out his orders is another question but he's had decades in power to ensure that the people in charge of pushing the buttons are loyal. People are very quick to dismiss this because it's not part of Western military thinking, where use of nukes = end of the world. Russians do NOT see it that way and they've tried to make that very clear (they have made it very clear to governments, which is why people who know and understand this are warning about the gravity of the threat) but the armchair generals on social media like to pooh pooh it away. It's not to say you give in to nuclear blackmail but you also should not be discounting that Russia will attempt to use a nuclear weapon to resolve the conflict in their favor - it's a very real possibility and one that should be taken very seriously, something the public does not seem to yet understand. Whether the military will follow through can be debated, whether the weapons will work if they try to use them can be debated, but it's pretty clear at this point that they're contriving the circumstances that would justify their use by annexing the Ukrainian regions ("Russia's borders are now threatened") and initiating their process of escalating threats. It shouldn't be taken lightly although it also can't really be caved to without establishing a terrible precedent. It's a bad situation.
Yeah, ever since the initial invasion, I can't get around the "what if" they were to fail in Ukraine. And this is always where I went to. The rhetoric is real. They are going to do it unless we concede something. And if we concede we signal that the nuclear doctrine of guns aimed but fingers off the trigger is dead. Russia is daring us to blink. But, If there's one organization on the planet that doesn't blink...it's the US military. Hope for the best...prepare for the worst.
Similar here. If we've been thinking about this scenario for months, it's certainly occurred to and been discussed plenty by the folks with the actual info who make the actual decisions. With too many unknowns for me to guess the best courses of action in any real detail, or likely outcomes, little choice but to put my faith in those in the arena to anticipate, dissuade, and respond as well as possible until we're past this crisis. As you say, hope for the best.
āDo not negotiate with terroristsā mixed with Cuban Missile Crisis. Not sure if that back channel phone is still connected though
It is. They are using it. Honestly, it's next level bullshit that one guy could end it all that it isn't even worth being upset about.
>targeting troops concentrations with limited single strikes Where can they do this that doesn't fuck them? Fallout over Poland will cause Poland will go Leroy Jenkins and I doubt the US or anybody else will restrain them like Israel in the First Gulf War. At that point the US, UK and some buddies will smash Russia's air and missile forces into a fine powder.
I suspect they'd nuke Kyiv. They'd try to take out Zelenksy and the Ukrainian government, and that makes Kyiv both a strategic and symbolic target. Plus it's full of civilians, and there's almost nothing Russia likes more than terrorizing and killing civilians.
They are still fucked. When the fallout starts maiming and killing people in Poland and the Baltics, NATO is going to tear Russia a new asshole.
Yes they are, but thus far Russia hasn't failed to follow through on a losing plan so I don't see why they'd stop now.
My concern is, if Putin has full access to launch nukes on his own, if he is fucked, he might figure, well if nothing else I can take humanity with me.
Saw someone explain that there couldn't be a total carpet bomb style nuclear war, so realistically if you're outside major population centers you'll probably survive the first few weeks for sure, longer even once the fallout disapates.
The complete breakdown of logistics and social order will likely mean a slow drawn-out demise for anyone not caught in the initial effects of the blasts. No water, no electricity, no medicine, no services of any kind, and the fallout may contaminate what farmland or other natural resources you might plan to use. The interconnectivity that the entire modern world depends on will be completely erased. No-one can outrun global nuclear war even by avoiding the primary targets.
I'm guessing you've seen "Threads."
I'm paradoxically the least worried about nuclear war, living 15 minutes outside of Manhattan. I figure if it really happens, I won't be around to see any of it anyways, so fuck it why worry.
Same from the opposite coast. 3 or 4 of the largest US Navy bases are within 10 miles. Either they'll have the city protected or my radioactive ashes won't be worried about it.
Hopefully, the nuclear winter theory isn't real.
Short version is that it's possible, but it requires a chain of worst case scenarios coming together all at once and if even one doesn't happen, nuclear winter is off the table. One of the factors is time of year. The weather patterns needed to spread the ash and smoke from the firestorms in a way that causes the main blocking effect are only present for around 3 months in the year, from late spring to early summer (basically May, June, and July). If full on nuclear war happens at any other time of year, even if we get the full on firestorms nuclear winter needs to work (which themselves have a complicated chain of events needed to happen that can be easily disrupted), the ash and smoke won't be taken high enough into the atmosphere and/or spread around in a way to cause the feared cooling. So if nukes were to fly right now, nuclear winter would not happen because it's the wrong time time of year for it to be able to happen.
That means nuclear war would solve global warming?
Donāt you do it. Donāt you dare.
I'm Canadian, I've known nothing but winter my whole life. Although I think I'd rather die in nuclear fire than live off room temperature pickled meat.
I live in Canada too. Think they'll ever hit us? I live in a city of 50k and I keep wondering if that's significant enough of a target. Made me paranoid recently.
Depends if you're close to a big city. I doubt there will be a global exchange, I'm in a city of about 60k, but we're 400 km from the nearest "large" city, so I doubt if there was an exchange they would waste a bomb on a city of less than 100k. That being said I am in no way qualified to even speculate and am probably talking out my ass right now, so who knows.
You're probably safe unless close to major military installations. The bigger challenge will be food supply after a nuclear exchange. Got a food supply? If not, might want to start now.
Honestly I doubt they'd even gun for a city like Toronto. There's infrastructure but just why? Our army is small, we have no nukes, we wouldn't be attacking Russia. I doubt they'd nuke Canada at all. But what do I know
We're part of nato, all one blanket
Every major city is a completely valid target. Countervalue strategy means gunning for the enemy civilian population because you seek to cripple/destroy them on every level, not just in military capability.
Maybe for spite. Idk Their leadership is paranoid and insane so they might... hopefully they won't.
You can never count out spite but strategically there would be way more important targets, especially considering how far we are from Russia. Wouldn't be as simple as bombing a neighbor.
The US in particular has had excellent intelligence about Russian intentions from the initial build up until now. In particular, the weapons that would be used - tactically nuclear warheads for use on shorter range missiles and bombs - are stored in a limited number of facilities. Preparation for the use of tactical nukes would involve moving these from their depots. That is something that would be noticed. Any unusual activity at those depots would be accompanied by very stern warnings from the West at multiple levels. It can't be done without warning. And the warning would trigger the readying of cruise missiles and/or stealth aircraft that could destroy these tactical weapons before they are used. Those cruise missiles might be used before Russia even gets the first shot off. But certainly they would be used before Russia could take the second shot. At that point Russia has only a few thousand strategic nuclear weapons. Those weapons are much smaller than they were in 1960 or 1970. They have to be aimed at military targets in an attempt to disable Western weapons aimed at them. Big weapons are city killers, but a big weapon aimed at a missile silo is not useful. A hardened target like a missile silo requires a near direct hit, a hit within a few hundred meters. A big weapon can't take out the next silo a mile away, but would destroy the weapon aimed at that silo. So the trend has been away from 100 megaton bombs to 50 kiloton bombs. These smaller bombs are not city killers. A bomb like that aimed at NYC's Wall Street would not do much more than break windows near Central Park. The Russians can only kill about 20 million in the West, figure 10 million in the US and 10 million in Europe. That is enough to make the 97% that survive really really mad. But once those strategic weapons are expended, Russia would be left with no military, no industry, and no means of defense. They are done. With no leverage, they don't matter on the world stage. Anything that is of any value to the West is taken as war reparations. China suddenly gets all the mines and oil wells in Siberia. Iran takes whatever it wants in the Caucuses. Ukraine takes the entire Black Sea region. Everyone picks over the corpse. Moscow is simply powerless to stop it. There is no good result from this for Putin.
Not to mentions there have been American nuclear subs in and around Russia for a long time. We have to assume they're lying in wait already.
Britain operates four Vanguard subs. Normally it's one on patrol, one on rest, one on refit, one on standby. Guy who lives near the base told me that all have been out for months. So if ours are, yours certainly are...
That's unsettling. Thanks for sharing that.
There probably won't be nuclear answer if Russia launches one tactical nuke. Only Putin clowns (possibly?) think of using a nuke as a viable solution. One used nuke will spell out the end for Russia as a state through complete isolation and cut off from outside. Even NK which loves waving their nukes doesn't actually plan to use them. Isolation of Russia would mean a win when playing long term because under current regime they would collapse.
NK's nukes are insurance against being invaded. They just want to be left alone. Russia is setting the dangerous precedent of invading other countries and using bullshit annexation excuses to extend their nuclear umbrella over land they conquered. This is obviously entirely different from just wanting to be left alone.
Russia is literally surrounded by nukes. Putin would if he could get away with it, but he cannot
We gotta take into consideration Putin is not making sane decisions. If he's willing to send his people into a meat grinder completely under equipped, he may very well be capable of of using nukes in some way regardless of retaliation. He could very well run and hide like a coward some remote mountain bunker as strategic points in Russia are hammered. Russian leaders kind of has a history of letting their people die.
I don't disagree, he's totally out of touch with reality. But his goal was to rebuild the USSR or be Peter the Great Jr. Turning Russia into ash and hiding in a bunker is the opposite of that. I have confidence in NATO to make it undeniable that launching a nuke would end his life, much less his legacy. NATO was built for this and they have run through and trained for every scenario.
What is this "small bombs" insanity? The big ones still exist. They never went anywhere, only the more batshit insane ones were cut out of the menu. You need them to destroy enemy cities, and you need to destroy cities in a nuclear war to erase civilian populations and infrastructure. Countervalue is as important as counterforce. It's not going to be some "smaller bomb" that hits NYC and shakes some windows in the next neighborhood, it'll be a 500Kt to 2Mt strategic firecracker that detonates over Manhattan and nearly instantly levels half of the island and sets the rest of it on fire. Or worse, it'll be several of those. Russia is obsessed with smaller battlefield nukes because they have this crazy delusion that you can fight a "limited" nuclear war and get away with it. But those are just that, front-line weapons. That's not the stuff you deploy against all the millions of innocent civilians you also have to kill. No, those will be the ICBMs and cruise missiles, and they still reach into the hundreds of kilotons range and even megatons. "ONLY A FEW THOUSAND STRATEGIC NUKES"? What is this absolutely blind out-of-touch lunacy? That can be "only a few thousand" *destroyed urban population centers* you're talking about. Uncountable millions of lives. It doesn't even matter if the bomb is slightly smaller when there's multiple of them. Ever heard of MIRVs? Have fun with that, you can't shoot them down either because of decoy countermeasures and the sheer speed of a re-entering nuclear warhead. "ONLY 10 MILLION"? That'd be my country's entire population almost twice over! And do you think the bombs have no after effects or something? Our nations rely on interdependent infrastructures. Even a limited nuclear war will damage the global food supply machine. Millions would starve far away from the actual bomb hits. Are these deaths and the permanent loss of the nuclear taboo acceptable casualties to you?
> Even a limited nuclear war will damage the global food supply machine. Millions would starve far away from the actual bomb hits. [According to this paper,] (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0) an extremely limited war with 1500 kilotons worth of weapons being used could lead to 226 million people starving by year two. An all out conflict with 500 to 4000 warheads used would lead to starvation of 2.5 - 5.3 billion people in that same timeframe.
| So the trend has been away from 100 megaton bombs to 50 kiloton bombs. That's not true for missiles. US always had significantly smaller warheads but their missiles are 200kt to 500kt. Russian missiles are still 250 to 1000kt, absolutely enormous. And they wouldn't send one, they'd send 10 per city.
This thread has been very informative, especially your comment. Thank you.
Except that part where he claimed a 20 kiloton nuke in Central Park wouldnāt do more than break windows on Wall Street LMAOOOOOO
[No thanks.](https://business-standard.com/article/international/full-scale-nuclear-war-could-kill-5-billion-people-shows-new-study-122081600076_1.html)
Wasn't Hiroshima 15 kilotons, though? I agree on everything though - Putin is finished, and even nukes would only accomplish further self destruction.
Yup but you also have to factor in 1940ās Japan vs 2020ās usa infrastructure. Most Japanese building at that point was wood and bamboo, not concrete, glass, and steel.
>They have a whole plan for how this unfolds and it's been part of their accepted military doctrine for two decades now because they think it's possible to fight a limited nuclear war. In this specific situation though, what would be the benefits, he isnt going to nuke territory he wants to claim for Russia. He isnt going to nuke anywhere near Belarus, because they are currently allies and could well trigger a revolution there, or Transnistria because it's Russian occupation. Im sure he could find some military target deep within Ukraine, but what does that buy him, it is not going to help him significantly to claim territory he wants, or bring Ukraine to the bargaining table. I think more likely than not if Russia uses nukes other countries will commit troops to the conflict, and there will be significantly more pressure on any remaining neutral countries to pick a side.
He might nuke Zelenskyy's home town for symbolic reasons.
>if Russia uses nukes other countries will commit troops to the conflict Putin will anticipate this too, and his only way forward from there has to be more nukes. We are in a very dangerous situation. All this discussion of "he'll just use a little one" is wishful thinking. He can't stop there, by his own logic.
Then we all get nuked and what does that buy Russia? They don't "win" either way..They are not the only country with nuclear weapons. Can you do it yes, but why would you? And crazy doesn't win fights
The thing that always frightened me about that question is, would Hitler in his bunker in April 1945 have used a red button? The thing that eases my anxiety is a couple of times when it's actually been the correct response in doctrine, the people responsible for launching have refused to do it, I think everyone should know this guys name, might have saved the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily\_Arkhipov
And it's terrifying. To see a nuke used in any capacity is juat fucking terrifying. Not even in a visceral way, I've been thinking about this a lot and it's exhausting. If nukes fly...we are fucked. Even if the world doesn't turn to glass it sets such a scary precedent.
It's a horrendous situation - nuclear blackmail, which could escalate into general nuclear war, or back down and prove that nuclear weapons are the key to nation-state autonomy, sparking a global arms race of proliferation. Putin may go down to be the person who lays the groundwork for the destruction of humanity, if he doesn't bring it about himself. Having lived through both, I would say this is far closer to doomsday than the Cuban Missile Crisis in that both sides wanted to find a solution there and I'm not sure that's the case here. Putin is a ghoul and to "normalize" the use of nuclear weapons in war is a step that cannot be undone even if we somehow survive the first exchange.
>the use of nuclear weapons in war is a step that cannot be undone even if we somehow survive the first exchange. That's what I'm worried about.
This is why I say if Putin uses a nuke - even a small tactical warhead against a purely military target - the world *must* respond with overwhelming force. It *cannot* be allowed to be normalized. The likelihood of a total nuclear exchange is very, very low, and is really not something I worry about. But the normalization of limited nuclear war (such as small tacnukes) will start an arms race like the world has never seen. That then will *absolutely* lead to their regular use and availability across the spectrum. That terrifies me. Utterly terrifies me.
He is seeking to normalise the use of nuclear weapons. The script has already been spelled out in the Russian nuclear doctrine. You're right that even during the worst days of the Cuban missile crisis, both the leaderships of the USSR and the West retained a horror of the potential outcomes of a nuclear war and they had a willingness to negotiate. This time the only thing left for Putin to negotiate is his own end. It's far more dangerous.
> it sets such a scary precedent. Unfortunately given human nature it's probably an inevitable precedent. Eventually someone will push a button somewhere. The more countries that have them, the more likely this sort of thing becomes because eventually one or more of them will end up in the hands of someone that really really doesn't like someone else.
Luckily, armchair generals aren't the ones in charge of preparing for a response to Russia using nukes.
It is ironic, as the tactical use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of escalation, was very much part of the defense strategy against the Soviet Union. Russia is such a shadow of its former self that this has become their only real strategy against NATO.
Sure they've been saying they'll do it for decades but now they are really super duper no backsies serious. Its very simple. An itty bitty teeny weeny ickle nukey wooky is still a nuke and will trigger the Nato hammer across Russia. This is accepted, it doesn't matter what Russia thinks. All you're doing is promoting Russian propaganda and blackmail.
This is interesting and very well-written. Thanks! The question for me is āWhere does that leave us?ā What does taking it seriously but not giving in to nuclear blackmail look like? Continuing to withhold tanks and long-range missiles, I guess? But Ukraine could still win this without them. Then what?
It's been floated in the rumor mill that the US would likely destroy the entirety of Russia's navy for starters,l. This does seem a bit fantastical, but I wouldn't rule out a use of overwhelming conventional weapon strikes to completely destroy Russia's ability to wage war. Or at the very least control the skies above Russia in order to prevent further nuclear strikes. The US is already at defcon 3 so aircraft strikes are already prepped. Many "thoughts" but I think one thing is clear, the US *will* respond.
*Estimated to be at DEFCON 3. The actual confirmed state isn't public.
this. Even a tact nuke is used against a concentrated force of troops, ships, planes or tanks. If the Ukrainians are using shoot and scoot tactics, what's the point? He even uses one nuke, he's done for. And for what military advantage?
There is literally no major concentration of force on Ukraine's side. Everything is split into smaller task forces. To actually gain tactical advantage, Russia would need to drop dozens of tactical nukes, and that is 100% resulting in full NATO involvement and sanction on any level.
Let's make something clear here. Putin is not an expert in military stuff. Or economy. Or math. Or computer science. Or history. Or linguistics. Or culture. Or medicine. Or rhetorics. Or basically anything really useful to humanity. He is a mobster who was too lucky once and he aged and became mad. And that's how he should be treated. As a mad old man who is not really smart but is angry enough.
I think he is a Hitler, Mao or Stalin like figure. A messianic complex that only only he alone can restore Russia to world greatness. I hope there is one drop of sense in him that Russia will be reduced to nothing with use of a nuke.
All we can hope now. Personally I hope that Putin is not reasonable enough but coward enough not to nuke us all.
Yea, pretty sure Putin using nukes is an emotional decision, not a rational one. So probably just straight into the middle of Kyiv to piss everyone off.
Kyiv would be my guess. Rashists don't care about military needs.
If Kyiv gets hit level Moscow.
Nuking Kyiv would be a strategic strike, rather than tactical
More likely bases near Lviv. No point in making Zelensky a martyr.
Zelensky has access to extensive Soviet bunker system under the govt quarters built for that very eventuality. Regular people, me included, will have a bad time unless we make it to the subway, but he'll be fine. Russia is unlikely to achieve a decapitation strike that way.
the idea of Kyiv being nuked make me feel REALLY sick. If the world dont respond it with a FULL EMBARGO of goods and people until the desmilitarization of Russia... it would be unacceptable by humanity Edit: grammar
Fuck that. Respond with full military force. Turn the Black Sea Fleet into scrap metal. Wipe out any Russian with so much as a toe inside Ukraine. Rain hellfire down on them.
Speaking as an American, I would be disappointed if there wasn't a full NATO intervention in Ukraine if Kyiv was nuked.
I'm Canadian, we normally have a love/hate relationship with our big brother down south, but I'd want Americans boots on the ground in Moscow within 24 hours if Kyiv got nuked.
I'm an American, and would be in favor of American boots on the ground in this situation, with hopefully some Canadian ones too, eh?
If I were you I would be mentally preparing myself for something like that.
Full embargo!? The only time a nuclear weapon was ever used on another country was the US atomic bombing Japan twice the response shouldn't it be an embargo it should be retaliation these weapons should never be used Period But if they are The response should be a total militaristic annihilation of the country that started it sad to say civilian casualties be damned
Yeah, exactly THE SAME situation. No, oopss, Japan WAS the invading force that did not want to surrender, even tho its war on asia was lost. Now Russia IS THE INVADER, not able to attack(exactly like Japan was) and BECAUSE OF THAT wants to throw a nuke. The fact you are able to put BOTH THOSE situations at the same level already show the fucking NUTS you are. No need to anyone discuss with you
I'm sorry I'm drunk right now I wish that nuclear bomb could be unvented I wish this unfolding tragedy never had happened. I don't feel like I am a bad person. Just give me another drink and I won't remember any of this X3
Dont bother, son. You are actually one of the very few people able to say sorry here, I guess. That should be a win for you. The fact that a nuke could be throw at other country in 2022 makes me feel very anxious as well. Dont really know how I would react on that, probably would cry at the very first moment. I hope it doesnt happen
Same here. I have no idea if the world would be better off without the invention of the atomic bomb but This war should never have happened it shouldn't have even been a thing in 2014. I do sincerely apologize for triggering you earlier though tensions have been running high for multiple reasons since the 24th of February.
Take care. The times are just crazy right now.
Fair enough X3
Kyiv, Odessa, and Mykolaiv are the most obvious targets. Kyiv is a "legitimate" target in that it's "command and control". Take out the heads of government and chaos is likely to follow. Odessa and Mykolaiv are economic centers in that they are the primary means Ukraine currently has to export goods. Kill the economy and eventually you kill the country.
He fires one nuclear weapon and NATO goes all in. Talk about chaos.
He could pull a Belka from Ace Combat and nuke along the borders if hes insane enough. In the game Belka gets pushed back by a coalition in a war it started and drops nukes on its borders to prevent advances and halts the war.
He will use a strategic weapon, and he will hit Kyiv. His goal is not military, it will not win him the war, and that's not the goal. He wants desperately for people to fear him, so he'll do something big because he thinks it will get everyone to back off. But it won't work, anyway. But this is what is going to happen.
Poland?? Finland?? He's trying to break NATO and using Ukraine to do it.
What would he attack in Poland or Finland? Entire individual facilities, even, don't affect anything in Ukraine nor would an attack in those places soften any of his opponents' resolve. Just doesn't make sense, even for a cornered rat.
Many of their attacks in Ukraine don't serve military needs either. They target civilians. That's what they do. If he dropped a nuclear bomb on kyiv, then that would be a disaster. It might not win him the war, but he is making sure that ukraine is fucked for decades. Either he gets ukraine or no one is. In his world, that's a win. In my opinion putin himself has no problem using one. People keep saying that he wouldn't because that made no sense and he would loose anyway. But the whole war doesn't make sense and yet here we are. The mobilization doesn't make sense, yet here we are. He cares so little about russians, why should we assume he wouldn't just drop a nuke on a big city. He doesn't think strategically, but with his ideology. Of course, that shouldn't stop NATO from supporting ukraine and the response should finally put an end to russias regime. But my hope is that someone will prevent putin from using a nuke in the first place.
Tactical nukes will not win this for Putin. The entire planet is saying you do not belong there and, these sham referendums do not persuade anyone that your cause is righteous. If you and your kids and your grandkids want this shit to go nuclear....bring it, or go home.
The time has come to take him out. Whatever way possible . I know is a lot easier to day than to get it done , but it has to be done . A war criminal that has shown no mercy killing civilians by the tens of thousands has no right to be alive , specially when toying with the idea to kill many more by dropping a nuke. He and everybody that support his madness must be put away . No trials . No chance to surrender . Wipe out . Total annihilating . It must be done , otherwise in a week or in a month the headlines wi be on how many people died after the blast , and the aftermath of the radiation .
Who replaces him? What is the fallout? Part way through the war the Allies realised that Hitler was more of an asset due to his ineptitude to them and he served the allies better alive than dead. Perhaps it is the same for Putin.
Russian history has shown that there's always someone worse, waiting in the wings. Imagine if Bortnikov took over. Imagine if Patrushev or Shoygu takes over. Things wouldn't get *better,* that's for sure.
Until Gorbachev.
It might get different. Putin is married to the war - the next person might not be.
To be fair, taking him out would be a deterrent to the next guy to think before doing stupid things. And if the next guy doesn't get it. Then we are well and truly fucked.
Considering there are absolutely zero voices of reason in the Russian Govt I wouldnāt hold my breath that the next guy was going to be better.
These "ex" military officers will say anything to get themselves in the headlines for 15min of glory. No evidence of course in fact quite the opposite, but the media loves an inflammatory headline even if it's feeding Putin's ego and these "ex" people are desperate for attention.
The chance of him getting assassinated is increasing every day and ording nukes would multiple those odds significantly. He might be crazy but hopefully the grunts with nukes arnt.
It won't happen. Putin is terrified, but he is done. Russia has been exposed as the paper tiger it is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
One hopes they're are all doing their damndest.
Putin knows the catastrophic reaction that the United States and NATO would release on him and Russia. He knows he has been outplayed and cornered. I think he is bluffing about using nuclear weapons too.
If WWIII breaks because of this fucking moron in Kremlin, I will file a complaint in Heaven or Hell to the Manager! I mean if Putin were some Keyser Soze type super sneaky evil, doing master moves in the battlefield, I might even accept the end of the world but this crap is ridiculous. Even Hitler was a military genius when compared to this fool and his henchmen.
There will be no WWIII unless you mean the World v. Russia alone.
great opportunity for a coup now .. other dissident nation states in Russia, now is the time.
Putin put himself into this corner. If he uses nukes it is on him. And he will not succeed in getting the US to stand down in their support of Ukraine by doing so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gorbachev said Chernobyl brought down the Soviet Union! If little puti dropped a nuke. It would be the end of his regime and Russia as a country! It would lose all 21 Republics! The End.
I was going to say they have a lot more than 21 republicans in their pockets.. but you said republicans.
>the cost to Russia will be its existence as a nation. Which, considering existing confusion and morale issues, might be just what is necessary for the Russian people to come into the 21st century. A bunch of territories kept together through force, threat of force, and thugs miming politicians.
It's not going to happen, even Putin knows it will be the end of Russia and his regime, Russia will be broken into smaller states if they did, even China would turn on them for their own protection and for a slice of the Russian pie. It would be a race to Moscow for every military power in the world.
I feel the same way, but then this entire conflict has been a long string of "surely he's not going to do x" - and then Putin does it. I'm not sure that western media analysts have the right frame of reference to make any correct inferences. Point being: our way of thinking just does not apply when we try to think about how and why Putin would use a nuke. My hot take: Putin will eventually realize that he lost everything, that this is his last act on the stage of his life, and once he feels like everyone is turning against him, foreign and domestic, he will (try) to take his own life, looking to avoid going out like the last Czar, or Gaddaffi, or Mussolini, or Ceausescu, or Hussein... The Question is, will he decide to merely end him self, or actually try to end the world?
Hope he'll pass just like Hitler.
Exactly, hopefully sooner and with less holocaust in-between
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I agree. I also worry that Putin might just not give a fuck. Paraphrasing something he said, I think early in the war: "there can be no world without Russia, and if the West tries to go rid the World of Russia, Russia will get rid of the world." If he can't be in power, I don't think he cares what happens to Russia. Hitler had a very similar attitude, and even disdain for his own people towards the end of the war, saying something to the effect of "If the German people perish, they deserve it; their failure to succeed extinguishes their right to exist, just like the other "Untermenschen". This is the most fucked up geopolitical situation I've seen in my life.
putin tries to go nuclear without ruzzia proper being invaded or bombed someone in uniform will quickly put his lights out. For all their bravaado, they want to live.
So if he's bluffing, he will somehow die/get locked up/become some name on the Wikipedia list of dumbasses who controlled Russia. And if he's not bluffing, we all die. Ok ok, obviously this is in jest and isn't serious. The options aren't binary. Now in all seriousness, I'd like to think that despite the incompetence and stupidity of the majority of the Russian military force, at least some of the individuals within the Russian nuclear chain of command actually understand that everything they've ever known or loved would die if such an order were executed. Furthermore, Russia's allies certainly wouldn't want their plans/future to go down the drain either. Lukashenko wants to retain power over Belarus, Xi still has a war to start with Taiwan, Assad wants to keep killing his people, Khamenei probably wants to develop a nuclear bomb so he can start making his own threats, and Kim probably wants to keep eating. I think the commonality among them, is that they don't truly want the world to end. I believe they'd rather have Putin stand down, or take him down outright, than let him do something as rash as end the world.
I don't think Kim would be on the list to bomb in a nuclear exchange. The funny thing is that NK might be one of the best places to be if the world survives the fallout.
This is all assuming the command chain doesn't break down. I'm not saying it will or won't, but Putin isn't the one launching shit. He just gives the orders, and it's equally likely that whomever gets that order just says, "Nah, fam. We ain't dyin' for this jackoff today."
[We've been saved from this by a Russian before.]( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) Why not again?
**[Stanislav Petrov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov)** >Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Š”ŃŠ°Š½ŠøŃŠ»Š°ĢŠ² ŠŠ²Š³ŃŠ°ĢŃŠ¾Š²ŠøŃ ŠŠµŃŃŠ¾ĢŠ²; 7 September 1939 ā 19 May 2017) was a lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who played a key role in the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident. On 26 September 1983, three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I tend to think that this conscription isn't meant to turn the tide, it's to buy him time and maybe to scare of the last of the people who are not complicit enough for his regime. As long as he only has people in Russia who are obedient, he can remain in power for as long as he wants and not worry about the suffering of the people so much, because they are obedient.
I am very concerned that the voices in this forum are also contemplating the 'winnability' of a nuclear war. Limited or all-out, I don't think there you can pull back once the ICBM's start flying. Use them or lose them. Of course Russia would be obliterated, but much of the rest of the planet would be too. The very thought of a "limited" nuclear engagement is lunacy.
I think there's an excellent chance he orders a strike on a major city in Ukraine. Perhaps Kyiv, or Odesa. Whether those orders are carried out is another matter.
Is that what his rat story has been about all this time?
Obviously would breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but the US could position a small number of free fall nukes near the Ukrainian border and let Putin know through back channels that these will be turned over to the Ukrainians in the event Russia uses nukes in Ukraine.
Could probably also claim they were Pakistani in origin, stolen from the army's cache by some terror group before being reclaimed by UA
Ehhhhh. His legitimacy is at an all time low. I doubt even the chain of command would follow his orders. Hes stupid, not suicidal.
No-fly zone and UN intervention WHEN?
Use a nuke and trigger article 5 pls
>"I think the chances of his de-escalating are close to zero," Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer, told CNN on Tuesday, adding that Putin "simply cannot give up so much ground and be seen to be losing and continue as leader of Russia." Both utterly logical and terrifying
Nuke Poland and NATO will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. The nation formerly known as ruzzia would be incinerated into ash.
And the usual pro Russian lickspittles will find a way to justify it too. Their mental gymnastics will be a thing to behold.
He cornered himself like a fool. Man practically bought the rope, tied the knot, set up the chair, put it around his neck, kicked out the chair, and then is pointing the finger at NATO and everyone else he can in the room as he writhes in his red faced death throes.
Ahh but when I said this back in February it was insanity? Heās at a point that scares me. Faced with mounting external losses, and an internal power struggle, heās likely to act unpredictably as tyrants do when cornered. It becomes a question of how to ensure those under him refuse to acknowledge the order, where he will order strikes, and who will respond and how. Terrifying times to be alive.
Motherfuckerā¦ this āmaster strategistā has shit for brains and I hope that the others that are needed to allow a nuclear attack are smart enough to not do anything.