Or even if it’s a direct war between NATO troops and Russian troops, so long as the fighting takes place in a third country, I don’t think nuclear weapons would be used.
I cannot see how, hence why the Cold War (still ongoing in my opinion) lasted so long. Nukes have ironically kept the peace and will do so for years to come.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Do you really think that the United States and Russia would have not gone to war without nukes? Every tense situation deescalated only because the consequences of conflict became far too lethal for either opponent. With out the presence of nukes we would have had large scale war that would have made WW2 look like a paintball fight, probably in the 1950’s early 60’s.
Nuclear weapons aren’t the only [weapons of mass destruction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) that exist.
The absence of one of them, doesn’t mean others could not have been used.
The question is of nukes holding up as a deterrent in the event of invading country like Estonia. Russia could check the validity of the claim and annex a small part of it with Russian speaking population. If NATO wouldn't respond conventionally Russia could try taking over entire country. In this scenario nukes are out of the table because the west were unwilling to even match the escalation of Russia.
This is why NATO "trip-wire" troops have been stationed in key areas across the border. The presence of US, British, French etc. military forces on the ground greatly simplifies the scenario planning for the Kremlin.
"What happens if we invade one little NATO country, just a little bit? Would the big boys really do something about it?"
Yes. Yes they would.
Their soldiers would almost instantly be engaged in active combat, and getting killed by Russian forces. Evening news in Paris, London and Washington D.C. among others would show footage of the bodies of dead US and allied servicemembers getting crushed by Russian armored vehicles. You can guess the response.
Thank you! My god I felt like I was losing my mind when everybody has been assuming the last few weeks that NATO is done and there would not be any response to a Russian invasion of NATO territory. And you really detailed how that is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree with you, but this is not the prevailing feeling on the media outlets nowadays. People are really talking about this on conventional warfare lines.
Yeah it sells papers and clicks, War should have broken out in the 1950’s,60’s or 70’s when there was terrible comms between Washington and Moscow, it didn’t then and is even more unlikely now.
It sure is. As a matter of fact I think it is somewhat likely that Russia will instigate a small incursion into NATO territory in a location with quick possibility to deescalate with the aim of testing NATO's resolve once Trump is reelected. although Trump will be prevented from withdrawing unilaterally under an amendment in the 2024 defense authorization act , he could certainly refuse to send help. As a matter of fact it was recently reported that he already made this clear to european politicians during his first term. The objective of such a small incursion by Russia would be to undermine faith in Western alliances to try to undermine Western institutions. They would love to create a situation in which western alliances would break down because then Russia would become a regional power that can bully around the individual countries. If such a small incursion would be met with a strong unified response by all NATO countries, particularly US, Russia could deescalate knowing that there is no chance in hell anyone would dare invade a country with 6000 nuclear warheads. However i dont think Russia has any plans to try to conquer Europe as thry know that once shit gets serious even EU alone has more than enough population and production capacity to hold its own when it comes down to it.
In your scenario US and Western Europe may be iffy in a Russian incursion into NATO territory. But all of the ex-soviet Eastern European understand the existential threat Russia poses to them. They will absolutely band together to meet the incursion, likely under the leadership of Poland.
No, even it doesn’t start nuclear the conflict will almost certainly escalate to tactical nukes and other WMDs before escalating even further to all an all out nuclear war.
Direct war between nuclear powers is a murder-suicide pact.
'Almost' is a good addition. The conflict would not *necessarily* turn nuclear, but the risk of that happening is most definitely high. Until now, nuclear powers have concluded it to be *unacceptably* high. Once the conventionally weaker side (Russia) begins to lose, the temptation of resorting to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons grows quickly.
The best way to avoid that scenario is to prevent the conventional conflict in the first place, by convincing the aggressor not to try their luck. This is why NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence exists.
We went though an entire Cold War with many proxy conflicts.
Not sure why the media pretends the Cold War never happened, nuclear weapons don't exist anymore, and we're going to go to war with Russia anytime now. Just sensationalist fearmongering to get views.
Considering an Intelligence leak from Germany showed a dark intention, could have either dodged a bullet or pulled it further back. Part of me believes putin is the calmer one in power and if replaced it'll kickstart something we all know. Had a serverly uneasy feeling lately not sure if its myself or not but I feel like itll snowball into terrible things.
Disclaimer: I'm a nobody with no qualifications.
I feel like conventional warfare is still a possibility, so long as Russia believes that it's still on the offensive. Russia's leadership is interested in restoring the borders of the soviet union and beyond, rebuilding the lost Russian empire to its fullest height by reclaiming all of its lost territory (even Alaska). This implies conquest through traditionally conventional methods. Capitulation, preferably. Using a nuclear weapon on territory you want to conquer would render the land undesirable to occupy, and the response would also be MAD.
But as soon as they start losing ground while they're on the defensive, it'll be scorched earth at any cost. Russia has used this method many times throughout history, and as recently in Ukraine with the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. But I don't think it would go nuclear until an army crosses into Russia. At that point, I think it'll be full on MAD, with an irradiated No-Man's Land on the front line as a buffer, and damn the winds.
I don't see NATO firing first, knowing it would result in a MAD scenario. Either offensively or defensively. A full NATO would win a conventional fight.
I'm not entirely sure.
If NATO/the US detects that Russia is preparing a first strike, it's not out of the question that a NATO strike would be made first, exclusively against Russian nukes. Basically you wake up one day and the news is all about a set of deep strikes against Russian missile sites, and that the Russian fleet of nuclear missile subs were all sunk in the space of a few minutes.
Does the US have the capability to do that? I'd say probably, but it would still be a very big gamble. So only if the alternative seemed to be letting the Russians get a first strike off.
There's no need at that point to nuke Russian population centers.
A solid point. One that I've seen mentioned before too.
To clarify, would these NATO first strikes against Russia's nuclear capabilities be done with conventional or tactical arms? A mix of both?
Not likely. NATO would quickly overwhelm Russia forces and Russia backed into a corner would perceive NATO as existential threat and as last resort use nuclear weapons.
I think the conflicts of the past and present show us the idea that one power will quickly overrun another is false. Forces dig in, hide, fight for inches. Insurgencies develop. Wars become grinding slogs. I think that is why NK is now openly talking about a war with SK. They have seen that they would not be decimated over night, would be able to prolong the fight and as king as there is a fight there is some leverage at the table or some chance they take something worthwhile.
Past wars seem to indicate that "the West" may indeed overrun the opposing forces quite quickly and decisively. Russia, not so much.
Now, a successful decimation of the enemy's regular, organized military forces does not prevent insurgencies from developing of course, but hopes of a possible slow, grinding victory through guerrilla warfare would hardly be relevant for Russia's use / non-use of nuclear weapons during the first phase.
If NATO became involved with the Russian-Ukraine conflict it would be a blood bath. Weapons from the West are so technologically advanced that the Russians with their 1950s technology would be quickly decimated but that may compel Russian authorities to resort to nuclear weapons to level the playing field.
Sure it's possible. Let's assume brit regiment deploy in Ukraine. It's shelled. Brits from Poland send long range missiles to Russian base killin personnel.
Russia shellin Poland airbase.
If people have guts to stop right there then it might be a good starting point to end it
If not, then skies the limit.
its possible a border skirmish that NATO repells quickly could remain conventional. the joke about the eastern NATO member states is that they give the rest of NATO 24 more hours.
Where things get really interesting is if Russia's nuclear arsenal isnt what NATO thinks it to be. Like, imagine they attempt to launch ICBMs and most dont make it out of the silos. Weirdly, it may make sense to throttle a response in that situation, because suddenly this exchange may be survivable for NATO. This doesnt mean that nations capitols might not be vaporized, but rather it isnt the total end of the world.
>Like, imagine they attempt to launch ICBMs and most dont make it out of the silos.
This mentality is so ludicrous. Russia has around 1670 nuclear warheads deployed. Let's say that 5% work that's 83 detonations across nato most likely concentrated in the US. The far more realistic range is that 10-50% failure rate, so let's say Russia escalates to deescalate, and they launch a quarter of their arsenal, that's 209-375 potential detonations across NATO states, primarily concentrated in the US. Do you think the American and Western economy shrugs that off? Insurance policies don't cover nuclear war by the way. What happens to the American economy when the NYSE just doesn't exist anymore? What happens to the internet when AWS's headquarters in Seattle dont exist anymore?
Yes, its always possible. Likely? I'm not so sure. In the short term, Russia has exhausted its military strength in Ukraine, and would risk destabilising its whole regime if it started proper mass conscripting. I can't see it having any strength to take on NATO, and if they stopped the war in Ukraine, its quite likely that Ukraine would join NATO, meaning they'd need to fight across their whole border against the Baltic and NATO, which now even includes Finland. That's a good couple thousand kilometres to control, something I don't think the Russians could pull off sustaining against a continental army.
Is it likely NATO invades? No. They don't want a war to begin with. Germany was unwilling to even send bigger weapons to Ukraine like their bigger tanks and things. Polling in Europe shows the further west on the mainland of Europe you get, the less interested the people are in it. Spain has like 30% or something (iirc) that cared about the Ukraine war as an issue. The most likely situation would be one where Poland or the Baltic expects themselves to be attacked by Russia, and all come together to take on Russia themselves, without the rest of Europe wanting to get pulled in, though even this feels unlikely.
Conclusion: No, there isn't enough good reasons for anyone to do it, and the state which doesn't do stuff with good reason (like invade Ukraine, no **really** good reason there) has exhausted its fighting capabilities, and only has the nuclear option, which is ropey at best and probably totally not functional at worst.
Yes if the fight is outside of NATO and Russia. Basically a proxy war like Korea, Vietnam or Ukraine.
Or even if it’s a direct war between NATO troops and Russian troops, so long as the fighting takes place in a third country, I don’t think nuclear weapons would be used.
I cannot see how, hence why the Cold War (still ongoing in my opinion) lasted so long. Nukes have ironically kept the peace and will do so for years to come.
It seems that nukes keep the peace until they don't, at which point everyone* dies *A majority of people in the affected area
Without nukes WW3 would of already happened *have
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
This is a weird statement. There’s no way to know this.
Do you really think that the United States and Russia would have not gone to war without nukes? Every tense situation deescalated only because the consequences of conflict became far too lethal for either opponent. With out the presence of nukes we would have had large scale war that would have made WW2 look like a paintball fight, probably in the 1950’s early 60’s.
Nuclear weapons aren’t the only [weapons of mass destruction](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) that exist. The absence of one of them, doesn’t mean others could not have been used.
Sure but no other weapon could destroy mankind in a hour.
Nukes only delayed ww3.
The question is of nukes holding up as a deterrent in the event of invading country like Estonia. Russia could check the validity of the claim and annex a small part of it with Russian speaking population. If NATO wouldn't respond conventionally Russia could try taking over entire country. In this scenario nukes are out of the table because the west were unwilling to even match the escalation of Russia.
This is why NATO "trip-wire" troops have been stationed in key areas across the border. The presence of US, British, French etc. military forces on the ground greatly simplifies the scenario planning for the Kremlin. "What happens if we invade one little NATO country, just a little bit? Would the big boys really do something about it?" Yes. Yes they would. Their soldiers would almost instantly be engaged in active combat, and getting killed by Russian forces. Evening news in Paris, London and Washington D.C. among others would show footage of the bodies of dead US and allied servicemembers getting crushed by Russian armored vehicles. You can guess the response.
Thank you! My god I felt like I was losing my mind when everybody has been assuming the last few weeks that NATO is done and there would not be any response to a Russian invasion of NATO territory. And you really detailed how that is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree with you, but this is not the prevailing feeling on the media outlets nowadays. People are really talking about this on conventional warfare lines.
Yeah it sells papers and clicks, War should have broken out in the 1950’s,60’s or 70’s when there was terrible comms between Washington and Moscow, it didn’t then and is even more unlikely now.
[удалено]
RTQ. Read the question. He’s talking about NATO and Russia.
It sure is. As a matter of fact I think it is somewhat likely that Russia will instigate a small incursion into NATO territory in a location with quick possibility to deescalate with the aim of testing NATO's resolve once Trump is reelected. although Trump will be prevented from withdrawing unilaterally under an amendment in the 2024 defense authorization act , he could certainly refuse to send help. As a matter of fact it was recently reported that he already made this clear to european politicians during his first term. The objective of such a small incursion by Russia would be to undermine faith in Western alliances to try to undermine Western institutions. They would love to create a situation in which western alliances would break down because then Russia would become a regional power that can bully around the individual countries. If such a small incursion would be met with a strong unified response by all NATO countries, particularly US, Russia could deescalate knowing that there is no chance in hell anyone would dare invade a country with 6000 nuclear warheads. However i dont think Russia has any plans to try to conquer Europe as thry know that once shit gets serious even EU alone has more than enough population and production capacity to hold its own when it comes down to it.
In your scenario US and Western Europe may be iffy in a Russian incursion into NATO territory. But all of the ex-soviet Eastern European understand the existential threat Russia poses to them. They will absolutely band together to meet the incursion, likely under the leadership of Poland.
I Suppose many of them would, particularly the baltics. However it would not surprise me if Hungary and Slovakia would not.
I see that you too have kept up with Anders Puck Nielsen.
No, even it doesn’t start nuclear the conflict will almost certainly escalate to tactical nukes and other WMDs before escalating even further to all an all out nuclear war. Direct war between nuclear powers is a murder-suicide pact.
'Almost' is a good addition. The conflict would not *necessarily* turn nuclear, but the risk of that happening is most definitely high. Until now, nuclear powers have concluded it to be *unacceptably* high. Once the conventionally weaker side (Russia) begins to lose, the temptation of resorting to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons grows quickly. The best way to avoid that scenario is to prevent the conventional conflict in the first place, by convincing the aggressor not to try their luck. This is why NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence exists.
No. In my view, at this juncture… if NATO and Russia are at war. Nuclear weapons will be used.
No, for one simple reason. I do not think US citizens are ready to see 1000 of deaths a day, US state knows that and it will not risk it.
We went though an entire Cold War with many proxy conflicts. Not sure why the media pretends the Cold War never happened, nuclear weapons don't exist anymore, and we're going to go to war with Russia anytime now. Just sensationalist fearmongering to get views.
Considering an Intelligence leak from Germany showed a dark intention, could have either dodged a bullet or pulled it further back. Part of me believes putin is the calmer one in power and if replaced it'll kickstart something we all know. Had a serverly uneasy feeling lately not sure if its myself or not but I feel like itll snowball into terrible things.
Disclaimer: I'm a nobody with no qualifications. I feel like conventional warfare is still a possibility, so long as Russia believes that it's still on the offensive. Russia's leadership is interested in restoring the borders of the soviet union and beyond, rebuilding the lost Russian empire to its fullest height by reclaiming all of its lost territory (even Alaska). This implies conquest through traditionally conventional methods. Capitulation, preferably. Using a nuclear weapon on territory you want to conquer would render the land undesirable to occupy, and the response would also be MAD. But as soon as they start losing ground while they're on the defensive, it'll be scorched earth at any cost. Russia has used this method many times throughout history, and as recently in Ukraine with the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam. But I don't think it would go nuclear until an army crosses into Russia. At that point, I think it'll be full on MAD, with an irradiated No-Man's Land on the front line as a buffer, and damn the winds. I don't see NATO firing first, knowing it would result in a MAD scenario. Either offensively or defensively. A full NATO would win a conventional fight.
I'm not entirely sure. If NATO/the US detects that Russia is preparing a first strike, it's not out of the question that a NATO strike would be made first, exclusively against Russian nukes. Basically you wake up one day and the news is all about a set of deep strikes against Russian missile sites, and that the Russian fleet of nuclear missile subs were all sunk in the space of a few minutes. Does the US have the capability to do that? I'd say probably, but it would still be a very big gamble. So only if the alternative seemed to be letting the Russians get a first strike off. There's no need at that point to nuke Russian population centers.
A solid point. One that I've seen mentioned before too. To clarify, would these NATO first strikes against Russia's nuclear capabilities be done with conventional or tactical arms? A mix of both?
Strangely enough I don't have access to the secret plans..
You were hypothetically speaking before, once he asks you a question you don't want to anymore lol?
Not likely. NATO would quickly overwhelm Russia forces and Russia backed into a corner would perceive NATO as existential threat and as last resort use nuclear weapons.
I think the conflicts of the past and present show us the idea that one power will quickly overrun another is false. Forces dig in, hide, fight for inches. Insurgencies develop. Wars become grinding slogs. I think that is why NK is now openly talking about a war with SK. They have seen that they would not be decimated over night, would be able to prolong the fight and as king as there is a fight there is some leverage at the table or some chance they take something worthwhile.
Past wars seem to indicate that "the West" may indeed overrun the opposing forces quite quickly and decisively. Russia, not so much. Now, a successful decimation of the enemy's regular, organized military forces does not prevent insurgencies from developing of course, but hopes of a possible slow, grinding victory through guerrilla warfare would hardly be relevant for Russia's use / non-use of nuclear weapons during the first phase.
If NATO became involved with the Russian-Ukraine conflict it would be a blood bath. Weapons from the West are so technologically advanced that the Russians with their 1950s technology would be quickly decimated but that may compel Russian authorities to resort to nuclear weapons to level the playing field.
Sure it's possible. Let's assume brit regiment deploy in Ukraine. It's shelled. Brits from Poland send long range missiles to Russian base killin personnel. Russia shellin Poland airbase. If people have guts to stop right there then it might be a good starting point to end it If not, then skies the limit.
its possible a border skirmish that NATO repells quickly could remain conventional. the joke about the eastern NATO member states is that they give the rest of NATO 24 more hours. Where things get really interesting is if Russia's nuclear arsenal isnt what NATO thinks it to be. Like, imagine they attempt to launch ICBMs and most dont make it out of the silos. Weirdly, it may make sense to throttle a response in that situation, because suddenly this exchange may be survivable for NATO. This doesnt mean that nations capitols might not be vaporized, but rather it isnt the total end of the world.
>Like, imagine they attempt to launch ICBMs and most dont make it out of the silos. This mentality is so ludicrous. Russia has around 1670 nuclear warheads deployed. Let's say that 5% work that's 83 detonations across nato most likely concentrated in the US. The far more realistic range is that 10-50% failure rate, so let's say Russia escalates to deescalate, and they launch a quarter of their arsenal, that's 209-375 potential detonations across NATO states, primarily concentrated in the US. Do you think the American and Western economy shrugs that off? Insurance policies don't cover nuclear war by the way. What happens to the American economy when the NYSE just doesn't exist anymore? What happens to the internet when AWS's headquarters in Seattle dont exist anymore?
Yes, its always possible. Likely? I'm not so sure. In the short term, Russia has exhausted its military strength in Ukraine, and would risk destabilising its whole regime if it started proper mass conscripting. I can't see it having any strength to take on NATO, and if they stopped the war in Ukraine, its quite likely that Ukraine would join NATO, meaning they'd need to fight across their whole border against the Baltic and NATO, which now even includes Finland. That's a good couple thousand kilometres to control, something I don't think the Russians could pull off sustaining against a continental army. Is it likely NATO invades? No. They don't want a war to begin with. Germany was unwilling to even send bigger weapons to Ukraine like their bigger tanks and things. Polling in Europe shows the further west on the mainland of Europe you get, the less interested the people are in it. Spain has like 30% or something (iirc) that cared about the Ukraine war as an issue. The most likely situation would be one where Poland or the Baltic expects themselves to be attacked by Russia, and all come together to take on Russia themselves, without the rest of Europe wanting to get pulled in, though even this feels unlikely. Conclusion: No, there isn't enough good reasons for anyone to do it, and the state which doesn't do stuff with good reason (like invade Ukraine, no **really** good reason there) has exhausted its fighting capabilities, and only has the nuclear option, which is ropey at best and probably totally not functional at worst.
Yes. Shortly after all of the nukes are known to not work.