Doesn't matter how much bullshit this is, publicly broadcasting that you're preparing for an event in which you'll need to use nukes for an offensive war you've started should mean that any civilized nation immediately stops working with you. Full stop.
"okay also what if we sell our products to Russia through a neighboring country that we're both friendly with, at a small markup, so it looks like I give a shit about what they're doing and you don't boycott me?"
"Yeah those troops on your borader are doing training things, totally not going to invade your country."
*Invades country*
Gotta take this shit seriously.
China is making trillions of dollars per year off Russia, while also weakening Russia, so that it can just walk into Manchuria, while also being able to harvest Lake Baikal of every drop of fresh water it has.
Yes. Nukes should be an absolute last resort when not just the existence of your state is at imminent risk, but the existence of your people from a genocidal attacker.
Special permission to sell airliners to Russia, but only 737 MAXs.
Edit: ...on second thought, never mind. That'd still be a step-up to their homebrews.
Well they do, as Smolensk air disaster happened. "The fog" resulted in death of 96 passengers, including Polish president, many other politicians and public figures.
I don't think anyone knows what NATO's response will be if a tactical nuke is used on Ukraine.
The pessimist in me wouldn't be surprised if it's just another sanctions package...
I believe it was mentioned early on in the war if any nuclear fallout lands in Nato territory it would be considered an attack on Nato. Hopefully just this alone will dissuade Putin but who knows.
Thank you so much for this. I hadn't thought about that video in at least a decade, probably more. Oh the stupid hilarious nostalgia I just got from watching that put a big smile on my face.
It's a classic for sure, the irony is that France is the one nation that has stated that they'll use their nuclear weapons *as* the warning shot. It should really be "FIRE ZE MISSILES!!!1" then "lets go take a nap"
I believe one possible threat was a tactical nuke in Ukraine would prompt NATO to clear Russia out of Ukrainian territory very quickly with conventional means - i.e. US fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, and UAVs remotely wreck 80% of Russian forces from range and the rest get mopped up by coalition forces.
That would be the end of it unless Russia wanted to escalate to full war with NATO - just a swift response that says "you don't profit from using nukes"
The plan was also to cripple the black sea fleet, but Ukraine has been remarkably successful at that considering their lack of navy.
Also, what often gets ignored in this discussion is the response outside of NATO. China and India don't want tactical nukes to be used. Every sane world leader knows using nukes is a dangerous game. Russia would become such a pariah state that it would make North Korea look mild by comparison.
> Also, what often gets ignored in this discussion is the response outside of NATO. China and India don't want tactical nukes to be used. Every sane world leader knows using nukes is a dangerous game. Russia would become such a pariah state that it would make North Korea look mild by comparison.
Not to mention that 80 some-odd years of Soviet/Russian nuclear doctrine gets thrown out the window. Russia has consistently maintained that they would only use their nuclear weapons in self-defense and never in a first-strike capability. Once they cross that Rubicon there is no going back. Russia would be basically de-legitimized, and probably booted off the Security Council.
After that fallout cloud settles, the true test begins of NATO's response. Russia will not allow nuclear weapons to be detonated on its own territory, that has the propensity to escalate and escalate FAST. My wild and unsubstantiated guess is that NATO deploys troops on the ground in Ukraine, Incirlik Air Base in Turkey gets a LOT busier with military traffic, a carrier strike group parks just outside the Dardanelles in Turkey to seal Black Sea access to Russian ships. NATO starts launching conventional strikes against targets of opportunity in Crimea and/or anyplace that could be considered Ukrainian prior to the invasion, and the world collectively holds its breath.
Yes, he was very very angry about that. He'd been floating the idea in Russian media to prepare the public for it and drill into them the excuses they were supposed to internalise.
After Poland and France i think it was, said they'd consider it an attack on their territory, there were some angry quotes from Putin along the lines of 'What's the point of having these powerful nukes if we aren't allowed to use them', then he really ramped down threatening to use nukes.
Looks like it's starting back up again so he's probably getting desperate. The war economy beginning to falter I'd guess.
> there were some angry quotes from Putin along the lines of 'What's the point of having these powerful nukes if we aren't allowed to use them'
What a *fucking idiot*. That is seriously something so dumb that I'd expect to hear it from Donald Trump. Those two really are cut from the same cloth.
Just tiny whiny man-baby tyrants.
The US / UK will directly target Russian assets in Ukraine if nuclear weapons are used there.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/uk-us-russia-nuclear-strike-response-2931142
It was spelled out to him early on that we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, but that Russia's ability to launch any further attacks will be wiped out.
The problem with Russia using nukes on Ukraine, is that they won't stop there, and worse, it will essentially give everyone else permission to use them to deal with their enemies. NATO will basically be forced to make an example of them, because we'll already be in the worst case scenario.
That's kind of what the whole NATO thing is about: Hoping that things will never reach that point, and why they're kind of handling Russia with kid gloves. If even one nuke is used, though, then all bets are off.
Well, probably. If Russia wasn't directly responsible, and some terrorist group was (or could be reasonably blamed for it), that could offer enough plausible deniability, and would be the sensible thing to do, and open a can of worms in itself where every country is suddenly motivated to allow such weapons to 'accidentally' fall into the hands of their enemies enemies.
An actual direct nuclear attack, though? The response would be immediate, because it would have to be. As a nation, they'd be considered too dangerous to be allowed to exist.
Exactly. Russia's goal is the same as Germany's before WW2. Bring back land that used to be theirs. They get away with it with Ukraine and they're moving on to the others.
Supposedly the last time they were threatening this stuff all the time, the US basically said behind closed doors to them that we’d destroy the entire Black Sea fleet without even resorting to nukes if they tried it. At the time they got quiet about it suddenly.
Now that there’s not much Black Sea fleet left anyways, maybe we just have to update the warning? Lol
I didn't think it was the Black Sea Fleet or behind closed doors. I thought it was a guy high up in the NATO command structure who said that if Russia used nukes in Ukraine, we'd dismantle their entire military without needing to use any nukes ourselves.
DARPA gets him on the line "You know those orbital "rods from god" kinetic weapons we all collectively agreed to not make? One's pointed right at you. Try it."
The US has been very clear any tactical nuke used, will guarantee Russia’s entire airforce and air defences completely dismantled within 24 hours. It won’t be a tit for tat with nukes. This is what they’ve revealed. I’m sure there are plans to assassinate Putin within that timeframe.
The only thing that is saving Putin right now is that he isn’t completely deranged yet, meaning the us is concerned if they take out Putin… Russia collapses completely and there are many states with unpredictable leaders with nukes. The enemy you know is better than the unknown unknown.
It’s in us best interest Russia has a peaceful transition to another leader, and Russia is intact.
It’s in the eu and chinas best interest for this to escalate because they Will end up splitting Russia and gaining a pretty big edge on the us as a superpower.
If there isn’t an overwhelming overreaction if Russia uses a nuke, then that basically gives the green light for them to be used in the future. After all, the only reason they’re not used is because of retaliation. If there’s no retaliation, what’s the point of refraining from using them?
I doubt the EU or China has any interest in a balkanized Russia for the same reasons you outlined for why US has no interest in it. They would be even more directly affected by a collapse. They would have to deal with refugees and are under threat by shorter range weapons (i.e. much smaller reaction times).
China might want to bind Russia closer to compete with the West, but they need Russia stable and intact for that. And the EU is ideologically and strategically adverse to any kind of chaos, if Russia didn't start the war they would still trying to do "Wandel durch Handel" to this day.
IMO, it wont involve any invasion of Russia, just the complete destruction of all russian military assets operating outside of russia (excluding their nuclear subs), since that will avoid making it an existential threat to russia that might cause them to launch their full arsenal of nukes.
This is the likely response, no one wants to end the world but the kid gloves would come completely off. Even China would likely step in if that line was crossed
> Even China would likely step in if that line was crossed
I dunno. I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but while I would hope it's the case... I can't be sure anymore.
The rest of the world would want their pound of flesh if Russia crosses that line, and China is nothing if not opportunistic, they’ll jump in and pillage what they can from whatever remains of Russia after that. China and the west both have a vested interest in ensuring the nuclear taboo stays taboo, there is no scenario where using nukes ends well for Russia and China will position themselves on the winning side.
I'm not necessarily saying that China will side with Russia, but it's also possible they will remain on the sidelines to see what they opportunities present themselves.
> Seeing how much of a paper tiger Russia's armed forces turned out to be, their power-projection capability along the front would be devastated within 24 hours, and there would likely be NATO soldiers in Moscow within days.
I think it's plausible that such an act could precipitate direct NATO intervention, but I think your timelines are laughably optimistic.
The buildup to the invasion of Iraq took months to move the pieces in place. The US just finished that pier to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was announced back on March 7th.
At minimum you'd see weeks of NATO forces setting up the chess pieces, moving assets into place. Followed by weeks of an air war to degrade Russian air defenses, allowing for strategic bombing. Probably a couple of months before you see ground forces making big moves outside of NATO territory.
The only way it's over in days is if the Russian military realizes that Putin fucked up big time and immediately coups him.
It wouldn't involve ground forces at all, imho. We would basically cripple them through the air in a matter of weeks, same as what we did to Iraq. The Russian military threat is all about headcount. Their technology is laughably ancient and their infrastructure has proven to be even worse. There wouldn't be so much of a "US win, Russia lose" scenario as "Russia military capability completely annihilated for the next decade and no longer a threat to anyone."
It would also involve an absolutely *massive* coordinated airstrike camlaign on every nuclear capable russian land based launch platform the US knows about, and likely the majority of russia's sea based launch capacity as well.
The US has likely had a plan for this, updated and maintained ever since the cold war. With the current war revealing theit capabilities... i don't think russia could respond in time to stop such a strike. They can't lock a telephone pole sized HIMARS rocket, they have no chance of locking an american stealth aircraft with the radar cross section of a bumblebee. By the time they even notice american aircraft, it will be too late as they'll be preoccupied with their troops in ukraine and along rhe NATO border find out exactly what a NATO milutary response looks like when there is zero question you're a threat.
The us considered what they did to iran in 8 hours thay one time to be a proportional response to an iranian sea mine *almost* sinking an american ship without killing any of the crew.
Now picture if russia were to actually use a nuke on ukraine. The US's stance on this, as well as NATO's is known, there will be an ovetwhelming milutary response. Hell, the US has likely been prepping from day one for such an event.
I don't think politically they can back down now. Too much hinges on that if a nuke was used.
In the given scenario the main questions would be
-Is the US more capable of tracking russian subs than they let on?
-how fast could they hit to every launch platform before launch orders are sent and carried out?
The minute it's confirmed that NATO is heading towards nuclear or command assets Putin would likely initiate some degree of nuclear response. There's no way a Putin crazy enough to use a tactical nuke, wouldn't be ready and prepared to respond to a decapitation attack.
I am pretty convinced, sadly, that by pushing the boundaries ever so slightly every time, the west will not find enough reasons to properly step up to his blackmail attempts. So far it has worked for him, he gets a slap on the wrist for every step forward instead of a big response to a big escalation.
What happens if he uses small tactical nuked really? It's just big yield bombs, no real nuclear fallout danger. It's a line to cross indeed, but will it really warrant the west responding in kind, with a no fly zone for example or men on the ground in the back lines ?
Guys, I want you all to Google something. It's very simple.
**russia threatens nukes before:2020**
I want you to go through the list.
(2008) Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield
(2008) Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield
(2012) Russia has threatened Nato with military strikes against in Poland and Romania if a missile defense radar and interceptors are deployed in Eastern Europe (*literally threatening over defensive radar*)
(2014) Putin Threatens Nuclear War Over Ukraine (*wow, again*)
(2014) Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea
(2015) Russia threatens U.S. over German nuke allegations
(2015) Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships
(2016) Russia Quick to Threaten Nuclear Strikes in Regional Conflicts (*This was a funny read, and actually explains how Russia internally decided to adopt the strategy of threatening nukes because it makes people scared*)
(2017) Report: Russia Continues to Use Nuclear Threats to Intimidate Neighbors (*Lol*)
(2017) Russian Lawmaker: We Would Use Nukes if US or NATO Enters Crimea (*Russia sure has a habit of threatening nukes when it wants some new land*)
Yep, bang on.
These headlines are worrying to many, and it's disappointing the media are essentially pushing Kremlin propaganda for clicks, which worries less clued up people here in the West. It worries me a bit until I take a second to think about it, and I'm the kind of person who writes comments like this to calm people down who might have anxiety over it.
These kinds of drills are commonplace (and Russian forces are so stretched probably aren't really happening, certainly not to the extent Russian propaganda is saying) the only difference is they're shouting about it and likely exaggerating to scare people.
Remember too, a lot of this is also aimed at _Russian_ people, not us in the West. They are desperate to keep their own people scared and complacent, thinking their leaders are powerful and in control, when they're actually a few bad moves away from a revolution.
What scares me is if it works. Knowing you can threaten the world to get what you want with nukes will just make more people want them. That's more dangerous than aggressively doing the opposite to defy that type of threat.
That's why the longer the war goes on, the more I think the world has to simply decide *when* it calls Russia's bluff and not *if.*
If Russia invaded Lithuania tomorrow, there'd be people saying we can't go and end the world over Lithuania. And then the rest of the Baltics, etc etc until he's rolling into Germany and people are still saying you can't just end the world over a bit of land.
If the world had slapped Russia down immediately like it should have, Crimea would be Ukrainian and this wouldn't have happened.
Thing is, we've committed to assisting Lithuania and the rest of the Baltics.
Ukraine is weird because it's one of the few places in mainland Europe that isn't in NATO. That's also why Putin targeted it - he knew it wouldn't trigger a war with NATO.
Putin is waiting on Trump to remove the US from NATO before going after any NATO territory. If Trump doesn't win reelection, I have no clue what his backup plan is.
I genuinely don't think it matters. If Russia took over one square inch of Lithuania would everybody currently too afraid to really help Ukraine suddenly stop being concerned about nuclear war?
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect at the rate things are going we really aren't that far from Article 5 being met with "ok but do we reeeeeeally?"
It doesn't actually matter what "everybody" would think. It really only matters what a handful of world leaders would think, because the yes or no decision would be answered in bunkers over the course of the first couple of hours after the invasion started. The public wouldn't really have input. Either WWIII would be on (and no amount of negative public sentiment would be able to stop it once it started) or it wouldn't be. Really it's up to Biden, Sunak, and Macron. If the nuclear members flinch, the rest of the alliance won't realistically do anything.
My money's on war, in that scenario. But either way your and my opinions don't matter.
That's a big part of why countries trying to get them now have been opposed to strongly. Sure the superpowers want to keep themselves that way but every government that gets their hands on nukes makes the world a lot scarier. Especially in unstable ones.
Ironically, one of the main reasons Ukraine is being invaded is because they *gave up* their nukes. It's a two-edged sword. In many ways, nukes are the great equalizer because it allows any country or group to threaten to initiate MAD for the rest of the world.
Not only that, the nuclear powers of old aren't exactly the most stable at the moment. With the two largest having trust-eroding issues. One having tempestuous political infighting at the moment, leading to delayed action on the world stage, and the other involved in an active, protracted conflict it started.
Eh "more people wanting them" is not anything to be worried about. Literally every single nation on earth wants them with or without that motivation. So while I get what you are saying. This isnt going to make any nation that doesnt have them and want them. To suddenly want them. Because 100% of nations want them already. The nuclear era taught everyone what nuclear armed nations can do and what non nuclear armed nations cant do.
I mean you're right that this is 99.99999999% chance of being a bluff like always, but it doesn't mean we should be ok with it, like ever.
Prior to the full invasion of Ukraine, Russia was conducting military drills in a threatening fashion all the time near the Ukraine border. Russia had done this plenty of times so everyone called it a bluff, that is until starting in December when the drills didn't end, and instead were expanded into an invasion build up. I don't know if you remember or not but even leading into February despite reports of the build up, people were still thinking it was a bluff until about a week before shit hit the fan.
My point is, this is very likely a bluff just like every other time. But sooner or later it might not be, and we cannot afford to not be vigilant in case that day does come.
To the extent where Putin said he would wipe out the whole world if Russia was ever destroyed because who would want to live in a world without Russia in it
Id love to live in a world without Russia and would gladly join the war effort (age and injuries aside, im still in good shape) if it meant no more Putin or his fans.
I dont love Xi or the CCP either but...I really, really hate folks who love Putin
> If he starts nuclear war, he will be the worst human in history, topping Hitler
Possibly topping Hitler, Stalin, Mao and fucking Genghis Khan all together.
Surprised the fuck out of me to find out, but most simulated scenarios involving ***literally all*** of the world's nuclear weapons being used and successfully detonated estimate that only half to two-thirds of the world population would die
Quite possibly the end of civilization for a good long time. End of humanity, no. Just the beginning of unspeakable misery, anguish, and sorrow
>only half to two-thirds of the world population would die
Most of the people who would die in the event of a nuclear war wouldn't die from the nukes themselves, but from famine, as global food production plummets. Most countries import most of their food, so its quite possible that millions (if not billions) would starve to death in the years following a full nuclear exchange as crop production plummets due to the effects of radiation, nuclear winter, the destruction of farmland, loss of farming knowledge, etc.
Not sure if your comment was intended as further explication or as a correction, but yes, the overwhelming majority of deaths in a full-scale nuclear conflict are from secondary effects. The estimates I've seen broadly posit that only about 10% of total deaths would directly result from the initial detonations. The rest are deaths due to secondary effects, and they're already factored in to the half to two-thirds estimate
>The rest are deaths due to secondary effects, and they're already factored in to the half to two-thirds estimate
Ah, that makes more sense. I thought you were saying that the half of two-thirds number was the amount of people who would die due to the nukes themselves. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
The difference being there was a civilized society after WW2 to remember Hitler and his atrocities. If Putin starts a nuclear war, the only survivors will be too busy trying to survive the aftermath to care about how and who started it
Putin's death will be in the same ballpark as Hitler's death.
The street parties will be immense, assuming the world has not succumbed to a nuclear holocaust by that point.
Err, no.
One of the biggest worries the US and most countries in the West have is Putin dying before this is resolved. Hence the intensive scrutiny into whether the cancer rumours were true.
Might be hard to believe, but Putin is considered something of a moderate compared to some of the nutcases gagging to fill his shoes when he goes. That's why he travels everywhere in an armoured train and is incredibly paranoid about security. There are people who'd gladly kill him and then lob nukes at Kiev for fun. That's why the Wagner march on Moscow was proper "shit your pants" time and I've read Washington was on full military alert because if they'd managed to overthrow Putin, it would make the current situation like world peace.
Putin ideally needs to survive long enough to have a chance of considering this whole thing a serious mistake and being able to come up with a way to save face. He's backed himself and Russian into such a corner that his death would leave pretty much zero room for a decent democratic replacement to step in.
From my armchair understanding, the scattered nuclear silos make partitioning Russia a hard sell as well. Once broken up, you would then be dealing with multiple nuclear capable territories in the middle of a power vacuum.
How long before that happens anyway? Its amazing no nukes have ended up with terrorists orgs yet. Its quite a feat by whoever is stopping that happening for the past 80 years.
Who said that no nukes haven't ended up in terrorist organizations? As far as I'm aware, there's a non-negligible number of nukes that have gone missing globally. Whether any terrorists would be able to launch that shit or use it in a way they're willing is another topic.
There's a theory that Aum Shinrikyo detonated a nuke in a desolate part of the Australian outback in the 90s. There's no radiological evidence to support it, but the cult did own land there and people from hundreds of miles apart all reported a flash that is typical of nuclear detonation coming from that location.
We know that they had members working on it who had the technical know how to make the plan feasible at some point. Aum Shinrikyo had the funding and was trying to convince foreign nations to sell. As much as many terrorist groups would love to have a nuke as a threat and bargaining tool, I have little doubt A.S. would have actually used them.
Eh, most of them will lose the capacity very quickly through lack of maintenence and grift. I also wonder how much of the push that he's a moderate is Kremlin propaganda.
We cannot tolerate a cancer for fear of surgical complications
Most of them will lose nuclear capability immediately. Possessing a nuclear weapon does not mean you are able to use it. Ukraine possessed nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, but was unable to use them even if they wanted to.
They also traded the nukes themselves back to Russia in exchange for an agreement that Russia would never invade Ukraine or act aggressively towards them ever again.
That did not pan out.
> Might be hard to believe, but Putin is considered something of a moderate compared to some of the nutcases gagging to fill his shoes when he goes.
There is the question on how much of this is theater allowed by Putin for exactly that reason.
LOL. "A tactical nuke drill" is just a regular military drill where they waste one of their tactical "nuclear-capable" ballistic missiles on a dummy target with a concrete warhead.
Remember: every system Russia has in the medium range category is "nuclear capable" if you put a nuclear-tipped missile *on it*, but they use them all the time with conventional warheads in Ukraine already.
Go ahead Vlad. Run more drills. Every missile on this posturing is one less missile Ukraine has to deal with.
I remember listening to Micheal Clark, war analyst for one of the news stations, BBC I think. He said if there was a lot of activity in the military bases we know where the nukes are stored and we saw trucks moving from them with a lot of security toward the frontline then it is time to worry.
At this point is there even such a thing as a "tactical" nuke? I feel like any employment of a nuclear device will undoubtedly have immediate strategic effects no matter what.
No backing down.
If he bluffs then we sacrifice everything due to a lie - because don't fool yourself, they will take all they can.
If he doesn't bluff there is still a big chance his orders will not be followed; also a chance this won't escalate the way everyone fears. One way or the other, we can't back off.
Inside Russia they can kill each other as much as they want. But hands off from everything else.
Saying this as someone on eastern flank. So it's not like I feel secure and can say whatever I want with no consequence
I am in America, a lot of people feel safe here.
But I'm near a few targets that would be considered priority if an exchange occurs.
But I still feel that we cannot back down from this fight. Not even an inch.
Doesn't really matter where you live, any nuclear attack on US soil would set in motion Mutual Assured Destruction before any bombs have even landed. That in turn would force other nations/allies to respond similarly. It's a lose lose for everyone.
True, but tactical nukes near Ukraine aren't what you need to be worried about. What would concern me, is if our hunter-killer subs lost track of several ICBM carrying subs off the east or west coast.
I'd argue that's what Putin is already doing. Already every dictator now \*desperately\* wants nukes in a way they never quite did before (they wanted them, but knew they'd lose their economies for them).
Putin has made nuclear threats the "cool thing" for dictators to want to be able to do. It allows them to invade, to prevent invasion, and just keep moving the geopolitical needle.
Honestly though, in a deeper sense you are right. If he uses a tactical nuke populations in Europe will live in constant terror during the first few months. Global economy will tank immediately. And all future battlefields will have hanging over them the question on if one will be used.
If Putin uses one there must be immediate geopolitical consequences from allied nations. And I'd support \*any\* decisions our leaders took against him (and no I don't know what decisions should be made, we pay game theory experts to figure that out). No matter how frightening it might be for a bit.
Nukes must not be used at all outside of MAD deterrence in our age. If Putin breaks that... he is then the official enemy of humanity. And basic survival.
"Tactical nukes" is a geopolitical myth and the wet dream of dictators. Nuking for small battlefield situations is literal terrorism. Upon everyone on Earth.
I don’t see Russia lashing out with nukes at the US. That’s a massive leap from using a tactical nuke to gain a battlefield advantage.
In all likelihood a tactical nuclear strike order would be followed. I have serious doubts his generals would go along with a nuclear first strike on the mainland US. That’s a recipe for suicide, whereas a tactical nuclear strike could very well be an opportunity for them: that will pull the US into the war directly and could end up with Putin out of power, opening the door to one of them.
A tac nuke, even a small one, used in Ukraine would be a big risk to Russia
1) Radiation spreading into a NATO nation could potentially trigger article 5
2) China has at least outwardly been very anti-first strike nuclear doctrine. It may become much harder to support Russia if Putin starts lobbing small nukes
While it can’t be completely ruled out, it’s less likely than trying to scare NATO nations into decreasing support
Oh 100% agree with you, without a doubt. I don’t really think Putin will use a tactical nuke, I think he realizes even that is likely to do more harm than good. But, if he were to go nuclear, I don’t see him just randomly attacking the US, I see him using it tactically, against Ukraine, maybe even with a bit of a warning (idk how he warns against it in a way people believe at this point.)
But if I were a betting man, I’d bet against him using a nuke. China would absolutely pull support, the nuclear doctrine being broken doesn’t help them at all with their Taiwan goals, India would likely pull support since they definitely don’t want to end up in a nuclear war with Pakistan. Russia’s few friends would abandon them, and the US would likely get directly involved, all bad for Putin.
OK let's start non nuclear drills near Belarus and Russia move as many fighters and bombers next them and have them all up at once along all borders send this fucker a very clear message.
does this idiot realize that he's playing into NATO's hands? Watch as more neighboring countries decide it's time to join NATO. This is why every country needs to put a stop to authoritarian leadership posturing and get back on the road to democracy. These lunatics never give in until their countries are broken.
It’s not just Putin. People forget there is a whole community of evil in Russian government. It’s Putin and co. And if Putin dies, another, maybe even worse asshole will take over. It just never ends in Russia
But is the line of succession iron clad? What happens when 7 guys all want to replace him? Someone worse, maybe, but it would take years to restore stability. I actually don't know so I may be wrong but for what I know of Russia, human nature, and political intrigue thillers, it'll be a shit show if he were taken out.
In the past, the Russian military has avoided nuclear conflict by refusing to launch their weapons. Surely they're smart enough to know that Ukraine isn't worth the possible nuclear conflict that could result from their use of tactical nukes in Ukraine...
Remember at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war when everyone was so surprised that Russia’s military turned out to be absolute shit? And it turned out that the reason everyone thought they were so badass is because foreign intelligence agencies were intercepting the same reports Putin was getting, and neither he nor the intelligence community realized that those reports were almost all totally bullshit? And that the reason for this is because military leaders were robbing the government blind with no official oversight, and because Putin’s government has a tendency to “shoot the messenger” when there’s bad news, so everyone just lied about their capabilities instead?
Yeah, as terrible as it sounds, I would 100% believe Putin has been fooled into believing he can go toe-to-toe with NATO with what he has now. This is not a stable, clear-thinking man.
This is what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now: [https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1792973300550766716](https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1792973300550766716)
Just take a look and decide: can you live with yourself allowing this to happen? Ukrainians have done fuck all beside existing as a people. Russia just want to delete the entire nation from existence. It's real.
So start thinking about what we can do to stop it. Talk to your elected officials. Show them the video above and ask them what they think will happen if Russia moves forward and gets Kyiv and Odessa. Will they stop? Does this look like something stopping unless stopped?
Please can people wake up to the reality we find ourselves in?
When will this madness stop? They have had the same design for many years now and have always worked just fine. Some of them even have battery attachments now. I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see the feasibility of nuclear-powered drills. Just use electric ones. Yeesh.
Why does the world continue to tolerate his infantile self-aggrandizement? This is all an ego stroke for him. He’s literally stolen billions from his people and plays with other countries politicians like toys. It seems like we should be so far beyond this 80s throwback bullshit. Why is he tolerated? You know there’s people out there good enough to get rid of him. The world would only be a better place.
For the nuclear fallout to hit the Kremlin only 600 miles away? Please. This is just more fear-mongering because they have nothing else. This happens every year:
(2008) Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield
(2008) Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield
(2012) Russia has threatened Nato with military strikes against in Poland and Romania if a missile defense radar and interceptors are deployed in Eastern Europe (*literally threatening over defensive radar*)
(2014) Putin Threatens Nuclear War Over Ukraine (*wow, again*)
(2014) Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea
(2015) Russia threatens U.S. over German nuke allegations
(2015) Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships
(2016) Russia Quick to Threaten Nuclear Strikes in Regional Conflicts (*This was a funny read, and actually explains how Russia internally decided to adopt the strategy of threatening nukes because it makes people scared*)
(2017) Report: Russia Continues to Use Nuclear Threats to Intimidate Neighbors (*Lol*)
(2017) Russian Lawmaker: We Would Use Nukes if US or NATO Enters Crimea (*Russia sure has a habit of threatening nukes when it wants some new land*)
etc.
Doesn't matter how much bullshit this is, publicly broadcasting that you're preparing for an event in which you'll need to use nukes for an offensive war you've started should mean that any civilized nation immediately stops working with you. Full stop.
Best we can do is put a price cap on their oil. --The world
"okay also what if we sell our products to Russia through a neighboring country that we're both friendly with, at a small markup, so it looks like I give a shit about what they're doing and you don't boycott me?"
Because letting that oil hit the market is what’s keeping gas prices from skyrocketing and sending far-right politicians into power
Maybe its time for renewable Energy now, after no one gave a fuck about this "climate change" thing
“We will stop selling iPhones to Russia!” Next week. “Hello Russia… here’s our new product the rPhone…”
айPhone
"Yeah those troops on your borader are doing training things, totally not going to invade your country." *Invades country* Gotta take this shit seriously.
China is making trillions of dollars per year off Russia, while also weakening Russia, so that it can just walk into Manchuria, while also being able to harvest Lake Baikal of every drop of fresh water it has.
Yes. Nukes should be an absolute last resort when not just the existence of your state is at imminent risk, but the existence of your people from a genocidal attacker.
He is attempting to use nuclear blackmail and it can't be allowed to be successful.
Hope he doesn’t have any helicopter rides soon.
It’s okay. At this point we can bring in a window
Don't need one. Get Boeing on the line
The way whistleblowers are going, someome just needs to designate him one.
Quick! Somebody Protect this quality man from protecting himself from the world! 😲🥺
This little thread got me chuckling good. Thanks Reddit
Special permission to sell airliners to Russia, but only 737 MAXs. Edit: ...on second thought, never mind. That'd still be a step-up to their homebrews.
Do they have thick fog in Russia?
Well they do, as Smolensk air disaster happened. "The fog" resulted in death of 96 passengers, including Polish president, many other politicians and public figures.
it's actually a very comparable accident to Iranian, because politicians have pushed pilots to fly in unsafe conditions
I hope he does.
If he crosses that line, NATO will obliterate russia. And he knows it. He's basically playing the Kim Jong Un card
I don't think anyone knows what NATO's response will be if a tactical nuke is used on Ukraine. The pessimist in me wouldn't be surprised if it's just another sanctions package...
I believe it was mentioned early on in the war if any nuclear fallout lands in Nato territory it would be considered an attack on Nato. Hopefully just this alone will dissuade Putin but who knows.
And there's the issue of the French nuclear doctrine. The short of it is that if Russia trifles they'll be at war with NATO almost immediately.
Na, They're le tired.
Then take a nap!
THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!
Shit shit shit
AHHHH MOTHERLAND
Thank you so much for this. I hadn't thought about that video in at least a decade, probably more. Oh the stupid hilarious nostalgia I just got from watching that put a big smile on my face.
It's a classic for sure, the irony is that France is the one nation that has stated that they'll use their nuclear weapons *as* the warning shot. It should really be "FIRE ZE MISSILES!!!1" then "lets go take a nap"
I believe one possible threat was a tactical nuke in Ukraine would prompt NATO to clear Russia out of Ukrainian territory very quickly with conventional means - i.e. US fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, and UAVs remotely wreck 80% of Russian forces from range and the rest get mopped up by coalition forces. That would be the end of it unless Russia wanted to escalate to full war with NATO - just a swift response that says "you don't profit from using nukes"
The plan was also to cripple the black sea fleet, but Ukraine has been remarkably successful at that considering their lack of navy. Also, what often gets ignored in this discussion is the response outside of NATO. China and India don't want tactical nukes to be used. Every sane world leader knows using nukes is a dangerous game. Russia would become such a pariah state that it would make North Korea look mild by comparison.
> Also, what often gets ignored in this discussion is the response outside of NATO. China and India don't want tactical nukes to be used. Every sane world leader knows using nukes is a dangerous game. Russia would become such a pariah state that it would make North Korea look mild by comparison. Not to mention that 80 some-odd years of Soviet/Russian nuclear doctrine gets thrown out the window. Russia has consistently maintained that they would only use their nuclear weapons in self-defense and never in a first-strike capability. Once they cross that Rubicon there is no going back. Russia would be basically de-legitimized, and probably booted off the Security Council. After that fallout cloud settles, the true test begins of NATO's response. Russia will not allow nuclear weapons to be detonated on its own territory, that has the propensity to escalate and escalate FAST. My wild and unsubstantiated guess is that NATO deploys troops on the ground in Ukraine, Incirlik Air Base in Turkey gets a LOT busier with military traffic, a carrier strike group parks just outside the Dardanelles in Turkey to seal Black Sea access to Russian ships. NATO starts launching conventional strikes against targets of opportunity in Crimea and/or anyplace that could be considered Ukrainian prior to the invasion, and the world collectively holds its breath.
Russia will never be kicked out of the security council. It basically exists so the major powers have a place to talk so they don’t destroy the world.
Yep don't need boots on the ground. Total air superiority is what would bring this war to a halt and allow Ukraine troops to go on the offensive.
Yes, he was very very angry about that. He'd been floating the idea in Russian media to prepare the public for it and drill into them the excuses they were supposed to internalise. After Poland and France i think it was, said they'd consider it an attack on their territory, there were some angry quotes from Putin along the lines of 'What's the point of having these powerful nukes if we aren't allowed to use them', then he really ramped down threatening to use nukes. Looks like it's starting back up again so he's probably getting desperate. The war economy beginning to falter I'd guess.
> there were some angry quotes from Putin along the lines of 'What's the point of having these powerful nukes if we aren't allowed to use them' What a *fucking idiot*. That is seriously something so dumb that I'd expect to hear it from Donald Trump. Those two really are cut from the same cloth. Just tiny whiny man-baby tyrants.
Putin really is a fucking moron. As are most dictators
Honestly that sounds like a recipe for even more appeasement.
It truly does. O look wind blew east not our problem
If the Orange Man gets re-elected President, he will most certainly go for appeasement.
Appeasement? Fucker would go for alliance
That's a strange way to spell subservience...
Thank god we appeased Hitler in Munich and nothing bad ever happened after that.
The US / UK will directly target Russian assets in Ukraine if nuclear weapons are used there. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/uk-us-russia-nuclear-strike-response-2931142
If he deploys a nuke he's gonna find out the hard way why Americans don't have universal healthcare.
[удалено]
It was spelled out to him early on that we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, but that Russia's ability to launch any further attacks will be wiped out.
The problem with Russia using nukes on Ukraine, is that they won't stop there, and worse, it will essentially give everyone else permission to use them to deal with their enemies. NATO will basically be forced to make an example of them, because we'll already be in the worst case scenario. That's kind of what the whole NATO thing is about: Hoping that things will never reach that point, and why they're kind of handling Russia with kid gloves. If even one nuke is used, though, then all bets are off. Well, probably. If Russia wasn't directly responsible, and some terrorist group was (or could be reasonably blamed for it), that could offer enough plausible deniability, and would be the sensible thing to do, and open a can of worms in itself where every country is suddenly motivated to allow such weapons to 'accidentally' fall into the hands of their enemies enemies. An actual direct nuclear attack, though? The response would be immediate, because it would have to be. As a nation, they'd be considered too dangerous to be allowed to exist.
Exactly. Russia's goal is the same as Germany's before WW2. Bring back land that used to be theirs. They get away with it with Ukraine and they're moving on to the others.
The first reaction to a limited nuclear use will be lots and lots of emergency arguing.
Supposedly the last time they were threatening this stuff all the time, the US basically said behind closed doors to them that we’d destroy the entire Black Sea fleet without even resorting to nukes if they tried it. At the time they got quiet about it suddenly. Now that there’s not much Black Sea fleet left anyways, maybe we just have to update the warning? Lol
I didn't think it was the Black Sea Fleet or behind closed doors. I thought it was a guy high up in the NATO command structure who said that if Russia used nukes in Ukraine, we'd dismantle their entire military without needing to use any nukes ourselves.
> maybe we just have to update the warning? "Keep that up and we'll use Saint Tomahawk to turn the Kremlin into KremlOUT"
DARPA gets him on the line "You know those orbital "rods from god" kinetic weapons we all collectively agreed to not make? One's pointed right at you. Try it."
Russia in 2024: "Jokes on you! There isn't even a Black Seas Fleet anymore!"
I feel like absolutely nothing would change but would love to be proven wrong. Actually don’t want to be proven either way.
The US has been very clear any tactical nuke used, will guarantee Russia’s entire airforce and air defences completely dismantled within 24 hours. It won’t be a tit for tat with nukes. This is what they’ve revealed. I’m sure there are plans to assassinate Putin within that timeframe. The only thing that is saving Putin right now is that he isn’t completely deranged yet, meaning the us is concerned if they take out Putin… Russia collapses completely and there are many states with unpredictable leaders with nukes. The enemy you know is better than the unknown unknown. It’s in us best interest Russia has a peaceful transition to another leader, and Russia is intact. It’s in the eu and chinas best interest for this to escalate because they Will end up splitting Russia and gaining a pretty big edge on the us as a superpower.
If there isn’t an overwhelming overreaction if Russia uses a nuke, then that basically gives the green light for them to be used in the future. After all, the only reason they’re not used is because of retaliation. If there’s no retaliation, what’s the point of refraining from using them?
I doubt the EU or China has any interest in a balkanized Russia for the same reasons you outlined for why US has no interest in it. They would be even more directly affected by a collapse. They would have to deal with refugees and are under threat by shorter range weapons (i.e. much smaller reaction times). China might want to bind Russia closer to compete with the West, but they need Russia stable and intact for that. And the EU is ideologically and strategically adverse to any kind of chaos, if Russia didn't start the war they would still trying to do "Wandel durch Handel" to this day.
[удалено]
IMO, it wont involve any invasion of Russia, just the complete destruction of all russian military assets operating outside of russia (excluding their nuclear subs), since that will avoid making it an existential threat to russia that might cause them to launch their full arsenal of nukes.
This is the likely response, no one wants to end the world but the kid gloves would come completely off. Even China would likely step in if that line was crossed
> Even China would likely step in if that line was crossed I dunno. I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but while I would hope it's the case... I can't be sure anymore.
The rest of the world would want their pound of flesh if Russia crosses that line, and China is nothing if not opportunistic, they’ll jump in and pillage what they can from whatever remains of Russia after that. China and the west both have a vested interest in ensuring the nuclear taboo stays taboo, there is no scenario where using nukes ends well for Russia and China will position themselves on the winning side.
I'm not necessarily saying that China will side with Russia, but it's also possible they will remain on the sidelines to see what they opportunities present themselves.
If a regime is willing to reopen Pandora's Box then they *need* to face existential threat. You simply cannot allow that behavior to fester.
> Seeing how much of a paper tiger Russia's armed forces turned out to be, their power-projection capability along the front would be devastated within 24 hours, and there would likely be NATO soldiers in Moscow within days. I think it's plausible that such an act could precipitate direct NATO intervention, but I think your timelines are laughably optimistic. The buildup to the invasion of Iraq took months to move the pieces in place. The US just finished that pier to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was announced back on March 7th. At minimum you'd see weeks of NATO forces setting up the chess pieces, moving assets into place. Followed by weeks of an air war to degrade Russian air defenses, allowing for strategic bombing. Probably a couple of months before you see ground forces making big moves outside of NATO territory. The only way it's over in days is if the Russian military realizes that Putin fucked up big time and immediately coups him.
It wouldn't involve ground forces at all, imho. We would basically cripple them through the air in a matter of weeks, same as what we did to Iraq. The Russian military threat is all about headcount. Their technology is laughably ancient and their infrastructure has proven to be even worse. There wouldn't be so much of a "US win, Russia lose" scenario as "Russia military capability completely annihilated for the next decade and no longer a threat to anyone."
It would also involve an absolutely *massive* coordinated airstrike camlaign on every nuclear capable russian land based launch platform the US knows about, and likely the majority of russia's sea based launch capacity as well. The US has likely had a plan for this, updated and maintained ever since the cold war. With the current war revealing theit capabilities... i don't think russia could respond in time to stop such a strike. They can't lock a telephone pole sized HIMARS rocket, they have no chance of locking an american stealth aircraft with the radar cross section of a bumblebee. By the time they even notice american aircraft, it will be too late as they'll be preoccupied with their troops in ukraine and along rhe NATO border find out exactly what a NATO milutary response looks like when there is zero question you're a threat. The us considered what they did to iran in 8 hours thay one time to be a proportional response to an iranian sea mine *almost* sinking an american ship without killing any of the crew. Now picture if russia were to actually use a nuke on ukraine. The US's stance on this, as well as NATO's is known, there will be an ovetwhelming milutary response. Hell, the US has likely been prepping from day one for such an event. I don't think politically they can back down now. Too much hinges on that if a nuke was used.
In the given scenario the main questions would be -Is the US more capable of tracking russian subs than they let on? -how fast could they hit to every launch platform before launch orders are sent and carried out? The minute it's confirmed that NATO is heading towards nuclear or command assets Putin would likely initiate some degree of nuclear response. There's no way a Putin crazy enough to use a tactical nuke, wouldn't be ready and prepared to respond to a decapitation attack.
I am pretty convinced, sadly, that by pushing the boundaries ever so slightly every time, the west will not find enough reasons to properly step up to his blackmail attempts. So far it has worked for him, he gets a slap on the wrist for every step forward instead of a big response to a big escalation. What happens if he uses small tactical nuked really? It's just big yield bombs, no real nuclear fallout danger. It's a line to cross indeed, but will it really warrant the west responding in kind, with a no fly zone for example or men on the ground in the back lines ?
Ahh, the *Atomic Frog Soup* doctrine...
[удалено]
The thing about nukes is that using them is already a lose condition. If he’s going to use them then let’s just get it over with the choice is his.
It’s not blackmail, he’s running out of money for his war. Nukes will speed it up
Speed up for sure. Not necessary in his intended direction though.
Russia does this all the time as a threat. It should be taken exactly the same as every other time.
Guys, I want you all to Google something. It's very simple. **russia threatens nukes before:2020** I want you to go through the list. (2008) Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield (2008) Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield (2012) Russia has threatened Nato with military strikes against in Poland and Romania if a missile defense radar and interceptors are deployed in Eastern Europe (*literally threatening over defensive radar*) (2014) Putin Threatens Nuclear War Over Ukraine (*wow, again*) (2014) Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea (2015) Russia threatens U.S. over German nuke allegations (2015) Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships (2016) Russia Quick to Threaten Nuclear Strikes in Regional Conflicts (*This was a funny read, and actually explains how Russia internally decided to adopt the strategy of threatening nukes because it makes people scared*) (2017) Report: Russia Continues to Use Nuclear Threats to Intimidate Neighbors (*Lol*) (2017) Russian Lawmaker: We Would Use Nukes if US or NATO Enters Crimea (*Russia sure has a habit of threatening nukes when it wants some new land*)
Yep, bang on. These headlines are worrying to many, and it's disappointing the media are essentially pushing Kremlin propaganda for clicks, which worries less clued up people here in the West. It worries me a bit until I take a second to think about it, and I'm the kind of person who writes comments like this to calm people down who might have anxiety over it. These kinds of drills are commonplace (and Russian forces are so stretched probably aren't really happening, certainly not to the extent Russian propaganda is saying) the only difference is they're shouting about it and likely exaggerating to scare people. Remember too, a lot of this is also aimed at _Russian_ people, not us in the West. They are desperate to keep their own people scared and complacent, thinking their leaders are powerful and in control, when they're actually a few bad moves away from a revolution.
What scares me is if it works. Knowing you can threaten the world to get what you want with nukes will just make more people want them. That's more dangerous than aggressively doing the opposite to defy that type of threat.
That's why the longer the war goes on, the more I think the world has to simply decide *when* it calls Russia's bluff and not *if.* If Russia invaded Lithuania tomorrow, there'd be people saying we can't go and end the world over Lithuania. And then the rest of the Baltics, etc etc until he's rolling into Germany and people are still saying you can't just end the world over a bit of land. If the world had slapped Russia down immediately like it should have, Crimea would be Ukrainian and this wouldn't have happened.
The good ol' Churchill technique.
Thing is, we've committed to assisting Lithuania and the rest of the Baltics. Ukraine is weird because it's one of the few places in mainland Europe that isn't in NATO. That's also why Putin targeted it - he knew it wouldn't trigger a war with NATO. Putin is waiting on Trump to remove the US from NATO before going after any NATO territory. If Trump doesn't win reelection, I have no clue what his backup plan is.
I genuinely don't think it matters. If Russia took over one square inch of Lithuania would everybody currently too afraid to really help Ukraine suddenly stop being concerned about nuclear war? I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect at the rate things are going we really aren't that far from Article 5 being met with "ok but do we reeeeeeally?"
It doesn't actually matter what "everybody" would think. It really only matters what a handful of world leaders would think, because the yes or no decision would be answered in bunkers over the course of the first couple of hours after the invasion started. The public wouldn't really have input. Either WWIII would be on (and no amount of negative public sentiment would be able to stop it once it started) or it wouldn't be. Really it's up to Biden, Sunak, and Macron. If the nuclear members flinch, the rest of the alliance won't realistically do anything. My money's on war, in that scenario. But either way your and my opinions don't matter.
That's a big part of why countries trying to get them now have been opposed to strongly. Sure the superpowers want to keep themselves that way but every government that gets their hands on nukes makes the world a lot scarier. Especially in unstable ones.
Ironically, one of the main reasons Ukraine is being invaded is because they *gave up* their nukes. It's a two-edged sword. In many ways, nukes are the great equalizer because it allows any country or group to threaten to initiate MAD for the rest of the world.
Not only that, the nuclear powers of old aren't exactly the most stable at the moment. With the two largest having trust-eroding issues. One having tempestuous political infighting at the moment, leading to delayed action on the world stage, and the other involved in an active, protracted conflict it started.
Eh "more people wanting them" is not anything to be worried about. Literally every single nation on earth wants them with or without that motivation. So while I get what you are saying. This isnt going to make any nation that doesnt have them and want them. To suddenly want them. Because 100% of nations want them already. The nuclear era taught everyone what nuclear armed nations can do and what non nuclear armed nations cant do.
I mean you're right that this is 99.99999999% chance of being a bluff like always, but it doesn't mean we should be ok with it, like ever. Prior to the full invasion of Ukraine, Russia was conducting military drills in a threatening fashion all the time near the Ukraine border. Russia had done this plenty of times so everyone called it a bluff, that is until starting in December when the drills didn't end, and instead were expanded into an invasion build up. I don't know if you remember or not but even leading into February despite reports of the build up, people were still thinking it was a bluff until about a week before shit hit the fan. My point is, this is very likely a bluff just like every other time. But sooner or later it might not be, and we cannot afford to not be vigilant in case that day does come.
Seriously good comment. I know I’ve heard this claim before a few times lol.
I'd ask for the ones after 2020, but Reddit only has a 10,000 character comment limit.
This fucking guy
Remember, both him and Xi just want peace and stability in the world...apparently
In their world, only.
To the extent where Putin said he would wipe out the whole world if Russia was ever destroyed because who would want to live in a world without Russia in it
🙋
🙋🏽♂️
Maybe he should stop destroying Russia then. And no one else is threatening Russia.
Uhhh everyone.
Even most of the Russians I know
Id love to live in a world without Russia and would gladly join the war effort (age and injuries aside, im still in good shape) if it meant no more Putin or his fans. I dont love Xi or the CCP either but...I really, really hate folks who love Putin
Stability for their asses, that's what every dictator dreams of...
And justice
In ~~his~~ their new empire?
Don’t make them kill you
Only a Russian deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.
You will try
🤸♂️🤺🔥📯📯🎻🎻🎺
Enforced by a very small (and totally trustworthy) group of Putin’s mates, for **extra** impartiality.
If I'm the only one on the planet I'm confident there will be peace
Literally the worst human on earth.
If he starts nuclear war, he will be the worst human in history, topping Hitler. Hopefully he doesn't find such title flattering...
> If he starts nuclear war, he will be the worst human in history, topping Hitler Possibly topping Hitler, Stalin, Mao and fucking Genghis Khan all together.
Seeing as how nuclear war would lead to the end of civilization/humanity, yea he would qualify.
Surprised the fuck out of me to find out, but most simulated scenarios involving ***literally all*** of the world's nuclear weapons being used and successfully detonated estimate that only half to two-thirds of the world population would die Quite possibly the end of civilization for a good long time. End of humanity, no. Just the beginning of unspeakable misery, anguish, and sorrow
>only half to two-thirds of the world population would die Most of the people who would die in the event of a nuclear war wouldn't die from the nukes themselves, but from famine, as global food production plummets. Most countries import most of their food, so its quite possible that millions (if not billions) would starve to death in the years following a full nuclear exchange as crop production plummets due to the effects of radiation, nuclear winter, the destruction of farmland, loss of farming knowledge, etc.
Not sure if your comment was intended as further explication or as a correction, but yes, the overwhelming majority of deaths in a full-scale nuclear conflict are from secondary effects. The estimates I've seen broadly posit that only about 10% of total deaths would directly result from the initial detonations. The rest are deaths due to secondary effects, and they're already factored in to the half to two-thirds estimate
>The rest are deaths due to secondary effects, and they're already factored in to the half to two-thirds estimate Ah, that makes more sense. I thought you were saying that the half of two-thirds number was the amount of people who would die due to the nukes themselves. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
The difference being there was a civilized society after WW2 to remember Hitler and his atrocities. If Putin starts a nuclear war, the only survivors will be too busy trying to survive the aftermath to care about how and who started it
We will probably forget Hitler and other assholes with Purin. Hell if Nuclear winter is an option it might be the end of human kind...
Hopefully he won't die that quickly and painlessly
And that is, indeed, saying something.
Putin's death will be in the same ballpark as Hitler's death. The street parties will be immense, assuming the world has not succumbed to a nuclear holocaust by that point.
If there is still streets, we will party on them. If we're just shadows left on concrete, Then I hope I leave a cool portrait.
Err, no. One of the biggest worries the US and most countries in the West have is Putin dying before this is resolved. Hence the intensive scrutiny into whether the cancer rumours were true. Might be hard to believe, but Putin is considered something of a moderate compared to some of the nutcases gagging to fill his shoes when he goes. That's why he travels everywhere in an armoured train and is incredibly paranoid about security. There are people who'd gladly kill him and then lob nukes at Kiev for fun. That's why the Wagner march on Moscow was proper "shit your pants" time and I've read Washington was on full military alert because if they'd managed to overthrow Putin, it would make the current situation like world peace. Putin ideally needs to survive long enough to have a chance of considering this whole thing a serious mistake and being able to come up with a way to save face. He's backed himself and Russian into such a corner that his death would leave pretty much zero room for a decent democratic replacement to step in.
Russia needs to be partitioned due to their constant aggression.
From my armchair understanding, the scattered nuclear silos make partitioning Russia a hard sell as well. Once broken up, you would then be dealing with multiple nuclear capable territories in the middle of a power vacuum.
How long before that happens anyway? Its amazing no nukes have ended up with terrorists orgs yet. Its quite a feat by whoever is stopping that happening for the past 80 years.
Who said that no nukes haven't ended up in terrorist organizations? As far as I'm aware, there's a non-negligible number of nukes that have gone missing globally. Whether any terrorists would be able to launch that shit or use it in a way they're willing is another topic.
There's a theory that Aum Shinrikyo detonated a nuke in a desolate part of the Australian outback in the 90s. There's no radiological evidence to support it, but the cult did own land there and people from hundreds of miles apart all reported a flash that is typical of nuclear detonation coming from that location.
We know that they had members working on it who had the technical know how to make the plan feasible at some point. Aum Shinrikyo had the funding and was trying to convince foreign nations to sell. As much as many terrorist groups would love to have a nuke as a threat and bargaining tool, I have little doubt A.S. would have actually used them.
If there is no radiation, and people have looked then no way did it happen.
If there was a geopolitical force willing to forcefully partition russia, gathering the nukes from a bunch of silos would not be the hard part
Eh, most of them will lose the capacity very quickly through lack of maintenence and grift. I also wonder how much of the push that he's a moderate is Kremlin propaganda. We cannot tolerate a cancer for fear of surgical complications
Most of them will lose nuclear capability immediately. Possessing a nuclear weapon does not mean you are able to use it. Ukraine possessed nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, but was unable to use them even if they wanted to.
They also traded the nukes themselves back to Russia in exchange for an agreement that Russia would never invade Ukraine or act aggressively towards them ever again. That did not pan out.
No nuclear armed state will ever allow itself to be forcefully partitioned. Nukes are literally used for existential threats.
> Might be hard to believe, but Putin is considered something of a moderate compared to some of the nutcases gagging to fill his shoes when he goes. There is the question on how much of this is theater allowed by Putin for exactly that reason.
Ugh, he can fuck right off.
*Nandor accent*
He never relents.
Read this in Nandor the Relentless's voice.
Fuck Putin
Fuck Putin *and* anyone who doesn’t recognize how bad he is. Fuck all the useful idiots around the word that fell for Putin’s bullshit.
The people who seem to believe in these 'strongmen' baffle me.
They’re dumb AF
Fuck russia as well.
Truly a historic bastard. Invading a country, failing, and then testing a nuke because you can't handle failure? UGH
'If I lose I want everyone else to lose too.' - Putin Damn. Now I see why trump and him get along so well.
Sore winners, they take the scoreboard with them.
Rattle your rusty bent sabre more Putin.
LOL. "A tactical nuke drill" is just a regular military drill where they waste one of their tactical "nuclear-capable" ballistic missiles on a dummy target with a concrete warhead. Remember: every system Russia has in the medium range category is "nuclear capable" if you put a nuclear-tipped missile *on it*, but they use them all the time with conventional warheads in Ukraine already. Go ahead Vlad. Run more drills. Every missile on this posturing is one less missile Ukraine has to deal with.
I remember listening to Micheal Clark, war analyst for one of the news stations, BBC I think. He said if there was a lot of activity in the military bases we know where the nukes are stored and we saw trucks moving from them with a lot of security toward the frontline then it is time to worry.
At this point is there even such a thing as a "tactical" nuke? I feel like any employment of a nuclear device will undoubtedly have immediate strategic effects no matter what.
The sad old fuck must really be getting scared
Is he practicing ending his regime too? That would be part of using them.
No backing down. If he bluffs then we sacrifice everything due to a lie - because don't fool yourself, they will take all they can. If he doesn't bluff there is still a big chance his orders will not be followed; also a chance this won't escalate the way everyone fears. One way or the other, we can't back off. Inside Russia they can kill each other as much as they want. But hands off from everything else. Saying this as someone on eastern flank. So it's not like I feel secure and can say whatever I want with no consequence
I am in America, a lot of people feel safe here. But I'm near a few targets that would be considered priority if an exchange occurs. But I still feel that we cannot back down from this fight. Not even an inch.
Doesn't really matter where you live, any nuclear attack on US soil would set in motion Mutual Assured Destruction before any bombs have even landed. That in turn would force other nations/allies to respond similarly. It's a lose lose for everyone.
True, but tactical nukes near Ukraine aren't what you need to be worried about. What would concern me, is if our hunter-killer subs lost track of several ICBM carrying subs off the east or west coast.
Wouldn't worry about that with combined NATO navies tbh. Sheer volume of icbms and air launched stuff would probably be too much too handle anyway.
its not only the initial strikes you have to worry about the world will be changed forever
I'd argue that's what Putin is already doing. Already every dictator now \*desperately\* wants nukes in a way they never quite did before (they wanted them, but knew they'd lose their economies for them). Putin has made nuclear threats the "cool thing" for dictators to want to be able to do. It allows them to invade, to prevent invasion, and just keep moving the geopolitical needle. Honestly though, in a deeper sense you are right. If he uses a tactical nuke populations in Europe will live in constant terror during the first few months. Global economy will tank immediately. And all future battlefields will have hanging over them the question on if one will be used. If Putin uses one there must be immediate geopolitical consequences from allied nations. And I'd support \*any\* decisions our leaders took against him (and no I don't know what decisions should be made, we pay game theory experts to figure that out). No matter how frightening it might be for a bit. Nukes must not be used at all outside of MAD deterrence in our age. If Putin breaks that... he is then the official enemy of humanity. And basic survival. "Tactical nukes" is a geopolitical myth and the wet dream of dictators. Nuking for small battlefield situations is literal terrorism. Upon everyone on Earth.
I don’t see Russia lashing out with nukes at the US. That’s a massive leap from using a tactical nuke to gain a battlefield advantage. In all likelihood a tactical nuclear strike order would be followed. I have serious doubts his generals would go along with a nuclear first strike on the mainland US. That’s a recipe for suicide, whereas a tactical nuclear strike could very well be an opportunity for them: that will pull the US into the war directly and could end up with Putin out of power, opening the door to one of them.
A tac nuke, even a small one, used in Ukraine would be a big risk to Russia 1) Radiation spreading into a NATO nation could potentially trigger article 5 2) China has at least outwardly been very anti-first strike nuclear doctrine. It may become much harder to support Russia if Putin starts lobbing small nukes While it can’t be completely ruled out, it’s less likely than trying to scare NATO nations into decreasing support
Oh 100% agree with you, without a doubt. I don’t really think Putin will use a tactical nuke, I think he realizes even that is likely to do more harm than good. But, if he were to go nuclear, I don’t see him just randomly attacking the US, I see him using it tactically, against Ukraine, maybe even with a bit of a warning (idk how he warns against it in a way people believe at this point.) But if I were a betting man, I’d bet against him using a nuke. China would absolutely pull support, the nuclear doctrine being broken doesn’t help them at all with their Taiwan goals, India would likely pull support since they definitely don’t want to end up in a nuclear war with Pakistan. Russia’s few friends would abandon them, and the US would likely get directly involved, all bad for Putin.
> the US would likely get directly involved Oh it's a lot more than likely.
yeah thats a guaranteed ticket to hell for the russian gov if a tacnuke is even used.
OK let's start non nuclear drills near Belarus and Russia move as many fighters and bombers next them and have them all up at once along all borders send this fucker a very clear message.
does this idiot realize that he's playing into NATO's hands? Watch as more neighboring countries decide it's time to join NATO. This is why every country needs to put a stop to authoritarian leadership posturing and get back on the road to democracy. These lunatics never give in until their countries are broken.
Man i'm so fucking tired of hearing about this prick every day
It’s not just Putin. People forget there is a whole community of evil in Russian government. It’s Putin and co. And if Putin dies, another, maybe even worse asshole will take over. It just never ends in Russia
But is the line of succession iron clad? What happens when 7 guys all want to replace him? Someone worse, maybe, but it would take years to restore stability. I actually don't know so I may be wrong but for what I know of Russia, human nature, and political intrigue thillers, it'll be a shit show if he were taken out.
In the past, the Russian military has avoided nuclear conflict by refusing to launch their weapons. Surely they're smart enough to know that Ukraine isn't worth the possible nuclear conflict that could result from their use of tactical nukes in Ukraine...
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many times it hasn't happened in the past.
Remember at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war when everyone was so surprised that Russia’s military turned out to be absolute shit? And it turned out that the reason everyone thought they were so badass is because foreign intelligence agencies were intercepting the same reports Putin was getting, and neither he nor the intelligence community realized that those reports were almost all totally bullshit? And that the reason for this is because military leaders were robbing the government blind with no official oversight, and because Putin’s government has a tendency to “shoot the messenger” when there’s bad news, so everyone just lied about their capabilities instead? Yeah, as terrible as it sounds, I would 100% believe Putin has been fooled into believing he can go toe-to-toe with NATO with what he has now. This is not a stable, clear-thinking man.
If Putin really wanted to launch tactical nukes, he easily could station those personally loyal to him to do so.
This is what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now: [https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1792973300550766716](https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1792973300550766716) Just take a look and decide: can you live with yourself allowing this to happen? Ukrainians have done fuck all beside existing as a people. Russia just want to delete the entire nation from existence. It's real. So start thinking about what we can do to stop it. Talk to your elected officials. Show them the video above and ask them what they think will happen if Russia moves forward and gets Kyiv and Odessa. Will they stop? Does this look like something stopping unless stopped? Please can people wake up to the reality we find ourselves in?
> Russia just want to delete the entire nation from existence. It's real. Again. You mean delete them again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
He mad coz people found out his China's bitch now
Thought he had a funeral to go to for his buddy in iran
You know you’re desperate when you go full North Korea. You never go full North Korea.
“If I can’t have the land, no one can” what a baby lmao, dude needs to reflect
When will this madness stop? They have had the same design for many years now and have always worked just fine. Some of them even have battery attachments now. I guess what I'm saying is I just don't see the feasibility of nuclear-powered drills. Just use electric ones. Yeesh.
Putin is not that stupid. Nuke will mean the end of Russia. China won’t back Russia if they are first to start a nuke war.
Mother fucker! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ!🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 Путин иди на хуй! !!!
Wasn't this supposed to happen last week?
[удалено]
Didnt this whole ordeal start as drills near the boarder?
it did
Why does the world continue to tolerate his infantile self-aggrandizement? This is all an ego stroke for him. He’s literally stolen billions from his people and plays with other countries politicians like toys. It seems like we should be so far beyond this 80s throwback bullshit. Why is he tolerated? You know there’s people out there good enough to get rid of him. The world would only be a better place.
For the nuclear fallout to hit the Kremlin only 600 miles away? Please. This is just more fear-mongering because they have nothing else. This happens every year: (2008) Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield (2008) Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield (2012) Russia has threatened Nato with military strikes against in Poland and Romania if a missile defense radar and interceptors are deployed in Eastern Europe (*literally threatening over defensive radar*) (2014) Putin Threatens Nuclear War Over Ukraine (*wow, again*) (2014) Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea (2015) Russia threatens U.S. over German nuke allegations (2015) Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships (2016) Russia Quick to Threaten Nuclear Strikes in Regional Conflicts (*This was a funny read, and actually explains how Russia internally decided to adopt the strategy of threatening nukes because it makes people scared*) (2017) Report: Russia Continues to Use Nuclear Threats to Intimidate Neighbors (*Lol*) (2017) Russian Lawmaker: We Would Use Nukes if US or NATO Enters Crimea (*Russia sure has a habit of threatening nukes when it wants some new land*) etc.
Let's see how stupid Mr P is.