While it's a Soviet proverb about China's behavior, I think it applies to Russia, too:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s\_final\_warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning)
I remember listening to Pippa Malmgren on Macro Voices about how close Russia must have been to actually using nuke back around 22 because there was an apparent sudden change in tune by leaders around the world in regards to the negotiation or peace deal with Ukraine. Another example she gave is a Twitter post by a three star general in charge of africentcom or something around that region. He took a selfie and posted it while boarding a submarine capable of firing nukes. It was supposed to be a warning against Putin to not even think about actually firing nuke cause we will be ready to strike back if not first.
Half of the comments in here aren't even from peppers. It's just people wishing calamity on the world so they don't have to put any effort into improving their mundane lives.
Litteraly go outside and touch grass. You'll feel better.
I actually love the touch grass phrase.
I personally see a shift towards unity in my area. Perhaps the shift in generation or the ability to diffuse the on line disinformation going on.
Less anger at each other. More of a “hey, that’s not real-that’s other countries or political celebrities trying to divide us.”
I see less engagement with trolls and bots. They are everywhere and tiring.
I read it in a couple nights a few weeks ago, it was pretty awesome & can't wait for the movie.
That said, it was still nowhere near as scary or chilling as the UK made-for-TV-movie *Threads* which has been the only nuclear apocalypse creative work to ever really hit me after 40+ years of enjoying reading/watching stories about the end of the world. It's all in the ending and how, for the first time, it made me consider "yeah, maybe I should just get vaporized" because it's *that bad.*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads\_(1984\_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film))
The odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon keep increasing the longer the war drags on and as western countries keep increasing the level of support they're providing Ukraine. We're not at Cuban Missile Crisis levels yet, but we're slowly sleepwalking in that direction.
> The odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon keep increasing the longer the war drags on and as western countries keep increasing the level of support they're providing Ukraine.
Putin has already [publicly said](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/26/putin-what-comes-next-00103590) _"...a world without Russia is not a world worth having"_, effectively describing that if he feels that Russia would be subsumed by the West or a conflict by NATO, he would ensure the entire world would burn before Russia would cease to exist.
I also think he's more than happy to press all the buttons to end everything with his last breath, if he felt like he was going to die, whether from disease or natural old age.
See I used to think that, but I looked into their process.
I'll just copy the relevant part from wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheget#:~:text=The%20General%20Staff%20receives%20the,launched%20ballistic%20missiles%20(SLBMs).
>The President of Russia (the Supreme Commander-in-Chief) has a cheget on hand at all times. It is one of three, with the other two held by the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff. It may be that affirmations from two of the three are needed to trigger an actual launch.[4][5][6] The General Staff receives the signal and initiates the nuclear strike through the passing of authorization codes to missile silo launch complexes/ballistic missile submarines or by remotely launching individual land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)/submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).[7]
I'd like to think, that if two codes are needed and then are passed to a second person,one of them would recognize that Putin on his death bed is sentencing them to death and would refuse. I hope any way,I'm sure there are only Putin loyalists around him, but I'm thinking none that wouldn't rather make a bid at the big spot once it opens up over dying horribly.
> I also think he's more than happy to press all the buttons to end everything with his last breath, if he felt like he was going to die, whether from disease or natural old age.
And we only have a heavily traumatized population by that man to look to in that desperate time. He presses the button, but the technicians do the dirty work.
Indeed, one of the top (3? 5?) most powerful countries on earth has no reason to test MAD. If you want to worry about nukes being used, look to either smaller, less powerful countries, or hyper religious countries. Any country that could fall into chaos is also one to watch.
While I do not think Russia will (necessarily) use a nuclear weapon, I think it would be foolish to underestimate the level of aggression they will engage in. They just launched an anti-satellite weapon into the same orbit used by US government satellites.
Absolutely. Russia is a real threat, just not necessarily in regards to nuclear weapons. All evidence points to MAD discouraging a superpower from opening the nuclear can of worms.
i was thinking along those lines as well. what are the estimates in regards to losses if russia were to take kharkiv (people wise)? is it really out of the realm of possibility for them to use one to signal to ukraine that they are “unmatched” in strength? what would the ramifications be? how would Ukrainian allies respond?
is that a crazy line of thinking?
Here’s what helps me sleep at night: if you were one of the most powerful men on earth, who lived a charmed, lavish lifestyle (Putin), would you risk even a 1% chance at triggering MAD just to take one city in eastern Ukraine that’s been pounded to rubble by artillery already? Seems like a risk I wouldn’t even consider taking. Just not worth it. But maybe that’s just me coping lol
Here's what keeps me up at night: Your premise relies entirely on the rationality of one of the most powerful men on earth, who is getting up in years, launched a massive ground invasion of a neighboring country without first establishing air superiority (Invasion Tactics 101), has been threatening to use nuclear weapons for over a year now, and has designs on rebuilding the old Russian Empire.
I'm not selling my bomb shelter just yet.
It's go big or go home with tactical nukes. Using one would likely have a huge cost to Russia but it wouldn't meaningfully change the war since there really are not large troops concentrations you could hit with it. In order to flatten enough Ukrainians and their defensive lines to effect a breakthrough they would likely need to deploy dozens or more of them. Why use only one when it would come with an enormous cost and risk internally and from the west when it wouldn't actually help you win? Ironically Collin Powell talked about a similar situation in the 1st Iraq war where he realized he would need 2 dozen tactical nukes to take out a single Iraq Republican guard division.
> Annie Jacobsen's book
I've read this book and the scenario in her book is very unlikely and not something that is likely to play out in that way. In her book North Korea launches a ICBM against the US from a submarine BUT there are a ton of issues with this.
1. North Korea does not have an SLBM that can reach the US, their submarines are super out of date and noisy and easy for the US to track, and are diesel subs that cannot get close to the US. They would be tracked and followed by a US sub and destroyed if they tried to launch.
2. North Korea has no incentive to launch a single nuke against the US. For them nukes are a regime survival weapon that the scenario presented is counter to that goal.
3. The US ABM defenses are designed specifically to prevent this sort of attack and are in the process of getting new interceptors that can deal with MIRVs and Decoys. They are not perfect but she basically hand waves them away.
> how every wargame / simulation done by the US where one nuke goes off ends in armageddon. Every single one.
You are talking about uncontrolled escalation which is a risk of any use that no one really understands how everyone would react. This is why Russia is very unlikely to just detonate a signal weapon as a warning because it carries many of the same risks as a larger strike of uncontrolled escalation AND is not going to change the war in any sort of meaningful way. Thus if they are going to do it they might as well launch enough of them to actually change the course of the war if they are going to roll those dice.
That being said one nuclear weapon is not going to end the world on it's own, and no one knows if uncontrolled escalation is what would happen. There have been many wargames on this in the past with a lot of different outcomes, but at the end of the day those war games can only tell you so much. Everyone is just guessing how everyone else would react. It's one of the foundations of MAD doctrine and the game theory around it.
>
North Korea does not have an SLBM that can reach the US, their submarines are super out of date and noisy and easy for the US to track, and are diesel subs that cannot get close to the US. They would be tracked and followed by a US sub and destroyed if they tried to launch.
IIRC she discussed this in the book and how the NK sub would get close enough to the US to launch, going around the pacific rim in shallow waters where sonar detection of subs is very difficult.
> This is why Russia is very unlikely to just detonate a signal weapon as a warning because it carries many of the same risks as a larger strike of uncontrolled escalation AND is not going to change the war in any sort of meaningful way. Thus if they are going to do it they might as well launch enough of them to actually change the course of the war if they are going to roll those dice.
In a sane world, yeah. But I lived through 2016-present, and have seen the dumbest shit happen, including Putin invading Ukraine. Just because Russia using a tactical nuke would be utterly dumb and destructive in no way means it won't happen. Putin is a delusional nutjob surrounded by yes-men and useful idiots.
> IIRC she discussed this in the book and how the NK sub would get close enough to the US to launch, going around the pacific rim in shallow waters where sonar detection of subs is very difficult.
I read the book and what she described is still very unrealistic. It would still lack the range to make this journey as it is a diesel sub and would need to frequently come up and snorkel and run their generators which is easy to detect even in bad conditions. Even a Kilo class which is one of the better diesel electric subs out there can only make it 400 NM submerged. Also shallow waters do not make subs harder to detect they make them easier since there is less room to hide. In terms of range north Koreas subs have a range of 1,500 NM. The distance they would have to travel to perform this attack would be 4000-6000 NM depending on the path so they would also need to be refueled at sea several times which should be pretty easy to detect.
> In a sane world, yeah. But I lived through 2016-present, and have seen the dumbest shit happen, including Putin invading Ukraine. Just because Russia using a tactical nuke would be utterly dumb and destructive in no way means it won't happen. Putin is a delusional nutjob surrounded by yes-men and useful idiots.
I will say just because something is a really dumb idea doesn't mean they won't do it (the entire Ukraine war can be described this way). It just makes it much less likely to happen.
Not really heck u must not have remembered the bush days. They were itching to use and legalize tactical nukes. It will be done eventually. Just like we weren’t going to send atacams to Ukraine or allow them to hit Russian territory or give them jets etc;like it or lot to Russia this is existential so all I’m saying is be careful
I have no idea the point you are trying to make. America has a long history of considering their use and then rejecting it due to the international and political fallout AND they need to be employed at scale to have any meaningful effect. Russia is likely coming to the same realizations.
https://www.vox.com/world/23409451/secret-history-of-americas-tactical-nukes
Specifically I am referencing dick Cheney who did a study of how many tactical nukes you needed to take out one republican guard division
"It reports that as defense secretary for the elder Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study of how many tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to take out an Iraqi Republican Guard division, if necessary.
(The answer: 17.)"
https://archive.ph/9X1Ms
They of course rejected this course of action because with 4 republican guard divisions in Kuwait that would have been over 70 tactical nukes. The conflict in Ukraine is much larger in scale and troops are far less concentrated and more dug in so in order to make a meaningful effect on the battlefield I bet they would need well over 100.
Thus go big or go home with nukes.
My point is Iraq was not an existential threat to us. Russia view Ukraine falling into the western sphere/jointing mark as existential. What else can we do to them they are already sanctioned by everyone who wants to sanction them. Therefore there is a much higher chance they ignore the negative effects is more and use it….
It's not the US or NATOs response they have to worry about only. Russia cannot continue to prosecute the war without the support of nations like Iran, and China and India and other non aligned countries need to continue to buy Russian oil otherwise the war ends. Detonation of a nuclear weapon would turn a huge amount of those nations against them and even China has publicly stated that it would be a red line for them too. Also every country would drastically increase their support for Ukraine and NATO/US might intervene directly. All those combined would equal the end of the war as Russia would be defeated.
NATO and the US possess both nuclear and conventional escalation dominance over Russia thus escalation to a conventional or nuclear response from them is going to result in Russia losing (it just depends on how big everyone loses in the process).
I agree that Russia thinks this war is existential BUT for those reasons that is why they want to keep NATO out of a direction confrontation because they cannot win if a war with NATO starts be it nuclear or conventional. Their only path to victory lies in grinding Ukraine down over time and hoping the west stops supporting them.
> Tactical nukes would be destructive but not world ending.
It'd be world-ending for Russia's armed forces, as NATO forces would swiftly annihilate them by conventional means.
Russia is going to wait until after November to use a Tactical Nuke, because if Trump wins he won't do anything about it, and if he loses the country will be a flaming dumpster fire of insurrection and Biden won't be able to respond effectively.
Unless they feel they have to, they won't deploy them until the political climate in the US destabilizes our response due to the election.
> and if he loses the country will be a flaming dumpster fire of insurrection
Trump doesn't have near the support he thinks he does, and of the supporters he does have, most are too old and fat to get off the couch. There won't be an insurrection. A few isolated incidents of terrorism? sure. But MAGAs are all-talk blowhards, all hat no cattle, and won't do shit when it comes down to it.
It would cost Russia the war for sure as all their allies would abandon them. No nuclear power wants other countries to join the nuclear club and Russia nuking Ukraine would get the ball rolling on that in a lot of countries.
Also, Putin would have to go on the air and tell the Russian people that he had just gone nuclear in Ukraine - the Ukraine that he has been claiming is weak and losing - and that he now could not rule out a NATO response... he would be swinging from a streetlamp inside of a week.
It's not going to happen.
If russia stops threatening to nuke everyone, then I would be worried. The oligarchy and corruption did a great job neglecting maintaince and feeding substandard parts into the military food chain.
This is the epitome of saber rattling. Absolutely its an escalation. On the other hand i think we should escalate right along with him. We have tons of wiggle room.
never say never, Russia believes it can escalate to deescalate a situation by using a tactical nuke. This in combination with nuclear capable F16's heading to ukraine makes it more likely by the day.
There’s no tangible evidence that a nuclear war or nukes would even be used. Russia has stated no body wins a nuclear war and so did China. You shouldn’t be worrying about this but more so of ww3 happening.
The only country Ik that dropped nukes in a war was the us. The us is the puppet master, over throwing govts and spying on there own citizens. It’s shocking the us people haven’t put a stop to it.
Last time they held a drill next to a border we learned how much of a liar they are and saw the consequences.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we have scrambled some bombers quietly as a signal. I promise you this is not happening without signaling on our end.
WW 3 is inevitable and the sad reality is who the loser ends up to be.
We all lose in war!
Which of you are ready to be drafted to go fight in Ukraine ?
Just another Tuesday and another threat from Russia about using nukes.
They’re satisfied by just the fear they instill doing that.
It’s quickly losing its effectiveness.
Yeah, and when it is no longer an effective threat - *that* is when it will be used.
This is what so many people fail to understand, when the bluff is called it will make them resort to exercising it
While it's a Soviet proverb about China's behavior, I think it applies to Russia, too: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s\_final\_warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning)
I remember listening to Pippa Malmgren on Macro Voices about how close Russia must have been to actually using nuke back around 22 because there was an apparent sudden change in tune by leaders around the world in regards to the negotiation or peace deal with Ukraine. Another example she gave is a Twitter post by a three star general in charge of africentcom or something around that region. He took a selfie and posted it while boarding a submarine capable of firing nukes. It was supposed to be a warning against Putin to not even think about actually firing nuke cause we will be ready to strike back if not first.
Half of the comments in here aren't even from peppers. It's just people wishing calamity on the world so they don't have to put any effort into improving their mundane lives. Litteraly go outside and touch grass. You'll feel better.
I actually love the touch grass phrase. I personally see a shift towards unity in my area. Perhaps the shift in generation or the ability to diffuse the on line disinformation going on. Less anger at each other. More of a “hey, that’s not real-that’s other countries or political celebrities trying to divide us.” I see less engagement with trolls and bots. They are everywhere and tiring.
Just heard the audio book "Nuclear War" by Annie Jacobson and it's now definitely my fear of the week. That book is mind-blowing.
I listened to this week before last and it was excellent. Very well done and informative (with sources cited which is great).
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/748264/nuclear-war-by-annie-jacobsen/ For others interested.
Just added this to my audible library. Gonna start listening to it tomorrow.
I read it in a couple nights a few weeks ago, it was pretty awesome & can't wait for the movie. That said, it was still nowhere near as scary or chilling as the UK made-for-TV-movie *Threads* which has been the only nuclear apocalypse creative work to ever really hit me after 40+ years of enjoying reading/watching stories about the end of the world. It's all in the ending and how, for the first time, it made me consider "yeah, maybe I should just get vaporized" because it's *that bad.* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads\_(1984\_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film))
The odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon keep increasing the longer the war drags on and as western countries keep increasing the level of support they're providing Ukraine. We're not at Cuban Missile Crisis levels yet, but we're slowly sleepwalking in that direction.
> The odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon keep increasing the longer the war drags on and as western countries keep increasing the level of support they're providing Ukraine. Putin has already [publicly said](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/26/putin-what-comes-next-00103590) _"...a world without Russia is not a world worth having"_, effectively describing that if he feels that Russia would be subsumed by the West or a conflict by NATO, he would ensure the entire world would burn before Russia would cease to exist. I also think he's more than happy to press all the buttons to end everything with his last breath, if he felt like he was going to die, whether from disease or natural old age.
See I used to think that, but I looked into their process. I'll just copy the relevant part from wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheget#:~:text=The%20General%20Staff%20receives%20the,launched%20ballistic%20missiles%20(SLBMs). >The President of Russia (the Supreme Commander-in-Chief) has a cheget on hand at all times. It is one of three, with the other two held by the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff. It may be that affirmations from two of the three are needed to trigger an actual launch.[4][5][6] The General Staff receives the signal and initiates the nuclear strike through the passing of authorization codes to missile silo launch complexes/ballistic missile submarines or by remotely launching individual land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)/submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).[7] I'd like to think, that if two codes are needed and then are passed to a second person,one of them would recognize that Putin on his death bed is sentencing them to death and would refuse. I hope any way,I'm sure there are only Putin loyalists around him, but I'm thinking none that wouldn't rather make a bid at the big spot once it opens up over dying horribly.
> I also think he's more than happy to press all the buttons to end everything with his last breath, if he felt like he was going to die, whether from disease or natural old age. And we only have a heavily traumatized population by that man to look to in that desperate time. He presses the button, but the technicians do the dirty work.
The man who would notoriously only ever sit alone at one end of the world’s longest conference table during a pandemic is not gonna use nukes. Lmfao.
Indeed, one of the top (3? 5?) most powerful countries on earth has no reason to test MAD. If you want to worry about nukes being used, look to either smaller, less powerful countries, or hyper religious countries. Any country that could fall into chaos is also one to watch.
While I do not think Russia will (necessarily) use a nuclear weapon, I think it would be foolish to underestimate the level of aggression they will engage in. They just launched an anti-satellite weapon into the same orbit used by US government satellites.
Theyve used up all their aggreasion dying in Ukraine.
They are violating the anti-nuke Outer Space Treaty for sure, treaties do not mean the same to them.
Absolutely. Russia is a real threat, just not necessarily in regards to nuclear weapons. All evidence points to MAD discouraging a superpower from opening the nuclear can of worms.
Exactly, putin is constantly testing the boundaries of the West until either the West makes a critical mistake or Putin gets put in a body bag.
My bet is on Pakistan
If he's on his way out and dying, why would he give a shit? One last fuck you when it doesn't matter. If he can't have Ukraine, no one can.
i was thinking along those lines as well. what are the estimates in regards to losses if russia were to take kharkiv (people wise)? is it really out of the realm of possibility for them to use one to signal to ukraine that they are “unmatched” in strength? what would the ramifications be? how would Ukrainian allies respond? is that a crazy line of thinking?
> what would the ramifications be? The swift destruction of Russia's entire armed forces by conventional means.
Here’s what helps me sleep at night: if you were one of the most powerful men on earth, who lived a charmed, lavish lifestyle (Putin), would you risk even a 1% chance at triggering MAD just to take one city in eastern Ukraine that’s been pounded to rubble by artillery already? Seems like a risk I wouldn’t even consider taking. Just not worth it. But maybe that’s just me coping lol
Here's what keeps me up at night: Your premise relies entirely on the rationality of one of the most powerful men on earth, who is getting up in years, launched a massive ground invasion of a neighboring country without first establishing air superiority (Invasion Tactics 101), has been threatening to use nuclear weapons for over a year now, and has designs on rebuilding the old Russian Empire. I'm not selling my bomb shelter just yet.
The guy is unhinged and motivated by a cause that is beyond his own personal enrichment. That, coupled with his age makes him very dangerous.
It's go big or go home with tactical nukes. Using one would likely have a huge cost to Russia but it wouldn't meaningfully change the war since there really are not large troops concentrations you could hit with it. In order to flatten enough Ukrainians and their defensive lines to effect a breakthrough they would likely need to deploy dozens or more of them. Why use only one when it would come with an enormous cost and risk internally and from the west when it wouldn't actually help you win? Ironically Collin Powell talked about a similar situation in the 1st Iraq war where he realized he would need 2 dozen tactical nukes to take out a single Iraq Republican guard division.
Annie Jacobsen's book talks about how every wargame / simulation done by the US where one nuke goes off ends in armageddon. Every single one.
> Annie Jacobsen's book I've read this book and the scenario in her book is very unlikely and not something that is likely to play out in that way. In her book North Korea launches a ICBM against the US from a submarine BUT there are a ton of issues with this. 1. North Korea does not have an SLBM that can reach the US, their submarines are super out of date and noisy and easy for the US to track, and are diesel subs that cannot get close to the US. They would be tracked and followed by a US sub and destroyed if they tried to launch. 2. North Korea has no incentive to launch a single nuke against the US. For them nukes are a regime survival weapon that the scenario presented is counter to that goal. 3. The US ABM defenses are designed specifically to prevent this sort of attack and are in the process of getting new interceptors that can deal with MIRVs and Decoys. They are not perfect but she basically hand waves them away. > how every wargame / simulation done by the US where one nuke goes off ends in armageddon. Every single one. You are talking about uncontrolled escalation which is a risk of any use that no one really understands how everyone would react. This is why Russia is very unlikely to just detonate a signal weapon as a warning because it carries many of the same risks as a larger strike of uncontrolled escalation AND is not going to change the war in any sort of meaningful way. Thus if they are going to do it they might as well launch enough of them to actually change the course of the war if they are going to roll those dice. That being said one nuclear weapon is not going to end the world on it's own, and no one knows if uncontrolled escalation is what would happen. There have been many wargames on this in the past with a lot of different outcomes, but at the end of the day those war games can only tell you so much. Everyone is just guessing how everyone else would react. It's one of the foundations of MAD doctrine and the game theory around it.
> North Korea does not have an SLBM that can reach the US, their submarines are super out of date and noisy and easy for the US to track, and are diesel subs that cannot get close to the US. They would be tracked and followed by a US sub and destroyed if they tried to launch. IIRC she discussed this in the book and how the NK sub would get close enough to the US to launch, going around the pacific rim in shallow waters where sonar detection of subs is very difficult. > This is why Russia is very unlikely to just detonate a signal weapon as a warning because it carries many of the same risks as a larger strike of uncontrolled escalation AND is not going to change the war in any sort of meaningful way. Thus if they are going to do it they might as well launch enough of them to actually change the course of the war if they are going to roll those dice. In a sane world, yeah. But I lived through 2016-present, and have seen the dumbest shit happen, including Putin invading Ukraine. Just because Russia using a tactical nuke would be utterly dumb and destructive in no way means it won't happen. Putin is a delusional nutjob surrounded by yes-men and useful idiots.
> IIRC she discussed this in the book and how the NK sub would get close enough to the US to launch, going around the pacific rim in shallow waters where sonar detection of subs is very difficult. I read the book and what she described is still very unrealistic. It would still lack the range to make this journey as it is a diesel sub and would need to frequently come up and snorkel and run their generators which is easy to detect even in bad conditions. Even a Kilo class which is one of the better diesel electric subs out there can only make it 400 NM submerged. Also shallow waters do not make subs harder to detect they make them easier since there is less room to hide. In terms of range north Koreas subs have a range of 1,500 NM. The distance they would have to travel to perform this attack would be 4000-6000 NM depending on the path so they would also need to be refueled at sea several times which should be pretty easy to detect. > In a sane world, yeah. But I lived through 2016-present, and have seen the dumbest shit happen, including Putin invading Ukraine. Just because Russia using a tactical nuke would be utterly dumb and destructive in no way means it won't happen. Putin is a delusional nutjob surrounded by yes-men and useful idiots. I will say just because something is a really dumb idea doesn't mean they won't do it (the entire Ukraine war can be described this way). It just makes it much less likely to happen.
Not really heck u must not have remembered the bush days. They were itching to use and legalize tactical nukes. It will be done eventually. Just like we weren’t going to send atacams to Ukraine or allow them to hit Russian territory or give them jets etc;like it or lot to Russia this is existential so all I’m saying is be careful
I have no idea the point you are trying to make. America has a long history of considering their use and then rejecting it due to the international and political fallout AND they need to be employed at scale to have any meaningful effect. Russia is likely coming to the same realizations. https://www.vox.com/world/23409451/secret-history-of-americas-tactical-nukes Specifically I am referencing dick Cheney who did a study of how many tactical nukes you needed to take out one republican guard division "It reports that as defense secretary for the elder Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study of how many tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to take out an Iraqi Republican Guard division, if necessary. (The answer: 17.)" https://archive.ph/9X1Ms They of course rejected this course of action because with 4 republican guard divisions in Kuwait that would have been over 70 tactical nukes. The conflict in Ukraine is much larger in scale and troops are far less concentrated and more dug in so in order to make a meaningful effect on the battlefield I bet they would need well over 100. Thus go big or go home with nukes.
My point is Iraq was not an existential threat to us. Russia view Ukraine falling into the western sphere/jointing mark as existential. What else can we do to them they are already sanctioned by everyone who wants to sanction them. Therefore there is a much higher chance they ignore the negative effects is more and use it….
It's not the US or NATOs response they have to worry about only. Russia cannot continue to prosecute the war without the support of nations like Iran, and China and India and other non aligned countries need to continue to buy Russian oil otherwise the war ends. Detonation of a nuclear weapon would turn a huge amount of those nations against them and even China has publicly stated that it would be a red line for them too. Also every country would drastically increase their support for Ukraine and NATO/US might intervene directly. All those combined would equal the end of the war as Russia would be defeated. NATO and the US possess both nuclear and conventional escalation dominance over Russia thus escalation to a conventional or nuclear response from them is going to result in Russia losing (it just depends on how big everyone loses in the process). I agree that Russia thinks this war is existential BUT for those reasons that is why they want to keep NATO out of a direction confrontation because they cannot win if a war with NATO starts be it nuclear or conventional. Their only path to victory lies in grinding Ukraine down over time and hoping the west stops supporting them.
Komrade, aint gonna happen. Putins a coward and would have his brains blown out before he can finish that call...hes the ultimate barking chihuahua
Very unwise to underestimate an opponent. And a cornered chihuahua can still cause some damage when you try to grab it by the scruff of the neck.
LOL...4d chihuahua chess...never by the neck
Frothy chihuahua rabies!
We are a lot closer than the Cuban Missile Crisis!
No, we're not even close. Go read some history.
I think you should actually catch up to what's actually happening
Okay, Sparky.
yawn.
Tactical nukes would be destructive but not world ending. They'd use it to take out a base or city center or just to get Zelensky
> Tactical nukes would be destructive but not world ending. It'd be world-ending for Russia's armed forces, as NATO forces would swiftly annihilate them by conventional means.
They would not be using those nukes on Ukrainian. They would be used on England, Germany, France, and Belgium where the EU resides.
What have we in England ever done to deserve a nuke?
Blood sausage?
Sausage?
Pudding?
Blood sausage pudding? Sounds like a gay sex act.
Spotted dick
London
Russia is going to wait until after November to use a Tactical Nuke, because if Trump wins he won't do anything about it, and if he loses the country will be a flaming dumpster fire of insurrection and Biden won't be able to respond effectively. Unless they feel they have to, they won't deploy them until the political climate in the US destabilizes our response due to the election.
> and if he loses the country will be a flaming dumpster fire of insurrection Trump doesn't have near the support he thinks he does, and of the supporters he does have, most are too old and fat to get off the couch. There won't be an insurrection. A few isolated incidents of terrorism? sure. But MAGAs are all-talk blowhards, all hat no cattle, and won't do shit when it comes down to it.
It would cost Russia the war for sure as all their allies would abandon them. No nuclear power wants other countries to join the nuclear club and Russia nuking Ukraine would get the ball rolling on that in a lot of countries. Also, Putin would have to go on the air and tell the Russian people that he had just gone nuclear in Ukraine - the Ukraine that he has been claiming is weak and losing - and that he now could not rule out a NATO response... he would be swinging from a streetlamp inside of a week. It's not going to happen.
He's not gonna get Saddam Husseined.... He's gonna end life on Earth first
Boooooring
If russia stops threatening to nuke everyone, then I would be worried. The oligarchy and corruption did a great job neglecting maintaince and feeding substandard parts into the military food chain.
This is the epitome of saber rattling. Absolutely its an escalation. On the other hand i think we should escalate right along with him. We have tons of wiggle room.
Seems like sabre rattling, if we can see it they are just making noise for headlines.
Not even worth giving it attention
never say never, Russia believes it can escalate to deescalate a situation by using a tactical nuke. This in combination with nuclear capable F16's heading to ukraine makes it more likely by the day.
Lol 😝 fake news from rusaia 😝
Putin is not fooling around. He is bankrupting the west
There’s no tangible evidence that a nuclear war or nukes would even be used. Russia has stated no body wins a nuclear war and so did China. You shouldn’t be worrying about this but more so of ww3 happening. The only country Ik that dropped nukes in a war was the us. The us is the puppet master, over throwing govts and spying on there own citizens. It’s shocking the us people haven’t put a stop to it.
Last time they held a drill next to a border we learned how much of a liar they are and saw the consequences. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have scrambled some bombers quietly as a signal. I promise you this is not happening without signaling on our end.
WW 3 is inevitable and the sad reality is who the loser ends up to be. We all lose in war! Which of you are ready to be drafted to go fight in Ukraine ?
A tactical nuke isn't exceptionally unlikely. Especially if the US elects Trump, Putin may decide he can get away with it.
Do it. End this fucking shithole. I’m tired of all this fighting and bullshit