3 ms·

If nukes are seen as strictly a doomsday weapon (which in practicality they are since everyone will be on top of you if you use them) then we're back to convent

If nukes are seen as strictly a doomsday weapon (which in practicality they are since everyone will be on top of you if you use them) then we're back to conventional warfare, which is a lot more drawn out and complicated then most people today seem to think it is. Historically, campaigns like these can last months. It's probably a little early honestly to speculate on success or failure here.

emerged 5y ago
That’s the big open question to me right now. If nobody wants to use nukes then they might as well not even exist. If we’re fighting WW3 without nukes to me it’s almost more terrifying.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  The existence of nuclear weapons does really matter. If it weren't for the real threat of nuclear escalation, direct military intervention in Ukraine would likely be on the table. Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons, but nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear state either.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Nukes are what would keep NATO out of Russia, even if they got militarily involved. They basically guarantee that the country's leader must be deposed of internally.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  that's only a partial view. Once you have nukes and other countries have nukes. How wise is it to be the first to give up your nukes? Do you trust your enemies to stick to an agreement to get rid of all nukes when it's pretty easy to hide them? One you get them it's almost impossible to get rid of them.
harry8 5y ago
I have no idea at all about the thinking of the people involved in the actual decision making and I'm pretty sure anything I read about Joe Biden or Vlad Putin in this regard is propaganda that should not be trusted. So let's take an angle that leaves them out. There's a nuclear "exchange", maybe it's one way, that doesn't involve my country. Why would I want to get my country involved in that exchange? That seems to go from utterly terrible tragedy that is almost as bad as can be imagined to so, so much worse for so many more people. In fact it takes it to every bit as bad as possible. Given that reality, how much deterrent are they unless it's mutually assured destruction? "Is this something for which the only option is to end current human civilization?" Nasty things to think about.
riku_iki 5y ago
Putin has pointed out in his pre-invasion speech that he is ready to apply some extra forces if Western countries will interrupt him and it looked like he meant nukes with saying all decisions are already approved. Maybe it was about tactical nuclear missiles.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  He's not dumb enough to start dropping nukes unless he recently suffered brain damage, which is not off the table considering his current actions.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I'd also note that his threats seem to be quite effective at keeping NATO countries strictly behind a "red line" of supporting Ukraine only with sanctions and resources, but not sending military forces to fire a single shot (which would be quite significant in e.g. air war), as everyone seems to understand that it would be a road to dropping nukes.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I don't see him crossing the red line of going into Poland though, so it's still a stand-off, but I think NATO is going to come out of this much stronger as some had started to wonder about its purpose since it had been so long since there was an aggressor like Putin is being currently.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        Putin has done a lot to improve the capabilities of NATO in the last few days. The NATO countries have become more unified, Germany is doubling their military spending overnight, Kosovo has applied for NATO membership, Sweden has stopped its traditional neutrality and delivered arms to Ukraine so perhaps both Sweden and Finland are on the way to NATO, etc.

emerged 5y ago

That’s the big open question to me right now. If nobody wants to use nukes then they might as well not even exist. If we’re fighting WW3 without nukes to me it’s almost more terrifying.

the_snooze 5y ago
The existence of nuclear weapons does really matter. If it weren't for the real threat of nuclear escalation, direct military intervention in Ukraine would likely be on the table. Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons, but nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear state either.
bcrosby95 5y ago
Nukes are what would keep NATO out of Russia, even if they got militarily involved. They basically guarantee that the country's leader must be deposed of internally.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
that's only a partial view. Once you have nukes and other countries have nukes. How wise is it to be the first to give up your nukes? Do you trust your enemies to stick to an agreement to get rid of all nukes when it's pretty easy to hide them? One you get them it's almost impossible to get rid of them.

harry8 5y ago

I have no idea at all about the thinking of the people involved in the actual decision making and I'm pretty sure anything I read about Joe Biden or Vlad Putin in this regard is propaganda that should not be trusted. So let's take an angle that leaves them out. There's a nuclear "exchange", maybe it's one way, that doesn't involve my country. Why would I want to get my country involved in that exchange? That seems to go from utterly terrible tragedy that is almost as bad as can be imagined to so, so much worse for so many more people. In fact it takes it to every bit as bad as possible. Given that reality, how much deterrent are they unless it's mutually assured destruction? "Is this something for which the only option is to end current human civilization?" Nasty things to think about.

riku_iki 5y ago

Putin has pointed out in his pre-invasion speech that he is ready to apply some extra forces if Western countries will interrupt him and it looked like he meant nukes with saying all decisions are already approved. Maybe it was about tactical nuclear missiles.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
He's not dumb enough to start dropping nukes unless he recently suffered brain damage, which is not off the table considering his current actions.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I'd also note that his threats seem to be quite effective at keeping NATO countries strictly behind a "red line" of supporting Ukraine only with sanctions and resources, but not sending military forces to fire a single shot (which would be quite significant in e.g. air war), as everyone seems to understand that it would be a road to dropping nukes.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I don't see him crossing the red line of going into Poland though, so it's still a stand-off, but I think NATO is going to come out of this much stronger as some had started to wonder about its purpose since it had been so long since there was an aggressor like Putin is being currently.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      Putin has done a lot to improve the capabilities of NATO in the last few days. The NATO countries have become more unified, Germany is doubling their military spending overnight, Kosovo has applied for NATO membership, Sweden has stopped its traditional neutrality and delivered arms to Ukraine so perhaps both Sweden and Finland are on the way to NATO, etc.