3 ms·

I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. It would be to signal that they're willing to go all the way, but wit

I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. It would be to signal that they're willing to go all the way, but without actually committing suicide by nuking western countries. The nuclear super-powers are in a situation where they have enough nukes to obliterate each other - many, many times over. But obviously no-one wants to take that chance - even with all the modern anti measures they have. I think both sides are willing to accept pretty substantial losses, if it means avoiding an all out nuclear war.

earthscienceman 5y ago
There's so much uninformed conversation around, do people in this thread not realize that it Russia nukes any Ukrainian site, the US is obliged to nuke Russia a la Budapest Memorandum ?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  According to the Budapest Memorandum, the US is also required to be attacking Russia right now. Obviously we're not, so I wouldn't assume we're automatically going to annihilate Russia if they use a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
- atdrummond 5y ago
  Budapest Memorandum clearly has no weight as Ukraine's borders haven't been respected by Russia for years; even if one considers the Donbas involvement legitimate, the present invasion still represents a violation of said borders. They have been pressured militarily and economically, both also violations of the agreement.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  Budapest Memorandum is null and void. Nothing happened when Russia invaded in 2014., and nothing happened now.
- NoNameProvided 5y ago
  Just to be clear the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say anybody needs to nuke anybody. It only says that the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan must be respected. One can respect those borders without going to war and just keep protesting in the UN.
- piotrkaminski 5y ago
  Probably not, per Wikipedia: > According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." [...] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. Yep. Plus a noisy, demonstrative test explosion somewhere in the North Sea to make a point. Strong chance of both, I think. Particularly what you suggest. At this point it's insane to think otherwise, because he's already telegraphing that he'll use battlefield nukes if pushed. Everything else of any significance that he's telegraphed so far, he's done. He's a psychopath, telling us in advance, to prolong his enjoyment and make us responsible for what he does. And he's losing in every significant way; he won't be able to cope with that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

earthscienceman 5y ago

There's so much uninformed conversation around, do people in this thread not realize that it Russia nukes any Ukrainian site, the US is obliged to nuke Russia a la Budapest Memorandum ?

jaywalk 5y ago
According to the Budapest Memorandum, the US is also required to be attacking Russia right now. Obviously we're not, so I wouldn't assume we're automatically going to annihilate Russia if they use a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
atdrummond 5y ago
Budapest Memorandum clearly has no weight as Ukraine's borders haven't been respected by Russia for years; even if one considers the Donbas involvement legitimate, the present invasion still represents a violation of said borders. They have been pressured militarily and economically, both also violations of the agreement.
sgjohnson 5y ago
Budapest Memorandum is null and void. Nothing happened when Russia invaded in 2014., and nothing happened now.
NoNameProvided 5y ago
Just to be clear the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say anybody needs to nuke anybody. It only says that the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan must be respected. One can respect those borders without going to war and just keep protesting in the UN.
piotrkaminski 5y ago
Probably not, per Wikipedia: > According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." [...] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. Yep. Plus a noisy, demonstrative test explosion somewhere in the North Sea to make a point. Strong chance of both, I think. Particularly what you suggest. At this point it's insane to think otherwise, because he's already telegraphing that he'll use battlefield nukes if pushed. Everything else of any significance that he's telegraphed so far, he's done. He's a psychopath, telling us in advance, to prolong his enjoyment and make us responsible for what he does. And he's losing in every significant way; he won't be able to cope with that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]