4 ms·

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilitie

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage. For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

NikolaNovak 5y ago
It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. (the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem to indicate West indeed does not consider a tactical nuke to be the appropriate response to another tactical nuke).
- danaris 5y ago
  > Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. The impression I have thus far is that this is because a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West". b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has not yet used any forms of warfare that truly cross the line into "mad dog that needs to be put down at all costs". The cluster bombs are pretty bad, yes, and reflect very badly on Russia, but they're still conventional munitions. If Russia breaks out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the calculation on (b) changes. Doesn't automatically mean everyone's going to jump on them—I don't pretend to know how any given country would respond to that, even my own (the US). But it at least means they have to start rethinking whether (a) remains relevant to their decision not to get directly involved.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

NikolaNovak 5y ago

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. (the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem to indicate West indeed does not consider a tactical nuke to be the appropriate response to another tactical nuke).

danaris 5y ago
> Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. The impression I have thus far is that this is because a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West". b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has not yet used any forms of warfare that truly cross the line into "mad dog that needs to be put down at all costs". The cluster bombs are pretty bad, yes, and reflect very badly on Russia, but they're still conventional munitions. If Russia breaks out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the calculation on (b) changes. Doesn't automatically mean everyone's going to jump on them—I don't pretend to know how any given country would respond to that, even my own (the US). But it at least means they have to start rethinking whether (a) remains relevant to their decision not to get directly involved.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]