10 ms·

The risks of nuclear war from a NATO militarily intervention are far too high to even consider it. I’m sorry to say, but there is really nothing that could happ

The risks of nuclear war from a NATO militarily intervention are far too high to even consider it. I’m sorry to say, but there is really nothing that could happen in Ukraine that would be bad enough for us to accept the risk of nuclear annihilation.

merpnderp 5y ago
I keep telling people this and people seem bewildered. But how many times has this already happened in the last 80 years? We already know there’s nothing they can do to trigger a war.
kypro 5y ago
If NATO got involved my guess is that the chance of an all out nuclear war would increase to near 100% because Russia can not win a conventional war with NATO which means nukes would need to be deployed to level the playing field. Once one Nuke is fired it's likely they'll all be because the only real defence against a nation using nuclear weapons against you is to try to wipe them out before they wipe you out. In this situation hundreds of millions would be likely die directly from the attack and a similar amount would probably die from starvation shortly after as the global economy collapses and crops fail on mass. There's just no situation that this is something we'd even want to consider. As much as I'd love NATO to be able to intervene it's just not possible. The best we can do is put pressure on Russia and show other nations that this is not acceptable and not in their national interest because of the harsh economic consequences.
- adrianmonk 5y ago
  > the only real defence against a nation using nuclear weapons against you is to try to wipe them out before they wipe you out Thankfully, that has been thought of and, as much as possible, planned for. How do you decrease the incentive for a preemptive strike? By building your nuclear arsenal so that it can survive one. There are 3 main things that help achieve this: (1) Put your nukes somewhere where even a direct hit from an enemy nuke will not destroy them. That's why missile silos are underground. (2) Hide your nukes. The enemy can't take out your nukes if they don't know where they are. Fixed-location nukes are bad at this. Mobility is good, but road and rail are not the best forms of mobility. Nukes in planes are better. Nukes in submarines are really good. (3) Have lots of nukes. If the enemy can destroy 90% of your nukes with a preemptive strike but 10% of your nukes would still easily be enough to wipe them out, then a preemptive strike still doesn't achieve its goal. One way to increase nukes cheaply and effectively is with MIRVs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...), which means one missile has multiple nuclear warheads that can independently hit different targets. Basically, all this was thought out pretty thoroughly during the Cold War. The well-known acronym MAD stands for Mutually-Assured Destruction, and the importance of the assured part has not been overlooked. Source: needed a government credit in college, took a class that was all about nuclear deterrence theory.
- robinei 5y ago
  Given the accepted MAD doctrine, which kept the "peace" throughout the cold war, you would think nuclear escalation would be unthinkable as a means to stave off a conventional defeat on foreign soil.
  - zeven7 5y ago
    For a mad man who's going to lose anyway, what does he care if he takes the whole world with him?
    - esja 5y ago
      He will lose in many respects, but even so, Moscow and St. Petersburg are not going to be radioactive craters. All evidence suggests he wants to be remembered as a Russian hero. I think he is intelligent enough to know that bringing nuclear destruction on Russia will not put him in that category. And it's not possible for him to act alone anyway. Worth noting that the two people in human history who have acted to stop a nuclear catastrophe were both Russian soldiers: Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov.
      - worldsayshi 5y ago
        It is completely mind numbingly crazy how much is at stake based on a single psychopaths whims, and possibly the courage of a few people selected by the same psychopath.
        esja 5y ago
        Absolutely. I think democratic governance and rule of law should be table stakes for participation in the "Western" economy and its international institutions. Countries that don't respect those values in their own societies won't respect them in international relations either.
AeroNotix 5y ago
So any time a tin pot dictator wants to do whatever they want they just claim they'll use nukes and we let it ride?
- acdha 5y ago
  Why do you think there's been so much effort to keep Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear club? Once someone has a high probability of having nuclear weapon and the capacity to deliver it, your tolerable options decline sharply. Russia is the worst-case form of that problem since they have many advanced weapons and even if their maintenance standards have been deplorable the odds are far too high that enough would reach their targets to cause death counts in the range of hundreds of millions.
- kilroy123 5y ago
  Yes and this is why the US has been so aggressive about stopping North Korea. And why the US and especially Israel is so against Iran having nuclear weapons, to the point where Israel would attack Iran militarily, to stop them.
- GoodJokes 5y ago
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Yes. That's why every tin pot dictator wants nukes.
- bestcoder69 5y ago
  Hm no that doesn’t sound good either. Alright nuclear annihilation it is! Too bad…
- dustintrex 5y ago
  Yup, as long as the tin pot dictator is attacking some country we don't really care about.
  - vkou 5y ago
purple_ferret 5y ago
What would be the difference if Putin invaded a NATO state and NATO was forced to defend? What would be the difference if he starts losing the war and needs to kick it up a notch? Is there any less chance he'd use nukes? Serious question. Threatening nukes is a rational move. Actually using them is not.
- GoodJokes 5y ago
- ummonk 5y ago
  In general, the side that cares about the conflict more is more likely to engage in direct conflict, and escalate to nuclear use if their goals are being thwarted by conventional war. To Russia, Ukraine is a core interest, and thus they're the most likely to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons if NATO intervenes and Russia starts losing. With a NATO country, that calculus changes, and if for some crazy reason Russia actually attacked a NATO country, we would have a good chance of being able to fight back and expel Russia's attack without the war going nuclear, because Russia has far less interest in winning that war, as existing NATO countries aren't core interests to Russia.
  - Gare 5y ago
    > as existing NATO countries aren't core interests to Russia The Baltic states (former Soviet Union states) might be
  - magpi3 5y ago
    A nuclear would most likely mean the end of the world. Russia's core interest should be preventing the end of the world. If Putin is rational, he will never initiate a nuclear war. If he is irrational, he will not stop with Ukraine.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      Putin is on record as saying "There is no world imaginable without Russia"
kilroy123 5y ago
I think if Russia resorted to using nuclear weapons against Ukraine we would intervene.
- chasd00 5y ago
  I’ve been wondering if that convoy outside of Kyiv is really stopped because serious thought is being given to the idea of a nuclear attack to save a long bloody insurgency. I don’t know if NATO would respond to a nuclear attack on Kyiv. Would NATO attack knowing the destruction of London/Paris/NYC/etc would be almost guaranteed?
  - symlinkk 5y ago
    No offense but this is pretty far fetched. First of all, if Putin wanted to level Kiev he could do it with conventional bombs and artillery. Nuclear weapons are not needed. But second of all, *why* would he want to flatten Kiev? Why don’t you read his goals in his own words? https://web.archive.org/web/20220224024154/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 https://web.archive.org/web/20220224024154/http://en.kremlin... He says he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people and wants to unify them. No, I’m not defending him, I oppose war in all circumstances. But it’s important to understand that he’s not some evil maniac out of a comic book that wants to kill everybody, he has actual goals.
    - mopsi 5y ago
      Now that the Ukrainian people are resisting "unification" and he has failed to achieve goals, he's ordered revenge attacks on Ukrainian cities to level them like Grozny or like Nazis destroyed Warsaw block by block after the uprising. This follows his own words too: he does not think that Ukraine has a right to exist. It's a textbook example of genocide and it's as rational as Hitler's desire to murder all Jews.
    - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
      That was written under the assumption they'd have occupied Ukraine in 3 days or so, not the embarrassment that is happening now. At this point, Kremlin will put out any false flag and use it to justify levelling Kyiv and his population will suck it up.
czep 5y ago
Bluff? Putin wants to live out his golden years in unabated luxury after anointing a loyal successor. If he nukes the entire world, he will live in squalor and misery while being hunted by the entire human race. He won't do it. Me hopes. Me also hopes someone in his inner circle gets a nice clean view of the back of his head and does the world a favor.
- evan_ 5y ago
  I mean you're right, but... he already lives in unimaginable luxury, wanting for nothing. Has for decades. Could continue to do so for 100 lifetimes. And yet here we are.
veganhouseDJ 5y ago
It makes me wonder if there is a Russian information campaign to try to get public opinion in the West for NATO to enter, knowing that the US is not going to enter and then fracture NATO or cause division within NATO. All the sudden all these Curtis LeMay types are coming out of the woodwork trying to drum up nuclear war. We know Russia has ran information campaigns on social media in the past so it seems pretty irrational to believe they aren't running campaigns when actually at war. Everyone should take what they think they know about the situation with a huge grain of salt. It is totally irresponsible to read a news headline that may or may not be correct and then from that headline extrapolate that it is time to go to DEFCON 1.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
You could say this about any military aggression from Russia though. "Putin taking Estonia isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." "Putin taking Berlin isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." "Putin taking DC isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." What if he just goes, "I'm invading western Europe now too, and if you fight back I launch the nukes"? Do we just roll over and say that it's better to surrender than fight?
- monocasa 5y ago
  All of those countries are NATO members.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    So? What if Putin threatens nuclear annihilation anyway?
    - monocasa 5y ago
      It's the clear line in the sand. Putin's not going to cross that line, he doesn't gain anything from it.
      - MisterMower 5y ago
        Assuming NATO would be willing to use nuclear weapons if he did attack a NATO country. I have far more confidence that Putin would use them than the US would. That asymmetry works to his advantage.
        ssijak 5y ago
        The only country which used them and on actual civilian cities leveling them to the ground is the US. Also, launching nukes is not one person job. His generals need to be mad too for that to happen.
        5y ago
chinathrow 5y ago
> I’m sorry to say, but there is really nothing that could happen in Ukraine that would be bad enough for us to accept the risk of nuclear annihilation. Would that hold up if you insert "anywhere" instead of "in Ukraine"? I am not so sure that e.g. the Baltics would be protected by NATO if Putin invades.

merpnderp 5y ago

I keep telling people this and people seem bewildered. But how many times has this already happened in the last 80 years? We already know there’s nothing they can do to trigger a war.

kypro 5y ago

If NATO got involved my guess is that the chance of an all out nuclear war would increase to near 100% because Russia can not win a conventional war with NATO which means nukes would need to be deployed to level the playing field. Once one Nuke is fired it's likely they'll all be because the only real defence against a nation using nuclear weapons against you is to try to wipe them out before they wipe you out. In this situation hundreds of millions would be likely die directly from the attack and a similar amount would probably die from starvation shortly after as the global economy collapses and crops fail on mass. There's just no situation that this is something we'd even want to consider. As much as I'd love NATO to be able to intervene it's just not possible. The best we can do is put pressure on Russia and show other nations that this is not acceptable and not in their national interest because of the harsh economic consequences.

adrianmonk 5y ago
> the only real defence against a nation using nuclear weapons against you is to try to wipe them out before they wipe you out Thankfully, that has been thought of and, as much as possible, planned for. How do you decrease the incentive for a preemptive strike? By building your nuclear arsenal so that it can survive one. There are 3 main things that help achieve this: (1) Put your nukes somewhere where even a direct hit from an enemy nuke will not destroy them. That's why missile silos are underground. (2) Hide your nukes. The enemy can't take out your nukes if they don't know where they are. Fixed-location nukes are bad at this. Mobility is good, but road and rail are not the best forms of mobility. Nukes in planes are better. Nukes in submarines are really good. (3) Have lots of nukes. If the enemy can destroy 90% of your nukes with a preemptive strike but 10% of your nukes would still easily be enough to wipe them out, then a preemptive strike still doesn't achieve its goal. One way to increase nukes cheaply and effectively is with MIRVs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...), which means one missile has multiple nuclear warheads that can independently hit different targets. Basically, all this was thought out pretty thoroughly during the Cold War. The well-known acronym MAD stands for Mutually-Assured Destruction, and the importance of the assured part has not been overlooked. Source: needed a government credit in college, took a class that was all about nuclear deterrence theory.
robinei 5y ago
Given the accepted MAD doctrine, which kept the "peace" throughout the cold war, you would think nuclear escalation would be unthinkable as a means to stave off a conventional defeat on foreign soil.
- zeven7 5y ago
  For a mad man who's going to lose anyway, what does he care if he takes the whole world with him?
  - esja 5y ago
    He will lose in many respects, but even so, Moscow and St. Petersburg are not going to be radioactive craters. All evidence suggests he wants to be remembered as a Russian hero. I think he is intelligent enough to know that bringing nuclear destruction on Russia will not put him in that category. And it's not possible for him to act alone anyway. Worth noting that the two people in human history who have acted to stop a nuclear catastrophe were both Russian soldiers: Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov.
    - worldsayshi 5y ago
      It is completely mind numbingly crazy how much is at stake based on a single psychopaths whims, and possibly the courage of a few people selected by the same psychopath.
      - esja 5y ago
        Absolutely. I think democratic governance and rule of law should be table stakes for participation in the "Western" economy and its international institutions. Countries that don't respect those values in their own societies won't respect them in international relations either.

AeroNotix 5y ago

So any time a tin pot dictator wants to do whatever they want they just claim they'll use nukes and we let it ride?

acdha 5y ago
Why do you think there's been so much effort to keep Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear club? Once someone has a high probability of having nuclear weapon and the capacity to deliver it, your tolerable options decline sharply. Russia is the worst-case form of that problem since they have many advanced weapons and even if their maintenance standards have been deplorable the odds are far too high that enough would reach their targets to cause death counts in the range of hundreds of millions.
kilroy123 5y ago
Yes and this is why the US has been so aggressive about stopping North Korea. And why the US and especially Israel is so against Iran having nuclear weapons, to the point where Israel would attack Iran militarily, to stop them.
GoodJokes 5y ago
betwixthewires 5y ago
Yes. That's why every tin pot dictator wants nukes.
bestcoder69 5y ago
Hm no that doesn’t sound good either. Alright nuclear annihilation it is! Too bad…
dustintrex 5y ago
Yup, as long as the tin pot dictator is attacking some country we don't really care about.
- vkou 5y ago

purple_ferret 5y ago

What would be the difference if Putin invaded a NATO state and NATO was forced to defend? What would be the difference if he starts losing the war and needs to kick it up a notch? Is there any less chance he'd use nukes? Serious question. Threatening nukes is a rational move. Actually using them is not.

GoodJokes 5y ago
ummonk 5y ago
In general, the side that cares about the conflict more is more likely to engage in direct conflict, and escalate to nuclear use if their goals are being thwarted by conventional war. To Russia, Ukraine is a core interest, and thus they're the most likely to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons if NATO intervenes and Russia starts losing. With a NATO country, that calculus changes, and if for some crazy reason Russia actually attacked a NATO country, we would have a good chance of being able to fight back and expel Russia's attack without the war going nuclear, because Russia has far less interest in winning that war, as existing NATO countries aren't core interests to Russia.
- Gare 5y ago
  > as existing NATO countries aren't core interests to Russia The Baltic states (former Soviet Union states) might be
- magpi3 5y ago
  A nuclear would most likely mean the end of the world. Russia's core interest should be preventing the end of the world. If Putin is rational, he will never initiate a nuclear war. If he is irrational, he will not stop with Ukraine.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    Putin is on record as saying "There is no world imaginable without Russia"

kilroy123 5y ago

I think if Russia resorted to using nuclear weapons against Ukraine we would intervene.

chasd00 5y ago
I’ve been wondering if that convoy outside of Kyiv is really stopped because serious thought is being given to the idea of a nuclear attack to save a long bloody insurgency. I don’t know if NATO would respond to a nuclear attack on Kyiv. Would NATO attack knowing the destruction of London/Paris/NYC/etc would be almost guaranteed?
- symlinkk 5y ago
  No offense but this is pretty far fetched. First of all, if Putin wanted to level Kiev he could do it with conventional bombs and artillery. Nuclear weapons are not needed. But second of all, *why* would he want to flatten Kiev? Why don’t you read his goals in his own words? https://web.archive.org/web/20220224024154/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 https://web.archive.org/web/20220224024154/http://en.kremlin... He says he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people and wants to unify them. No, I’m not defending him, I oppose war in all circumstances. But it’s important to understand that he’s not some evil maniac out of a comic book that wants to kill everybody, he has actual goals.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    Now that the Ukrainian people are resisting "unification" and he has failed to achieve goals, he's ordered revenge attacks on Ukrainian cities to level them like Grozny or like Nazis destroyed Warsaw block by block after the uprising. This follows his own words too: he does not think that Ukraine has a right to exist. It's a textbook example of genocide and it's as rational as Hitler's desire to murder all Jews.
  - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
    That was written under the assumption they'd have occupied Ukraine in 3 days or so, not the embarrassment that is happening now. At this point, Kremlin will put out any false flag and use it to justify levelling Kyiv and his population will suck it up.

czep 5y ago

Bluff? Putin wants to live out his golden years in unabated luxury after anointing a loyal successor. If he nukes the entire world, he will live in squalor and misery while being hunted by the entire human race. He won't do it. Me hopes. Me also hopes someone in his inner circle gets a nice clean view of the back of his head and does the world a favor.

evan_ 5y ago
I mean you're right, but... he already lives in unimaginable luxury, wanting for nothing. Has for decades. Could continue to do so for 100 lifetimes. And yet here we are.

veganhouseDJ 5y ago

It makes me wonder if there is a Russian information campaign to try to get public opinion in the West for NATO to enter, knowing that the US is not going to enter and then fracture NATO or cause division within NATO. All the sudden all these Curtis LeMay types are coming out of the woodwork trying to drum up nuclear war. We know Russia has ran information campaigns on social media in the past so it seems pretty irrational to believe they aren't running campaigns when actually at war. Everyone should take what they think they know about the situation with a huge grain of salt. It is totally irresponsible to read a news headline that may or may not be correct and then from that headline extrapolate that it is time to go to DEFCON 1.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

You could say this about any military aggression from Russia though. "Putin taking Estonia isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." "Putin taking Berlin isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." "Putin taking DC isn't as bad as nuclear annihilation." What if he just goes, "I'm invading western Europe now too, and if you fight back I launch the nukes"? Do we just roll over and say that it's better to surrender than fight?

monocasa 5y ago
All of those countries are NATO members.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  So? What if Putin threatens nuclear annihilation anyway?
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It's the clear line in the sand. Putin's not going to cross that line, he doesn't gain anything from it.
    - MisterMower 5y ago
      Assuming NATO would be willing to use nuclear weapons if he did attack a NATO country. I have far more confidence that Putin would use them than the US would. That asymmetry works to his advantage.
      - ssijak 5y ago
        The only country which used them and on actual civilian cities leveling them to the ground is the US. Also, launching nukes is not one person job. His generals need to be mad too for that to happen.
        5y ago

chinathrow 5y ago

> I’m sorry to say, but there is really nothing that could happen in Ukraine that would be bad enough for us to accept the risk of nuclear annihilation. Would that hold up if you insert "anywhere" instead of "in Ukraine"? I am not so sure that e.g. the Baltics would be protected by NATO if Putin invades.