4 ms·

Once the nuclear taboo is crossed it could happen near-instantly. I imagine Russia would prefer to be bordered by nuclear wastelands as a DMZ rather than EU sta

• david422 5y ago
  If nobody launches a nuclear retaliation, then Russia knows it can nuke with impunity. What are the rules they are playing with? Literally just hope they don't invade or nuke London first.
  • blub 5y ago
    Well, they probably can’t nuke Western Europe with impunity. But it’s not clear what NATO membership’s really worth for Eastern Europe. I’m from EE and I don’t understand why the US or the UK would risk their countries or even WE getting nuked for EE. I have the feeling that EE was accepted into NATO just to piss off the Russians and put some space between them and WE. Just like with Ukraine before it went sideways.
    • stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Because we know that we aren't far behind if such a madman is allowed to exist. It's better to go out with a boom than let a dictator win. --Love, an american
  • Koshkin 5y ago
    > invade or nuke London first I don't think that's the plan. Also, no one is going to use tactical nukes against a city. The last thing Putin wants is to look like a mere terrorist. (And no, the Russian forces aren't using terrorist tactics in Ukraine.) So, the first one will probably be used against a military installation (a weapons depot, a radar station, a war ship, etc.), most likely in Poland.
    • micromacrofoot 5y ago
      They're already committing war crimes in Ukraine.
• halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  "Who would risk nuclear escalation as millions of people are wiped off the face of the Earth?" - I think if this question is being asked, it's only a matter of times before nukes fly beyond these select boarding countries as escalation would almost certainly continue. Putin is already declaring the sanctions as an act of war while NATO/EU countries begin to rearm.
• pmoriarty 5y ago
  "who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US." If a President as unpredictable as Trump happens to be in office, I wouldn't be so sure. That's not to mention the drastically increased risk of accidents once even a one-sided nuclear war has begun. Think of how close the world came to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.[1] Once nukes start flying the risk grows much higher, even if there are still (presumably rational, cautious, and non-hawkish) adults in control. [1] - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submarine-captain-stopped-cuban-missile-crisis-destroying-world-165747 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submar...
  • bushbaba 5y ago
    One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader One could argue anything, but I don't think there is a good argument for that position. In fact, I think it's painfully obvious that such a leader makes it less likely that efforts at avoiding conflict will be successful.
    • 1986 5y ago
      This was explicitly Nixon's approach, and it didn't really work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
      • bushbaba 5y ago
        Got a great laugh that the 3 people mentioned are Nixon, Trump, and Putin.
• glogla 5y ago
  That is why NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it.
  • micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I would be shocked (and likely dead shortly after) if NATO launched all out nuclear retaliation for the sake of the baltic states. It's a very convenient threat until you're faced with the reality of pushing the button.
    • chasd00 5y ago
      i don't believe it would go from zero to nuclear instantly. However, the thought is in a NATO vs Russia fight either side will resort to nuclear weapons before surrender. The thinking is it would be hard to stop a fight from escalating to an eventual nuclear war.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it. No, it doesn't, and, no, it isn't. NATO is very public about not saying what its specific response plan on various nuke scenarios is.
• onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  They're NATO members. Nice try. If you think Russia can nuke a NATO population center and we're going to sit around and pretend like nothing happened, you're crazy. That's MAD.
  • micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I'm not so sure NATO membership matters as much as people think, at present it seems like a convenient excuse to not intervene. If the US retaliated with a bomb on Russian soil, would the expectation not be full-out nuclear war? Would it be smart for the US to enter that because Russia bombed Latvia?
    • toyg 5y ago
      Attacking a NATO member in a significant manner would trigger nuclear war. That's the actual meaning of the alliance, the treaties make retaliation compulsory, if the action is a clear attack by a nation-state. Refusing to carry it out would immediately result in effective disbandment of the alliance, with massive effects on the economy of Europe and the US.
      • micromacrofoot 5y ago
        This logic doesn't really track... you think the US would directly invoke nuclear war for the sake of an agreement that includes baltic states because if it doesn't... it could hurt the economy? I have no doubt that "hurt the economy" would be preferred to "destroy parts of the country"
        • ryukafalz 5y ago
          How is it the US "invoking nuclear war" if Russia nukes a US ally first? No, Russia's the one starting that war if they do that. Yes, the US would retaliate.
        • toyg 5y ago
          NATO doesn't have multiple tracks - a member is a member. The US and their allies understood very well what that meant when they accepted those new members. NATO is about retaliation after external (and generally accepted to mean Russian, in practice) attack, or it isn't at all. This is not a case of Turkey whining about a few kurds blowing up a few police stations, this is the raison d'etre for the whole thing. Renouncing NATO duties would be the worst loss of dignity the US ever experienced, and would jeopardize its richest partner market, with uncalcolable losses.
• keepper 5y ago
  I hope it isn't, of course. ( the nuclear taboo). But, what this war has exposed is how bad the russian army is trained, and how not so great their equipment is. While a prolonged war would be hard for any country, they struggled from the get go. I hope this doesn't embolden the US and Europe to be more aggressive. I really hope that cooler heads eventually prevail. WRT to the really really far fetched ( I hope ), that Russia would launch any nuclear strike. The missile defense systems that NATO and the US have were built exactly to counteract Russian missiles in a situation like this. This will even accelerate the development of hypersonic interceptors ( afaik, already in final stages) . It would mean total annihilation of russia, as their in flight missies would be intercepted, and it would guarantee a total attack by the us. ( we as a nation tend to over react... and not go tit for tat ). I hope this never happens. The reason why countries need leadership changes often. And why stable leaders are needed everywhere :-/
• matthewdgreen 5y ago
  You'd have to ask yourself: once a country becomes so deranged that it's willing to nuke non-aggressive neighbors to remove a "threat", is it really safe to just back down and potentially show weakness to that nation? What if they decide that further strategic aims can be accomplished with additional nuclear strikes? I'm not saying I know the answer. But this is what strategists on the US/NATO side would be thinking about, and Russia sure knows they would be thinking about it. It would be madness to gamble on this strategy working out in the long run.
  • eternalban 5y ago
    The P5 issues a joint statement on Jan 3rd, 2022 that they won't use nuclear weapons. I am not sure if this is an annual announcement for P5 or just well wishes for 2022 by the nuclear armed permanent members of UNSC. (possibly /s) Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. Sanctions are hoped to collapse the economy of Russia and put the fear into the Chinese and other fence sitters. It's like running the clock down in a game. US probes for incremental steps (the famous "salami slicing") to ramp up counter force. Nothing should happen until we have Russia's promised counter-sanction response this Tuesday. After that next move is getting planes into Ukraine and possibly NFZ. What follows will be a non-nuclear hypersonic attack on NATO airfields used. And so on. Until someone lobs a nuke.
    • matthewdgreen 5y ago
      >Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. I think the major conclusion from the Ukraine war is that the Russian army is not in a particularly strong condition, and certainly would not fare well against superior NATO forces (particularly the air forces.) And this is assuming they are not further degraded by a long, bloody occupation in Ukraine. Nuclear first-use is a move from weakness, not strength.
      • eternalban 5y ago
• hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? That's the very point of the existence of NATO. If NATO doesn't retaliate, it could as well not exist. Fortunately the Western reaction to Putin's invasion helped to unite NATO and everybody knows that if we give in, there is no reason why Putin should stop at any defined point.
• cpwright 5y ago
  >At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. That is the point behind asking for US soldiers to be permanently based. They are a sign of commitment. An "engagement ring" if you will. Without the US soldiers there it becomes much easier to ignore an attack.