3 ms·
> I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected! I mean, if
by ivraatiems 4y ago
> I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
I mean, if you're NATO and you see that... hard to imagine you don't take the invitation and just crush the Russian military into so much melted shrapnel. Every analysis I've seen says that if NATO gets involved, and nukes are otherwise off the table (which in this case they would be, at least for long enough for it not to matter), the thing ends with total NATO victory in very little time. And the attempted use of tactical nukes is the one thing almost guaranteed to step up NATO involvement.
But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
In terms of geopolitical stability, it would make Russia difficult to take seriously as a nuclear power. I don't think it says much about other nuclear states, like the US or China, who are almost certainly not paper tigers like Russia would have proven to be.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoWhy do you assume that nukes are off the table? If they are, sure, the US could bomb the shit outa Russia. Otherwise, it is MAD.
- Doxin 4y agoThe parent comment is replying to the hypothetical of a russian nuke being a dud.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI don't see how one dud means they all are duds
- HWR_14 4y agoEven if most Russian nukes are duds, 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. Hell, 1% probably is. Right now NATO is just giving Ukraine weapons and beating Russia that way.
- ivraatiems 4y agoI'll respond to this comment but there are a number in the same vein: "Russia would still have X% working nukes even if Y% don't work, and they have lots of nukes." That is true. However, what's missing from this assessment in my view is the difference between strategic nukes (the kind that level a city) and tactical nukes (the kind you use for specific tactical goals, and the only kind being discussed as likely to be used here). Russia has enough working strategic nukes that any kind of direct offense against the Russian homeland is always gonna be off the table. That is totally true. But nobody, including Russia, has suggested those are going to be used at all. Rather, what is contemplated is using a tactical nuclear weapon to make a statement or accomplish a specific wartime goal. With regards to tactical nukes specifically, I think this claim: > 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. is possibly not true. I think NATO might be willing to engage Russia conventionally if it is clear their tactical nukes don't work - and maybe even if they do work, because that may be among what has been threatened as a response to the use of a tactical nuke. If Russia threatens to bomb Warsaw or DC, the situation changes again. But nobody has put that on the table... yet.