3 ms·

> What this idea does, that Russia cannot use a tactical nuke in Ukraine because of the principle of a necessary retaliation by the U.S., is negate the strategi

by mcv 4y ago

> What this idea does, that Russia cannot use a tactical nuke in Ukraine because of the principle of a necessary retaliation by the U.S., is negate the strategic advantage of having nukes in the first place thus rendering Russia at the mercy of U.S. interests around the world. But that's the thing: nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to provide a strategic advantage in a conventional war of conquest, or they would be used. Russia using a nuke in a war on conquest would set a terrible precedent that cannot be allowed to stand. If they can do it with Ukraine, they can do it with Moldova, and then they can do it with any other country they choose to attack. If they have no retaliation to fear, they have no reason to hold back anymore. I don't think NATO can afford not to retaliate in some manner. How, I don't know, but doing nothing will effectively reward the offensive use of nuclear weapons, which means it will happen more often.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>But that's the thing: nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to provide a strategic advantage in a conventional war of conquest I don't know what this means other than we will fight a nuclear war to prevent other states from using the threat of nuclear weapons to secure their interests. But this is just unintelligible to me. > If they have no retaliation to fear, they have no reason to hold back anymore. We can demonstrate, and have, a massive increased cost to such incursions. But some nations may choose to pay that cost some of the time if they calculate the benefit is sufficient. The only way to prevent this is nuclear war. It is absolutely not worth it to maintain the stability of the current border configuration.
- mcv 4y ago
  > I don't know what this means other than we will fight a nuclear war to prevent other states from using the threat of nuclear weapons to secure their interests. I don't really know either. There's definitely a point where nuclear escalation is going to require a nuclear response, but if a non-nuclear response is possible and proportional while still stopping Russia's ability to deploy nuclear weapons, that would of course be preferable. There's a good reason why nobody wanted to escalate to nuclear war during the Cold War: you put the opposition in the position of either having to accept one-sided nuclear aggression, or go to full nuclear war. Both are terrible.
rtwrtwer54 4y ago
I think "NATO" will be rapidly be re-evaluated after the first nuke goes off in EU. Think it; US won't directly attack Russia mainland, neither Russia will attack US mainland. But EU continental territories will probably be fair game for NATO. So if a nuclear war begins nukes will only be deployed inside EU countries, that will probably lead a NATO disband and / or some countries with nukes or even conventional kinetic weaponry, just starting to directly attack Russia somehow, without US "ok". You can't predict at this point how it is going to be played, but almost certainly, EU elites won't be happy knowing / discovering their land / cities / territories are going to be - nuclearly - taken to tabula rasa once again, and that would lead to decisions.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I think "NATO" will be rapidly be re-evaluated after the first nuke goes off in EU. > Think it; US won't directly attack Russia mainland You might ask yourself some questions: (1) Why is having multiple independent nuclear powers as members an important part of NATO’s nuclear posture. (2) Why is the forward deployment of US troops and nuclear weapons (some slated for delivery by host-nation forces under nuclear sharing agreements) also an import part of NATO’s posture? (3) Why is the involvement of non-nuclear members of NATO in NATO nuclear planning an important part of NATO’s nuclear posture? NATO—including the US—isn’t going to nuke itself (most of the EU also being in NATO or in close security arrangements with it) and not Russia in response to Russia using nukes against the EU.
- mcv 4y ago
  > So if a nuclear war begins nukes will only be deployed inside EU countries, that will probably lead a NATO disband I really wonder why you'd possibly think that. NATO dwindles when it seems unnecessary, but as we've already seen, nothing unites NATO like a common enemy does. Keep in mind that NATO has spent its entire existence preparing for a possible war with Russia. The moment Russia starts throwing nukes, it will get nuked by NATO. It's the very thing the NATO nuclear doctrine is designed around: retaliation if Russia ever initiates a nuclear war.

by mcv 4y ago

hackinthebochs 4y ago

>But that's the thing: nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to provide a strategic advantage in a conventional war of conquest I don't know what this means other than we will fight a nuclear war to prevent other states from using the threat of nuclear weapons to secure their interests. But this is just unintelligible to me. > If they have no retaliation to fear, they have no reason to hold back anymore. We can demonstrate, and have, a massive increased cost to such incursions. But some nations may choose to pay that cost some of the time if they calculate the benefit is sufficient. The only way to prevent this is nuclear war. It is absolutely not worth it to maintain the stability of the current border configuration.

mcv 4y ago
> I don't know what this means other than we will fight a nuclear war to prevent other states from using the threat of nuclear weapons to secure their interests. I don't really know either. There's definitely a point where nuclear escalation is going to require a nuclear response, but if a non-nuclear response is possible and proportional while still stopping Russia's ability to deploy nuclear weapons, that would of course be preferable. There's a good reason why nobody wanted to escalate to nuclear war during the Cold War: you put the opposition in the position of either having to accept one-sided nuclear aggression, or go to full nuclear war. Both are terrible.

rtwrtwer54 4y ago

I think "NATO" will be rapidly be re-evaluated after the first nuke goes off in EU. Think it; US won't directly attack Russia mainland, neither Russia will attack US mainland. But EU continental territories will probably be fair game for NATO. So if a nuclear war begins nukes will only be deployed inside EU countries, that will probably lead a NATO disband and / or some countries with nukes or even conventional kinetic weaponry, just starting to directly attack Russia somehow, without US "ok". You can't predict at this point how it is going to be played, but almost certainly, EU elites won't be happy knowing / discovering their land / cities / territories are going to be - nuclearly - taken to tabula rasa once again, and that would lead to decisions.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I think "NATO" will be rapidly be re-evaluated after the first nuke goes off in EU. > Think it; US won't directly attack Russia mainland You might ask yourself some questions: (1) Why is having multiple independent nuclear powers as members an important part of NATO’s nuclear posture. (2) Why is the forward deployment of US troops and nuclear weapons (some slated for delivery by host-nation forces under nuclear sharing agreements) also an import part of NATO’s posture? (3) Why is the involvement of non-nuclear members of NATO in NATO nuclear planning an important part of NATO’s nuclear posture? NATO—including the US—isn’t going to nuke itself (most of the EU also being in NATO or in close security arrangements with it) and not Russia in response to Russia using nukes against the EU.
mcv 4y ago
> So if a nuclear war begins nukes will only be deployed inside EU countries, that will probably lead a NATO disband I really wonder why you'd possibly think that. NATO dwindles when it seems unnecessary, but as we've already seen, nothing unites NATO like a common enemy does. Keep in mind that NATO has spent its entire existence preparing for a possible war with Russia. The moment Russia starts throwing nukes, it will get nuked by NATO. It's the very thing the NATO nuclear doctrine is designed around: retaliation if Russia ever initiates a nuclear war.