12 ms·

How obvious nobody in the planet actually ever fought an actual nuclear war. The whole thing has no imagination whatsoever regarding tactical deployment. - The

How obvious nobody in the planet actually ever fought an actual nuclear war. The whole thing has no imagination whatsoever regarding tactical deployment. - They could send operatives with at least a dozen of nukes into Kiev. Then just announce the end of the war. You fill the details. - They could just bring some big nuke just as close to Ukrain as possible, anything like 50-80 megatons deployed on russian soil would just erase most of anything at the other side of the border. If you see lots of russian towns evacuated, this strategy should be obvious. and so on. The bigger nuclear game is all about NOT triggering any bomb never ever. An actual nuclear war would be a very different thing.

jfengel 2y ago
They could announce the end of the war, but would instantly find themselves embroiled in a new one. NATO will not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons, even tactically. It's the reason that the organization exists. Russia has made nuclear threats at NATO nations and it's only the fact that they've never used a nuclear weapon that keeps Russia from being forcibly disarmed. It's hard to see a route whereby that does not escalate. But there is no chance that NATO will say, "Well, I guess you win Ukraine, congratulations".
talldayo 2y ago
Those inherently aren't tactical strikes, though. Threatening to nuke civilians if people don't agree with you is nuclear blackmail, and NATO would bring the guillotine down on Russia's head overnight. The entire point of the cold war was that imagination kills us, and the only point of keeping nuclear weapons is to ensure proportional retaliation if someone else nukes you. Russia knows this; they aren't stupid, and they full-well know that deploying nuclear weapons in any capacity gives the west a fully-justified casus belli on any preparatory strikes they want to make. Russia loves to talk a big game, but it should be plainly obvious that they could not possibly hope to survive a second-strike attack from NATO. It is all or nothing.

jfengel 2y ago

They could announce the end of the war, but would instantly find themselves embroiled in a new one. NATO will not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons, even tactically. It's the reason that the organization exists. Russia has made nuclear threats at NATO nations and it's only the fact that they've never used a nuclear weapon that keeps Russia from being forcibly disarmed. It's hard to see a route whereby that does not escalate. But there is no chance that NATO will say, "Well, I guess you win Ukraine, congratulations".

talldayo 2y ago

Those inherently aren't tactical strikes, though. Threatening to nuke civilians if people don't agree with you is nuclear blackmail, and NATO would bring the guillotine down on Russia's head overnight. The entire point of the cold war was that imagination kills us, and the only point of keeping nuclear weapons is to ensure proportional retaliation if someone else nukes you. Russia knows this; they aren't stupid, and they full-well know that deploying nuclear weapons in any capacity gives the west a fully-justified casus belli on any preparatory strikes they want to make. Russia loves to talk a big game, but it should be plainly obvious that they could not possibly hope to survive a second-strike attack from NATO. It is all or nothing.