5 ms·

The old ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not used nukes’ routine so people can feel safer about poking the bear. There is always a first time and I’

The old ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not used nukes’ routine so people can feel safer about poking the bear. There is always a first time and I’m very thankful that it hasn’t happed yet. To me a near peer implies that either side has a good chance of losing the war. It’s my opinion that Russia has not yet been at a real risk of losing this war and thus has not yet had a need to use nuclear weapons. I’m aware that the NAFO line is that Ukraine still has this in the bag - but I still don’t see a Ukrainian victory as a likely. I assume this is why the gp post suggested ‘near peer’ implies nukes.

kspacewalk2 2y ago
Both the US and the USSR lost major wars during the Cold War without resorting to nuking their opponent when they felt they were "at a real risk of losing a war". In Vietnam and Korea, the Soviet involvement was considerably more than the current Western involvement in countering the Ukraine invasion. Soviet pilots on Soviet planes killed Americans in American planes. Soviet operators of Soviet-made SAM sites shut down American planes as well. The reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against existential threats, and all else is a bluff. So it's not a risk of losing this war that will push Russia to commit such murder-suicide, but an existential threat to its own survival as a nation.
- bigfudge 2y ago
  I mostly agree, but it does assume rational actors in charge. If the goal of conflict is to cement the position of a dictatorial elite, it’s not clear to me that ‘smaller scale’ nuclear exchanges are ruled out, especially if leaders are isolated, paranoid etc.
  - kspacewalk2 2y ago
    Ever since the US made crystal clear that a nuclear strike against Ukraine will mean the US annihilating all Russian forces in Ukraine by conventional means, such small scale nuclear exchange is in fact ruled out. This will in effect invite Russia to simply swallow such a devastating blow, or else end it all. Russia is in fact ruled by rational actors, so it rationally backed off. Thus in effect proving its rationality and the emptiness of its "but what if we're insane" bluff. They're not insane.
- simiones 2y ago
  > The reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against existential threats, and all else is a bluff. So it's not a risk of losing this war that will push Russia to commit such murder-suicide, but an existential threat to its own survival as a nation. Note that there have been numerous documented cases of near nuclear launches, especially in the 60s and 70s, it is by no means a bluff or an idle risk.
  - kspacewalk2 2y ago
    It is certainly a bluff. Accidents or misunderstandings aside, the only time the US chose to press the issue as it were was when it faced a serious threat to having its nuclear deterrent rendered completely ineffective (Cuban missile crisis). No one's launched nukes because of non-nuclear events in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Cuba, and no one will seriously contemplate it over losing pieces of eastern Ukraine or Crimea. Even taking the war into Russia proper won't do the trick, murder-suicide is only on the table when the threat is existential. The bluff does, however, work very well in slowing down and dissuading Western help to Ukraine by cultivating the "don't do X else nukes tomorrow" memes and propaganda talking points. Very effective foreign policy tool for a nuclear-armed fascist dictatorship, other will certainly take note for future invasions.
onepointsixC 2y ago
The Russians haven’t used nukes because they’ve been told under no uncertain terms what would happen if they did.
- hajile 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - onepointsixC 2y ago
    Funny thing about deterrence conversations in the west is that it’s so often characterized as a one way street. That the west can be deterred limitlessly and that others like Russia are impervious to deterrence. As if Putin were some fearless automaton with complete confidence. Because if anything spells confidence it’s having 4 out of 5 of your latest in service ICBM tests fail, including the most recent. Just how confident is Putin, having personally fostered such an endemically corrupt society, in his recently manufactured pits? Russia’s pursuit of a nuclear powered drone that would attempt to be a weapon of mass destruction by virtue of creating an irradiated tsunami reveals an intense fear of the credibility of their current deterrence.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    The french are actually trying to drag the rest of EU into war because they lost their colonies to russia.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      That's a caricature. These countries haven't been colonies for decades, and Russia's efforts to gain influence in these places isn't "colonial" either. It's something else - a new game with different rules. You can decry/condemn it this influence-jockeying all want, but if you can't get past 19th/20th century idioms and imagery about how the world operates, you'll never get anywhere in your analysis.
      - LtWorf 2y ago
keybored 2y ago
Everyone is worried about the desperation nuke. Yet all nukes in history have been to teabag civilians once you’re already winning.
- keybored 2y ago
  Slightly more serious. There have been times where we’ve gotten close during the Cold War. You can’t trust people to not use nukes on account of it being suicidal. People can be irrational like that. And/or chains of command can be irrational.

kspacewalk2 2y ago

Both the US and the USSR lost major wars during the Cold War without resorting to nuking their opponent when they felt they were "at a real risk of losing a war". In Vietnam and Korea, the Soviet involvement was considerably more than the current Western involvement in countering the Ukraine invasion. Soviet pilots on Soviet planes killed Americans in American planes. Soviet operators of Soviet-made SAM sites shut down American planes as well. The reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against existential threats, and all else is a bluff. So it's not a risk of losing this war that will push Russia to commit such murder-suicide, but an existential threat to its own survival as a nation.

bigfudge 2y ago
I mostly agree, but it does assume rational actors in charge. If the goal of conflict is to cement the position of a dictatorial elite, it’s not clear to me that ‘smaller scale’ nuclear exchanges are ruled out, especially if leaders are isolated, paranoid etc.
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  Ever since the US made crystal clear that a nuclear strike against Ukraine will mean the US annihilating all Russian forces in Ukraine by conventional means, such small scale nuclear exchange is in fact ruled out. This will in effect invite Russia to simply swallow such a devastating blow, or else end it all. Russia is in fact ruled by rational actors, so it rationally backed off. Thus in effect proving its rationality and the emptiness of its "but what if we're insane" bluff. They're not insane.
simiones 2y ago
> The reality is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against existential threats, and all else is a bluff. So it's not a risk of losing this war that will push Russia to commit such murder-suicide, but an existential threat to its own survival as a nation. Note that there have been numerous documented cases of near nuclear launches, especially in the 60s and 70s, it is by no means a bluff or an idle risk.
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  It is certainly a bluff. Accidents or misunderstandings aside, the only time the US chose to press the issue as it were was when it faced a serious threat to having its nuclear deterrent rendered completely ineffective (Cuban missile crisis). No one's launched nukes because of non-nuclear events in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Cuba, and no one will seriously contemplate it over losing pieces of eastern Ukraine or Crimea. Even taking the war into Russia proper won't do the trick, murder-suicide is only on the table when the threat is existential. The bluff does, however, work very well in slowing down and dissuading Western help to Ukraine by cultivating the "don't do X else nukes tomorrow" memes and propaganda talking points. Very effective foreign policy tool for a nuclear-armed fascist dictatorship, other will certainly take note for future invasions.

onepointsixC 2y ago

The Russians haven’t used nukes because they’ve been told under no uncertain terms what would happen if they did.

hajile 2y ago
[flagged]
- onepointsixC 2y ago
  Funny thing about deterrence conversations in the west is that it’s so often characterized as a one way street. That the west can be deterred limitlessly and that others like Russia are impervious to deterrence. As if Putin were some fearless automaton with complete confidence. Because if anything spells confidence it’s having 4 out of 5 of your latest in service ICBM tests fail, including the most recent. Just how confident is Putin, having personally fostered such an endemically corrupt society, in his recently manufactured pits? Russia’s pursuit of a nuclear powered drone that would attempt to be a weapon of mass destruction by virtue of creating an irradiated tsunami reveals an intense fear of the credibility of their current deterrence.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  The french are actually trying to drag the rest of EU into war because they lost their colonies to russia.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    That's a caricature. These countries haven't been colonies for decades, and Russia's efforts to gain influence in these places isn't "colonial" either. It's something else - a new game with different rules. You can decry/condemn it this influence-jockeying all want, but if you can't get past 19th/20th century idioms and imagery about how the world operates, you'll never get anywhere in your analysis.
    - LtWorf 2y ago

keybored 2y ago

Everyone is worried about the desperation nuke. Yet all nukes in history have been to teabag civilians once you’re already winning.

keybored 2y ago
Slightly more serious. There have been times where we’ve gotten close during the Cold War. You can’t trust people to not use nukes on account of it being suicidal. People can be irrational like that. And/or chains of command can be irrational.