3 ms·

Okay, what am I missing here? One bomb against the thousands that Russia has. What is one rudimentary bomb going to do besides making Ukraine a pariah of the wo

Okay, what am I missing here? One bomb against the thousands that Russia has. What is one rudimentary bomb going to do besides making Ukraine a pariah of the world? The US would not be part of that. Putin would just send a bunch of bombs their way if it was used. I don't see how this is a positive for Ukraine. I don't get it

jltsiren 2y ago
I think the basic premise is that the rules-based world order is dead, and having nuclear weapons would not make you any more pariah than you already are. If Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, they would try to build an effective nuclear deterrent. One that could create serious doubts among the top Russian political and military leadership about their ability to personally survive another invasion.
rcxdude 2y ago
Deterrence, and twisting the arm of NATO. For the war to end, Ukraine needs to believe that Russia won't just turn around and try again in a few years. Realistically, that either means being part of NATO (i.e. that NATO has formally committed to let them join once a peace of some form is agreed) or nukes. They'd rather be part of NATO, nukes are a crappy second option, but they know NATO doesn't like nuclear proliferation, so they will threaten to develop their own nukes if NATO doesn't commit to letting them in.
rasz 2y ago
>One bomb against the thousands that Russia has Are you using movie logic where a guy with a pistol gives up because opponent has a machine gun? One nuke is enough to destroy moscow, maybe even while putin is confirmed in the Kremlin, fitting revenge. Its not meant to be positive, nothing about defending against war of aggression is positive.
- wslh 2y ago
  I'd like to add to the OP's point that the classic Cold War logic was based on two superpowers or countries with comparable power. In this case, however, we’re dealing with a significant asymmetry in nuclear game theory, which may represent a historically novel scenario. While it's not exactly related to this topic, the first song that comes to mind when writing this is "First We Take Manhattan" by Leonard Cohen [1][2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan [2] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0B?si=640a0c244c21493e https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0... [3] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3cE?si=a0e3c8833cd940fa https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3c...
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]

jltsiren 2y ago

I think the basic premise is that the rules-based world order is dead, and having nuclear weapons would not make you any more pariah than you already are. If Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, they would try to build an effective nuclear deterrent. One that could create serious doubts among the top Russian political and military leadership about their ability to personally survive another invasion.

rcxdude 2y ago

Deterrence, and twisting the arm of NATO. For the war to end, Ukraine needs to believe that Russia won't just turn around and try again in a few years. Realistically, that either means being part of NATO (i.e. that NATO has formally committed to let them join once a peace of some form is agreed) or nukes. They'd rather be part of NATO, nukes are a crappy second option, but they know NATO doesn't like nuclear proliferation, so they will threaten to develop their own nukes if NATO doesn't commit to letting them in.

rasz 2y ago

>One bomb against the thousands that Russia has Are you using movie logic where a guy with a pistol gives up because opponent has a machine gun? One nuke is enough to destroy moscow, maybe even while putin is confirmed in the Kremlin, fitting revenge. Its not meant to be positive, nothing about defending against war of aggression is positive.

wslh 2y ago
I'd like to add to the OP's point that the classic Cold War logic was based on two superpowers or countries with comparable power. In this case, however, we’re dealing with a significant asymmetry in nuclear game theory, which may represent a historically novel scenario. While it's not exactly related to this topic, the first song that comes to mind when writing this is "First We Take Manhattan" by Leonard Cohen [1][2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan [2] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0B?si=640a0c244c21493e https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0... [3] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3cE?si=a0e3c8833cd940fa https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3c...
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]