4 ms·

> All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people see

> All that is needed is sanctions and enough resources for Ukraine to defend itself. Whatever makes you think Russia won't drop a nuke? Edit: Since people seem confused - I mean on Ukraine. Not on the US.

efnx 2y ago
On Ukraine? Or the US? Either way - I’m pretty sure they want Ukraine and then there’s mutually assured destruction.
Daviey 2y ago
Because China won't let them.
gambiting 2y ago
Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. It's really as straightforward as that. If we assume they are willing to go for a nuclear exchange then it's a different kind of conversation, but no military expert considers this a likely scenario. But even Russians indicate that their mid range ballistic missiles don't need nuclear wareheads to cause untold destruction - it was Putin who said that even without nukes their new missiles can level a city. He seems pretty confident in that, despite western intelligence indicating that the missiles are most likely a bluff as they are barely operational.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. How would dropping a nuke on Ukraine start a nuclear war? Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    "Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them." That's not what military experts are saying. If the nuclear fallout reached NATO countries NATO policy would require a "proportional" response, which again, military experts suggest would be a small scale nuclear strike on a Russian facility of proportional impact. The big question then is what would happen next - either both sides cool down and see where this is going, or Russia starts attacking targets within NATO at which point we're at full WW3 level. The "nobody is going to drop a nuke back" is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      Keep in mind article 5 says "react as it deems necessary". > will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm If Poland triggers Article 5, just because fallout came to its borders, other members are free to send them iodine tablets and lead tents, rather than starting WW3. It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
      - gambiting 2y ago
        Again, the point is - at that point we're guessing. If Poland gets radioactive fallout on its terittory we don't know how exactly NATO would choose to react. >>It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article. I didn't say it was - but Russia "dropping a nuke" brings us closer to the possibility of nuclear war, not futher away from it. And according to people who are actually working with/for NATO, military generals in eastern european countries, it is not completely unlikely that NATO would decide that a strike into Russia(nuclear or not) wouldn't be off the cards if Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine brought fallout into NATO countries - and if such a strike was conducted, we don't know how that ends.
        Ygg2 2y ago
        Sure, we don't know but we can guess. While Poland can trigger Article 5, and current US admin will most likely tell them to shove it, maybe deploy some forces there. US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely. Even if the next US president was very gung ho about it, the fact that Trump got elected again means the US isn't a stable partner. You don't want to enter a ten years war where every 4 years your ally might just decide to leave you hanging.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Sure, we don't know but we can guess. you really wanna weigh your odds of nuclear devastation on a guess? >US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely. other non-EU countries are already producing Nukes as preparation. I'm unsure about that.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Yes. Because resorting to nuclear weaponry is very specific. Doing so, you break the statu quo on mutual dissuasion, and not one nuclear power wants that. If one country drops a nuclear bomb (especially after a long escalation as we are in), other nuclear powers will _have to_ reinstate the previous dissuasion statu quo, as well as assert their status of equal nuclear powers. And there's a single path to that: radically disarm the offender country, as soon as possible. There's indeed a risk of global nuclear war, but the most probable risk is the annihilation of the offender country + a few other casualities. The scale of time in this matter is not in days, it's in a few hours at most: it's already been scripted in procedures for years, rehearsed, and it's already been shared among nuclear powers. If we're still able to discuss it, it's because of this doctrine of mutual dissuasion precisely.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    on the contrary, even China would retaliate. It's the american equivalent of going into a texas bar and shooting a clip. You are now a proven reckless danger to everyone else and they will retaliate at once in your direction, regardless of if you were being stupid or had a specific target. They do that because the alternative is a shootout at everone and many people in the bar will die. No single person/country is going to take those odds in an era where there are thousands of nuclear warheads now.
ben_w 2y ago
Russia may well, though so far their nuclear posture has been all talk and not much to back it up. Ukraine is already asking what they gave up their nukes for. If I was Polish, I'd want a nuclear deterrent. If I was Canadian or Danish or Panamanian, given what Trump has said, I'd also be seeing if nukes could be developed.
Juliate 2y ago
Any single force that drops a nuke today [1] will get retaliated by _all_ the other nuclear powers, even allied ones, at once. Why? Because that will be the only, short moment, where each other will have the single opportunity to: 1/ affirm they are able and disciplined to use it (credibility), 2/ disarm the offender (own security) 3/ reinstate the balance of mutual dissuasion (global security) Playing it diplomatic would be a hint of either submission, fear, or incapacity to act against the offender - which none of the nuclear power would want to give. And however strong, a country can defend against one strategic attack, not against a multisided one. [1] doesn't matter what the target is: as soon as it's another country, you're toast.
- dataflow 2y ago
  You're saying you believe the response to Russia dropping a nuke on Ukraine would itself be nuclear in nature? There's no way anyone would do that, it would trigger a nuclear WWIII. No nuclear power (Russia or the others) would just sit by and let a nuke get dropped on their own head. They would immediately escalate back.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it. The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed. Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours. Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      I still don't follow why the first response has to be nuclear. You could respond conventionally, and if another nuke gets used 1-2 more times, then escalate. You can get the point across without actually responding in kind the first time.
jopsen 2y ago
If we're scared of that why don't the US surrender. If that's the fundamental issue, everyone needs nukes, every small country. You don't want that. Living in a small Scandinavian country, I.do think we should at least discuss it now. We can't win any war, but we could ensure nobody else can.
Paradigma11 2y ago
Then China and India would stop buying Russian oil which would bankrupt Russia in a few months.
- concerned_user 2y ago
  They already did, about a month ago.
tdullien 2y ago
Russians are scared a nuke might turn out a dud.
krige 2y ago
Whatever makes you think they're able to drop a nuke? They have tried to threaten with that by running trials and the tally is two out of three times there was a catastrophic failure, of which one failure was in the silo itself.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  This would be a problem only if there's shortage of nukes.

efnx 2y ago

On Ukraine? Or the US? Either way - I’m pretty sure they want Ukraine and then there’s mutually assured destruction.

Daviey 2y ago

Because China won't let them.

gambiting 2y ago

Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. It's really as straightforward as that. If we assume they are willing to go for a nuclear exchange then it's a different kind of conversation, but no military expert considers this a likely scenario. But even Russians indicate that their mid range ballistic missiles don't need nuclear wareheads to cause untold destruction - it was Putin who said that even without nukes their new missiles can level a city. He seems pretty confident in that, despite western intelligence indicating that the missiles are most likely a bluff as they are barely operational.

dataflow 2y ago
> Because they don't want to start a nuclear war. How would dropping a nuke on Ukraine start a nuclear war? Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them.
- gambiting 2y ago
  "Nobody is going to drop a nuke back on them." That's not what military experts are saying. If the nuclear fallout reached NATO countries NATO policy would require a "proportional" response, which again, military experts suggest would be a small scale nuclear strike on a Russian facility of proportional impact. The big question then is what would happen next - either both sides cool down and see where this is going, or Russia starts attacking targets within NATO at which point we're at full WW3 level. The "nobody is going to drop a nuke back" is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Keep in mind article 5 says "react as it deems necessary". > will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm If Poland triggers Article 5, just because fallout came to its borders, other members are free to send them iodine tablets and lead tents, rather than starting WW3. It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article.
    - gambiting 2y ago
      Again, the point is - at that point we're guessing. If Poland gets radioactive fallout on its terittory we don't know how exactly NATO would choose to react. >>It's not a start nuclear Armageddon article. I didn't say it was - but Russia "dropping a nuke" brings us closer to the possibility of nuclear war, not futher away from it. And according to people who are actually working with/for NATO, military generals in eastern european countries, it is not completely unlikely that NATO would decide that a strike into Russia(nuclear or not) wouldn't be off the cards if Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine brought fallout into NATO countries - and if such a strike was conducted, we don't know how that ends.
      - Ygg2 2y ago
        Sure, we don't know but we can guess. While Poland can trigger Article 5, and current US admin will most likely tell them to shove it, maybe deploy some forces there. US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely. Even if the next US president was very gung ho about it, the fact that Trump got elected again means the US isn't a stable partner. You don't want to enter a ten years war where every 4 years your ally might just decide to leave you hanging.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Sure, we don't know but we can guess. you really wanna weigh your odds of nuclear devastation on a guess? >US weakening ties with EU is going to make nuclear war less likely. other non-EU countries are already producing Nukes as preparation. I'm unsure about that.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Yes. Because resorting to nuclear weaponry is very specific. Doing so, you break the statu quo on mutual dissuasion, and not one nuclear power wants that. If one country drops a nuclear bomb (especially after a long escalation as we are in), other nuclear powers will _have to_ reinstate the previous dissuasion statu quo, as well as assert their status of equal nuclear powers. And there's a single path to that: radically disarm the offender country, as soon as possible. There's indeed a risk of global nuclear war, but the most probable risk is the annihilation of the offender country + a few other casualities. The scale of time in this matter is not in days, it's in a few hours at most: it's already been scripted in procedures for years, rehearsed, and it's already been shared among nuclear powers. If we're still able to discuss it, it's because of this doctrine of mutual dissuasion precisely.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  on the contrary, even China would retaliate. It's the american equivalent of going into a texas bar and shooting a clip. You are now a proven reckless danger to everyone else and they will retaliate at once in your direction, regardless of if you were being stupid or had a specific target. They do that because the alternative is a shootout at everone and many people in the bar will die. No single person/country is going to take those odds in an era where there are thousands of nuclear warheads now.

ben_w 2y ago

Russia may well, though so far their nuclear posture has been all talk and not much to back it up. Ukraine is already asking what they gave up their nukes for. If I was Polish, I'd want a nuclear deterrent. If I was Canadian or Danish or Panamanian, given what Trump has said, I'd also be seeing if nukes could be developed.

Juliate 2y ago

Any single force that drops a nuke today [1] will get retaliated by _all_ the other nuclear powers, even allied ones, at once. Why? Because that will be the only, short moment, where each other will have the single opportunity to: 1/ affirm they are able and disciplined to use it (credibility), 2/ disarm the offender (own security) 3/ reinstate the balance of mutual dissuasion (global security) Playing it diplomatic would be a hint of either submission, fear, or incapacity to act against the offender - which none of the nuclear power would want to give. And however strong, a country can defend against one strategic attack, not against a multisided one. [1] doesn't matter what the target is: as soon as it's another country, you're toast.

dataflow 2y ago
You're saying you believe the response to Russia dropping a nuke on Ukraine would itself be nuclear in nature? There's no way anyone would do that, it would trigger a nuclear WWIII. No nuclear power (Russia or the others) would just sit by and let a nuke get dropped on their own head. They would immediately escalate back.
- Juliate 2y ago
  That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it. The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed. Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours. Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    I still don't follow why the first response has to be nuclear. You could respond conventionally, and if another nuke gets used 1-2 more times, then escalate. You can get the point across without actually responding in kind the first time.

jopsen 2y ago

If we're scared of that why don't the US surrender. If that's the fundamental issue, everyone needs nukes, every small country. You don't want that. Living in a small Scandinavian country, I.do think we should at least discuss it now. We can't win any war, but we could ensure nobody else can.

Paradigma11 2y ago

Then China and India would stop buying Russian oil which would bankrupt Russia in a few months.

concerned_user 2y ago
They already did, about a month ago.

tdullien 2y ago

Russians are scared a nuke might turn out a dud.

krige 2y ago

Whatever makes you think they're able to drop a nuke? They have tried to threaten with that by running trials and the tally is two out of three times there was a catastrophic failure, of which one failure was in the silo itself.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
This would be a problem only if there's shortage of nukes.