4 ms·
I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?
by ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?
- n4r9 3mo agoUK and France are possibly more likely to retaliate, given the proximity.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo agoRetaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked. That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?
- troupo 3mo agoYup. Because a country attacking another with nuclear weapons in its mad genocidal occupational war it started under false pretenses will definitely sit back and do nothing once it showed it can and will use nuclear weapons for any cause.
- __turbobrew__ 3mo agoI think if there is no retaliation to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, every nuclear capable country will rush towards nuclear weapons as fast as possible. The reason being, Europe has a long term understanding they are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA which means that Europe does not need to maintain their own atomic weapons. If that long term agreement does not hold, the only way to deter Russia is to have nuclear weapons of your own since you cannot rely on deterrence from other countries. Once everyone has nukes, Russia can no longer bully countries around because they will glass Moscow. This is a worse state than today where Russia can invade countries using conventional weapons without much consequence.
- skhr0680 3mo ago> And would they risk it just because? Look up the reasons for both blocs in the Cold War withdrawing all of their (numerous) tactical nuclear weapons systems by the 1980s. TL;DR: MAD and “escalation”
- troupo 3mo agoYup. A country that starts nuking other countries in a genocidal war of conquest will not ever be seen as a threat by any other countries and will not suffer any consequences ever. Russia has already entered this war on the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody and nobody was going to bomb them.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo agoI maybe missing something, but it feels bonkers to me of why with all the MIRVs they have on hundreds of nukes they do not feel the need to carpet bomb Ukraine with them.
- troupo 3mo agoWhat you're missing is a simple bext step in your thought process: why are you so entirely sure that Russia will not suffer any single consequence for doing so? (also this assumes that russia actuall has hundreds of working nukes) (this also assumes that carpet bombing a country of 40 million people with nukes will find love and support inside Russia despite all the propaganda) Edit: you have now replied many times with "I don't understand why Russia doesn't nuke Ukraine". Perhaps you should take the time to try and understand?
- ExoticPearTree 3mo ago> What you're missing is a simple bext step in your thought process: why are you so entirely sure that Russia will not suffer any single consequence for doing so? There could be consequences. But I am wondering how painful would they be and if the US would get into a nuking game with them. Would it be worth it for the west to become a wasteland just because there needs to be consequences for Russia. > Edit: you have now replied many times with "I don't understand why Russia doesn't nuke Ukraine". Perhaps you should take the time to try and understand? Hence the question here again and again: why doesn’t Russia unleash the nuclear armageddon on Ukraine? They would stop the Ukraine’s attacks on itself and get a very large no-go zine between itself and NATO - win-win. Otherwise why have nukes if you can’t use them?