3 ms·

The probability of a nuclear exchange remains zero until the sovereignty of a nuclear capable state is threatened. Tens or hundreds of millions would have to di

The probability of a nuclear exchange remains zero until the sovereignty of a nuclear capable state is threatened. Tens or hundreds of millions would have to die for such a threat to emerge. Therefore, there is virtually no risk of it happening at this point by any nuclear capable power, except by the terrorist state in the middle east with its stolen highly enriched American uranium (NUMEC affair), because their modus operandi is to watch the world burn and take over the ashes (patagonia fires, et. al.)

estearum 13d ago
This assumes a few things: 1) Accidents or technical failures don't happen (false) 2) Nuclear weapons are de facto controlled by political systems (false) 3) Nuclear states' prior security agreements are still guaranteed by said nuclear states (false) 4) No nuclear state currently fears for its existence (false)
- greenavocado 13d ago
  It absolutely does not assume anything about being controlled by political systems. Being controlled by the respective militaries is sufficient for the arguments to hold water.
  - estearum 13d ago
    First, all of the prior assumptions (and then many more) need to be true. So no, the argument does not hold water. Second, you are conflating political with civilian in my prior comment. A military system that controls nukes is still a political system. The military itself is a political invention. I am drawing this distinction not on military vs civilian boundaries but on system versus individual. The reality is that as a functional necessity of having nuclear deterrence, there is not a small number of red buttons controlled by a small number of people. There are countless red buttons controlled - ultimately - by whatever low level service member is on duty at this particular moment.
mattlondon 13d ago
It was being speculated just a few months ago that Putin is thinking about it/being encouraged to use them. He must be seen to win at all costs, and not-winning is therefore seen as a threat to russian statehood. E.g. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/cornered-putin-under-pressure-use-tactical-nuclear-weapons-4496866 https://inews.co.uk/news/world/cornered-putin-under-pressure... https://www.newsweek.com/putin-tactical-nukes-radioactive-baloney-russia-ukraine-12382920 https://www.newsweek.com/putin-tactical-nukes-radioactive-ba... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-hawks-urge-putin-escalate-war-drop-us-talks-ukraine-strikes-deep-2026-06-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-hawks-urge-puti... I'd put it at 10-15% chance easy.

estearum 13d ago

This assumes a few things: 1) Accidents or technical failures don't happen (false) 2) Nuclear weapons are de facto controlled by political systems (false) 3) Nuclear states' prior security agreements are still guaranteed by said nuclear states (false) 4) No nuclear state currently fears for its existence (false)

greenavocado 13d ago
It absolutely does not assume anything about being controlled by political systems. Being controlled by the respective militaries is sufficient for the arguments to hold water.
- estearum 13d ago
  First, all of the prior assumptions (and then many more) need to be true. So no, the argument does not hold water. Second, you are conflating political with civilian in my prior comment. A military system that controls nukes is still a political system. The military itself is a political invention. I am drawing this distinction not on military vs civilian boundaries but on system versus individual. The reality is that as a functional necessity of having nuclear deterrence, there is not a small number of red buttons controlled by a small number of people. There are countless red buttons controlled - ultimately - by whatever low level service member is on duty at this particular moment.

mattlondon 13d ago

It was being speculated just a few months ago that Putin is thinking about it/being encouraged to use them. He must be seen to win at all costs, and not-winning is therefore seen as a threat to russian statehood. E.g. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/cornered-putin-under-pressure-use-tactical-nuclear-weapons-4496866 https://inews.co.uk/news/world/cornered-putin-under-pressure... https://www.newsweek.com/putin-tactical-nukes-radioactive-baloney-russia-ukraine-12382920 https://www.newsweek.com/putin-tactical-nukes-radioactive-ba... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-hawks-urge-putin-escalate-war-drop-us-talks-ukraine-strikes-deep-2026-06-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-hawks-urge-puti... I'd put it at 10-15% chance easy.