That’s a pretty absurd assertion. There’s any number of scenarios where there’s a limited exchange, but not a total, all-out war. The West could, for example, just capitulate and let Putin do what he wants with the old Soviet satellite states, and there would almost certainly not be any additional nukes dropped.
What do you base that on?
Let’s call it 75% of the time.
Even if that’s the case, I feel that as President, my objective would be to try to steer events towards the 25% where we avoid a general nuclear war. Not towards the 75% where we do.
I get that. I think you’re working under the assumption that all potential nuclear wars is equally bad. I think there’s a reasonable case that the circumstances of the nuclear war and how it’s executed can make a significant difference. All outcomes are bad, but some are “almost all civilization ends” and “civilization can continue with a pretty huge punch in the face”
A maximally averse strategy could make the former situation more likely depending on the specific situation.
I feel this wouldn’t be a decisive factor in this situation. If one nuclear weapon is used, everyone is going to have their finger one inch away from the button. You can’t launch a surprise attack when everyone is expecting one. Both sides have early warning systems. If we launch first, the Russians will see our incoming missiles and launch their before ours hit. And if the Russians launch theirs first, we’ll see it and launch our counterattack before their missiles land. Either way, both sides get the majority of their missiles in the air. Then you’ve got the standby forces like the submarines at sea and the bombers in the air that will deliver secondary strikes against any targets the missiles miss.
Sure, that’s the theory - but I think we’ve seen that Russia’s entire military infrastructure is far more rickety than anyone ever anticipated, and so they are way more likely to have failures that cannot be overcome in the short response window of being under attack versus being the ones who initiate the attack on their own terms.
I agree that the Russians have shown they are pretty bad at day-to-day operations. But we’re not talking about a regular day here. I think even the Russians could pull themselves together in a situation where they know there might be an incoming strike any minute.
The most likely scenario is that a nuclear strike on the west occurs simultaneously to one on Ukraine. Putin is wise enough to know that using nukes will likely cause a reprisal, so if he’s going to fire one, he’s likely to fire all of them and hope Russia comes out on top of the ensuing exchange.
Even assuming that he only uses one nuke on Kiev, if the west does not retaliate, then it establishes the precedent that using nukes on civilian targets is not a red line for the US. It also shows that a coup in Russia is highly unlikely, as if none of the people close to Putin or involved in the ordering or execution of nuclear strikes were willing and able to stop him, then it is not likely that they could remove him from power either.
If Russia has to resort to nukes at all then it indicates they cannot achieve their goals by other means, so they will likely continue to nuke Ukraine until Ukraine surrenders. They will also be more likely to engage in unrestricted nuclear war against their other “breakaway states” that Putin deems property of the Russian Empire, which will continue to escalate until either the US nukes Russia or the west attempts a conventional attack on Russia (which they will respond to with nukes).
Meanwhile, Russia’s use of nukes will increase the likelihood of other nuclear-armed states using them to resolve their local issues - China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all might see a reason to nuke their neighbors if they believe no reprisal is coming, which leads to the same escalation spiral as above.
Once Russia uses nukes, a general exchange between Russia and the west cannot be prevented - it can only be delayed. That is why the most effective deterrent possible is to ensure that Russia knows any use of nukes will result in reprisal and that it cannot hope to win a nuclear exchange.
Aside from the fact that you think sanctions might accomplish task 1 (certainly a speculative point, I’d categorize your plan as a list of demands):
Since in this context Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in an invasion of his choosing that is not going his way, what context of conflict do you think he won’t use a nuclear weapon? At that point I’d guess that the chances of further nuclear exchange being (yes, lots of butt hair on this number) 98%. He’s using a nuclear weapon to just get his way in a nonsense war that had no real reason to happen.
If the question were about how we would react if a hostile force were marching on Moscow (or something similar) and they got nuked, I’d have an entirely different reaction. But if Putin nuked Kyiv at anything short of that, I’d figure he’d probably nuke someone for wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
Now you’re arguing against the premise of the thread. If we’re talking outside that premise, I’ll point out that it’s far more likely that Putin will fire no nuclear weapons rather than fire all of his nuclear weapons.
You’re still treating your opinions as if they were objective facts.
Once again, why exactly do you believe this is true?
Russia is at war with Ukraine and not doing well. Putin might decide to launch a nuclear missile at Kiev to change the course of the war so Ukraine surrenders and Russia can declare victory. Okay, I don’t think this is likely to happen but I can see how it could happen.
But now explain why Putin is going to keep launching more missiles? I used Mexico City as an example. Tell me why Putin would want to launch a nuclear missile at Mexico City. What benefit would there be for Putin or Russia for doing that?
Ok, but at this point you’re arguing against why the premise wouldn’t happen. I think if the premise did happen, Ukraine probably wouldn’t be so ready to lay down and let Russia win because they used a tactical nuclear weapon on Kyiv. I think Ukraine would probably take more than the Japanese in WWII, and probably fight on beyond two strikes. Japan lived after that, why can’t they with the west’s assistance. Heck, if diplomacy stopped it there, I’d be happy, but I find it doubtful. So, what else would Putin do at that point?
No, you need to tell me why he’d launch at Mexico City. I’ve said no such thing. I think it would eventually escalate to a general exchange between NATO and Russia. You have to convince me of how that’s not going to happen after someone has started using nuclear weapons because they’re losing and having to come up with a more creative lie instead of potentially destroying modern civilization, but in no real danger of being overthrown.
What makes you think Ukraine woumd surrender after the first nuke, and what makes you think Putin won’t then use a second?
This is correct, but it’s also far more likely that Putin will fire all of his nuclear weapons rather than fire one of his nuclear weapons.
I have explained why I believe my my stance is valid. You have proposed that if we just tell Russia we’re very cross with them, they’ll spontaneously overthrow the regime, turn over half of the government and military leadership to international courts, and pay WWI-scale reparations to Ukraine, and then everything will be hunky-dorey.
No, I’ve been willing to work within the premise of the thread while acknowledging that I feel it’s unlikely.
But the premise if Putin launches a nuclear weapon against Kiev. If you’re arguing he would launch more than one nuclear weapon, you’re outside the premise. You can do that but it means you have to support your position; you can’t simply treat it as a given.
No I don’t. Because I don’t think he would attack any cities other than in Ukraine. Those of you who are saying Putin would attack other cities need to explain why.
If it’s specifically Mexico City you’re having a problem with (although I will again note that some posters in this thread have said Putin would attack Mexico City) then pick a different city in some country Putin isn’t at war with and explain why Putin would attack it.
Well, if he works fast, he doesn’t even have to send troops into Finland and Sweden. He can just nuke them into submission for being Nazis before they get their NATO application in, and roll in later. Easy!
Hey, I think he’s gone total madman at this point. You tell me why he’s reasonable.
Again, you’re arguing against the premise. If you think Putin is going to fire multiple nuclear weapons then you need to explain why. And you thinking it’s true isn’t evidence.
Could you point out where you did that?
No, this is not what I said. Maybe you’ve been arguing with me because you didn’t understand what I wrote.
I said we would impose heavy economic sanctions against Russia. We’ve seen that Russia is being harmed by the existing sanctions so we know they have an effect.
No, not hunky dory at all. Tens of thousand of people would be dead.
But still, it’s a lot closer to hunky dory than your plan, which involved a “full nuclear assault” and “preparing for massive casualties as the result of an inevitable counterattack.”
No, you tell me why he’s a total madman. You’re the one saying he’s going to nuke Finland and Sweden. You can’t say he’s going to nuke Finland and Sweden because he’s a madman and he’s a madman because he’s going to nuke Finland and Sweden. That’s just a circular tautology.
At no point does the OP stipulate “Putin launches exactly one nuke and then forgets where the button is located”.
So your plan is to do nothing we aren’t already doing and hope that it has an effect that it hasn’t had.
This has already been explained - if there are no consequences for using nukes in battle, then there is no reason for him not to continue doing so, as he can thus achieve his goals without dedicating tens of thousands of soldiers and materiel.
No, the OP said Putin launches one nuclear weapon at Kiev.
So if you’re going to say Putin launches more nuclear weapons, you have to back it up.
No, my plan (as I have repeatedly explained to you) is that we increase the sanctions to a much higher level.
And the current sanctions are having an effect even if you aren’t aware of the fact.
Side note: Your plan is we blow up the world. Once again, you don’t get to make fun of anyone else’s plan when your plan is literally the worst plan in all of human history.
No consequences? Maybe you missed the part about putting him before a firing squad.
Now maybe you don’t think my plan for putting him before a firing squad will work. Okay, your opinion is that my plan isn’t a good plan. But we’ve established here that you can’t tell the difference between a good plan and a bad plan. So maybe we should try some plans that don’t involve killing everyone first. And then if those plans don’t work, we can still blow up the world. I’m just saying we shouldn’t use the worst possible plan as our first choice.
Ahem.
That’s the OP in full. I see no “Putin fires one missile and one missile only and suggesting otherwise is not allowed in this thread” in there. You are attempting to redefine the hypothetical in a way that is so narrow and detached from reality as to render it absurd.
You haven’ proposed a plan for putting him before a firing squad.
Your plan, as stated, is thus;
- Do more sanctions
- Issue a bunch of demands to Russia that they are about as likely to obey as I am to be crowned Miss Teen USA
- If that doesn’t work, try something else (“Something else”', thus far, has only been defined as “something better than Smapti’s idea”)
This isn’t a plan, it’s a wish list, and all it does is give Putin the sign that he can keep using nukes as he pleases because the US will not respond in kind.