You want me to explain why I’m wrong? Is this a tacit admission that I’m winning all the arguments in this thread? I’ll admit that being on the side that thinks we should avoid nuclear wars has given me a strong position to work from. But still; if you think I’m wrong, you should be the one explaining why.
Maybe I was too obtuse with that last post.
Chemical weapons are also widely recognized as a special class of weapon, whose use is more unacceptable than conventional weapons. So a country using chemical weapons would face a much higher level of international opposition than it would face by using conventional weapons. So if Russia used a chemical weapon against Ukraine it would face that much higher level of opposition than it is currently facing.
Yet, chemical weapons have been used in recent history. Cuba in Angola, Iraq in Iran, and in Syria. There are also reports of Russia using chemical weapons for targeted assassinations rather than military conflict, you may remember reading these headlines:
Not to mention teargas, which is commonly used by police but is a clear-cut war crime to use on the battlefield.
~Max
Reality’s not black and white. It’s a palette of grays.
Yes, chemical weapons are seen as being worse than conventional weapons (like bullets). So they face greater opposition than conventional weapons.
Biological weapons would probably be the next rung up. Then nuclear weapons are at the top.
But the point is that it’s a graduated scale. Which means that just because chemical weapons have been used in wars and countries have “got away” with it does not mean that a country would receive similar treatment if it used nuclear weapons.
Even the people in this thread recognize this. The people who are saying they would launch a full nuclear strike against Russia if Russia used a single nuclear weapon are obviously seeing nuclear weapons as a unique threshold. As far as I know, nobody feels we should launch a full nuclear strike against Russia if they made a chemical weapon attack on Kiev.
They would probably say it’s the implicit threat of nuclear retaliation, not sanctions, that prevents a hostile state from using nuclear weapons on the battlefield. So once the threshold is crossed, you, Mr. President, have the choice of following through with your threat. Otherwise you prove to the enemy that you were bluffing the entire time.
~Max
Not to mention whenever chemical weapons are used, there is an attempt to keep it a secret and avoid international outrage. That can’t be done with nukes which might actually have less tactical value than chemical weapons.
I wouldn’t be bluffing. There are circumstances in which I would launch a full nuclear attack. I have said so in this thread. But I wouldn’t threaten to launch a nuclear attack except in circumstances in which I was prepared to do so.
I thought that was covered in the post you partially quoted.
MAD is “mutually assured destruction”. A single nuke used against Kyiv isn’t “destruction” of everything we have. The scenarios contemplated by MAD usually involved large-scale, often pre-emptive nuclear strikes intended to eliminate the enemy almost entirely. A limited nuclear strike doesn’t necessarily require a full-scale response, particularly if it’s against a non-nuclear third party.
Now, if they nuked Washington, the story might be different. Or if the ones doing the nuking were a smaller nuclear power like North Korea.
But against Russia, the calculus has to be different, otherwise we’re all dead.
I’m confused here. I have quoted your posts three times in this thread (counting this post). And on all three occasions I quoted your entire post in my post. So where do you feel I partially quoted a post?
So you did. It’s in there.
Hitler was against chemical weapons. I assume he would have used a nuke if he had one .
Right after Putin starts a nuclear war is not the time to try to avoid starting a nuclear war. If Putin nukes Kyiv, then what we have is a nuclear war. At that point, the goal of preventing a nuclear war requires a time machine.
Our options, then, are simply how bad of a nuclear war we want. We either don’t launch our nukes, in which case we get a nuclear war where Putin eventually uses every single one of his nukes against us. Or we do launch our nukes, in which case we prevent Putin from using that fraction of his nukes which were for some reason slow to launch. Both options suck horribly. One option sucks slightly less than the other.
Explain to me how getting hit with 5000 nukes is better that getting hit with 6000 nukes.
So we’ve been in a nuclear war since 1945.
You get hit with 1000 less nukes.
Given the state of Russian readiness, it’s likely we could reduce their effective arsenal far more than the 17% you suggest. Also, a lot of warheads are in platforms that would not be effective in striking the US - gravity bombs and tactical nuclear warheads. Given a good first strike plan, and a relatively poor state of reliability in their strategic forces means that the number you could reduce could be more like 70-80%. Still not going to be a fun day, but it is likely survivable as a functioning country.
We were in a nuclear war in 1945, until that war ended. Which fortunately was very shortly thereafter. But things have changed some since 1945.
A lot of things have changed since 1945. For example, there haven’t been any nuclear weapons used in a war.
But you are acknowledging that it is possible for a nuclear weapon to be used in a war without it being the start of a full nuclear war? (This has been the case in one hundred percent of the historical examples.)
You’re also acknowledging that it is possible to be in a nuclear war and then at a later point to not be in a nuclear war. So nuclear wars can be ended. (Which again, has been the case in every nuclear war so far.)
So which do you feel is a better end? A use of nuclear weapon in combat which is then followed by the use of several hundred more nuclear weapons. Or a use of nuclear weapon in combat which is not followed by the use of several hundred more nuclear weapons.
Well, that statement is pretty meaningless considering that no one else had a nuke to retaliate with.
The former scenario is almost certain in today’s environment once someone starts using nukes. The only question is when do they stop? Because if they’re able to use nukes without being retaliated against, they’re going to keep using them until the other side surrenders, just like the US did in WWII.
But according to people in this thread, once a person has launched one nuclear weapon they will keep doing so until somebody launches nuclear weapons back at them. The United States was the only country that had nuclear weapons in 1945. So we used them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And then nobody stopped us because nobody else had nuclear weapons. So Truman kept dropping more atomic bombs on other cities; Berlin, Moscow, Leningrad, Rome, Paris, London, Shanghai, Mexico City. He even dropped one on Kiev. He kept dropping atomic bombs on cities until 1949, when the Soviets built their own atomic bombs and dropped one on Washington.
It was just like somebody said; once Truman nuked one city and the response was anything less than the complete and total destruction of America’s military, then he was going to do it again, and again, and again, as many times as it takes to eliminate all opposition. Every major non-American city in the world was getting nuked.
Well, that’s a totally reasonable response, since Truman was obviously at war with all of those countries, and had threatened them in the recent past, at the time.
Seriously, you’re lucky you get that response. Please try harder in the future.