tactical nuke Rostow, Belogorod or Krasnodar with a bogus claim … it was a russian tactical warhead that cought accidentially fire when a cheap chinese tire blew and the delivery vehicle fell off a bridge…
… “keep it local” … as a first step in escalation
The problem with such a Russian claim is that Ukraine has no nukes, and no ability to make them. Such a claim would not be believed by anyone (except maybe Russia’s own populace, but then what’s the point.)
I agree that if Russia used nukes the best response would still be non-nuclear; use conventional NATO forces to smoke Russian forces totally out of Ukraine.
What conventional NATO forces can stand up to being nuked?
I’d imagine that airpower - deploying out of a NATO nation like Poland - would do the trick. It’s hard to nuke bombers or fighters when they’re in the sky.
NATO ground forces would be susceptible to Russian nuking, yes.
But the only way Russia could deal with NATO warplanes by nuke means would be to nuke the airfields in Poland themselves, which then instantly triggers Article 5 and counter-nuking.
But once the other side has launched, MAD didn’t work. So, at that point, it is logical to consider not launching.
Unless we have some more important people on the SDMB than I suspected, the discussion here isn’t going to affect anything.
The only thing not launching gets you is more nukes headed your way since you’ve proven you’re not willing to fight back.
Perhaps. But not most certainly. Nuclear retaliation guarantees global annihilation 100% of the time. I choose the only path which offers any chance of human survival.
Your logic makes no sense. “Not launching gets you is more nukes headed your way…”
And what does nuclear retaliation get you?
The outcomes are the same. We owe it to our progeny to try the path that offers hope of survival, no matter how small.
Nuclear retaliation does not equal human extinction. The vast majority of the human race would survive a nuclear exchange between Russia and the west.
By your logic, we may as well throw all our nukes in the garbage and surrender to Russia now, since there’s absolutely no situation in which we should ever ever be willing to use them.
Fewer nukes headed your way.
Which means ensuring that those who survive do not do so as the slaves of their Russian conquerors.
Oh good! Our ashes won’t bounce as high!
I am alerting the Journal of the American Mathematical Society to this thread. Seems like several people have confidently resolved the prisoner’s dilemma. A few months ago we thought we had a bead on the repeal of The First Law of Thermodynamics in another thread. That promise fizzled. Hope this one doesn’t.
This would be a dramatic modification of the prisoner’s dilemma, where both prisoners are in the same room, can hear each other’s answers, and are within shivving distance of each other.
There was a BBC programme a few years ago - I wish I could remember what it was called - where they assembled a number of ex-military and political leaders and advisors, put them in a mock bunker, and then simulated various military attacks on the UK. An attack was simulated in which a number of nukes were launched at the UK and nothing could be done to stop them. Half the room advocated firing back and destroying the opponent, the other half reasoned that nothing would be achieved except to kill countless more innocent people and so said that nothing should be done.
These are difficult decisions. What’s the point of maintaining MAD once it has been shown to have broken down?
Well one person unilaterally, publicly and before the game BINDS himself to “stay mum” is the ultimate losing strategy. After that saying “no, really, really, you must consider that I could be bluffing” is pointless.
Most of humanity would survive the initial strikes. But the global system of food and energy production and distribution would die immediately and permanently. Some subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherer cultures would survive in temperate and tropical climates. Everyone else dies after a few months.
You know how in the pandemic how certain agricultural produce stopped appearing on shelves because a few million people got the sniffles and container ships started backing up in Long Beach? Now imagine that a half billion people are simply gone. Now imagine more than 100 of the largest cities are gone, including the means of economic production that resided there. Industrial production is over. Shipping is over. Global imports and exports are over. The disruption is total and absolute.
The earth would still be habitable to the few humans left, but all infrastructure would be essentially useless. Inoperable, irreparable, unmaintainable, cut off from everything and everyone required to sustain it. All of it would be lost.
It likely would not be the end of Homo sapiens. But it would absolutely be the end of the first human civilization and the first human history. It’s anyone’s guess whether there would be a successor civilization.
Depends on the size and nature of the first strike, or whether you signal surrender. Certainly if the enemy throws a very limited first strike, that changes the calculus of response.
Of course, your blanket statement that “more nukes headed your way” is the inevitable result of not responding may not be the case. If the first strike is very limited, responding may result in a second wave, as opposed to immediately suing for peace. Not all nuclear strikes or actors are the same, so it all depends.
Why not extend the anti-MAD arguments to conventional warfare? More people died in WWII than they did at Pearl Harbor. If that’s the goal, simply always lay down arms and allow the aggressors their way. There should have been no response to Pearl Harbor, and Germany should have had say in what it wanted to do in Europe.
Because in conventional warfare, absolute destruction isn’t “Mutual” or “Assured”. Typically one side or the other will eventually “win”. At worst, it might be a long stalemate or quagmire, but the existence of at least one party is generally never in doubt. Even something like WWI which saw the dissolution of many of the waring parties (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, etc), those were largely political changes and not the total obliteration of their cities and territories.
Bullshit. The Southern Hemisphere would come through just fine. In a US/Russia nukefest, China would be the clear winner. You are making the mistake (IMO) of supposing that the Fall of Civilization would be total and complete. I disagree. It wouldn’t be pretty, but it likely wouldn’t knock us back more than a couple hundred years of progress, if that. After all, the knowledge would still be around, which would save decades and decades of experimentation and dead ends that we went through to get where we are today. Just because Facebook and Google would disappear does not mean mankind would follow.
The conventional warfare in World War II didn’t do much to affect the environment. An all-out MAD exchange would ruin the planet.
The other problem with your analogy is that a conventional war could actually be won - and winning the war against Germany and Japan led to a much better global order and made the world a much more positive place. A MAD exchange doesn’t make the world better off at all.
Yes, the Southern Hemisphere would be largely untargeted and free from radiation. But again I point out, remember how global supply chains became so deeply snarled just because of a few million cases of the COVID sniffles? Now take that and multiply it by thousands. Billions of people unable to participate in economic production, obliterated shipping capacity, arable agricultural land fallen idle, factories at a halt because no parts are being produced or shipped. The world economy is simply over.
You think Australia would be fine? Australia has essentially no domestic energy or food production. Its survival is wholly dependent on imports that would simply halt if Russia and the US nuked each other. Australia would collapse and starve within six weeks.
If you think the Southern Hemisphere would be fine after a full nuclear exchange, that tells me you don’t know squat about the complexity of global supply chains, and how complex networks will permanently fail if damaged enough.