The US has sent 100 {?} billion to Ukraine. Ukraine has applied for NATO membership. Russia has annexed part of Ukraine. The US (IMHO) has blown up Nordstream. Ukraine has refused to discuss peace until Putin is gone. There is no backing down unless I hear rhetoric like… yesterday… about it.
Russias next move should be to shoot down a satellite or two, or destroy some cables or an EMP or two.
I have a slightly related question. Would it be possible to drop a nuke from a satellite using maneuvering thrusters and gravity so that it wouldn’t be detected?
Question - is that “Russia’s next move should be” in terms of escalating this conflict? In terms of “winning” said conflict? Because none of those seem to be directed at the Ukraine in any way, they seem to be entirely based on attacking US / NATO / Western powers directly.
Which, well, they have faster and probably more effective ways to do that while theoretically achieving their stated goal of wiping out the Ukraine. The options you mention are moves that seem directed at trying to scare the West into passivity, or make them enter the war as co-combatants. And I think the second is more likely, at least as things stand right now. Not that Putin and his advisors may not THINK that it’ll make the West back off, even if we disagree.
That is a M.A.D. scenario. If you jump to a full on strategic nuclear strike on Russia there is no way, barring a complete failure of Russia’s nuclear deterrence (possible, but unlikely enough for me to want to gamble on), that U.S./Europe doesn’t also get obliterated or close enough to it to make no functional difference.
Response to a single tactical nuke has to strong, but more or less tactical. The odds of that then escalating to a M.A.D. scenario anyway is alarmingly high, but a measured response that might lead to the potential collapse of civilization is better than immediately jumping to a potential collapse of civilization.
All that methane being released made me wonder if Russia could wage a unilateral war on ‘the climate’. Seek to accelerate melting ice caps. I feel like it would hurt The West more than Russia.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind that. Why should Putin using a nuke on Ukraine (or Georgia or Azerbaijan) trigger a civilization-ending all-out strategic assault? Sure, it may be a slippery slope, but that slope doesn’t reach the cliff until he attacks a NATO country. That’s when we all die.
Because if nothing is done it allows other like North Korea to do so. It must be answered swiftly and in kind. I say nuke a sub or some other military target in response. This cannot allowed to be the new norm.
Probably, but you do run the risk of them being better than expected or at least performing to theoretical levels.
A Slava class ship carries some really big AShM, which will break a Burkeor a Zumwalt in half and even a CVN will be hard pressed to survive more than three or four hits. The Moskova was sunk by two harpoons so one would think that the rest should be at a similar poor level, however if you run into one whose Captain has drilled his men into fighting shape then suddenly one is looking at lots of potential casualties.
Agreed, what @Chronos is suggesting is insane. That would mean civilisation ending nuclear war. I am sure some idiots (not here) will counter with “no doubt their strategic forces are as bad as their conventional military has proved to be”, the answer to that is “do you feel confident enough to bet your country’s existence on that”?
A better escalation would perhaps be retaliation against some Russian naval asset, maybe a Slava or a Kirov in the Med. It will have to be conventional, not least since NATO doesn’t have sea based tactical nukes anymore, and of course there is always a risk to the attacking forces in such a scenario.
I am sorry, but that’s a very silly take. Whether or not Pakistan employs nuclear weapons on India or vice versa, has entirely to do with whatever the situation is in an Indo-Pak hot war and Russian employment of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is irrelevant to that.
I don’t see it as silly at all. Once a bully is allowed to use a big stick against a weaker foe with minimal consequences then other bullies will follow suit.
Again: If Putin nukes Ukraine, then we’re already in the global nuclear war scenario. We’re off the cliff.
Let’s say that Putin nukes a Ukrainian target, and we respond with an all-out conventional response: NATO tanks on the ground and fighters in the airspace, and so on. What happens then? Why, of course, Putin nukes our tanks and our planes, and keeps on doing what he’s been doing. Then he decides he wants Georgia, and uses nukes there, and we again respond by sending in tanks for him to nuke. And then he keeps on taking one country at a time, until the Russian Empire covers all of Eurasia. Do we ever, at any point before then, say “enough is enough”? When? The lowest damages come from drawing the line immediately, before he’s had a chance to find out where the rot and corruption is in his nuclear forces, and before he’s assimilated more land, men, and other resources.
Any nation that’s both willing and able to use nukes, facing nations that are either unwilling or unable to do so, will get everything they want. So far, Russia has been unwilling to use nukes, and that’s been the only thing stopping them from total conquest. If they become willing, then they must become unable, or they get everything they want. Which is nothing we want.
Why do you think Russia “should” do this? With what end in mind, knowing there’s a very high chance that these actions result in Russia’s absolute destruction?
No, you cannot “drop a nuke from a satellite.” That’s one of multiple ways that Warday was an unrealistic fantasy.
It’s an entertaining and thought-provoking book, but it’s mostly science fiction, and very dated at this point. The authors had the notion to build a world in which the US suffered a “Great Depression” and partial political disintegration as a consequence of a limited nuclear strike, and they did that. But in order to do so, they had to portray it as much more limited than would happen in real life. A real-life strategic exchange would cause the utter destruction of most major cities and military installations on both sides. The “Great Depression” scenario is wildly optimistic, it would be more like Europe after the Great Plague.
I mean, you can*. That’s why we have treaties saying that you may not.
There are practical and engineering issues, one of them being that nuclear bombs, especially thermonuclear, are made of radioactive materials that change over time, they will have a limited shelf life once launched into orbit, so you can’t just keep them loitering for years and years.
Obviously you have to launch them at some point, and if you can’t convincingly claim that you are just innocently launching weather and communication satellites, you may be subject to retaliations of various levels.
So, I would call it unlikely, but not go so far as to call it “unrealistic fantasy.”
*for the pedantic, you cannot “drop” a nuke from a satellite, it would just stay in pretty much the same orbit, the nuke would have to have use de-orbiting thrusters in order to be “dropped”, but that would be a silly thing to get hung up on.
IMO the response by NATO and the US to a tactical nuke by Russia should be a massive conventional response – airstrikes on all Russian forces throughout Ukraine (including Crimea), and possibly sinking Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. I think at that point Putin would fall out a window.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the next move after THAT is a nuclear response. Maybe THAT move is a measured one, a single target, not a full-on assault. Maybe before all that someone removes Putin. Maybe that all leads towards global thermonuclear war anyway, but an escalating series of disasters at least gives some room for a lateral move that prevents full-on armageddon.
It’s a hardly a laughing matter but I’m reminded of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life sex ed professor chastising the student for “stampeding towards the clitoris” during foreplay rather than starting with a kiss.
Relax. We’re all probably going to die anyway. No reason not to buy a few more months of enjoying life before taking a header off a cliff like a contrived Disney-documentary lemming.
shrug - Dead is dead. It doesn’t much matter if 65% of the population survives instead of 40%. Either way civilization as we know it is gone for a century or two. If some doomsday predictions are correct it might not even matter - irreversible damage to the climate might result in a scenario where everybody dies out in a generation or two anyway.