I think it’s perfectly reasonable to consider any use of tactical nuclear weapons to be nothing more than an escalation of methods that can be responded to by escalating the amount that Russia is cut off from the rest of the world. Until nuclear weapons are used on targets not currently part of the battlefield, I see no reason to treat them as anything more than just really big bombs. If nuclear weapons are used to merely wipe out smaller cities from existence, that’s when we may need to escalate further, but we still need to consider the most rational response. If NATO responds by launching their own weapons without being directly attacked, they become the bad guys, regardless of how many tactical nuclear weapons are used by the Russians against Ukraine.
If the Russians wants the world to go up in flames, they can make it happen. We shouldn’t give them any reason to do that. If Russia wants to rule a nuclear wasteland, then so be it. There’s no point in destroying the world just because Russia wanted to turn some of Ukraine into rubble in order to rule that rubble.
TL;DR so sorry if this has been asked, but: if worst comes to worst and presuming there’s an after to consider the question, how will the world address the precedent that dictators with nukes and nothing to lose can kick over the table? As long ago as the 1950s people asked “What if Hitler had had a doomsday bomb?” Or maybe we were lucky that Joseph Stalin died of (probably) a stroke instead of terminal cancer; what might he have done if he’d seen his end coming?
Because as mentioned, formerly he was deterring direct NATO intervention. Now that Russia is losing conventionally he’s saying that Russia will do whatever it takes to “defend” the seized territories. How credible this is only Putin and his top generals know, because it’s far from clear how nuking targets in Ukraine short of the strategic destruction of the entire country would reverse Russia’s losses. At this point Russia would struggle badly even to occupy a devastated eastern Ukraine.
But there’s also something to be said for an old-fashioned game of good cop/bad cop, with the U.S. threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapons, and France and the UK screaming Oh my God America’s gone crazy, they’re not listening to us, we don’t know what to do! It adds credibility.
Dear God, do you guys get your geo- political ideas from rewatching GI Joe cartoons?
Russia has no desire or ability to take act like COBRA in taking over the world. Chiefly, since there are about half a dozen other nations with their own nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them on the Kremlin’s front porch,
Putin won’t stop at the Ukraine (same way the Americans would not have stopped at Iraq until battlefield reserves chastened them and they still went into and fucked up Syria and Libya). The best way to stop him to to make an such exercise so expensive that they decide against it.
And hoping that he will get couped is wishful thinking, IMO. Coups need support, and one which does is going to face accusations of stabbing their military in the back (while it’s in combat) unless the coup plotters insist they are going to redouble the Russian efforts in Ukraine.
In other words, a successful coup may well make a nuclear strike more likely.
The Russians are not bluffing. They will use all the forces at their disposal to achieve their aims in Ukraine. If NATO attacks Russia, its the end for Russia, the USA and NATO…also maybe South Korea and Japan.
Good luck to India, South America and China (If they make it) in running the world.
Provided some kind of end of the world nuclear winter doesnt happen .
Retired General Patraeus has predicted that the US and NATO would destroy every Russian installation visible in Urkainian territory (including Crimea) and every Russian ship in the Black Sea, while not attacking any Russian territory. Obviously he was not including the recently (going back to 2014) annexed territory as Russian. While this is just one man’s opinion, he should have an inside track on how generals think. See Retired general David Petraeus predicts the US would destroy Russia's military in Ukraine and sink its naval fleet if it used nuclear weapons
The problem is that no non-nuclear force can measure up to any nuclear force. If he’s willing to use nukes on the battlefield, and we send in conventional forces in retaliation, then he’ll use nukes against our conventional forces on the battlefield, and what do we do then?
Without conventional forces to hold onto the area around where the nuked how are they going to control the area. We would wipe out their forces on the ground just as the nuke went off. They gain nothing without forces to hold territory . Forces they already have shown they don’t have. Its a not well thought plan.
I don’t think Russia’s use of nuclear weapons will be for direct battlefield advantage. Their use would be as a terror weapon and a deterrent. For example, boom, town A (far from Russian border and close to the EU) is now GONE and mafioso style, Putin says, damn, that was pretty town, sure wouldn’t want that to happen to another.
The problem is, as pointed out in many other threads, it’s nearly his last Trump. And if he uses it in a semi-controlled manner, and it doesn’t get the results he wants (gets to keep his new territories), he has relatively few options and increasing consequences.
Which is why the strongest US/NATO response may or may not be the best response. The balancing act is going to be terrible - make sure no one ever tries to use nukes again while discouraging Putin for going out in a blaze of glory along with variable percentage of the rest of the world (up to 100%).
Nice to know he agrees with me. I hope advertising it is enough to deter them.
Well, the problem with that idea* is that (as I understand it) the USSR/Russia’s doctrine on tactical nuclear weapons is that they’d be used to punch holes in the defensive positions of the enemy, which then would be exploited by troops who were protected from the radioactive results by equipment. Since the current troops are apparently really poorly equipped, it’s laughable to think they’d have working equipment to protect themselves well enough that they can exploit the results of a nuclear breakthrough.
So, since it seems if they can’t equip their troops to exploit their attack, it’s basically just an area denial weapon that deprives both sides of the area for the (very long) time being. If they try to use it otherwise to do something like attacking Kyiv, it’d be just using a really weak strategic nuke, and runs closer to inflicting MAD. Heck, if the US ends up with troops in Ukraine and they are killed in a tactical nuclear strike, I can’t see that ending up anywhere but in a loony MAD exchange.
And really, if someone is willing to use nukes on the battlefield of territory they are trying to claim for their own out of a bizarre war of conquest, when are they going to use them next? When someone wears white shoes after Labor Day? If we don’t pay the price in lost beings to discourage and possibly deprive Russia from doing it further, we’re probably headed for a general nuclear exchange, anyway. The problem is, I can’t think of any way of depriving Russia of that ability without triggering one. If a tactical nuclear strike on Urkraine happens, hopefully smarter men folks than I come up with a plan better than the extremes of “Give up the territory to them, and any other they claim” and “Escalate until the bastards either realize how stupid this is and stop, or end us all”
*And we really may agree, but I’m trying to figure out “what do we do then?”
Like you say, there’s no real legitimate tactical purpose, although if the UA was doing some sort of armored thrust, I could possibly see hitting that with a tactical nuke on the defense.
I would say that if the Russians know where the supplies are coming in from NATO, that nuking the depots/switchyards/whatever on the Ukrainian side could be pretty effective in the strategic sense of cutting off the flow of aid, or at least temporarily disrupting it in a serious fashion. But that runs the risk of seriously pissing the NATO countries off if that fallout goes into their countries, and I’m not sure Putin would be willing to escalate quite like that.
I bet if a nuclear weapon’s used, it’s used as a terror weapon. A city fairly far from the fighting will be nuked, with a threat that it’ll continue unless Ukraine/NATO accepts whatever terms are proposed.
What is adding to my worries on this subject are some of the comments from the likes of Kadyrov I quoted upthread. I think Putin is an ambitious wannabe Tsar, but, while he is was obviously underinformed on the status of his troops, I think he has a pretty good current read on the immediate situation, and thus the saber rattling.
And as I said earlier, once he goes nuclear, there is minimal wiggle room for anyone, especially him.
But some of the more aggressive Russian hawks . . . they may well want to win, and whose acceptable losses may be higher than even Putin. In party because they may think they’ll be the next Putin, rather than shitting out their own organs after a not-so-limited exchange. Right now none of them are in control of such weapons, but I can easily see them putting pressure on Putin and the active generals to become much more aggressive in the use of weapons, like #109 earlier.
Finally got my coffee, and reading my last post, it’s not as clear as I’d like, so I’ll amplify.
One, so far, a lot of REMF / Armchair generals in Russia are pushing using nuclear weapons, while those who theoretically have authorization to use them on the front lines have not done so despite ongoing losses on the front.
I think that’s for two reasons. One, the weapons are likely not yet in theater, or not in an appropriately deliverable form (lack of air superiority makes things hard for most bomber options, and we all have evidence that missile based units are being tracked). Two, I’d bet money (and suggested this far upthread) that Putin would be very, Very happy to have a general use said weapons, then freely throw the general under the bus (or out the window) for using such weapons without ‘direct authorization’ as a sop to the West while simultaneously saying “what can you expect when these Nazis are coming over our borders -wink wink-”.
So far at least, the consequences of coming home as a failure aren’t at that level, although I would NOT be surprised to see some new directives along the lines of come home with your shield or on it. Which will also not do well for the morale situation.
THEY have shown some good lovin’ for the nice, sunny, easygoing western type of life and full of luxury for the past 1/4 of a century …
Not sure THEY want to live in an undeground bunker in sibiria for the rest of their lives … with the outlook of being eaten by mutants who are still waiting for their washing machines … (ok, I just added that for extra drama )
My WAG is that the NATOs are smart enough to spread it out over a good surface and not have it all in the Amazon-Warehouse, 1 BlowUp Drive
Also, I think there ain’t so much “hoarding” of tanks, howitzers etc… going on … all that stuff makes it pretty fast to the place where it is needed … so, imho a non-starter
I agree, and get the feeling that Kadyrov is the very type of person that gets stabbed in the ass on his way out, just like gaddhafi
)