Nuclear Reality

Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine? How do you think NATO would respond?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I'M GONNA NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        get lost nerd

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, have some respect.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think Putin has bottled it by not using nukes?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whatever Russia says this will be seen as nukes used in an offensive manner in a war of aggression they started. It's not in anybody's interest to let this be a permissible act, and I think NATO will respond with this in mind.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is a 'suitcase nuke' more likely than ICBMs?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even less likely. They're not really a thing and how would you get them where you wanted anyway?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I figure the Russians would place it as deep into Ukrainian territory they can get and hope for the best. Putin's in his cuck bunker so I don't think he cares about fallout.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I figure the Russians would place it as deep into Ukrainian territory they can get and hope for the best.
            (1) Nuke Ukraine
            (2) ????
            (3) PROFIT

            Joking aside, no one with two brain cells left to rub together (obviously this excludes all vatniks) is going to believe that a nuke going off in Ukraine is anyone but Russia's fault.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't go off because Sergei embezzled the battery money. Ukraine now has a nuke.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russian shills are getting desperate again.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, I want Russia to lose. But the fact is they have this capability that the Ukraine does not.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Ukraine
        You outed yourself.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NATO responds in kind. One going off in Ukraine = one going off in Russia. Probably at an airfield or area where the original was launched from.
    If Russia escalates, NATO begins full strategic use aimed at destroying Russia's delivery systems and command posts.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think the Russians have meticulously maintained their nuclear arsenal? (unlike other aspects of their military)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a coin-flip. Either they know it's the one thing they have to prevent Russia itself from being targeted, or it was sold off or rusted away like the rest. It's a question that no one sane wants to find out.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think any Western intelligence agencies have an asset(s) within Russia's military. Of a sufficiently high rank to know the answer to that question?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Definitely one of their closest guarded secrets. And even if 75% of it was unusable, that's still a few thousand functioning warheads. Though their delivery systems are also questionable. Even the US doesn't have a lot of its warheads ready to go.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's honestly amazing that no lunatics have managed to get their hands on nukes and lose them. Do we just keep getting lucky?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Considering that nuclear war has almost happened a few times due to sensor errors, or mistaking a rocket launches as missiles, yes. We've gotten lucky.
                There was a point where I thought Russia might use a nuke to try a breakthrough or shatter Ukraine's will to fight, but now it would just come across as desperation. An act which only invites negative returns for Russia.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, back in March it seemed like a genuine possibility. But the danger seems to have passed, for now at least.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Considering that nuclear war has almost happened a few times due to sensor errors, or mistaking a rocket launches as missiles,
                Who is this WE shit? The US always double checked its warning. The Soviets on the other hand never double checked and if it wasn't for smart guys telling the Generals to fuck off we would see Europe nuked.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Frankly it’s amazing he wasn’t killed and the retards then just go along and nooook anyway. The fucking brass balls that man had.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There’s tons of lost warheads, actually. I’m guessing that the IAEA must be clapping the guys who get their hands on them and keeping their mouths shut

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is the IAEA?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                International Atomic Energy Agency. Also I fucked that up, I MEANT what are known as NEST teams. They specialize in securing and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons (at least for acts of terror/non-state actors)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, the US just spent tens of billions of dollars on nuclear security during the 90s when the loose nuke phenomenon was at its peak.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'd say about all of them have pretty good idea and people deep in.
            There was actually short article on the finnish news where they interviewed an finnish intelligence officer, and by reading between the lines he casually mentions that they have insider info on russian nuclear secrets.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              How do you solve a problem like Russia?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s one of those problems that can only solve itself.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stop trading with them. Russia has always survived on technology transfer from the West. They cannot and never have been able to manage on their own.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've often heard this. The West makes billions selling tech to Russia, then has to spend trillions to counter the resulting threat. Keynesian economics at work.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Total obliteration

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Arguably justified given their constant threats.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not unless they could figure out a way that it would only benefit trannies, gays, and women.

                >Total obliteration
                Agree. The world has a moderate position on Russia now. Kill them all.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No. They authorized a huge spending push to repair their nukes a few years ago and the new budget was still only 1.8% of the US nuclear budget, which we know to be inadequate for the 1,200 nukes the US is allowed to keep ready. Russia is using less than 2% of the funding for 25% more weapons and it's a good place to steal from since you don't expect them to be used.

        Their delivery systems are almost universally at or past their retirement date and the new replacement they have only tested is liquid fueled, which shows their production abilities have degraded significantly.

        Doesn't really matter because being able to launch 40-80 is still an effective counter measure since interception rates are iffy.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russia won't use nukes because they no longer have anything like a credible first strike capacity. If they fire first, NATO still annihilated them because they can't hit all the opposing launch sites and cover all the incoming bombers.

          Russia also has to seriously consider how many functional ICBMs they can get off before counter battery fire hits at this point. Given all the other problems, that number might be fairly low. The US has two ICBM killers that have been proven to work and a shit ton of tubes in Europe with other missiles that could kill a 1980s ICBM early in its flight path.

          You really don't want a situation where you launch first and most of all of your attack is intercepted.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >counterforce strikes
            Don't forget the superfuse, which the US started mass deployment of in the late 2010's. It allows much fewer warheads to be dedicated to hard targets like silos and C3 infrastructure.
            You know it's a good gizmo when it makes the The Bulletin Of Atomic gays cope and seethe

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Bulletin Of Atomic gays
              Based pronuke anon

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russians are so demoralized and convinced they're losing this war their very last hope is nuking Ukraine, thinking this would instantly win them the war. Not only pathetic but fucking retarded.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the possibility of Putin issuing such an order resulting in a coup?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Putin will never do it. 50 years ago people already realized using nukes in normal warfare is fucking stupid.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hmm, it does seem as if it were to happen, it would have happened by now.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ??? According to who?? Russia is steadily gaining territory as they have been the whole war.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >big area = big defeat
          >small area = irrelevant
          anon, please study World War One

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lose a lot of your best equipment and troops trying to bumrush the north
            >this is fine
            Yeah

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Based Charlie Magne Poster

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine?
    yes
    >How do you think NATO would respond?
    whine about how mean that was to all the gays, trannies, and womyn

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Putin must fear NATO to some extent, otherwise he would do it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        his entire career people have been trying to figure him out, but you, anonymous anon, know with absolute certainty his innermost thoughts. your prodigious talents are wasted here.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What other reason could there possibly be? He has weapons which Zelensky does not have access to. Yet has refrained from using them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >russia launches one nuke
            >suddenly every nuclear power has to quickly decide to retaliate or join in
            even the most braindead vatnik could see how restraint is the best interest for humanity

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, I am wasted here. But I want to elevate others.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          oh, but I have figured out his most innermost thoughts
          I know what's there, deep inside Putin's mind.
          He only dreams of one thing. It is long and thick and yellow.

          In his head there is only Banan

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >his entire career people have been trying to figure him out
          he is mentally unstable gay doing what he can to pump up his ego, ruining his country in the process.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What other reason could there possibly be? He has weapons which Zelensky does not have access to. Yet has refrained from using them.

        He's not gonna do it because it would make Russia a global pariah, worse than North Korea, even China and India would cut all ties.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like how this name was being used by someone and this absolute butthurt brown moron got so upset that he started copying his name and started shitposting. Jesus Christ dude go the fuck outside. Are you scared? Do you make yourself a target of bullying when out in public or something?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >win
    it would be the quickest way to lose

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's desirable, but would the West, such as it is, have the stomach to go nuclear?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Based Charlie Magne Poster

      not unless they could figure out a way that it would only benefit trannies, gays, and women.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fuck off namefag.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Based Charlie Magne Poster

          cope and seethe, you autistic little esl gay.
          have you managed to come up up with a good explanation for how russia still has running trains?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Post skin color or be disregarded you filthy asiatic mutt

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They never do

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See? No pictures just bland hollow insults

                >Post skin color or be disregarded you filthy asiatic mutt

              • 4 weeks ago
                Based Charlie Magne Poster

                >See? No pictures just bland hollow insults

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Frankly I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean at this point but this’ll be the last (you) from me because I’m tired of 4chan, you’ve all become just tiresome, you used to at least be the funny kind of scizo, like PrepHole before they stopped taking their meds, now your just sad.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Frankly I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean at this point but this’ll be the last (you) from me because I’m tired of 4chan, you’ve all become just tiresome, you used to at least be the funny kind of scizo, like PrepHole before they stopped taking their meds, now your just sad.
                /thread

            • 4 weeks ago
              Based Charlie Magne Poster

              >Post skin color or be disregarded you filthy asiatic mutt

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >have you managed to come up up with a good explanation for how russia still has running trains?
            Running trains on conscripts is a high priority for Russian high command.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              C A R L O S !
              A
              R
              L
              O
              S
              !

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear fallout causes mutations that may cause more of that. Thus, it benefits, thus, let's nuke'em!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most people are moderates and just want all Russians dead now. Bored of their shit really.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        From a propaganda perspective, Russia's abandonment of Marxist verbiage has been disastrous for them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >From a propaganda perspective, Russia's Marxist verbiage has been disastrous for them.
          Also true

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now Western leftists are free to hate the Bear without any mixed feelings. Although some Tankies, sensing the KGB DNA still present in the Russian organism, remain loyal. But their influence is almost as negligible as that of the Alt-right.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anything for the sake of vatnik removal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if they won't every small nation under US/UK/RU nuclear umbrella will start making their own nukes. NATO would have use nukes of their own, and russia knows this as well.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US is lead by an old-fashioned, cold-war-era politician who might be getting intelligence on secret systems that let him kill all the former soviets in nuclear hellfire with minimal losses.

      Do you think he’s not going to press the button?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. The senile old coot may still think he's dealing with Brezhnev and Mao, but he still knows how to play Cold War.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lets say Russia nukes Kiev. Would it stop hostilities and force Ukraine to surrender ? My bet is that it would not achieve either of the goals. This would likely drive Russia further into isolation as it's hard to imagine China accepting it. NATO would certainly step up it's contribution to Ukraine as long range missiles and capabilities to strike Moscow but still not starting direct war vs Russia.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Since you're probably a retard, I'm just going to tell you what you want to hear:
    Yes, they can win if they nook. If they nook, the west will realize how strong Russia is and they will slink away. NATO will be too scared and will let nuclear terrorism become the status quo. They will just sit there and create the precedent that all weak countries will develop nuclear weapons because of the threat of getting nuked when their tinpot neighbor wants to get there way. Russia is very strong and much smarter than the west.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you think I'm a supporter of Russia?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because you likely are?
        You're not the first to post a thread almost exactly like this one. They usually end with the OP sperging that Russia is stronk and west is weak in the replies.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Westoid cope.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Westoid cope.

            https://i.imgur.com/pRpdg8t.jpg

            Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine? How do you think NATO would respond?

            >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine? How do you think NATO would respond?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not him, bro.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine?
    Wipe it off the face of the earth? Probably. Winning though...

    >How do you think NATO would respond?
    Turning russia into a self-illuminating glass car park. That is the thing about nukes- you can't tell what they're being launched at, so the second a satellite picks up missiles in the air, the counter-strike begins. And nobody wins a full nuclear exchange.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine? How do you think NATO would respond?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kek

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Some people say to me
          "Anon, why Chris Chan as a symbol of CHUG?"
          That's a fair question and really is based on these thoughts
          1)Rapes his own mother
          2)A lot of other awful shit like drinking his own sperm
          But the key point here is like Russia, Chris Chan may do horrible awful pointless things but like Russia, he just does not care and like Russia he also burned his own house down. Chug is Christ Chan and Christ Chan is Chug

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Nuke Ukraine
    >NATO nukes you because nuclear fallout.
    >Russia is ashes.
    >Most of the world damaged, but will move on in the coming decades.
    Nuclear apocalypse is a meme. Millions will die, but everything will be alright.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing will happen for a few months. Then it will be announced there is Bilateral agreement between NATO and China to remove Russia and its veto from UN. Dismantle Russia, with china administrating the east of Russia. Japan the islands. Canada Kamchatka.
    Turkey the eastern blacksea. Ukraine northern blacksea. And Finland to st Petersburg's. USA provides security for Moscow "Russia" and various NATO for the balkanised states outside Moscow.
    6 hours prior to the agreement being announced publicly, the USA disables all USSR nukes sites in 6 hours without using nukes. Once that operation is passed,mopping up the rest of the scrap metal is a joint international effort, with rus army chiefs offering surrender for better terms.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God stop anon I can only be so hard.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does superman or iron man disable all the nuke sites in 6 hrs

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Brilliant Pebbles. You didn't really think Starlink was just for communication, did you?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fucking hell m8, that's good.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >china agreeing to that
      yeah, now write a fan fiction where britain joins the axis

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear weapons use or any WMD use in Ukraine is a hard line for NATO. They would respond with war.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a good question, everyone assumes we'd retaliate with nukes, but if used tactically we might also be like HEY DONT DO THAT and respond with hot air and sanctions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you for your response, Anon. For some reason people think I'm a Russian fanboy for simply posing the question.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not him, but it's a decent question I think; if I was putin sitting in my bunker I'd be seriously considering the viability of using a small tactical nuke, trying to figure out the response from the west, nato etc... not nuking some massive population center but against ukranian forces or a base maybe, something around a kiloton or so to warn everybody off - obviously not justifiable for any reasonable country, an incredible show of aggression from Russia if they did it, but they would likely push their own justification anyway - "we only targeted nazi ukranian millitary not civillians", "it was only a little nuke" etc...
        I've no idea what the response would be to this, but I doubt the west would be deterred, think it unlikely they'd respond with a similar weapon and risk escalation to strategic nukes and ww3, but do think they'd double down on supply to ukraine and ramp up attempts to sanction, isolate, and break russia. I'd imagine China would be on board for this.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >lets just break a country with 6,000 nukes
          >what could go wrong?

          >nukes fall into ISIS hands
          >an actual fascist or russian nationalist comes to power
          >or putin starts ww3 anyway

          fact is, you can't really do shit to a country with alot of nukes.

          instead of being an antagonist you have to really just get along with them and meet their satisfactions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Russia collapsed before without going totally nuts and letting off nukes, I'd imagine the current ideal situation in the west is that it does so again, that they maybe get a bit of a push this time, that there's regime change, hopefully some kind of political reform and a little less imperialistic posturing etc - I don't see that as totally far fetched given the chaos, uncertainty, and threats we're living thru currently.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NATO would probably consider a conventional strike on Russian nuclear assets. It would certainly turn the sanctions dial from token to totalitarian. China would drop its uneasy alliance with Russia like a empty vodka bottle.

          The Cold War established a set of rules for nuclear powers: don't use nukes vs non-nuclear nations, don't fight each other openly and directly, etc. So far Russia has followed those rules the same as everyone else. Nobody wants to be the first to break the nuclear war meta.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/3FiGijk.jpg

            They could certainly win if they deployed nukes, but the question is how the rest of the world would react.
            Deploying nukes against a non-nuclear capable target in a conflict they instigated would set off alarm bells all over the world, it demonstrates that Russia is intent on conquest and willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve said goal.
            This means that any conflict starting with a nuclear power is far more likely to go nuclear as Russia will have demonstrated their willingness to use said nukes in conventional warfare against even a smaller opponent.
            NATO's response would likely be to immediately throw away the non-proliferation treaty and begin building, testing and reactivating new and old nuclear weapons to be used in the event of Russian aggression against a NATO ally.
            This is the big problem with nukes, they aren't so much a conventional weapon as they are an assurance that your enemy wont use them, if you have nukes and the enemy has nukes, either side using them in a conventional fight would be suicide.
            >inb4 "haha NATO shills afraid of nukes"
            They're not afraid of the deployment of nukes by the enemy, but the NATO response that would inevitably level the earth.
            If the threat of nuclear weapons is not countered by the threat of overwhelming nuclear retaliation, the enemy would use nukes without even thinking about it.
            This is something NATO and Russia have always understood, and is why neither have fired a nuclear shot in anger even against non-nuclear capable opponents.

            Yeah, I agree... mostly. It's tricky though, because if putin is as fucked by the failure of all this as it actually appears, it may lead him to push it and think outside the box a little, consider the use of something tactical and low yield as a warning; we've already had the threat of a possible "incident" at zaporizhzhia from the russians, a similar situation at chernobyl a few months back also - likely just posturing, but the fact that Russia is even able to go to that level of threat is pretty remarkable and unprecedented I think, something no one would have credited as possible before the war, not myself anyway.
            Re: the retaliation to a possible tactical nuke - I think you're largely right in terms of an allied response re sanctions, a kind of international economic shunning, but would hope nato attacking Russian soil would be avoided, consider that a dangerous escalation - regrettable this, as they'd obviously deserve it, already do from a ukranian perspective.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The Ukraine

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody "Wins" a Nuclear War, asshole.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only applies to global thermonuclear war. WWII, for example, was a nuclear war, and there was a very clear winner.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And as soons as the genie is out of the bottle it is just a matter of time before it happens.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one has ever tried. It's hard to say for sure.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you keep starting these threads to ask the same stupid question? You know that nuclear war is unwinnable. You know the only rational response is a proportionate response.

    Have you tired of living? Is this a cry for help?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know that and neither do you because there simply isn't enough publicly available data.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NATO doesn't need to go nuclear in return to boot Russia our of Ukraine. All they need to do it turn NATO air forces loose and the Ukranian Army can move into occupy the territory.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of Russians and demoralized 4chanfags are in for a big shock when they learn what country is protected underneath China's nuclear umbrella.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine is protected by China? Why would they do that?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Due to the treaty Ukraine signed with China as a part of handing over it's nukes to russia back in the 90s

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a peace of paper
          China would likely back out of this commitment. The world is not run by pieces of paper but by individual people who make decisions. I don't think China would chose to start a nuclear war over Ukraine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Due to the treaty Ukraine signed with China as a part of handing over it's nukes to russia back in the 90s

        >a peace of paper
        China would likely back out of this commitment. The world is not run by pieces of paper but by individual people who make decisions. I don't think China would chose to start a nuclear war over Ukraine.

        Ukraine is also important for China's whole 'new silkroad' thing they've been working on.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why nuking a territory you want to conquer?

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine?
    With less than a dozen strikes, no. With an overwhelming strike, yes.
    >How do you think NATO would respond?
    Once one nuke goes off furious debate begins about whether it's worth it to back up NATO's red line. If more go off NATO likely coordinates an immediate counterforce first strike.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is already winning the war slowly so why escalate with a nuke randomly for no reason or benefit?

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not, they can absorb the losses of poor, dumb Mongols in Kherson. They can't absorb Moscow being turned into a nuclear wasteland.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The very moment russia launches nukes, USA will immidiately do a disarming first strike to disable as much nukes as possible.
    If russia goes against their own doctrine and launches nukes in an offensive war (that they didnt even declare), it means they are not to be reasoned with and the only logical solution is to strike them first before they attack you.

    So no, russia cannot win because the moment they attempt to do so, they get nuked immidiately. And satellites see everything.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >USA will immidiately do a disarming first strike
      and how exactly do you do this ?

      it would take at least a few days to get all the forces in place, russia would place its nuclear forces on high alert and then if more than 5 jets entered their airspace it would be bye bye plutocracy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you retarded?
        To do nuclear attack on Ukraine (and one single nuke won't do shit) they need to arm their nukes.
        All nuclear silos and depots are supervised by the USA.
        The moment russia starts doing something funny there, USA immidiately readies their own nuclear arsenal.
        From there it's only a few minutes of time to make a response.
        Or do you think Russia is able to ready their nukes and then USA will do nothing and then suddenly "whoa now we need to do something"?
        Right now USA is chilling exaclty because they see russia despite all their threats not doing anything funny.
        The moment they start trying and grab nukes, shit really starts going down.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you didn't answer the question, how do you do a first strike without causing a nuclear war.

          You somehow need to destroy all 6,000 nukes, or, should we say at least the 200 plus mobile launchers in one go.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The nuclear subs are being tailed by killer subs. (lol, Russian navy)
            The mobile launchers are tracked by satellites.
            The silo's are pre-dialed in.

            In addition, the glowies have been bribing/corrupting desperate Russian soldiers/technicians for 3 decades now, long enough to find out the true capabilities of the nuclear arsenal (it's not 6000 by a long shot)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how do you do a first strike without causing a nuclear war.
            Who said there won't be nuclear war? there will be.
            USA will just do a first strike since if russia uses nukes vs ukraine they are someone who needs to be destroyed because else they will pose a bigger threat. Even if it means that russia will launch some nukes at USA in return

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >USA will just do a first strike
              this is synonymous for "USA will just start a nuclear war".

              and for what ?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how do you do a first strike without causing a nuclear war
            You don't but that is still better option than letting russia run amok nuking countries as they like.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Alternatively, it may be just decided that the Russian leadership have completely lost their minds, cannot and should not be reasoned with, and NATO escalates to full counterforce with absolutely no fucks and warnings given.
    This
    Not this
    > the decision may be made that one of the lesser Russian cities
    Nato won't act tit for tat. If russia uses nukes, it's immidient disarmament first strike to destroy as many russian nukes as possible with followup invasion on russia from all sides. Not giving them any time to do anything

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unfortunately for Rasha, the real world is not Ace Combat, and if Rasha went full Belka, they likely would not get more than a few detonations of smaller, tactical warheads, assuming they even have the will, let alone the means.
    "MUH NOOOOOOOOOKS" is legitimately just sabre rattling. At least beyond one tactical detonation. I can see them attempting to put a smaller warhead into Kiev to try and buckbreak Yuocrane, but I guarantee glowmorons have some way of tracking all nuclear weapons in Rasha, and deleting them somewhat covertly. If not sheer HUMINT and a network of incredibly small ULF radios issued to agents along with hidden Patriot missiles upgraded to be able to knock down SRBMs/ICBMs, along with TR-3Bs doing regular patrols, then certainly something else. If the glowmorons wish, Putin could try and flick a match onto the cold war's nuclear powder keg, and they could extinguish the embers silently before it even landed, and then make it seem like nothing ever happened to prolong the status quo. Or they could let the world know that Monkeyman tried to NOOOOOK the brave black transwymxn of KEEEY-IIIIIIHV, and Moscow would drown under the weight of a HATO coalition that would make the Gulf War look like a joke, and make every boomer on the planet jizz themselves to death after the blueballing they've had since the 80s. And If I'm wrong and Rasha achieves a single detonation on Ukrainian soil, that Gulf War 2, Fulda Boogaloo would still occur, maybe with some JDAMs getting replaced with some western NOOOOOKs.
    Rasha Monke has nothing to gain, and everything to lose from NOOOOOOOOOOOOOK slinging

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    cont.

    Personally, I think that if it appeared that Invasion of Ukraine was about to escalate to use of nuclear weapons, NATO would do what was proposed in Cuba in 1962, rise and kill first.

    Sneak a flight of F-35s and F-22s into Russian airspace, and preemptively attack the launch sites or the bombers in mid-flight, followed by the declaration of a No-Fly Zone over all of Ukraine.

    This would most definitely be an act of war, but would ensure that at least the opening salvo would be purely conventional and hopefully stay that way.

    [...]
    >Alternatively, it may be just decided that the Russian leadership have completely lost their minds, cannot and should not be reasoned with, and NATO escalates to full counterforce with absolutely no fucks and warnings given.
    This
    Not this
    > the decision may be made that one of the lesser Russian cities
    Nato won't act tit for tat. If russia uses nukes, it's immidient disarmament first strike to destroy as many russian nukes as possible with followup invasion on russia from all sides. Not giving them any time to do anything

    If Ukraine was a NATO member state or the Russians were to launch nuclear missiles at American staging areas in Poland in response to intervention, I would agree with you that the response would be immediate counterforce. But since Ukraine is not, I think there would be at least some initial attempt to weasel their way down to a less extreme form of retaliation.

    The reason I say this is because even in ideal circumstances, the Russians will be able to get at least some of their missiles into the air and that tens of millions of Americans and Western Europeans would perish as a direct result of this. That's not even getting into the environmental damage a 100% successful First Strike would still cause.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That's not even getting into the environmental damage a 100% successful First Strike would still cause.
      Well, we won't have to worry about global warming for a while. All the snow would be great for tourism in ski country.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >radioactive pow day
        I’m in. LAUNCH THE NUKES

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >just attack their nukes, the war will totally not go nuclear

      would you be this fucking retarded if someone proposed bombing US nukes in California ?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If Ukraine was a NATO member state
      Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with being a NATO member or not. Are you not seeing the difference?

      >USA will just do a first strike
      this is synonymous for "USA will just start a nuclear war".

      and for what ?

      >and for what ?
      >Russia launches nukes vs ukraine
      >Becomes unpredictable
      >Contradicts all the agreements about nukes
      >Is potential threat that can launch nukes at you at any time without any reason
      If there is a mentally ill guy running at you with knife you won't try to reason with him, you will shoot at him.
      The same will be done with russia.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >running at you
        he isn't running at me

        >knife
        he has a large bomb, and i wouldn't then charge at him knowing it will kill me too that's fucking retarded

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, he is running at another guy with a large bomb and you might get hit by the explosion

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you might get hit by the explosion
            Yeah, getting some dust on my shoe isn't worth risking getting blown up

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Except that's what USA will do if russia launches a massive nuclear attack on ukraine.
              And a small scale "tactical" nuke won't do anything

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    How would NATOs nukes be discredited because Ukraine (not a NATO member) got nuked ?

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Given what we have seen of their conventional forces. How many of their nukes would fail to operate properly?

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with this scenario, as other anons have pointed out, is that it necessitates immediate nuclear retaliation. If you refuse to first strike Russia, invade, and dismantle the country, you are essentially telling the world that the principle of mutually assured destruction does not hold. Why not use nukes if you know that other nations refuse to do anything to stop you?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you are essentially telling the world that the principle of mutually assured destruction does not hold.

      that's just not true, given that Ukraine doesn't have any nukes, so MAD isn't a thing here, you can't discredit something when it was never there to begin with

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is not necessary for the party that gets nuked to also be a nuclear power for the principle apply. Using nukes at all shows that you do not fear any consequences.

        It’s just a nuclear-level Mexican standoff. If anyone fires, everyone fires. It doesn’t matter who you’re aiming at.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine?
    Maybe only if they used a few small tactical nukes on obvious military installations with no civilians casualties. But that won't make them win so for your question: NO, Russia can't win the war by going nuclear. if they'll go any stronger with the nukes NATO would respond and Russia will be nuked too.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Could Russia win the war by going nuclear in the Ukraine?

    No, absolutely not. Russia is itself already in a precarious position economically, militarily, and demographically. They are fighting uphill using the tools they already have at their disposal and have lost tens of thousands of men, thousands of armored vehicles, planes, and related logistics equipment. Once they decide to make a nuclear strike, the situation they will face will be catastrophic. There will be a total embargo from practically every developed nation, and a total dissolution of support from those that don't immediately attack them (e.g. China, India, Iran). The very, very momentary gains of a limited nuclear strike would be canceled out by the ramifications.

    >How do you think NATO would respond?

    Very difficult to say. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so a blanket response as though they were would be a mistake. That said, a military response from western powers would be certain. There is no way that NATO or really any surrounding unaffiliated nations in the surrounding area would allow aggressive nuclear bombardment without the dissolution of Russian leadership, so I would expect at first a conventional conflict aimed straight at Moscow escalating into fullblown nuclear exchange if demands are not met immediately.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They could certainly win if they deployed nukes, but the question is how the rest of the world would react.
    Deploying nukes against a non-nuclear capable target in a conflict they instigated would set off alarm bells all over the world, it demonstrates that Russia is intent on conquest and willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve said goal.
    This means that any conflict starting with a nuclear power is far more likely to go nuclear as Russia will have demonstrated their willingness to use said nukes in conventional warfare against even a smaller opponent.
    NATO's response would likely be to immediately throw away the non-proliferation treaty and begin building, testing and reactivating new and old nuclear weapons to be used in the event of Russian aggression against a NATO ally.
    This is the big problem with nukes, they aren't so much a conventional weapon as they are an assurance that your enemy wont use them, if you have nukes and the enemy has nukes, either side using them in a conventional fight would be suicide.
    >inb4 "haha NATO shills afraid of nukes"
    They're not afraid of the deployment of nukes by the enemy, but the NATO response that would inevitably level the earth.
    If the threat of nuclear weapons is not countered by the threat of overwhelming nuclear retaliation, the enemy would use nukes without even thinking about it.
    This is something NATO and Russia have always understood, and is why neither have fired a nuclear shot in anger even against non-nuclear capable opponents.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is like vietnam would usa win by going nuclear? it's not gonna happen

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem for Russia, as it pertains to nuclear threats, is the USA not needing to go nuclear to win.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Checked
    Russia won't nuke Ukraine because Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be U-crater. They need the warmwater ports and it's easier to ship Adidas track pants when you don't have supermutant krokodil freaks eating your dock workers

Your email address will not be published.