I genuinely don’t get it. There would be absolutely no downside in doing a limited nuclear attack on Ukraine, as long as they don’t target civilian centers. Maybe even just a tactical nuke? It would for sure scare the Ukrainians, possibly into submission. At this point, it’s clear to absolutely everyone this war isn’t going Russia’s way and they are on track for at best, a stalemate. I’m starting to believe Russia either has no nuclear capability left or they don’t actually want to win for some reason. I don’t know, maybe I’m just moronic, but it’s what I would do. Also I don’t care who wins this stupid war, it just confuses me when I see one side losing who has the ace in the hole but refuses to use it.
Because nothing thats happening there is worth using a nuke.
all the war is show for small "independed" morons to know their place
if russia used a nuke NATO would fully join the war and it would be over the kremlin elite.
The US wouldn’t do shit. The idea of war is extremely unpopular with the US public right now. On top of that, the US doesn’t want to get nuked in retaliation. That’s the whole point of nukes, mutually assured destruction. It’s why a war between Russia and NATO is impossible. The US would send some more sanction packages.
Frick around and find out.
The us public doesn't have control of the nuclear weapons the government does
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were extremely unpopular but they lasted for 20 plus years
Public opinion means nothing
Both the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan were popular in the US when they began, Afghanistan in particular had huge support. They only became unpopular once they deteriorated into shit shows
That's not how it works bub
if you break open the nuclear taboo for an offensive war of all things you're getting world war 3 and nuclear armageddon. Might take 2 seconds might take 2 weeks might take 2 years but it will happen.
also this
I'd be more worried about China
>public opinion
>in USA
kek, do you live like thirty years ago? Voting is fixed beforehand, internet is fully compromised, TV is just government propaganda, CIA controls all the narrative. We don't care.
>projecting this hard
You're literally describing puccia
>We don't care.
>we
You're talking about Russia right?
>Unpopular with the US public right now
Do you think that would stay the same if Russia showed it was willing to nuke its own backyard because it was struggling militarily? Because I think public opinion would change if that happened
>public opinion would change if that happened
If you're implying that intervention would instantly become even more unpopular than it is now, then you're absolutely right. Nukes are a guaranteed winning move by Russia, the only explanation for why they haven't been used already is that Russia can't find any nukes in working order.
>Nukes are a guaranteed win for Russia
I agree. The Russia that would be formed after the current government is dismantled by NATO would win it's lease on life.
NATO high command has officially confirmed they would intervene if russia use nukes
Could you post a source? I always had an hard time finding someone saying that who actually holds military responsibilities
Our government literally went through 4 presidents and 5.5 terms in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which were wildly unpopular for about 5 full terms
Ukraine is under China's nuclear umbrella. You'd get nuked by Winnie.
>Ukraine is under China's nuclear umbrella
Is it? Source?
Yes, Google is your friend.
The Ukraine-Russia treaty, co-signed by the us and prc
Huh? The treaty that said they aren't gonna invade each other, which expired because Ukraine told Russia to go frick itself after Crimea?
Hm all I can find is a nuclear safety guarantee from 2013, I dunno if they're still upholding that
China is supporting Ukraine because of Crimea, it helps them pushing the narrative of taking Taiwan by making equivalence of the two
You mean China is supporting Russia because of Crimea. Russia's successful reunification with Crimea is a model for China.
Yes it is, but in practice I will believe it when I see it.
>The US wouldn’t do shit. The idea of war is extremely unpopular with the US public right now.
>t. japanese high command ca 1941
>Attacking Ukraine is the same as a direct attack on US troops
Most moronic take in the thread thus far, impressive.
Establishment of a precedent of unilateral use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state is a direct, existential threat to all other nuclear states. It's not merely equivalent to a direct attack on US troops, it's WORSE.
If Russia bombed Pearl Harbour tomorrow it would be less of a threat to the USA than if they nuked Ukraine
Because everyone knows the US would win a conventional war, whereas there's at least a chance they would be among the losers in a global nuclear war.
There is no MAD when a nuclear power preys on a non-nuclear one. That is purely spite and a display of insanity which must be answered. A failed war of aggression where the aggressor now tries to flip the table because they're losing.
Use a nuke and the deterrent factor goes away. You've now made it a practical weapon, and unless action is taken to punish it then you've now told every crackpot dictator that they can use a nuke and get what they want.
If Russia uses one then their military ceases to exist in Europe. Putin is likely targeted for elimination too.
>you've now told every crackpot dictator that they can use a nuke and get what they want.
That’s how it already is though.
Except no one has been stupid enough to turn the key (yet.) The existence of the weapon is not a problem in itself.
It becomes a problem when it's used, because that's the one chance the world gets to respond. And it could fail miserably and tumble into full exchanges. Right now we can only hope that day doesn't come and over time the powers agree to further dismantling of arsenals.
But for the time being, nukes being a political tool has kept the peace. Supporting the idea that Ukraine should have kept its own arsenal, since a nuclear power has never been invaded...though Russia would the first if they take that step off the ledge.
Yes, Mearsheimer was right (he usually is) Ukraine should have kept its nukes. No, Russia would not get nuked or invaded for obliterating Ukraine. In this fairytale that you have concocted it might seem plausible, but in reality the rest of the world really would not give a frick, especially not enough to get nuked over it. The argument that non-rational actors would suddenly get nukes is particularly delusional, but even if true, it would not be a reason to start a full scale nuclear exchange.
Yeah I assume this war taught any other minor countries to never fricking give away their nukes, or to start more seriously on acquiring some in the first place
For the last time, Ukraine did not have the ability to detonate the nukes. Keys were in Moscow, effectively.
Best they could do would be to blow up the bombs with C4 or something and hope they were made so poorly that this actually caused them to detonate.
It really doesn't matter. They could have reverse engineered them, or used them as bargaining chips. Now they're fricked!
>There is no MAD when a nuclear power preys on a non-nuclear one.
Correct, just D for destruction. MAD happens when another nuclear power thinks about getting involved in a nuclear conflict, and it is what keeps them from entering one.
>which must be answered
It would be answered. With a scolding letter from the UN and another 10% added to the sanctions.
So why has Monke never made good on his nuclear threats if the only thing he has to fear is more sanctions? 🙂
What nuclear threats?
The US is scared of Russia and Russia is scared of the US. Russia is not scared of Ukraine though.
Any of these, really
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_threats_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
inb4 crying about Wikipedia, I'm not gonna spend any actual effort on debating with your firehose of falsehood
>when Russia makes so many nuclear threats it gets its own wikipedia page
Russia's final warning
>muhdickapedoia
>not those proofs
You literally cannot be saying Wikipedia is trustworthy. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia, if Ukraine took Artemovsk tomorrow, I could change the text to say US Marines did an amphibious landing at Bakhmut and morons wouldn't know any better.
There's 70 different proofs in the "references" section, Dimitri.
>could change the text to say US Marines did an amphibious landing at Bakhmut and morons wouldn't know any better.
Go ahead and do it right now then anon. It's so easy right, anyone can do it. Go on, do so homosexual. Tell us exactly how long it takes for the changes to get reverted and you to get banned, and the article to get locked if you hop IPs and keep trying. Or don't tell us, because we'll be able to see in the edit log ourselves.
I'm gonna level with you it was a performance art troll post trying to provoke someone into posting the Su-25 article where the Russians literally did that and you can see the edits in the history of where they amended the ceiling information because they'd just claimed at a press conference that MH17 was shot down by a UkAF Su-25 and got BTFO when people pointed out it couldn't fly that high.
But I'm fricking tired so I didn't execute the post well
>I'm gonna level with you it was a performance art troll post trying to provoke someone into posting the Su-25 article where the Russians literally did that and you can see the edits in the history of where they amended the ceiling information because they'd just claimed at a press conference that MH17 was shot down by a UkAF Su-25 and got BTFO when people pointed out it couldn't fly that high.
Ah, fair enough then anon. And yes that was absolutely hilarious, or at least, "hilarious" as anything can be when the basic point was cartoon villain coverup of mass murder of unrelated civilians which isn't actually hilarious at all. Their ineptness would have been funnier if we'd responded with force, that's still a real shame and one has to wonder if western passivity in the face of that kind of shit over the decades emboldened monke.
>that's still a real shame and one has to wonder if western passivity in the face of that kind of shit over the decades emboldened monke.
I personally think it 100% did
>puts nukes on high alert
>pundits and propagandists say blah blah use nook
>if NATO militarily provokes = nuke
>muh high alert
Doesn't seem like Putin has not made good on any threats he made, but that's alright.
>Russia is not scared of Ukraine though.
I dont know man, those videos didnt look like the mobiks were exactly happy.
Bot response
moronic vatBlack person response.
>no argument
That's what I thought. And yes if you keep spamming the same shit I'm just gonna copypaste the post that BTFO you
Note how you immediately switched to discrediting a few instances of threats, while ignoring actual quotes by Putin
Putin never said he was going to use nukes. Take your meds.
2 posts responding to me calling you a bot posted at the exact same second? Hmm…
>completely abandoned any semblance of actual arguments cause he got BTFO so thoroughly
Thanks for conceding.
I refuse to argue with a bot.
frick off olgino pidor
>UHHH IF WE NOOK WE WIN
>UR A BOT IF YOU DISAGREE
Delusional fantasies are the only place where russia is winning.
then do it homosexual. you won't because puccia is scared of US.
>It would be answered. With the total annihilation of russian forces in Ukraine and assasination of Putin, at a minimum.
FTFY. No precedent for nuclear first use against a non-nuclear power will be tolerated. Deal with it, zigger.
That already happened in the 1940s. And the US wouldn't do shit. It's not even part of their deterrent narrative.
Maybe they are scared of more sanctions and ostracization. Maybe they don't feel they need to use nukes. Maybe they are concerned about a domestic revolt in response. Maybe they are concerned about pissing off China. One thing they are not scared of is the US running headlong into a nuclear war over fricking Ukraine, haha.
>Authoritarian despot isn't afraid of losing his power via American intervention
Boy golly
Not an argument
And look what happened, do we have terrorists nuking everyone? No, we don't. Most non nuclear nations do not make a point of pissing off nuclear nations though.
Racist and foolish.
moron
more losing vatBlack person shill cope
>Not an argument
Is that what Saddam said before hiding in a hole?
>That already happened in the 1940s
Noone else had nukes you mongoloid, they were also a secret
>One thing they are not scared of is the US running headlong into a nuclear war over fricking Ukraine, haha.
this is vatBlack person cope
>One thing they are not scared of is the US running headlong into a nuclear war over fricking Ukraine, haha.
it's not over the single event of the war in ukraine anymore at that point, it's about the principle of nuclear first use especially in your own war of aggression
The principle of nuclear first use was breached in WW2. We do not see terrorists using nukes nor everyone rushing to sell them to one another. Aggressor, defender, this moralist garbage does not matter. Japan felt threatened by the blockades, so? They were nuked, and nobody cares. The world has not changed. Your roleplay with principles does not matter.
>The principle of nuclear first use was breached in WW2
no it wasn't.
Read up on your history, kids.
There was no concept of "nuclear first use" because there were only three bombs in existence, all produced by the US
What you mean to say is, the country with nukes used them, and nobody stopped them. Correct.
Because no one else had them, moron
And then that same country decided NOT to use them in the Korean War because by that point the Soviets had them as well.
That wasn't why they didn't use them.
i hope your shillfarm gets firebombed tomorror
>The principle of nuclear first use was breached in WW2.
moron
>The principle of nuclear first use was breached before it was established
Based moron
Hiroshima send their regards
Again, are you seriously not understanding this?
I understand perfectly.
What's your point?
>muh hirooshima
Okay, let me try to explain this in a way you vatBlack folk will understand, somebody screencap this.
The nuking of Japan was a unique circumstance, brought about by their status as an island nation and the sheer level of delusion they were operating on by 1945. To put it in terms you'll understand, let's pretend that you are the General Secretary of the USSR in the mid 1980s, and shit has gone hot. Through masterful use of maskirovka, you have broken the NATO alliance, and the USA has decided to not ride to the defense of her allies. Deprived of American support, Germany and France have crumbled before your armies, and all that now stands between you and the liberation of Europe into the workers' paradise is perfidious Albion. England's army has been smashed on the mainland, their navy lies at the bottom of the North Sea, and their industry bombed to ruin. They are completely and utterly beaten.
However, England seems to have not gotten this memo. In their mind, they can still defeat you, or at least bargain for favorable terms, as long as they can kill enough Russians. To this end, they are fortifying the shit out of their island, arming every man, woman and child with sharp sticks, quoting Churchill at every opportunity. They absolutely WILL NOT accept the reality of their situation, and have made their intent to commit national suicide before contemplating defeat as clear as can be. You are now presented with two options: either you can walk into the trap and suffer enough casualties to make your entire military history look like a fricking joke, or you can just blow them the frick up and be done with it.
Meds.
He's completely right though
Then why hasn't Russia used theirs? Because:
A. It shows their ongoing narrative that the "Special Military Operation was going fine" was bullshit and they now need to prepare the entire population for war.
B. They know NATO is not bluffing about direct intervention.
C. They know Xi is going to be pissed when countries like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan start rushing development of nuclear weapons themselves.
>C. They know Xi is going to be pissed when countries like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan start rushing development of nuclear weapons themselves.
Circle gets a square
>circle gets a square
What the frick does that mean
You are a deluded dipshit, it would not be a nuclear war over Ukraine, it would be a nuclear war over the use of nuclear weapons.
You are crazy. Nobody is going to nuclear war with a nuclear superpower over the off chance that a few more nukes might get made.
The pre-text to the invasion of Iraq was for that very reason. And a nuclear war with russia is not to stop more being made, it's to stop thier hostile usage.
He said NATO. UK by itself would obliterate Russia
This ,RAF here, I can't wait to kill vatnigs in the millions
>The US wouldn’t do shit
Putin thought in February 2022, they surely won't support Ukraine.
And they wouldn't have. If he had just kept the "totally legitimate separatists*~~" thing going, he could have had the new republics same as Crimea. But he got impatient because Ukraine actually fought for them unlike in Crimea
From a purely objective viewpoint, it drives me insane! How fricking moronic can the leader of a major nation be?
History is going to have a fun time figuring out what portion of Putin's downfall was directly his own misreading/senility, and how much was those around him hyping up Russia's power.
Two things are for sure, he's never leaving power while alive and he's never traveling to a Western country again.
Most Western sources also believed that Russia would quickly overrun Ukraine. It is absolutely ridiculous how this war went and it can't just be handwaved by "Ukrainians are unusually hardy"
It's systemic corruption, delusion, and apathy. The cult of the Russian Superpower, thinking a bygone age was still the present. So long as the parades looked impressive, they were strong (and just look at how the West struggled in the Middle East! How could they ever oppose a real power like Russia?)
Russia spent two decades modernizing their military but they were only surface level. Trying to improve what the Soviets had made. No major institutional changes because what worked in the 20th century must work in the 21st.
Then they trird to use their equipment & doctine against a country which: already knew the Soviet playbook, had realized its shortcomings, and made drastic changes in the years before because they realized the threat posed by their neighbor.
>Russia hoped the past would repeat and bring them victory, Ukraine rejected the Soviet past and embraced a new way.
Let that line be the most basic summary of this conflict. Militarily or otherwise.
Changing the public opinion to pro-war is as easy as putting a bounty on Russian soldiers.
> The idea of war is extremely unpopular with the US public right now.
And here we go, lads. Just one little war and CHUGsters and terminally online contrarians fully acknowledging that democracy in the west actually works and public opinion can influence major decisions by the state. Therefore, deligitimizing all their previous claims about stuff they didn't liked and that LE GUBBERMINT is not acting in public interest.
>I genuinely don’t get it. There would be absolutely no downside in doing a limited nuclear attack on Ukraine, as long as they don’t target civilian centers
Assuming you vatBlack folk have working nukes (you don't) personnel able to fire them (you don't), and launching systems able to hit anything in range (you don't), they would absolutely hit civvies for laughs, and then get curbstomped by the world immediately after. You don't get to use nukes and then waltz away moron.
>The US wouldn’t do shit. The idea of war is extremely unpopular with the US public right now. On top of that, the US doesn’t want to get nuked in retaliation.
AHAHAHHAAHAHAHA
Try us zigger, America is never more unified than facing a common enemy, and nuking Ukraine would immediately turn our full might on you, along with the rest of the world.
This is before you even have any delusions of you vatBlack folk hitting us with your non working nukes, you wouldn't be able to get them halfway over the ocean even if you could.
And then what, you'd nuke NYC? California? GO AHEAD, TWO WINS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE.
We'd lose our loser liberal cucks and we'd glass your shithole 3rd world despotic blight!
It would be necessary to glass Russia in retaliation for even a tactical nuke. If not then it would be the end of the human race because nukes would universally poliferate, right down to regional warlords.
If even one country gets away with nuke usage that isn't in line with global rules based order then it's all over.
Fortunately Russia knows that if they let off a single incey wincey tac nuke they'll get a strategic exchange response.
>It would be necessary to glass Russia in retaliation for even a tactical nuke. If not then it would be the end of the human race because nukes would universally poliferate, right down to regional warlords.
Retaliating with a nuclear response to even a tactical nuclear attack would have devastating consequences and is not a viable or responsible approach. Engaging in a full-scale nuclear exchange would escalate the conflict and lead to unimaginable loss of life and destruction. The argument that one instance of a country using nuclear weapons outside the established global rules-based order would lead to widespread nuclear proliferation down to regional warlords is overly speculative and lacks a realistic basis.
>If even one country gets away with nuke usage that isn't in line with global rules based order then it's all over.
>Fortunately Russia knows that if they let off a single incey wincey tac nuke they'll get a strategic exchange response.
The idea that the United States would respond to Russia nuking another small nation by using nuclear weapons is highly unlikely. The devastating consequences of nuclear war are widely recognized, and nations, including the United States, have a vested interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons whenever possible.
>Retaliating with a nuclear response to even a tactical nuclear attack would have devastating consequences and is not a viable or responsible approach.
Yes it is.
>The idea that the United States would respond to Russia nuking another small nation by using nuclear weapons is highly unlikely
Wrong.
It's 100% certain and it's called deterrence and that's why russia pussied out. Either that or their nukes don't work at all.
Using nukes would only escalate the situation and push the Russians further into desperation. They might become even more unpredictable and dangerous in the centuries that follow. It's like poking a hornet's nest with a stick and expecting everything to magically settle down. No, my friend, it'll just stir up more chaos. And there is no guarantee we would win it. I'm telling you man, it's just wrong! Russia didn't pussy out, they never needed to use nukes.
russia pussied out, and they did so because NATO would respond to them in kind.
You have no response to this, you can only repeat your shillbot lies over and over.
There is no evidence to support your claim.
I agree.
Russia pussied out, that's my evidence. Meanwhile you're just repeating the same vatBlack person lies over and over.
Russia appears to be winning without the use of nuclear weapons. Much to my chagrin, as I fully support Ukraine.
Racist.
>Russia appears to be winning
lol
post Bakhmut
Post the Mig monument. Also, post Kreminna
>Racist.
what a cheap troll get the frick out of here
>we
Da comrade from Ohio oblast, i wholeheartedly agree! No waking the sleeping bear, surival is more important than some ukraine!
The idea that not nuking Russia in retaliation is less risky than nuking th is not viable. Allowing a nuclear armed country to nuke a non-nuclear armed country would be the end of the human race by way of universal proliferation and inconsequential penalties for use unlike a centralised strategic exchange, from which we would recover.
Also Russia has now spent 16 months reinvigorating NATO, stiffening spines, making everyone hate them, and also underlining, repeatedly, what happens if you let stuff slide and don't respond. Lots of leadership and advisors and everyone else have recognized the obvious, which is that this entire war could have been avoided if NATO had responded far more forcefully far earlier to incidents like MH17. If Russia was going to "get away with" shit it would have been a long time ago, not now when they're horribly weakened and EXPOSED as a rotting kleptocracy.
Both sides in hindsight could have ended the war sooner. NATO by putting its foot firmly down and confronting Russia over those atrocities. Russia by using 2014 to fully invade Ukraine, when they likely would have won.
Neither side felt prepared to escalate to those extents. At least the current conflict, while devastating to Ukraine, shows NATO is still indeed servings its purpose. While Russia just bleeds itself dry to where they won't be a threat to Europe again, outside of threatening nukes.
Look, I understand your concerns, but the notion that responding with a nuclear strike is the only viable option is flawed. The aftermath of a nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, not just for the nations involved but for the entire world. It's dangerous to assume that universal proliferation would inevitably occur if we don't respond with equal force. Instead, we should prioritize diplomatic solutions, international cooperation, and the enforcement of stringent non-proliferation agreements. The idea that inconsequential penalties would follow nuclear aggression is misguided. History has shown that such actions have severe repercussions, both politically and morally. Our focus should be on preventing nuclear conflicts, seeking peace, and safeguarding the future of humanity.
>Instead, we should prioritize diplomatic solutions, international cooperation, and the enforcement of stringent non-proliferation agreements.
Yes, sure. The first step to a diplomatic solution that promotes peace and de-escalates away from nukes is Russia withdrawing its troops from the country it illegally and immorally invaded, and Putin surrendering himself for trial.
Answering nuclear weapon with nuclear weapon is not the ideal solution either, I think. If Russia uses one on Ukraine (a nation without their own nukes) then NATO responds *conventionally* to destroy Russian forces *outside* of Russia. Do not invade Russia directly. If Moscow answers that with more nukes, then they're the ones deciding that's the direction things will take. Not the West.
There can be no peaceful resolution so long as one state openly invades another and makes threats towards anyone trying to assist the defending state.
When the war is over and Russia withdraws, then there can be discussions about reducing weapons.
I assume anyone suggesting nuclear response to Russia use of nukes is 99% of the time a false flagger or moron. NATO doesn't need nukes to crush Russia as a significant power and even the USSR decided they'd lost the race for conventional parity by the late 70s or so, though they hid that very well for a long time afterwards. Unlike Russia, NATO has left lots and lots of options on the table. Zero NATO countries have gone onto a war footing at all, though defense is ramping slowly back towards normal "riskier times" levels vs the post-CW "peace dividend". But nobody is actually treating this as some sort of existential fight yet in the way Russia is having to.
As you say, the obvious next step after a WMD would just be conventionally squashing Russia in Ukraine. In fact "merely" establishing air dominance (including plenty of SEAD/DEAD) and then doing air support, without a single NATO soldier on the ground, would be it for Russian military action in Ukraine right there.
I personally think some careful conventional strikes in Russia at their weapons production and such would be worth it too but I can accept leaving any retaliation to the Ukrainians.
The reason people suggest nuke response is because it's the most surefire way to disable the rest of russian arsenal without it being used. You can get air superiority over moscow but it won't help you if there are warheads heading towards Detroit already. US have the capability for a conventional decapitating strike but a nuclear way is the intended way, has been that way for decades and is much more straightforward and certain.
It's also the most surefire way though to have Russia launch whatever they are able to, and at least one warhead to maybe make it to the west. Obviously yes, the West would 100% win an exchange following a US first strike. A single city hit or even a handful wouldn't really dent our capabilities in that regard. But the West also values its cities and people far more than tsar monke does his. A single hit would suck horribly and be very expensive. So it'd still be preferred to avoid any nukes in the first place, which incentivizes towards taking the next conventional step purely in Ukraine first. Firing at Russia also has some risk of triggering China, not total but not zero either. If it's pure SLBMs might not be too bad, but any use of ICBMs will mean China has a brief period of not being certain if it's targeted too or not.
The biggest unknown for us is how well western intel agencies have penetrated Russia. Russia would need some prep to do a nuclear launch. If the US is fairly confident that it'd have enough warning to use SLBMs, it'd be far less worried about doing a first strike directly vs trying one last time at keeping it conventional.
>It's also the most surefire way though to have Russia launch whatever they are able to
They're going to do that anyway when they notice the attacks on their rapidly dwindling arsenal. This is cold war ancient shit, that's how it worked for decades.
>A single city hit or even a handful wouldn't really dent our capabilities in that regard. But the West also values its cities and people far more than tsar monke does his. A single hit would suck horribly and be very expensive.
Unlike the cold war though, these days US have not one but two anti-ICBM capable systems that can intercept a very small scale nuclear strike on US, not only deterring shitholes like North Korea but also providing an invaluable backstop for the decapitating attack onto russian silos, making the plan much more reliable.
>Small scale
Doesn't every US ship have a stack of anti-ICBM missiles? Like you'd think there are enough for the whole russian arsenal given the information DoD has
>Doesn't every US ship have a stack of anti-ICBM missiles? Like you'd think there are enough for the whole russian arsenal given the information DoD has
SM-3 Block IIA is theoretically able to intercept ICBMs, but is the newest and isn't that widespread yet. The ICBM tests, for which a key part is the new C2BMC which extends the range of the system beyond the limits of a single vessel's Aegis radar, only started doing simulated intercepts like, 2-3 years ago? Something like that, maybe 2019, but quite new.
So no we don't have "stacks" of them yet and obviously nobody knows 100% how it'll all work, what decoys or counter measures Russia has if any, etc. Better to have it then not but it doesn't mean nobody cares about nukes anymore.
Aegis with SM-3 IIa is the less numerous, developed and ambitious of US anti-ICBM systems, with GBMD being significantly more advanced, thoroughly tested and fielded.
>Aegis with SM-3 IIa is the less numerous, developed and ambitious of US anti-ICBM systems, with GBMD being significantly more advanced, thoroughly tested and fielded.
Wat? Last I checked GBMD had like, 70 total interceptors or something like that, and it took 4 of them per incoming missile to get to 97% intercept probability. That's helpful vs the norks or Iran or the like, but that's not remotely the numbers needed vs Russia unless a first strike really did take out 99+%. And all Russian boomers would have to be eliminated right off too, SLBMs aren't a threat just to Russia.
>Wat? Last I checked GBMD had like, 70 total interceptors or something like that,
GBMD has 45 deployed interceptors, with 60 something planned.
>and it took 4 of them per incoming missile to get to 97% intercept probability
This is purely media nomenclature based on the limited information from the past tests.
> That's helpful vs the norks or Iran or the like, but that's not remotely the numbers needed vs Russia unless a first strike really did take out 99+%
It's enough to stop 2-3 modern ICBMs, on average, assuming you use 3-4 interceptors per warhead. Russia currently has something around 350 ICBMs deployed, all in well known locations and decently observable for US drones and satellites. You didn't think the 8k warheads number had anything to do with strategic arsenal, did you by any chance?
>And all Russian boomers would have to be eliminated right off too
Good thing there are 4 US SSNs for each of them and russians prefer to keep them all in port for most of the year, with 1-2 at most being on patrol.
Pic related, this is the structure of russian ICBM arsenal of several years prior. I'd like to note that the R-36M2 missile you see here, making up over a third of the entire deployed warheads(and even greater portion of the megatonnage) was manufactured in Ukraine back during the USSR days, was maintained exclusively by Ukraine after that and all the way until 2015, 1 year after russian annexation of Crimea, after which Ukraine terminated the contract and russia has beed struggling to find a replacement for them ever since, compounded by the recent Sarmat failures.
>You didn't think the 8k warheads number had anything to do with strategic arsenal, did you by any chance?
No, I've specifically argued against people saying that (also anon it's 6k not 8k). 1600 warheads are on paper ready to go on ICBMs. The rest are in like, 41 or 42 depots or whatever it was an irrelevant even in theory. How many of the launchers themselves work is another question too.
>and decently observable for US drones and satellites
Satellites for sure. Bringing up "drones" makes me question if you really know what you're talking about here though. We're not sending global hawks over siberia anon. Though also yes positions are fixed, fortunately all RT-23 Molodets are long long gone.
But again, you're arguing 100% certainty with tens of millions of lives (granted out of 800 million) and trillions in value on the line. That clearly is not a certainty shared by NATO leadership. And even if you're correct, for this argument it's only what NATO leadership believes that matters because they make the call. It's not going to go to a vote by the public.
>1600 warheads are on paper ready to go on ICBMs
1200 warheads are deployed on ICBMs, with 300-400 more in SLBMs.
>Bringing up "drones" makes me question if you really know what you're talking about here though
Global hawks are pretty old tech compared to what US is currently fielding. Also, even those hawks can still look into russia proper from over Poland, for example, and this is where the majority of russian launchers are located, in southern european russia.
>But again, you're arguing 100% certainty with tens of millions of lives (granted out of 800 million) and trillions in value on the line
This threat has never gone away and it's false to thing that you're in safety every given moment until the war really starts. They were always there, always ready and were always a part of the strategic calculations that are meticulously done and redone with incredible amounts of resources and money every year for many decades.
>This threat has never gone away and it's false to thing that you're in safety every given moment until the war really starts.
1. It's false of you to claim that it's black and white 100% dead or 100% safe too. It's a big long spectrum, and leadership is going to try everything they can to not have any strategic nukes fly in the first place. If they thought the odds had tipped towards that then sure, they'd absolutely launch a first strike too.
2. You're taking a purely hyper rationalist stance. In the abstract we can talk about scenarios and game theory testing and so on. In the actuality a lot of this would come down to the decision of a tiny group of specific humans, and indeed of one single man, right now being Joe Biden. He's got metal in him but he's also old and leans towards caution. The NSC/JCOS probably isn't going to give him 100%/0%, they'll have given him various playbooks with probabilities and he'll have to make the call.
3. We've both ignored lots of other possible asymmetric possibilities, like Russia taking some of those tac nukes I considered "irrelevant" and having plans in place to hand them out to any terrorist group or whomever they can in the hope of having some get slipped in by boat or something after they're dead.
So yeah, I don't think the Russian nuclear threat is considered to be zero. Nor is it anything like it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. It's in between, and I think NATO will think they have some chance to not do a full scale exchange even if they brutally punish Russia for using nukes in Ukraine depending on the circumstances.
>It's false of you to claim that it's black and white 100% dead or 100% safe too
I didn't.
>It's a big long spectrum, and leadership is going to try everything they can to not have any strategic nukes fly in the first place.
You cannot do a limited strategic nuclear war, period. US had learned this lesson in the 80s and changed their doctrine accordingly. For russians it's irrelevant if their silos are hit with nukes or with Tomahawks and JASSMs.
>I don't think the Russian nuclear threat is considered to be zero
I never argued it was. The whole purpose of all this strategy and planning for those actions is to caution ourselves agaist this non zero threat and mitigate it as best as possible.
I'm now really confused what the frick you're even arguing anon. How did you get from "air dominance and helping Ukraine completely win in Russia" to "limited strategic nuclear warfare"!?
There are multiple variants of the SM-3, the anti-ballistic missile. Only the large Block IIa variant has a viable anti-ICBM capability and very few have been procured to this day, something like a dozen last year when deliveries started.
>Unlike the cold war though, these days US have not one but two anti-ICBM capable systems that can intercept a very small scale nuclear strike on US, not only deterring shitholes like North Korea but also providing an invaluable backstop for the decapitating attack onto russian silos, making the plan much more reliable.
Anon NATO includes Europe as well. Nobody is going to be happy about losing Paris or Berlin even if we save Detroit. Or for that matter Okinawa and Tokyo, or Hawaii, Russia could frick our efforts to deter China which would actually be kinda evilly intelligent in terms of both revenge on the US and making China more liable to still not fully join the West (since Russia will have opened the way for them to take Taiwan). It's not an absolute deterrent but yes, it's absolutely a consideration.
Also even for the US it's still a lot of dice rolling, that's the point. How effective will the first strike be? 99%? 95%? 90%? What percentage of the remainder work? Where are they aimed? A big pile of variables that even Russia themselves may not know the answer too. There's a chance literally zero US population centers suffer a hit. There's also a non-zero chance a handful do. POTUS has to weigh those risks vs other probabilities.
>Anon NATO includes Europe as well. Nobody is going to be happy about losing Paris or Berlin even if we save Detroit.
US have AEGIS ashore and THAAD positioned in Europe too. Also, a few russian ICBMs have minimum range that overlaps with east europe.
>Also even for the US it's still a lot of dice rolling, that's the point
BMD minimizes dice rolling since you can get near certain destruction of missiles without making 99.999% sure it's dead which would require you to use most of your arsenal to guarantee.
>How effective will the first strike be? 99%? 95%? 90%? What percentage of the remainder work? Where are they aimed?
These have been one of the most valuable intelligence questions to ever exist and have always been the focus of spying work. With current US tech, you can be certain that no target in russia can survive 2 US warheads aimed at it simultaneously because it's got ludicriously small chances to surivive even a single one.
You're a lot more blasé then I think is justified anon. Being sure that zero, not even one nuke out of thousands, makes it through and works anywhere in all of NATO, is a big ask.
But anyway this discussion is irrelevant because objectively it's obvious that NATO leadership is thinking like me not like you. They don't act like people who think Russia's nuclear forces are literally zero threat at all, they act like people who think Russia could cause some (though not catastrophic) damage. If the US had 10k SM3-IIa missiles and really just thought Russia's nuclear posturing was a total joke we'd be taking a different strat in Ukraine.
Again, not saying we wouldn't respond, just that we'd stick to a careful use of the ladder and all the options we've kept open.
It is all daring because it's the intended order of things for a daring situation, not a scenario that just happens one day out of the blue.
>They don't act like people who think Russia's nuclear forces are literally zero threat at all
Strawmanning much? You sound like the same zigger shill that was ooking about nooks this entire thread.
>we'd stick to a careful use of the ladder
You don't understand that the "use of the ladder" is a losing scenario that ends worse than going all out, which was played out and strategized over and over back in the cold war days. Russian doctrine since those times has literally been an all-out launch when detecting a strike on their arsenal. You're suggesting a losing proposition while pretending that NATO leadership is full of gutless know nothing cowards like you.
>Strawmanning much? You sound like the same zigger shill that was ooking about nooks this entire thread.
What the actual frick are you talking about you fricking moron? The debate here is about whether NATO would go immediately to nuclear weapons or whether they'd "merely" exterminate all Russians in Ukraine conventionally. I'm arguing the latter is more likely.
>when detecting a strike on their arsenal
You're the only one suggesting a strike on their arsenal! I fricking hate russians but I try not to let that completely rot my ability to read or reason in the opposite direction either anon, and you should too.
>The debate here is about whether NATO would go immediately to nuclear weapons or whether they'd "merely" exterminate all Russians in Ukraine conventionally.
I rest my case if you weren't the guy talking about NATO strikes into russia, establishing air superiority over their territory.
I was arguing for air dominance over Ukraine, although yes that'd entail "strikes into Russia" most likely because they'd probably have some S-400s beyond the border. So depending on what they did it might be necessary to go up to 150 miles or whatever it is into Russia in terms of hitting SAMs and air bases. We wouldn't be able to tolerate them just taking pot shots from "no hit backs" line, if NATO directly did air support in Ukraine it'd definitely mean hitting some Russian territory too.
But that wouldn't come close to any of their nuclear capability which is all way, way farther east. If you're arguing no conventional strikes should be tried on reducing Russia strategic capability unless we're going all in (like a stealth conventional strike at radar to increase odds of SLBMs working) then I agree with you.
This is really playing with fire more than just striking russian nukes and be done with it, because you're really pushing russia closer and closer to initiating a first strike like that. See the Ukrainan strikes on the engels air base. Not only strategic bombers are there but ICBM silos are stationed nearby. Imagine if Ukraine was closing in on those positions, with full NATO support. If that's not a risky situation then i don't know what is, i'd take a counterforce strike before that.
> If you're arguing no conventional strikes should be tried on reducing Russia strategic capability unless we're going all in
Yes, doing a limited strike on russian nuclear assets would just invite an all-out war and leave US no choice to blunt its impact. This was actually a massive strategic oversight during the 70s when US believed that a limited strategic nuclear war was possible, thinking in their own terms rather than from the russian position.
>Imagine if Ukraine was closing in on those positions, with full NATO support
NATO wouldn't provide support for Ukraine forces going into Russia itself, NATO in this scenario would "only" be covering Ukraine forces in Ukraine, even if it meant shooting back at Russian forces in Russia from stand off (given the ranges involved, no NATO aircraft itself need ever leave Ukrainian borders.
I honestly completely discount (and think NATO and any remaining sane Russian leadership too) any significant land incursion by Ukrainian forces afterwards. Yes sure some commando raids and "russian liberation army" etc would take shots at nearby stuff. But logistics goes both ways. We've all been rightly mocking Russia's horrendous logistical capability, but Ukraine invading Russia would totally different from trying to take back their own country. They don't have force projection capability either.
So I honestly don't see NATO responding to Russian "limited nuking" (battlefield only) of Ukraine with a no-fly and air support as inherently escalating, but a pretty measured response. Though if Russia nuked Kyiv or the like, yes, we should just first strike right away. If they do that they're off the range completely.
>NATO wouldn't provide support for Ukraine forces going into Russia itself, NATO in this scenario would "only" be covering Ukraine forces in Ukraine
>if NATO directly did air support in Ukraine it'd definitely mean hitting some Russian territory too.
That's what i was responding to.
>I honestly don't see NATO responding to Russian "limited nuking" (battlefield only) of Ukraine with a no-fly and air support as inherently escalating, but a pretty measured response.
So long as NATO don't directly support deep Ukrainian incursions into russia proper and Ukrainians keep the war limited i don't see any issues with this approach.
>They're going to do that anyway when they notice the attacks on their rapidly dwindling arsenal.
What attacks? I think you got confused, I wasn't suggesting conventional strikes on their NUKES anon, I was saying I'd be happy to see hits at smokeless powder/primer/high explosives factories, munitions plants etc. Power plants and natural gas production facilities and such even. I also recognize that NATO leadership might (perhaps correctly) view any such attacks as too risky and confine themselves as a next step to just Ukraine itself, but also giving Ukraine not just ATACMS but flat out tomahawks and telling them the West no longer cares if THEY attack Russian land openly. That'd still be holding back vs full on leveling of Russia by a lot, so Russia would still have incentives not to take the final step to total annihilation.
Most likely this but you can't really be sure. Using nukes is not worth the risk for Russia.
samegay more, pidor
Brown hands typed that post
guaranteed yous, every time
>use nuclear weapons in a war of aggression without justification
>NATO immediately responds with a massive counterforce First Strike because at that point, it's obvious that the Russian leadership are completely insane and this is a matter of literal survival
Good job moron
The public doesn't get to fricking decide this Black person. The Air Force does, and they've spent the last 80 years running this specific scenario over and over again and concluded that
A. "Limited" nuclear war is impossible
B. The only adequate response to a rogue state with nuclear weapons that has demonstrated willingness to use them is the immediate and total destruction of said rogue state by nuclear attack
A. The US would not enter a limited nuclear war, they would stay out entirely.
B. Wrong. Getting nuked is not in the US interests, no matter how much you want it to be.
Go ahead then monke. Use your nukes, you got nothing to fear
>A. The US would not enter a limited nuclear war, they would stay out entirely.
If the Russians use nukes in Ukraine, they've already started forced the matter. Either they die or we die, it is as simple and straightforward as that.
>B. Wrong. Getting nuked is not in the US interests, no matter how much you want it to be.
Which is why First Strike exists and our arsenal is better prepared to initiate one than Russia's.
>Either they die or we die, it is as simple and straightforward as that.
Wrong. Only the non nuclear power would perish.
>Which is why First Strike exists
There is no scenario where a first strike on Russia is not met with a response resulting in hundreds of millions of Western casualties. Any disagreement with this is conjecture or the unauthorized dissemination of classified material.
>There is no scenario where a first strike on Russia is not met with a response
Russia could never respond to a SLBM strike in time, even when their early warning radars worked.
this is being forbidden education to nafo troons but russia has Project DEAD HAND system which is advanced super computer that can control all forces and respond instant. even if russia back stabbed by america and angloshits and has leaders assassinated by cia mi6 terrorists cowardly submarine launches will still be no good. DEAD HAND will ensure death of west. so we must not anger the bear. all americans should know this we once recognized the danger and were so scared we made terminator movies. now we must seek peace.
>dead hand
>working
>puccian advanced super computer
The collective west is trembling
Should've read his whole post, geniuses
>Which is why First Strike exists and our arsenal is better prepared to initiate one than Russia's.
What do you think the odds are that shill's handlers have never told him about "superfuses" anon?
>There is no scenario where a first strike on Russia is not met with a response resulting in hundreds of millions of Western casualties. Any disagreement with this is conjecture or the unauthorized dissemination of classified material.
ahahaha
You think NEATO could pull that off without mutually assured destruction? Russia displaying their nukes still work and they're willing to use them would be the ultimate deterrent. The only reason things are this bad now is because people think they're a paper tiger.
>You think NEATO could pull that off without mutually assured destruction?
Yes. NATO was preparing for this scenario for decades.
>think
>Russia displaying their nukes still work and they're willing to use them would be the ultimate deterrent
>would
you think the invasion of Iraq was popular, moron?
Repercussions, funnily enough back in the day of the soviets they never broke the taboo, and we are talking very indoctrinated people who believed in world revolution, Putin? He is a mob boss, his people have no conviction for the most part, haven't you seen how this war has been going? You don't see that sort of devotion and dedication they showed back during WW2, they are just by all intents and puroposes a looting horde who know time is up.
You need to be 18 to post here.
Main reason is the nuclear taboo. No country has used nuclear weapons apart from US in WW2. If Russia were to use a nuke now, it would change the threaten the entire US led global order and force at least some degree of similar retaliation by US and its allies (like Israel).
because the US would respond with conventional airstrikes on Russian positions in Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-warns-putin-catastrophic-consequences-if-nuclear-weapons-used-ukraine-2022-09-25/
>because the US would respond with conventional airstrikes on Russian positions in Ukraine
This.
Russia's nuclear options are in an awkward position. Their current noooook saber rattling *is* successfully deterring NATO from directly intervening in the conflict. This ended up being massively important since Russia's conventional forces turned out to be dog shit. Thus the current nuclear strategy is massively benefiting Russia with essentially no risk. Where as actually using tactical nukes might only have limited benefits (zap a battalion or two off the board) but massive potential risks (NATO starts running hundreds of daily strike missions into Russian occupied territory). That makes disturbing the current status quo a risky gamble for Russia.
пoкaзaтeльнaя пopкa
Cause it would mean even the chinks and poos would hate them and see their government as a rogue actor that needs to be removed from power
Also NATO would then be actively trying to overthrow Putin for similar reasons
Basically it would turn a bad situation for Russia (we are probably gonna lose a war and some territory and our govt will be shamed) into a horrible one (we are utterly isolated on the diplomatic stage, nobody wants to trade with us, and we might even be invaded bc our regime is that hated despite possessing nukes)
The rest of the world would nuke Russia
Because it's far more dangerous not to respond to nuclear terrorism than it is to counter it.
tactical nukes only work for huge tank formations, naval strike groups and huge bomber formations, none of that exists in ukraine so using a nuke doesn't do anything that a regular missile does
its crazy how little most poeple understand about nukes
The point is not to destroy, but to create fear. Psychological warfare.
fear doesn't win wars, nuking a city wouldnt do a thing for russia other than put tge rest if thge world against them and facing intervention from NATO, the only thing it wouuld do would be signing putin and the elites death warrant
>fear doesn’t win wars
Hey Alexa, how did WW2 end?
japan was defeated already Black person
you think they surrendered because of the nukes? they were scared of the russians dumb brainlet
>fear doesn’t win wars
>they were scared of the Russians
That's not true. The emperors broadcast to the nation didn't mention Russians at all, but mentioned the cruel bombs specifically
To be fair, he had to issue it twice, because the army flat-up ignored his ass and kept fighting the Russians, and it's hard to convince someone you're surrendering when your guys keep shooting at his allies.
>taking autocrat's word at face value.
It's infinitely more prestigious to lose to a wonderweapon. He also stressed how said wonderweapon spells doom for humanity as a whole in real time (it didn't).
It's not like they nuked a Japan who was still 100% capable of fighting. It's more that they refused to give up. Basically the equivalent of nuking Germany after you start encroaching on their original borders because they refuse to give up
Maybe he should have said "ONLY fear doesn't win wars"
>grorious emperor, re have revised our frindings in right of the new American weapon, and we now berief that we will kill approximatery zero gaijin in our grorious frinal stand. We also berief that this is not enough to force the Americans to pursue a conditional peace.
Japan was already defeated, nukes simply shattered their childish delusions they could force the us army into an armistice to avoid a bloodbath on mainland Japan
Just nuke the entire frontline where Ukraine is attacking. That would take care of the counteroffensive.
Check what direction the wind is blowing =)
2 more nooks and PUCCIA starts winning
clam down Belka
Sheesh anon some of us just want A World Without Borders what's so wrong with that? We've got nothing to do with any of this we're peaceful NPOs!
What have borders given us?
Put simply nobody in the Russian hierarchy wants to jeopardise every avenue of existence they have for the small possibility the nuke will somehow turn the war in Russia's favour and not get nato involved
If I was Putin I would do it. Kiev itself. It would cripple the government. US and Europe wouldn't do shit. Yeah China and the rest of BRICS would cut trade but who cares.
>Kiev itself
With what rocket? Kiev is currently untouchable due to patriots.
>but who cares
turning your country into north korea but even more isolated to take donbabwe and luganda, very cool idea, definitely worth it
The real reason is because Kremlin believes it's not doing too poorly (yet) to resort to nukes.
Because Russia's nuclear weapons don't work any more.
They require constant, extremely expensive maintenance, and that money was stolen decades ago to buy oligarch yachts.
Simple as.
As much as I hate vatBlack folk, you don't know shit. Iran has been wanting Russia's 5th gen enrichment centrifuges for decades now, while Russia itself uses 9th gen. magnetic vacuum separators that can do 90000 rpm for 30 years without maintenance.
If they're still using polonium/beryllium alloy as a neutron source in their implosion weapons, that shit has a half life of 138 days and decays into mostly (97%) inert Lead 206 after 2 years, and requires regular replacing.
Of course I'm a fricking moron so I don't know if they even still use that method as a neutron emiter, but that's just one example of one of the myriad expensive upkeep of maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile.
>There would be absolutely no downside in doing a limited nuclear attack on Ukraine, as long as they don’t target civilian centers
Wrong. The world has worked very hard to keep the geenie in the bottle, and one of the rules that has developed from that is "THOU SHALT NOT ESCALATE A GROUND WAR TO A NUKE WAR EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT FOR NATIONAL PRESERVATION". These conditions have not been met, and so Russia using them would be a gross violation of these rules, and thus Russia being allowed to break them would fundamentally shift the nuclear game to a much less stable state. Were Russia to be this stupid, it would be in the best interests of literally every other country on Earth to make sure that this does not become normal, and the only way to properly convey the gravity of this decision would be the complete dismantling of the Russian Federation as a political entity and the death of Vladimir Putin. Thus, for Russia, the price of going nuclear in Ukraine is the same as the price of going nuclear on NATO, that is to say, national death, but without the fringe benefit of saying "at least we fricked the rest of the world over" to themselves as they huddle around the campfire in the rubble.
>THOU SHALT NOT ESCALATE A GROUND WAR TO A NUKE WAR EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT FOR NATIONAL PRESERVATION
Tell that to Truman
Be grateful he decided that "yeah, this shit's nasty, let's stop doing it" instead of setting MacArthur loose.
>Tell that to Truman
I don't recall Truman using nukes
Which President did you think was in power when Japan got nuked?
Open just one history book in your life I beg of you
Let's leave aside any considerations of whether NATO would retaliate or not
Can you IMAGINE the loss of prestige if you have to resort to fricking nukes to barely win against a minor neighbor? Russia is already quickly becoming a regional power, the absolute isolation after pulling that kinda stunt would turn them into an actual literal client state
>becoming
Always was
Russia is a grand power and gone head-to-head with likes of British empire and Germany
Imperial Russia was a great power, the USSR was a super power, the Russian Federation is a geopolitical hasbeen coasting on reputation just like Britain and Germany
Except Britain and Germany are wealthy countries both in the top 10 gdp ranks with running tap water and flushable toilets you literal mong. They manage that with half the population, miniscule resources and land that Russia has. Really makes you think doesnt it? 1 Bongistani or Kraut is worth 3 Russians in terms of productivity.
And losing to them
>ww2
Don't make me pull out the land lease folder
>Can you IMAGINE the loss of prestige
Do they still have any?
>Why doesn’t Russia nuke Ukraine?
Nuclear weapons would risk escalation to a point where Putin would be threatened.
It's also why Russia isn't going to fully mobilize, start hitting NATO, replace Ru MoD leadership etc.
The initial objective for the war was to stroke Putin's ego and get him more stuff.
The current objective is to keep Putin alive and in power, no matter the cost.
Anyone thinking that Putin would risk his well-being for Russia's future is completely delusional.
Because russians are pussies.
Because if they did they would become the next North Korea with virtually everyone associated with them isolated and sanctioned if not directly put into prison if they left the country.
What you need to understand is that even Russias Allie's don't want the idea of the yse of nukes put back on the table. Especially China, because if Russia uses them on another country then it basically could give the green light for the US to do the same with them at some point. Nukes are basically a taboo that once it gets broken makes it easier for other to break it again l, and no one wants to live in a world where nukes are used every time there's a major conflict because that's really really bad for grobal business.
In short Russia hasn't used nuclear weapons because the cons vastly outweigh the pro. Prus what are they going to drop them on anyways? Kiev? What would that solve?. Ukraine doesnt have all their resources in one place anymore so it's not even likely to be a big blow for them even if they where used as an offensive weapon
Reminder that NATO would do fricking nothing because they live in fear of MAD and have no way to stop a second strike.
if putin nuked he has nothing left off the table which means NATO and any other country is free to do as they please.
i guarantee if he nuked NATO would level the russian military within a week.
>he has nothing left off the table
Except the other 4,000 nukes in his arsenal. moron.
they were expired 15 years ago and don't work, lol
>source: the deepest, darkest crevice of my butthole
>source: rusBlack person incompetence and corruption
they can't change their trucks tires but they are sure to do super expensive maintenance on nukes
lmao
>if putin nuked he has nothing left off the table
Depends who he nukes really doesn't it.
They'd just do a conventional invasion, friend. Moscow in 3 days
>as long as they don’t target civilian centers.
Which timeline have you been watching this war in? This timeline is isklander missiles targeted on city centers. And shasneed drones targeted randomly
>It would for sure scare the Ukrainians, possibly into submission.
they have been anticipating nook ooking ever since the gesture of goodwills in Kyiv/kharkiv/kherson and no, it does not scare them one bit. It is the exact opposite in fact and they are completely stoic about some limited engagements. Removes all constraints from them attacking Russhitia proper while opening the complete flood gates to get anything they ask for. If ziggers keep pushing their luck with the big scary bomb it will lead to direct involvement with things like no fly zone and eventual guaranteed push out of ukraine completely
Nook ooking does jack shit for the zigger situation. There are not even viable concentrated military targets that would put a big dent into ukranian positions and knowing zigger ape out MO they would want to attack civilian tagets like Kherson city anyway
We've been over this before. The Game Theory/realpolitik incentives issue here is crystal clear and as a result no other major power in the world lacks incentive to brutally punish Russia for such a move. Basically:
1) Lack of any nuclear use since WW2 comes down heavily to non-proliferation, which itself depends on nukes being defensive.
2) If a country can use nukes for conquest and get away with it, every other country HAS to have nukes, or be part of a REALLY rock solid alliance, or have some other sort of deterrent if nukes are beyond their capabilities or ability to purchase. Bioweapons are the most obvious right now.
3) NPT would be dead. Pakis might well just start selling them like any other armament. This fricks the status quo and major powers have way more to lose then some shithole, little crap countries who'd pose zero conventional threat suddenly start posturing with nukes.
4) Odds of non-state actors getting them skyrocket. Odds of them getting used against major powers sky rocket.
5) Only way to stop that cycle is overwhelming response.
You're fricking delusional if you think anyone will stand by. Nobody can afford to, pure national self-interest.
Nice fanfic, genius. The obvious problem with doing something other than 'stand by' is that the only recourse available is to commit to a nuclear war. Even the most optimistic open source estimates suggest that a Russian counter strike would result in hundreds of millions of direct Western casualties and many more indirectly.
>2) If a country can use nukes for conquest and get away with it
That happened already, twice.
>3) NPT would be dead.
Not necessarily.
>Pakis might well just start selling them like any other armament.
Not if they want to retain their economy unsanctioned.
>major powers have way more to lose then some shithole
That's right, which is why they would let the shithole get nuked and would avoid a global nuclear war.
>4) Odds of non-state actors getting them skyrocket.
No.
>5) Only way to stop that cycle is overwhelming response.
If by the cycle, you mean the first world existing, sure, why not.
>2) If a country can use nukes for conquest and get away with it
>That happened already, twice.
Brainless take
>Not if they want to retain their economy unsanctioned.
But you said sanctions don't work?
>Nice fanfic, genius
Nice desperate wishful thinking moron.
>The obvious problem with doing something other than 'stand by' is that the only recourse available is to commit to a nuclear war
Wrong. First, this is textbook russnig OH U FORCED US TO HIT YOU. NATO has overwhelming conventional superiority. NATO, or the US alone, can crush Russia in Ukraine using purely non-nuclear forces, and hit Russia factories and such inside Russia same way. It's then on RUSSIA to decide if they want to commit suicide by nuking NATO.
Second, the whole point here is there is no choice. If the West ignores it, they will be nuked anyway down the road by terrorists or lesser powers.
>Even the most optimistic open source estimates suggest that a Russian counter strike would result in hundreds of millions of direct Western casualties and many more indirectly.
No, the most optimistic is that Russian nukes are now mostly defective, and that there'd be enough signs of prep that a US first strike could take out the vast majority of the 1600 they've got (tactical are irrelevant, they're all in depots and have no range), with SMD mopping up a bunch of whatever did manage to launch. It's not impossible zero cities would could hit. If you want to do wishful thinking don't be surprised if others do too.
But all that depends on Russia deciding to unilaterally nuke NATO when their country isn't at risk of getting invaded.
>Not necessarily.
lol what a fricking moron.
>No
Yes.
>First, this is textbook russnig OH U FORCED US TO HIT YOU.
This is not a moralist equation about who started what.
>NATO has overwhelming conventional superiority. NATO, or the US alone, can crush Russia in Ukraine using purely non-nuclear forces, and hit Russia factories and such inside Russia same way.
True
>It's then on RUSSIA to decide if they want to commit suicide by nuking NATO.
There is no decision to be made. With 9/10ths of a decapitation strike already underway it is a matter of time before their nuclear triad is rendered impotent. They must launch, they would launch, there is no question. The thing is, it would not just be Russia committing suicide.
>Second, the whole point here is there is no choice. If the West ignores it, they will be nuked anyway down the road by terrorists or lesser powers.
The premise that nukes ending up in the hands of non rational actors is inevitable is false. Furthermore, getting nuked by a suitcase nuke 100 times over the next millennia is better than getting nuked in an exchange with Russia
>No, the most optimistic is that Russian nukes are now mostly defective
There is no credible assertion of this. If you have secret documents suggesting this, or simply an assessment from a credible open source, feel free to post them.
Nonwhite
The only fanfic here is yours boy, all geopolitical actors with people far smarter than you have come up to the conclussions which demolishes your line of thought, historical experience of the Cold War and even Russia dealing with both Chechenia and Georgia shows they won't do it, the only way it would be if AFU were midway in the road to Moscow, but we already know support only last until the last russian is expelled from ukrainian territory.
Besides, what happened to Russia conventional might? The fact you contemplate using nukes because, as you said, there is nothing left to lose, reveal the answer.
China won't allow it.
Becouse nooking is the end of the escalation ladder you dipshit. How do you threaten the world then?
>How do you threaten the world then?
With nukes
I don’t think they’ll actually nuke at this point. But they’ll probably blow up the Zapo nuclear plant which will have the effect of a nuke. How NATO responds to that is anybody’s guess.
>blow up the Zapo nuclear plant which will have the effect of a nuke
You have to be 18 to post anon
Let me tell you why Russia won't nuke Ukraine.
It's because Russia doesn't have functional nukes anymore.
That's what happens when your country goes from a super power into an impoverished regional power where the guys handling the stockpiles just fill their own pockets instead of bothering with keeping the stockpile functional.
We saw it with guns, ammo, tanks and their ships.
It's only logical that their nuclear stockpile is non-existent.
I don't get it
If you haven't gotten it by now, you never will
I know that OP is a moron but let me play this scenario
>Russia uses tactical nukes, first time since WW2 and an unprecedented move in modern day international order and politics
>Every country on earth is pissed, even traditional Russia co-belligerents like China because it opens up pandora's box for the use for nukes elsewhere (imagine Japan or Taiwan with nukes)
>Because NATO doesn't want using nukes as the standard, it will have to respond or else every country in the world wants to get nukes.
>NATO can either go into Ukraine or let the world become an anarchistic hell hole where everyone has nukes threatening the entire world order
>If NATO goes into Ukraine, Russia might need to use more nukes
>More nukes leads to WW3 and the destruction of everybody except Black folk
See how this plays out? Using nukes opens up more problems than it solves.
It's pretty moronic you cannot see what the bigger implications are outside of the war, but I am glad you already acknowledges this yourself.
I have a different scenario.
>Russia uses nuke(s)
>Ukraine surrenders
>Everyone is pissed at Russia, true.
>More sanctions are sent towards Russia
>Russia is removed from UN and disavowed by every Nation in the UN
>nothing else happens
I think my scenario is far more likely.
So why has Monke never made good on his nuclear threats if the only thing he has to fear is more sanctions? 🙂
Your scenario is moronic and it's likelihood is a flat 0.0%. If Russia tries to frick aroudn with nukes, they'll be made to find out by total obliteration of all russian military presence within Ukraine at a minimum. Deal with it.
>they'll be made to find out by total obliteration of all russian military presence within Ukraine at a minimum.
So why doesn’t NATO do this already? There’s nothing to fear, right?
Yes, it is I, Putin himself. I decided to run some ideas passed /k/ today.
>So why doesn’t NATO do this already?
Cause it's a defensive alliance and Ukraine isn't part of it.
Using your logic, then no, NATO would not retaliate.
Anon, they have a nuclear deterrent policy wholly separate from defending against convential invasions. They'd intervene if someone in Somaliland started throwing nukes, too
then nuke ukraine, pussy. you won't, because you're a little rat LARPing on the internet.
surrenders
Is this after you lift your eyebrow and they understand everything? Fricking hilarious that after being utterly wrong on this every single time you think now it'll change. Ukraine fricking hates your guts after all the rape, murder, theft, and general shit you've pulled. Most recently you blew up a dam and then did artillery and missile strikes on rescue workers and survivors.
They'll never surrender. If you want to see what "gloves come off" REALLY looks like sure, use nukes. Because Ukraine really has been holding back, they could do mass attacks on Russian soil but don't because the west doesn't want it and everyone is worried about nukes. Go ahead and nuke and remove that worry. Ukraine could put together dirty bombs if nothing else in a real hurry.
>all that cope
>t. desperately projecting tourist
>vatniks still can't meme
lmao
>because then it sets the precedent for others to do the same.
It's total child logic. If Russia can nuke, so can everyone else right? But the russnig will screech and slither at having that pointed out. They want to think they're special and only they can do something and then nobody else can hit back.
kek I can only imagine how deranged one must be to think everyone on the internet who supports Russia is either a bot or part of a troll-farm. You probably check under your bed and in your closet for Russians before going to bed at night.
hello shillbot, watch out for the fires
it's common sense, people who have a stupid opinion, tend to be the subhumans who s upport it for a living, or the subhumans who support it out of ideology, you're probably a brown subhuman CHUGcel going by that picture, so your opinion means very little to anyone.
To put this in perspective, one understands when mosquitoes are out and about, nobody checks for them, they just know, and like any other pest, they need to be eradicated. By mockery or by eviction.
>you're probably a brown subhuman CHUGcel going by that picture, so your opinion means very little to anyone.
You don’t know Mudahar? Sad. Also Mosquitos are an important part of the food chain.
What makes you think a nuke on Kyiv would end the war? Would this wipe out the army? Clearly not, since it's spread across a huge frontline. Would it wipe out command and control? It might temporarily do this, but you aren't going to conquer the whole fricking country before that is restored, under a brand new government if need be. Local officers don't need to receive orders to realise they should hunker down and defend if the capital just got nuked. Do you think suddenly everyone would want to surrender? By nuking the capital you have basically prevented any possibility of goodwill from the locals that could ever have existed. You think they'd surrender out of fear? Fear of what, more nukes? An occupation by a country willing to do this in the 21st century would be worse than death.
No, there'd be chaos in the Ukrainian army for a while but then they'd get back to the same shit they're doing now.
He's a commie, anon. He's been going on reposting russian propaganda word for work for months now here.
I support Russia in destroying Ukraine, and thus damaging NATO and the western world’s power reach. I am not a communist, and I don’t support Russia outside of using their military to enact my goals. You see everything in black and white and jump to conclusions far too often. You also happen to support a proxy for the US, aka the most degenerate and decadent country to ever exist in the history of the world. Now I must go, as I have real world things to do. Keep shilling , it’s working.
You're a communist filth that should be ousted and eradicated as soon as you appear. Simple as.
See you in your next template thread, worthless b***h.
Cope.
You are a literal fricking Communist and you should be thrown from a helicopter by Pinochet's ghost for this post alone.
>The US is the most degenerate country ever
>He doesn't know
And here we see the /misc/ack in his natural environment, stewing in a self-induced psychosis wherein he is unable to imagine circumstances worse than those he is living in, and will thus sell out to anyone that promises and alternative.
>I am not a communist
>and I don’t support Russia outside of using their military to enact my goals.
>my goals.
This is a textbook example of a commie, you're definitely trolling.
>Ukraine surrenders, more sanctions, nothing else happens
Holy shit you’re moronic. NATO has already implied that they’d wipe out Russian forces if they ever used a nuke. Breaking the nuclear taboo is not something you just casually ignore on the world stage because then it sets the precedent for others to do the same.
>NATO has already implied that they’d wipe out Russian forces if they ever used a nuke
They wouldn’t do shit. Deep down, under your biases, I think you know that.
russia won't do shit because they know that if they do, NATO will. cope, seethe and dilate 15 rubles prostitute.
>cope, seethe and dilate
Ironic considering trannies support Ukraine.
/chug/ is literally full of buknertrannies coordinating raids on /k/ daily
You actually think even 10% of existing trannies support Russia? Cmon now anon, don’t be obtuse.
Considering Russia is directly responsible for Antifa, it's more likely than you think
You have to go back.
you first /leftypol/
It’s like beating a dead horse at this point but please answer this, why would I (a right wing individual) support a state that is run by a israelite are has the backing of the entire degenerate western world? The same people who have a pride flag hung on the White House right now? I support Russia simply because they are our supposed enemy. I support any enemy of the west.
>I (a right wing individual)
Lmao, ziggers are funny
Exactly, you can’t answer, because you’re being disingenuous.
I answered you, worthless zigger trash. You're not right wing and you gooble israeli balls.
Now run off back to bunkerchan like you always do.
Think what you want.
I hope you get beaten down with a pipe wrench and drowned in acid.
Well, I hope you have a good rest of your day.
I can't wait until Ukraine bombs your shillfarm and i don't have to respond to your identaical lying drivel daily.
I doubt Ukraine will be bombing small town Indiana anytime soon, but then again we said the same thing about the Afghanis when we were arming them in the 80’s and look where that got us.
oh, but they might visit a street in st petersburg soon enough
They might, and I won’t care. I still can’t tell if you’re being genuine or not. Perhaps your just trying to frustrate me, but you’ve only accomplished to humor and somewhat confuse me.
>Perhaps YOUR just trying to frustrate me.
>but you've only accomplished TO HUMOR and somewhat confuse me
Ah yes, the famous shitty grammar from Indiana, always hear about it from ol' man Jenkins, "them Indiana boys can't write." He says to me "type just like the ruskis."
>mistyped ‘you’re’, so obviously you’re a Russian.
Jump to conclusions much?
>He doesn't realize the second sentence makes absolutely no sense
Get yourself to an English class NOW, you bum, your shilling isn't effective unless your IELTS is 8 or higher.
Hello indiana bunkertroony. still shilling for communism on /k/, i see.
Russia isn’t communist, and has t been for quite sometime. Read a history book perhaps?
>Russia isn’t communist
Funny that they still fly commie flags and all commies shill for them.
To be fair, the Taliban weren't *directly* involved, they just told Uncle Sam to go frick himself at a *really* bad time.
>the entire degenerate western world
every time
I am much more anti-lgbt than I am anti-diversity. Both are bad, one is worse.
then why are you shilling for a nation with gay rape as their culture, buknertroony?
Even if that was true, and you were being genuine (it’s not and you’re not), it would still be better than encouraging children to take hormone blockers and cut their genitalia off.
>Even if that was true
that is 100% true.
>you were being genuine
You were spewing same lies and shilling this entire thread.
>it would still be better than encouraging children to take hormone blockers and cut their genitalia off.
russia is world's biggest propducer and consumer of child porn.
That would be the Netherland actually.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246244/countries-hosting-child-pornography-content-worldwide/
>paywalled
More vatBlack person lies.
Here’s another
https://www.newsweek.com/europe-worst-hosts-most-child-abuse-websites-study-finds-578022
>Hosting
That's like blaming Sweden for hosting the pirate bay and calling it the online capital of piracy, moron.
>anon talks about producing and consuming cp
>shill replies with hosting stats, banking on the fact that west europe is the only safe enough place to build data centers in this part of the world
moving goalposts 101
>It’s like beating a dead horse at this point but please answer this, why would I (a right wing individual) support a state that is run by a israelite are has the backing of the entire degenerate western world?
good question, why would you support Russia, ethnically bolshevik israeli and run by a israeli man whonis intent on running the zog hegemoney by himself with his prison rape gang?
If you think Russia is a bastion of the white ethnostate, then by all means, move there, renounce your US citizenship, then tear up your passport so we don't ever have to hear your womanly warblings again
>Iphone filename
>Reddit screen
Damn, anon, you sure do love that place. Please go back.
>to all Ukrainian trans girls
How many Ukrainian trans girls are there?
Probably fewer than in Russia.
Frick off, worthless zigger trash.
Fun fact GOP and other various right wing parties across the world are part of an international organisation to help "coordinate" with each other.
It's called the International Democrat Union which is fighting for ever closer world and the "Grater Good"
The greatest lie you were told is that the globalists were only marxists.
>despite making up only 13% of the troony population...
You're still doing your projection routine almost a year and a half later? Everyone knows Russia the AIDS, conscript rape and child rape capital of the planet.
that's the troony who got caught spying for russia anon
https://www.realcleardefense.com/2022/09/30/first_openly_transgender_army_officer_a_spy_for_russia_856500.html
But that guy was caught spying for Russia
yeah that's the point
Not an argument. Russia is losing and can do nothing about it.
From the authors of "ukraine won't get tanks" and "ukraine won't get jets", the new banger is inCOOMing :
> They wouldn’t do shit
What jets did the Ukes end up getting? F-16s?
even if you think that, the other possibility is that your entire country is at the very least dismantled if not completely annihilated.
Is that enormous risk worth the chance that using a nuke might bring the Ukies to the table with concessions?
Also if Russia nuked Ukraine, the US would nuke Belarus. If Russia is allowed to nuke Ukraine then Belarus could be nuked by US.
This was under Obama, iirc. He always was dogshit at foreign policy. Imagine nuking a country full of people who basically want to switch to your side but are held hostage by a dictator, who is himself held hostage by a foreign power.
Russia has plenty of parts of their country even they don't care about, look how limp their response to Belgorod has been. Just nuke some Siberian city, no personal threat to the powerbrokers but sends a very clear message that you aren't taking their shit.
I read that the US would use a conventional response in the event that nooks are used.
What would that entail?
planes and naval bombing/rockets their nuclear sites into oblivion.
Obligatory in any deluded vatBlack person thread about muh nooks.
>Ukrainian AA downs the missile, Ukraine restores the nuclear status after recovering the warhead
>NATO turns Russian cities into parking lots, google "Madman in Kremlin" wargames.
>Monkey hasn't earned enough science points to unlock this ability
Pick any.
>google "Madman in Kremlin" wargames
I'm trying, but all I'm getting is news articles and board games about 1942 and 1812. Help a homie out?
I hope to god Russia nukes Kiev the same second the hohols use DU ammo. It shows that hohols have no problem with radiation or using uranium weapons against the enemy.
failed hopes and dreams are the only fighting force russia has left
Putin will hang if he drags russia down with him mark my words Russians don't play around
>puccia's final warning
You would think, but history has shown the Russian people will gladly live in serfdom so long as their leader says they are strong. There should have been massive uprising in Russia, there's been nothing. The Russian people have given their consent through silence.
Nothing ever happens from the bottom it never has in history and it never will. Every successful revolt every uprising starts from the top and is led from the top. Russia's ruling caste of billionaires is dissatisfied all they need is a few more little pushes to reach the tipping point. We already have large factions in the military willing to depose the current regime.
>His argument is that Russia is to America what Ukraine is to Japan
This is so sad Rusisters..
Option A: Russia believes in a nuclear response and isn't going to use their own unless absolute desperation sets in
Option 2: Russia literally has no functioning nukes
Which one makes Russia look smarter?
The most interesting part of this war, to me, was my own psychological reaction to Russian threats. We began with me actually being sort of scared and very uneasy at the west supplying them, to laughing my ass of every time Russia warns of "dire consequences". Have I become more cynical, or have I simply grown wise to the lies of the pidor?
It's made me more scared in a way because I cannot expect rationality from Russian leaders. They really may wake up one morning and think "hmmm today I will use a nuke" under assumption there will be no consequence.
Honestly though, they would unfortunately probably get away with it if they did.
The west wouldn't nuke Russia in retaliation, and even though virtually everyone would initially be horrified by Putin doing so, I doubt it would be long before the new narrative drops and Russia apologists/3rd worlders begin doing whataboutisms and mentioning how the US nuked Hiroshima to justify/deflect from it and blaming the Ukrainians for not surrendering first.
The war would be over in a week, there'd be NATO troops in Ukraine and a slice of DMZ would be carved out of Russia for security reasons. They'd only frick themselves for spite and barely any gain.
Technically china has a defensive pact with Ukraine that if Ukraine gets nuked china needs to intervene in favor of Ukraine against the aggressor.
ONLY in case of nukes.
In exchange Ukraine recognized china instead of Taiwan.
Still valid.
While china would likely don't do anything major they would have to do at least something or their agreement with other countries to recognize the one china policy will look worthless otherwise.
At least it would definitely put china in an embarrassing situation and they would definitely have to condemned Russia at the very least and do something minimal to make it at least look they abide by the agreement.
At the very least china would be very annoyed and china is the only more or less close country that Russia can't afford to lose right now.
Not even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough to make the japanese surrender. Why would a small tactical nuke do the same? All a nuke would achieve is turn the world even more against Russia, including China. A tactical nuke would cause less damage than the absolute assrape Russia would have to take afterwards.
None of the major world powers are going to allow the use of nukes in an offensive war. Not the US, especially not China, and none of the others. If Russia does a nuclear attack in Ukraine they'll glass Russia without a second thought.
Liberalized use of nukes would allow any third world country to threaten them or their neoghbours if they let Russia make a precendent of this and stay alive.
>Liberalized use of nukes would allow any third world country to threaten them or their neoghbours
It would let them threaten their non nuclear armed neighbors, they couldn't threaten nuclear powers without fear of MAD. Nothing changes if Russia nukes Ukraine.
Are we up for another cycle of NOOK scare threads?
What happened this time?
People talking about this scenario are fricking moronic. They don't realize that Ukraine is a test for how to fix the population imbalance in the world right now. There are too many single men who are not working. They need to kill us to restabilize society and bring in the next economic boom. They don't give a frick about Ukraine, all of their working age men are either dead or wounded at this point, that country has no future.
I am kind of confused why the Vatnik keeps on mentioning America wont nuke Russia?
Even if america does not nuke russia (how the frick do you know that America will not do anything, how) are you forgetting about France and Britain, they might get spooked and do a first strike instead since they are a lot closer to Russia and do not want to take the risk and im pretty sure they do not need the United States permission to go balls wild in first stirke
>Russia nukes Ukraine
>American CSG saunters into the black sea and stays there
>every single russian officer above lieutenant """mysteriously""" gets a JDAM up his ass
>russian ammo depots start """mysteriously""" blowing up
Frick is Ivan gonna do about it?
>There would be absolutely no downside in doing a limited nuclear attack on Ukraine
Yes there would
Direct NATO intervention. After that either Russia is forced to pack up and go home in a matter of days or they nut up and go full nuclear holocaust.