Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Gabriel]

The thing is that then MAD fully kicks in.

I think it's a lot harder to press that button, realizing nukes will then drop on your land as well, rather than pressing it out pure retaliation when you know that the nukes are coming in X minutes.

You might now say "well, then why would be easier to use nukes on Ukraine for Russia if the West threatens to use them?", because it's not part of the West's doctrine to use nukes on any country that is nusing a nuke first, but only on countries that nukes the West.
If the West threatens to use nukes, we basically flip the script and the West finds itself in a position where they suddenly have to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus set off the chain reaction.
At the end of the day, Ukraine getting nuked does not mean the west has to drop a nuke, that only applies once Nato territory comes under a nuclear attack.

Under the current approach, it will be Russia who has to be the first nation to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus setting off the chain reaction that we usually call Nuclear Armageddon.

The difference is that the West can cripple Russia with conventional force, whereas Russia cannot.
If Russia chooses to use nukes, then that's basically the admission that they have nothing left to lose, whereas the West still has something to lose.

I know some people are going to hate this, but pure self interest dictates that risking nukes on Ukraine is preferable than straight going to risk Russian nukes on Europe / US.

The West will simply eradicate russian forces with conventional arms if russia decides to nuke Ukraine.

And there is snowball's chance in hell that russia actually dares to nuke NATO country, because it would guarantee the formation of What-Used-To-Be-Moscow Exclusion Zone.

- - - Updated - - -

Same result, just a 100% guaranteed counter launch instead of 95%.

No.

If NATO does a pre-emptive strike at russia, that's it. The biggest negative would be having to live with having slaughtered tens of millions of russians.

[Gorsameth]

The West will simply eradicate russian forces with conventional arms if russia decides to nuke Ukraine.

And there is snowball's chance in hell that russia actually dares to nuke NATO country, because it would guarantee the formation of What-Used-To-Be-Moscow Exclusion Zone.

- - - Updated - - -



No.

If NATO does a pre-emptive strike at russia, that's it. The biggest negative would be having to live with having slaughtered tens of millions of russians.

Right, so your living in fantasy land where Russia would never have time to reply because missiles fly instantly and there are no subs with nuclear warheads at sea, during a time where Russia knows they are likely to be targeted, since they just used a nuke themselves.

[Gabriel]

Right, so your living in fantasy land where Russia would never have time to reply because missiles fly instantly and there are no subs with nuclear warheads at sea, during a time where Russia knows they are likely to be targeted, since they just used a nuke themselves.

russian nuclear subs don't even patrol 365 days a year...

[KrayZ33]

I know some people are going to hate this, but pure self interest dictates that risking nukes on Ukraine is preferable than straight going to risk Russian nukes on Europe / US.

I don't know about that... if we allow the use of nukes to happen without stopping the one starting it, we just lost everything we have. Just later than sooner. It's not for the sake of Ukraine that I'm saying this.

It's for my very own interest that I want countries to bond together to eliminate a world-ending threat looming over my head. One way or another.
After all, the only reason why we can cripple Russia is because they won't use the nukes. If they'd be using them, that kind of reasoning is gone forever and that's why we as well have nothing to lose anymore.
After the first one is launched, it almost doesn't matter anymore if it's because someone beats you in a war or because someone used sanctions against your economy.

[Makabreska]

russian nuclear subs don't even patrol 365 days a year...

Ok, and if they will be patrolling at that time? Your idea that West would obliterate/dismantle Russia in one nuclear barrage (and that they will be even willing to risk it if Ukraine is nuked) is extremely naive.

[Kallisto]

No.

If NATO does a pre-emptive strike at russia, that's it. The biggest negative would be having to live with having slaughtered tens of millions of russians.

No what happens is Russia spots the first strike incoming and launches their counter strike. I know Finland has a system where everyone can live out years in a bunker but other European nations do not have that.

Also Russia has an automated system in place where if there is no order from the top once the first nuke hits, everything in that's left launches and yes there will be things that are left.

You're basically saying that you want us all to die to spite Russia while you go have a wank about russian deaths in your finnish bunker

[jonnysensible]

russia would have to launch a full nuclear first strike everywhere if it was going to use a nuke anyway...

A 'limited nuclear strike' with one nook on ukraine isn't going to change much on the battlefield, wow kyiv is gone so what. The US would probably try to shoot it down as well...

And China would shit themselves if the nuclear taboo was broken (and be pissed at russia).

The logic follows : If Russia fired a nook. NATO would respond by destroying all of Russia's nuclear capabilities so that NATO's conventional forces could mop up Russia. Russia couldn't allow that so it might as well first strike if it was going down that route.

How are we talking about nukes, when Kherson and Luhansk are getting wrecked by convetional forces still.

[YUPPIE]

Opposition to the Russian invasion is intense in Poland, with the country becoming one of Kyiv's staunchest supporters and taking in millions of refugees since the conflict started.

"All my family ... stayed in Ukraine and I don't know how I can support them," said Valeria Horna, a student from Kyiv who lives in Warsaw. "That's why I came to this meeting, simply to support Ukraine."

Protestors, many draped in the Ukrainian flag, brandished placards with the protest's slogan "Russia is a terrorist state."

The implications are pretty unsettling. In that by this point, 4 out of 5 of the world is against Russia. They have no meaningful allies anymore, just opportunists.

[Makabreska]

russia would have to launch a full nuclear first strike everywhere if it was going to use a nuke anyway...

A 'limited nuclear strike' with one nook on ukraine isn't going to change much on the battlefield, wow kyiv is gone so what. The US would probably try to shoot it down as well...

And China would shit themselves if the nuclear taboo was broken (and be pissed at russia).

The logic follows : If Russia fired a nook. NATO would respond by destroying all of Russia's nuclear capabilities so that NATO's conventional forces could mop up Russia. Russia couldn't allow that so it might as well first strike if it was going down that route.

How are we talking about nukes, when Kherson and Luhansk are getting wrecked by convetional forces still.

Ukraine neighbours Russia. What chances USA has, realistically?

[Gorsameth]

Ukraine neighbours Russia. What chances USA has, realistically?

I'd say if the US has a defence system that is supposedly capable of intercepting nuclear missile the odds of one of them being in range to defend Kyiv currently is greater then 0.

Obviously such an intercept would not come from the US itself.

[Kralljin]

I don't know about that... if we allow the use of nukes to happen without stopping the one starting it, we just lost everything we have. Just later than sooner. It's not for the sake of Ukraine that I'm saying this.

The point is that the West is absolutely capable of stopping the one who is starting it conventionally, nobody is saying that should just accept dropping nukes, we should however show restraint and not answer with nukes.

[Iphie]

In other news, russia apparently is starting to evacuate Kherson .

[zorkuus]

In other news, russia apparently is starting to evacuate Kherson .

More kidnappings of kids into degenerate, scum of the earth ruZZia.

[Saradain]

In other news, russia apparently is starting to evacuate Kherson .

You have earned the achievement: [We're Not Retreating; We're Advancing in a Different Direction]

RuZZia holding back so hard, clearly. Or not.

[Iphie]

You have earned the achievement: [We're Not Retreating; We're Advancing in a Different Direction]

RuZZia holding back so hard, clearly. Or not.

Nono! It's a "goodwill gesture" doncha know? (No they're not calling it that, they're calling it an evacuation.)

[Saradain]

Nono! It's a "goodwill gesture" doncha know? (No they're not calling it that, they're calling it an evacuation.)

As our resident turnip overlord would say - Russia is "helping" civilians (and especially children) to safety. From the hellhole Russia itself created.

Ah well, I believe ukrainian officials said Kherson would be liberated from nazi russians by the end of the year. Hi ho for the 1000th genocide mass murder burial site surprise...

[KrayZ33]

The point is that the West is absolutely capable of stopping the one who is starting it conventionally, nobody is saying that should just accept dropping nukes, we should however show restraint and not answer with nukes.

I'd very much welcome that, but I'm not sure if it's actually possible once the first one was started. (at least not before even more are launched, is what I'm suggesting)

[YUPPIE]

something interesting to consider is Russians claim Ukrainians hate them and want to destroy them. The irony is, if supporting that notion was Putin's goal, he has succeeded. Most Ukrainians murderously despise Russians right now, and once they get sent back into Russia, they'll be cut off from the whole world and feel the whole world is against them.

Was that Putin's backup goal? To fester hatred and justify himself for future generations? He's succeeded in that regard.

[Xyonai]

I'd very much welcome that, but I'm not sure if it's actually possible once the first one was started. (at least not before even more are launched, is what I'm suggesting)

From the way Biden, and now Macron, are talking, it seems like they're confident that they can deal with Russian Nuclear weapons. Or they're hella bluffing and are seeing if Russia, having suffered devastating losses to a smaller army using equipment who's total costs is equal to a rounding error for the Pentagon, will chance pulling aggro of every western military power on the planet in what will surely amount to a Nuclear hissy fit.

[Ripster42]

rounding error for the Pentagon

US alone has donated ~$18b in military aid for ukraine since 2021 (most since the war's start). Not exactly a rounding error even for the US. The US is projected to spend ~$140b in 2022 on procurement. That's the money the US is spending on the types of things we're sending to ukraine. So ~$18b is around 13% of all equipment/ammo/spare parts the US is buying this year.