Of course they are, like they are thinking about and discussing this every single day and have been since at least a few weeks before he invaded Ukraine, if not more. There are almost certainly numerous experts whose entire full-time job has revolved around thinking about this for months.
And I got chastised for saying you guys are rooting for Ukraine to be subjugated as quickly as possible. That’s exactly what you’re rooting for. If you’re allowing Putin to nuke a city (let’s call it what it is - nothing tactical about it) then you’re allowing for Putin to use any means necessary.
You’d be willing to let Putin commit genocide on 20 million people before you’d consider risking your precious hide in a nuclear war.
Can someone confirm what a “tactical nuke” is?
Based on a couple of minutes of looking into it, it seems like the main factor deciding tactical or not tactical is simply where you drop it.
It wouldn’t be a tactical nuke in Ukraine. There’s nothing strategic to take out with a nuke that they can’t take out with conventional means. It would be a civilian terror nuke.
I posted a thread about this a while back. Zikzak’s thread is good too.
1 Like
OK, how do you see that war going? Russia drops a nuke in Ukraine and then what? The US sends an armored division into Western Ukraine? He nukes that too. Then what? What’s the plan then?
“Tactical” in military-speak always means relating to the organization of battlefield forces, so a tactical nuke is a small nuke used to gain some sort of battlefield advantage, you know, blow a ship up, or destroy a bunker, or whatever. Strategic nuclear weapons are the ones you strap to ICBMs. You don’t deploy one of those just to win a battle.
1 Like
Given the combined nutritional value of most of the brands on this list it will help the cause more if they remain.
Somewhat mysterious why he didn’t just use this ultra-effective “do what I want or else I’ll nuke ur cities” approach in the first place rather than going for a costly ground invasion.
1 Like
So what is a small nuke deployed in a non-battlefield area? Tactical or not tactical? Sounds like you would say not tactical (granted it would be pretty nonsensical, beyond the baseline idiocy of firing off any nuke).
NATO comes in with overwhelming air, land and sea firepower and wipes him out of Ukraine. His military is next to nothing right now. He’s over-extended. Lol at the idea of sending in one slow-moving armored division.
If he keeps nuking we nuke back. But he won’t. Nobody in Russia will want to end civilization over Putin’s stupid vanity war.
Again - if he would use a tactical nuke in Ukraine, he will threaten a NATO country with a nuke someday and the West will be faced with the same dilemma. Except on Putin’s terms at a time of his choosing.
It’s a fool’s errand to think you can appease your way out of a madman threatening to use nukes. Where does it stop? You can make the exact same argument about the Baltics, then Poland, etc. How can we risk global annihilation? We shouldn’t have expanded NATO. This is the West’s fault.
3 Likes
This guy needs to do moar NUKEMAP and less armchair psychology wishcasting.
I honestly have no idea. I think the right answer might be to make putin think that we would 100% go to war, but not actually do it.
In reality, I don’t see how there isn’t a conflict at that point though. Refusal to act sets a crazy fucked up message.
1 Like
The name relates to what it is designed to do, regardless of how it actually ends up getting used. Small nukes in non-battlefield areas don’t have military uses.
Right. We’re talking about a scenario where Putin does use nukes. Not the current reality.
I don’t think NATO should attack now or do a no-fly zone and I’ve been very clear about that. But it’s not fear of nukes so much as that it would be a mistake and would give Russia a gift.
They have terror uses.
Interesting, I had already read @NotBruceZ 's wikipedia link and I was leaning towards the opposite conclusion.
I think nato would figure out a way to strike back without doing in literally the dumbest way possible.
2 Likes
There are retaliatory options that are not direct military conflict that may be even more devastating to the Putin regime than the current sanctions.
20 million people are 0.2% of the population of the planet. So if there is a 0.2% or greater chance of causing the end of the world, you’d cause more EV of death by retaliating directly.
The answer seems to be a strong response that does not escalate, but causes his regime extreme pain. It would likely include non-military options, increasing support for Ukraine, and perhaps a demonstration of some kind.
If we can turn the lights out in Moscow, or something similar, with a cyber attack, that would be the time. Threatening to sanction the fuck out of China unless they join the world in sanctioning Russia would be a good option, if they didn’t join in voluntarily.
Saying, “You think your citizens are unhappy now? Watch this, motherfucker.”
Giving a huge number of drones to Ukraine would be another good option. More direct help, but not the kind of help that risks nuclear WW3.
Suzzer you realize you’d be non-chalantly betting 7 billion lives on the whims of Vladimir Putin in one fell swoop, right?
This is not the same dilemma. It’s quite different, and Putin knows it, and that’s why he’s way less likely to ever do it.
Man this is a terrible take. Those countries wanted in, and if they weren’t, they’d be in the same spot Ukraine is in right now and you’d be saying… what, exactly?
You want to risk nuclear war to protect non-NATO countries, but you’re upset NATO expanded to include more countries?
NATO expansion played a minimal role in causing this conflict, or any other, it only complicates them. The issue is not a concern over defending Russia, it’s a disappointment in not being able to conquer more countries.
1 Like
Yeah I love the slow-lumbering armored division response.