[News] If Putin nukes the West...

[sakooshi]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway) as reparations, and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignominy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

 

[Professor Plum]

Bloody hell. Time to retreat beneath my duvet with a good audiobook. (Mark Twain autobiography, as you ask.) Buonanotte.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land as reparations (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway), and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignomy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

But if Trump got elected in 2024 would then Putin literally use that "trump" card?

 

[JOLovegrove]

And there's me thinking I was on a forum for a little old football team on the south coast.

 

[sakooshi]

And there's me thinking I was on a forum for a little old football team on the south coast.

Well, it's kind of similar to football. Football's all about tactics.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway) as reparations, and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignominy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

The key is in the term Mutually Assured 'Destruction', Russia possesses a total of 5,580 nuclear warheads as of 2024 with 1,710 deployed, this is the largest confirmed deployed arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. If Russia was to launch a full scale nuclear attack on the west there would't be much of it left, it would be completely destroyed. Once Putin presses that button theres no chance of any conventional warfare taking place.

It’s this threat of mutual destruction that prevents anyone from using them.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

The use of strategic nuclear weapons by Russia against Europe or the US or both is highly unlikely and would result in the decimation of two continents. The use of strategic nukes is quite literally suicidal.

However the more interesting question is the use of battlefield (aka tactical) nukes. The use of these is part of the russian military strategy and there is no clear response from NATO if used in Ukraine. Does NATO retaliate or continue it's backing via conventional weapons.

If NATO does nothing then it's a free pass for Russia, if it does something directly then that opens the door for the claim by Russia that NATO is directly attacking it. This then escalates further to direct Russia NATO conflict. Which Russia will lose and they know it.

So the use of strategic nukes is a flat no, the use of battlefield nukes is a no. So there really is nothing to worry about.

Please rest up and get some decent sleep.

 

[Goldstone1976]

The use of strategic nuclear weapons by Russia against Europe or the US or both is highly unlikely and would result in the decimation of two continents. The use of strategic nukes is quite literally suicidal.

However the more interesting question is the use of battlefield (aka tactical) nukes. The use of these is part of the russian military strategy and there is no clear response from NATO if used in Ukraine. Does NATO retaliate or continue it's backing via conventional weapons.

If NATO does nothing then it's a free pass for Russia, if it does something directly then that opens the door for the claim by Russia that NATO is directly attacking it. This then escalates further to direct Russia NATO conflict. Which Russia will lose and they know it.

So the use of strategic nukes is a flat no, the use of battlefield nukes is a no. So there really is nothing to worry about.

Please rest up and get some decent sleep.

Your logic is sound imo.

However, your argument relies on the people in power in Russia and the US acting rationally. Putin and (maybe) Trump - this is where the worry emanates from.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

That next nuclear strike could be humanity-defining.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

It could be a nil all draw or we could be out of the cup

 

[Baldseagull]

China would Nuke Russia for destroying its customer base.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Judging by the quality of Russian conventional weaponry there’s a very high chance that their nuclear arsenal will not have been maintained and will, in the large part, be obsolete. There’s a huge risk in firing duds that even a nutjob like Putin will be reluctant to risk.

 

[Lethargic]

Would solve the debate about the winter fuel allowance.

 

[MassivePenis]

What if we all try to fire nukes and they're actually all filled with love?

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway) as reparations, and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignominy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

You could envisage a scenario in which NATO would use force to keep Russia within it's borders. However I can't ever imagine a situation in which it would seek to invade and occupy Russia. History tells us that, far from being easy, such attempts don't end well. The West missed an opportunity to help build a peaceful and stable Russia in the 90s. Instead we ended up with a KGB takeover and a very wealthy football club in West London. Although many are cynical about NATO what it must really want is a Russia that it can work with. To have imperialist designs would be insane.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway) as reparations, and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignominy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

Millennial?

 

[Half Time Pies]

Your logic is sound imo.

However, your argument relies on the people in power in Russia and the US acting rationally. Putin and (maybe) Trump - this is where the worry emanates from.

They both may appear to be bat shit crazy by most peoples standards but neither of them is suicidal! In fact self preservation and obtaining and maintaining power seems to be high on both of their agendas, none of which would be possible if they were to press that button.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Your logic is sound imo.

However, your argument relies on the people in power in Russia and the US acting rationally. Putin and (maybe) Trump - this is where the worry emanates from.

Putin or Trump may press the button, they then rely on the chain of command to actually carry the request through.

not going to happen.

 

[Hamilton]

Can't sleep. Been thinking. Would it make sense to respond in kind, nuking Russia back, or would it make more sense to actually refrain completely from using any nukes at all and instead just invade Russia with a massive combined NATO force. The normal school of thought is that if attacked with nukes, it behoves the West to retaliate with nukes (M.A.D.), but is this sound thinking? Apparently Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war with NATO. The only thing stopping NATO crushing Russia is its nukes. Once Russia uses its trump card, the West would have nothing to lose by invading Russia. NATO could defeat Russia in a conventional war, take its land (which is larger than the EU plus USA combined anyway) as reparations, and use Russia's un-nuked land to relocate Western IDPs.

Edit: I think if Putin knew his beloved Russia would suffer the ignominy of being overrun and divvied up among NATO countries, with a large portion going to Ukraine, it would be a greater deterrent for him than the idea of M.A.D.

Jesus wept!

Good morning.

Get some sleep. The international break will be over soon.

 

[maffew]

Is it potg?