[News] If Putin nukes the West...

[Triggaaar]

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.

Except in your scenario, he'd just nuke Russia too. "If I can't have it, no one can!"

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Typical....i bet we will just get everyone fit then BANG

 

[Igzilla]

This is an interesting discussion on the subject...

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Some Arsenal fans would finally stop whining about the rules of football.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Would solve the debate about the winter fuel allowance.

positively or negatively?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

It's probably top secret, but I'd be surprised if America doesn't have the technology to blow any incoming nuclear missile out the sky. The Iron Dome is basically the correct technology, America just need to deploy it in Eastern Europe or the American shoreline and they're set.

 

[Titanic]

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

Welcome @MassivePenis - interesting first post. Are they deliberately filled with love or has someone tampered with them?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Once satellites became commonplace, and more accurate, it was discovered that many of Russia’s nuclear sites were wooden and cardboard cutouts.
There was also the Early Warning System (listening in Cyprus etc) which gave a 4 minute warning of a nuclear strike, which, in turn, was plenty of time to fire a retaliatory strike.
That’s why it was and still is, a deterrent. As someone else pointed out, the nutters may give the orders, but the chain of command doesn’t always follow ie Cuban crisis.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Would solve the debate about the winter fuel allowance.

may even warm the winters up a bit as well

 

[jcdenton08]

Through to the next nuclear winter here lads, no excuses

 

[SeagullinExile]

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.

Yup. The UK would be wiped out in 15 minutes.

 

[Biscuit]

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.

Even tactical nuclear warheads have yields several times that of the weapons used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ANY nuclear weapon would be suicidal IMO.

And to answer the OP, if one nuclear strike by Russia triggered a ground invasion of Russian territory by NATO, what's to stop them from using the remaining 5,579 they have stockpiled?

Having that many nuclear weapons, and a total loon in charge of them, is quite a deterrent.

In my opinion, highly trained NATO soldiers *could* be sent into Ukraine if the situation gets much worse, either to hold positions in a "defensive" capacity or to restore the 1991 borders. As long as so much as a NATO boot doesn't stray into Russia*, I don't think Putin will be able to justify a nuclear strike.

*I do not include Crimea/Donbas etc

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I personally think it's going to happen and we should all be prepared to give our dog a nice pat, or tell the Mrs she isn't so bad after all in 5 ... 4 .... 3..... 2.... 1.....

 

[Biscuit]

Yup. The UK would be wiped out in 15 minutes.

Genuine question, do you not think we have an iron dome?

I'd be pretty surprised if we don't, whatever the official line is. And if we currently don't, I wonder if we soon will with DragonFire.

 

[SeagullinExile]

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.

Try this for some bed time reading! It does give a little insight into what a NATO response to this could be. It’s a little old now, but it is a good read.

 

[Forster's Armband]

Putin won't fire nukes. He is a MASSIVE ego maniac and to be the centre of all things in Russia and a billy big balls in the world (as he sees it) there has to be a world.

 

[Zeberdi]

‘Deterrence’ has become a double edged sword in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Not only has the conflict in Ukraine invoked fear of nuclear conflict in a way not seen since the end of the Cold War but it is also determining how much NATO intervenes in assisting Ukraine, including in deterring NATO from imposing no fly zones over Ukraine, giving rise to frustration in the West.

Putin knows this and has repeatedly used dangerous rhetoric to ramp up that fear as a propaganda tool when warning against NATO interference in the Ukrainian conflict but there is a big difference between a manipulative leader exploiting the fear of nuclear war for an advantage in a conventional war and ME dictators, like Saddam Hussein, who wouldn’t have thought twice about using WMDs on his own people or enriched uranium falling into the hands of terrorists who could then make primitive nuclear devices. Both of which I fear more than Putin.

Putin has weaponised the fear of nuclear war to deter NATO from coming to the aid of Ukraine (and to that end, flooding X with the idea that Putin is irrational or unstable feeds his propaganda machine) but the West can not afford to call his bluff even though the ‘fear’ Putin might resort to tactical nuclear weapons is bigger than the actual likelihood he would.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Genuine question, do you not think we have an iron dome?

I'd be pretty surprised if we don't, whatever the official line is. And if we currently don't, I wonder if we soon will with DragonFire.

Not sure to be honest. Not sure it would make much difference in the event of a nuclear Holocaust.

 

[peterward]

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.

Putin isn't going to nuke anything, he's a scared coward whose frightened of death. His nuclear sabre rattling is designed to frighten other scared escalation 'managers' like Scholz and Bidens Nat Sec Jake Sullivan.

If a nuke goes off, it's far more likely imho to be an Islamic radical like one of the Iranian proxies.

If the west properly stood up to Putin and stopped cowering to nuclear threats, and went all in i think he'd back down rather than nuke.

He escalates because we show weakness and grant him space to act with our own self deterrence.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Even tactical nuclear warheads have yields several times that of the weapons used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ANY nuclear weapon would be suicidal IMO.

And to answer the OP, if one nuclear strike by Russia triggered a ground invasion of Russian territory by NATO, what's to stop them from using the remaining 5,579 they have stockpiled?

Having that many nuclear weapons, and a total loon in charge of them, is quite a deterrent.

In my opinion, highly trained NATO soldiers *could* be sent into Ukraine if the situation gets much worse, either to hold positions in a "defensive" capacity or to restore the 1991 borders. As long as so much as a NATO boot doesn't stray into Russia*, I don't think Putin will be able to justify a nuclear strike.

*I do not include Crimea/Donbas etc

Largely agree. But on the tactical nukes, they can be made at low yields too, some as small as 0.01 megaton, which is equal to just 10 tons of TNT.