War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Azuresun]

From the latter:  Julian Osborne: The war started when people accepted the idiotic principle that peace could be maintained by arranging to defend themselves with weapons they couldn't possibly use without committing suicide.

The awkward thing about that is...AFAIK, no nation with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded or had its land stolen. In a certain way, they work at keeping a country safe.

[Dice]

Falkland Islands.

[TheGlyphstone]

That is technically correct. This is the best kind of correct.

Gotta be fair here though, Dice, the Falkland Islands "War" is one of those things that only trivia/military history buffs will even think of.

[Azuresun]

Falkland Islands.

OK, so change that statement to, "nations with nuclear weapons have almost never been invaded or had their land stolen, compared to nations that don't".

[Oniya]

That is technically correct. This is the best kind of correct.

Gotta be fair here though, Dice, the Falkland Islands "War" is one of those things that only trivia/military history buffs will even think of.

Or Pink Floyd fans.  The entire 'The Final Cut' album was a response to the Falklands.

[Dice]

I don't think that has anything to do with Nukes though. I mean everyone "knows" Israel has them, but that's not what keeps that region "stable", it's the backup Israel has had over the years over others and their willingness to fight conventionally.

Nukes didn't stop America losing in Vietnam, nukes haven't stopped regional skirmishes between India and China or India and Pakistan. The reason North Korea is still a thing is because China wants a buffer state and defends them and the majority of South Koreans don't want the economic burden of unification.

Nukes are a special kind of red line. No one has tested it because everyone has more or less universally said 'Try it and we end you'. It's why right now Russia is claiming that they will use nukes to 'defend' their new lands (haha,goof joke Russia) and the world is basicly saying: "We doubt it, but if you do prepare to eat shit."

As for the other nuclear powers, most of them are in geographically stable areas. The lack of conflict on their own soil has more to do with the stability of the regions post WW2 then nukes.

[Oniya]

I don't think that has anything to do with Nukes though. I mean everyone "knows" Israel has them, but that's not what keeps that region "stable", it's the backup Israel has had over the years over others and their willingness to fight conventionally.

Nukes didn't stop America losing in Vietnam, nukes haven't stopped regional skirmishes between India and China or India and Pakistan. The reason North Korea is still a thing is because China wants a buffer state and defends them and the majority of South Koreans don't want the economic burden of unification.

Nukes are a special kind of red line. No one has tested it because everyone has more or less universally said 'Try it and we end you'. It's why right now Russia is claiming that they will use nukes to 'defend' their new lands (haha,goof joke Russia) and the world is basicly saying: "We doubt it, but if you do prepare to eat shit."

As for the other nuclear powers, most of them are in geographically stable areas. The lack of conflict on their own soil has more to do with the stability of the regions post WW2 then nukes.

To be honest, America's loss in Vietnam wouldn't have been a case of the US losing territory either.

The thing that's kept the nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons is, pretty bluntly, the fact that the people in charge have been sane/intelligent enough to realize the consequences.  This is not a terribly high bar. 

[Dice]

No, it's not a case of the US losing territory, it was the case though of the US choosing to lose a war without resorting to Nukes.

There have been conflicts between Nuclear powers for ages. Israel, India, Pakistan, China. Even North and South Korea who are still technically at war. Then there is Argentina and UK, a pretty blunt example of this kind of thing.

What I am saying is that Nukes have to date stopped almost no conflict. (Save for some in the early 50s when we were still working out wtf to do about them and the threat could be taken seriously, because the US had dropped them 7 or so years before) To date, no nuclear power in the last 50 years has had a threat of nuclear weapons use actually gained them a favourable outcome. Because at this stage no one believes they will be used so everyone is willing to call the others bluff.

Russia is saying they will use nukes, but Ukraine clearly ain't stopping. So Russia has an option, lose like they did in Afghanistan, America did in Vietnam or possibly, test their luck and face the very real possibility that Russia doesn't exist afterwards.

And you don't even need to Nuke Russia back to achieve that, NATO can clearly win an engagement with conventional means at this point, seeing how well kept Russian equipment has been and how effective Western supplied weapons have worked. And all of this without a Western airforce involed.

If Russia used Nukes that's game over for them and no nation in 50 years has gotten its own way because they have nukes.

[Dashenka]

It's been said a few times before here...

The chances of Putin dunking some nuclear bombs on cities like New York or London unprovoked is about as big as being struck by lightning. If he does that, he knows it is the end. The man is crazy, not stupid.


What is far more likely is that he will use tactical nuclear weapons on military targets of Ukraine.

Putin won't start a nuclear war with the west, unless the west starts it. That's why, if he uses tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian targets, the reply or answer from the west has to be a bit more.. tactical and political.

The problem is, the west has no leaders capable of doing that. They either bluff because they don't want to lose their face, or throw more money at it. The problem with either of those is that eventually, they run out. Money's already running out (has been for a while actually) and bluff will only get you so far.

Don't do it, as the old man said. But how often has Putin listened? So if Putin does use dirty weapons on, for example a Ukrainian military depot. Will NATO or the EU reply in fashion? With tactical nuclear weapons? Turning Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland just to stop Putin is not my idea of a great solution.

We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace.

[Dice]

No, they won't respond in kind with Nukes, because they don't need too. The Russian military has proven that it's lived off the fear of the Soviet legacy for a long time, but now has very little in the way of teath. NATO can beat it conventionally. They don't need Nukes.

Want to see just how little respect the world has for Russia now? Azerbaijan has thumbed their nose at Putin and called him on his bluff. Azerbaijan.

If Putin drops a nuke, any nuke, they have issues. Because the US has made it pretty clear any nuke for any reason will be reacted too the same way. Putin can lose or he and lose and die. But that's it.

And I'm not here blowing smoke up the USA's ass. I think it's stupid they decide to spend all their money on guns and not healthcare or education, but that's the choice they made and now they have the power protection to show for it.

You don't have to believe me, but seeing that the Moskva got fucked over and, if a leaked report is right the ship was never in a fighting state, I don't know what other then Nukes Russia actually has to threaten anyone with and if they use them I have no clue how they defend themselves from the hell that comes their way.

I don't see the endgame. Not in this. I might be wrong but history says I'm likely not.

[Oniya]

To date, no nuclear power in the last 50 years has had a threat of nuclear weapons use actually gained them a favourable outcome. Because at this stage no one believes they will be used so everyone is willing to call the others bluff.

Yes, this is the essence of what I'm saying.  There's a general assumption that 'Country X's leader' is neither crazy enough to use nukes nor dumb enough to use nukes. 

In fact, in 1966-67, a group of scientists, including Freeman Dyson, specifically advised against the 'first use of TNW in Vietnam'.  They had overheard retired general Maxwell Taylor suggesting that the US should 'toss in a nuke from time to time'.  (By the way, the PDF that I've linked shows an example of what a document looks like when it's actually been declassified.)  Their reasons are much the same as the ones mentioned in this thread: just as likely to affect 'our side' as 'the other side', and almost certain to make 'our side' look bad to the rest of the world, as well as leading to nuclear escalation.

[Vekseid]

That particular paper was written fairly recently - which actually makes the data range a little surprising.  The low-end was for a 15 kiloton bomb.  I grew up in the 80s, and we were already hearing about megatons when I was in school.  But long story short, if you want to keep 'freezing and starving' off your agenda, you don't want a nuclear conflict anywhere.

It also conveniently overlooks the fact forest fires are putting a lot less soot into the air than expected, and they are more or less why we expect it.

Well, it points that out directly, but it then goes to assume that Sagan et al's original estimates are still valid, when in fact the '150 teragram' scenario should probably look like a more limited exchange in that chart. Beyond which, we have a lot fewer nukes now, many of those the US has aren't going to be generating fires (their purpose is to detonate undergound and take out hardened installations), and

Which, to be clear, is still an absolutely insane amount of smoke and soot. But I am suspicious of modern studies that take the soot levels uncritically.

[Humble Scribe]

There have been conflicts between Nuclear powers for ages. Israel, India, Pakistan, China. Even North and South Korea who are still technically at war. Then there is Argentina and UK, a pretty blunt example of this kind of thing.

Between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers, but never between nuclear armed nations.
Israel didn't develop nuclear weapons until after the 1967 war, though arguably the 1973 Yom Kippur War was fought against a nuclear armed Israel. But none of the Arab states had nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan have not been engaged in full scale conflict since they both developed nuclear weapons in the 1990s.
The Korean War was fought under the shadow of possible US nuclear escalation, but it was a one-sided worry, since China didn't get the Bomb until 1964 (and North Korea not until 2006). The gamble was on how willing the USSR - technically not a belligerent - would have been to get involved. By the early 1950s the USSR had 70-100 atomic weapons, the US had >1,000, and would the Soviets have risked their cities for China and Korea? There was also a worry that the bombs wouldn't be destuctive enough to dissuade China.
The idea of the UK using nuclear weapons against Argentina over some islands several thousand miles away inhabited by 1,700 people was pretty fanciful. It would be such a disproportionate use of force that the UK would have become an international pariah. Not even Maggie would have gone there.

What nuclear weapons have done is prevent outright conflict between nuclear-armed nations, because both sides are worried about where it might end up. That's why Russia has been able to attack Ukraine without direct NATO involvement. But it's also why they would be very foolish to start chucking nukes now. Still, there is the question of whether the US is prepared to trade Washington for Kyiv? The Russians might doubt it, but the point of nuclear weapons is that they can't be certain.

[Dice]

You know China and India both have nukes and have been going at it over the border for a good little while now?

[Thufir Hawat]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html

Do I really need to comment? Yes? Well, the guy is saying "if Putin uses nukes, USA would lead a NATO and allies response to kick the Russian army out of Ukraine*, and sink their Black Sea fleet".
And for a change, I'm starting to think that his position is the only sane one .


*Possibly defined in its 1991 borders.

[Dashenka]

Nothing on this earth, possibly the universe, scares me more than Joe Biden leading NATO.

Absolutely nothing at all does.

[TheGlyphstone]

Nothing on this earth, possibly the universe, scares me more than Joe Biden leading NATO.

Absolutely nothing at all does.

Donald Trump leading NATO? 

[Dashenka]

Nope.

[Oniya]

In all probability, Biden would no more 'lead' a NATO offensive than George Bush 'led' Desert Storm. 

[MetroFallout]

Donald Trump leading NATO? 

Joe Biden is at least capable of having competent people around him and not second-guess these competent people. Maybe that's what's scary. An actually competent Western leader putting the screws on Putin and not some reality show oompa loompah with ambitions in autocracy and delusions of grandeur of being better than a businessman who consistently fails upward for some reason and projects the image of success despite 7 bankruptcies.

[Dashenka]

Joe Biden is at least capable of having competent people around him

Debatable.


But let's not make this a Biden vs Trump thread. There's too many of those already.

[gaggedLouise]

Nothing on this earth, possibly the universe, scares me more than Joe Biden leading NATO.

Absolutely nothing at all does.

I used to be more nervous of his predecessor leading the alliance through a major war.

I think Poland has suggested that Boris Johnson should take over after Stoltenberg - also a tripping proposal... :p

[Beorning]

Nothing on this earth, possibly the universe, scares me more than Joe Biden leading NATO.

Absolutely nothing at all does.

Seriously? So far, Biden's stance regarding the war is a blessing. I'm really impressed by how he took the point and helped build the anti-Putin coalition.

You know what scares? The possibility of Putin being replaced by someone like Kadyrov (who might be trying to undermine Putin lately). The risk of Russia launching nukes would grow significantly, I think, if Kadyrov was in charge there...

[Dashenka]

Seriously? So far, Biden's stance regarding the war is a blessing.

Again debatable.

You know what scares? The possibility of Putin being replaced by someone like Kadyrov (who might be trying to undermine Putin lately). The risk of Russia launching nukes would grow significantly, I think, if Kadyrov was in charge there...

I agree that is a scary thought. I'm not sure if the risk would grow but let's hope we'll never find out.

[Vekseid]

Again debatable.

Most attacks on Biden come from the same information silos which brought us this war.

Meanwhile Biden has built an international political coalition to supply Ukraine and castrate Russia, to the point where Ukraine's situation has gone from dire to outright winning. All without risking a single NATO soldier who is not volunteering there.

He has been slowly pushing Russia's "red lines" back, and "China's final warning" is becoming "Russia's final warning."

He keeps an immense amount of escalation options in reserve, to discourage Russia's own nuclear threats. Not just regarding nuclear weapons, but also their antics around the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia plants. He calls up a Russian ambassador and within a week some concession or another is made.

He has engineered a political and economic environment Russia cannot thrive in. For better and for worse, I think the picture of Russia a year from now is going to be a very dire one.

Meanwhile Biden isn't a general and knows it. He wouldn't 'lead NATO' from any military perspective.