Is it worth nuclear war?

Do you believe the west should support Ukraine in its attempts to retake territory which Putin now claims is "Russian," given his threat that doing so could lead to the use of nuclear weapons?

Quote: missedhervee

Do you believe the west should support Ukraine in its attempts to retake territory which Putin now claims is "Russian," given his threat that doing so could lead to the use of nuclear weapons?

No troops but keep sending support. Sad reality is the longer it goes on the better it is for the west.

Quote: AZDuffman

No troops but keep sending support. Sad reality is the longer it goes on the better it is for the west.

Good lord I actually agree with Duffman on something.

Sooner or later someone is going to use nukes somewhere. By that, I mean in a historical sense, at some point, it will probably happen. (again, as it happened already of course by us)

The world has to figure out how to deal with it sooner or later without always backing down to whichever madman threatening to do it. So, I say keep on keeping on.

Putin also has the option to use other weapons like more thermobaric bombs and cluster bombs. He's already on a war crime list for many things already --not sure anything he starts using again is going to change that.

There is "first strike" principle that asserts a nuclear first strike is justified if it lowers the capacity for an ongoing nuclear war.

In recent history I have most often heard it discussed with religious extremists who were plotting to build nuclear weapons with the intent of using them, but in even more recent history some can argue that it can apply to modern Russia.

However, first strike arguments aside, "is it worth a nuclear war?" is an obvious yes. If Russia uses nuclear weapons while being the aggressor and the West does not retaliate, this will lead to a spiral. Russia already feels emboldened by the lack of response from the West. And, Russia is still losing. Being emboldened and being embarrassed are a bad combination for aggressors. Actions need consequences, and sanctions can only go so far.


Russia is expected to "declare" the territory formerly annexed on 04OCT2022:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/truth-or-bluff-why-putins-nuclear-warnings-have-west-worried-2022-09-28/

Once this happens using a nuclear weapon "in their territory" could be skewed as a defensive maneuver.

This would also allow a shift in power before the winter. I hope I am wrong, but so far I have not been. And, if this happens, a nuclear response is the only answer.
Really, I don't think first strike principles should ever be off the table either, but I know this is more controversial.

Quote: Gandler

Russia is expected to "declare" the territory formerly annexed on 04OCT2022:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/truth-or-bluff-why-putins-nuclear-warnings-have-west-worried-2022-09-28/

Once this happens using a nuclear weapon "in their territory" could be skewed as a defensive maneuver.

This would also allow a shift in power before the winter. I hope I am wrong, but so far I have not been. And, if this happens, a nuclear response is the only answer.
Really, I don't think first strike principles should ever be off the table either, but I know this is more controversial.

Putin has been an open book from the outset.
My prediction is for a massive cruise or hypersonic missile assault lobbed into the heart of Ukraine, maybe attacking critical infrastructure and 'behind the lines 'supply points, such as where Western arms are held.
Or maybe even some unbadged terrorist attacks on power lines. He likes his deniable unlabelled attacks.
Did you guys know.... Ukraine has been sending electricity to the EU since July? That pisses Putin off and he's keen to choke off our energy supply lines.

Gen. Keane said recently that the Russians no longer have the capability for their troops to operate in a radioactive battlefield like they did, and we did, during the Cold War [I guess we don't either anymore]. So there could be no tactical military strategy that uses nuclear weapons for them. That doesn't rule out certain usages like supply disruption I guess ... or madman usage or terrorist usage.

It has long been said that both sides in the Cold War came to realize nuclear weapons are unusable in the literal sense. However, this means the threat of usage is good for making threats like Putin is doing. And for regime preservation like North Korea is doing .

Quote: odiousgambit

Gen. Keane said recently that the Russians no longer have the capability for their troops to operate in a radioactive battlefield like they did, and we did, during the Cold War [I guess we don't either anymore]. So there could be no tactical military strategy that uses nuclear weapons for them. That doesn't rule out certain usages like supply disruption I guess ... or madman usage or terrorist usage.

It has long been said that both sides in the Cold War came to realize nuclear weapons are unusable in the literal sense. However, this means the threat of usage is good for making threats like Putin is doing. And for regime preservation like North Korea is doing .

The problem with Putin, is nobody takes him seriously even still, everything he says is just a "bluff" or "strongly worded defense Strategy". While he does exactly what he says.

North Korea is a bluff based on history (they constantly state invasions and bombing that never take place to satisfy their population).

Whereas since 2014 Putin keeps doing exactly what he has been promising to do, and people keep saying "He will never actually do it".... While he is actively doing it.

If Putin cared about regime preservation, he would not be invading the largest European Country.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: odiousgambit

Gen. Keane said recently that the Russians no longer have the capability for their troops to operate in a radioactive battlefield like they did, and we did, during the Cold War [I guess we don't either anymore]. So there could be no tactical military strategy that uses nuclear weapons for them. That doesn't rule out certain usages like supply disruption I guess ... or madman usage or terrorist usage.

It has long been said that both sides in the Cold War came to realize nuclear weapons are unusable in the literal sense. However, this means the threat of usage is good for making threats like Putin is doing. And for regime preservation like North Korea is doing .

The problem with Putin, is nobody takes him seriously even still, everything he says is just a "bluff" or "strongly worded defense Strategy". While he does exactly what he says.

North Korea is a bluff based on history (they constantly state invasions and bombing that never take place to satisfy their population).

Whereas since 2014 Putin keeps doing exactly what he has been promising to do, and people keep saying "He will never actually do it".... While he is actively doing it.

If Putin cared about regime preservation, he would not be invading the largest European Country.

That Depends. Heh.


Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU: "It's not an issue of readiness. Russia has no plans to invade either Ukraine or any other country. It's a bluff created not in Russia, but in those countries that are now spreading this hysterical message, I would say, across Europe and the world."