ADVERTISEMENT

Could There Be LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR Over Ukraine?

Nov 28, 2010
87,438
42,204
113
Maryland
I suggest reading the whole article, but at least this part. Note that in addition to tactical nukes, he mentions generating a limited EMP.

The nuclear option that has been most frequently discussed in the past few days involves Russia using a small nuclear weapon (a “non-strategic nuclear weapon”) against a specific military target in Ukraine. Such a strike might have a military purpose, such as destroying an airfield or other military target, but it would mainly be aimed at demonstrating the will to use nuclear weapons, or “escalating to de-escalate”, and scaring the west into backing down.​
Some analysts have questioned Russia’s ability to actually carry out such an operation, given its lack of practice. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only or even the most likely option available to the Kremlin. Based on war games I ran in the wake of Putin’s 2014 invasion, a more likely option would be a sudden nuclear test or a high-altitude nuclear detonation that damages the electrical grid over a major Ukrainian or even Nato city. Think of an explosion that makes the lights go out over Oslo.​
Those war games indicated that the best US response to this kind of attack would be first to demonstrate US resolve with a response in kind, aimed at a target of similar value, followed by restraint and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate. In most games, Russia still responds with a second nuclear attack, but in the games that go “well”, the United States and Russia manage to de-escalate after that, although only in circumstances where both sides have clear political off-ramps and lines of communication between Moscow and Washington have remained open. In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed.​
Even in the better case where both sides take their fingers off the triggers, the nuclear taboo has been broken, and we are in an entirely new era: two nuclear superpowers have used their nuclear weapons in a war. The proliferation consequences alone would be far-reaching, as other countries accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. The very fact that the nuclear taboo had been broken increases the odds that the nuclear threshold is crossed again in future conflicts, not just between Russia and America, but also with China, between India and Pakistan, in the Middle East, or elsewhere. Even this outcome in which the world is “saved”, the United States is far worse off than it was before the war in Ukraine broke out last month.​

 
Some will laugh it off as impossible. And it's still highly unlikely. But IF it happens, there's no "limited" to it. IF it happens, It only ends one way...
tumblr_mda91vsBEg1qghl49o1_r1_500.gifv
 
The article's author says

There are two likely paths: continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold, or a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine​

If he's right, which should we be aiming toward?

At the moment we seem to be leaning toward continued escalation. The thinking seems to be that Russia's military is weaker than expected, so that escalation may convince Putin to back off.

Is that realistic?
 
LOL the west backing down? If Russia were to use any nuke in Eastern Europe I’m pretty sure that would be a red line…
 
The article's author says

There are two likely paths: continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold, or a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine​

If he's right, which should we be aiming toward?

At the moment we seem to be leaning toward continued escalation. The thinking seems to be that Russia's military is weaker than expected, so that escalation may convince Putin to back off.

Is that realistic?
Russia's military may be surprisingly weak to those who don't really know anything about world militaries. But to those who are well versed in the subject, it comes as no surprise as their armed forces are largely hamstrung by being filled with unmotivated conscripts, sh!tty training, and by and large relatively mediocre hardware.
 
I think we’d unleash conventional hell.

NATO F-35s and F-16 would make short work of all Russian conventional forces - including all their armor, artillery and Black Sea fleet very quickly.
Could we? Sure looks like it.

But can we stop their ICBMs and hypersonics with nuclear warheads?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
I think we’d unleash conventional hell.

NATO F-35s and F-16 would make short work of all Russian conventional forces - including all their armor, artillery and Black Sea fleet very quickly.
This. I don't think that many realize the power advantage the United States and its NATO allies have over Russia. Remember that bully that you finally beat up in HS and how his group of friends just stood and watched and then turned their backs and walked away? Yeah, that bully is Russia. The only problem, and its a big one, is the bully in HS didn't have nukes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole
This. I don't think that many realize the power advantage the United States and its NATO allies have over Russia. Remember that bully that you finally beat up in HS and how his group of friends just stood and watched and then turned their backs and walked away? Yeah, that bully is Russia. The only problem, and its a big one, is the bully in HS didn't have nukes.
Yep, but people act like we don’t have nukes too. That’s how the MAD doctrine works folks…

As the pentagon said, russias nuclear rhetoric is irresponsible but they are comfortable with the Unoted States nuclear capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Yep, but people act like we don’t have nukes too. That’s how the MAD doctrine works folks…

As the pentagon said, russias nuclear rhetoric is irresponsible but they are comfortable with the Unoted States nuclear capabilities.
True, but I worry that Vlad does not subsribe to that doctrine.
 
Sure they could. If they did North Korea would be the best Russia could hope for. Total isolation.

I would hope a coup happens. A military coup not a couple hundred rednecks
 
True, but I worry that Vlad does not subsribe to that doctrine.
Well if he’s that nuts and his endgame is global nuclear war, that’s where we will end up no matter what….

I think the only way he would actually do it is if we are pushing into Russia….I can’t see any scenario where he decides Ukraine is worth annihilation
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Well if he’s that nuts and his endgame is global nuclear war, that’s where we will end up no matter what….
Exactly.

You have to act as though your adversary is rational. As you point out, if he’s not at least somewhat rational, nothing will prevent the situation from ultimately deteriorating anyway, so you may as well be proactive rather than reactive.

I think Putin has miscalculated and may be somewhat delusional, but I don’t think he’s crazy.
 
This. I don't think that many realize the power advantage the United States and its NATO allies have over Russia. Remember that bully that you finally beat up in HS and how his group of friends just stood and watched and then turned their backs and walked away? Yeah, that bully is Russia. The only problem, and its a big one, is the bully in HS didn't have nukes.
Yep. Without having to worry about nukes, this is a simple math problem. We've been spending 10 times as much as Russia - more actually - since Shaka made the wall fall. And for the last 20 years we've been fighting wars to keep our forces sharp and to test out equipment advances.

Back in WWI, the Ottoman Empire was called the Sick Man of Europe. It's not entirely clear yet - Russia could still bounce back from its dismal showing over the last 2 months - but it's looking like they are the new Sick Man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Exactly.

You have to act as though your adversary is rational. As you point out, if he’s not at least somewhat rational, nothing will prevent the situation from ultimately deteriorating anyway, so you may as well be proactive rather than reactive.

I think Putin has miscalculated and may be somewhat delusional, but I don’t think he’s crazy.
And that goes both ways. Putin has to act as if his adversaries are rational. This is a bit trickier for Putin because he's looking at multiple adversaries, who aren't necessarily all on the exact same page. We've all been doing a pretty good job of getting on that same page - at least publicly - but these nations and their corporate giants are still competitors looking for advantage, and taking risks. So the possibility of "mistakes" can't be discounted.

For Putin, this war may have started out as a war of expansion and and effort to achieve both more defensible borders and to weaken Europe and NATO. But now it's a war of national (and personal) survival.

Some will say that the war was always a war of national survival in Putin's eyes. And that may be true. But even if it wasn't true then, it is now.

We know it. And he knows we know it.

So now we have a failing power and a failing state that's abundantly armed with nuclear weapons. And their back is nearly touching the wall.

We're going to push harder. In case nobody has noticed, we've been ramping up slowly and steadily. Russia is the frog in the pot, and we keep turning up the heat.

The question is whether the frog will allow itself to be cooked or not.
 
Yep. Without having to worry about nukes, this is a simple math problem. We've been spending 10 times as much as Russia - more actually - since Shaka made the wall fall. And for the last 20 years we've been fighting wars to keep our forces sharp and to test out equipment advances.

Back in WWI, the Ottoman Empire was called the Sick Man of Europe. It's not entirely clear yet - Russia could still bounce back from its dismal showing over the last 2 months - but it's looking like they are the new Sick Man.
Yep, Russia is now the Nebraska Cornhuskers of military might & prowness.
 
Yep, Russia is now the Nebraska Cornhuskers of military might & prowness.
Spot on...

Russia's leverage points pre-invasion

1) Conventional military might/intimidation....basically gone
2) Energy sales...evaporating.

3) Nukes.....
 
I suggest reading the whole article, but at least this part. Note that in addition to tactical nukes, he mentions generating a limited EMP.

The nuclear option that has been most frequently discussed in the past few days involves Russia using a small nuclear weapon (a “non-strategic nuclear weapon”) against a specific military target in Ukraine. Such a strike might have a military purpose, such as destroying an airfield or other military target, but it would mainly be aimed at demonstrating the will to use nuclear weapons, or “escalating to de-escalate”, and scaring the west into backing down.​
Some analysts have questioned Russia’s ability to actually carry out such an operation, given its lack of practice. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only or even the most likely option available to the Kremlin. Based on war games I ran in the wake of Putin’s 2014 invasion, a more likely option would be a sudden nuclear test or a high-altitude nuclear detonation that damages the electrical grid over a major Ukrainian or even Nato city. Think of an explosion that makes the lights go out over Oslo.​
Those war games indicated that the best US response to this kind of attack would be first to demonstrate US resolve with a response in kind, aimed at a target of similar value, followed by restraint and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate. In most games, Russia still responds with a second nuclear attack, but in the games that go “well”, the United States and Russia manage to de-escalate after that, although only in circumstances where both sides have clear political off-ramps and lines of communication between Moscow and Washington have remained open. In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed.​
Even in the better case where both sides take their fingers off the triggers, the nuclear taboo has been broken, and we are in an entirely new era: two nuclear superpowers have used their nuclear weapons in a war. The proliferation consequences alone would be far-reaching, as other countries accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. The very fact that the nuclear taboo had been broken increases the odds that the nuclear threshold is crossed again in future conflicts, not just between Russia and America, but also with China, between India and Pakistan, in the Middle East, or elsewhere. Even this outcome in which the world is “saved”, the United States is far worse off than it was before the war in Ukraine broke out last month.​

No such thing as a limited nuclear weapon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Incredible Hawk
No such thing as a limited nuclear weapon.
I think it's very likely that that conventional wisdom will be tested soon.

I don't worry that our current leadership - US, EU or NATO - will overreact. Although they will have to do something and I wonder what that will be.

That said, I do worry that our crazies will be calling for wiping Russia off the map, with no rational regard for consequences.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT