[greedy_buffer]

> The conflict was low intensity warfare, which nukes are not particularly well suited for.

Firstly "was" is not the right word, the war is ongoing: http://tass.com/world/965974

Secondly, imo the nature of the conflict is less important than whether a concentrated population of the adversary's citizens are within range of the weapon as far as determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrent.

> Even if Ukraine had nukes, would it have threatened and actually have the will to use it over the lost of the Crimea?

Would those that made the decision to invade have accepted the risk of even the most minute possibility? No leader has done that so far.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

China, India and Pakistan, all three of them nuclear powers, have been fighting a low-level conflict over Kashmir for several decades. So far none of them has nuked the others.

Presumably, they realise the consequences of dropping a nuclear bomb in a region of the world with a couple billion people or three.

[greedy_buffer]

Didn't know much about this conflict, thank you for educating me. One other difference between those combatants and a theoretically nuclear armed Ukraine is that that war is more widely seem as an existential threat to an independent Ukraine. Kashmir political disagreement seems to rest on somewhat more limited territorial claims versus the desire of one party to post its military inside the other as well as to exert widespread political influence.

[sfifs]

And no one has lost any territory to the other since they developed nuclear weapons. All conventional millitary conflicts date from before they became nuclear powers.

[caf]

The Sino-Soviet border conflict occured after both were nuclear powers, as did the Kargil War between India and Pakistan.

[muro]

India lost territory to China after both had nuclear weapons.