The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off. It's not hyperbole to suggest that much of the western Russian military infrastructure (Army, Navy and AF) would be eliminated within days. Remember, NATO is only giving UA the small weapons and Russia can't even defend against those.
Yours reads like a comment that even the NATO propaganda department would be too embarrassed to attach their name to.
In a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia, Europe would be wiped out. UK, France, Germany, Italy and other countries hosting nuclear weapons will be certainly annihilated. Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Romania, etc will probably be nuked out of spite and whatever’s left will wither under a radioactive cloud.
Even the US “win” means being hit by hundreds of nuclear weapons. Those claiming that nuclear war can be won are just suicidal in a very contorted way.
> The world's largest military is prepared to neutralize all nuclear threats as soon as the first bomb goes off.
So in other words, you are rooting for WWIII to start.
Does anyone seriously think that NATO would be able to completely neutralize Russia's nuclear capability before they get a single ICBM launched?
Warmongers in the Pentagon have been trying to start a "winnable" nuclear war since the 1960s.
Perhaps we can minimize casualties to only a few tens of millions on our side, if we are lucky.
London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk?
Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time. Even if we shoot down every one of their bombers and nuke every one of their silos, they have a fleet of nuclear submarines waiting to destroy our population centers. Only a complete psychopath would continue to escalate things at this point.
> Russia has been preparing for this for a very long time.
We've all seen the "mighty" Russian military at this point and how pathetic it truly is. It's so gutted at this point it's sending old men to the frontlines as cannon fodder for the impending military defeat.
A last ditch effort to scare the world with a nuclear weapon would bring much of the western world into its borders to dismantle whatever military and industrial capability it has left. Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave.
There would be no WWIII. It would be the end of the Russian empire and all of the Russian oligarchs would carve up the remnants (Prigozhin, Kadyrov, etc).
ps- the oligarchs are likely to do it anyway, but they prefer to get the spoils before the West destroys the infrastructure.
> Any nuclear subs would be hunted by superior Navies to a watery grave.
That is a fantasy. Even if we knew exactly where all of the subs were, we could never hope to destroy every single one before any of them fires off its payload.
And why would the crews of these subs willingly go to a watery grave without launching their nukes, especially if they were backed into a corner.
Do you understand that tens of millions of civilians could die if a single submarine fired missile is launched?
urban combat is not working for them. but their rockets are working. just you can't conquer using rockets. you need to go door to door in a prolonged war
russians burned down couple of houses and villages around Belgorod while using S-300 for destroying civilian ground targets in Kharkiv. They have tank companies with some tanks unable to reload or turn the turret. Plenty of recordings from BTRs with jammed turrets/guns. Just a couple of days ago some russian soldier uploaded a video of them shooting rpg-7s without removing shaped charge safety pins. Recruits receiving rusted thru AK47 is a classic.
Consensus is their soviet era weapons are falling apart, and on top of that they dont know how to use them.
... against soft targets, which just add to the list of war crimes. Shoigu et al. will spend the rest of their days behind bars should the West nab them before they fall out of windows.
Ukraine isn't what's at stake here. Give in to Russia, and local conflicts will flare up all over the world, Russia escalating to Nuclear would definitely lead to WW3 one way or another, but I'd sure prefer it being World VS Russia instead of free for all that giving in to Russian agression will spark.
First of all, it’s not Russia vs. the World, it’s Russia vs. NATO. India has literally said that Europe’s problems are not the world’s problems, China has been officially declared as an enemy of NATO. Africa has not forgotten the suffering at the hands of their former colonial masters. South America still remembers the coups they went through.
The only other countries in the world aligned with NATO are Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Secondly, conflicts are flaring around Russia because it’s weakened. This is a repeat of what happened after the fall of the USSR, with civil wars exploding in former satellites.
Thirdly, Ukraine is what’s at stake here. But NATO joined the war and now NATO’s reputation or whatever’s left of it is also at stake by own choice.
why would an outcome in this conflict have a deciding factor in other conflicts that would be predicated on their own set of issues and would involve different kinds of people of different abilities with different agendas? This looks like an unneccessary generalization, as there's no way to tell if the same conflicts wouldn't flare up if Russia were peaceful.
It already happened: Budapest memorandum wasn't held, in the long run countries around the globe will seek to get nukes because only nuclear deterrence will work against a stronger attacker. If you allow one to blackmail others to get territories you are opening Pandoras box and others will repeat it if it shows to be a successful strategy.
That is nonsense.
When the US attacks other sovereign nations than it's a freedom fight that can't be televised, when someone else does it it's an evil act of aggression.
Yes, it's very tiring. If you're an American, use your vote to demand answers from leaders. If you live in a democracy, reach your politicians, bring the issue on the international level. If you're not in a democracy, work towards the ability to influence the better behavior - that is, work towards democracy.
I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.
> I don't read their comment as rooting for anything like WWIII: simply stating a fact that an action as stupid as using nukes there will have military consequences from the West.
So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.
How do you read NATO "neutralizing" all nuclear threats, other than a direct attack on Russian nuclear assets? A direct attack on Russian nuclear assets will start WWIII.
Unless NATO can neutralize every single Russian nuclear sub all over the world all at once, then how can we prevent Russia from firing nuclear weapons at our cities, or at least our military assets?
Russia has more advanced hyper-sonic missiles than NATO, and they have already used them with conventional warheads in Ukraine. We don't even have the capacity to effectively track Russian hyper-sonic missiles. Russia has a clear advantage with nuclear first strikes. And it is profoundly stupid and irresponsible for NATO to risk those consequences.
> So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine.
No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry.
Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will.
Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
In other words, the doormat strategy. We already tried it with Crimea, it doesn’t work. Do you think Putin would be content with half of Ukraine? Will you keep groveling as he takes more and more?
> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk?
If the world lets Russia get away with using a nuke with no serious repercussions it will likely lead to a serious increase in nuclear proliferation and destabilise the world.
Because if Russia can nuke Ukraine with no consequences why can’t other nuclear powers?
Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.
It's a bit too late for that, there is already a precedent set.
> Because of this the best and most stabilising thing that can happen if Russia uses a nuke is a devastating and overwhelming response that shows the world what happens if you nuke another country.
Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?
It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?
It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.
Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?
> Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"?
NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia with conventional weapons but they won’t do that.
My guess is that you will see something like the entirety of the Black Sea fleet sunk or a bunch of air bases wiped off the face of the earth.
Or something like Russian positions in Ukraine being devastated by the west.
I don’t think you’ll see much of a strike against Russia proper unless the attack comes from there.
> It is as if you imagine that Russia would just sit there and do nothing as you devastate and "overwhelm" it. Srsly?
Russia cannot even protect its soldiers and fleet in Ukraine from the Ukrainian navy and airforce in what way will Russia protect themselves from the much more technologically advanced NATO?.
> It weirds me out how some people are still so hard on "watchagonnado" politics, despite everything that had happened last half a year.
> Did everyone already forget all that previous "wathcagonnado", that had now escalated to hundreds of thousands casualties, millions refugees and almost total leveling of half of Ukraine?
The only thing that got us where we are now is the colonial expansionist goals of Russia.
If Russia wants to escalate to unprecedented levels that haven’t been scene for 70 years then they need to expect to have a retaliation against them.
The current sanctions and weapons have nothing to do with nukes, the west can go much harder on both if they wanted.
If you thinking Russia using a nuke wouldn’t cause there country to collapse internally due to the response your kidding yourself.
Russia has been threatening nukes for 8 months now and people have repeatedly crossed whatever line Russia drew in the sand.
That’s because Russia doesn’t want to nuke anyone cause they know the response will be devastating, what Russia wants to do is threaten nukes to get there way.
So you are blaming "warmongers in the Pentagon" for Russia theoretically dropping the first nuke? Wouldn't warmongers in the Kremlin be the responsible party?
This sounds familiar. Chamberlain's appeasement to tyranny.
Giving Putin what he asks for would kick the can down the road for couple years, too. Meanwhile, a genocidal antagonistic ideological social group, this Russian regime, will gladly spend the time preparing for more war. Putin's speech is a demand for a ceasefire in exchange for annexation. It's illegal on the face of it, aside from being unethical to agree to it.
There is no trusting the Russian regime, at all. No peace treaty with Russia is trustworthy. They are already signatories to agreements saying they would not do the very goddamn thing they are doing right now.
>London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about)
We know this how? We can't verify it either way, but I think it would be appropriate and useful for Xi and Mobi to ask if Russia is abiding by at least this prior agreement, given the proclivity to disregard their other more important agreements.
It is not only Ukraine that is at stake here. Putin will not stop at Ukraine if we give in. Next he will try with a NATO member (e.g. Baltic countries), if we repeat the same fear about ww3 and nuclear war, it is the same situation as of now (except that Russia is stronger with Ukraine occupation).
Since when do nukes target "population" and since when is it a success metrics of a nuclear strike?
Nukes target industrial and economic centers. Both NATO and Russia have enough nukes for at least 1% to bypass missile defense end ensure mutual industrial and economic collapse.
Most of the global population would likely survive, it's just that there won't be any NATO or Russia anymore, just random tribes of survivors.
Which 5% of NATO's protectorate population do you consider an acceptable loss? Will losing the London or New York metro area be worth it? That is probably still <5% the population.
Maybe we can be ok with just having Lisbon or Munich or Lion incinerated instead?
Would the mirror image of U.S.'s Curtis LeMay in Russia choose to bomb to the West or East of the dividing line in the mind of James Baker when Michael Gorbachev's Soviet Union came to an historic end? And? France takes revenge...