[reducesuffering]

> I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine.

Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we respond, then how they respond…

[Someone]

> But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine.

General Petraeus is a retiree who didn’t officially speak for NATO or the US government. That gives NATO and the US government some wiggle room.

My guess is that that’s a possible response, but not a guaranteed one. Let’s say there’s a detonation high above the Black Sea with zero direct victims and a prognosis of very few indirect victims due to long term effects of radiation (effectively more fireworks than weapon). I don’t see NATO or the US government sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet for that. But who knows?

[Ekaros]

And I believe in that case Russia would be entirely in its right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against capitals of these attacking countries.

[mytailorisrich]

Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?

To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia.

Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.

[sgt101]

It isn't Iraq especially in the sense that Iraq had no where to go. On the other hand Russia can get the ** out of Ukraine and then carry on (more or less) as before. Yes, their economy is totally doomed now because it depends on energy that they are going to have a struggle to sell - for 10 years at least, but they do have a deescalation option. Iraq did not. Ukraine does not.

[atoav]

> Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?

Under certain viewpoints it is the difference between attacking the US command in Iraq and striking troups in New York.

The black fleet is stationed on annexed land as of the view of most UN member states. An attack on troups stationed on foreign soil is not the same as an attack on troups stationed e.g. in the capital of an country. The black fleet are military targets on the soil/waters of an invaded country in an attack war. This is the status most foreign ministries would tell you the black fleet has currently.

The question now is: What are the consequences of doing nothing, should Russia deploy tactical nukes?

Most analysts would say there are bigger consequences to doing nothing than to doing something of limited scale unless your goal is normalizing nuke deployment (very bad idea).

So where would you retaliate instead?

[mrjin]

Were you seriously talking about laws? For those super powers, they are the law as long as they can win the war.

[atoav]

Yes and no. These superpowers are playing their power games on a world stage. As such they sometimes need the crowd on their side in order to win. That means that thin veneer of law does indeed count. After all each nation tries to keep their population under the believe that they are indeed the good ones.

That means war cannot move unrestricted from the rules that govern it. Or let's say it can, but at a (often significant) cost.

[mrjin]

Weren't any nukes onboard with Russian Black See fleet? I guess in their position, they wouldn't mind to take the whole world down with them by launching all nukes onboard?