[skolos]

There was lots of discussion within Russian and Ukrainian war analytics that nukes (at least tactical) are useless in this war for the following reasons:

- they would not change much on battlefield - there is no large concentrations that you can nuke - everything is dispersed

- nuking urban centers again won't change much on battlefield but would alienate China

- Russia's equipment is known to be not most reliable/maintained and worst that can happen to Russia is them trying to nuke and nukes not working

[ExoticPearTree]

Nuking all the major population centers would pretty much destroy the ability of Ukraine to manufacture weapons in any meaningful number and it would also deprive its army of any new soldiers, no reinforcements, no food supplies and so on. I think it will change the course of the war pretty fast and pretty drastically.

[squidbeak]

You're mistaken. A significant portion of Ukraine's manufacturing now happens abroad, out of Russia's reach. Meanwhile, a large part of its domestic production is decentralized and widely distributed. (You can easily find snobbish and pejorative comments by Rheinmetall's CEO about this.)

Nuclear weapon use would lead to no meaningful military success, but it would immediately alienate the superpower Russia depends on in almost every way. China will not tolerate any nation using nuclear weapons. With its extremely dense population, it can't afford a modern wartime precedent to be set for their use.

[throwaway85825]

Nuclear war is inherently global. The fallout would poison the world for decades. It's a red line for everyone else that has an at sea deterrent.

[ExoticPearTree]

Maybe I'm dumb, but what good are they then if you cannot use them to annihilate your enemy?

[skolos]

deterrent - no one starts war with a country that has nukes