Putin is losing his war badly, so bad he threatened nukes. What should the response be if he does?

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,208
11,738
Earth
4AF2C124-4593-4637-B4A7-56A4E9E92168.jpeg
 

dfw_sailor

Super Anarchist
1,473
608
DFW
Oh, I can distinguish the difference just fine; there's no doubt about the atmospheric CO2 level rises and who's responsible for THAT. I'm still waiting on people actually getting serious about addressing the issues. Until that happens, it's just noise. And maybe I'll get a deep waterfront place though so far the rate of change in sea level doesn't give me much hope of that.

Still comes back to the question though. WHAT level do you wish to freeze things like sea level rise, given most of us are living on the fringes of inundated land, and HOW do you propose to accomplish that?

What Meli goes on about WRT populations and 'ownership' of land is similar to claiming that the sea level should go back to what it was 20K years ago. Pointless and idiotic trying to pick a point in time...

FKT

Although sea level rise is more than a little issue, humanity can cope largely by rebuilding infrastructure over time.

I am becoming far more concerned about the inability of nature to speed up evolution to cope with relatively fast - decades vs millions of years - change in habitat.

I could go on, but I'd depress myself further and I still have to paint the cockpit.
 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,067
3,243
Tasmania, Australia
Although sea level rise is more than a little issue, humanity can cope largely by rebuilding infrastructure over time.

I am becoming far more concerned about the inability of nature to speed up evolution to cope with relatively fast - decades vs millions of years - change in habitat.

I could go on, but I'd depress myself further and I still have to paint the cockpit.

I feel your pain - my boat is on the hard ATM and all the white paint needs sanding back and totally re-doing. Big time paint film failure. I am not happy about it. Fortunately the epoxy primer under it is fine.

And I think (hah) I've finished the hot work, so when I repaint the deck I shouldn't have any more orange pox spots...

FKT
 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,518
3,346

Putin is losing his war badly, so bad he threatened nukes. What should the response be if he does?


The most likely first use of a nuke by Putin would be a tactical nuke and would likely not be used on a population center. It would be part of an "escalate to deescalate" plan to cow Ukraine and NATO into accepting Russian demands. Hence, it would be used as part of a negotiation strategy to end the war on favorable terms.

Therefore, the response outlined by the US would have to be to preemptively inform Russia and other frenemies (China most especially) exactly how NATO would respond. This would be in concert with other NATO member states repeating the same thing.

Putin started these negotiations by referring to his nuclear options. This was a sign of weakness, since using tactical nukes is part of of Soviet doctrine when losing a war with a NATO member state. If you are winning on the ground you don't have to go nuclear.

The response would likely have four components. Political, economic, soft and loud military options.

Politically, beyond the finger wagging and shouting, huge pressure would be brought to bear on China to disavow their rogue ally, and this would likely be an effective step since nothing jeopardizes China's future like a nuclear exchange. Other states would be part of our political response, but I think China is the only really important one.

Economic: sanctions turn into confiscation of assets. Cutting the oligarchs off at the knees means Putin himself needs a tourniquet. Mansions and buildings in NY and London represent Russia's wealth taken from its citizens, and stripping current leaders of those assets would be the heaviest blow dealt and the most overt and punishing blow from the overall response.

Loud, or public military options would be supplying Ukraine with more effective weapon systems, intelligence and training. We'd put boots on the ground in Ukraine.

We would also decimate the unit(s) that delivered the strike.

If they were air assets, then one or two airfields with tens of aircraft would be leveled and a no-fly zone instituted. If it was a naval unit that launched the nuke, then very large holes will appear in a couple capital ships. This would be explained on worldwide TV platforms. Biden would take an interview with Al Jazeera as well as FOX News.

The soft military option would be dirty tricks I don't know about: chemical attacks on Russian fuel systems, cyber assaults screwing up their manufacturing yields and quality. Russian propellers would mysteriously fail, ruining main shafts and throwing engines off their mounts. A freighter carrying irreplaceable missile systems would mysteriously sink in a weak storm. And along Russia's extensive border with NATO, electronic warfare systems fry.

Letting Russia and China know how we intend to respond (and hinting at the rest) before they test the waters is crucial to our response. I think its been an ongoing process, TBH.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,204
9,586
Eastern NC
More than that. I think the NATO response should be immediate and massive, taking out Russia's air/missile defenses and their power and transportation grid. I'm not an expert at this kind of communication but it should be made clear to them, in terms familiar in their culture, calmly, and with details that will be convincing... no macho bluster... that the consequences would be disastrous for Russia and for Putin.
 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,518
3,346
Hmm. I'm anticipating an airburst over the Black Sea and don't think your response fits that scenario. Your response seems more calibrated to a Russian strike against a sparsely populated area causing radioactive fallout which affects the EU.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,204
9,586
Eastern NC
Hmm. I'm anticipating an airburst over the Black Sea and don't think your response fits that scenario. Your response seems more calibrated to a Russian strike against a sparsely populated area causing radioactive fallout which affects the EU.
Why an air burst over the Black Sea? The UKR have no significant navy. I'd tend to assume that Putin would launch a nuke against a target worthy of a nuke.

My suggestion may be better as a staged response. If you go all-in then they have no reason to not go all-in first. Step One, air defenses (of course) and all transport lines between Russia and UKR, on the Russian side, and to the Black Sea. Throw in Putin's dacha as a little incentive. Tell them enough details that they know a saturation strike is ready and that it will leave them with very significantly less ability to wage war in UKR. Turn loose the Pentagon thinkers to say what should be Stage 2 (if needed), another saturation strike that will leave Russia with NO ability to wage war in UKR and serious economic troubles for the coming winter. Stage 3 would be to put Russia into a freeze & starve scenario for the coming winter, you can't wage war when your entire population is depending on international charity. We would have to ramp up missile production and deploy a few more strike units to NATO areas, I'm sure some of this is in place already but not all.
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,945
2,169
Hmm. I'm anticipating an airburst over the Black Sea and don't think your response fits that scenario. Your response seems more calibrated to a Russian strike against a sparsely populated area causing radioactive fallout which affects the EU.
I think an airburst over the black sea is an option. Maybe the artic or the pacific are also options.


That's proof of intention to use.

And makes for interesting discussions about how do you respond to someone nuking nothing...
 

Latest posts




Top