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

[Mark_K]

The Laconian "If".

After invading Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta: "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again." The Spartan ephors replied with a single word: "If"

 

[Mid]

"If".

Biggest word in the English Language.

 

[Ishmael]

Biggest word in the English Language.

Also a very entertaining movie.

 

[3to1]

You really are a tense little cup cake.

you really would be hilarious in a dunking tank.

 

[badlatitude]

Russia won't be deploying tactical nukes any time soon - Arms control experts​

Thomas E. Graham - Russia expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US diplomat; and

Jon Wolfsthal - Former advisor to President Obama, now a senior policy advisor with Global Zero, the international movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons

contributed to a BBC discussion on
What should we make of Russia's nuclear threats?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct33ph

The principal reasons are

1. All the tactical nukes are in deep storage, and have been since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin was (justifiably) concerned that corrupt officials might try to sell some off to ppl with deep pockets.

2. Nobody on the battlefield has any experience (or training) on how to use them. They will probably work, but the yields, and blast areas would be guess work. There's not much point firing one if you might incinerate your own people.

The consensus is that if Putin goes nuclear, he will do so by way of a demonstration - a big strategic nuke on something symbolic, like Snake Island.

 

[Rain Man]

Russia won't be deploying tactical nukes any time soon - Arms control experts​

Thomas E. Graham - Russia expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US diplomat; and

Jon Wolfsthal - Former advisor to President Obama, now a senior policy advisor with Global Zero, the international movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons

contributed to a BBC discussion on
What should we make of Russia's nuclear threats?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct33ph

The principal reasons are

1. All the tactical nukes are in deep storage, and have been since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin was (justifiably) concerned that corrupt officials might try to sell some off to ppl with deep pockets.

2. Nobody on the battlefield has any experience (or training) on how to use them. They will probably work, but the yields, and blast areas would be guess work. There's not much point firing one if you might incinerate your own people.

The consensus is that if Putin goes nuclear, he will do so by way of a demonstration - a big strategic nuke on something symbolic, like Snake Island.

Snake Island is way too close to Romania, which is in NATO. It would trigger Article 5.

 

[badlatitude]

Snake Island is way too close to Romania, which is in NATO. It would trigger Article 5.

Putin will think of something

 

[jhc]

Snake Island is way too close to Romania, which is in NATO. It would trigger Article 5. s the Russian self sabotage of the Nord pipelines a trigger for article 5?

Is the Russian self sabotage of the Nord pipelines a trigger for article 5?

 

[Ishmael]

Is the Russian self sabotage of the Nord pipelines a trigger for article 5?

I'm all in favour of letting Putin keep poking himself in the eye with a sharp pencil, as long as he sticks to his favourite theme of Making Russia Worse Again. If he blows up someone else's pipeline, then Nato can start poking him in the other eye.

 

[sparau]

Well when we, USA, virtually support the entire financial existence of NATO , we should have a weighted say

Keep in mind that most of the money goes to the USA, you just get extra revenue from elsewhere...

The United States is home to five of the world’s 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent of total arms sales by the world’s 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...rs-profiting-from-war-weapons-sales/39092315/

 

[sparau]

is it really @mikewof ’s position that, with Putin threatening to use nukes, after invading his neighbor, that it’s Great Britain that is the real threat to peace?

I can guess you are American by the requirement to have a black and white choice of sound bite length.
Is it really your position that the UK doing that now doesn't add to the threat of nuclear war?

 

[Olsonist]

I can guess you are American by the requirement to have a black and white choice of sound bite length.
Is it really your position that the UK doing that now doesn't add to the threat of nuclear war?

The UK doing what now?

 

[sparau]

The UK doing what now?

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will grow its nuclear warhead stockpile by more than 40% to ensure its security in a more risky global environment

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-nuclear-weapons-idUSKBN2B81N4

 

[Raz'r]

I can guess you are American by the requirement to have a black and white choice of sound bite length.
Is it really your position that the UK doing that now doesn't add to the threat of nuclear war?

What the UK is doing is likely doing very little to increase or decrease the risk of an overall war.

 

[mikewof]

Russia and China have been behind every hostile action since the end of WWII

Except for the tribal wars due to British and European colonialism.

But doesn't what you wrote describe the USA as well? We started with the Dulles Brothers and then graduated to general policy to bomb people with brownish skin.

 

[sparau]

What the UK is doing is likely doing very little to increase or decrease the risk of an overall war.

Yes, perhaps although it seems very unlikely to decrease. Perhaps it is just hyperbole by historians but it seems multiple small actions by countries preceded the two world wars...

 

[mikewof]

What the UK is doing is likely doing very little to increase or decrease the risk of an overall war.

Can't agree with that. They have tampered with the NPT which will weaken the treaty for all signatories and potential signatories. What kind of politics does a person need to see a violation of the biggest treaty in world history as inconsequential?

 

[mikewof]

Yes, perhaps although it seems very unlikely to decrease. Perhaps it is just hyperbole by historians but it seems multiple small actions by countries preceded the two world wars...

And we needed India and Pakistan on board, we were getting close to that, and now we're facing this bullshit. When North Korea violated the NPT the community came down hard. But the posh tea-drinkers? Asymmetric response that demonstrates our latent favoritism for people with light skin versus darker skin.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

It almost seems like Putin is better at sending people to kill those who are not expecting it than he is at sending armies to fight those who are.

 

[Ishmael]

He remains a Master Strategist.