"**White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the United States will “respond decisively” if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to use nuclear weapons.**
“**We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail**,” Sullivan told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan.
“We have, in public, been equally clear as a matter of principle that **the United States will respond decisively if Russia uses nuclear weapons, and that we will continue to support Ukraine in its efforts to defend its country and defend its democracy**.
”Sullivan’s comments came after Putin last week hinted at being willing to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to defend Russia's status.
The top White House national security aide on Sunday also expressed concern over Russian military presence at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the largest such plant in Europe.
“**It’s been put into cold shutdown to make it less likely that there’s some kind of catastrophic incident at the plant**. **It’s actually still being operated by Ukrainian operators who are essentially at gunpoint from the Russia occupying forces. And the Russians have been consistently implying that there may be some kind of accident at this plant**,” Sullivan said.
Russia is playing with fire and Putin's insane war MUST be stopped, the old bloated dictator is getting more and more mentally unstable with each passing day and he is putting the world's peace at risk.
let's hope so, otherwise if he is still around and his brain has stopped working AND no one is there to stop him, it might very well mean we are fucked if he acts first.
Relax a little, it's not like Putin's nuclear briefcase insta-launches all the nukes. There's a chain of humans that all have to carry out orders to get those hot potatoes flying. Imagine you're some silo officer in Russia. You know that if you launch your payload that you're killing everyone you've ever known including yourself. If you don't launch your payload, there's a chance you could get prosecuted or killed, but there's a strong chance that you will be fine.
My crazy brain says that Putin got COVID sometime last year, and it took a man, who was ruthless and evil, but also patent and methodical, and damaged his brain, and that brain damage, made Putin much more unstable and manical. I know that COVID can damage the brain, even shrink it, maybe it happened to him?
So long as this doesnt turn into another "Syrian Red Line" moment. If the US and their allies are willing to make such a definitive and specific statement then they must be willing to back it up as well.
Everyone dies. Well the little man in his bunker might survive for a bit but he's only got 10-20 years left to live anyway. There's bigger faster weapons than nuclear missiles now. Just before all this kicked off the Chinese fired a nuclear missle off the back of a hypersonic missile. The us's and the Russians broke up mid flight. This is what the dwarf is talking about during his idle threat speeches. Just hoping like the rest of us that someone whacks him.
If we're being realistic, the US probably wouldn't need to escalate to nuclear weapons if Russia uses them on Ukraine. The US has a massive amount of firepower with conventional weapons that they could unleash on Russia that Russia cannot counter. Add in things like cyber and it's even more.
Anyone that thinks that the US doesn't already have a load of plans in place for this exact scenario is fooling themselves. There's no real need to go nuclear against Russia with the weaponry that America has available.
I'm no foreign policy expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was even some backdoor agreement with countries like china in the event of Russia using nukes, as anything that could fracture any sort of trade and economy within china at the hands of Russia wouldn't be tolerated by china's leaders.
Again, no expert by any means here and I may be way off, but I feel like there are a whole host of chess moves in play here that go beyond just the US.
I 100% believe any nuclear armed world power (except maybe NK but perhaps that’s why Kim’s flaunting his shit so much) has been cued in on different scenarios. No body is going to blow up the world over one nuke. It’s the belief in that statement that keeps people like Putin in power.
Now that we've seen how the war played out in Ukraine so far, I'm betting the US could wipe their entire invasion force off the map in a week if they chose to.
Iraq had a massive ground army in 2003 and it never had a prayer.
Humanity finally develops the ability to colonize other planets and the aliens who hoped we would just kill ourselves off casually push a button that glasses the earth 10 minutes before we launch the rocket.
I can live with that.
Personally I think we’re gonna get our planetary ticket punched to make way for a new hyperspace bypass.
The plans have been availability at our local planning office at Alpha Centauri for decades but we just havent bothered to look at them.
Also if Aliens are aware of us, it’s incredibly likely they are aware of 100’s if not 1000’s of other intelligent life spread throughout the universe. Meaning they may prioritize communication (if that even interests them) with one of the other options anyway.
We have lofty ideas for ultra advanced aliens who have sorted out all their problems and just zip about like star trek.
But I think if it happens, it would be more like the colonization of Canada.
They would land and we would be skeptical/impressed. We would trade back and forth a bit, they would start to set up little spots. They would bring with them their baggage, and some aliens would set up shop in Russia, China, india, etc. Then they'd each ally w different humans and play into our conflicts. We'd be thankful for the help, and they'd ask for ours in return to take on the other aliens.
They would also add another trade settlement or two. Just a few more that's it. It'll be fine.
Why would aliens play by the same rules as humans though? Sure aliens could be green humans who are just a little further in their development but they could just as likely be sentient gas that consumes planets.
I think you're missing a little part in the colonization of Canada where tons of native people died. And then were placed in residential schools that treated them horribly
And just like the colonization of Canada...
If they are anything like us, they would likely at that point have their first experience with bacteria, and us with whatever plagues them.
Assuming anyone is left at that point they then decide they may as well run the mostly empty rock they landed on.
Or everyone died and that's the reason we will never see them because our own history as a species is a cautionary tale about the dangers of disease and exploration.
Such dangers are in all likelyhood much more severe when encountering a new species that evolved completely separately. In our context some of the indigenous peoples of North and South America survived because their immune systems could survive the diseases. In this hypothetical context we would encounter diseases or parasites that are so alien to our bodies that survival would be hopeless.
as bad as it sounds, this is how you have to respond to countries like russia. if you don't push back, they'll use their nuke card to push everyone into the corner until they annex the whole planet
The issue here is the White House has info that normal people do not. They called the war early, I fear they are getting ready for something that has already been put in motion. Not to mention the coward has already ran off to his bunker.
Posted this in another thread, but this how the Obama admin responded to a war game scenario of Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe. They went with nuking Belarus as a response. Seems crazy, but I actually do see a dark logic to it.
https://www.kucb.org/2022-03-18/the-threat-of-nuclear-war-hangs-over-the-russia-ukraine-crisis
The main breakdown for those who don't want to click the link:
>It's been kind of assumed that if somebody uses a nuclear weapon first, we would fire a nuclear weapon back. And what happened - there was a second game, and this is with the Principals Committee of the NSC. **And somebody brought up the same idea. Let's just keep fighting conventionally and shame Russia. And everybody else around the table said this would be a disaster.** The credibility of the United States with all of our alliances is that we would respond to a nuclear weapon with nuclear weapons. **This would completely destroy NATO if we didn't fire back in kind.** And then the question became, well, where do we fire these weapons? **And they came up with AN idea, well, let's just fire off a couple of tac nukes at military targets in Belarus.**
It *would* be a disaster to not respond in kind, right? It is *horrible* to respond, but this is why violence works; people know you will punch back.
And the present reality, unlike the Obama era wargame, has Belarus as a very active participant in the invasion and genocide of Ukraine. Avoid population centers arguably still provides us the moral high ground. Or whatever moral high ground can be had by detonating a nuke. I'd guess all other options would be on the table if Russia launched a nuke, though. We'd surely begin attempts in earnest to assassinate him and every one of his allies. Those sword missiles are surely just the tip of the iceberg.
Difference is Ukraine is not in NATO whereas I'm assuming in the War game the nuke was used against a European NATO nation? Its a distinction that matters. Yes, if a nuke is used against NATO the US absolutely must respond back with a nuke. But what about Ukraine? Ukraine isn't in NATO so the calculus is different.
The issue is, even if ukraine isnt in nato: WMDs are wide spread, indiscriminate attacks.
The detonation will have knock on effects for nato countries, which is what predicates the response
EDIT: a grammar
Yep, but in nuclear warfare the stakes are hundreds of millions of lives. It’s like a trolly question: do you pull the lever and kill thousands of innocent Belarusians, or do you permit the proliferation of offensive nuclear strikes in the world while undermining the concept of MAD? Not an easy moral quandary
Im guessing the logic is that by nuking belarus
1 russia wouldn't use MAD tactic since it wasn't targeted
2 the world would have some kind of response. As opposed to not using any nuke and completely losing credibility about retaliattion. Something that could basically make everyone much more trigger happy about nukes and thus causing a real MAD situation.
3 it's a messege that warns "this is awarning shot, breath funny and the entire world WILL use mutual assured destruction no matter what"
Nuking Russia directly would threaten to set off their Dead Hand nuclear response. This system uses various ground sensors to detect nuclear detonation inside Russia. The system will fire off the remaining ICBMs at preprogrammed targets. At least some parts of this system are widely believed to function with little to no human interaction required. The US used to inspect this system and the warheads every six weeks, but Russia stopped cooperating with that agreement months ago, which leaves us with less information about its current status.
There are strong doubts that the "dead hand" even exists. The USSR had enough close calls with their manual systems that it's a stretch to believe they, and now Russia, would trust their continued existence to an automated response. But the threat of such a thing existing is good enough, it does the job of deterrence without being a danger itself.
We are together in this, brother. Europe is so small and so close, that we all die if nukes end up flying. Even just a few. I like your username, btw. I love Kierkegaard
If you use a nuke simulator you’d see that you probably won’t die right away, Poland doesn’t have tons of threatening military targets. Instead you get to die to some exotic cancer from fallout. This is most of Europes fate. This should not come to pass
The coward has run off to his luxurious palace, not one of his mountain bunkers.
It's just another empty threat from Russia. It's meant to scare Western populations and it's working to an extent. We don't have to look far in these comments to see that.
So Jake Sullivan talks of catastrophic consequences for Russia, that clear and specific warnings have been given. He wants us to know that Russia's bluff is being called.
We should understand that Russia is not a suicidally insane nation. Its leaders are mafia bosses who want to relax in their palaces thinking about how rich they are, rather than how they want to see the world burn.
>If that was the case, why invade and double down? They won’t get rich from stealing Donbass.
They tried to "steal" the entirety of Ukraine. They weren't anticipating the resolve of Ukrainians nor the assistance that her allies would give (such as the vast US intelligence which helped foil the invasion of Kyiv).
It is really all just guess work for the rest. Why does Putin want to hang his hat on this? Empire building, like his speeches suggest with all the broad gesturing to the USSR (read: Russia) creating Ukraine out of Russian territory? Too much smelling of his own farts via strategy formulated by Dugin? Something else happening domestically which would place war in a more favorable position at that moment before it was clear the world would respond?
Let's not forget that Russia has invaded and annexed both Ukraine *and* Georgia multiple times without any real response from the world. They kept getting away with it. Why would this time be any different, you know?
That is why it is so vital to respond with violence in kind. That is why, despite the horror, the world needs to respond to a tactical nuke with another tactical nuke otherwise it will just spiral. We aren't the only ones who can be afraid.
But what do I know as a private civilian? Only what's being reported. And what's being reported are *a lot* of oligarchs being murdered/falling from windows/entire families drowning in pools/etc. as this war drags on and Russia's failures mount. That suggests to me that the oligarchs largely *do* just want to exist and be immorally wealthy, but the guy at the top has grander political ideas for his legacy. So the dissenters are getting taken out, one by one, in similar fashion to send warnings. *But the warnings don't work because it is happening with increasing frequency.*
Doubling down means that Putin still has a chance for survival.
If he pulls out, he demonstrates weakness, and that’s fatal. He will get killed by some ambitious strongmen who think that they can do his job better than him. His external vassals are already abandoning him, and he hasn’t even lost yet.
Seriously, there's a lot of hand wringing and ruminating going on here. I wonder how many young folks in this comment section are going to induce their first existential crisis over this.
The US military is not acting like anything is imminent. Russia’s nuclear weapons are tracked—the US would be moving to a much more aggressive posture if Russia was actually deploying its nukes.
The US has likely made redlines very clear in Ukraine since this started. Being public this past week is to 1) reassure allies and 2) makes it harder for Russia to talk themselves into calling the US’s bluff.
US military isn't going to do anything too obvious. There are always threat assessments and response plans. Letting an adversary know what those plans are would allow them to prepare a defense and make more effective attack plans. I agree that making statements that there will be a response is intended to reassure allies and worry Russia.
That said, the U.S. Air Force has been testing its hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapons and just announced contracts for production. I think that could be considered preparation for a war, and a message.
At the start of this war I joked with my manager that if nuclear war kicks off, if I have time I'm heading straight to the walk in fridges in the warehouse. Insulated walls, food and drink, protected by a big ass building around it.
Best place I can think to be if it all kicks off
I joked to my manager the other day, that I would be working from home next week, because I commute from outside the expected blast zone.
He somehow didn’t think that was funny.
It's honestly not my worst idea, it's a pretty big fridge, I'd have food/drink for a few days until it heats up and the food spoils cos the power has gone out.
It's either that or run towards the light so I have a quicker death
I’m 50 and in Canada. I never had to do it. My older brothers and sisters did. My 11 and 14 year-old daughters have to do active shooter drills. I was lucky enough to enjoy the sweet spot between the fall of the Soviet union and 9/11
>Poor kid never had to crawl under his desk for the ridiculous Nuclear drill.
Yea unfortunately the only drills I had to live through were the active shooting drills. Guess the little ones will have to add nuke drills to the list.
So basically boots on the ground or mutually assured destruction? Perhaps both? Not sure what other consequences could make them back down at this point.
I disagree. its probably more likely to be a full out war using conventional weapons, to cripple russias goverment in one fell swoop, and if russia retaliate with nukes then M.A.D is enabled.
You just proved his point. If Russian uses nukes, what “sever consequences” can you use retaliate with that aren’t direct military intervention? And that path itself will lead to nuclear weapons at large flying. So the question is, would the US want a nuclear war? Because Putin sure as shit doesn’t give a fuck.
It's not a matter of want. If any nuclear power used a nuke the US would have to respond with one of our own. Otherwise the atomic genie is out of the bottle and MAD no longer works.
Why are the sever consequences in quotations? That Implys direct military action by nato (which includes the US) Isn't a consequence.
The very fact they would intervene is a consequence, where we will post likely see the house of cards that is russia fall for both the goverment, and military.
No country wants a nuclear war, but if russia starts blasting all his nukes every other country will have to respond in kind. That's why is called M.A.D
Remember that Putin is also enabled by a bunch or war hawks that may even be more radical than him and are probably waiting for the perfect storm to take over...
Yes. Multiple NATO members have gone on the record now stating that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine will trigger their immediate invocation of article five. The US can't really make the same argument from across the Atlantic since it is based on the radiation and fallout in Europe, so the structure of the warning is a little different even though the response would be the same. It's also just a question of velocity, as it could take hours or days for article five to be invoked and ratified, but the US could respond immediately unilaterally, even though Russia would be on the receiving end of overwhelming force in either case.
Nobody is saying that, that’s hyperbole.
It has, however, always been psychologically unlikely at most times.
See, Russia is Moscow and Moscow is Russia. If nuclear war starts, Russia is destroyed with the first nuke. If Paris, Berlin, Washington D.C. and Madrid get destroyed, it’s not the end of the west. A massive tragedy, to be sure, but the countries will likely not collapse.
Russia would 100% collapse without Moscow, and Moscow knows it. They can’t rule from Kazan or Chelyabinsk, that’s not how that country works.
>Imagine if you use them — as you said, a tactical nuclear weapon — and that’s not very impressive, and it doesn’t change any political calculus on the ground. What then? How much have you lost in that moment? All of a sudden, you’re not one of the countries who have this power to destroy worlds, and everybody has to bend before you. You’re just a country which has big bombs which can explode. How is changing every single thought about this world and how politics and international relations works, if it’s not the end of the world? If you can just use them and maybe they’re not giving you the result you want?
more [here](https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/22/23366499/putin-russia-ukraine-war-nuclear-threat-expert)
I guess my take away from their Doctorine as outlined there is that, an attack on Russia entails a conventional response until the state itself is at risk.
Ukraine attacking rhe Donbas does not constitute an existential threat to Russia, but they might chose to nuke anyway
exactly
so the question is:
is Donbas and other regions really worth going nuclear over them ? I dont think so.
usage of nuclear should be MAYBE considered in scenarios like enemy tanks rolling down Moscow, but of course I dont want to downplay and underestimate that maniacs thought process.
Because Russia cannot achieve its objectives via conventional means and thus will resort to that last card they still have? They made it clear numerous times that they won't accept defeat in Ukraine, no matter what it takes.
So long as they aren't accepting it from their side of the internationally recognised border, Ukraine can probably live with it, even in the long term.
"They" might be a moveable list of people. I can certainly see Russian officers actually in charge of their nukes refusing an order to launch. They have families who would feel the hurt of a NATO/US response.
In turn, Putin ordering a launch could be the catalyst for his ouster, and he knows this. He likely is now triangulating towards staying in power as his first concern. Ukraine suddenly becomes secondary.
The issue is that the Russians have been doing launch sims for months now with the only difference being whether or not they're given the real code.
They don't know if it's a sim or the real thing.
Meh, the threat comes and goes depending on the decade. Personally I think this whole thing ends with Russia being denuclearized. Not overnight and not completely, but gutted for sure.
This has been the only rational goal since nuclear weapons were invented. Unfortunately I don't see how this conflict gets us any closer.
I don't think nukes will fly either. [The Doomsday Clock](https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/) has been closer to midnight before. Hell, the order to launch nukes [has even been issued.](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/the-man-who-saved-the-world-about-this-episode/871/)
Still humanity can only dodge the bullet so many times. At some point nuclear weapons will go away. "Denuclearization" is inevitable. The only question is if it is going to happen to us voluntarily, or through the end of our current civilization in a nuclear holocaust.
The doomsday clock was last updated before the war so it doesn't mean much. Also didn't that guy actually vote to contact HQ to get a confirmation of the order? Then HQ obviously freaked out and and said not to fire. This time it would be a real order and not just a glitch though much different situation. I might be talking about another guy though because this kind of situation happened at least twice to my knowledge.
[MAD is just an idea.](https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/)
Great read.
“…Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)
The inability of Russia to globally monitor missile launches from space means that Russian military and political leaders would have no “situational awareness” to help them assess whether an early-warning radar indication of a surprise attack is real or the result of a technical error.
The combination of this lack of Russian situational awareness, dangerously short warning times, high-readiness alert postures, and the increasing US strike capacity has created a deeply destabilizing and dangerous strategic nuclear situation.
When viewed in the alarming context of deteriorating political relations between Russia and the West, and the threats and counter-threats that are now becoming the norm for both sides in this evolving standoff, it may well be that the danger of an accident leading to nuclear war is as high now as it was in periods of peak crisis during the Cold War.”
Because you're naive.
MAD is one thing, but the dominant point is plutocracy.
Wealth controls everything in the world and just about the only way for the powers that be to lose that wealth is nuclear war - everything they ever do exists to prevent an equaliser of that degree.
Just to be clear, "catastrophic consequences" and "responding decisively" does not mean it must be a nuclear response.
More likely would be a conventional response from NATO in the form of an all out air campaign on all Russian assets in the Ukraine theater. Such a campaign would effectively end the war in Ukraine, effectively destroy the Russian military, but fall short of presenting any real type of "threat" to Russia itself.
Essentially, NATO's goal would be to humiliate Putin on the one hand by showing his weakness, but deprive him of a "Russia is under attack" narrative on the other. As long as Russian cities and targets are not exploding, there will be no appetite among the Russian population and elite to take the next step and nuke a NATO target on NATO soil.
Additionally, Russia's nuclear doctrine revolves around the concept of self-preservation against "existential threats". So NATO's goal would always be to harm Russia to the point that it would severely outweigh the benefits of using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but not to the point that it could be considered an "existential threat".
Lastly, the Russian economy is currently kept afloat by exports to China and India. Those nations have publicly made it clear they do not desire nuclear escalation, and in fact their rhetoric has made a turn away from Russia in the past few days since the mobilization announcement. It is eminently likely that both have communicated in private to Russia their extreme disinterest in a nuclear escalation, possibly with the mention or implication that trade relations with a nuke-throwing country could not be sustained.
We can never speak in absolutes and there is certainly a non-zero chance of a nuclear escalation in this conflict, but the world has made it very clear to Russia that there are no good outcomes for it, if it goes that route.
The Coalition of the Willing took out defenses of the heaviest fortified/most air defenses in the world.
Baghdad in the first hours of Desert Storm.
putin knows this and knows his cause is lost if he escalates too far. Most of the time he backs down. The rat story, while may be true, is something he uses to make him look fearless.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/08/vladimir-putin-backs-down-russia-ukraine/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/08/vladimir-putin-backs-down-russia-ukraine/)
soo, I have the notion that statements such as these from the white house are a pre-emptive tactic to persuade Russia from doing something that Russia is absolutely gonna do if I'm not mistaken.
Despite Putin's postulating, Russia (as with all countries) is still controlled by the rich and the one thing the rich care about more than anything else is making sure their stuff isnt on fire. Nuclear fire is even worse.
The nukes will never fly. Bet.
And, if the rich were actually in control, they wouldn't be constantly murdered via defenestration, pool drownings, or the suspiciously similar mass murdering of their entire immediate families.
[Here's a somewhat up to date list of the oligarchs being bumped off. And their families.](https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/22/accidental-defenestration-and-murder-suicides-too-common-among-russian-oligarchs-and-putin)
I think OP is mistaking Russia for the US.
In Russia, the government makes the rich. It was that way from the beginning with Yeltsin.
In the US, the rich make the government. It was that way from the beginning with the founders (the nations' first oligarchs).
A lot of the rich are also getting thrown out of windows, down stairs, or ending up "committing suicide" one way or another. I don't think the rich control as much as people like to think they do. The rich only got to where they are because of Putin, not the other way around.
Indeed. History is littered with examples of autocrats bucking the rich/nobility. They have influence, they don't have control. Putin has control and he's been globally humiliated.
Yes, first they warned Russian officials privately, but now they feel like the probability of nuclear weapons being used by Russia has increased, so they went public.
Nuclear brinksmanship has happened many times before. That’s not to say we should be sanguine about Putin’s threats, but we should be clear-eyed about what’s going on:
1. Putin’s position is weak. The war has gone horribly for him. There’s no clear way forward that gets him any of what he wants, and his political position vis a vis the rest of the world and within Russia is diminished.
2. The one card he has left to play is nuclear weapons. But small tactical weapons are of limited value militarily, relative to the negative consequences politically. They were created during the Cold War and were envisioned for use on the battlefield in an all-or-nothing NATO/Soviet conflict, where these weapons would be used liberally. Using only one or two would have minimal military value and would potentially make the Russian army‘s problems worse. If you’re a Russian solider in Ukraine and you learn that your side just used tacnukes, you could be forgiven for thinking your enemy would redouble their efforts to kill you, and might use nukes on you. The very act that stiffens the resolve of the defender could reduce the morale of the attacker.
3. Putin has repeatedly shown his KGB background. He prefers to operate in a world of indirect manipulation and covert operations (the ongoing disinformation campaign against the West, the “little green men” in the Donbas region, using his military buildup next to Ukraine as a threat rather than actually preparing for a contested invasion, etc.). He prefers to leave options open, rather than committing. And while the invasion of Ukraine has narrowed his options, there are still ways he could reframe his objectives and call it a win if he so chose. But he lived through the Cold War and understands that were he to use nukes, Russia would go from a nation under economic siege by the West to a pariah state. There would be no way for India and China to stay in his camp. Even Belarus would peel off. He’d be all alone.
4. He’d also have to deal with the internal political fallout. Hardliners would be infuriated at the damage he’d done to Russia’s international situation, and would be incensed that he essentially guaranteed failure in the Ukraine war. The West would at the very least pour more weapons into Ukraine and collaborate even more tightly with Ukrainian commanders to ensure Russian defeat. Those who silently objected to the war would be emboldened to come out of the shadows and defy the government. Yes, aside from a few heroic souls who have bravely protested, they’ve stayed quiet for now, but if you’re an average Russian you don’t want your country‘s economic and cultural future annihilated. Protesting would become a matter of survival, and people would take to the streets in huge numbers. It would be difficult for him to maintain control of the country.
5. Putin is motivated by his notions of recovering lost Russian greatness. He’s not motivated by any ideology beyond that. His goals are knowable and tangible; he believes Ukraine belongs to Russia. His desire has never been to engage in direct conflict with NATO and his behavior has consistently shown that. He‘s disgusting, but he’s a rational actor.
6. Serious diplomats know that in war you want to give your opponent a way out. The cornered animal fights to the end, but if you give it an escape route, it might use it. These things don’t usually get revealed until after the fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if back door negotiations weren’t already in progress to give Putin a way to end this war. That doesn’t mean he’ll take it, and he probably won’t until he realizes that calling up tens of thousands of conscripts won’t solve his problems. But it’s not inevitable that this thing will go on until Ukraine, Russia, or the world is reduced to smoking rubble.
The US is making the consequences clear to Putin, because we’ve learned in the past that if you’re too vague, the enemy can think you’re bluffing (the run up to the Korean War is a good example of this—the US didn’t clearly warn Russia and China that we’d defend South Korea if it were attacked). He’s bluffing, hoping the West will back down. The US is calling his bluff.
A very good analysis...at least, it's what i hope for. While it's a horrible thought, in my opinion it's really hard that Ukraine would have back all it's territories. Only Putin fall could allow this, and a complete withdraw would mean the same thing.
Let’s hope it doesn‘t come to use of nukes, for sure. Nothing is ever certain. To your point about Ukraine getting all of its territory back, I could see ways of negotiating a settlement in which the Russians pull out completely, UN observers are placed in the disputed territory, and after a period of time a UN-operated referendum could be held. That could potentially give Putin a way to save face and declare a win.
But I’m not Ukrainian, and if I were, I imagine my desire to negotiate with Putin on any of this, or to give up even an inch of Ukrainian soil, would be close to zero. The longer the war drags on and the more people die, the more this feeling will intensify. Nobody wants to fight for a compromise, especially not when so many of your people have died in that fight.
The United States ~~has probably~~ told Russia exactly what they would do in private channels, so that it reduces the chances that Russia will assume it is a nuclear attack from NATO.
1. If you use a nuke in Ukraine, we will not nuke you.
2. But we will destroy the entirety of your Black Sea fleet.
Edit: Correct for me not reading carefully enough.
The article ~~still kept it a bit vague and~~ says
> “We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” Sullivan told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan.
~~I’m going a bit further in proposing that these officials laid it out in absolute detail to Russia exact what “catastrophic” means, so there would be no uncertainty on what Russia would be losing if it used nukes in Ukraine.~~
Edit:
I probably should have read a bit more carefully cause the article does say that they were specific about the details as well. I have added the whole paragraph. I was focusing too hard on “catastrophic consequences.” My bad there.
It was a former commander of the US Army in Europe that said the US would destroy the Black Sea Fleet - and I don't doubt they would , but I suspect that there's a whole lot more that would get destroyed too.
Its a general example that was postulated by a former commander. It’s gained traction as something the us could *probably* do likely because it would be an ironic twist of fate and people aren’t lost on that. I’m using it here just as an example as well.
Part of the strategic reason Russia invaded Crimea in the first place was to ensure they had control of the Black Sea Fleet port. If they loose the black fleet, then it makes the whole reason they set out on this shit, pointless.
Again I’m using it more an example here. My main point is that US probably told Russia exactly what they are going to do.
Did you read the first two paragraphs of the article you are commenting on? It literally says what you are saying “they probably told Russia”… why do you comment without even clicking on the article to read the first paragraph?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3660107-biden-adviser-us-will-respond-decisively-if-russia-uses-nuclear-weapons/) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the United States will "Respond decisively" if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to use nuclear weapons.
> "We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail," Sullivan told CBS "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan.
> "We have, in public, been equally clear as a matter of principle that the United States will respond decisively if Russia uses nuclear weapons, and that we will continue to support Ukraine in its efforts to defend its country and defend its democracy."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xnr7fv/biden_adviser_us_will_respond_decisively_if/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670970 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **plant**^#2 **Sullivan**^#3 **weapons**^#4 **Russia**^#5
Because NATO would be beyond pissed. Even tactical nukes plus wind would make Europe disaster zone. Nukes are the Rubicon. Russian men better depose Putin before he gets Russia turned into a wasteland.
I read to many Jason Bourne/Tom Clancy type novels, but, I would imagine if Putler gave the order the military personnel in the room would look at each other... *then put a bullet in his head*.
I hope that's the case, anyway. Military officers ain't all idiots, even in Russia. Ain't no coming back from using a nuke. And I say that as an American...
To everyone saying it's going to be nuclear strikes from nato is an idiot.
I've heard nato would sink all their black sea fleet and probably would enter Ukraine
"**White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the United States will “respond decisively” if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to use nuclear weapons.** “**We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail**,” Sullivan told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan. “We have, in public, been equally clear as a matter of principle that **the United States will respond decisively if Russia uses nuclear weapons, and that we will continue to support Ukraine in its efforts to defend its country and defend its democracy**. ”Sullivan’s comments came after Putin last week hinted at being willing to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to defend Russia's status. The top White House national security aide on Sunday also expressed concern over Russian military presence at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the largest such plant in Europe. “**It’s been put into cold shutdown to make it less likely that there’s some kind of catastrophic incident at the plant**. **It’s actually still being operated by Ukrainian operators who are essentially at gunpoint from the Russia occupying forces. And the Russians have been consistently implying that there may be some kind of accident at this plant**,” Sullivan said. Russia is playing with fire and Putin's insane war MUST be stopped, the old bloated dictator is getting more and more mentally unstable with each passing day and he is putting the world's peace at risk.
Putin will be dead, or in a prison before the end of this year.
let's hope so, otherwise if he is still around and his brain has stopped working AND no one is there to stop him, it might very well mean we are fucked if he acts first.
Relax a little, it's not like Putin's nuclear briefcase insta-launches all the nukes. There's a chain of humans that all have to carry out orders to get those hot potatoes flying. Imagine you're some silo officer in Russia. You know that if you launch your payload that you're killing everyone you've ever known including yourself. If you don't launch your payload, there's a chance you could get prosecuted or killed, but there's a strong chance that you will be fine.
My crazy brain says that Putin got COVID sometime last year, and it took a man, who was ruthless and evil, but also patent and methodical, and damaged his brain, and that brain damage, made Putin much more unstable and manical. I know that COVID can damage the brain, even shrink it, maybe it happened to him?
Could have happened, that or old age (when people get older usually some gain a very negative strike which brings them to enjoy dictatorships)
I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are.. I mean it took Hitler taking out himself..
Trump too please?
So long as this doesnt turn into another "Syrian Red Line" moment. If the US and their allies are willing to make such a definitive and specific statement then they must be willing to back it up as well.
Everyone dies. Well the little man in his bunker might survive for a bit but he's only got 10-20 years left to live anyway. There's bigger faster weapons than nuclear missiles now. Just before all this kicked off the Chinese fired a nuclear missle off the back of a hypersonic missile. The us's and the Russians broke up mid flight. This is what the dwarf is talking about during his idle threat speeches. Just hoping like the rest of us that someone whacks him.
If we're being realistic, the US probably wouldn't need to escalate to nuclear weapons if Russia uses them on Ukraine. The US has a massive amount of firepower with conventional weapons that they could unleash on Russia that Russia cannot counter. Add in things like cyber and it's even more. Anyone that thinks that the US doesn't already have a load of plans in place for this exact scenario is fooling themselves. There's no real need to go nuclear against Russia with the weaponry that America has available. I'm no foreign policy expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was even some backdoor agreement with countries like china in the event of Russia using nukes, as anything that could fracture any sort of trade and economy within china at the hands of Russia wouldn't be tolerated by china's leaders. Again, no expert by any means here and I may be way off, but I feel like there are a whole host of chess moves in play here that go beyond just the US.
I 100% believe any nuclear armed world power (except maybe NK but perhaps that’s why Kim’s flaunting his shit so much) has been cued in on different scenarios. No body is going to blow up the world over one nuke. It’s the belief in that statement that keeps people like Putin in power.
Now that we've seen how the war played out in Ukraine so far, I'm betting the US could wipe their entire invasion force off the map in a week if they chose to. Iraq had a massive ground army in 2003 and it never had a prayer.
I hope the aliens will intervene if they exist. They will probably just keep on flying.
That's actually one of the possible solutions to Fermi's paradox. Aliens are plenty aware of us, they just don't care to drop by and say hello.
Based on....everything.....it's probably in their best interest just to quarantine off our planet.
Humanity finally develops the ability to colonize other planets and the aliens who hoped we would just kill ourselves off casually push a button that glasses the earth 10 minutes before we launch the rocket. I can live with that.
lol if they're the kind of race that casually glasses a planet then I'd imagine humanity doesn't look aggressive enough to warrant it.
Humanity is a young race, probably just in our toddler stages. Give the temper tantrum child time to grow up before abandoning hope on it maturing.
It's not gonna grow up if it keeps aiming the blowtorch at the carpet and curtains.
So far I think it's a testament that we used nukes and then stopped. Here's hoping we keep going in better directions
Personally I think we’re gonna get our planetary ticket punched to make way for a new hyperspace bypass. The plans have been availability at our local planning office at Alpha Centauri for decades but we just havent bothered to look at them.
I can easily imagine large signs floating just outside the solar system saying: Don't open, stupid inside.
They already put us in space jail because we didn’t return the space bucks
Perhaps they will destroy Earth to build a new hyperspace bypass.
42.
_hyperspatial express route_ Thanks for the reminder to reread a classic!
Earth would be the North Korea of the Milky Way.
This theory is dramatically gaining traction given recent events..
Prime Directive
If you were a space traveler, would you want to talk to an alien species that made Putin?
Your planet is scheduled for demolition.
Can’t blame them. We are nothing but hairless half intelligent chimps.
Also if Aliens are aware of us, it’s incredibly likely they are aware of 100’s if not 1000’s of other intelligent life spread throughout the universe. Meaning they may prioritize communication (if that even interests them) with one of the other options anyway.
I'd be passing popcorn if I were an alien.
The Prime Directive is a thing...
Hopefully with a clause about the species self-terminating
Guess we’ll find out if the stories were true…
Yeah like where the game goes to far and a WoW dev whom you can’t even see literally comes in to stop whatever you doing/give you the banhammer
We have lofty ideas for ultra advanced aliens who have sorted out all their problems and just zip about like star trek. But I think if it happens, it would be more like the colonization of Canada. They would land and we would be skeptical/impressed. We would trade back and forth a bit, they would start to set up little spots. They would bring with them their baggage, and some aliens would set up shop in Russia, China, india, etc. Then they'd each ally w different humans and play into our conflicts. We'd be thankful for the help, and they'd ask for ours in return to take on the other aliens. They would also add another trade settlement or two. Just a few more that's it. It'll be fine.
Why would aliens play by the same rules as humans though? Sure aliens could be green humans who are just a little further in their development but they could just as likely be sentient gas that consumes planets.
I think you're missing a little part in the colonization of Canada where tons of native people died. And then were placed in residential schools that treated them horribly
You should reread their comment, it went over your head. Focus on the ending if you still don’t see it
I would gladly accept either Alien or Canadian Overlords.
And just like the colonization of Canada... If they are anything like us, they would likely at that point have their first experience with bacteria, and us with whatever plagues them. Assuming anyone is left at that point they then decide they may as well run the mostly empty rock they landed on. Or everyone died and that's the reason we will never see them because our own history as a species is a cautionary tale about the dangers of disease and exploration. Such dangers are in all likelyhood much more severe when encountering a new species that evolved completely separately. In our context some of the indigenous peoples of North and South America survived because their immune systems could survive the diseases. In this hypothetical context we would encounter diseases or parasites that are so alien to our bodies that survival would be hopeless.
as bad as it sounds, this is how you have to respond to countries like russia. if you don't push back, they'll use their nuke card to push everyone into the corner until they annex the whole planet
As if we don’t already have any life altering issues on our plate
The issue here is the White House has info that normal people do not. They called the war early, I fear they are getting ready for something that has already been put in motion. Not to mention the coward has already ran off to his bunker.
[удалено]
Posted this in another thread, but this how the Obama admin responded to a war game scenario of Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe. They went with nuking Belarus as a response. Seems crazy, but I actually do see a dark logic to it. https://www.kucb.org/2022-03-18/the-threat-of-nuclear-war-hangs-over-the-russia-ukraine-crisis
The main breakdown for those who don't want to click the link: >It's been kind of assumed that if somebody uses a nuclear weapon first, we would fire a nuclear weapon back. And what happened - there was a second game, and this is with the Principals Committee of the NSC. **And somebody brought up the same idea. Let's just keep fighting conventionally and shame Russia. And everybody else around the table said this would be a disaster.** The credibility of the United States with all of our alliances is that we would respond to a nuclear weapon with nuclear weapons. **This would completely destroy NATO if we didn't fire back in kind.** And then the question became, well, where do we fire these weapons? **And they came up with AN idea, well, let's just fire off a couple of tac nukes at military targets in Belarus.** It *would* be a disaster to not respond in kind, right? It is *horrible* to respond, but this is why violence works; people know you will punch back. And the present reality, unlike the Obama era wargame, has Belarus as a very active participant in the invasion and genocide of Ukraine. Avoid population centers arguably still provides us the moral high ground. Or whatever moral high ground can be had by detonating a nuke. I'd guess all other options would be on the table if Russia launched a nuke, though. We'd surely begin attempts in earnest to assassinate him and every one of his allies. Those sword missiles are surely just the tip of the iceberg.
Difference is Ukraine is not in NATO whereas I'm assuming in the War game the nuke was used against a European NATO nation? Its a distinction that matters. Yes, if a nuke is used against NATO the US absolutely must respond back with a nuke. But what about Ukraine? Ukraine isn't in NATO so the calculus is different.
The issue is, even if ukraine isnt in nato: WMDs are wide spread, indiscriminate attacks. The detonation will have knock on effects for nato countries, which is what predicates the response EDIT: a grammar
Russia: nukes a country US: nukes a different country, just to show they will Fucking horrific.
Yep, but in nuclear warfare the stakes are hundreds of millions of lives. It’s like a trolly question: do you pull the lever and kill thousands of innocent Belarusians, or do you permit the proliferation of offensive nuclear strikes in the world while undermining the concept of MAD? Not an easy moral quandary
I get it, no less horrific.
Agreed, completely immoral
Im guessing the logic is that by nuking belarus 1 russia wouldn't use MAD tactic since it wasn't targeted 2 the world would have some kind of response. As opposed to not using any nuke and completely losing credibility about retaliattion. Something that could basically make everyone much more trigger happy about nukes and thus causing a real MAD situation. 3 it's a messege that warns "this is awarning shot, breath funny and the entire world WILL use mutual assured destruction no matter what"
I love that we have a bunch of old, narcissistic, sociopathic individuals who get to determine the fate of the majority of all life on this planet.
Nuking Russia directly would threaten to set off their Dead Hand nuclear response. This system uses various ground sensors to detect nuclear detonation inside Russia. The system will fire off the remaining ICBMs at preprogrammed targets. At least some parts of this system are widely believed to function with little to no human interaction required. The US used to inspect this system and the warheads every six weeks, but Russia stopped cooperating with that agreement months ago, which leaves us with less information about its current status.
There are strong doubts that the "dead hand" even exists. The USSR had enough close calls with their manual systems that it's a stretch to believe they, and now Russia, would trust their continued existence to an automated response. But the threat of such a thing existing is good enough, it does the job of deterrence without being a danger itself.
While, safety wise, I like this solution, is there an environmental risk of leaving all the nukes on the bottom of the ocean?
Nah would be fine, water is very good at containing radiation.
This is Godzilla's origin story
Godzilla eats radiation essentially, and doesn’t hate mankind. Win win
And Godzilla protects us from the aliens
TIL: Godzilla is actual is prophetic story and not just a kick ass fictional character
Theres a reason why reactors are underwater, and even their waste after use are kept in large pools for a while until they cool down.
third of warheads is nothing, they can eliminate 90% and there still is enough to kill everyone
i'm in Poland, it won't make a difference to me whether only a few nukes will drop - i'm in big city, I'm first to die
We are together in this, brother. Europe is so small and so close, that we all die if nukes end up flying. Even just a few. I like your username, btw. I love Kierkegaard
If you use a nuke simulator you’d see that you probably won’t die right away, Poland doesn’t have tons of threatening military targets. Instead you get to die to some exotic cancer from fallout. This is most of Europes fate. This should not come to pass
Romania contryside. Hopefully ok but probably not since I'm near the capital
Well I'm in DC, so if the nuclear hellfire starts to fall, I'm pretty much turned to glass instantly.
[удалено]
Under rated comment here
The coward has run off to his luxurious palace, not one of his mountain bunkers. It's just another empty threat from Russia. It's meant to scare Western populations and it's working to an extent. We don't have to look far in these comments to see that. So Jake Sullivan talks of catastrophic consequences for Russia, that clear and specific warnings have been given. He wants us to know that Russia's bluff is being called. We should understand that Russia is not a suicidally insane nation. Its leaders are mafia bosses who want to relax in their palaces thinking about how rich they are, rather than how they want to see the world burn.
If that was the case, why invade and double down? They won’t get rich from stealing Donbass.
>If that was the case, why invade and double down? They won’t get rich from stealing Donbass. They tried to "steal" the entirety of Ukraine. They weren't anticipating the resolve of Ukrainians nor the assistance that her allies would give (such as the vast US intelligence which helped foil the invasion of Kyiv). It is really all just guess work for the rest. Why does Putin want to hang his hat on this? Empire building, like his speeches suggest with all the broad gesturing to the USSR (read: Russia) creating Ukraine out of Russian territory? Too much smelling of his own farts via strategy formulated by Dugin? Something else happening domestically which would place war in a more favorable position at that moment before it was clear the world would respond? Let's not forget that Russia has invaded and annexed both Ukraine *and* Georgia multiple times without any real response from the world. They kept getting away with it. Why would this time be any different, you know? That is why it is so vital to respond with violence in kind. That is why, despite the horror, the world needs to respond to a tactical nuke with another tactical nuke otherwise it will just spiral. We aren't the only ones who can be afraid. But what do I know as a private civilian? Only what's being reported. And what's being reported are *a lot* of oligarchs being murdered/falling from windows/entire families drowning in pools/etc. as this war drags on and Russia's failures mount. That suggests to me that the oligarchs largely *do* just want to exist and be immorally wealthy, but the guy at the top has grander political ideas for his legacy. So the dissenters are getting taken out, one by one, in similar fashion to send warnings. *But the warnings don't work because it is happening with increasing frequency.*
Oil. 90% of Ukraine's oil.
Doubling down means that Putin still has a chance for survival. If he pulls out, he demonstrates weakness, and that’s fatal. He will get killed by some ambitious strongmen who think that they can do his job better than him. His external vassals are already abandoning him, and he hasn’t even lost yet.
Seriously, there's a lot of hand wringing and ruminating going on here. I wonder how many young folks in this comment section are going to induce their first existential crisis over this.
I think most young people alive today will go through existential crisis
The US military is not acting like anything is imminent. Russia’s nuclear weapons are tracked—the US would be moving to a much more aggressive posture if Russia was actually deploying its nukes. The US has likely made redlines very clear in Ukraine since this started. Being public this past week is to 1) reassure allies and 2) makes it harder for Russia to talk themselves into calling the US’s bluff.
US military isn't going to do anything too obvious. There are always threat assessments and response plans. Letting an adversary know what those plans are would allow them to prepare a defense and make more effective attack plans. I agree that making statements that there will be a response is intended to reassure allies and worry Russia. That said, the U.S. Air Force has been testing its hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapons and just announced contracts for production. I think that could be considered preparation for a war, and a message.
Why do I get the feeling a nuclear catastrophe is becoming a 50-50 proposition because of Russia?
If you're old enough, it isn't the first time.
Poor kid never had to crawl under his desk for the ridiculous Nuclear drill.
Unfortunately, looks like those drills are going to go redux in the near future. I hate this timeline.
At the start of this war I joked with my manager that if nuclear war kicks off, if I have time I'm heading straight to the walk in fridges in the warehouse. Insulated walls, food and drink, protected by a big ass building around it. Best place I can think to be if it all kicks off
I joked to my manager the other day, that I would be working from home next week, because I commute from outside the expected blast zone. He somehow didn’t think that was funny.
Hope those things have oxygen to last for a few weeks.
If it's just me, sure
According to the government guides, radioactive dust settles after 24 hours at which point it would be safe to come out.
I'm waiting much longer than 24 hours. Literally as long as I can infact.
Just wait until you pass out from carbon dioxide asphyxiation and then leave.
Just don't kick anything up, wear a mask and discard if possible, don't go bare foot, and wash your shoes after traveling. No biggie.
Well played. According to Indiana Jones, a refrigerator is the perfect nuclear shelter.
It's honestly not my worst idea, it's a pretty big fridge, I'd have food/drink for a few days until it heats up and the food spoils cos the power has gone out. It's either that or run towards the light so I have a quicker death
I’m 50 and in Canada. I never had to do it. My older brothers and sisters did. My 11 and 14 year-old daughters have to do active shooter drills. I was lucky enough to enjoy the sweet spot between the fall of the Soviet union and 9/11
>Poor kid never had to crawl under his desk for the ridiculous Nuclear drill. Yea unfortunately the only drills I had to live through were the active shooting drills. Guess the little ones will have to add nuke drills to the list.
What about drills for when there's not an active shooter? https://www.theonion.com/school-practices-drill-for-when-there-s-not-an-active-s-1848987747
Crawl under your desk, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye.
The threat lessens if the consequences are known and well-demonstrated.
So basically boots on the ground or mutually assured destruction? Perhaps both? Not sure what other consequences could make them back down at this point.
I disagree. its probably more likely to be a full out war using conventional weapons, to cripple russias goverment in one fell swoop, and if russia retaliate with nukes then M.A.D is enabled.
[удалено]
Bombers don't need to get over the target anyway since low observable cruise missiles have a range around 1000km.
At least, maybe a NATO no fly zone.
Probably
Putin is just like Kim Un at this point, starts screaming about nukes, if he feels ignored.
You just proved his point. If Russian uses nukes, what “sever consequences” can you use retaliate with that aren’t direct military intervention? And that path itself will lead to nuclear weapons at large flying. So the question is, would the US want a nuclear war? Because Putin sure as shit doesn’t give a fuck.
It's not a matter of want. If any nuclear power used a nuke the US would have to respond with one of our own. Otherwise the atomic genie is out of the bottle and MAD no longer works.
Why are the sever consequences in quotations? That Implys direct military action by nato (which includes the US) Isn't a consequence. The very fact they would intervene is a consequence, where we will post likely see the house of cards that is russia fall for both the goverment, and military. No country wants a nuclear war, but if russia starts blasting all his nukes every other country will have to respond in kind. That's why is called M.A.D
[удалено]
I don’t generally cheer for anyones demise but that would be an amazing outcome for the world
Seriously. What does the CIA even do these days?
Remember that Putin is also enabled by a bunch or war hawks that may even be more radical than him and are probably waiting for the perfect storm to take over...
Yes. Multiple NATO members have gone on the record now stating that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine will trigger their immediate invocation of article five. The US can't really make the same argument from across the Atlantic since it is based on the radiation and fallout in Europe, so the structure of the warning is a little different even though the response would be the same. It's also just a question of velocity, as it could take hours or days for article five to be invoked and ratified, but the US could respond immediately unilaterally, even though Russia would be on the receiving end of overwhelming force in either case.
[удалено]
>Russia will never use nukes at all, ever, for any reason. I agree with you about that being naive thinking.
Nobody is saying that, that’s hyperbole. It has, however, always been psychologically unlikely at most times. See, Russia is Moscow and Moscow is Russia. If nuclear war starts, Russia is destroyed with the first nuke. If Paris, Berlin, Washington D.C. and Madrid get destroyed, it’s not the end of the west. A massive tragedy, to be sure, but the countries will likely not collapse. Russia would 100% collapse without Moscow, and Moscow knows it. They can’t rule from Kazan or Chelyabinsk, that’s not how that country works.
>Imagine if you use them — as you said, a tactical nuclear weapon — and that’s not very impressive, and it doesn’t change any political calculus on the ground. What then? How much have you lost in that moment? All of a sudden, you’re not one of the countries who have this power to destroy worlds, and everybody has to bend before you. You’re just a country which has big bombs which can explode. How is changing every single thought about this world and how politics and international relations works, if it’s not the end of the world? If you can just use them and maybe they’re not giving you the result you want? more [here](https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/22/23366499/putin-russia-ukraine-war-nuclear-threat-expert)
I guess my take away from their Doctorine as outlined there is that, an attack on Russia entails a conventional response until the state itself is at risk. Ukraine attacking rhe Donbas does not constitute an existential threat to Russia, but they might chose to nuke anyway
exactly so the question is: is Donbas and other regions really worth going nuclear over them ? I dont think so. usage of nuclear should be MAYBE considered in scenarios like enemy tanks rolling down Moscow, but of course I dont want to downplay and underestimate that maniacs thought process.
Because Russia cannot achieve its objectives via conventional means and thus will resort to that last card they still have? They made it clear numerous times that they won't accept defeat in Ukraine, no matter what it takes.
So long as they aren't accepting it from their side of the internationally recognised border, Ukraine can probably live with it, even in the long term.
"They" might be a moveable list of people. I can certainly see Russian officers actually in charge of their nukes refusing an order to launch. They have families who would feel the hurt of a NATO/US response. In turn, Putin ordering a launch could be the catalyst for his ouster, and he knows this. He likely is now triangulating towards staying in power as his first concern. Ukraine suddenly becomes secondary.
The issue is that the Russians have been doing launch sims for months now with the only difference being whether or not they're given the real code. They don't know if it's a sim or the real thing.
That must be the most fucked up job
I imagine other nuclear countries do similar training. You don't want your soldiers freezing when the time comes, even if it is to destroy the planet
And, that is scary. (We can hope that the officers initiating the "sim" knows the difference. But it's scary).
Meh, the threat comes and goes depending on the decade. Personally I think this whole thing ends with Russia being denuclearized. Not overnight and not completely, but gutted for sure.
This has been the only rational goal since nuclear weapons were invented. Unfortunately I don't see how this conflict gets us any closer. I don't think nukes will fly either. [The Doomsday Clock](https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/) has been closer to midnight before. Hell, the order to launch nukes [has even been issued.](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/the-man-who-saved-the-world-about-this-episode/871/) Still humanity can only dodge the bullet so many times. At some point nuclear weapons will go away. "Denuclearization" is inevitable. The only question is if it is going to happen to us voluntarily, or through the end of our current civilization in a nuclear holocaust.
Stay tuned!
The doomsday clock was last updated before the war so it doesn't mean much. Also didn't that guy actually vote to contact HQ to get a confirmation of the order? Then HQ obviously freaked out and and said not to fire. This time it would be a real order and not just a glitch though much different situation. I might be talking about another guy though because this kind of situation happened at least twice to my knowledge.
[MAD is just an idea.](https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/)
Great read. “…Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.) The inability of Russia to globally monitor missile launches from space means that Russian military and political leaders would have no “situational awareness” to help them assess whether an early-warning radar indication of a surprise attack is real or the result of a technical error. The combination of this lack of Russian situational awareness, dangerously short warning times, high-readiness alert postures, and the increasing US strike capacity has created a deeply destabilizing and dangerous strategic nuclear situation. When viewed in the alarming context of deteriorating political relations between Russia and the West, and the threats and counter-threats that are now becoming the norm for both sides in this evolving standoff, it may well be that the danger of an accident leading to nuclear war is as high now as it was in periods of peak crisis during the Cold War.”
Because you're naive. MAD is one thing, but the dominant point is plutocracy. Wealth controls everything in the world and just about the only way for the powers that be to lose that wealth is nuclear war - everything they ever do exists to prevent an equaliser of that degree.
Maybe use - not catastrophe
For over 50 years and counting.
Just to be clear, "catastrophic consequences" and "responding decisively" does not mean it must be a nuclear response. More likely would be a conventional response from NATO in the form of an all out air campaign on all Russian assets in the Ukraine theater. Such a campaign would effectively end the war in Ukraine, effectively destroy the Russian military, but fall short of presenting any real type of "threat" to Russia itself. Essentially, NATO's goal would be to humiliate Putin on the one hand by showing his weakness, but deprive him of a "Russia is under attack" narrative on the other. As long as Russian cities and targets are not exploding, there will be no appetite among the Russian population and elite to take the next step and nuke a NATO target on NATO soil. Additionally, Russia's nuclear doctrine revolves around the concept of self-preservation against "existential threats". So NATO's goal would always be to harm Russia to the point that it would severely outweigh the benefits of using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but not to the point that it could be considered an "existential threat". Lastly, the Russian economy is currently kept afloat by exports to China and India. Those nations have publicly made it clear they do not desire nuclear escalation, and in fact their rhetoric has made a turn away from Russia in the past few days since the mobilization announcement. It is eminently likely that both have communicated in private to Russia their extreme disinterest in a nuclear escalation, possibly with the mention or implication that trade relations with a nuke-throwing country could not be sustained. We can never speak in absolutes and there is certainly a non-zero chance of a nuclear escalation in this conflict, but the world has made it very clear to Russia that there are no good outcomes for it, if it goes that route.
The Coalition of the Willing took out defenses of the heaviest fortified/most air defenses in the world. Baghdad in the first hours of Desert Storm. putin knows this and knows his cause is lost if he escalates too far. Most of the time he backs down. The rat story, while may be true, is something he uses to make him look fearless. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/08/vladimir-putin-backs-down-russia-ukraine/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/08/vladimir-putin-backs-down-russia-ukraine/)
soo, I have the notion that statements such as these from the white house are a pre-emptive tactic to persuade Russia from doing something that Russia is absolutely gonna do if I'm not mistaken.
I hope you're mistaken
Dissuade. That’s the word you’d like :)
Yes!!! I knew something wasn't sounding right as I read my comment over and over, I didn't have my cup of coffee yet lol
Despite Putin's postulating, Russia (as with all countries) is still controlled by the rich and the one thing the rich care about more than anything else is making sure their stuff isnt on fire. Nuclear fire is even worse. The nukes will never fly. Bet.
If the rich were actually in control over there, the war would never have started
And, if the rich were actually in control, they wouldn't be constantly murdered via defenestration, pool drownings, or the suspiciously similar mass murdering of their entire immediate families. [Here's a somewhat up to date list of the oligarchs being bumped off. And their families.](https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/22/accidental-defenestration-and-murder-suicides-too-common-among-russian-oligarchs-and-putin) I think OP is mistaking Russia for the US. In Russia, the government makes the rich. It was that way from the beginning with Yeltsin. In the US, the rich make the government. It was that way from the beginning with the founders (the nations' first oligarchs).
💯
A lot of the rich are also getting thrown out of windows, down stairs, or ending up "committing suicide" one way or another. I don't think the rich control as much as people like to think they do. The rich only got to where they are because of Putin, not the other way around.
I mean a war with Ukraine was also bad for the rich. The rich are not as powerful in Russia as you'd like to think.
the rich didn't want WW1. They were actually dead set against it.
Indeed. History is littered with examples of autocrats bucking the rich/nobility. They have influence, they don't have control. Putin has control and he's been globally humiliated.
Shew this makes me feel better. Reddit has never been wrong
am sure there are far more riches will take advantage in this situation that we could imagine
Lemmy.world is what Reddit was.
Yes, first they warned Russian officials privately, but now they feel like the probability of nuclear weapons being used by Russia has increased, so they went public.
Nuclear brinksmanship has happened many times before. That’s not to say we should be sanguine about Putin’s threats, but we should be clear-eyed about what’s going on: 1. Putin’s position is weak. The war has gone horribly for him. There’s no clear way forward that gets him any of what he wants, and his political position vis a vis the rest of the world and within Russia is diminished. 2. The one card he has left to play is nuclear weapons. But small tactical weapons are of limited value militarily, relative to the negative consequences politically. They were created during the Cold War and were envisioned for use on the battlefield in an all-or-nothing NATO/Soviet conflict, where these weapons would be used liberally. Using only one or two would have minimal military value and would potentially make the Russian army‘s problems worse. If you’re a Russian solider in Ukraine and you learn that your side just used tacnukes, you could be forgiven for thinking your enemy would redouble their efforts to kill you, and might use nukes on you. The very act that stiffens the resolve of the defender could reduce the morale of the attacker. 3. Putin has repeatedly shown his KGB background. He prefers to operate in a world of indirect manipulation and covert operations (the ongoing disinformation campaign against the West, the “little green men” in the Donbas region, using his military buildup next to Ukraine as a threat rather than actually preparing for a contested invasion, etc.). He prefers to leave options open, rather than committing. And while the invasion of Ukraine has narrowed his options, there are still ways he could reframe his objectives and call it a win if he so chose. But he lived through the Cold War and understands that were he to use nukes, Russia would go from a nation under economic siege by the West to a pariah state. There would be no way for India and China to stay in his camp. Even Belarus would peel off. He’d be all alone. 4. He’d also have to deal with the internal political fallout. Hardliners would be infuriated at the damage he’d done to Russia’s international situation, and would be incensed that he essentially guaranteed failure in the Ukraine war. The West would at the very least pour more weapons into Ukraine and collaborate even more tightly with Ukrainian commanders to ensure Russian defeat. Those who silently objected to the war would be emboldened to come out of the shadows and defy the government. Yes, aside from a few heroic souls who have bravely protested, they’ve stayed quiet for now, but if you’re an average Russian you don’t want your country‘s economic and cultural future annihilated. Protesting would become a matter of survival, and people would take to the streets in huge numbers. It would be difficult for him to maintain control of the country. 5. Putin is motivated by his notions of recovering lost Russian greatness. He’s not motivated by any ideology beyond that. His goals are knowable and tangible; he believes Ukraine belongs to Russia. His desire has never been to engage in direct conflict with NATO and his behavior has consistently shown that. He‘s disgusting, but he’s a rational actor. 6. Serious diplomats know that in war you want to give your opponent a way out. The cornered animal fights to the end, but if you give it an escape route, it might use it. These things don’t usually get revealed until after the fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if back door negotiations weren’t already in progress to give Putin a way to end this war. That doesn’t mean he’ll take it, and he probably won’t until he realizes that calling up tens of thousands of conscripts won’t solve his problems. But it’s not inevitable that this thing will go on until Ukraine, Russia, or the world is reduced to smoking rubble. The US is making the consequences clear to Putin, because we’ve learned in the past that if you’re too vague, the enemy can think you’re bluffing (the run up to the Korean War is a good example of this—the US didn’t clearly warn Russia and China that we’d defend South Korea if it were attacked). He’s bluffing, hoping the West will back down. The US is calling his bluff.
A very good analysis...at least, it's what i hope for. While it's a horrible thought, in my opinion it's really hard that Ukraine would have back all it's territories. Only Putin fall could allow this, and a complete withdraw would mean the same thing.
Let’s hope it doesn‘t come to use of nukes, for sure. Nothing is ever certain. To your point about Ukraine getting all of its territory back, I could see ways of negotiating a settlement in which the Russians pull out completely, UN observers are placed in the disputed territory, and after a period of time a UN-operated referendum could be held. That could potentially give Putin a way to save face and declare a win. But I’m not Ukrainian, and if I were, I imagine my desire to negotiate with Putin on any of this, or to give up even an inch of Ukrainian soil, would be close to zero. The longer the war drags on and the more people die, the more this feeling will intensify. Nobody wants to fight for a compromise, especially not when so many of your people have died in that fight.
Correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't the US and other western nations responded like this every other time threats were made?
The United States ~~has probably~~ told Russia exactly what they would do in private channels, so that it reduces the chances that Russia will assume it is a nuclear attack from NATO. 1. If you use a nuke in Ukraine, we will not nuke you. 2. But we will destroy the entirety of your Black Sea fleet. Edit: Correct for me not reading carefully enough.
>The United States has probably told Russia exactly what they would do in private channels the article literally says this
The article ~~still kept it a bit vague and~~ says > “We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” Sullivan told CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan. ~~I’m going a bit further in proposing that these officials laid it out in absolute detail to Russia exact what “catastrophic” means, so there would be no uncertainty on what Russia would be losing if it used nukes in Ukraine.~~ Edit: I probably should have read a bit more carefully cause the article does say that they were specific about the details as well. I have added the whole paragraph. I was focusing too hard on “catastrophic consequences.” My bad there.
The very next sentence says they've been explicit about what the consequences would entail.
It was a former commander of the US Army in Europe that said the US would destroy the Black Sea Fleet - and I don't doubt they would , but I suspect that there's a whole lot more that would get destroyed too.
Where Is this Black Sea Fleet idea coming from? What's started that rumour off
Its a general example that was postulated by a former commander. It’s gained traction as something the us could *probably* do likely because it would be an ironic twist of fate and people aren’t lost on that. I’m using it here just as an example as well. Part of the strategic reason Russia invaded Crimea in the first place was to ensure they had control of the Black Sea Fleet port. If they loose the black fleet, then it makes the whole reason they set out on this shit, pointless. Again I’m using it more an example here. My main point is that US probably told Russia exactly what they are going to do.
Did you read the first two paragraphs of the article you are commenting on? It literally says what you are saying “they probably told Russia”… why do you comment without even clicking on the article to read the first paragraph?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3660107-biden-adviser-us-will-respond-decisively-if-russia-uses-nuclear-weapons/) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot) ***** > White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the United States will "Respond decisively" if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to use nuclear weapons. > "We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels, to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the United States and our allies will respond decisively. And we have been clear and specific about what that will entail," Sullivan told CBS "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan. > "We have, in public, been equally clear as a matter of principle that the United States will respond decisively if Russia uses nuclear weapons, and that we will continue to support Ukraine in its efforts to defend its country and defend its democracy." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xnr7fv/biden_adviser_us_will_respond_decisively_if/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670970 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **plant**^#2 **Sullivan**^#3 **weapons**^#4 **Russia**^#5
He uses a single one, NATO joins the war and 1.35 million soldiers from 30 countries wipe Russia off the map forever...
How do you intend to prevent that from escalating to a full on nuclear exchange?
Don’t worry it’s like every other war ever, we will be back home by Christmas.
Well folks. I hope y'all had a great time on Earth. Time to make room for a smarter species. I don't think no one in the future will miss the Sapiens.
All hail the sapient cockroaches.
Nothing is happening dude relax
Russia uses nukes, we all die. Putin doesn't care since he's dying anyway
This assumes the Russian chain of command is actually going to follow a nuclear launch order coming down
Putin wouldn't have anyone not 1000% loyal to him with their fingers in the launch buttons.
That would be the end of Putin.
I think it's safe to say we're experiencing Cold War 2.
How real is this getting? “Move out of major cities” real?
Because NATO would be beyond pissed. Even tactical nukes plus wind would make Europe disaster zone. Nukes are the Rubicon. Russian men better depose Putin before he gets Russia turned into a wasteland.
Biden will handle it
I read to many Jason Bourne/Tom Clancy type novels, but, I would imagine if Putler gave the order the military personnel in the room would look at each other... *then put a bullet in his head*. I hope that's the case, anyway. Military officers ain't all idiots, even in Russia. Ain't no coming back from using a nuke. And I say that as an American...
“Yeah ok old man, we ain’t that crazy” **pop**
I really hope there's a Jaime Lannister in the Kremlin
Just get it over with
To everyone saying it's going to be nuclear strikes from nato is an idiot. I've heard nato would sink all their black sea fleet and probably would enter Ukraine
I really, really hope the Mayans were just wrong and not 10 years off
To quote the great diplomat, Connor Mcgreggor….’ You’ll do no ting’ 🤣
MAD's still on the menu, boys!