Ukraine-Russia War Take 2

I don't think you've ever been banned for your views. Get over it.

If russia uses a nuke then it's the will of the usa (and to a much lessor extent europe, china etc) that matters

Either way, the 'game' will be changed forever.

A tactical nuke is generally for use on a battlefield, not against cities. But sure, let's go with it.

I understand that is a risk. It is also a risk that USA nukes Russia. Do you understand that this is a risk?

Well you're probably thinking "Yeah but it's not very likely." That's correct. Neither is Putin using a nuke. He threatened nukes early on in the war; he threatened very loudly. USA pressured China to tell Putin not to and then told Putin that the consequences would be "catastrophic". Early on in the war USA took a stance of strategic clarity (for which the Biden admin caught a lot of criticism) specifically so statements like this would be taken very seriously. This means that if Putin decides to use a nuke he is going to become an even bigger pariah than he is now and is likely to face an attack by NATO.

Do you understand that this is a risk?

The chances of Putin using a nuke at this time is extremely low. He gains very little from destroying a Ukrainian city with a nuke; he stands to lose a lot from destroying a Ukrainian city with a nuke.

Do you understand that this is a risk?

so just to double back, your argument is that there is more risk of a nuke being used if ukraine fails versus if ukraine starts attacking domestic russian targets

And now youre saying that russia wont use nukes because its afraid the US will nuke them in return? Short of being nuked, if russia is already being bombed , what else is the US going to do? Also, the US isnt going to nuke russia pretty much unless russia nukes us or the UK

Additionally all this nuke talk is proving my points; the risks go up dramatically when a lesser non nuclear country attacks a larger more powerful nuclear country.

chances of putin using nukes being extremely low doesn't mean the risk isnt increased. I am going to again reiterate that you dont understand risk

HE STANDS TO END THE WAR AND TAKE OVER UKRAINE. that is not small

Once again: Ukraine is already attacking domestic Russian targets.

I am not saying that USA will nuke Russia, that was an attempt at illustrating that just because something is a risk doesn't make it a likely risk. USA's threat to Russia if they use nukes is complete pariah state and a conventional military response.

Not only is Russia is not being bombed by USA, but USA is taking no active fighting role against Russia, so there's plenty of room for USA to escalate. Russia very much does not want that to change and using a nuke very much could change that.

Russia very much wants sanctions to end and using a nuke is likely to lock sanctions in.

Once again, if Russia succeeds in making Ukraine sign a treaty where Russia is able to attack again and USA is busy with China (or some other situation arises where there is not as much of a credible threat to Russia should they launch a nuke) then Russia is far more likely to launch a nuke. They are also far more likely to launch a nuke if it is actually in their best interest, which it currently is not.

There are also worse outcomes than a single nuke being launched, especially since a nuke being launched is more likely to be tactical nuke and not the scenario you have shifted to.

Did all of these increase the risk of nukes? Probably. It was a tiny increase though and well worth the potential risk increase.

I am going to again reiterate to you that you don't understand risk.

I do not think there is much in the world that is worth increasing the risk to end humanity

clearly you do

A tactical nuke does not end humanity.

Reducing the risk of nukes being launched by preventing future wars does the opposite of increasing the risk to end humanity.

So no, I don't believe in increasing the risk to end humanity. In fact I clearly do not.

I never said it did

Once nukes are in the situation the risk of ending humanity is greatly increased

Preventing future wars decreases nuclear risk.

How about ending current wars?

Can't look at these events in isolation

Use of a tactical nuke will have consequences. This is very risky.

Letting the threat of a tactical nuke enable putin also has consequences. This is also very risky.

Not detering putin much earlier when he could deny he was ever going to invade has raised the risk a great deal. Whatever we do now.

Allowing Ukraine to strike further into Russia does more to end the current war than preventing them from striking further into Russia. Just a month ago Putin made it clear he still does not understand the current state of the war and he still maintains his maximalist goals in his ultimatum: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/put...

By allowing Ukraine to strike further into Russia, and decreasing the damage Russia can do to Ukraine, it is more likely that Putin will finally enter actual peace negotiations. If Ukraine were to capitulate now then it would almost inevitably lead to a future war which would increase the risk of nukes.

Depends on how rational putin is and how much he feels personally threatened

Just considering the military aspects would explain why hitler didn't bomb Coventry.

Beyond that this doesn't just end with the outcomes of his invasion of Ukraine. It may be a small chapter or even a footnote in the history books

Btw I argue for recognising the risks. I'm not opposed to all risky actions

Imo we should ensure ukraine win with massively more military support while avoiding most attacks inside Russia. Then we should defend the borders with real troops/etc while making it clear we won't invade Russia.

Im not sure but i lean to the view that we should also make clear (probably diplomatically) that a tactical nuke will be treated as a first strike and responded to accordingly

750k deaths seems serious enough to me that Putin might get pissed and let off a small nuke in Ukraine

If it ends the war faster and with less risk then duh but I don’t think that’s the fast

The US nuking Russia cause they nuke Ukraine is ridiculous

It is mad

What are we going to if putin used a nuke and gets away with it. Where's your line?

I don’t know if I’d ever use nukes for any reason.

Maybe if America was being attacked

I share the sentiment against using them (not so keen on the 'maybe if it's me'). But if putin is mad enough to use them then either there's a line or everywhere is bending the knee.

The only risk we can strongly address is the risk of putin miscalculating. Catastrophie if he uses them because he incorrectly calculates we wont respond and then we do,

That wouldn't be the outcome. The outcome would be diplomatic, legal and economic blacklisting of Russia and of any countries (like China, North Korea and India) that still chose to stand up for Russia. The US might well benefit from this, as those countries could probably predict, since the US has far more economic power than Russia (which desperately tries to play the big man, but is basically a third-rate economy with a rapidly decaying military it can't afford any more).

The West would also reserve the right to retaliate, which Putin can't afford.

The Chamberalin approach. It was his plan to strangle hitler economically and he had a far stronger hand than we do now.

It's a good idea but it doesn't work against extreme aggression. At some point you have to be willing to fight.

you can do lots and lots of fighting before you use nukes.

What Russia would gain by nuking Ukraine I wonder ?
Who would want to invade a country to take ressources and more territory just ending up nuking it and make all those reasons usuelles because it will all be contaminated for how many years … on the border of Russia ?
It winds u know ….

there isn't even really anything of value to take, the war only makes sense from a $ pov if you can surround kiev in oh lets say three days and win immediately. which tbf looked like it was going to happen until the ukrainians started shooting back. oops

As explained, the purpose of this example is that it is ridiculous, similar to how you saying Russia using a nuke right now is a risk is also ridiculous.

Ridiculous but still a risk. Something being a risk needs to quantified a bit more than just "it's a risk". What you're saying is even more ridiculous because you're saying that if Ukraine does what it's already doing then Russia will nuke, despite having it pointed out to you twice that Ukraine is already doing that and nukes aren't flying.

Launching a nuke now is counter to every one of Putin's mains goals. There was a legitimate fear that if the Ukraine counteroffensive were successful and Crimea were threatened then Putin could do something drastic, but obviously that didn't materialize.

this is pro-Putin Russian disinformation propaganda.