Uhh no. Let’s not have anyone use nuclear weapons, “tactical” or otherwise. If Russia used nukes, the west would retaliate in kind, with greater force, which would result in further retaliation. The only way that is ending is with complete and utter destruction. There is no way it would “shock the west into backing off.” Pretty much the entire northern hemisphere would become an irradiated wasteland.
Meh. You’re silly if you think western strategic planners see eastern European NATO members as any less fodder than they see Ukrainians as. They don’t want to invite a strike on NYC for the sake of avenging a military base in Estonia. They don’t want to invite a strike on Guam, Pearl Harbor, or Rammstein in return for avenging Estonians.
Now could the deranged, incompetent, thoroughly senile, prone to aggression and unable to think clearly Biden do so anyways? Possibly but that’s not to be taken as doctrine or strategic thought of the US so much as one angry, mentally unstable old man who bought into too many conspiracy theories (Russiagate) and vaguely hates Russians because he lived through the cold war.
In many ways the nuclear umbrella is a bluff. I mean thinking logically assuming your vassal gets wiped out by nukes, why would it make sense for you then to commit suicide by cop by attacking the same country and getting wiped out yourself just to punish them? There might be some white solidarity with western Europe and I wouldn’t test it by trying to wipe out Britain or France or Germany but Poles, Estonians, Baltic fascists, most Americans don’t know much about them or care. A minor retaliatory gesture maybe. Handing out nukes so countries can “defend themselves” maybe. But striking back and inviting your own demise for someone you were using as a pawn anyways? Eh. I’m just not entirely convinced.
It might have made some sense during the cold war when the Soviets had massive tank and troop divisions and could convincingly sweep into Europe and take over France, Germany, etc, where the idea was if you didn’t nuke them then, it was but the opening gesture of a wider war and invasion, but with modern Russia which they know couldn’t stand against NATO’s combined forces without paying a terrible and too high price which they simply aren’t willing to do, and which they know deep down has no intentions of trying to occupy or liberate western Europe, it makes little sense.
While it is true that the yanks wouldn’t give a shit if eastern europe were nuked beyond empty performative gestures, they would be concerned about Russia nuking them. And in turn, if they were dealing with a Russia that is willing to use nukes in combat, they would prefer a pre-emptive strike of their own nukes in order to eliminate the threat before a war between the two. The US has been straining at the leash for an excuse to use nukes since Korea. The last thing any country should do is give them that excuse.
They wouldn’t be concerned with Russia nuking them because Russia has shown such restraint. Their propagandists and narrative are one thing, their intelligence analysts are not so blind as to genuinely believe Putin would be coming for them next. The only real factor is how much they feel they need to put on a show so they don’t look weak to their vassals but a show is not the same as inviting full nuclear war and they’ve already been humiliated in various ways and just ignored it or taken it.
The west would know if Russia conducted a single nuclear strike that it was not part of an opening salvo. Why? Because basic nuclear doctrine dictates if you intend to do that you strike full force with the hopes of catching your enemy with their guard down and minimizing retaliation. Once you’ve done that they’re on high alert, they’re on hair-trigger alert and Russia would most likely be smart enough to take steps to show their nuclear forces are ready, but not about to imminently launch any further attacks and the west would believe them. A pre-emptive strike against Russia would not work right now. They know this. Russia has a dead-hand system that will ensure their arsenal is launched even in the event of a successful decapitation strike. Washington would know Russia doesn’t want to be eliminated and see how much it took to push them to use just one, they would know Russia won’t launch full on them unless they escalate much further on their own.
Even a hypothetical escalation of tit-for-tat would have several off-ramp points for both the US and Russia and I don’t think that would happen.
Excuse? Absurd. The US is the only country to have used nukes in anger. Are we talking about the same country? The one that shamelessly invents false flags for all its wars and changes the rules on the fly to suit it? That US? It’s not about excuses, if they had the capability to intercept 95% of Russia’s strike response they’d have launched already and obliterated them, they’d come up with an excuse after the fact and justify it. It’s not about Russia giving them an excuse, they don’t need one, the west operates in their own delusional sphere of justification and supremacy. It’s about cold, hard, facts. Western planners know they’d be eliminated at this juncture by engaging in a nuclear war with Russia. The west doesn’t need an excuse, they need an ability to do it and not be destroyed and they don’t have that.
People, even here struggle to be sober and thoughtful, they knee-jerk react to nuclear war with sweeping declarations any use will automatically trigger the end of the world. This is materially false. The capitalists would have been willing to end the world rather than let the Soviet Union win, but they aren’t willing to commit suicide to avenge a cannon fodder eastern vassal state in a power fight with another capitalist nation that just wants their aggressive alliance further from their borders. They may yet end the world in a fight over China rather than let it (and proletarians) win but I don’t think this conflict, this issue of Ukraine or even some fodder buffer NATO state (which was engaged in de-facto hostilities against Russia and fair game) being injured is going to get their fingers on the trigger to tighten.
That’s my thinking. I think it’s rational, sober, but I also freely admit no one can fully understand all that goes into the thought processes of western military leadership or predict their actions, that’s as true for me as it is for a Rand Corpo analyst with high security clearances or for Russian intelligence. I don’t trust the west and its leadership to behave morally and their rationale can be a bit twisted at times but it’s for that reason I think in many ways a small event doesn’t matter. What the west intends to do, they will do, they don’t really need excuses, they’re happy to manufacture them when their plans demand it, that’s always been the case. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. They navigate the road they’re given, invent things, use what they can as excuses for what they wanted to do anyways.
You’re right. I was thinking about this from the position of “Nuclear weapons are monstrous and should never be used.” and that was clouding my judgement here. It doesn’t matter what I think, I’m not in charge of the Russian military. I do hope that your analysis is wrong, as any nation using tactical nuclear weapons will normalise it and make it commonplace, just “another weapon” in the arsenal. But again, what I hope happens doesn’t actually have any bearing on reality.
A more sober analysis from my perspective would be that Russia doesn’t want to actively attack NATO and turn this conflict into an active war with NATO, but that does rely on NATO also not escalating things on their own, and if they are willing to station Ukrainian troops and air forces, it seems likely that Russia would understand that NATO wants the escalation and so would respond in kind.
Uhh no. Let’s not have anyone use nuclear weapons, “tactical” or otherwise. If Russia used nukes, the west would retaliate in kind, with greater force, which would result in further retaliation. The only way that is ending is with complete and utter destruction. There is no way it would “shock the west into backing off.” Pretty much the entire northern hemisphere would become an irradiated wasteland.
Meh. You’re silly if you think western strategic planners see eastern European NATO members as any less fodder than they see Ukrainians as. They don’t want to invite a strike on NYC for the sake of avenging a military base in Estonia. They don’t want to invite a strike on Guam, Pearl Harbor, or Rammstein in return for avenging Estonians.
Now could the deranged, incompetent, thoroughly senile, prone to aggression and unable to think clearly Biden do so anyways? Possibly but that’s not to be taken as doctrine or strategic thought of the US so much as one angry, mentally unstable old man who bought into too many conspiracy theories (Russiagate) and vaguely hates Russians because he lived through the cold war.
In many ways the nuclear umbrella is a bluff. I mean thinking logically assuming your vassal gets wiped out by nukes, why would it make sense for you then to commit suicide by cop by attacking the same country and getting wiped out yourself just to punish them? There might be some white solidarity with western Europe and I wouldn’t test it by trying to wipe out Britain or France or Germany but Poles, Estonians, Baltic fascists, most Americans don’t know much about them or care. A minor retaliatory gesture maybe. Handing out nukes so countries can “defend themselves” maybe. But striking back and inviting your own demise for someone you were using as a pawn anyways? Eh. I’m just not entirely convinced.
It might have made some sense during the cold war when the Soviets had massive tank and troop divisions and could convincingly sweep into Europe and take over France, Germany, etc, where the idea was if you didn’t nuke them then, it was but the opening gesture of a wider war and invasion, but with modern Russia which they know couldn’t stand against NATO’s combined forces without paying a terrible and too high price which they simply aren’t willing to do, and which they know deep down has no intentions of trying to occupy or liberate western Europe, it makes little sense.
While it is true that the yanks wouldn’t give a shit if eastern europe were nuked beyond empty performative gestures, they would be concerned about Russia nuking them. And in turn, if they were dealing with a Russia that is willing to use nukes in combat, they would prefer a pre-emptive strike of their own nukes in order to eliminate the threat before a war between the two. The US has been straining at the leash for an excuse to use nukes since Korea. The last thing any country should do is give them that excuse.
They wouldn’t be concerned with Russia nuking them because Russia has shown such restraint. Their propagandists and narrative are one thing, their intelligence analysts are not so blind as to genuinely believe Putin would be coming for them next. The only real factor is how much they feel they need to put on a show so they don’t look weak to their vassals but a show is not the same as inviting full nuclear war and they’ve already been humiliated in various ways and just ignored it or taken it.
The west would know if Russia conducted a single nuclear strike that it was not part of an opening salvo. Why? Because basic nuclear doctrine dictates if you intend to do that you strike full force with the hopes of catching your enemy with their guard down and minimizing retaliation. Once you’ve done that they’re on high alert, they’re on hair-trigger alert and Russia would most likely be smart enough to take steps to show their nuclear forces are ready, but not about to imminently launch any further attacks and the west would believe them. A pre-emptive strike against Russia would not work right now. They know this. Russia has a dead-hand system that will ensure their arsenal is launched even in the event of a successful decapitation strike. Washington would know Russia doesn’t want to be eliminated and see how much it took to push them to use just one, they would know Russia won’t launch full on them unless they escalate much further on their own.
Even a hypothetical escalation of tit-for-tat would have several off-ramp points for both the US and Russia and I don’t think that would happen.
Excuse? Absurd. The US is the only country to have used nukes in anger. Are we talking about the same country? The one that shamelessly invents false flags for all its wars and changes the rules on the fly to suit it? That US? It’s not about excuses, if they had the capability to intercept 95% of Russia’s strike response they’d have launched already and obliterated them, they’d come up with an excuse after the fact and justify it. It’s not about Russia giving them an excuse, they don’t need one, the west operates in their own delusional sphere of justification and supremacy. It’s about cold, hard, facts. Western planners know they’d be eliminated at this juncture by engaging in a nuclear war with Russia. The west doesn’t need an excuse, they need an ability to do it and not be destroyed and they don’t have that.
People, even here struggle to be sober and thoughtful, they knee-jerk react to nuclear war with sweeping declarations any use will automatically trigger the end of the world. This is materially false. The capitalists would have been willing to end the world rather than let the Soviet Union win, but they aren’t willing to commit suicide to avenge a cannon fodder eastern vassal state in a power fight with another capitalist nation that just wants their aggressive alliance further from their borders. They may yet end the world in a fight over China rather than let it (and proletarians) win but I don’t think this conflict, this issue of Ukraine or even some fodder buffer NATO state (which was engaged in de-facto hostilities against Russia and fair game) being injured is going to get their fingers on the trigger to tighten.
That’s my thinking. I think it’s rational, sober, but I also freely admit no one can fully understand all that goes into the thought processes of western military leadership or predict their actions, that’s as true for me as it is for a Rand Corpo analyst with high security clearances or for Russian intelligence. I don’t trust the west and its leadership to behave morally and their rationale can be a bit twisted at times but it’s for that reason I think in many ways a small event doesn’t matter. What the west intends to do, they will do, they don’t really need excuses, they’re happy to manufacture them when their plans demand it, that’s always been the case. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. They navigate the road they’re given, invent things, use what they can as excuses for what they wanted to do anyways.
You’re right. I was thinking about this from the position of “Nuclear weapons are monstrous and should never be used.” and that was clouding my judgement here. It doesn’t matter what I think, I’m not in charge of the Russian military. I do hope that your analysis is wrong, as any nation using tactical nuclear weapons will normalise it and make it commonplace, just “another weapon” in the arsenal. But again, what I hope happens doesn’t actually have any bearing on reality.
A more sober analysis from my perspective would be that Russia doesn’t want to actively attack NATO and turn this conflict into an active war with NATO, but that does rely on NATO also not escalating things on their own, and if they are willing to station Ukrainian troops and air forces, it seems likely that Russia would understand that NATO wants the escalation and so would respond in kind.