I'm one of those who thinks the likelihood of Putin using a nuke is quite high. I don't cheer that. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, there's a non-negligible chance the escalation leads to full-blown nuclear war, and since I live in the center of one of largest cities in the US, my family and I could face at the minimum the loss of our home, and obviously, we can also all die.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?
It's not a "non-negligible chance" it's guaranteed, that is the point of nukes. Putin would die along with everyone else if he launched a nuke. It's actually unlikely that his orders would be carried out for this reason.
I think that's the point where NATO should show restraint. To not respond to nuke with a nuke.
But before that, given the apparent weakness of Russian conventional army NATO should show no restraint and pay no attention to a single word out of Putins mouth.
Basically demand from Russian system of power to deliver war criminal mr. Vladimir Putin to Hague before talks can be resumed and Russia may have any hope of loosening economic sanctions.
People seem to have no idea how nuclear deterrents work.
It's a matter of policy that the US will launch all its nukes if even one nuke is launched by the other side. It only makes sense that the other side would do the same.
There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If someone launches a nuke, all nukes are launched.
And that's why nukes work, they take war to its logical conclusion: everyone dies.
The US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the entire world many times over. It doesn't matter where you are, you'll either die quickly or slowly, but you'll die none the less.
The US states that that is an option it make take. It does indeed make no sense, that's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it works.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked.
It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.
If NATO fails to respond in kind or to escalate, then the deterrence policy has failed and everyone will be free to blackmail the West. NATO cannot show weakness in this regard. Please, think it through.
If MAD collapses, you won’t be around to say the same things from the smoldering radioactive ruins of your home town. Loss of the ability or will to retaliate at scale means death on a vast scale. Those that survive face demilitarization and slavery, forever.
MAD has protected the peace for 70 years. Going around saying that it’s best to take the morale high ground is a nice sound bite, but it is not reality. Your freedoms and lifestyle is paid for by the mutual unwillingness of a handful of governments to not destroy the Earth. This balance has been in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 70 years.
When you’re out at movies, playing soccer with your kids, or protesting some injustice, the only reason you’re able to do those things are because there are another group of far more serious people ready to glass the Russians and the Chinese if they try anything.
A nuclear weapon is not like a bullet. A bullet doesn't leave the ground uninhabitable for a decade. A bullet doesn't level infrastructure and burn its occupants into the walls. Your approach opens the door to nuclear terrorism: maybe we lose a city every now and then, but that can't go on for very long.
The idea that a limited nuclear exchange is OK, even inevitable in this conflict, and that things will somehow magically go back to normal afterwards is ludicrous.
All leaders must know that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with the complete annihilation of their country. This is the ONLY sane policy.
Sure. That's why I'm saying that even if Putin uses one or few nuclear warheads, NATO should restrain itself and not use any, just beat Russian army in Ukraine purely with conventional and economic means.
Why on earth would you want to survive a full-blown nuclear exchange? If things get to the point where the largest US cities are being targeted, the aftermath of the war will almost certainly be worse than immediate vaporization.
I live in a comparatively rural area, having moved out of Boston just over two years ago. Maybe longer-term residents have a better network here, but I'm personally pretty reliant on food from afar.
Setting aside any concerns about radiation sickness, a massive refugee crisis and literally every other short-term effect, I think it's safe to assume that there will be no fuels available to transport food, or anything else for that matter.
In the event of nuclear winter, there will be few options to grow food, at least not what we're accustomed to growing in our current climate. Wild sources of food may fail, or quickly become exhausted.
And I live in an area with fairly reliable perennial streams (for now. Let's set aside questions of how nuclear war might impact the water cycle). Imagine if you live in the desert Southwest, where your access to water is wholly dependent on electricity unless you have the excellent fortune to live near one of the few large rivers.
No, my biggest fear of nuclear war is that I might survive it.
>Why on earth would you want to survive a full-blown nuclear exchange?
because death is for all we know very permanent. I would rather be alive and miserable than be dead. I know i will die one day but i would rather put that off as long as possible.
We have just experienced the Covid pandemic for the last 2 years, and society didn’t collapse. In the event of a nuclear war, I think the survivors will come together, rather than turn on each other. Food and gasoline may be rationed, maybe curfews imposed, there could be shortages of various necessities (remember the toilet paper thing?). But most of the people will understand. People tend to get united after an external attack. Think 9/11 or Perl Harbor times 10000.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?