Today's "low-yield tactical nukes" are more powerful than those used to demolish Hiroshima & Nagasaki in 1945... And the fallout after a nuclear war would be, well, literal.
no. they come in all ranges of yield: from hundreds of tons to megatons. in addition, the "efficiency" (in term of use of fissile material) of modern nuke there is high due to hydrogen boosting. in other term, very little fall out relatively speaking.
I didn't say *all* of them are more powerful. :) Still, Little Boy was just 15 kilotons, and Fat Man 21 kilotons. If someone is crazy enough to use a nuke today, it won't be easy to guess which "flavor" he'll pick. Perhaps he'll go for a megaton - that's still "tactical", right? ;)
And the fallout will be measured once the nuclear war ends, not when it starts. If someone's left to measure it, that is.
Well, depending on how it plays out, Africa and South America may well become the new centers of civilization for centuries to come. After all, what sane person would waste precious warheads on places where there are none? Then again, what sane person would use a nuke...
Planet is huge of course, but radiation and other ecological consequences won't be "local" unless it all ends quickly. Also, destroying just a dozen or two of the "most important" cities would probably be enough to end global economy and industry as we know it (and most of the Internet content and services, probably including this platform). Civilization will definitely survive, but probably a very different one.
This is more or less what I've been thinking would *actually* happen if a nuke would be used (for a coercive purpose). This is why Russia will never use them.
I've always preferred to believe the same way, that the only really surefire way to lose a war is to use nukes, but honestly: the recent political events made me having some doubts. I think/fear that Trump would just shrug it off and take it as the natural right of the strong.
Not a good feeling.
>>The cyber retaliation would be severe.
The actual cyber warfare capabilities are some ridiculously overestimated since the time the whole Snowden-popular stuff came out. At 'home turf' several things can be done (mostly to harmless people, though), but on Russian (or Chinese, or so) net it's way too limited.
Yes, why wouldn't we have more of the same? There are no more red lines. The media tells us the U.S. or China called Russia and said all hell would break loose if they used a nuke. We don't know what they said (Yay the public's right to know!) and it doesn't matter because we already have the data we need about red lines:
Past 10 Years:
Russia takes Crimea--stand back
Russia shoots down civilian airliner near Ukraine--stand back
Belarus diverts commercial airline--stand back
Russia invades Ukraine--stand back
Russian missiles land in Polish fields--stand back
North Korea and Iran send weapons to Russia--stand back
Israel begins elimination of Palestinians and taking of Gaza--stand back
Undersea cables cut--stand back
Polish mall sabotage (and much like it unreported)--stand back
China executes military operations close to Taiwan--stand back
Azerbaijan takes Nagorno Karabakh--stand back
US/Turkey/Israel boot Russia from Syria--stand back
Israel takes part of Syria--stand back
India-Pakistan--stand back
And I bet someone could triple that list.
Compared to all that, I don't see how detonating a nuke high in the atmosphere will elicit anything but a few weeks worth of political speeches.
Russia uses nuke in Ukraine: stand back... in utter shock. Not the leaders, not those following the war closely. Anyone who knows anyone on this precious blue and white ball. Shock and inaction would slowly be replaced by - how do I put it - Russia needing to make its own semiconductors by melting sand, and a million other regressions into the iron age. My take- no military response, just economic death. Followed my Putin's removal from power.
Thats for the nuclear-neutral countries. I live in the infamously anti-nuclear NZ. If Russia used a nuke our opinion of it would sink as low as Ukraine's overnight. Russia would be, for decades, a non-entity to NZ. But this is a 5 million person country in the middle of the water hemisphere. I don't know of other countries like this, and whether any of those are significant.
Some months ago, Grahor Targ, who's no longer among us, made a convincing case (for me) of Putin using nukes on the front and the West just folding and sitting on its hands. I'm trying to remember what made it so believable to me; perhaps it was the shock and fear that would paralyze Europe.
Why wouldn't he use one soon? Today, it's as certain to him, that the West won't meet his demands, as it is to the West that he won't meet theirs. His whole modus operandi is escalate. I mean seriously peeps, do we need to go into this again ;) The West won't retaliate with a nuke. They simply won't. They might get ACTUALLY serious about cutting Russia off economically, as Cliff mentioned. So what? Russia can survive indefinitely. It has energy and it has food.
The benefit of a nuke is that even if Putin quits the next day he puts the world on notice that Russia is not dicking around--again. Many say Russia's nukes no longer work. Shut them up. Or, let's say a new regime wants to take over. They explode a nuke over whatever, get rid of Putin, blame him, but say they are not giving up anything. Then what?
I've never believed there is a real risk of nuclear war. I believe it's been a bs excuse for Europe and US to let Ukraine do all the real fighting. We have to remember that the U.S. didn't use nukes against the Japanese military. It used them to make a point by roasting hundreds of thousand of citizens.
Why wouldn't Putin do something similar? We already did it. That's the cold, hard, super-sad fact.
Oh yeah I remember that post (where is Grahor anyway?) - I disagreed with it. I think the scenario is a relatively simple thought experiment. Firstly Ukraine would fight on (having no other option), and would make endless propaganda hay out of it, bringing maximal pressure on other nations to act. Those supporting Ukraine would be driven by the panic and fear instilled in their populace, and their primary goal would be to keep their economies going by alleviating this fear. How do you do that? I think not by military escalation - in fact I think its almost a given that they would reduce military support for Ukraine as part of this fear management. I think by a coordinated, deep, and committed economic attack on Russia. The kind that involves blocs forming and going to China and India and saying things that make those two sit up damn straight and listen. And co-operate. And so we get to a Russia melting sand scenario as mentioned above. This would spell the end of Putin - how soon, don't know, but I'm pretty sure it would be driven by the elites and not crowds rioting. The other thing that I think would happen is the gloves would come off in terms of the west seeking regime change. They might even go public with it - "we will pay you, entice you, bribe you, pressure you, threaten you, convince you... to remove this man [and to blame it all on him]" - would more nukes be used in response to this? Why? It would only increase the intensity of the abovementioned tactics. Nukes would be a strategic blunder on the order of the 3 day invasion.
Not sure, and because I trust the moderator here, maybe 86'd for a good reason. I keep getting notices from Substack to respond to a comment from him, but it doesn't work when I try.
Grahor: "The thing is, nuclear deterrent is easily said than done. People don't believe it, and yet it is.
There was, a couple of weeks ago, exactly that discussion in this substack. Ben, in typical Ben's faction, have written how easy it would be for Ukraine to get it's ow nuclear deterrent. Barely an inconvenience.
While people in the comments, including actual Ukrainian nuclear engineers, tried to explain that it's not happening, it's a pipe dream."
Grahor: "Again, we discussed it to no end in the last thread. 1) a modern nuke Ukraine is likely to get, the one India or Pakistan have, will not seriously damage Moscow. People overestimate how powerful nukes are. It will kill a couple hundred thousand people tops and leave the whole industrial potential of Moscow intact. If anything it will be great PR for Putin. You need 10+ nukes to seriously damage Moscow. 2) at which point would you take the decision to kill 20+ millions Russian civilians and to kill millions of Ukrainians in Kiyv, Odessa and Lviv in retaliatory strike? Putin would certainly try your resolve. Would it be on border crossing? Kherson? Odessa? Kiyv? When exactly would you say "okay, that's enough. Forgive me, Ukrainian people, for your nation have died in a retaliatory nuclear fire. I'm pressing the button and blowing up Moscow"?"
Me: "Fair point, but similar logic applies to Russia with its inferior missile defence and doubts over the condition of its nuclear weapons. Yet Putin's empty threats succeeded in terrifying lots of people in the west, including the Biden administration."
Grahor: "You are trying to compare completely different situations.
One one hand you compare Ukrainian leadership who are part of Ukrainian nation and are generally normal people who wish good upon their countrymen and don't consider themselves smartest people in the world, with Putin, who at that point of absolute power is pretty much sure that it is not just his right by his duty to control the existence of nations, who despises his own people (Russians) and by all accounts at least doesn't love his own children, although it seems he has some warm feelings towards his grandchildren. The amount of human sacrifice each side is ready and willing to commit is completely different.
I'll also mention here that missile defence, no matter how good, is not adequate against massive nuclear exchange at all, so its condition is of no importance whatsoever. Putin is not even going to try to defend Russian cities from nukes and if the West thinks their defences are going to do anything, they are out of their minds. Also, nuclear weapons are much easier and cheaper to maintain than general public thinks (although still pretty expensive), once you have them. All that talks about tritium decays is balderdash, I can provide explanation why, if you are interested. Delivery systems are harder to maintain than nukes, but Russian Protons, Angaras and Oreshniks are flying, so nukes will fly too. Not all of them, but more than enough.
On the other hand you confuse the threats. Ukraine have the only option of initiating, with their first strike, deadly strategic exchange. Putin has completely different set of opportunities.
The West and western leaders are not afraid of Russian nukes nuking Washington. They aren't even afraid of nukes nuking Kyiv, although it could happen. The real horror is Putin attacking Ukrainian armed forces, but NOT cities, with nukes. And the horror is - what do you do THEN? Western leaders, all of them, don't have an answer and it terrifies them utterly. And it should. It terrifies ME, and I'm even not afraid of nukes and don't care all that much about people dead. Because I don't have an answer, either.
So, let's imagine Putin finally has enough and decides on the next level of escalation (I assure you, he is constantly tempted. It's in his character). Five small, very limited, nukes arise like little suns over Ukrainian army's positions. Not over cities. Actually very small number of people dead, may be 20 thousands tops, likely even less, like, 5-6 thousands. Very little fallout. What do you DO, as Western leader?
Well, it's pretty obvious what would Trump do. "See? Their own fault, Ukrainians, for wearing that short skirt. Let Putin take them, with my blessings." But what about others?
You can't initiate massive nuclear exchange - that will cause massive nuclear retaliation and the world is over. Macron will not sacrifice France over 5 thousand Ukrainian troops.
You can't retaliatory nuke Russian army, even in Ukraine's territory - what if Putin will response by nuking YOUR army in YOUR territory?! Not cities. Just the army. Again, not even 5000, just one small nuke and like 1000 people. What THEN?! You are back at square one - you still can't initiate global nuclea war. So you can't risk it.
You send your army to fight against Russian in Ukraine? But Putin has already shown that he is ready to nuke armies in Ukraine. Why not yours? What's the difference? What's to stop him? What are you doing then?!!
You attack Russian army with planes and conventional weapons? Reasonable, but it's not as if will hurt Russians terribly! It's a farking weak sauce, Putin will consider it not a response at all! Biden promised to sink Black Sea fleet, but Black Sea fleet is on the bottom already!
And if you do nothing?!! Then Putin will nuke Ukrainian forces until Ukraine surrenders.
So what. Do. You. Do?!
I don't have an answer. Really. And it's terrifying.
In fact, if I were in the Putin's place, with his values and ideas about "Great Russia", with his despise towards both Europeans and Russians, with his messianic ideas, but with my personality, I would use nukes this way. I really would. The idea warms me up even now. And I am, mind you, a normal person. I have a written conclusion of the psychiatric commission that I, Grahor, am not a psychopath, but a normal person. Not everyone has one of those! And yet I am imagining myself using nukes in Putin's place and I really see no downsides. Best case scenario - I get not just Ukraine, but Europe knows that they can't stand against me and I get EVERYTHING.
Worst case scenario? Thousand years later children of those survived, living in caves, would tell the stories about Grahor Of The Burning Atom. Grahor the Destroyer. Grahor the Lightbringer. Is it really "worst case"?
Respectfully disagree. Or to be more precise agree with most but think some points could have been presented more accurately.
Scenarios on nuclear use have been around since nuclear weapons have been invented. And discussing nuclear use scenarios, nuclear use doctrines, does have some deterrent capability, is always understood as threat, sending a message,
A. this message is not really aimed at Russia. Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons in a war in Ukraine. Not now, when Russia is clearly winning on the battlefield, and not before.
And Russia never had intention to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Nuclear threats, clarification of nuclear doctrine have always been aimed at Britain and US. If, under the guise of helping Ukraine, UK and US use military force against Russia, in a way that is an existential threat, they can and will be targeted by Russian nuclear power.
Russian message is simple, cause of the war is British and US ambition to place military bases, US and UK/NATO forces inside Ukraine, and on Russian border. It will not happen. War will continue until US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
This is a simple framework, that leaves little to imagination. UK and US could become a target of nuclear attack if they attack Russia and present existential threat.
B. message is really aimed at Pakistan, i.e. Pakistan, ISI, representing all forces representing Moslem deep state. Why? And why now?
US/CIA and UK have been using islamic extremism, secret services of Islamic countries against West enemies, from Soviet Union, to Russia, to India. Attacks of islamic militants on India have not been exclusively Pakistani affair. It would be ridiculous to say CIA is not in continuous, almost daily communication with ISI.
Pakistanis do a lot of things on their own, but still the whole structure of western oriented Moslem deep states, spanning from Pakistani ISI and Army to Jordan to Saudi Arabia is in correlation, synchronisation with US strategy. Until now, Pakistani use of terrorism against India has been tolerated, now time comes for a transition.
Currently US is trying to push, pull India into a strategic position that would make war between India and China a possibility. Because only real way US & UK can defeat China is by provoking a proxy war with China. China has just a few opponents on its borders capable of waging a proxy war and most are unwilling or unable. Taiwan is a once in a lifetime card, once Taiwan declares independence it will be ruined as a country. Japan is still not a nuclear country, and as we can understand from reading this article just a threat of using nuclear bomb is enough to stop Japan. So it is only India that could engage China in a proxy war that would lead to downfall of China. But India and China are already fighting on the long Himalayas border. The problem for the US and UK is they are fighting with sticks - they are opponents, but fight with sticks is not going to escalate into war. Fighting with sticks gives one enough time to calm down, talk, negotiate the peaceful solution.
Enter Pakistan. Pakistani supported terrorists are able to incite a war in Asia, a war that has US on both sides, China on both sides, but could, if groomed expertly result in an armed clash between China and India. If/when that happens, US will be able to organise Pakistanis to ally with India against China (Uyghurs come to mind immediately). But US & UK need Pakistan to show patience, that it does not usually have in sufficient quantity.
What do we (I speak for the west, US & UK, leading western civilisation) do?
Keep Pakistani provoking, accentuate Chinese involvement, but keep Pakistanis on a leash.
Sarcastosaurus has expertly explained the timeline of Pakistani- Indian 2025 war, and it is obvious that war, once started, is very difficult to control. It can escalate extremely quickly.
A warning to Pakistan, do not let yourself be fooled into using nuclear weapons.
regarding what Putin says, please remember that Putin is leading Russia 25 years, has commented, or written on almost all aspects of conflict with NATO, Ukraine, and all of this is available online. But as Putin is currently an enemy of the West, all efforts are used to paint a picture of Putin as an empire seeking ruler.
Not true.
Putin is remarkably reliable, consistent in what he says. Compared to any western leader, even very stable characters, like Merkel, not even to mention flip floppers like Macron, or completely unreliable script readers like Zelensky etc.
Putin said famously that whoever does not feel regret at the demise of Soviet Union has no heart, but whoever thinks of recreating it has no brain.
And that's it.
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia. Territory is not the goal, but territorial conquest has become inevitable.
Putin accepted Crimea in Ukraine as long as Ukraine was willing to keep being neutral, Putin offered solution in 2022 that would have kept Donbas in Ukraine, with an autonomous status. He is not about territory.
But as long as the war goes on, the fight is intensive, men get killed, there is no going back, ever.
If Britain continues supporting Ukraine in fighting a war for NATO membership, territorial conquest will be the only solution left to Russia.
All of this would be fine except for one big detail. NATO, unlike Russia, has never launched an offensive operation. If Russia is worried about NATO, it should reflect on why. Destruction of Chechnya, war crimes in Syria, invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Georgia, invasion of Moldova, invasion of Ukraine, war crimes in Ukraine.
Your argument is typical of someone who believes Russian propaganda and hasn't done the required reading to be taken seriously.
Serious people who have done the work on understanding Putin, and it's not difficult, know what he wants. He's made it clear for a decade.
The fastest way to get up to speed is to watch the Shaprio interviews with Zelensky. You can actually skip the actual interview. But look at the detail and depth of Shapiro's understanding of the war. He did the work.
Most of the things you mention are extensively covered in western mainstream media and are not true;
NATO, unlike Russia, has never launched an offensive operation.
not true.
NATO has started several offensive operations, starting with Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Lybia.
War crimes in Syria (Wikipedia)
Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by the United Kingdom and some Arab intelligence services, including Saudi intelligence.The aim of the program was to remove Syrian president.
Current leader of Syria is a man wanted by U.S.
Al-Golani’s ties to al-Qaida stretch back to 2003 when he joined extremists battling U.S. troops in Iraq. The native of Syria was detained several times by the U.S. military, but remained in Iraq. During that time, al-Qaida usurped likeminded groups and formed the extremist Islamic State of Iraq, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In 2011, a popular uprising against Syria’s Assad triggered a brutal government crackdown and led to all-out war. Al-Golani’s prominence grew when al-Baghdadi sent him to Syria to establish a branch of al-Qaida called the Nusra Front. The United States labeled the new group as a terrorist organization. That designation still remains in place and the U.S. government has put a $10 million bounty on him.
It is difficult to discuss anything with someone who pretends facts covered , described in western mainstream media do not exist.
You pretend not to understand, I will try to point to the most important facts that you are missing:
Cause of the war is British and US ambition to place military bases, US and UK/NATO forces inside Ukraine, and on Russian border and Ukrainian joining that ambition
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
US already gave up, Britain is never going to give up, the war doesn't cost them real lives, the final decision stands with Ukraine.
The question remains
Are Ukrainians going to allow destruction of their country and lose their future fighting for US and UK /NATO bases on Russian border.
And if they do, what is the cause, why are they making this colossal mistake
You are deliberately obfuscating and lying when you say the West and NATO has an ambition to put military bases in Ukraine against Russia.
Lie number 1: That it's against Russia, while in reality it's for protection of Ukraine from Russia,
Lie number 2: Its Ukraine that desperately wants to be in NATO, with NATO saying NO for the last 20 years. NATO isn't trying to get into Ukraine and use it against Russia, if they were, UA would have been allowed into NATO in 2008.
I agree there is no point in continuing discussion with someone insulting and yelling.
If you have an opinion and you are willing to defend it with arguments, and most importantly facts, you have yet to show it.
My point is simple:
US and British goal is to make Ukraine a bulwark against Russia, a proxy in a war against Russia.
The Russian goal is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
US already gave up, Britain is never going to give up, the war doesn't cost them real lives, the final decision stands with Ukraine.
The question now is:
Are Ukrainians going to allow destruction of their country and lose their future fighting for US and UK /NATO bases on Russian border.
My main argument is that Ukraine already had everything, independence, 29 regions, Crimea, Donbas, two orthodox churches, a significant portion of population bilingual, yet accepting Ukraine, and
since 2014 following strategy of confrontation with Russia is slowly losing, its people, territory, ownership of minerals, land.
With all due respect, you're repeating a familiar distortion of reality. Russia claims it never intended to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine — yet keeps making nuclear threats, especially when losing on the battlefield. You say the war started because NATO planned bases in Ukraine — but that’s just a convenient excuse.
Let’s be clear: Ukraine wanted to join NATO because Russia was already a threat. It’s like saying a woman provoked a stalker by installing a lock on her door.
After 2022, Finland joined NATO, doubling NATO’s border with Russia. But did Russia invade Finland? No. Why? Because Finland is strong, and Russia knows it would get a proper response. So don’t pretend this was about NATO. It was about punishing Ukraine for wanting to be free.
Imagine your neighbor doesn’t want to live by your rules anymore, so you burn down his house and say, “He made me do it because he talked to other neighbors.” That’s how Russia sounds.
Russia lives in a fantasy where invading another country is “self-defense” and where people aren’t allowed to choose freedom. But the world sees the truth — and so do millions of Russians who are afraid to speak it out loud.
I remember the line from the WOPR computer at the end of that 1980’s classic movie, WarGames. “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” It was true when both sides had tens of thousands of warheads, and it is even more true after nuclear arsenals have shrunk to thousands of warheads. Each remaining on has become much more consequential.
The term "tactical nuke" is also a misnomer for the obvious... the radiation fallout scatters based on the winds. A strike on a Ukrainian target - means deadly, dangerous radiation within a 300km radius & poisoning even 1,200km away. Putin could sicken 25 million of his own citizens, rendering 50% of his current army barely able to fight. Yes, it would be deadlier to Ukrainians, but HIS people would also suffer. Even Muscovites' lives could be threatened - getting ill enough to miss work for months - leading to economic loss just from that. His soldiers couldn't be within 300-600km.
Then the PANIC of Russians throughout...even IF Yekaterinburg , St. Petersburg & Vladivostok had little to no radiation fallout the next 2-3 months, food grown more in the north, west & central Russian areas could be contaminated enough to cause illness, & scarcity of food & clean water would, I think, cause a breakdown of civil society. Heavy Panic - & we know Putin & Co. would assure all Russians are SAFE. But residents within 300-500 km of the Ukrainian border would begin showing signs of radiation poisoning. Social media, phone & word of mouth cannot be stopped completely...enough Russians, Belarusians, Poles & even Scandinavians remember the Panic the Chernobyl disaster caused. That amount of radiation released was so much, much greater than that from a smaller nuke missile or two, but the Populace would freak out, leading to massive conspiracy theories & again, I think, massive panic. Even residents Siberia to Vladivostok would suffer from the disruption. That'd be from just the one or two incidents. Then social media would be full of wild tales of other Russian cities being targets from NATO, China, India, Pakistan, Israel or the USA. This is why I emphasize PANIC would shut down Russia AND all of Europe.
All-out war with Russia means WW III sooner than later, doesn’t it? A cornered autocrat is going to Push All The Buttons before facing the fate of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
Watching events in the Middle East I find myself far more concerned about nuclear armed Israel than any of the other countries with nuclear capability.
Netanyahu has been demonizing Iran and pushing for 'elimination' of its nuclear capabilities for years. As shown in Gaza he has no respect for international law (but then that is Israel from its beginning). With the recent pivot to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states - and the shock of Trump not only lifting sanctions but actually meeting Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa - Netanyahu and Israel are sidelined.
Trump had - according to reports- nixed American involvement in what was an already planned joint strike on Iran. With an apparent Trump desire to see the 'fighting' in Gaza stopped and humanitarian aid to resume Netanyahu is getting pressure to shut down there as well without his 'total victory' over Hamas.
Having for years declared himself the only leader able to keep Israel safe with Iran as the existential threat, nuking Tehran or at least the 'nuclear facilities' seems to be an option to cement his place in history as that 'Savior of Israel.'
With zealots like Gvir and Smotrich on his security council I doubt there would be real opposition. And the IDF has shown that it is composed of 'good soldiers' who follow orders.
Frankly I was unhappy to see the Shah deposed. Even in retrospect in looking at his record I believe him to by unfairly 'demonized.'
And for years i have been an 'Islamophobe' in commenting on the forced conversions, abduction and rape of young Christian women, honor killings, murder of non-Muslims for 'disrespecting the Quran or the Prophet,' death for apostates, etc. that occur in Muslim dominated countries.
With that I also was raising concern as well over the acquisition by Iran of nuclear weaponry - pointing out, among other concerns, that it it would not take multiple bombs/warheads or ICBMs to deliver an attack (EMP) on the US.
However, at this time having watched Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West bank for over 18 months and having discovered a more accurate history of Israel than the plucky Israeli David vs the Arab Goliath presented to the world for decades I am now an anti-Zionist AKA 'antisemite.' Perhaps more zealous in that I was raised on that myth.
As I see it there are demons in both camps, but the biggest threat to regional (world?) peace and the country performing a genocidal campaign in Gaza along with ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is Israel. To cap it off polls show by far the majority of the Israeli public in approval of the IDF's actions and indifferent to the West bank.
While the theocracy in Iran is bad there is a strong push in Usrael to establish one there as well. Just as intolerant as the mullahs.
The argument that any employment of certain nation-altering capabilities immediately triggers strategic, not merely tactical, consequences is crucial. This underscores the immense responsibility of C4ISR systems, which I cover on the Chinese side in my newsletter, to ensure clarity in signaling and control when these thresholds are approached, as any misstep could lead to the "rupture" you describe. I'll be covering Chinese nuclear C4ISR in the next month or so. https://ordersandobservations.substack.com/
"If Vladimir Putin were to use a nuclear weapon—even one dropped in an unpopulated area to “send a message”—the price wouldn’t be a scolding. It would be global retribution. Among the first consequences: full NATO entry into the war."
This assertion is based on what? A consensus among think-tankers? A consensus among military brass? Or a game-theoretic calculus that this has to be said to maintain the nuclear taboo - in which case it is not even an assertion. It's more a "this is what we would like Putin to believe we believe."
There are too many humans in the loop with a say in what would happen next - i.e. political leaders - to say with any certainty what would happen. Trump would probably chicken out. That might be a good thing for the survival of the human race. It also might not be, in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that NATO would have fought Russia to conventional defeat without triggering further nuclear escalation.
I suspect the real restraint on Putin using tactical nukes in Ukraine is Xi. The Chinese are doing very well in the current geopolitical status quo and don't want a hand grenade thrown into it. And they are Putin's economic backstop.
The Chinese are loosing in with their "friendship without limits" game. Sanctions have exposed lots of limits.
The assertion is based on human nature, and history. The only two things worth relying on. Remember, international relations exist in a State of Nature. Every nation for itself. This provides a level of predictability.
BTW... every time Trump shows he doesn't understand geopolitics, days later he silliness gets walked back. If Russia let loose a nuke, the state apparatus would kick in. Meaning, Trump would be demoted to figure head. Senate and Pentagon leaders would step in and make all the decisions. Not a lame duck with less than 4 years at the "helm".
We have already seen this. When Trump cut off aid and intel to Ukraine, it was quickly restored. That cut off, is actually over Trump's pay grade. We like to act like the president is all powerful. He's not. Not even close.
Read my work. The return on US investment in Ukraine is huge. So huge that the DoD isn't going to allow Trump to cut it off.
That's assuming the leaders of the "apparatus", many of them appointed by Trump himself, are seriously more competent at their jobs than he is at his... from the general picture, it doesn't really look like it.
That's definitely a worry. But have you ever been a situation where no one around you likes you, respects you, and refuses to do anything you ask? That would be the DoD, CIA, DIA, State, et al. All of Trump's lackies would find it impossible to even get the simplest task done. This isn't tinfoil hat Deep State conspiracy. This is what happens when your "corporation" has a bad corporate culture. This is human nature.
Re China and India. I don't think the trade figures capture the relationship, not even a fragment of it. Even during the Cold war, trade figures never mattered. The security and arms trade relationships matter much more. Both India and China are dependent on Russian armament tech.
They were, until the war in Ukraine showed Russian aviation and missile defense to be severely lacking. Also, China doesn't buy so much from the Russian defense industry as steal from it.
Also add to the fact that Russia can't export much as it needs to replace its loses in Ukraine. India is more interested in France and Italy than Russia these days.
Yes, Ukraine war has strained russian ability to export. India is still awaiting the rest of the S400 systems that are already paid for. India however has not "reverse engineered" russian hardware as much as China has. Wonder if it is lack of competency or good faith partnership.
I dont know how far the french partnership will go beyond acquiring ready to fly rafales. Despite spending a lot, the french have been elusive if terms of ToT.
Re: Pakistan. It is ridiculous to threaten India with a tactical nuke. India has a stated doctrine that a stunt like this would invite an overwhelming "strategic" response. Does it make any sense to threaten with a battlefield nuke and invite complete and utter annihilation in return?
disagree. there are no red lines. Before 2014 we thought that the borders in Europe are immutable. and yet - the world did not reply to annexation of Crimea. russia uses chemical weapons - no response. russia blows up a dam - no response. russian drones fall on Nato territory in Romania - NATO bags Ukraine to keep silent about it. russia lunches ICBM at Dnipro - NATO claims that it wasn't an ICBM. If russia demolishes Pokrovsk with a low yield nuke, the world will argue for a week what exactly it was and then drop it.
PS: there is a show called "years and years" in which americans dropped a nuke in south china sea. Watch it.
Sinceramente no creo que el mundo responda contra un ataque nuclear "táctico", solo sería tema del momento en los medios y redes sociales durante una semana, en especial si tal hipotético ataque lo harían países como Israel por ejemplo.
Today's "low-yield tactical nukes" are more powerful than those used to demolish Hiroshima & Nagasaki in 1945... And the fallout after a nuclear war would be, well, literal.
no. they come in all ranges of yield: from hundreds of tons to megatons. in addition, the "efficiency" (in term of use of fissile material) of modern nuke there is high due to hydrogen boosting. in other term, very little fall out relatively speaking.
I didn't say *all* of them are more powerful. :) Still, Little Boy was just 15 kilotons, and Fat Man 21 kilotons. If someone is crazy enough to use a nuke today, it won't be easy to guess which "flavor" he'll pick. Perhaps he'll go for a megaton - that's still "tactical", right? ;)
And the fallout will be measured once the nuclear war ends, not when it starts. If someone's left to measure it, that is.
the planet is huge. it's a myth that the nuclear war threatens the civilization.
Well, depending on how it plays out, Africa and South America may well become the new centers of civilization for centuries to come. After all, what sane person would waste precious warheads on places where there are none? Then again, what sane person would use a nuke...
Planet is huge of course, but radiation and other ecological consequences won't be "local" unless it all ends quickly. Also, destroying just a dozen or two of the "most important" cities would probably be enough to end global economy and industry as we know it (and most of the Internet content and services, probably including this platform). Civilization will definitely survive, but probably a very different one.
This is more or less what I've been thinking would *actually* happen if a nuke would be used (for a coercive purpose). This is why Russia will never use them.
I've always preferred to believe the same way, that the only really surefire way to lose a war is to use nukes, but honestly: the recent political events made me having some doubts. I think/fear that Trump would just shrug it off and take it as the natural right of the strong.
Not a good feeling.
>>The cyber retaliation would be severe.
The actual cyber warfare capabilities are some ridiculously overestimated since the time the whole Snowden-popular stuff came out. At 'home turf' several things can be done (mostly to harmless people, though), but on Russian (or Chinese, or so) net it's way too limited.
Yes, why wouldn't we have more of the same? There are no more red lines. The media tells us the U.S. or China called Russia and said all hell would break loose if they used a nuke. We don't know what they said (Yay the public's right to know!) and it doesn't matter because we already have the data we need about red lines:
Past 10 Years:
Russia takes Crimea--stand back
Russia shoots down civilian airliner near Ukraine--stand back
Belarus diverts commercial airline--stand back
Russia invades Ukraine--stand back
Russian missiles land in Polish fields--stand back
North Korea and Iran send weapons to Russia--stand back
Israel begins elimination of Palestinians and taking of Gaza--stand back
Undersea cables cut--stand back
Polish mall sabotage (and much like it unreported)--stand back
China executes military operations close to Taiwan--stand back
Azerbaijan takes Nagorno Karabakh--stand back
US/Turkey/Israel boot Russia from Syria--stand back
Israel takes part of Syria--stand back
India-Pakistan--stand back
And I bet someone could triple that list.
Compared to all that, I don't see how detonating a nuke high in the atmosphere will elicit anything but a few weeks worth of political speeches.
Russia uses nuke in Ukraine: stand back... in utter shock. Not the leaders, not those following the war closely. Anyone who knows anyone on this precious blue and white ball. Shock and inaction would slowly be replaced by - how do I put it - Russia needing to make its own semiconductors by melting sand, and a million other regressions into the iron age. My take- no military response, just economic death. Followed my Putin's removal from power.
Thats for the nuclear-neutral countries. I live in the infamously anti-nuclear NZ. If Russia used a nuke our opinion of it would sink as low as Ukraine's overnight. Russia would be, for decades, a non-entity to NZ. But this is a 5 million person country in the middle of the water hemisphere. I don't know of other countries like this, and whether any of those are significant.
Some months ago, Grahor Targ, who's no longer among us, made a convincing case (for me) of Putin using nukes on the front and the West just folding and sitting on its hands. I'm trying to remember what made it so believable to me; perhaps it was the shock and fear that would paralyze Europe.
Why wouldn't he use one soon? Today, it's as certain to him, that the West won't meet his demands, as it is to the West that he won't meet theirs. His whole modus operandi is escalate. I mean seriously peeps, do we need to go into this again ;) The West won't retaliate with a nuke. They simply won't. They might get ACTUALLY serious about cutting Russia off economically, as Cliff mentioned. So what? Russia can survive indefinitely. It has energy and it has food.
The benefit of a nuke is that even if Putin quits the next day he puts the world on notice that Russia is not dicking around--again. Many say Russia's nukes no longer work. Shut them up. Or, let's say a new regime wants to take over. They explode a nuke over whatever, get rid of Putin, blame him, but say they are not giving up anything. Then what?
I've never believed there is a real risk of nuclear war. I believe it's been a bs excuse for Europe and US to let Ukraine do all the real fighting. We have to remember that the U.S. didn't use nukes against the Japanese military. It used them to make a point by roasting hundreds of thousand of citizens.
Why wouldn't Putin do something similar? We already did it. That's the cold, hard, super-sad fact.
Oh yeah I remember that post (where is Grahor anyway?) - I disagreed with it. I think the scenario is a relatively simple thought experiment. Firstly Ukraine would fight on (having no other option), and would make endless propaganda hay out of it, bringing maximal pressure on other nations to act. Those supporting Ukraine would be driven by the panic and fear instilled in their populace, and their primary goal would be to keep their economies going by alleviating this fear. How do you do that? I think not by military escalation - in fact I think its almost a given that they would reduce military support for Ukraine as part of this fear management. I think by a coordinated, deep, and committed economic attack on Russia. The kind that involves blocs forming and going to China and India and saying things that make those two sit up damn straight and listen. And co-operate. And so we get to a Russia melting sand scenario as mentioned above. This would spell the end of Putin - how soon, don't know, but I'm pretty sure it would be driven by the elites and not crowds rioting. The other thing that I think would happen is the gloves would come off in terms of the west seeking regime change. They might even go public with it - "we will pay you, entice you, bribe you, pressure you, threaten you, convince you... to remove this man [and to blame it all on him]" - would more nukes be used in response to this? Why? It would only increase the intensity of the abovementioned tactics. Nukes would be a strategic blunder on the order of the 3 day invasion.
I think you’re right, no nukes in response, but much more serious pressure. My question is, does Europe have enough vertebrae to add up to a backbone?
Oh dear what happened to Grahor? I liked him. Also I'd like to see him and Ben debate this question.
Not sure, and because I trust the moderator here, maybe 86'd for a good reason. I keep getting notices from Substack to respond to a comment from him, but it doesn't work when I try.
Thanks
Here is the original discussion:
Grahor: "The thing is, nuclear deterrent is easily said than done. People don't believe it, and yet it is.
There was, a couple of weeks ago, exactly that discussion in this substack. Ben, in typical Ben's faction, have written how easy it would be for Ukraine to get it's ow nuclear deterrent. Barely an inconvenience.
While people in the comments, including actual Ukrainian nuclear engineers, tried to explain that it's not happening, it's a pipe dream."
Grahor: "Again, we discussed it to no end in the last thread. 1) a modern nuke Ukraine is likely to get, the one India or Pakistan have, will not seriously damage Moscow. People overestimate how powerful nukes are. It will kill a couple hundred thousand people tops and leave the whole industrial potential of Moscow intact. If anything it will be great PR for Putin. You need 10+ nukes to seriously damage Moscow. 2) at which point would you take the decision to kill 20+ millions Russian civilians and to kill millions of Ukrainians in Kiyv, Odessa and Lviv in retaliatory strike? Putin would certainly try your resolve. Would it be on border crossing? Kherson? Odessa? Kiyv? When exactly would you say "okay, that's enough. Forgive me, Ukrainian people, for your nation have died in a retaliatory nuclear fire. I'm pressing the button and blowing up Moscow"?"
Me: "Fair point, but similar logic applies to Russia with its inferior missile defence and doubts over the condition of its nuclear weapons. Yet Putin's empty threats succeeded in terrifying lots of people in the west, including the Biden administration."
Grahor: "You are trying to compare completely different situations.
One one hand you compare Ukrainian leadership who are part of Ukrainian nation and are generally normal people who wish good upon their countrymen and don't consider themselves smartest people in the world, with Putin, who at that point of absolute power is pretty much sure that it is not just his right by his duty to control the existence of nations, who despises his own people (Russians) and by all accounts at least doesn't love his own children, although it seems he has some warm feelings towards his grandchildren. The amount of human sacrifice each side is ready and willing to commit is completely different.
I'll also mention here that missile defence, no matter how good, is not adequate against massive nuclear exchange at all, so its condition is of no importance whatsoever. Putin is not even going to try to defend Russian cities from nukes and if the West thinks their defences are going to do anything, they are out of their minds. Also, nuclear weapons are much easier and cheaper to maintain than general public thinks (although still pretty expensive), once you have them. All that talks about tritium decays is balderdash, I can provide explanation why, if you are interested. Delivery systems are harder to maintain than nukes, but Russian Protons, Angaras and Oreshniks are flying, so nukes will fly too. Not all of them, but more than enough.
On the other hand you confuse the threats. Ukraine have the only option of initiating, with their first strike, deadly strategic exchange. Putin has completely different set of opportunities.
The West and western leaders are not afraid of Russian nukes nuking Washington. They aren't even afraid of nukes nuking Kyiv, although it could happen. The real horror is Putin attacking Ukrainian armed forces, but NOT cities, with nukes. And the horror is - what do you do THEN? Western leaders, all of them, don't have an answer and it terrifies them utterly. And it should. It terrifies ME, and I'm even not afraid of nukes and don't care all that much about people dead. Because I don't have an answer, either.
So, let's imagine Putin finally has enough and decides on the next level of escalation (I assure you, he is constantly tempted. It's in his character). Five small, very limited, nukes arise like little suns over Ukrainian army's positions. Not over cities. Actually very small number of people dead, may be 20 thousands tops, likely even less, like, 5-6 thousands. Very little fallout. What do you DO, as Western leader?
Well, it's pretty obvious what would Trump do. "See? Their own fault, Ukrainians, for wearing that short skirt. Let Putin take them, with my blessings." But what about others?
You can't initiate massive nuclear exchange - that will cause massive nuclear retaliation and the world is over. Macron will not sacrifice France over 5 thousand Ukrainian troops.
You can't retaliatory nuke Russian army, even in Ukraine's territory - what if Putin will response by nuking YOUR army in YOUR territory?! Not cities. Just the army. Again, not even 5000, just one small nuke and like 1000 people. What THEN?! You are back at square one - you still can't initiate global nuclea war. So you can't risk it.
You send your army to fight against Russian in Ukraine? But Putin has already shown that he is ready to nuke armies in Ukraine. Why not yours? What's the difference? What's to stop him? What are you doing then?!!
You attack Russian army with planes and conventional weapons? Reasonable, but it's not as if will hurt Russians terribly! It's a farking weak sauce, Putin will consider it not a response at all! Biden promised to sink Black Sea fleet, but Black Sea fleet is on the bottom already!
And if you do nothing?!! Then Putin will nuke Ukrainian forces until Ukraine surrenders.
So what. Do. You. Do?!
I don't have an answer. Really. And it's terrifying.
In fact, if I were in the Putin's place, with his values and ideas about "Great Russia", with his despise towards both Europeans and Russians, with his messianic ideas, but with my personality, I would use nukes this way. I really would. The idea warms me up even now. And I am, mind you, a normal person. I have a written conclusion of the psychiatric commission that I, Grahor, am not a psychopath, but a normal person. Not everyone has one of those! And yet I am imagining myself using nukes in Putin's place and I really see no downsides. Best case scenario - I get not just Ukraine, but Europe knows that they can't stand against me and I get EVERYTHING.
Worst case scenario? Thousand years later children of those survived, living in caves, would tell the stories about Grahor Of The Burning Atom. Grahor the Destroyer. Grahor the Lightbringer. Is it really "worst case"?
I really shouldn't be in power. But Putin is."
Respectfully disagree. Or to be more precise agree with most but think some points could have been presented more accurately.
Scenarios on nuclear use have been around since nuclear weapons have been invented. And discussing nuclear use scenarios, nuclear use doctrines, does have some deterrent capability, is always understood as threat, sending a message,
A. this message is not really aimed at Russia. Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons in a war in Ukraine. Not now, when Russia is clearly winning on the battlefield, and not before.
And Russia never had intention to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Nuclear threats, clarification of nuclear doctrine have always been aimed at Britain and US. If, under the guise of helping Ukraine, UK and US use military force against Russia, in a way that is an existential threat, they can and will be targeted by Russian nuclear power.
Russian message is simple, cause of the war is British and US ambition to place military bases, US and UK/NATO forces inside Ukraine, and on Russian border. It will not happen. War will continue until US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
This is a simple framework, that leaves little to imagination. UK and US could become a target of nuclear attack if they attack Russia and present existential threat.
B. message is really aimed at Pakistan, i.e. Pakistan, ISI, representing all forces representing Moslem deep state. Why? And why now?
US/CIA and UK have been using islamic extremism, secret services of Islamic countries against West enemies, from Soviet Union, to Russia, to India. Attacks of islamic militants on India have not been exclusively Pakistani affair. It would be ridiculous to say CIA is not in continuous, almost daily communication with ISI.
Pakistanis do a lot of things on their own, but still the whole structure of western oriented Moslem deep states, spanning from Pakistani ISI and Army to Jordan to Saudi Arabia is in correlation, synchronisation with US strategy. Until now, Pakistani use of terrorism against India has been tolerated, now time comes for a transition.
Currently US is trying to push, pull India into a strategic position that would make war between India and China a possibility. Because only real way US & UK can defeat China is by provoking a proxy war with China. China has just a few opponents on its borders capable of waging a proxy war and most are unwilling or unable. Taiwan is a once in a lifetime card, once Taiwan declares independence it will be ruined as a country. Japan is still not a nuclear country, and as we can understand from reading this article just a threat of using nuclear bomb is enough to stop Japan. So it is only India that could engage China in a proxy war that would lead to downfall of China. But India and China are already fighting on the long Himalayas border. The problem for the US and UK is they are fighting with sticks - they are opponents, but fight with sticks is not going to escalate into war. Fighting with sticks gives one enough time to calm down, talk, negotiate the peaceful solution.
Enter Pakistan. Pakistani supported terrorists are able to incite a war in Asia, a war that has US on both sides, China on both sides, but could, if groomed expertly result in an armed clash between China and India. If/when that happens, US will be able to organise Pakistanis to ally with India against China (Uyghurs come to mind immediately). But US & UK need Pakistan to show patience, that it does not usually have in sufficient quantity.
What do we (I speak for the west, US & UK, leading western civilisation) do?
Keep Pakistani provoking, accentuate Chinese involvement, but keep Pakistanis on a leash.
Sarcastosaurus has expertly explained the timeline of Pakistani- Indian 2025 war, and it is obvious that war, once started, is very difficult to control. It can escalate extremely quickly.
A warning to Pakistan, do not let yourself be fooled into using nuclear weapons.
Advancing isn't always equal to winning. Russia is far from winning.
Exactly. That is the tragedy of this war.
The goal is not territorial.
Cause of the war is British and US ambition to place military bases, US and UK/NATO forces inside Ukraine, and on Russian border.
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
Putin has said what the war is for, it's definitely territorial ambition. To remake the Russian empire.
RU
regarding what Putin says, please remember that Putin is leading Russia 25 years, has commented, or written on almost all aspects of conflict with NATO, Ukraine, and all of this is available online. But as Putin is currently an enemy of the West, all efforts are used to paint a picture of Putin as an empire seeking ruler.
Not true.
Putin is remarkably reliable, consistent in what he says. Compared to any western leader, even very stable characters, like Merkel, not even to mention flip floppers like Macron, or completely unreliable script readers like Zelensky etc.
Putin said famously that whoever does not feel regret at the demise of Soviet Union has no heart, but whoever thinks of recreating it has no brain.
And that's it.
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia. Territory is not the goal, but territorial conquest has become inevitable.
Putin accepted Crimea in Ukraine as long as Ukraine was willing to keep being neutral, Putin offered solution in 2022 that would have kept Donbas in Ukraine, with an autonomous status. He is not about territory.
But as long as the war goes on, the fight is intensive, men get killed, there is no going back, ever.
If Britain continues supporting Ukraine in fighting a war for NATO membership, territorial conquest will be the only solution left to Russia.
All of this would be fine except for one big detail. NATO, unlike Russia, has never launched an offensive operation. If Russia is worried about NATO, it should reflect on why. Destruction of Chechnya, war crimes in Syria, invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Georgia, invasion of Moldova, invasion of Ukraine, war crimes in Ukraine.
Your argument is typical of someone who believes Russian propaganda and hasn't done the required reading to be taken seriously.
Serious people who have done the work on understanding Putin, and it's not difficult, know what he wants. He's made it clear for a decade.
The fastest way to get up to speed is to watch the Shaprio interviews with Zelensky. You can actually skip the actual interview. But look at the detail and depth of Shapiro's understanding of the war. He did the work.
You... have not.
RU
Most of the things you mention are extensively covered in western mainstream media and are not true;
NATO, unlike Russia, has never launched an offensive operation.
not true.
NATO has started several offensive operations, starting with Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Lybia.
War crimes in Syria (Wikipedia)
Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by the United Kingdom and some Arab intelligence services, including Saudi intelligence.The aim of the program was to remove Syrian president.
Current leader of Syria is a man wanted by U.S.
Al-Golani’s ties to al-Qaida stretch back to 2003 when he joined extremists battling U.S. troops in Iraq. The native of Syria was detained several times by the U.S. military, but remained in Iraq. During that time, al-Qaida usurped likeminded groups and formed the extremist Islamic State of Iraq, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In 2011, a popular uprising against Syria’s Assad triggered a brutal government crackdown and led to all-out war. Al-Golani’s prominence grew when al-Baghdadi sent him to Syria to establish a branch of al-Qaida called the Nusra Front. The United States labeled the new group as a terrorist organization. That designation still remains in place and the U.S. government has put a $10 million bounty on him.
It is difficult to discuss anything with someone who pretends facts covered , described in western mainstream media do not exist.
You pretend not to understand, I will try to point to the most important facts that you are missing:
Cause of the war is British and US ambition to place military bases, US and UK/NATO forces inside Ukraine, and on Russian border and Ukrainian joining that ambition
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
US already gave up, Britain is never going to give up, the war doesn't cost them real lives, the final decision stands with Ukraine.
The question remains
Are Ukrainians going to allow destruction of their country and lose their future fighting for US and UK /NATO bases on Russian border.
And if they do, what is the cause, why are they making this colossal mistake
You are deliberately obfuscating and lying when you say the West and NATO has an ambition to put military bases in Ukraine against Russia.
Lie number 1: That it's against Russia, while in reality it's for protection of Ukraine from Russia,
Lie number 2: Its Ukraine that desperately wants to be in NATO, with NATO saying NO for the last 20 years. NATO isn't trying to get into Ukraine and use it against Russia, if they were, UA would have been allowed into NATO in 2008.
There is no point to argue with facts.
Facts are sacred, and you are free to have and explain your opinion.
So,
it is a fact
NATO has started several offensive operations.
Leader of Syria has been on the most wanted list of US government, as a certified AlQaida terrorist.
NATO has officially decided to invite Ukraine in 2008.
All of this is public knowledge.
The goal of the war is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
US already gave up, Britain is never going to give up, the war doesn't cost them real lives, the final decision stands with Ukraine.
The question remains
Are Ukrainians going to allow destruction of their country and lose their future fighting for US and UK /NATO bases on Russian border.
And if they do, what is the cause, why are they making this colossal mistake
Real question is
What is Ukrainian strategy?
What is the logic behind the strategy?
Is this logic correct?
Is this strategy successful?
Is there a better way to lead a nation?
None of that unhinged rant addressed anything I said. Try again
I agree there is no point in continuing discussion with someone insulting and yelling.
If you have an opinion and you are willing to defend it with arguments, and most importantly facts, you have yet to show it.
My point is simple:
US and British goal is to make Ukraine a bulwark against Russia, a proxy in a war against Russia.
The Russian goal is to make Ukraine, US and Britain give up on using Ukraine as a military base against Russia.
US already gave up, Britain is never going to give up, the war doesn't cost them real lives, the final decision stands with Ukraine.
The question now is:
Are Ukrainians going to allow destruction of their country and lose their future fighting for US and UK /NATO bases on Russian border.
My main argument is that Ukraine already had everything, independence, 29 regions, Crimea, Donbas, two orthodox churches, a significant portion of population bilingual, yet accepting Ukraine, and
since 2014 following strategy of confrontation with Russia is slowly losing, its people, territory, ownership of minerals, land.
With all due respect, you're repeating a familiar distortion of reality. Russia claims it never intended to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine — yet keeps making nuclear threats, especially when losing on the battlefield. You say the war started because NATO planned bases in Ukraine — but that’s just a convenient excuse.
Let’s be clear: Ukraine wanted to join NATO because Russia was already a threat. It’s like saying a woman provoked a stalker by installing a lock on her door.
After 2022, Finland joined NATO, doubling NATO’s border with Russia. But did Russia invade Finland? No. Why? Because Finland is strong, and Russia knows it would get a proper response. So don’t pretend this was about NATO. It was about punishing Ukraine for wanting to be free.
Imagine your neighbor doesn’t want to live by your rules anymore, so you burn down his house and say, “He made me do it because he talked to other neighbors.” That’s how Russia sounds.
Russia lives in a fantasy where invading another country is “self-defense” and where people aren’t allowed to choose freedom. But the world sees the truth — and so do millions of Russians who are afraid to speak it out loud.
I remember the line from the WOPR computer at the end of that 1980’s classic movie, WarGames. “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” It was true when both sides had tens of thousands of warheads, and it is even more true after nuclear arsenals have shrunk to thousands of warheads. Each remaining on has become much more consequential.
Excellent article. Thank You.
The term "tactical nuke" is also a misnomer for the obvious... the radiation fallout scatters based on the winds. A strike on a Ukrainian target - means deadly, dangerous radiation within a 300km radius & poisoning even 1,200km away. Putin could sicken 25 million of his own citizens, rendering 50% of his current army barely able to fight. Yes, it would be deadlier to Ukrainians, but HIS people would also suffer. Even Muscovites' lives could be threatened - getting ill enough to miss work for months - leading to economic loss just from that. His soldiers couldn't be within 300-600km.
Then the PANIC of Russians throughout...even IF Yekaterinburg , St. Petersburg & Vladivostok had little to no radiation fallout the next 2-3 months, food grown more in the north, west & central Russian areas could be contaminated enough to cause illness, & scarcity of food & clean water would, I think, cause a breakdown of civil society. Heavy Panic - & we know Putin & Co. would assure all Russians are SAFE. But residents within 300-500 km of the Ukrainian border would begin showing signs of radiation poisoning. Social media, phone & word of mouth cannot be stopped completely...enough Russians, Belarusians, Poles & even Scandinavians remember the Panic the Chernobyl disaster caused. That amount of radiation released was so much, much greater than that from a smaller nuke missile or two, but the Populace would freak out, leading to massive conspiracy theories & again, I think, massive panic. Even residents Siberia to Vladivostok would suffer from the disruption. That'd be from just the one or two incidents. Then social media would be full of wild tales of other Russian cities being targets from NATO, China, India, Pakistan, Israel or the USA. This is why I emphasize PANIC would shut down Russia AND all of Europe.
All-out war with Russia means WW III sooner than later, doesn’t it? A cornered autocrat is going to Push All The Buttons before facing the fate of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
You assume his buttons lead to somewhere.
But I disagree. Pushing the "button" assures his place with Gaddafi and Hussein.
Thanks Ben, like you say, a small nuke is a nuke, is a nuke. And really like the classic Atomic Cannon shot!
Interesting, but the wrong player.
Watching events in the Middle East I find myself far more concerned about nuclear armed Israel than any of the other countries with nuclear capability.
Netanyahu has been demonizing Iran and pushing for 'elimination' of its nuclear capabilities for years. As shown in Gaza he has no respect for international law (but then that is Israel from its beginning). With the recent pivot to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states - and the shock of Trump not only lifting sanctions but actually meeting Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa - Netanyahu and Israel are sidelined.
Trump had - according to reports- nixed American involvement in what was an already planned joint strike on Iran. With an apparent Trump desire to see the 'fighting' in Gaza stopped and humanitarian aid to resume Netanyahu is getting pressure to shut down there as well without his 'total victory' over Hamas.
Having for years declared himself the only leader able to keep Israel safe with Iran as the existential threat, nuking Tehran or at least the 'nuclear facilities' seems to be an option to cement his place in history as that 'Savior of Israel.'
With zealots like Gvir and Smotrich on his security council I doubt there would be real opposition. And the IDF has shown that it is composed of 'good soldiers' who follow orders.
I'm not fan of Israel, but Iran deserves to be demonized.
Frankly I was unhappy to see the Shah deposed. Even in retrospect in looking at his record I believe him to by unfairly 'demonized.'
And for years i have been an 'Islamophobe' in commenting on the forced conversions, abduction and rape of young Christian women, honor killings, murder of non-Muslims for 'disrespecting the Quran or the Prophet,' death for apostates, etc. that occur in Muslim dominated countries.
With that I also was raising concern as well over the acquisition by Iran of nuclear weaponry - pointing out, among other concerns, that it it would not take multiple bombs/warheads or ICBMs to deliver an attack (EMP) on the US.
However, at this time having watched Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West bank for over 18 months and having discovered a more accurate history of Israel than the plucky Israeli David vs the Arab Goliath presented to the world for decades I am now an anti-Zionist AKA 'antisemite.' Perhaps more zealous in that I was raised on that myth.
As I see it there are demons in both camps, but the biggest threat to regional (world?) peace and the country performing a genocidal campaign in Gaza along with ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is Israel. To cap it off polls show by far the majority of the Israeli public in approval of the IDF's actions and indifferent to the West bank.
While the theocracy in Iran is bad there is a strong push in Usrael to establish one there as well. Just as intolerant as the mullahs.
Couldn't agree more.
The argument that any employment of certain nation-altering capabilities immediately triggers strategic, not merely tactical, consequences is crucial. This underscores the immense responsibility of C4ISR systems, which I cover on the Chinese side in my newsletter, to ensure clarity in signaling and control when these thresholds are approached, as any misstep could lead to the "rupture" you describe. I'll be covering Chinese nuclear C4ISR in the next month or so. https://ordersandobservations.substack.com/
Dec 16, 24 mushroom cloud over tartus in Syria appeared like a tactical nuke. What do you think ?
I've seen the video. I've seen nothing to suggest it was. You can't 'hide" and nuclear explosion. The world will know.
I have also seen the video, was very unusual, that’s why was asking. https://youtu.be/mvLhqu3bPio?si=ixQsTF-s7z0SHEBI
"If Vladimir Putin were to use a nuclear weapon—even one dropped in an unpopulated area to “send a message”—the price wouldn’t be a scolding. It would be global retribution. Among the first consequences: full NATO entry into the war."
This assertion is based on what? A consensus among think-tankers? A consensus among military brass? Or a game-theoretic calculus that this has to be said to maintain the nuclear taboo - in which case it is not even an assertion. It's more a "this is what we would like Putin to believe we believe."
There are too many humans in the loop with a say in what would happen next - i.e. political leaders - to say with any certainty what would happen. Trump would probably chicken out. That might be a good thing for the survival of the human race. It also might not be, in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that NATO would have fought Russia to conventional defeat without triggering further nuclear escalation.
I suspect the real restraint on Putin using tactical nukes in Ukraine is Xi. The Chinese are doing very well in the current geopolitical status quo and don't want a hand grenade thrown into it. And they are Putin's economic backstop.
The Chinese are loosing in with their "friendship without limits" game. Sanctions have exposed lots of limits.
The assertion is based on human nature, and history. The only two things worth relying on. Remember, international relations exist in a State of Nature. Every nation for itself. This provides a level of predictability.
BTW... every time Trump shows he doesn't understand geopolitics, days later he silliness gets walked back. If Russia let loose a nuke, the state apparatus would kick in. Meaning, Trump would be demoted to figure head. Senate and Pentagon leaders would step in and make all the decisions. Not a lame duck with less than 4 years at the "helm".
We have already seen this. When Trump cut off aid and intel to Ukraine, it was quickly restored. That cut off, is actually over Trump's pay grade. We like to act like the president is all powerful. He's not. Not even close.
Read my work. The return on US investment in Ukraine is huge. So huge that the DoD isn't going to allow Trump to cut it off.
That's assuming the leaders of the "apparatus", many of them appointed by Trump himself, are seriously more competent at their jobs than he is at his... from the general picture, it doesn't really look like it.
That's definitely a worry. But have you ever been a situation where no one around you likes you, respects you, and refuses to do anything you ask? That would be the DoD, CIA, DIA, State, et al. All of Trump's lackies would find it impossible to even get the simplest task done. This isn't tinfoil hat Deep State conspiracy. This is what happens when your "corporation" has a bad corporate culture. This is human nature.
This is a wise comment. The same goes for the original article.
Re China and India. I don't think the trade figures capture the relationship, not even a fragment of it. Even during the Cold war, trade figures never mattered. The security and arms trade relationships matter much more. Both India and China are dependent on Russian armament tech.
They were, until the war in Ukraine showed Russian aviation and missile defense to be severely lacking. Also, China doesn't buy so much from the Russian defense industry as steal from it.
Also add to the fact that Russia can't export much as it needs to replace its loses in Ukraine. India is more interested in France and Italy than Russia these days.
Yes, Ukraine war has strained russian ability to export. India is still awaiting the rest of the S400 systems that are already paid for. India however has not "reverse engineered" russian hardware as much as China has. Wonder if it is lack of competency or good faith partnership.
I dont know how far the french partnership will go beyond acquiring ready to fly rafales. Despite spending a lot, the french have been elusive if terms of ToT.
Re: Pakistan. It is ridiculous to threaten India with a tactical nuke. India has a stated doctrine that a stunt like this would invite an overwhelming "strategic" response. Does it make any sense to threaten with a battlefield nuke and invite complete and utter annihilation in return?
disagree. there are no red lines. Before 2014 we thought that the borders in Europe are immutable. and yet - the world did not reply to annexation of Crimea. russia uses chemical weapons - no response. russia blows up a dam - no response. russian drones fall on Nato territory in Romania - NATO bags Ukraine to keep silent about it. russia lunches ICBM at Dnipro - NATO claims that it wasn't an ICBM. If russia demolishes Pokrovsk with a low yield nuke, the world will argue for a week what exactly it was and then drop it.
PS: there is a show called "years and years" in which americans dropped a nuke in south china sea. Watch it.
Sinceramente no creo que el mundo responda contra un ataque nuclear "táctico", solo sería tema del momento en los medios y redes sociales durante una semana, en especial si tal hipotético ataque lo harían países como Israel por ejemplo.