What do you think are the actual chances of nuclear weapons use?

38 comments

  3. At that point I’m checking out.

    Barely have a will to live now, definitely won’t have a will to live after the apocalypse starts.

  5. In kind. That’s the way it works. To fight the constant threat of nuclear war, you have to be ready and willing to reciprocate.

  7. We cannot allow them to be used as a weapon of war. Period. If they are used, we’ve already messed up.

    The leaders of the US, UN, EU, etc should all be working diplomatically with Russian allies (China, India, etc). We should be using any pressure necessary, including threats of economic sanctions against allies of Russia, to ensure they’re working back channels to make it clear that the use of Nuclear Weapons ~~at~~ is a hard line. Russia needs to know that using Nuclear weapons will cause them to lose the few friends with any military or economic power they have left.

    Second, this is a good opportunity to make a fundamental change in the UN. A resolution needs to be passed that immediately removes voting privileges (including the veto from permanent Security Council members) from any country that uses nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon.

    Edit: a word

  8. Low

    The US stated policy is if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, we’ll sweep through Ukraine with conventional weapons and kick the Russians out

    Or in other words, make using nukes actively bad for Russia, so they have no reason to

  9. The official stance is conventional escalation. I reckon we’d launch an air war on the Russian front and suppress their Navy.

  10. If nuclear weapons are used, the US should invade Russia and remove Putin and his entire government and any reasonably powerful supporters from power and have a post-WW2 Germany and Japan style re-education and rebuilding campaign.

    >What do you think are the actual chances of nuclear weapons use?

    Very, very low. The US government has been open that the use if nuclear weapons is a line that would result in an invasion of Russia, so the potential cost is extremely high. And the potential gains from using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine are relatively low. It wouldn’t guarantee surrender and even if it did, Ukraine would still be a very expensive, very rebellious territory to hold.

  11. Well, I don’t think there are too many scenarios where that doesn’t result in more nukes flying in both directions.

    The “right” response is a conventional one, but if Russia nukes NATO troops after getting their shit pushed in, all bets are off.

  12. I think it’s important to consider that there’s a wide range of weapons and usage.

    The effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are probably the most familiar to your Average Joe; wiping out a good chunk of a city. But there have been nuclear weapons produced ranging from ~0.001x Hiroshima power, to ~3500x Hiroshima power. Yes, that’s the correct number of zeros; the largest nuclear bomb ever tested was *over three thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima.*

    So. If a nuclear weapon is used… is it practically a firecracker that takes out a handful of tanks, or is it so large that it annihilates an entire city? Is it used by Ukraine, or by Russia, or some other nation? On their own sovereign soil, or someone else’s?

    E.g. Ukraine using some small-yield weapon on a column of Russian tanks barreling towards Kiev, as opposed to Russia blanketing Ukraine with high yield warheads, or anything in between. The “proper” (or “least bad”) response would vary tremendously.

  13. US isn’t getting directly involved (beyond providing equipment and supplies) unless Russia deliberately/ meaningfully attacks NATO.

  14. My thought? Kill Putin directly by whatever means necessary. Basically set the precedent that if you use nuclear weapons, no matter what else happens, *you personally* will die.

    That might draconian but it’s the only thing I can think of to prevent a full nuclear exchange.

  15. Immediate overwhelming nuclear response on every major military position of the offending country. That is the sole principle on which the doctrine of Mutually assured destruction hangs and it has to be carried thru to prevent nuclear weapons from being used commonly.

  16. I’d say conventional warfare. We can wipe the floor with most of our enemies without resorting to WMD.

    There aren’t enough nukes in the world to stop our armed forces from mobilizing and striking anywhere in the world the next day.

  17. In “the” war. . .what war?

    The US has a policy of no first use when it comes to nuclear weapons. We will not launch a first strike. . .but we will respond if attacked.

    If you’re talking about the Russo-Ukrainian War, the US should respond with conventional forces directly attacking Russian assets. We won’t respond with nuclear weapons ourselves unless we’re directly attacked, but we should make it clear to Russia that we will NOT tolerate nuclear bullying.

    If Russia is willing to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, they should know that will only escalate the war. It will also show how completely weak Russian conventional forces are. . .they can’t capture Ukraine, right on their border, even after a year-long war with total military mobilization of their country that suffered high casualties, so they had to resort to nuclear weapons to have any chance of victory.

    Using nuclear weapons would mean Russia loses the war, both in the sense they’d be an international pariah for using nuclear weapons in a war of aggression as part of an unprovoked attack, and that it shows their conventional forces are so weak they cannot possibly win any serious war on their own.

  18. (1) Whatever the response is absolutely has to indicate that any first use of nuclear weapons is intolerable. First use always needs to be seen as an unconscionable risk for anyone who might consider using nukes first.

    (2) The actual response ought to depend on the scale of the first-use. For example, if Russia sets off a 1 kiloton tactical nuke in Ukraine that does minimal damage harm to civilians, the response from America should not be nuclear. It should be overwhelming *conventional* force. Versus if Russia sets off a 25 Megaton nuke in Kiev? That might be a scenario where I say the response is nuke Moscow (though I’ll generally always lean towards the overwhelming conventional force option if it’s feasible).

    (3) As for the actual chances of nukes being used in the war (assuming you’re talking about the invasion of Ukraine), I think it’s low. Certainly not impossible, because Putin has shown himself to be either incredibly incompetent or the intelligence he’s receiving is almost entirely fabricated and totally detached from reality. But any sane military commander gaming through the possible consequences of a nuclear attack would quickly realize that there are very few circumstances (almost none) wherein someone is able to launch a nuclear strike and survive to see through whatever their ultimate goal is. Nuking Ukraine would cause more problems for Russia than it would solve.

  19. I don’t want to think about it. Humanity would go back into the stone age. There will be no winners in that war.

  20. The chances are very, very low. Russia wants land, and they probably don’t want it to glow in the dark. Ukraine does not represent a serious threat to Russia, so using nuclear weapons would just be stupid and pointless, and would pretty much ensure that every country that doesn’t already support Ukraine would support them afterward.

    If nukes were used, we should impose a no-fly zone and a forced cease-fire in the area. We should also do our best to drop an inert smart bomb as close as possible to Putin himself, to make the point that we could have killed him if we wanted to. Leaders sometimes consider war differently when they’re reminded of their own mortality.

  21. The only place that seems delusional enough to fire nuclear weapons is North Korea. There are examples of even in Soviet Russia where officers refused or hesitated to initiate nuclear responses but I don’t think that would happen in NK. If they ever launched one I think the likelihood of it failing to reach its intended target and detonate is fairly high but if it should reach the US (or South Korea) and detonate then that entire country would be wiped off the face of the planet within minutes. You can’t let a regime that is capable of a preemptive act of war so devastating have any opportunity to continue and you cannot risk anything but complete and total annihilation.

    It would be a terribly sad day for humanity because 99.999% of the losses would be innocent victims.

  22. I believe the US told the Russians exactly what would happen if they used nukes in a tactical sense in the war. This was a some months back and the Russians blustering over nukes stopped after that.
    From what some sources close said, it involves the US taking out the Black Sea fleet and using air power to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine before using it to bomb Russians forces on the ground there. This all can be done with conventional forces and the Russians know that.

    My only issue is I would have SOCOM attack Wagner troops that are still stationed overseas in other countries as “Advisors.

  23. I believe the US has defenses capable of intercepting and shooting down ICBMs that the public just doesn’t know about. If we do have those, I would hope we’d use them before responding in turn with our nuclear weapons.

    I also think the US probably has pretty good intelligence as to whether or not the nuclear weapons would be used in the first place. We could and should do whatever we can to prevent that, including using conventional weapons to take out silos.

  24. If Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine; the USA should immediately establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and send out an ultimatum demanding that all Russian troops leave Ukraine within 48 hrs. If Russia does not comply; its forces in Ukraine should be atacked (by air) and all Russian naval vessels present in the Black Sea should be destroyed by using conventional (non-nuclear) means.

    If Russia uses nuclear weapons on a NATO country all bets are off.

  25. By not using them. Seriously, neither Ukraine, Russia, North Korea or China is as interested as USA in this

  27. War. We answer with war. We being NATO.

    If Russia crosses the *ultimate line* then they will do anything. They are committing a genocide, we already ought be doing more. If they introduce nukes to the mix then we’ve no longer any excuses to avoid direct confrontation.

  28. It depends on exactly what type of nukes and how they use them.

    If they blow up a city than Putin gets one on his house.
    If it’s a tactical nuke it would lead to conventional escalation most likely.

  30. The US’ policy for if that happened has, pretty much stayed consistent during my lifetime: overwhelming, but *second, response*, launches.

    I find it interesting that Russia has moved off *their* secondary-launch policy, to saying that they might launch first, but you’re asking AAA. America’s policy hasn’t changed, America isn’t threatening anyone with nuclear annihilation (though we get that from other countries all the time, looking at you North Korea).

  33. The chances for nuclear weapons use are low. Both the US and Russia have demonstrated caution and have avoided direct confrontation. Russia knows that a direct confrontation with the US or NATO will result in a certain defeat for them. Russia knows that it cannot achieve any of its objectives if they attack the USA.

    The USA should respond with an overwhelming and incapacitating conventional military response, if any nukes are used in Ukraine. Send Russia back into the stone age without using nukes. This sends a very strong warning with huge consequences for Russia: “use more nukes and get nuked yourself”.

  35. Assuming and hoping it never happens 🤞🤞

    But if it does, the nation that used them should become a pariah state until it’s government is toppled. I’m almost never in favor of boots on the ground war, but if a government is shown to be willing to use nukes today then that is a government too dangerous be to allowed to exist by the rest of the world

  36. The first country to launch a nuke will be the one responsible for the extinction of the human race.

  37. If Nukes are used in Ukraine, we’ve already told the Russians we will respond with Conventional Weapons.

    If nukes are used on US, then we’d respond with Nukes of our own.

    Then its game over for everyone.

  38. Low likelihood of use I think. As Ukraine is not part of NATO, we wouldn’t automatically respond with nuclear weapons like we would if they nuked Poland or something, but there would be some kind of response.. it’d be up to POTUS and the Joint Chiefs to figure out exactly what would be an appropriate response.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like