I’m seriously wondering if anybody thinks it’s possible that we end up with a nuclear war. With Ukraine winning the war what are the odds the Russians push the button? Is there a reason we don’t acknowledge this risk and take countermeasures such as civil defense? Wouldn’t civil defense make our deterrent more effective?

Are they?

Judging by the western media reporting they are. If they were in a position to win it they would have already.

Why? TACTICAL nukes deployed in the UKR theater might turn the tide, but STRATEGIC nukes fired into Europe or elsewhere would invite overwhelming retaliation. There is also a fair chance they could fizzle due to poor maintenance, which would be embarrassing.

It seems to me listening to Putin rhetoric that he’s likely to use the strategic weapons rather than end up like Saddam Hussein or Quadaffi

Russia isn't going to use nukes.

Ukraine is talking about long range missile strikes into Russia, and the US is there to discuss that.

I don't give a crap whose side you are, or think you are on, that is an escalation no one wants.

You strike Moscow with long range missles, and all bets are off.  And that we are there discussing the green light for that is insane.

Yes, it’s seems like too much risk for too little reward. I also strongly feel that our current government wouldn’t mind getting us all killed.

Can you back that statement up? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I hope you are right but I don’t trust the judgment of our leaders. Maybe they know something that makes them feel they can pursue this strategy. Knowing these people I just don’t think so.

Ukraine is not wining anything.

Losing is a thing, and Ukraine is excelling at it.

This. Not even remotely in the cards. Stop watching Canadian Prepper
and go outside.

Putin was never going to use nukes because they proclaim everyday how they are winning and killing 10,000 nato mercenaries daily.

The political costs are far more than any value nukes would provide.

He was never in any danger of becoming like Qaddafi or saddam. He was solidly in control of Russia.

they might use a small tactical nuke is my guess, or may at first use chemical warfare to send the point home, if that fails, they use a tac nuke to get the UKR to disengage.  could happen.  but ukraine isnt making enough gains anymore, and they plugged the hole.  so back to business as usual

By those standards, Kumhauler already won and you should be signing up you and your kids for re-education camp.

Zero

If I was Putin and I was the psychopath most kgb are I’d used the strategic weapons when nobody could see it coming. If he feels his grasp on power slipping I’d think he’d do it, but that’s just my wild logic. If our cnc feels the need to push things to the brink why no civil defense? Are the Russian weapons fake and we know it? Has mad been a strategy designed to scare our respective populations into submission? Nothing seems logical about this.

Why the one sentence replies? I’m really curious about you  guys that state that. What is your reasoning?

I agree.  Our leaders can't be trusted to make solid tough decisions,  alterior motives aside.  Zelensky is desperate to bring in outside help, and he doesn't care how he does it, or the repercussions of doing so.  Alterior motives aside for him as well.

There have been very few good, well thought out, decisions up to this point in that war, why the heck is anyone thinking cooler heads or smarter decisions are coming.

Do we want Russia out of Ukraine? Sure.  How that happens is anyone's guess.  But giving them weapons to strike Moscow, and subsequently green lighting those actions, will lead to a reaction that may not be nuclear, but Russia can't sit back and let that go without a response.  Zelensky wants that, he's absolutely willing to take everyone down with him.  Not sure I blame him if he's a forthright leader, but I don't trust him, his motives, or who he aligns himself with.

I don't trust Putin either.  And I don't trust our state dept, our intelligence apparatus, or our politicians (and their handlers).  

It's so insane that anyone that thinks it's good idea, I can't trust you either.

Although I agree that it would be an escalation, I just can't wrap my head around the why...

Russia decides to invade Ukraine, completely unprovoked.  Bombs/rockets Kiev and attempts to capture it.

Literally trying to take the country over, completely unprovoked.

...but somehow Ukraine returning the favor and launching missile strikes into Moscow is too far?

Fuckin' world is straight retarded.

the Japanese sure loved bombing Nanking & Shanghai

The Germans sure loved bombing Warsaw & Rotterdam.

It became a lot less fun ... when the bombs started coming back the other way.

Russia doesn't get any monopoly to say "We can bomb your cities at will, but you can't touch our airfields from which we are launching those very attacks".

Long Range weapons are not going to be used to "Terror Bomb" downtown Moscow or the Kremlin.  They will be targeted to the Military airfields the Russians use to strike into Ukraine.

This war has One person who started it & is the only one keeping it going.  Vladimir Putin.   He could end the entire war tomorrow if he publicly announced he was ceasing all operations and returning Russian Troops to the pre-2014 invasion borders.

Putin is a sly fox and he's not going to start tossing nukes because the pain is not worth the gain.  Say he nukes Kiev. Will the Ukrainians fight harder? And not matter if it ends the war, Russia will become a complete global pariah for decades.  Russia invaded their neighbor, and when the Russians' inept invasion failed, they resorted to using nukes on their "fellow slavs & russians they were "liberating".

And if Putin launches anything nuclear into a NATO country, Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) brings not one but three nuclear powers, France, Britain & the USA in response.

Putin thought he'd just blitzkrieg straight through to Kiev and win the whole country in three to five days.  Good thing the Russians are corrupt & incompetent's.

I don't see what Russia gains from Global Thermo-Nuclear War (except being reduced to charred ashes).  That is a losing game Amigo!

Bigger_Hammer

It would be national suicide. They have a piss poor population in numbers and in wealth already. They'd become a hermit kingdom like NK. China would move on them even before Taiwan and come out smelling like a rose.

They won't use nukes, best case or worst, depending on who you're asking, is that they quietly back out of Ukraine altogether, try to save some face at least.

Military targets anywhere in Russia should be fair game.  We should be doing everything possible to help them with that. If they are using planes to bomb Ukraine then Ukraine should be trying to destroy the them. By the time this is done there should be no Air Force left.

Same for artillery and any other resources being used against Ukraine.

That does not threaten their sovereignty or give them any reason to claim self defense as justification for using nukes.

First he could use them on his own soil to test international resolve. The media won't care as much since it would be called defensive and would show he is committed to winning at all cost. Ukraine will be forced to pull ground troops from Russia. The world will then force peace talks allowing Russia to keep annexed territory. They will have time to rebuild forces. Some time in the future nuking the annexed territory will be considered defensive and the cycle will repeat.

O_o Russia is already chucking long range missiles into Ukraine...

You reasoning is just about the same as mine. No one in in leadership in the western work is acting logically as far as I can discern. The only ones showing any intelligent albeit an evil intelligence is the CCP. Are we so compromised by the CCP we will take the Russians out for them? Or get ourselves nuked?

Clutch your pearls harder.  While probability is never zero even in peacetime... with all the 'red lines' crossed.. they more than likely will not chuck nukes. They are losing 30,000+ soldiers a month.  If that wasnt going to trigger nuke usage, neither will missiles with = range to theirs

I don’t think it’s too far from the Ukrainian perspective but from an American perspective. I’m all for engaging if they attack NATO but nuclear war over Ukraine or anywhere close to it is too much risk

A agree with the article 5 part I don’t agree with extending it to Ukraine unless you have a plan for Russias strategic weapons.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. And I'm not saying there aren't examples of historical comparison and precident.

What I am saying is if we give them long range missles AND WE give them the green light, that is an insane decision that most likely takes this from a proxy war to a direct fight in some manner.  

That is by definition an escalation,  and one we directed.  At some point it makes sense to skip the proxy and go after the guy/state that is making things worse for you. We won't just be giving Ukraine a greenlight, we'll be giving one to Putin as well.  And for all of the comments on this board about just how power hungry and insane and brutal he is, why are we giving him the invitation?

And?

Do you not see why it's a big deal that WE are there right now discussing giving Ukraine some kind of approval.

It's not that they are or are not going to do it.  It's that WE are telling them to.

Again, if Putin is as unhinged and brutal as some of you say he is, you are painting the nut into a corner.  That rarely results in backing down.  Quite the opposite.

And hey, if you want and welcome that escalation that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion.  I just think it's nuts.  The world is a lot smaller than people think it is.

If they wipe us off the map and themselves from our counterattack why the heck would they care about justification. Some of the wackos over there like Dugin are perfectly capable of justifying it similar to the Iranian mulluhs

He already has used strategic weapons.  Strategic weapons aren’t just nuclear.  Cruise missiles, long range bombers, and ICBM’s can all deliver conventional warheads.  If you mean strategic nuclear weapons, no.  He will not use them.  It would provoke a heavy direct military response instead of the proxy war currently have.

There's been a possibility of nuclear war again since 1945.  1950 if you figure that's when it was more than just us.  I'd have to think "tactical" use has fallen off the table.  The fear-mongering about catastrophic end of the world as we know it as an after effect of any sort of nuclear armament use has made "tactical" use politically difficult, if not impossible.  For most sane countries/leaders.  That and there is a substantially increased generalized understanding of long term effects even if not at the hysterical level.  Nobody would propose use of nuke explosives to dig a new Panama Canal these days.  Chernobyl gave an idea of the safety issues around threatening or actually involving power stations.  Bear in mind, it appears that the Russians have a new generation of short life expectancy heroes if any of the guys that dug in around Chernobyl live through combat.   Which is to say, maybe not everyone looks at nukes and results the same way.

Were Russia to glow Kyiv, it might not result in a global exchange with everybody throwing everything.  I don't think Peking would expect to be left out if Russia were to kick things off in a big way.  but if Russia were to glow Kyiv, I would expect Ukraine to turn Moscow into a smoking pile of rubble conventionally or atomically starting in a matter of minutes.  And the "phones" would ring in Moscow and Peking (just as a courtesy to avoid mistaken impressions) discussing the impending tactical non-nuclear devastation to Russian non-strategic/conventional forces.

Russia even with all the mealy mouthing of their surrogates and Putin's table pounding knows that every strike on civilian targets on Ukraine moves closer and closer to triggering clear and serious attacks on Russian civilian targets from Ukraine.  They put Moscow in play when they put Kyiv in play.

Because they aren't suicidal. No king wants to reign over an ash heap.  Even most of the muslim provocateurs don't want to die for the cause. They have the peasants for that. As does Russia, for a few more brief moments in time.

They probably will be bold as long as the US is weak, as we are right now.

I’ve been paying attention since the NATO bombing is Serbia, I’m pretty sure Putin wouldn’t be president now and we wouldn’t have a Russian problem if we didn’t do that. I think for Putin the fall of the Berlin Wall and the NATO bombing of Serbia are foremost in his mind. The Ukraine invasion was probably in his mind a last ditch attempt to stem the tide of western encroachment on their former territories. He is a total failure if they don’t take Ukraine. He might as well hand Russia to Gary Kasparov and sit in The Hague or?

Nobody is going to get nuked.

Our leadership has been dragging their feet in hamstringing Ukraine from more effectively fighting Russia.

There shouldn’t have been any restrictions on the weapons from mid 2022 onwards when it became clear they weren’t going to fold and would fight.

Use of tactical (smaller) nuclear weapons have a near-zero probability of being used.

Use of strategic nuclear weapons (large, city killers) have a zero percent probability of being used.

That's the way I see it.

Why do you state that no one is getting nuked so authoritatively? The Russian side is portrayed as psychopaths with no regard for human life that need to be stopped at up too some fairly extreme measures, if that is  true why wouldn’t they hide in their extensive bunkers and blow the rest of the planet up? For all we know they sit around fantasizing about it like our doomsday preppers.

Did they in Chechnya or any of their other brush fire wars?

If your premise is that Ukraine winning is what forces Russia’s hand....
But you don’t believe the media when they say that Ukraine is winning...
Then why are you worried?

To answer your question, though:
1. We’re not going to engage in a nuclear exchange with Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine isn’t worth melted American babies. Ukraine doesn’t want to hear that, but that’s the way it will be. We aren’t going to invite a Russian counterstrike by striking Russia in support of Ukraine when the US wasn’t targeted. TBH, I’m not sure we’d nuke Russia if Russia targeted a NATO member. That would be a massive gut check moment for US foreign policy.
2. And Russia is trying to conquer and reclaim Ukraine, not make it radioactive and therefore useless for their goals. Although their experience with Chernobyl might make them a bit more “meh” when it comes to having to wait out the return to baseline radiation levels. But their economic interests in capturing Ukrainian territory still weigh against making them radioactive.
3. And Ukraine poses little threat to Russia itself once Russia is ousted from Ukraine. So Russia won’t need to use them to fend off retaliation from Ukraine,

The next use of a nuke will still be by a terrorist organization armed (most likely) by Iran. The device will be scrubbed well enough to give plausible deniability to world leaders that want to play the “we can’t be sure who provided it” game to neutralize their own hawks back home.  Whomever gets targeted will be on their own in deciding whether or not to nuke Iran and will risk doing so without broad international support. And there will likely be quite a bit of pressure behind the scenes to take it on the chin “for the greater good” with promises of massive humanitarian aid, massive counter-terrorist intelligence gathering/sharing and “bring the terrorists to justice” efforts.

Nukes with a nation’s flag painted on them are a last resort weapon. And everyone looks for every excuse or rationalization to determine its not a last resort situation. But if you’re a shadow organization without territory, no static strategic targets or vulnerable civilians back home...why not use a nuke on the Great Satan?

I fully expect to wake up to it one morning.

That us the most retarded thing I have read in a while.

How is he going to end up like SH or Q? We aren’t going to commit troops to go dig him out of Russia. Because if we tried, then we’d be inviting a first strike from Russia due to our invasion.

The biggest threat to Putin is still internal. As long as his oligarch frenemies are able to maintain their own wealth and holdings, they’ll tolerate his antics. It’s when he rocks the boat too much for them that he’s in danger. Putting them at risk in a strategic exchange with the US would certainly qualify. So Putin avoids that. But he’s going to be willing to play chicken with us because he thinks we’re weak and value our own skins over our allies’ skins. And we usually do. So he might be right. Appeasement is a thing because it makes sense on some level.

I meant that I don’t trust the media however it’s undeniable that Ukraine is now occupying Russia so I’d say Russia is losing. You made some good points I just think that if Putin himself has authority to launch we are in danger. He doesn’t want to end up a loser like Saddam of Slobodan Milosovich. Do you think those two wouldn’t have done it if they could? Also I don’t think the escalation ladder thing is realistic. I think a strategic attack makes more sense than a tactical attack.

Our security situation isn’t compromised if Russia conquers Ukraine. Our red line is appropriately NATO. Risking a strategic exchange over Ukraine is almost treasonous. I hope the Russians are better people than we have been led to believe or we are risking everything. If they are better why are we fighting? Makes no sense to me. I can see this turning into a nuclear war very easily given who the players are.

Our current government wants power. Their power base is in the large urban centers which are most vulnerable.  They aren’t trying to get us killed. They can’t rule us if we’re dead. Tyrants need subjects.

It’s a huge game of chicken. We’re trying to put pressure on Putin and make it HIS choice on whether or not to trigger MAD. The tipping point is when he doesn’t think he has an out where he remains alive, wealthy and in power.

So we’re trying to reset his perception where he sees his personal best outcome being to pull out of Ukraine. We’re trying to find that sweet spot where he has more to lose by continuing to fight and more to gain by quitting the fight. But it’s complex because he has both the folks back home and the Russian Oligarchs to navigate. None of this is subject to mathematical certainty. The tipping points are defined conceptually but difficult to define tactically.

This is why it’s dragged on so long. When simple military might can’t solve the problem, it takes politics (and diplomacy) a while to solve it because it’s baby steps and a lot of stumbling around in a poorly lit landscape thick with land mines.

I agree entirely.  My comment was directed at a lot of posts/opinions I've read that Ukraine is acting recklessly by pushing the fight into Russian territory.

None.  Putin is waiting on a face saving solution from Trump.

Hopefully that’s the game. Pushing Russia off the deep end is a worse outcome.

Putin is a smart, calculating guy. Be careful about generalizing him as a psychopath.  He’s clearly narcissistic, but he’s very clever and intelligent. That allows him to accomplish a lot without self-sabotage.  He’s navigated very dangerous and treacherous waters internally in Russia to get where he is and stay there.

That said, if you understand what he’s all about (which is himself), you can start to understand how to deal with him.

He will choose self-preservation (life, wealth, power) if it’s available to him. His goal is to have other people die for king and country, not for him die for them. But if he’s going to die, then he’ll want to die as a Russian patriot.

So the solution is for him to realize he has to choose between dying shamefully (and failing to rebuild the USSR) or  remaining alive, wealthy and powerful without conquering Ukraine. Because he will always choose the latter if those are his choices.

So how does the US set the table for those to be his two choices? It’s all about pushing him right up to the edge so he chooses to step away from the edge in the direction you want him to step.

There’s nothing crazy or irrational in any of this. There are guesses involved. But they’re calculated guesses which the circumstances require.

That's not going to happen.