This reads to me like pure fiction. Maybe not far-fetched, but very little substantive info. Does anyone have a link to anything more in depth about either the strategy likely to be involved, the anticipated consequences, or the post-nuclear war world and how any surviving governments or local powers might act in the months and years after the fact?
Also, this section of "In comments", among others, applies to your comment: "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it."
OP here. The reason I believe it is more interesting than fan-fiction is that it answers the question of "how could nuclear weapons be used in this conflict?". Since the day it started there have been various escalations [1][2][3] of threats of the use of nuclear weapons, but never an explanation of how we could get from where we are now to a point where they were actually used. My imagination failed me when I tried to think of any plausible scenario. This hypothetical scenario fills that gap for me and demonstrates how there need not necessarily even be any intent on either side to use these weapons.
It's true that in order to also fill that gap in your mind it must be plausible to you too. I don't know if it helps to know this comes from an organisation of experts whose job it is to think about this kind of thing all the time. In any case, I think this kind of speculation is necessary in order for the news we have seen about nuclear threats to have any meaning. Otherwise, it's a bit like hearing that Russia would like to crash the moon into Europe. Ok perhaps, but how could that be done? This article attempts to give an answer.
Another armchair fear monger spreads nonsense. It goes wrong from the very beginning: Russian anti-satellite missiles fires. You do not do that unless you want to get nuked. Of course considering how imbecile Russian military command is, I would be not completely surprised (every military experts says that it was unthinkable to even consider real possibility of overpowering Ukrainian army with given Russian forces).
Here's a much more realistic one: Putin keeps getting his ass kicked, as it happened today when he lost the Orsk amphibious landing ship. Instead of admitting defeat, he decides to use a tactical nuke. He has a spectrum of options, from an underground nuclear test somewhere in Siberia, to an underwater detonation in "Russian waters" in the Black Sea, to an above ground detonation over Russian territory, but close to Ukraine, to an outright detonation in Ukraine, but with few or no casualties, to nuking an Ukrainian village, or even city, and ultimately a tactical nuclear attack on a Nato country.
At each point on this spectrum, Biden has to make a decision. There are 3 possibilities: response with no nukes, response in kind (a similar tactical nuke) and all out nuclear war. The middle ground is no good, because it legitimizes Putin's first use, and does not actually put him in a worse position. No nukes is a bad move, because Putin will just become more audacious. All out war is obviously not a good move either.
What is Biden going to do? Is it possible that in the end Putin comes out ahead?
I think the actual algo weighting stuff about what action follows a nuclear detonation is more heavy on the actual loses the nuclear incident caused. Then a political approach has to be triggered, someone would call Putin or whoever is at the phone in Russia, "look guys, we saw your flare from here, nothing remarkable happened BUT just don't push it anymore".
If Putin decides to go wild nuking one more thing, again, you should look at what the heck was actually blowed up, and then look what's next on your side.
At some point, even if Putin detonates 3 nuclear devices on his own land, some serious sh*t will unfold, most probably from inside Russia's top leadership, which exists and probably is constantly looking for practical crazyness in his new czar.
Spoiler Alert: czars are not meant to last forever.
If you remember, something like this already happened when North Korea started its underground testing. Nobody was saying it aloud, but most certainly lots of military resources were at least half awake, ready to go into WWIII at moments notice. But nothing happened.
11 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 48.4 ms ] threadAlso, this section of "In comments", among others, applies to your comment: "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it."
It's true that in order to also fill that gap in your mind it must be plausible to you too. I don't know if it helps to know this comes from an organisation of experts whose job it is to think about this kind of thing all the time. In any case, I think this kind of speculation is necessary in order for the news we have seen about nuclear threats to have any meaning. Otherwise, it's a bit like hearing that Russia would like to crash the moon into Europe. Ok perhaps, but how could that be done? This article attempts to give an answer.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60547473
[2] https://news.sky.com/story/russian-diplomat-if-nato-threaten...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/opinion/ukraine-putin-nuc...
Threads (1984) via https://youtu.be/5Srqyd8B9gE
And if you want to know how the world would like after the movie Threads, read the following book:
A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959) via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
Video unavailable (in Australia at least)
Here's a much more realistic one: Putin keeps getting his ass kicked, as it happened today when he lost the Orsk amphibious landing ship. Instead of admitting defeat, he decides to use a tactical nuke. He has a spectrum of options, from an underground nuclear test somewhere in Siberia, to an underwater detonation in "Russian waters" in the Black Sea, to an above ground detonation over Russian territory, but close to Ukraine, to an outright detonation in Ukraine, but with few or no casualties, to nuking an Ukrainian village, or even city, and ultimately a tactical nuclear attack on a Nato country.
At each point on this spectrum, Biden has to make a decision. There are 3 possibilities: response with no nukes, response in kind (a similar tactical nuke) and all out nuclear war. The middle ground is no good, because it legitimizes Putin's first use, and does not actually put him in a worse position. No nukes is a bad move, because Putin will just become more audacious. All out war is obviously not a good move either.
What is Biden going to do? Is it possible that in the end Putin comes out ahead?
That's how Putin thinks.
If Putin decides to go wild nuking one more thing, again, you should look at what the heck was actually blowed up, and then look what's next on your side.
At some point, even if Putin detonates 3 nuclear devices on his own land, some serious sh*t will unfold, most probably from inside Russia's top leadership, which exists and probably is constantly looking for practical crazyness in his new czar.
Spoiler Alert: czars are not meant to last forever.
If you remember, something like this already happened when North Korea started its underground testing. Nobody was saying it aloud, but most certainly lots of military resources were at least half awake, ready to go into WWIII at moments notice. But nothing happened.