Russia Could Use a Nuclear Weapon in the Ukraine Conflict(defconwarningsystem.com)
defconwarningsystem.com
Russia Could Use a Nuclear Weapon in the Ukraine Conflict
https://defconwarningsystem.com/2022/03/07/russia-really-could-use-a-nuclear-weapon-in-the-ukraine-conflict/
19 comments
Please don't take notes! I'm as appalled as you are, and I think the right thing to do here is downvote and move on. Let's not make articles like this a viable post on this site.
Sadly I have been thinking along the same lines. Though it's hard to see how Russia could introduce a nuclear device. Yet there is a whole range of bomb types to chose from.. and yes, I think there is a willingness to show anger, which starts with a thinking that puts Ukraine in a position that it should be loyal to Russia, as a matter of honor. Like a wife should be loyal to her husband and otherwise suffers punishment, something we no longer want to be complicit with.
So I would like to hope NATO has intelligence in place that would allow them to intercept the (likely) plane carrying the bomb. The possibilities here warrant NATO to be on high alert.
But as this is likely a system made up of a spring and a mass, its tendency is to resonate to ever higher levels as energy is input. So countries like China need to step up their game to dampen or disable it. For those that are part of the system likely only cause it to oscillate more, until it fails by some level of mutual destruction. Which I don't think is an option China desires.
Note that China controls whether Russia can subvert sanctions, or not. So the conflict inevitably means China needs to rise to the status of superpower, and as it does so, define itself in the relation it wants to have with state brutality, abuse of power and state control of the media.
So I would like to hope NATO has intelligence in place that would allow them to intercept the (likely) plane carrying the bomb. The possibilities here warrant NATO to be on high alert.
But as this is likely a system made up of a spring and a mass, its tendency is to resonate to ever higher levels as energy is input. So countries like China need to step up their game to dampen or disable it. For those that are part of the system likely only cause it to oscillate more, until it fails by some level of mutual destruction. Which I don't think is an option China desires.
Note that China controls whether Russia can subvert sanctions, or not. So the conflict inevitably means China needs to rise to the status of superpower, and as it does so, define itself in the relation it wants to have with state brutality, abuse of power and state control of the media.
Another "Russia could nuke"-clickbait article, sigh. Yeah, so could anyone else. I guess North Korea just isn't hip enough anymore.
Given what Russia has done so far this is one my fears. They could use a tactical nuclear bomb (for whatever sane or insane reasons) and I don't think that would automatically escalate to nuclear options from the West.
So that's good. Nobody wants WW3.
But then? I guess it would make Russia even more of a pariah but what more could the West do? I think only a change on how China (and maybe India) is issuing pressure on Russia would help. And going nuclear would probably make that happen. So, yay?
Scary when a nuclear option might be the only solution of solving this Gordian knot.
So that's good. Nobody wants WW3.
But then? I guess it would make Russia even more of a pariah but what more could the West do? I think only a change on how China (and maybe India) is issuing pressure on Russia would help. And going nuclear would probably make that happen. So, yay?
Scary when a nuclear option might be the only solution of solving this Gordian knot.
NATO has said that if Russia withdraw they'll stop sanctions immediately. BUT on the other hand I imagine that if Russia nukes some part of Ukraine that that option will be off the table.
Even if there is no escalation then sanctions are going to increase and continue for a number of years (at least).
Even if there is no escalation then sanctions are going to increase and continue for a number of years (at least).
The problem with that is that Putin doesn't trust the West. I don't think the West can do anything more than it already has done to stop this war. Macron is having regular calls with Putin but it doesn't look like he can reach him.
I guess that only a devastating war can shift the opinion of the people and the Kremlin. Maybe still not of Putin but then he will wake up with a knife in his back someday.
I guess that only a devastating war can shift the opinion of the people and the Kremlin. Maybe still not of Putin but then he will wake up with a knife in his back someday.
This is why, for the sack of my families and friends and many people I know worldwide, I want Zelenskyy to surrender. In 20 years of surrender, Putin probably dead, and new regime will very likely change their "economically ezpensive" policy and set Ukraine free. If we all hell bent like Zelenskyy, in 20 years after WW3, most of you either won't be around, severely maimed or broken person with many dead remembrance. Pick one. I know 100% what I want to choose. You?
You want him and the Ukrainians to suffer a 20 year long oppression/genocide so that you can sleep a little better?
It shouldn't be your place to choose that for them. If that's what you want (and you live in Europe/the West) then why don't you start a movement so Russia can install nukes/bases in your country, then they can leave Ukraine alone.
It shouldn't be your place to choose that for them. If that's what you want (and you live in Europe/the West) then why don't you start a movement so Russia can install nukes/bases in your country, then they can leave Ukraine alone.
I've never heard of this site and I have to say its making me scratch my head, the article/analysis is written in a amateurish way for the expertise it proclaim.
With that said, it's 100% certain they won't escalate to nuclear threat level: full (or Defcon 4) nor that they will assassinate putin, at the very best they will force putin to retire, why would they kill someone they prop up which has now an 70% approval rating.
With that said, it's 100% certain they won't escalate to nuclear threat level: full (or Defcon 4) nor that they will assassinate putin, at the very best they will force putin to retire, why would they kill someone they prop up which has now an 70% approval rating.
Ok but even if, do they really think the sanctions would lift if they go nuclear?
> do they really think the sanctions would lift
They know they won't. They know that the opposite would happen.
Just one consequence of using a nuclear warhead in a war of aggression: Complete economic isolation. No one in the western world would do business with them for decades to come, and no one who wants their business with the western world to continue would either.
Just one small example of what such isolation would mean for Russia: Europe would cut off all gas and oil trades. Would be difficult for Europe, but in that scenario, not impossible to bear. For Russia however, that's 40% of the GDP gone, just like that.
They know they won't. They know that the opposite would happen.
Just one consequence of using a nuclear warhead in a war of aggression: Complete economic isolation. No one in the western world would do business with them for decades to come, and no one who wants their business with the western world to continue would either.
Just one small example of what such isolation would mean for Russia: Europe would cut off all gas and oil trades. Would be difficult for Europe, but in that scenario, not impossible to bear. For Russia however, that's 40% of the GDP gone, just like that.
Probably not.
Putin painted himself in a corner: he can't accept defeat, as it would weaken his position in Russia. He needs a victory, and there's simply no way he can win this conflict on short notice. And from what I understand, Russia can't maintain this conflict long term.
The only possible "win" (using the term very loosely) for him is probably to utterly destroy Ukraine. Or at least scare everybody to the point that they believe he will utterly destroy Ukraine.
Will it lift sanctions? Probably not, but it might save his position in Russia, and without the expense of an ongoing war, Russia might be able to persevere through the sanctions. Keep in mind that the sanctions are hurting the West too. Will they maintain them even after the war has ended? Putin might hope they won't.
It's all a ridiculous long shot, though. Putin is in serious trouble. He has to win this, and there are no good ways to accomplish that. So that might bring terrible ways to accomplish it on the table.
Putin painted himself in a corner: he can't accept defeat, as it would weaken his position in Russia. He needs a victory, and there's simply no way he can win this conflict on short notice. And from what I understand, Russia can't maintain this conflict long term.
The only possible "win" (using the term very loosely) for him is probably to utterly destroy Ukraine. Or at least scare everybody to the point that they believe he will utterly destroy Ukraine.
Will it lift sanctions? Probably not, but it might save his position in Russia, and without the expense of an ongoing war, Russia might be able to persevere through the sanctions. Keep in mind that the sanctions are hurting the West too. Will they maintain them even after the war has ended? Putin might hope they won't.
It's all a ridiculous long shot, though. Putin is in serious trouble. He has to win this, and there are no good ways to accomplish that. So that might bring terrible ways to accomplish it on the table.
> The only possible "win" (using the term very loosely) for him is probably to utterly destroy Ukraine.
That's not a win insofar as it doesn't guarantee his position at home - it likely further weakens it. For a "win" he'd have to, at the least, actually win the war - Chechnya-style. But I'm not convinced this is possible. I argue it's somewhat more probable that he can pull off a "North Korea" (get defeated in the war, but isolate the country & tighten the screws to insure continuation of his regime in spite of the economic situation at home) - but even this seems iffy to me.
Seems to me like the only reasonable way out for him is if US (or somebody) agrees to "extract" him to somewhere safe & anonymous, where he can live a peaceful life as a retired person. Publicly, they can pretend whatever is more convenient. Sure, it's not _justice_, but it might be the least painful way out of this conflict for everyone. Not sure Putin would agree though/ his ego might get in the way.
That's not a win insofar as it doesn't guarantee his position at home - it likely further weakens it. For a "win" he'd have to, at the least, actually win the war - Chechnya-style. But I'm not convinced this is possible. I argue it's somewhat more probable that he can pull off a "North Korea" (get defeated in the war, but isolate the country & tighten the screws to insure continuation of his regime in spite of the economic situation at home) - but even this seems iffy to me.
Seems to me like the only reasonable way out for him is if US (or somebody) agrees to "extract" him to somewhere safe & anonymous, where he can live a peaceful life as a retired person. Publicly, they can pretend whatever is more convenient. Sure, it's not _justice_, but it might be the least painful way out of this conflict for everyone. Not sure Putin would agree though/ his ego might get in the way.
Yeah, I'd love to see him punished, but I'm totally fine to see him retired Napoleon-style, if that ensures a quick end to this and possibly even freedom for Russia.
For Russia, the best way out would definitely be to get rid of Putin and replace him with somebody the international community likes, who respects democracy, peace, and has as little ties to Putin's regime or his oligarchs as possible. Maybe someone like Gary Kasparov.
For Russia, the best way out would definitely be to get rid of Putin and replace him with somebody the international community likes, who respects democracy, peace, and has as little ties to Putin's regime or his oligarchs as possible. Maybe someone like Gary Kasparov.
I don't think that the response of NATO states would be more economic sanctions.
No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think we have wall-to-wall coverage at the moment.
[deleted]
For those of you already following clickbait for a while, you know that it is language that gets you to click on things.
Is clickbait really as bad as it seems?
Ok, enough beating around the bush, yes clickbait is really as bad as it seems.
Even a month ago, we wouldn't have said such clickbait could appear on hacker news.
But something has changed.
Someone actually linked to clickbait on hacker news.
... I'm not sure if I should be appalled or if I should be taking notes. :-/