I’m not sure and I think there are people with more expertise who will come up with better solutions but I do feel like a tactical nuke is his trump card so I expect him to play it if things go worse for him given their comparatively low yield and very high shock value.
I think if a response was laid out to him in advance he might be less likely to cross that line. As it stands he can more or less choose to use a tactical nuke on Ukrainian soil knowing that much hand wringing will follow.
One example might be to say that Ukraine will be given a tactical nuke for use at their discretion on the battlefield for each one he uses. It would certainly cause pause for thought whether or not it was even followed through on.
I don’t think there’s any need for the name calling. I was engaging with you in good faith despite the differing viewpoints.
Yes, I believe a small yield tactical nuke in the kiloton range, possibly in the arse end of nowhere, would not elicit an immediate military response because they haven’t said up front the response it would elicit. The West has shown itself to be absolutely afraid of escalation which other potential adversaries are taking careful note of.
Putin is desperate to hold on to power and this war that has cost untold number of Russian lives is the first thing that has shown any sign of potentially costing him that power. So sure, I think a 30KT tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere to change the conversation could happen.
If NATO had been clear about the response if he does I believe he’d be less likely to do it, but they haven’t and it stinks of not wanting to upset him along with every other weak arsed decision they’ve made out of a misplaced fear to not antagonise him.
Since you’ve been asking me what the response would be, what do you think the response would be by the West to a small yield tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere?
Again, what would your response be? How exactly do you punish a nuclear nation?
I’m not sure and I think there are people with more expertise who will come up with better solutions but I do feel like a tactical nuke is his trump card so I expect him to play it if things go worse for him given their comparatively low yield and very high shock value.
I think if a response was laid out to him in advance he might be less likely to cross that line. As it stands he can more or less choose to use a tactical nuke on Ukrainian soil knowing that much hand wringing will follow.
One example might be to say that Ukraine will be given a tactical nuke for use at their discretion on the battlefield for each one he uses. It would certainly cause pause for thought whether or not it was even followed through on.
If you think a nuke being dropped won’t warrant an immediate military response, you’re a moron.
I don’t think there’s any need for the name calling. I was engaging with you in good faith despite the differing viewpoints.
Yes, I believe a small yield tactical nuke in the kiloton range, possibly in the arse end of nowhere, would not elicit an immediate military response because they haven’t said up front the response it would elicit. The West has shown itself to be absolutely afraid of escalation which other potential adversaries are taking careful note of.
Putin is desperate to hold on to power and this war that has cost untold number of Russian lives is the first thing that has shown any sign of potentially costing him that power. So sure, I think a 30KT tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere to change the conversation could happen.
If NATO had been clear about the response if he does I believe he’d be less likely to do it, but they haven’t and it stinks of not wanting to upset him along with every other weak arsed decision they’ve made out of a misplaced fear to not antagonise him.
Since you’ve been asking me what the response would be, what do you think the response would be by the West to a small yield tactical nuke in the arse end of nowhere?