EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2930 days ago

    If Russia uses nukes, Russia, the state, will cease to exist. The Oligarchs know this, Putin knows this. Only an existential threat to the Oligarchs and Putin would result in a nuclear strike. And that’s why there was no nuclear response to the Kursk incursion so far.

    • @Wrench
      link
      1029 days ago

      If NATO invades, Russia is doomed. Putin doesn’t care that Russia would still exist after a NATO victory, all he cares about is himself and his legacy. Both of which would be destroyed in a NATO victory.

      So he would launch the nukes and watch Russia get wiped off the map, because if he can’t have it, no one can. And at least he would go out with a bang, rather than suiciding in a bunker.

      The oligarchs would not be able to prevent it. They might hold the political power, but the military order to launch the nukes comes directly from Putin. The best we could hope for is conscientious officers refusing the order.

      • @Cryophilia
        link
        829 days ago

        If the oligarchs ever thought Putin was legitimately about to use nukes, there would be a coup attempt.

        Whether it would successfully stop the nukes is anyone’s guess.

        • @Wrench
          link
          329 days ago

          Yep, I agree. But Putin has held on this long while he has royally screwed the Russian economy, and exposed their bumbling military for what it is. The oligarchs would have ousted him already if it was easy.

          • @ripcord
            link
            129 days ago

            royally screwed the Russian economy

            Has he though? And are they REALLY hurting? I don’t see much evidence especially of the latter.

    • @zxqwas
      link
      630 days ago

      In addition It’s also not a good idea to nuke a place you intend to occupy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        829 days ago

        There’s also a risk that the weapons have been so poorly maintained that they’d fail silently or spectacularly, which would not be great for Russia’s end of the mutually part of mutually assured.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          329 days ago

          I bet they fizzle. By weight, tritium is one of the most expensive substances on the planet; do you think the people in charge of refilling the nukes have actually been doing so, or just stealing the money?

        • credit crazy
          link
          129 days ago

          I do remember hearing that half of the users nukes were decoys that were only found out after the USSR fell so I do wonder if Russia is still bluffing with decoy nukes or if the decoy nukes were more prominent than we thought considering the a amount of fraudulent conventional weapons that the Ukraine war has revealed I suspect that Russia is still heavily dependent on bluffing with decoy nukes and the few that are intended to be real are poorly maintained or poorly made

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      229 days ago

      If Putin get shoot in the head?, the oligarchs don’t like him, and there’s a gigantic amount of people wanting to get his place