President Joe Biden said on Monday the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is “real”, days after denouncing Russia’s deployment of such weapons in Belarus. On Saturday, Biden called Putin’s announcement that Russia had deployed its first tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus “absolutely irresponsible”.
Out of curiosity, you say an overwhelming conventional force. Does that mean the NATO plan explicitly says it should be conventional?
I always imagined that if a country nukes another they would immediately be nuked themselves. Because if a country is using their nuclear arsenal, it’s probably a bit late to moves armies around.
No, but common sense dictates it should be. Nuclear weapons aren’t required; NATO can easily and quickly disable Russia’s military with conventional weaponry, and that’s the strategic goal.
The reason the classic response to nukes is nukes, is that in the Cold War paradigm there was an assumption that neither country could win (or would be willing to try) a conventional war.
The idea-here is two-fold:
With those ideas in mind, the West does have a response available that doesn’t bring us to MAD, but does make another using a tactical nuke in any capacity an awful idea: overwhelming conventional force.
If Russia gains a local tactical advantage by nuking 5,000 Ukrainian troops, then a response that involves the entire Russian Black Sea fleet exploding, logistical depots all over the front exploding, troops all over the front exploding, and the Kerch Bridge exploding has made what was a tactical victory for Russia into a massive strategic defeat for Russia. Using this method, we have not escalated to MAD, and have made it a very, very poor idea to use nukes for any purpose.
I am not aware of an explicit plan that says only a conventional response is authorized. However, notable US commanders have said a direct and overwhelming conventional response from the West is what will likely occur if Russia uses tactical nukes against Ukrainian troops.
What is MAD?
Mutually assured destruction
Mutually Assured Destruction.
The idea that if one country targets cities with nukes, nothing will stop both countries from having large swaths of their cities and infrastructure destroyed from the following nuclear exchange. Therefore, it is in the best interest of both countries to never target an enemy city with nukes.
The US military undoubtedly has secret abilities they do not advertise. My guess is that in the event of real nuclear threat they will reveal and use something we’ve never seen before. Large scale EMP attacks perhaps?
space lasers
That is the mutually assured destruction doctrine. I can Image the East responding with conventional attacks as a start, but if we started attacking Russia directly and they’ve already shown the willingness to use nuclear weapons what’s to stop them from using more against the conventional western forces. The west would need a very decisive first strike if they respond with any direct action.
Personally I don’t know if using nuclear weapons is a line that you can walk back across, once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s out and it going back in.
Once one nuke flies, we are all fucked so yes, conventional weaponry is the key