Unironically what if they did use nuclear weapons on just Ukraine, nowhere else that'd trigger a NATO counterattack but just on Ukraine? NATO wouldn't go into a nuclear exchange over Ukraine so what would even be the consequences? Russia's already sanctioned to shit they won't kick them out of the UNSC or take away their veto because they're a nuclear power and the UN is to basically make it so that the nuclear powers don't get into shooting wars with each other that risk a nuclear exchange.
So what would even happen? It'd be bad optics but so is the embarrassment of his army's performance in Ukraine not to mention just the invasion itself was bad optics.
Is there any consequences that'd prevent him from air bursting over Kiev and Kharkiv and Odessa?
I'm just trying to figure out why wouldn't they, since they seem to be struggling without.\
Only time nukes have been used in war has been to get a quicker end to a conventional war afterall.
Landon Hernandez
Zelenskiy released most criminals, gave everyone guns, and prohibited males 18-60 from leaving Ukraine. He wants a bloody prolonged conflict. Using nukes against civilians will destroy Russia and perhaps all of Europe.
Sebastian Hughes
that would be War Crime, you can't use nukes against a non nuclear country, so more isolation and more militarization in Europe, all the countries that at some point had a nuclear program will be back to try to have nukes too I suppose, pic related.
Russians intentionally don't even use heavy artillery or air support, to prevent massive infrastructure damages, and they restrain themself to only use as little force as needed, and yet still making progress in a decent pace. They don't need nukes for this, even if NATO would attack them over Ukraine, the nukes would hit west, would not waste any on ukies. >sage
Aaron Ortiz
why would it? It'd force a surrender rather quickly after a couple cities get vaporized. maybe not even Kiev, since they'd want Zelensky to sign the articles of surrender. 1-2 nuclear cruise missiles (the KH-90 has a 1.2 megaton warhead) would force Ukraine to surrender probably, wouldn't destroy Europe.
Not that I want this I'm just wondering what deters this course of action. We basically showed how far we're willing to go with sanctions so what else can we do?
Brayden Flores
who's going to be able to try them for the war crimes? like who tried the US after nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Owen Wilson
God.
Adam Cook
>Unironically what if they did use nuclear weapons Once that is done anywhere he world is fucked, period.
Juan Lopez
Best case scenario, even China sanctions them and most of their allies abandon them.
Elijah Clark
>who's going to be able to try them for the war crimes? > The nukes launched at them because everyone that doesn't like them won't wait for them to act next time. Nukes are only good as a last option threat, actually using them insures mutual demise.
Jace Peterson
I don't think we'd retaliate militarily just like we up and let Russia invade a country that we signed an agreement to protect (Budapest Memorandum), because the agreement didn't specify we had to defend them with our military, we aren't. We sanctioned, we provided financial and material support and I guess to the US government that is honoring the agreement enough
We'd react that way if they hit a NATO country but not Ukraine.
Lucas Adams
>this Have you seen the shit happening in the USA?
Ryan Barnes
>Unironically what if they did use nuclear weapons on just Ukraine In that case, what was the purpose of invading? The reason why they invade is because they want Ukraine. Otherwise they'd nuke right away.
Charles Rivera
>retard doesnt understand the concept of mutually assured destruction Its because russia understands that the moment one missile with a warhead starts flying everyone else is going to be sending missiles with warheads and Oh look, humanity and all life on earth is extinct.
Charles Adams
>Kill one man, and you are a murderer. >Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. >Kill them all, and you are a god Are you implying that they didn't kill enough people?
Nathaniel Phillips
>We'd react that way if they hit a NATO country >but not Ukraine. >I don't think we'd retaliate militarily It won't have shit to do with Ukraine, fren, it's the act period, it's the boogeyman the whole world has been waiting for and those A and H bombs of yesteryear weren't even a fraction of the shit they'll drop now. America and Europe has been on the denuclearization of the world for decades and that will be the event that'll allow retaliation they been dreaming about. If a nuke is launched there will be a three world war.
David Wilson
The Budapest Memorandum was thrown out the window back in 2014.
Hunter Sanders
Ukraine can't destroy Russia and we won't destroy them over Ukraine, they're not NATO we' won't get our military involved in an invasion of Ukraine, so we certainly won't nuke Russia over Ukraine.
Everyone thinks somehow we'd be so willing to lose over 100 million American lives over Kharkiv.. we wouldn't. we have no obligation to.
MAD only works if we'd actually commit to it. We'd commit to it if we were attacked, I think we'd try to do limited retaliation if it was NATO countries attacked but not us honestly. like if they nuked a Baltic we'd probably use tactical nukes over their troops on NATO soil in retaliation but not hit Russia themselves to prevent full exchange. I really think we'd blow our wad only if they were launching at the US itself.
Henry Kelly
What if the whole point of the invasion was to get their tanks blown up because they need the scrap money?
Zachary Peterson
He thought it'd go easier I guess He's the one who raised his nuclear forces alert status, and then suddenly Belarus is willing to host Russian nukes on their soil. I'm wondering if the fight goes on long enough if he just gets fed up and wants to end the war faster but not with an embarrassing withdrawal.
Anthony Barnes
>MAD only works if we'd actually commit to it. You're too short sighted, the ac will let the world know Russia will use them, that will make Washington step actions against them knowing it's only time before they do. You would never make clearance for any meetings because your lack of foresight. No one not even America get's to launch a nuke and get away with it clean.
Michael Martin
I'd say nukes is just as embarrassing of a declaration of loss.
Lucas Fisher
I dunno, losing to Ukraine would just be an embarrassment, like our Afghanistan pullout, or Vietnam. Nuking a country and thus forcing them to surrender would make the whole world terrified of you, rather than mocking you about how weak you are.
If Putin pulls out of Ukraine without winning the war, the world mocks him. Already people are mocking him because it's not a total steamroll.
Nobody mocked the US after the atomic bombings. They were too stunned by America using a new super weapon. They were probably afraid. I know the Soviets were. That's why they went after the bomb themselves so quickly. Fear. and we were in a state where we didn't know if they had it or not and were afraid to go to war with them, and then when we knew they had it it was still a fear and uncertainty over who's arsenal was bigger, who's delivery methods were better, etc. Till we got to the 60's and we were pretty sure we could just outright Mutually destroy each other.
In this case? I think everyone would be more scared of Russia than mocking it.
Lucas Powell
>Nuking a country and thus forcing them to surrender would make the whole world terrified of you, rather than mocking you about how weak you are. I'd still mock them. It's like bringing a gun to a fist fight. No one will think you are brave nor say you won. I would give Putin some kudos for telling the world how insane he really is though.
