Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats

[Mushroom]

Dont worry about WW3. If Russia has the balls to launch a nuke, i fucking promise you that no nuclear nation on Earth will retaliate with nukes.

They would become instantly a pariah nation globally. Even nations that are allied with them would turn away, because they know that is one thing the world would not forgive or forget.

As for retaliation, that all depends on what the target is really. If it is a battlefield in Ukraine, then nobody would respond. Especially since not a single nation has any kind of nuclear protection treaty with Ukraine.

However, if it was say New York, then there might be a response in kind on a single Russian city. And a much more destructive conventional response. Russia has around 120 heavy bombers, the US has around 1,000.

 

[Mushroom]

They can already hit any target they want in a non nuclear nation, so a nuke isnt required (unless we want the world pissed off at us), but im sure you could come up with some weird scenario where only a nuke would work, buts its super unlikely that scenario would ever happen.

Largely, because of MAD.

I also can not think of a single situation in the real world, but it has been written about and gamed for decades.

Specifically, that was a major plot aspect of Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" in 1996. Where a biological attack on the US using ebola was conducted by Iran. And after it was tracked back to them, the President made a very specific demand that became known in the novel as the "Ryan Doctrine".

After using stealth aircraft and PGMs to destroy the Iranian leader in his residence, he gave an ultimatum. That he would respond next with a nuke unless all that were involved in the attack were immediately extradited to the US and the lab where it was produced shut down and opened to International inspections to ensure that it would not happen again.

Thankfully, I like to think we live in a world that is sane enough that no leader would be willing to do something like that. And I do not even think that Iran or North Korea are insane enough to launch such an attack on the US or another nation.

 

[Dayton3]

Dont worry about WW3. If Russia has the balls to launch a nuke, i fucking promise you that no nuclear nation on Earth will retaliate with nukes. Why would we? It sucks that Ukraine gets nuked, but what is in it for us, other than our cities getting nuked too? No fucking way is anyone going to trade cities over Ukraine, or any other country for that matter. We will embargo Russia and sanction them, sure, but we arent doing WW3.

If the Russians use any kind of nuclear weapons then WW3 has started no matter what you people want.

 

[Godboy]

If the Russians use any kind of nuclear weapons then WW3 has started no matter what you people want.

No, im pretty sure that "WW3" requires that other nations in the world are involved.

 

[Dayton3]

No, im pretty sure that "WW3" requires that other nations in the world are involved.

I assure you that if the Russians are the first nation in three quarters of a century to use a nuclear weapon that a whole bunch of other nations will immediately jump in.

 

[Godboy]

I assure you that if the Russians are the first nation in three quarters of a century to use a nuclear weapon that a whole bunch of other nations will immediately jump in.

No the fuck they wont, or at least not with a nuke. Why would they? What is the benefit from launching a nuke at Russia? Cuz justice feelz good? No world leader is going to trade his cities for that.

 

[Dayton3]

No the fuck they wont, or at least not with a nuke. Why would they? What is the benefit from launching a nuke at Russia? Cuz justice feelz good? No world leader is going to trade his cities for that.

You really think the Russians are that bold and bloodthirsty?

Other NATO leaders have talked about destroying the Russian Black Sea Fleet of the Russians use a nuclear weapon on Ukraine.

 

[Mushroom]

I assure you that if the Russians are the first nation in three quarters of a century to use a nuclear weapon that a whole bunch of other nations will immediately jump in.

Not necessarily. Because that had been the largest worry since people started to realize why MAD worked. And largely why the idea of a "limited nuclear exchange" was largely an unwinnable concept.

Honestly, I think if Russia used only 1 or 2 and on battlefield targets, the rest of the world would respond conventionally. Primarily out of fear of escalating an even more severe nuclear attack or exchange.

However, if Russia was to nuke another country that it is not actively in conflict with, say Birmingham, UK in the hopes of intimidating England to stay out, then a nuclear exchange might then advance to two more bombs on the UK, then 4 at Russia, until it becomes a free for all.

This has been studied and gamed extensively for well over 60 years now. And interestingly, there were two books that both went over it, and had almost the same resolution.

The first is "The Third World War: August 1985" by Sir John Hackett. In it, he had the Soviets launch a nuke at Birmingham as a warning to NATO to stop fighting their attempt to annex all of Germany. And if I remember correctly, the US, UK, and France all sent a nuke in response to a Russian city. Both as a show of solidarity, and as a warning that any further nukes would result in threefold retaliation.

And of course there is "Red Storm Rising", but Tom Clancy. If I remember the Politburo was about to order a strike against a British city, when an internal coup ended the madness as the more sane leadership knew it would not end at just one nuke.

But I could see for example multiple nations declaring war on Russia if it did so, then responding in concert conventionally.

 

[Mushroom]

Other NATO leaders have talked about destroying the Russian Black Sea Fleet of the Russians use a nuclear weapon on Ukraine.

Oh, I doubt they would have much of a fleet at all within a few days of doing that. Because that would be one of the first targets of every nation that would declare war against them.

And in truth, the Russian Fleet is a small shadow of what the Soviet fleet was in its prime. They actually only have 10 SSBNs at this time in service, 7 SSGNs, and 5 SSNs. But they have 17 SSKs, most of those in the Black Sea Fleet. But if they were to launch a nuke, then it might well be "open season" on any Russian ships and subs that could be found.

And of all their ships of Cruiser size and larger (5), only 3 are currently in service. One of their two battlecruisers is in for refit, as is their only remaining "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser".

 

[Godboy]

You really think the Russians are that bold and bloodthirsty?

Other NATO leaders have talked about destroying the Russian Black Sea Fleet of the Russians use a nuclear weapon on Ukraine.

NATO can "talk" all it wants, but NATO doesnt have nukes. Individual nations have nukes and they arent going to use them to avenge Ukraine.

 

[DudleySmith]

NATO can "talk" all it wants, but NATO doesnt have nukes. Individual nations have nukes and they arent going to use them to avenge Ukraine.

Actually France and Britain had a much more aggressive nuclear policy than we did re attacks on Europe in the Cold War decades; they weren't bashful about saying they wouldn't hesitate to use them first, whether the Soveits used only tactical or not. France wasn't in NATO at the time, though.

 

[Godboy]

Actually France and Britain had a much more aggressive nuclear policy than we did re attacks on Europe in the Cold War decades; they weren't bashful about saying they wouldn't hesitate to use them first, whether the Soveits used only tactical or not. France wasn't in NATO at the time, though.

Yeah, thats great. They still arent going to launch a nuke at Russia. Certainly not for Ukraine.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yeah, thats great. They still arent going to launch a nuke at Russia. Certainly not for Ukraine.

Don't be so sure; it will depend on who is in office at the time.

 

[Godboy]

Don't be so sure; it will depend on who is in office at the time.

What person in existence is going to launch a nuke at Russia because Russia nuked Ukraine? Explain to me the benefit of such a move before trying to convince me that someone is going to do it.

 

[Dayton3]

Yeah, thats great. They still arent going to launch a nuke at Russia. Certainly not for Ukraine.

What if a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine kills a number of British and French citizens?

 

[Ringo]

Biden quietly moves world closer towards armageddon. Finland ready to host nukes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zte1diO98MBiden quietly moves world closer towards armageddon. Finland ready to host nukesThe Duran: Episode 1423

theduran.com

US ruled by crazy criminals
"The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia."

archive.ph

 

[Dayton3]

Biden quietly moves world closer towards armageddon. Finland ready to host nukes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zte1diO98MBiden quietly moves world closer towards armageddon. Finland ready to host nukesThe Duran: Episode 1423

theduran.com

US ruled by crazy criminals
"The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia."

http://https/archive.ph/TR1qG

What's "criminal" about planning for how your nation can win a future war?

And by the way "nuclear winter" is a pure myth. Even Carl Sagan who began the concept admitted before he died that the evidence did NOT support it.

 

[badger2]

Video of Zelenskiy on CIA coke @ 9h:

https://twitter.com/200_zoka

 

[badger2]

Until Musk fixes Twitter, when the login prompt occurs, click on it and then eliminate it until it pops up again. This will give the prisoner a few minutes of reading time.

 

[Mushroom]

What person in existence is going to launch a nuke at Russia because Russia nuked Ukraine?

We are not talking about "people", we are talking about Nations.

And a lot of nations would, if they thought it would send a loud and clear message to never do that again.