Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Martinus]

I also think people in Berlin have heard of Warsaw.

[The Brain]

I think Berlin was mentioned for its EU role, not because it owns nukes.

Berlin doesn't own nukes.

[Jacob]

It's quite an escalation from sending unmarked special forces and some weapons to support local insurgents in a border region to using a tactical nuclear weapon against NATO. I would expect a conventional escalation first.

Check my post. My scenario already assumes Putin losing a local conventional war with NATO (e.g. in the Baltics).

The gambit goes like this:

1. Putin sends his unmarked special forces into Estonia.
2. Putin sends in troops.
3. NATO responds by sending own troops into Estonia.
4. Putin begins to lose.
5. Putin nukes Warsaw and tells NATO to back off.

I think it's a giant huge assumption that NATO would back off if Putin nuked Warsaw. I, for one, assume that a nuclear attack on a NATO country would result in swift and disproportional retaliation.

What's the reasoning for assuming it will not? That Western leaders are somehow weak?

The explicit outcome of the scenario the guy outlines explicit results in the complete collapse of NATO as an organization and counter weight to Russia. That's a pretty strong reason to act. I mean... if it works on Warsaw, where does it stop?

[grumbler]

Another factors is that Russians are very good at psychology of authoritarianism.  I'm pretty sure that the problem of any human in the nuclear launch chain of having doubts about going in with their task is obvious to them, and that they've thought thought through the measures that would keep them compliant for long enough.

That's true of the US, UK, France, and China as well.  It isn't relevant to the discussion, though.

[grumbler]

I think Berlin was mentioned for its EU role, not because it owns nukes.

Berlin doesn't own nukes.

True, but it is also true that Berlin doesn't own nukes.

[DGuller]

I think it's a giant huge assumption that NATO would back off if Putin nuked Warsaw. I, for one, assume that a nuclear attack on a NATO country would result in swift and disproportional retaliation.

What's the reasoning for assuming it will not? That Western leaders are somehow weak?

The explicit outcome of the scenario the guy outlines explicit results in the complete collapse of NATO as an organization and counter weight to Russia. That's a pretty strong reason to act. I mean... if it works on Warsaw, where does it stop?

NATO's choice would be collapse as an organization, or collapse due to the nuclear annihilation of all its members (but, as a consolation price, Russia would be annihilated as well).  I can see some doubt seeping in for the politicians in charge of ordering the disproportionate retaliation.

[garbon]

The explicit outcome of the scenario the guy outlines explicit results in the complete collapse of NATO as an organization and counter weight to Russia. That's a pretty strong reason to act. I mean... if it works on Warsaw, where does it stop?

Yeah that is the one part that got me. Seems like if we let that slide, we're really just giving up entirely.

[Martinus]

It's quite an escalation from sending unmarked special forces and some weapons to support local insurgents in a border region to using a tactical nuclear weapon against NATO. I would expect a conventional escalation first.

Check my post. My scenario already assumes Putin losing a local conventional war with NATO (e.g. in the Baltics).

The gambit goes like this:

1. Putin sends his unmarked special forces into Estonia.
2. Putin sends in troops.
3. NATO responds by sending own troops into Estonia.
4. Putin begins to lose.
5. Putin nukes Warsaw and tells NATO to back off.

I think it's a giant huge assumption that NATO would back off if Putin nuked Warsaw. I, for one, assume that a nuclear attack on a NATO country would result in swift and disproportional retaliation.

What's the reasoning for assuming it will not? That Western leaders are somehow weak?

The explicit outcome of the scenario the guy outlines explicit results in the complete collapse of NATO as an organization and counter weight to Russia. That's a pretty strong reason to act. I mean... if it works on Warsaw, where does it stop?

Well, the NATO's failure to respond nuclearily is exactly the point open for the debate - I was in fact asking how feasible such scenario is.

I think the line of reasoning is that the West would not risk a MAD scenario with Russia by using its own nukes to strike into Russian territory. And yes, the complete collapse of NATO, resulting from such outcome, would be what Putin is aiming for by playing this gambit.

[DGuller]

Another factors is that Russians are very good at psychology of authoritarianism.  I'm pretty sure that the problem of any human in the nuclear launch chain of having doubts about going in with their task is obvious to them, and that they've thought thought through the measures that would keep them compliant for long enough.

That's true of the US, UK, France, and China as well.  It isn't relevant to the discussion, though.

It may or may not be relevant.  I don't see US launching an unprovoked nuclear strike.  I see Russia doing that if it perceives that it can get away with it, it's a nation always run by psychopaths.  That requires more stringent training of the military to make sure they're ready to engage in nuclear genocide when ordered, and part of that training is not mutinying.

[Martinus]

I think it's a giant huge assumption that NATO would back off if Putin nuked Warsaw. I, for one, assume that a nuclear attack on a NATO country would result in swift and disproportional retaliation.

What's the reasoning for assuming it will not? That Western leaders are somehow weak?

The explicit outcome of the scenario the guy outlines explicit results in the complete collapse of NATO as an organization and counter weight to Russia. That's a pretty strong reason to act. I mean... if it works on Warsaw, where does it stop?

NATO's choice would be collapse as an organization, or collapse due to the nuclear annihilation of all its members (but, as a consolation price, Russia would be annihilated as well).  I can see some doubt seeping in for the politicians in charge of ordering the disproportionate retaliation.

Yup. Exactly.

I don't know what the Russian ballistic capability is and whether it can strike targets in the US. But would France or the UK risk annihilation of Paris and London, respectively, in order to prevent NATO from collapsing?

[grumbler]

NATO's choice would be collapse as an organization, or collapse due to the nuclear annihilation of all its members (but, as a consolation price, Russia would be annihilated as well).  I can see some doubt seeping in for the politicians in charge of ordering the disproportionate retaliation.

Why couldn't NATO respond to non-strategic use of nuclear weapons with non-strategic weapons of their own?  Why is only Russia allowed, in this scenario, to use weapons other than in an overwhelming MAD response?

[Jacob]

NATO's choice would be collapse as an organization, or collapse due to the nuclear annihilation of all its members (but, as a consolation price, Russia would be annihilated as well).  I can see some doubt seeping in for the politicians in charge of ordering the disproportionate retaliation.

I think NATO collapsing as an organization while Russia is fighting a war against it, in which Russia has employed nuclear weapons already, is virtually indistinguishable from nuclear annihilation in the medium term.

Perhaps the Russians think we'll bottle out on this, but I don't. I also doubt the Russian ability to inflict total nuclear annihilation on the West.

[Jacob]

Why couldn't NATO respond to non-strategic use of nuclear weapons with non-strategic weapons of their own?  Why is only Russia allowed, in this scenario, to use weapons other than in an overwhelming MAD response?

Yeah, they nuke Warsaw, NATO nukes St. Petersburg or Novosibirsk (or both) and says "don't pull that shit". Will Putin retaliate or escalate, knowing that NATO is willing to pull the trigger?

[grumbler]

It may or may not be relevant.  I don't see US launching an unprovoked nuclear strike.  I see Russia doing that if it perceives that it can get away with it, it's a nation always run by psychopaths.  That requires more stringent training of the military to make sure they're ready to engage in nuclear genocide when ordered, and part of that training is not mutinying.

I see that you have already veered from reasonable discussion to the "nation always run by psychopaths" path, so I will stop engaging in this discussion.  Something for you to think about, though:  if Russia has always been run by psychopaths (which includes inability to distinguish danger and inability to restrain urges for instant gratification), do you not think it would have used nukes many times by now?  The fact that the Russians have not used nukes so far should be evidence that your assessment of their leaders as psychotic is an emotional rather than an intellectual one.

[DGuller]

NATO's choice would be collapse as an organization, or collapse due to the nuclear annihilation of all its members (but, as a consolation price, Russia would be annihilated as well).  I can see some doubt seeping in for the politicians in charge of ordering the disproportionate retaliation.

Why couldn't NATO respond to non-strategic use of nuclear weapons with non-strategic weapons of their own?  Why is only Russia allowed, in this scenario, to use weapons other than in an overwhelming MAD response?

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.  Not disproportionate response, but a perfectly proportional response, with Putin being informed ahead of time.