If it wasn't for nukes, what would happen?

[Josquius]

Yes yes its a ridiculous theoretical since we would never have reached this point in time in the first place if Russia wasn't one of the world's major nuclear powers.

But lets just humour this. How much are the nukes the key factor here? What would be different otherwise?

[Tamas]

NATO would already be bombing the crap out of Russian forces but would not commit ground troops - it would not be necessary.

[Sheilbh]

NATO would be involved. I imagine US and UK at least on air support and probably I imagine Poland might send ground troops.

In a way I wonder if it actually would have meant the European moves to re-arm wouldn't happen, because that would seem less of a need if the US was able to just intervene and send planes. It'd just be the status quo for post Cold War European security, rather than a shock requiring a change?

[The Brain]

[DGuller]

If Russia didn't have nukes, then it probably wouldn't allow their military to decay so much.  Europeans still would, though, because the power of positive thinking is strong there.

[crazy canuck]

Poland leads a coalition of the willing, Canada sends what troops and support it can.  US involvement depends on whether Zalenski can turn public opinion in favour of intervention.

[Berkut]

Given the history of dictators attacking other countries and the track record of them stopping once they start absent force, is it actually reducing the odds of a nuclear confrontation by appeasing Putin and letting him bluff us into not responding with actual force?

I am not saying that we should get into a nuclear war over Ukraine. But I am not sure that letting him tell us if we do more he will use nukes and responding to that demand in the fashion he wants actually reduces the overall odds of a nuclear exchange at some point. My suspicion is that it actually raises it.

[Tonitrus]

There wouldn't be a question of China's involvement...they'd be gobbling up the Russian Far East (though in a nuke-free world, that probably would have really happened 40+ years ago).

[DGuller]

Given the history of dictators attacking other countries and the track record of them stopping once they start absent force, is it actually reducing the odds of a nuclear confrontation by appeasing Putin and letting him bluff us into not responding with actual force?

I am not saying that we should get into a nuclear war over Ukraine. But I am not sure that letting him tell us if we do more he will use nukes and responding to that demand in the fashion he wants actually reduces the overall odds of a nuclear exchange at some point. My suspicion is that it actually raises it.

I suspect that the safest attitude with regard to nukes is to completely ignore threats, and go "if you really do think that a no-fly zone justifies a nuclear response, then that's the fate for us all, but you'll never convince us that you're serious about that".  It's kind of hard to sell that response to the citizens, though, especially in democratic countries.

[Berkut]

Given the history of dictators attacking other countries and the track record of them stopping once they start absent force, is it actually reducing the odds of a nuclear confrontation by appeasing Putin and letting him bluff us into not responding with actual force?

I am not saying that we should get into a nuclear war over Ukraine. But I am not sure that letting him tell us if we do more he will use nukes and responding to that demand in the fashion he wants actually reduces the overall odds of a nuclear exchange at some point. My suspicion is that it actually raises it.

I suspect that the safest attitude with regard to nukes is to completely ignore threats, and go "if you really do think that a no-fly zone justifies a nuclear response, then that's the fate for us all, but you'll never convince us that you're serious about that".  It's kind of hard to sell that response to the citizens, though, especially in democratic countries.

Indeed. I actually think we are likely taking a more dangerous stance, not less dangerous, by letting him make this bluff.

Because it has to be a bluff - using nukes is not a winning hand, and we *know* that it is not a winning hand for him. So this is a bluff, by definition. That doesn't mean there isn't risk, because dealing with dictators without effective checks on their power is always risky. I am just not convinced at all that not calling his bluff is actually less risky then calling it.

[frunk]

Given the history of dictators attacking other countries and the track record of them stopping once they start absent force, is it actually reducing the odds of a nuclear confrontation by appeasing Putin and letting him bluff us into not responding with actual force?

I've been thinking about this, and the history of dictators and strong men attacking other countries is actually pretty abysmal.  In the past 100 years apart from Germany (and a lesser extent Japan) in WW II offensive wars by autocratic systems seem to at best wildly under perform and at worst completely fail.

Italy barely beat Ethiopia, and completely failed in North Africa and Greece during WW II, having to be bailed out by Germany.  USSR stumbled its way to a kinda, sorta victory in the Winter War, and only became competent once its existence was threatened.  North Korea started out well in the Korean War with a surprise attack, but was eventually pushed back.  The series of wars with Israel were repeated examples of dictators losing to a smaller, surrounded democracy, with the lone mixed success of the Yom Kippur War.  USSR's invasion of Afghanistan succeeded in the short term, but ended up accelerating the end of the regime.  The Iran-Iraq War was a disaster for all involved and Iraq invading Kuwait did not end well for the dictator.  Now we have Russia getting mauled by Ukraine, when every expectation was that it would be a lopsided fight.

I'm sure I'm missing a few wars, but I can't think of one where the autocrat's military overperformed expectation in an offensive conflict.

[grumbler]

Indeed. I actually think we are likely taking a more dangerous stance, not less dangerous, by letting him make this bluff.

Because it has to be a bluff - using nukes is not a winning hand, and we *know* that it is not a winning hand for him. So this is a bluff, by definition. That doesn't mean there isn't risk, because dealing with dictators without effective checks on their power is always risky. I am just not convinced at all that not calling his bluff is actually less risky then calling it.

Does anyone really think that Russian nuclear forces have been immune to the fucked up shit that has fucked up every other element of the fucked Russian military? 

I'd feel a lot better if the Polish Aegis Ashore site in Poland had been completed, but the US has a lot of deployable ICBM defense ships and land facilities in Romania and Alaska with proven systems.  Not leak-proof, but enough to give a realistic Russian pause, given that Russian use of her unreliable nuclear weapons means the annihilation of Russia and just maybe not the annihilation of her enemies.  MAD thinking might need to be rethought.

[Eddie Teach]

No nukes = no UN veto so the broader coalition is possible.

[Jacob]

Does anyone really think that Russian nuclear forces have been immune to the fucked up shit that has fucked up every other element of the fucked Russian military?

Not me.

I'd feel a lot better if the Polish Aegis Ashore site in Poland had been completed, but the US has a lot of deployable ICBM defense ships and land facilities in Romania and Alaska with proven systems.  Not leak-proof, but enough to give a realistic Russian pause, given that Russian use of her unreliable nuclear weapons means the annihilation of Russia and just maybe not the annihilation of her enemies.  MAD thinking might need to be rethought.

Yeah. I'm sure the carnage would be brutal in the West, but personally I'm willing to roll those dice and call Russia's bluff at the right stakes.

[Grey Fox]

Indeed. I actually think we are likely taking a more dangerous stance, not less dangerous, by letting him make this bluff.

Because it has to be a bluff - using nukes is not a winning hand, and we *know* that it is not a winning hand for him. So this is a bluff, by definition. That doesn't mean there isn't risk, because dealing with dictators without effective checks on their power is always risky. I am just not convinced at all that not calling his bluff is actually less risky then calling it.

Does anyone really think that Russian nuclear forces have been immune to the fucked up shit that has fucked up every other element of the fucked Russian military? 

I'd feel a lot better if the Polish Aegis Ashore site in Poland had been completed, but the US has a lot of deployable ICBM defense ships and land facilities in Romania and Alaska with proven systems.  Not leak-proof, but enough to give a realistic Russian pause, given that Russian use of her unreliable nuclear weapons means the annihilation of Russia and just maybe not the annihilation of her enemies.  MAD thinking might need to be rethought.

I've mentioned it in the main war thread but hopefully NATO has reassess Russia's 2nd strike capability. At this point it seems unlikely to perform at the level Russia's claims it to be capable of.