How would Putin use a nuke and how would the world react?

[+and-then]

I thought this niche topic was worthy of discussion.  I realize that most here think it's nearly impossible that he'd choose to light one of these candles, but what if we're wrong?  IMO, he is quite capable of rolling those dice.  So... what say you guys?  First, where would he employ one and then, how would the rest of the world's nations react to it?

My take is pretty simple.  He would use a LY device that is only a fraction of the power of Hiroshima (15KT).  He'd likely detonate it as an airburst well within Ukrainian territory and at an altitude that would NOT create an EMP for any NATO country.  My assumption is that most of these weapons we're handing to Ukraine would have shielded electronics but who knows?  IF he used an airburst for an EMP effect and it proved devastating to Ukraine's electric grid and electronics in general, the message to the rest of the world would be pretty damned clear.  

I don't see NATO or especially DC, retaliating in kind.  I have no idea whether the current admin - WHOEVER IS IN CONTROL -  would risk nuclear escalation by using a nuke BUT they might well cause an escalation by engaging with NATO's full conventional might.  Let's face it, that would destroy the Russian military just as effectively and the only way Putin could stop it would be to use another nuke...

I think the CCP and India would both recoil from it in horror unless he was seen to "win" as a result.  At that point Pandora's box would be opened and all hell would break loose.

Edited October 3, 2022 by and-then

[Occult1]

Once we accept that Russian ''cannot'' be defeated in the real world, we'll come back to reason and negotiate with Putin.

Russia has more than 1.500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3.000 in reserves. How do you ''win'' against them?

We have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns. I'm afraid Ukraine's territorial integrity will need to be sacrificed on the ''altar of peace''.

Russia will not accept defeat, as the U.S. would never have accepted defeat in Iraq.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Occult1

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, and-then said:

I thought this niche topic was worthy of discussion.  I realize that most here think it's nearly impossible that he'd choose to light one of these candles, but what if we're wrong?  IMO, he is quite capable of rolling those dice.  So... what say you guys?  First, where would he employ one and then, how would the rest of the world's nations react to it?

My take is pretty simple.  He would use a LY device that is only a fraction of the power of Hiroshima (15KT).  He'd likely detonate it as an airburst well within Ukrainian territory and at an altitude that would NOT create an EMP for any NATO country.  My assumption is that most of these weapons we're handing to Ukraine would have shielded electronics but who knows?  IF he used an airburst for an EMP effect and it proved devastating to Ukraine's electric grid and electronics in general, the message to the rest of the world would be pretty damned clear.  

I don't see NATO or especially DC, retaliating in kind.  I have no idea whether the current admin - WHOEVER IS IN CONTROL -  would risk nuclear escalation by using a nuke BUT they might well cause an escalation by engaging with NATO's full conventional might.  Let's face it, that would destroy the Russian military just as effectively and the only way Putin could stop it would be to use another nuke...

I think the CCP and India would both recoil from it in horror unless he was seen to "win" as a result.  At that point Pandora's box would be opened and all hell would break loose.

If one was to play armchair general, then what nuke targets would you select?

With motorways and railways going into Ukraine from the west, along with airports and its one remaining seaport, I think it would be important to salt the Earth. I would say hit each with dirty bombs to leave dangerous isotopes on the ground. Thats the NATO to Ukraine logistics cut.

Then I would say use 200 x 5kt nukes spread across the Ukrainian front line to thin them out.

If that doesn`t make Ukraine surrender I would say hit Kiev with a 6-megaton warhead.

[Gromdor]

I still say we give Ukraine a 150 megaton nuke. 

Once Russia accepts that Ukraine ''cannot'' be defeated in the real world, we'll come back to reason and negotiate with Zelenski.

Russia has more 1.500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3.000 in reserves. How do you ''win'' against them?

Ukraine will have 1 warhead deployed on a strategic long range system. How does russia "win" against them?

Russia will have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns. I'm afraid Russia's territorial integrity will need to be sacrificed on the ''altar of peace''.

Russia will accept defeat, as the U.S. would never have accepted defeat in Iraq but still had to leave, regardless.

[acidhead]

14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Russia will accept defeat, as the U.S. would never have accepted defeat in Iraq but still had to leave, regardless.

"but still had to leave"

Just curious... 

Are you suggesting the Americans have left Iraq?

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by acidhead

[jmccr8]

27 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I still say we give Ukraine a 150 megaton nuke. 

Once Russia accepts that Ukraine ''cannot'' be defeated in the real world, we'll come back to reason and negotiate with Zelenski.

Russia has more 1.500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3.000 in reserves. How do you ''win'' against them?

Ukraine will have 1 warhead deployed on a strategic long range system. How does russia "win" against them?

Russia will have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns. I'm afraid Russia's territorial integrity will need to be sacrificed on the ''altar of peace''.

Russia will accept defeat, as the U.S. would never have accepted defeat in Iraq but still had to leave, regardless.

Hi Gromdor

We could do a massive build up in near NATO member countries with high tech long range middles that Russia doesn’t want the US to give the Ukaraine maybe even fly drones in to drop pamphlets in high density border close regions so that the citizens of Russia understand all we want is for the freedom of conflict in the Ukraine and releasing all areas of dispute.

Kudos if they depose Putin

[Freez1]

Russia knows if they ever used a Nuke anywhere this would start WWIII without question. And they would start a war that would end in total loss to all sides.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

We have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns. I'm afraid Ukraine's territorial integrity will need to be sacrificed on the ''altar of peace''.

As I said, to yield to Putin NOW, or at any other future point, would look like we were being intimidated by his statements on nukes.  THAT will not be acceptable.  He has laid his unequivocal marker on those four eastern regions and he cannot now back down.  His number of nukes is a pointless comparison.  It is his willingness to use ONE that has the world at the edge of an abyss.  

So... in your view, what happens when he pulls the trigger? How will he choose to use that nuke and how will the world respond?

[+and-then]

47 minutes ago, Freez1 said:

Russia knows if they ever used a Nuke anywhere this would start WWIII without question

I disagree.  "Russia" is Putin and his life is now entwined with success in Ukraine.  I think the real unknown is whether his generals would obey the order.  If he decided to use say, somewhere between a 1-5 KT airburst in a specific location to prove his willingness, I don't believe any of us KNOW what would happen.  The idea that our current admin would automatically return the favor is preposterous.  It is highly likely they'd behave like HW Bush did against Iraq.  They'd act like Obama did with Iran.  They'd negotiate in spite of the damage it would do.

Edited October 3, 2022 by and-then

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

We have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns.

Care to explain how Russia's "security concerns" will be answered by seizing ONLY the 4 most eastern regions of Ukraine?  He has shown that he WILL come back to get more when the time suits him better.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Freez1 said:

Russia knows if they ever used a Nuke anywhere this would start WWIII without question. And they would start a war that would end in total loss to all sides.

I don’t think that is necessarily the case, both in that there would be a total loss on all sides AND that world war 3 would start over Russia using nukes JUST anywhere,I.e.  Ukraine. That is alarmist. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Nuclear Wessel

[bmk1245]

42 minutes ago, and-then said:

As I said, to yield to Putin NOW, or at any other future point, would look like we were being intimidated by his statements on nukes.  THAT will not be acceptable.  He has laid his unequivocal marker on those four eastern regions and he cannot now back down.  His number of nukes is a pointless comparison.  It is his willingness to use ONE that has the world at the edge of an abyss.  

So... in your view, what happens when he pulls the trigger? How will he choose to use that nuke and how will the world respond?

Here is the thing, if madman will decide to nuke some routes in Ukraine's west with Poland experiencing fallout, should NATO retaliate? Or if madman will decide to nuke some airports in eastern Poland?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Here is the thing, if madman will decide to nuke some routes in Ukraine's west with Poland experiencing fallout, should NATO retaliate? Or if madman will decide to nuke some airports in eastern Poland?

If fallout reaches Poland to a significant degree sure. And obviously if madman nukes Poland there’ll be a response.

I just don’t necessarily think it’ll be an all-nukes-fired situation if they are used in Ukraine. 

[Autistocrates]

He might keep it down to just throwing dirty bombs around

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, and-then said:

I disagree.  "Russia" is Putin and his life is now entwined with success in Ukraine.  I think the real unknown is whether his generals would obey the order. 

Russia is more than Putin.  It is the people he surrounds himself with too.  Not all of the command structure may agree.  It seems difficult but not impossible that one could fall out of a 7th floor window while in an underground bunker.  Elevator shaft maybe?

[MGB]

If he was to use a nuke it would probably be against a target that was well isolated from a civilian population.

Sometimes it is better to sit back and do nothing except keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, logistics, and that sort of aid.

Why risk a World War simply because Russia invaded Ukraine which was once a part of the Soviet Union?

We invaded Iraq and that was seen as unjust by many nations and yet here we are not engaged in an international conflict over that action.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

23 minutes ago, MGB said:

Why risk a World War simply because Russia invaded Ukraine which was once a part of the Soviet Union?

Russia was also once part of the Soviet Union. Not sure i see your point. 

[bmk1245]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

If fallout reaches Poland to a significant degree sure. And obviously if madman nukes Poland there’ll be a response.

I just don’t necessarily think it’ll be an all-nukes-fired situation if they are used in Ukraine. 

Well, I'm of the strong conviction that NATO should respond adecuately for any nuking in Ukraine, say, nuking Trans Siberian rail tracks/bridges (with references to Budapest Memorandum §4 and §5).

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 hours ago, and-then said:

I disagree.  "Russia" is Putin and his life is now entwined with success in Ukraine.  I think the real unknown is whether his generals would obey the order.  If he decided to use say, somewhere between a 1-5 KT airburst in a specific location to prove his willingness, I don't believe any of us KNOW what would happen.  The idea that our current admin would automatically return the favor is preposterous.  It is highly likely they'd behave like HW Bush did against Iraq.  They'd act like Obama did with Iran.  They'd negotiate in spite of the damage it would do.

Of course none of us know what will happen. I could in fact be entirely wrong. Maybe WW3 does result from Russia launching nukes. I just think that this optimist nonsense about how all their generals will refuse the order to launch and how Putin would never “be so stupid” or how “their nukes don’t work” (despite having $8 billion invested annually) is naïveté at its finest. The world is not some kind of movie where good will triumph evil at the last second, but people want to believe it is because of fear. Who wants to accept that their existence is at the mercy of a handful of people? 

[bmk1245]

35 minutes ago, MGB said:

If he was to use a nuke it would probably be against a target that was well isolated from a civilian population.

Sometimes it is better to sit back and do nothing except keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, logistics, and that sort of aid.

Why risk a World War simply because Russia invaded Ukraine which was once a part of the Soviet Union?

We invaded Iraq and that was seen as unjust by many nations and yet here we are not engaged in an international conflict over that action.

May I remind you, Alaska once belonged to russian empire.

Year 20XX... "Why risk a World War simply because russkys invaded Alaska which was once a part of the russian empire?"

[+Nuclear Wessel]

3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Well, I'm of the strong conviction that NATO should respond adecuately for any nuking in Ukraine, say, nuking Trans Siberian rail tracks/bridges (with references to Budapest Memorandum §4 and §5).

And I am of the strong conviction that they won’t.

[bmk1245]

Just now, Nuclear Wessel said:

And I am of the strong conviction that they won’t.

Ok, fair enough.

[kartikg]

5 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Once we accept that Russian ''cannot'' be defeated in the real world, we'll come back to reason and negotiate with Putin.

Russia has more than 1.500 warheads deployed on strategic long-range systems and almost 3.000 in reserves. How do you ''win'' against them?

We have no choice but to listen to their needs and security concerns. I'm afraid Ukraine's territorial integrity will need to be sacrificed on the ''altar of peace''.

Russia will not accept defeat, as the U.S. would never have accepted defeat in Iraq.

Moreover, I highly doubt that the other Big 4 want to see Ukraine win totally, it sets a precedent that “smaller" nations can defeat superior powers. Even though Iraq, Afghanistan have shown that, but usa was able to forget it due to favorable media climate. 

[MGB]

42 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Russia was also once part of the Soviet Union. Not sure i see your point. 

In Putin's eyes he has a legitimacy towards invading Ukraine which was a part of the Soviet Union, and I suppose he never viewed the independence of Ukraine as valid. That was my point, regardless of how the rest of the world sees it.

And IMO, it should just stay a conflict of two nations and let diplomacy and other options prevail before any other nation militarily commits escalating the situation.

 

[MGB]

39 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

May I remind you, Alaska once belonged to russian empire.

Year 20XX... "Why risk a World War simply because russkys invaded Alaska which was once a part of the russian empire?"

We bought Alaska from Russia. And yes, even if they did invade Alaska, then it would be best for it to be Russia vs USA and not involve the rest of the world.