Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[Bkk Brian]

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

He is of course highly reluctant to use nuclear weapons. He would use them if Russia's souvereignty is seriously in danger, but no sign of that.

 

It must be very tempting to use them in UJkraine though, because Putin, sharp brain that he is, knows the Americans could not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon. But why create more problems for Russia, when they can win without nukes anyway?  Time is on their side.

They've been threatening it for nearly 2 years and have been backed down each time knowing they would also be blasted off the face of the earth:

 

"A critical exchange between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu in October 2022 highlights the intensity of the situation. According to Woodward, Austin warned Shoigu, “If you did this, all the restraints that we have been operating under in Ukraine would be reconsidered.” Shoigu, not taking kindly to the warning, replied, “I don’t take kindly to being threatened.” Austin’s firm response was a reminder of the US’s unmatched military power: “I am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world. I don’t make threats.”

Edited October 11 by Bkk Brian

[Gweiloman]

21 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

They know nuclear subs will hit them back so Vlad will be nuked by subs in reply to his first strike 

Are you saying that if Russia drops a nuclear bomb on a non-NATO country such as Ukraine, NATO would then retaliate with a nuclear attack against Russia? 
 

For your information, if the US drops a nuclear bomb on say Laos, China won’t do anything as it has a no first strike policy. China will only respond with nuclear weapons if it is attacked by nuclear weapons. This is what a country that believes in peace does.

[Gweiloman]

3 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

As the head of NATO said Russia will have no chance against a full nato attack .they can’t even subdue ukr ,Russian arms are so pitiful they have to import from Iran and NK,he may be crazy enough to go full nuclear ,and be reduced to rubble ,he is said to be resorting to using saboteurs around Europe as a last resort

Are you aware that Ukraine has been receiving lots of aid from NATO countries? Without the weapons and ammunition, Ukraine would have been subdued long ago.

 

For all intents and purposes, this is a military engagement between nato and Russia except that there aren’t official nato troops on the ground. It is a testament to Russia’s military might that they are still able to advance strongly, with only a little help from their friends.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

They've been threatening it for nearly 2 years and have been backed down each time knowing they would also be blasted off the face of the earth:

 

"A critical exchange between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu in October 2022 highlights the intensity of the situation. According to Woodward, Austin warned Shoigu, “If you did this, all the restraints that we have been operating under in Ukraine would be reconsidered.” Shoigu, not taking kindly to the warning, replied, “I don’t take kindly to being threatened.” Austin’s firm response was a reminder of the US’s unmatched military power: “I am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world. I don’t make threats.”

 

Yes, that was a mistake by Russia, they wanted to leverage the threats, This was done too much.

 

However, this exchange illustrates how dangerous the people in charge in the US are. No matter how powerful the US military is, the Russians have 5000 nuclear weapons and can wipe the US from the earth, plus all NATO countries.

 

Rather than "who's got the biggest stick" the Americans should have been incorporating Russia into a negotitated safety framework since the 90s. This "bigger stick" delusion is the road to disaster. Remember how WWI and WII happened? By accident, nobody wanted it. Both times.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, that was a mistake by Russia, they wanted to leverage the threats, This was done too much.

 

However, this exchange illustrates how dangerous the people in charge in the US are. No matter how powerful the US military is, the Russians have 5000 nuclear weapons and can wipe the US from the earth, plus all NATO countries.

 

Rather than "who's got the biggest stick" the Americans should have been incorporating Russia into a negotitated safety framework since the 90s. This "bigger stick" delusion is the road to disaster. Remember how WWI and WII happened? By accident, nobody wanted it. Both times.

You've just have not got it, Russia would also be wiped out if there was a nuclear war. 

 

Just because you have nuclear weapons does not mean you can go around threatening to use them as soon as things get difficult for you. If that was the case the world would be bowing down to every whim from rocket man in NK or any other state with nukes. They don't and there is a reason, its madness and suicide. 

 

Sorry but your red lines do not work.

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You've just have not got it, Russia would also be wiped out if there was a nuclear war. 

 

Just because you have nuclear weapons does not mean you can go around threatening to use them as soon as things get difficult for you. If that was the case the world would be bowing down to every whim from rocket man in NK or any other state with nukes. They don't and there is a reason, its madness and suicide. 

 

Sorry but your red lines do not work.

 

You just don't get it. There will only be nuclear war if the US makes it a hot war. If Russia uses a nuclear bomb in Ukraine there will be no nuclear war.

 

However, is there a hot war between the US and Russia then both will be wiped out. Not just Russia.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

He is of course highly reluctant to use nuclear weapons. He would use them if Russia's souvereignty is seriously in danger, but no sign of that.

 

It must be very tempting to use them in UJkraine though, because Putin, sharp brain that he is, knows the Americans could not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon. But why create more problems for Russia, when they can win without nukes anyway?  Time is on their side.

 

So better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia? Yep, that makes sense.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

You just don't get it. There will only be nuclear war if the US makes it a hot war. If Russia uses a nuclear bomb in Ukraine there will be no nuclear war.

 

However, is there a hot war between the US and Russia then both will be wiped out. Not just Russia.

Far from not get it, the reason there is no nuclear war is because Putin knows he would also be wiped out.....duh

 

Biden confronted Putin with the intelligence twice in December 2021, first in a video conference and then in what Woodward describes as a “hot 50-minute call” that became so heated that at one point that Putin “raised the risk of nuclear war in a threatening way.”

Biden responded by reminding Putin that “it’s impossible to win” a nuclear war.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/bob-woodward-book-war-joe-biden-putin-netanyahu-trump/index.html

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

So better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia? Yep, that makes sense.

 

It does if you believe in the survival of your nation and culture, if that is threatened but a nuclear strike gives you a slim chance to survive, then a nuclear war can  make sense.

 

But again, the risk of nuclear war is so serious, neither Russians nor Americans are that dumb to unleash it, we can see already that the Americans are extra careful not to unleash a hot war with Russia. Neither does Russia want it.

 

 

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It does if you believe in the survival of your nation and culture, if that is threatened but a nuclear strike gives you a slim chance to survive, then a nuclear war can  make sense.

 

But again, the risk of nuclear war is so serious, neither Russians nor Americans are that dumb to unleash it, we can see already that the Americans are extra careful not to unleash a hot war with Russia. Neither does Russia want it.

 

 

 

In that case, no reason why NATO shouldn't increase its' support in the field for Ukraine.

[Cameroni]

Just now, RayC said:

 

In that case, no reason why NATO shouldn't increase its' support in the field for Ukraine.

 

Not a good idea. If it were to come to the point where  Russia is in a corner they could use nukes. That would complicate things.

 

Better the West ends the conflict.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not a good idea. If it were to come to the point where  Russia is in a corner they could use nukes. That would complicate things.

 

Better the West ends the conflict.

 

NATO could simply give a deadline for Russia to withdrew her troops from within Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. If that deadline wasn't met then NATO could state that they will put troops on the ground in order to forcibly push back Russian troops to their side of the border, but that NATO troops would not themselves cross the border into Russian territory. 

 

Why would Russia feel that she had backed into a corner by such a scenario? How would it justify Russia initiating a 'first strike' nuclear conflict?

[Cameroni]

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

NATO could simply give a deadline for Russia to withdrew her troops from within Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. If that deadline wasn't met then NATO could state that they will put troops on the ground in order to forcibly push back Russian troops to their side of the border, but that NATO troops would not themselves cross the border into Russian territory. 

 

Why would Russia feel that she had backed into a corner by such a scenario? How would it justify Russia initiating a 'first strike' nuclear conflict?

 

I don't think you understand what you're saying. If NATO openly unleashes a hot war against Russia in Ukraine, that's clearly a step on the escalation ladder.

 

It would signficantly increase the risk of nuclear war between Russia and the NATO countries, because conventionally Russia is no match for NATO, so a hot war on the boder with Russia which leaves Russia exposed to invasion by NATO, that could clearly escalate very easily into a nuclear war if Russia thinks its souvereignty is endangered.

 

To their credit even Biden and Harris did not come up with that.

Edited October 11 by Cameroni

[NativeBob]

There are strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. Those are very different in "efficiency". If you want to sink air carrier you don't have to go "Full Monty Hiroshima" over it. One hypersonic "flying sausage" will do it just fine, and jelly fishes won't feel sh*t.

WW3 means strategic mayhem. Its different

[RayC]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I don't think you understand what you're saying. If NATO openly unleashes a hot war against Russia in Ukraine, that's clearly a step on the escalation ladder.

 

It would signficantly increase the risk of nuclear war between Russia and the NATO countries, because conventionally Russia is no match for NATO, so a hot war on the boder with Russia which leaves Russia exposed to invasion by NATO, that could clearly escalate very easily into a nuclear war if Russia thinks its souvereignty is endangered.

 

To their credit even Biden and Harris did not come up with that.

 

I understand exactly what I am saying. I don't doubt that it is an escalation, but if NATO states that it's troops will not venture into Russian territory why would Russia feel that their sovereignty is threatened and initiate a 'first strike' nuclear attack?

 

You did, in fact, answer my original question - "So (from a Russian perspective) better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia?" - was 'Yes'. There was no need for me to probe further. I should have been more attentive. My apologies.

[Cameroni]

46 minutes ago, RayC said:

I understand exactly what I am saying. I don't doubt that it is an escalation, but if NATO states that it's troops will not venture into Russian territory why would Russia feel that their sovereignty is threatened and initiate a 'first strike' nuclear attack?

 

Why would Russia trust anything NATO says after it has been lying to Russia for the last 34 years?

 

Especially on a matter of life and death and national survival? If they were terrified before of NATO encirclement, imagine with NATO boots on the ground?

 

If faced with its own destruction why would Russia not unleash nuclear weapons to at least have a chance of national survival?

Edited October 11 by Cameroni

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Why would Russia trust anything NATO says after it has been lying to Russia for the last 34 years?

 

I can't answer that because I don't accept the assumption that Russia has been lied to for 34 years.

 

There is no point us discussing this particular issue any further.

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Especially on a matter of life and death and national survival? If they were terrified before of NATO encirclement, imagine with NATO boots on the ground?

 

An irrational fear ...

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

If faced with its own destruction why would Russia not unleash nuclear weapons to at least have a chance of national survival?

 

... but playing 'Devils Advocate' and accepting that NATO forces would occupy Russia, what is worse 1) almost certain annihilation as a result of nuclear war, or 2) living under NATO occupation? Surely the only rational choice is 2)?

[Bkk Brian]

14 hours ago, NativeBob said:

There are strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. Those are very different in "efficiency". If you want to sink air carrier you don't have to go "Full Monty Hiroshima" over it. One hypersonic "flying sausage" will do it just fine, and jelly fishes won't feel sh*t.

WW3 means strategic mayhem. Its different

The outcome could be similar however. He who shoots himself in the foot constantly also known as Putin was to be stupid enough to unleash a tactical nuke then the kiddie cloves would be removed and the whole might of NATO who he was so good at expanding, with the latest additions of Finland and Sweden would come bearing down on him.  A massive series of strikes with conventional weapons. Massive enough but measured. Biden has already hinted at this.

 

Outcome. A wounded Putin. What would happen next? He would either admit defeat, although that's unlikely and perhaps we know his mindset from his own Parable of the ‘Cornered Rat’ on what he would do.

 

If he was not deposed which we know he is very scared of, he would become extremely dangerous and then the possibility of real nukes would be real. Again everyone a loser. He indeed once said that a  "world without Russia is not a world worth having". Extreme language of nuclear Holocaust.

 

So unless Putin wants to commit suicide and the world to end as we know it. Its just another of those cry wolf red lines.