Putin threatens nuclear war

[So Boerd]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine.html

Does anyone know if Russia has a two man rule for nuclear weapons? Hoping there will be a coup if he invades, say, Estonia and NATO resists, prompting a nuclear threat from him.

[Brovo]

Hopefully an empty threat. Still, we abandoned Sudetenland. We've pretty well left Tibet to rot. We'll abandon Eastern Ukraine.

I mean, unless the countries of NATO grow a spine and actually throw a counteroffensive in there. Which tactically speaking might provoke Putin to going through with his threats.

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

[Bluebe123]

I am willing to bet that OP's link is just a tabloid article.

[So Boerd]

The issue is, our nuclear force has decayed. We need a more credible first strike capability. Russia bolsters it nuclear force.

I used to buy into MAD, but thought experiments in light of recent events have changed my mind.

Suppose Russia rolls into Estonia. With a weak nuclear arsenal and conventional force (which, thankfully, we don't have), sufficient only to devastate Russian cities but with no counterforce capabilities, we can:

1. Use our nuclear weapons and bear the full Russian response (commit suicide but do significant damage to Russia)
2. Let them have it.

With a credible first strike capability and a large conventional force, we can escalate conventionally to test Russian resolve. The question becomes the resolve of Russia and limits the requisite resolve on the part of the United States.

[Miraboreasu]

I smell the Modern Warfare games coming true, but I hope that I didn't just jinx us. If I was my old self I'd suggest whacking Putin, but that might just send us into war anyway. Personally, considering Russia's alliance with China, we Americans would be screwed.

[So Boerd]

Jett Ryu said
I smell the Modern Warfare games coming true, but I hope that I didn't just jinx us. If I was my old self I'd suggest whacking Putin, but that might just send us into war anyway. Personally, considering Russia's alliance with China, we Americans would be screwed.

There would be no climactic "Battle of Stalingrad" situation.

What would China have to gain by entering the war against us? They aren't allies by treaty.

[Cayden Black]

As far as I am aware, no one is supporting Putin. Europe, Asia, USA etc. So if Russia decides to be fool hardy enough to try anything extreme it will be hit from all sides. We just have to hope they do not play the fool.

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's too soon to really say either way.
But it could very well be empty threats like with North Korea.

[Hellis]

I would not put to much stock into it. Estonia and Lituania are both Nato countries. Russia would not invade it as that would be going into a straight up war with the rest of the world. WW3 would not happen, Russia would be massacred. China won't help them, they have been eyeing Russian border territories for decades. And the economic sanctions have actually started to hit Russian economy hard, especially since Russia made counter sanctions that only proved detrimental to Russia itself. They are nowhere near as powerfull as Soviet once were, they would not risk any sort of war with NATO. Russia waving the nuclear dick around is desperation. The stuff they have been doing has backfired against them in the longrun and they know it.

[scribz]

In the big picture, this is what fighting over international reserve currency does. Putin's russia is far more closer to America ideologically than both would like to admit, yet fundamentally - strains of the cold war are emerging slowly over time.

The cold war never quite ended, it just got colder.

[Rare]

scribz said
The cold war never quite ended, it just got colder.

^

My god, you just put my words together. No matter what people said, the Cold War never ended, it just frozen for a while and now it's heating up. Then it will freeze up again and wait until something happens. Besides, I might be alright or fuck if Nuclear War happens, I live in the military/navy base.

[So Boerd]

Besides, I might be alright or fuck if Nuclear War happens, I live in the military/navy base.

You would go first.

The question is, suppose Russia rolls in to Estonia, threatening nuclear war. Would the American people be willing to lose 30 million of us for the sake of a country most cannot locate on a map?

[Rookery]

It's to my belief that whoever uses a nuke first loses all their allies. Besides, China has too much in stake in the US economy to side with Russia, there goes one of the motherlands main backers, financially speaking.

[So Boerd]

Rookery said
It's to my belief that whoever uses a nuke first loses all their allies. Besides, China has too much in stake in the US economy to side with Russia, there goes one of the motherlands main backers, financially speaking.

Russia need not use the nuke, only threaten it, as they are now.

Russia would be annihilated, but say, 30 million of us would go. Russia would be risking nothing. We won't nuke them just for threatening us, so if by some miracle we found the nerve to stand up to Putin, he would back down.

[Rtron]

So Boerd said
Would the American people be willing to lose 30 million of us for the sake of a country most cannot locate on a map?

Not without something along the lines of the Lusitania, or Pearl Harbor. As far as I know, most Americans would (and are) go 'Okay. We bomb them, give aid, but don't get involved ourselves. We have our own fucking problems.' Regardless of if it's morally right or not, we're done. We don't want to get invested in another war.

The only way the American population would fully back a war is if, as I said, something along the lines of the Lusitania, or Pearl Harbor happened. If you want us to back an invasion, in our current mindset, get us royally pissed. Make us willing to go to the brink.

[So Boerd]

NATO is only as strong as our resolve. We can lessen the demands on our resolve by strengthening our counterforce and ABM capabilities. Rather than 30, just 3 million (as if "just" could ever apply to such a human tragedy) would lower how much crap we would put up with.

[Rookery]

So Boerd said Russia need not use the nuke, only threaten it, as they are now.Russia would be annihilated, but say, 30 million of us would go. Russia would be risking nothing. We won't nuke them just for threatening us, so if by some miracle we found the nerve to stand up to Putin, he would back down.

A threat alone makes allies shake in their boots. Russia ain't stupid, they're just power playing. If Putin is truly honest and from where I'm standing, they're trying to appear bigger than they seem. A pissing contest unless their is something major happening behind the scenes with the Russia economy that would make war available option. I don't really follow that side of politics in that area of the world.

Rtron said
As far as I know, most Americans would (and are) go 'Okay. We bomb them, give aid, but don't get involved ourselves. We have our own fucking problems.' Regardless of if it's morally right or not, we're done. We don't want to get invested in another war.

This is pretty much the truth.

[TheMadAsshatter]

I've had like three or four dreams about the apocalypse in the last few days, so it's funny that this happens right now of all times. Definitely an unsettling prospect, but I doubt anything will happen.

[Legion X51]

Let me put it this way, in binary.

If Nuclear War = 1, Europe = 0.

[Joshua15555]

Jett Ryu said
I smell the Modern Warfare games coming true, but I hope that I didn't just jinx us. If I was my old self I'd suggest whacking Putin, but that might just send us into war anyway. Personally, considering Russia's alliance with China, we Americans would be screwed.

LOL

As someone who knows a Russian or two, Russians hate the Chinese. They sell the Chinese equipment, because the Russians see dollar signs from the deal. The only people in Asia they really give a shit about are the Indians, and thats because they are paying out the ass (For them at least) to get their hands on the T-50/PAK-FA.

So Boerd said
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine.htmlDoes anyone know if Russia has a two man rule for nuclear weapons? Hoping there will be a coup if he invades, say, Estonia and NATO resists, prompting a nuclear threat from him.

The Russians would have an issue with just walking into any Baltic nation due to the presence of US forces.

So Boerd said
The issue is, our nuclear force has decayed. We need a more credible first strike capability. Russia bolsters it nuclear force.I used to buy into MAD, but thought experiments in light of recent events have changed my mind.Suppose Russia rolls into Estonia. With a weak nuclear arsenal and conventional force (which, thankfully, we don't have), sufficient only to devastate Russian cities but with no counterforce capabilities, we can:1. Use our nuclear weapons and bear the full Russian response (commit suicide but do significant damage to Russia)2. Let them have it.With a credible first strike capability and a large conventional force, we can escalate conventionally to test Russian resolve. The question becomes the resolve of Russia and limits the requisite resolve on the part of the United States.

No we however have an armed forces that is more equipped for a war of attrition. Believe it or not the Russians don't have any reserves of the modern equipment they are currently producing, any kind of serious losses of modern aircraft, tanks, etc. would greatly impact the Russians.