U.S. warns of catastrophic consequences if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

  1. there was a recent interview with a russian mom who said that she hopes her son fights in ukraine and gets wounded because otherwise he would die of alcoholism in russia, so lol

  2. The problem is that the Russians have exactly ZERO nuclear weapons. No country possesses nuclear weapons. Rather, the political movement that currently controls the government has nuclear weapons.

  3. I'm sorry but why would NATO or the US retaliate with nukes?? Ukraine is not a NATO ally and we don't have any war pacts with them. An attack on Ukraine doesn't mean retaliating with nukes.

  4. America won't do shit. They already blew their load with sanctions and funding the Ukrainian army to the tune of 60 billion bucks in half a year.

  5. but just think about the history you’ll be living in! How many can say, “I died in a nuclear holocaust?” It’s about perspective!

  6. Actually nuclear winter won't happen. You need a blast big enough to blow bits of shit into orbit. The bombs they had in the 50s and 60s would do just that - multi megaton fuckers becuase the aim was so bad.

  7. I’m guna be really mad if everyone’s lives end because we had to nuke Russia over them nuking Ukrain then us getting nuked back. If it came to that… honestly just let them have it… we don’t all need to die for them

  8. 'Catastrophic Consequences' for nuking somewhere. Oh really? Who'd have fucking thought? Lucky I grew-up in the 80s and 'imminent thermonuclear war' is kinda nostalgic for us.

  9. I think this is the exact reason why people keep falling from hotel windows. Remove all opposition and rule with fear

  10. There’s 2 people outside of him in upper government who have to do something (and therefore now) if he orders it. He replaced both of them within the last 18 months.

  11. Uses a nuke on the battlefield / against an opponent? Very unlikely. It’s their last bargaining chip. Once they use a nuke they have nothing left to use to say “stop or we will do X” because nothing trumps nukes. We’ve still got a lot of escalation left between now and actually using nukes, and using nukes requires more than just one insane dictator to do.

  12. Imo highly unlikely, because Russia would lose all the support and be completely isolated. Even states like China, India, Brazil etc would turn against them. And even if Putin says fuck it, we lost anyways, even he cannot decide alone. After all, there is not just a red button like in movies but several people involved.

  13. It's a bit more complicated than that. Even if Putin decides to launch a weapon, his generals who I'll be initiating the launch have complete autonomy over the decision to actually launch it (something the US hasn't implemented btw). There is a good chance they might not. Even if we ignore the catastrophic effect a nuclear disaster will have on the lives of Ukranians, the nuclear fallout and radioactive dust would also effect Russian population. Plus nuclear weapon is more useful as a deterrent as a defence. Its usage is very much frowned upon by the international society. Russia as a country would be out of the game. Even the stanch of Putin supporters would find it hard to defend the government. All the countries which have abstained from voting against Russia (India, China, etc) would switch sides. Not from fear of west or US but that's literally the natural course of action. It would set a dangerous precedence for the world where using nuclear weapons to get one's goals is considered okay. It's a huge step. Ukraine might surrender because, if your cities are bing levelled they will find it hard to defend themselves even with NATO support but the entire world in more than one sense would turn against Russia. Russian diplomacy would take years to come back. This will also cause problems for other nuclear states like China. Part of their pursuit to global hegemony is diplomatic channels. Getting what you want by talking. Now every country would fear that they have a nuclear weapon pointed towards their heads. That's why most countries have no first use policy. It's better to keep it as a last resort than to fire it and lose all advantage. Even right now, Russia still has some power in international forums, at the end of the day their biggest trump card is the nukes, once they fire that its all gone.

  14. Looking at the history of this invasion: the U.S. has been ahead of what the Russian’s planned to do. Such as having back door conversations about sanctions directly with the Russian’s dating back to November.

  15. I've heard many opinions on this. Thing is, no one really knows, but it is unfortunately a very real, very likely possibility. The US would not be talking to Russia privately if it was not concerned an imminent nuclear attack was likely to happen. We had talks like this during the Cold War, among the most intense being during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is difficult to say what will happen, 1) because Putin is difficult to predict 2) the cost would be great and the results catastrophic. 3) on the other hand, Putin may be desperate and stupid enough to gamble his leadership by making one single sweeping decisive action. There is no guarantee the west would respond immediately with war, if they want to avoid extreme escalation. By hitting Ukraine and using nukes first, he forces us to reconsider attacking. Are we sure we would want to respond with our own nukes or get involved if Russia demonstrates the willingness to use nukes? It's an interesting question we think we have the answer to but we don't know until it actually happens.

  16. The worst that could happen is them nuking Ukrainian military bases with small tactical warheads . No one will actually retaliate or bomb cities, it's unthinkable

  17. Oh jeeesusss, we had the orange clown, after that absolutely nothing should be shocking to anyone. For fucks sake a clown running the most powerful country in the world come ooonnnn

  18. If Russia uses them in Ukraine, which I don’t believe they will, they will be totally cut off from the outside world. No trade, nothing. They would have power of veto removed from UN. They would be sanctioned in the ground. It would be the end of Putin and very likely the end of Russia as we know it. The country is already completely fucked, poor, crumbling, weak and corrupt. This would end them.

  19. On top of that, I think it would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. I don’t see a world where Russia used nukes, and all we do is slap the with a few sanctions. It would be boots on the ground in Ukraine and probably a push into Russian mainland (after we destroy whatever bunker Putin is sitting in)

  20. They border China which has the capacity to manufacture all basic goods for them and quite a large consumer base. Not to mention a shared interest in oil and gas trade between them. Hard to fully cut them off without China fully cooperating.

  21. Honestly, I don't think NATO would respond to a tactical nuke in kind. Instead, if they were smart, they'd use it for a reason to involve themselves in the war and absolutely devastate Russia's military, leaving them neutered. Everyone knows what a nuclear exchange leads to. There are no winners in that scenario.

  22. yes. NATO/US could launch a thousand tomahawk and AGM missiles (ranges are up to 1500 miles) and completely wipe out every major Russian target in Ukraine/Crimea. Bases, major troop/artillery emplacements, airfields, supply lines/depots, anti-air defenses, ships carrying Kalibr cruise missiles, bridges. You name it. As part of that, the 'nuclear' option for NATO, so to speak, would be to completely destroy the Kerch straight bridge, and the Sevastopol Naval Base with conventional missiles).

  23. There are weapon systems that can be used to retaliate that while not nuclear, will cause just as much devastation. They would be wise to heed our warning.

  24. NATO 100% can neutralise the Russian military without using nukes, so yeah I see a full nato deployment as the response to Russia using nukes, and nato only using nukes if Russia attempts MAD

  25. That's entirely true, but Putin knows this. And he's the type of guy to go all or nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming he decides to nuke Ukraine, he'd launch nukes against multiple western targets as well. It would only take 10 or so to completely destabilize the west (one to NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, London, Paris, Berlin, Ottawa, and Toronto would take out most of the that from the west. He'd probably hit Japan, too, to knock out the US bases there.)

  26. if you want to be optimistic, a nuclear holocaust would solve climate change pretty quickly as billions of deaths means a dramatic reduction in human emissions

  27. Realistically what would the US and allies do? The only "decisive" response I can think of is a full scale aerial bombardment of all Russian nuclear and military sites across the country that would take an extremely long time.

  28. Honestly I don’t think US and allies would be the ones Russia would have to worry about if they use Nuclear weapons, I have a hard time believing China would be cool with that in the slightest.

  29. The US would use one of the weapons no one knows about that it has specifically for a situation where a country needs to be stopped immediately

  30. They could just actually join the war in ukraine. That’s why Putin won’t do it because it would be basically giving NATO an excuse to jump in the ring.

  31. F-35s and F-22s in Poland and Germany completely controlling the skies over all of Russia. Carrier groups deploying all their forces from 3 fronts. Russia won’t be able to get a plane onto the runway, let along into the skies.

  32. I really hope the CIA is on some top secret head hunting mission to take Putin out, this shit needs to end now!

  33. Might be a problem since the CIA had to pull its “Top Spy” out of Russia in 2017 because our wonderful president at the time was best friends with the Russians and loved to share intel with them.

  34. Catastrophic consequence in what form? Exactly what will be a deterrent for poot poot. Dude is not acting rationally anyway.

  35. Ok, suppose Putin dies. Who becomes head of Russian Federation? Are they to continue the war? If not, where does this put Russia? Post-Putin, Russia will need an out, and a relatively soft landing in the sense that there is path for citizens to work with global community towards prosperity, unless we want another war. War needs to be less attractive to common Russian, and it isn’t right now (see: mass protests), but our peril if that should change as consequence of strong-arming.

  36. Putin is in power because he kept a lot of people happy. Oligarchs mainly. If putin dies they'll bring back someone who is good for business. This war ain't good for business. Will Putin dying end the war? Maybe not. Will the probability of it happening increase? Yep.

  37. It will be catastrophic for the world. Not only Ukraine. I feel like a lot of people start to discuss these sensitive topics they just entirely forget the Cold War and worst would’ve happen if it went hot.

  38. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the diplomats would use clear and concise language. In other words “You use a nuke, we’ll use a nuke” or “You use a nuke, we’ll issue a stern lecture, more sanctions, and stop using the ISS”

  39. You get a nuke, I'll get a nuke honey ...You get a nuke I'll get a nuke babeeee... You get a nuke I'll get a nuke we'll turn the world to a crawdad hole , honey baby mine....

  40. This is exactly the point though. Basically the US govt is using "strategic ambiguity" because they do not plan to respond with a nuclear weapon or likely at all militarily, but they want the Russians to believe there is at least a small chance we might, therefore having a stronger deterrent than if we just said "if you use a nuke we will super duper sanction you."

  41. The US has pretty good pre launch detection and defensive capabilities…at least that’s what they’ve sold us all in for the last 40 years. Hopefully they’ll be able to use it

  42. I’ve talked to some people involved in those programs. It’s smoke and mirrors. Catching a falling nuke is a fool’s errand.

  43. Boy, you know I was just thinking it's gonna suck if I have to live the rest of my life like this. I'm really glad we're about to light this WW3/Nuclear Apocalypse candle.

  44. Absolutely would be cutting off your nose to spite the face. Russia want Ukraine for its fields(livestock and agriculture) they wouldn't nuke them until they already know it's over. IMO

  45. This thread is filled with comments about the swiftness of a NATO response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, but they seem to forget that Ukraine is not a NATO member.

  46. No way would the U.S. nuke Russia over a tactical strike in Ukraine. They are not our ally, and that could escalate to the end of civilization. I'd hope that what is being discussed is even more severe sanctions, basically cutting off Russia from the world. We would need other nations to go along with it, including China. That could anger Putin even more, though, such that he sends more nukes. Either way, things aren't looking good for the world. WWIII is pretty much on.

  47. We need to get Russian students and visitors who are family of Russian oligarchs and Iranian students whose parents are government officials out of the US. There is too much risk having them here.

  48. The single best thing that could happen right now regarding nukes, is China issuing a public warning to Russia. But their Committee is a bunch of commie backbiters, so they won’t.

  49. I'm old and don't want Any business near a battlefield . PS. My brother served two tours in Vietnam as a Marine. Still messed up in the head and a Republican. Go figure.

  50. Sorry to hear of his troubles. My take, from those I know, is that generation has a huge mistrust of the government. This partially stems from how they were treated and how the war was waged. They want to burn it down.

  51. You know it doesn’t work like that, right? The chances of a few missiles surviving are too high, it’s not wise to suggest a preemptive attack.

  52. No one is using nukes. It doesn’t matter what you think or feel or whatever. If nukes are used then we’re all dead. No exceptions. I refuse to believe someone who has it as good as a world leader would throw it all away cause of a moment of pissyness. Putin would likely be defied if he tried considering his current reputation.

  53. Iodine will stop the absorption of radiation into your thyroid, but what about everything else? If Putin uses nukes, and there’s a nuke response, it’s game over for life as any of us know it, especially if there’s major damage to the electrical grid

  54. In a full out nuclear holocaust iodine pills will do nothing more than slightly delay the inevitable at best.

  55. Considering that most iodine are made by supplement companies that are not regulated, they can legally put sawdust in your iodine pills. I would not count on them.

  56. This is so obvious that these news articles don't serve any real purpose. If Russia uses a nuclear weapon of any kind, anywhere, it's over, they're done. NATO could mow Moscow to the dirt with conventional weapons any day of the week.

  57. Nope, NATO isn't insane enough to start a nuclear hot war with Russia. That would literally end human civilization as we know it. We're talking global famine, billions dead through the initial impacts, fallout, and starvation induced by the global nuclear winter...

  58. The scariest thing is once an ICBM nuke is launched there’s limited options in terms of stopping it. Once that bad boy leaves the ground unless it fails we’re pretty much doomed.

  59. Anti-ICBM interceptor systems have been successfully tested many times, both on boost phase (why we always keep a handful of missile cruisers fairly close to adversary’s coasts) and on inbound warhead interception.

  60. With all the crap currently going on in the world the thought of nuclear war doesn't even make my top 5 worries. In fact, the only reaction to this I have is the annoyance of anticipation.

  61. My guess is they would respond with extreme economic warfare, for instance using our economic power to massively devalue Russian currency, cut off all their financial channels, annex all Russian owned assets abroad, severely sanction any country continuing to do business with them.

  62. You go and nuke st petersburg or moscow you will be just slaughtering civilians. Those are the ones who oppose this war. Putin will survive in a bunker then there will be WW3 with nuclear weapons.

  63. Isn't the fertile soil of the Ukraine the reason they're invading in the first place? Would be kind of silly to nuke the soil, and the infrastructure to maintain it. It'd take years to recover.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin