Overall, public sentiment is characterized by fear, frustration, and skepticism regarding the escalation of nuclear tensions between the US and Russia, with a strong desire for diplomacy and peace. Many commenters express concerns over the irresponsibility of political leaders, and the potential catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, while a minority express a cautious belief in rationality prevailing over desperation.

US Government

Russian Government

NATO

Nukes are the ultimate lose-lose. There are enough countries that even if the ones fighting launch a nuke. Another country could nuke the winner just to prevent them from attacking another country. On and on it goes. Like say Russia wins the war by dropping a nuke on Kyiv. The US might not drop one. But what about France? North Korea? China? India?


It's why pretty much no-one has strike first mentality when it comes to nukes and only retaliation because it would be seen as self defense and not aggression. It's called M.A.D for a reason.


On top of that. Any government that chooses to use a nuke will more likely than not be isolated as pariah's and seen as a permanent enemy of the world.

Urabraska-

Imo the people who have commented thus far entirely misunderstand nuclear deterrence. 

You cannot approach the problem of mutually assured destruction with the assumption that nuclear weapons will not be used under any circumstances because of it. 

MAD only covers a limited scenario of a nuclear exchange between nuclear powers. It is useless at understanding the threat of nuclear use against non nuclear powers. 

It is still highly unlikely that Russia would deploy nuclear weapons against Ukraine, but there is a non-zero risk.

Presently it seems to me that Ukraine's approach at generating leverage over Russia is to attempt to degrade Russia's strategic weapons capacity creating the scenario for Russia where they either need to make peace or consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine. 

Ukraine is gambling that Russia would be more willing to accept a peace agreement more favourable to Ukraine than it would be to nuke Ukraine. I think that's probably correct, but it is a very risky strategy, though I'm sure Ukraine is well aware of the risks. 

I don't think nuclear use is inevitable, particularly while Russia still maintains the ability to inflict MAD against its potential enemies, which is unlikely to change unless Ukraine manages to also begin inflicting damage to Russia's ground launched nuclear platforms as well.

acomputer1

Rationally? There’s little that could ever merit Putin using nuclear weapons, because among other things, once he uses them, the threat of “what if he uses them” becomes moot. Also, NATO strategic forces probably outclass Russian strategic forces if the rest of Russia’s military is any indication. But that’s rationally; now what about in Putin’s mind? No one knows and that’s scary.

RNG_randomizer

I’ve spent years studying geopolitics with an emphasis on Cold War nuclear strategy - 

No, Putin will not launch nukes, with the single caveat (and even then it’s a huge maybe) being that he is aware that his life is about to be ended with no chance for survival.

The old adage “one flies and they all fly” exists for a reason. The moment Putin fires a nuke, he proves that he’s an existential threat to the entire human race, and therefore must be eliminated by any means necessary, which means other nations fire their payloads at him. Of course, he knows this is the calculus, meaning that he wouldn’t just fire one if he launches; he’d fire them all. 

That’s the real basis of MAD, and why no rational actor is going to fire them off unless their lives are in direct and unavoidable danger. And before anyone asks, yes, Putin is still acting rationally, or at least as rationally as a murderous dictator *can*.

Heffe3737

A nuclear attack on Ukraine would inevitably result in fallout on Russian territory, Moreover, it would render the war and the accompanying sacrifice of countless Russian soldiers pointless -it wouldn't even be a pyrrhic victory in the absence of a nuclear counter-strike. I doubt that Putin could survive politically.

DonTaddeo

Full strategic nuclear weapons? The US or another nuclear state launching them at Russia, which means that Russia launched them at the US. This is still a mutually assured destruction scenario that is very unlikely.

Tactical nukes? I think a much broader war with NATO could increase that threat. I also think if Ukraine ever carried out a more substantive assault on Russian territory (they won’t), that may trigger the use of a small tactical weapon to draw a red line, but I that could even be in the form of a test.

costigan95

Only thing that would push them to use nukes would be another nuclear attack or a conventional attack that is devastating enough to threaten the whole existence of the Russian Federation, both capabilities Ukraine doesn't really have. 

As humiliating as this war has been for them using even a small nuclear weapon to the effect of trying to freeze the conflict might not be worth breaking the nuclear taboo over because even if you avoid a catastrophic scalation it would simply scare the living hell of their own allies, make Russia more isolated and ensures than down the line other states can use nukes in the same way anywhere in the world.

Zuliano1

TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) well Putin hasn't exactly stuck by his threats either.  

He has threatened the use of nuclear weapons multiple times over the years since the war started, the US was hesitant to test his threats but Ukraine has shown over and over again that Putin's threats were hollow.

At this point, I don't know if anything would trigger Putin to use his nukes other than Zelensky riding on the back of an Abrams Tank, straight into Moscow.

MagnetarEMfield

Either imminent military defeat (Putin said something along the lines of "we are not interested in the world that doesn't have place for Russia in it" a long time ago), or as a retaliation towards nuclear launch on Russia.
Either way, it's the end of civilisation as we know it.  Russia launching nukes will prompt US to launch nukes, which will prompt China and the rest. You have to remember just how insanely many nukes US and Soviets had at the end of Cold War. One nuke striking a nuclear power plant will probably be 1000 worse than Chernobyl, rendering continents uninhabitable. Even without that, even if just a couple hit major capitals, it is still total chaos, complete communication breakdown, compete financial system breakdown, global trade breakdown. Countries that rely on food imports starve. Electrical power grids are burnt out due to the EMP portion of the detonation. Marauders in the streets, preppers have a field day until they discover that their stockpiles just made them jucier targets, religious fanatics chanting about the end is nigh...

ElectroVenik90

If Russia loses the war in Ukraine, it does not conquer Ukraine. That's it. Putin's regime might not survive such a result, but Russia as a state will survive it. Nuking anything would simply be such a overreaction and it would put Russia in more existential danger than a failure to achieve any goals they would like to achieve with such a strike. Nukes are a weapon of life and death situations. And while for Putin this war is such, for Russia it is not. So at the end of the day it depends on whether there is any strategic thinking left in Russia that thinks beyond Putin's rule. Given his age and the history of the country, I believe that to be the case.

AvernusAlbakir

Absolutely nothing! No one would carry out that order.

Expert_Part_9115

Nothing. US could literally dismantle russia.

Putin is a pathological coward. He won't risk his hide, so he'll never ever use nukes.

ashleigh_dashie

If they do, someone else will also. It’s a lose-lose.

Rocket_Law

I don't see why Russia would use its nuclear weapons.

The fact is away from high profile attacks like those today...Russia had the momentum on the battlefield.

Furthermore.. this war shifted into an attritional war, which massively favours Russia long term. 

This is why Russia is showing so little genuine interest in ending the war with trump.

If trump walks away from talks leaving Ukraine to the Europeans to support then Russia wins even more so.

I'm not saying Russia is 'winning' the war per se but I'd say it definitely has momentum and in an attritional war it could st some point push Ukraine to lose more territory quickly than we've seen for some time.

The one thing Russia can do to ensure total buy in from America is use its nuclear weapons.

bluecheese2040

Other people launching on them or a ground invasion of Moscow.

Spank86

If Putin uses a nuke his reign is over. The threat of using a nuke is more impactful than actually using a nuke. When everyone has nukes, then using a nuke is the worst thing you can do.

VidProphet123

Use [nukemap](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) and select the city and warhead, choose airburst or ground burst and see how big the nuke can reach.

Affectionate-Tip-164

TrickyChildhood2917

Nukes are weird. They’re the most powerful weapons we’ve ever made but the only countries you’d nuke (those that you find sufficiently threatening) will likely have them too, essentially guaranteeing their non-use unless someone gets suicidal.

They’re really there to ensure none are used against you but since you’ll be limited in when you can use them as well, they’re an expensive weapon that has more limitations then options.

Rob71322

There are a range of scenarios:

First, the Russians use this stupid super-nuke torpedo that the talking-heads keep threatening on a monthly basis. Major flooding in Eastern UK, Netherlands, and Belgium  

This would trigger a calculated response from the UK and France, inland from major population centres. We are not arseholes. We don't want to kill huge numbers of people, and we would rather preserve the treasures in their great cities.

Second is the end of the world shit. UK subs lose contact with the UK government. Subs revert to the PMs letter and then fucks off to Australia, .  Moscow, Murmansk, Saint Petersburg,  Yekaterinsberg, Novosibirsk, and Vlaldivostock end up as flattened shitholes.

miemcc

Not much short of getting nukes their way. That’s how nuclear deterrence works.

duga404

The fact that there are only a few comments that mention tactical nuclear weapons, as opposed to full strategic nuclear arsenal, is surprising. The chance of the former is likely greater than most of us realize.

The principles of mutual assured destruction

Snejni_Mishka

Nuclear weapons are not an option in any war, because of MAD.

They are a defense instrument, not an attack one. You just need to have it, not to use it. In my Country russian propaganda thanks to nukes made us scared to give weapons with all the socialist and far right extremists opposing the defense of Europe. That is the power of nukes.

perivascularspaces

I think conventual wisdom says they would only use them if Russia started losing territory. I think this is misguided and Russia could nuke Kiev tmr there would be no retaliation and Ukraine would have to surrender. Most of the knowledgeable people in the world disagree with this take. But eventually it’s going to happen. A nuclear country will Nuke a non nuclear country.

ogpterodactyl

A direct invasion of Russia would trigger it.

[deleted]

A meaningful invasion of Russian territory or a serious risk of a decapitation strike perhaps?

Alexandros6

To copy bit of Lines On Maps Youtube's channel latest videos:  
1. Stability of the regime faces a severe threat  
2. Third power launches weapons of mass destruction first  
3. A catastrophic defeat on the battlefield occurs

Maashuuu

cheesemanpaul

It will not because Russia wants a conventional war. Launching nukes would be a free ticket to get abandoned by china and also be the target of nato nukes or what not. Putin is perfectly happy with just burning his Russian pigs in this war. He has a huge stock of canon fodder and nukes would be a waste.

Cultural_Ad_5468

Realistically, the only time nukes are really going to be deployed is if Russia or Putin faces an existential threat, whether that’s nukes being deployed against it or an invasion for purpose of regime change.

The rest is just sabre rattling, because the consequences of using nukes are guaranteed to be worse for Russia and Putin than the consequences of not.

Creepy-Bell-4527

Foreign ground troops most likely. They already having a hard time with ukraine. If western troops were deployed. Russia would panic and be likely to use nukes.

sin2099

A Russian classified operation for some special forces unit to mimick an attack on its own people in one of its populated areas using their own nuke, but then media controlling it to say it was NATO that supported Ukraine and use the latest example from yesterday as an example of enemy capability of using Trojan Horse strategy to sneak a nuke in deep into Russia lol

Then again, it's an extremely risky move since it could put the whole world against Russia /alienating its own allies from itself since nobody really wants to be the first to use a nuke against another country.

It's a deterrent at the end of the day to scare others than to be used honestly.

vidphoducer

A tactical nuke probably close to nothing, a strategic nuke probably an invasion of their territory without them being able to actually deal with it and them being pressed to actually lose it.

persimmon40

Good question.

To answer it we only have to have a look at the biggest previous conflict. Cornered in his own bunker Hitler had no choice but to take his own life. But if he had nukes, would he still have done it? If you die at least go with a bang.

Sooooo yeah. I guess this is the only surefire way to get a dictactor to launch nukes. To threaten their lives personally and intimately.

NeatUsed

Debesuotas

According to their nuclear doctrine, out of my head, they could consider that possibility mainly within 3 criteria

1) their sovereignity is seriously threatened as in leopards and abrams tanks driving towards kremlin on the streets of the moscow, basically guaranteed lose of control over their country future

2) their own nuclear launch capabilities are threatened as in, someone tries to render their nuclear arsenal useless in some way by either destroying physical locations or cutting the chain of command or whatever to prevent them from being able to use it

3) in response to someone else launching nukes at them(possibly their allies too i think)

Once strategic nukes are out its a total war for everyone involved, so its not something that even a madman like putin would thread lightly once its time to actually fire them. 

So all in all, while they do not have first strike doctrine for strategic nukes, i have litteraly no idea what criteria are there for their tactical ones. Those could be used in more scenarios, i imagine, but its a free guess how that would end up being received across the world.

Rapa2626

Watch way too much TV. Russia will never launch a nuke. WMDs are used for deterrence purposes nothing more. Any nuclear strike will result in a fast retaliation either through use of NATO's military force or use of nuclear weapons by the allied forces. It just wont happen.

Relative_Baseball180

Once nukes are used proliferation would go into overdrive, especially if what happens is Russia uses a nuke and gets away with it.

Every country near Russia would work to get their hands on nukes as fast as possible, understanding that is the only way to stop a nuke from being used on them.  Japan and Germany probably have the technical means to build one fairly quickly, Poland would surely strive to get one, etc.   

As it stands now, Russia has nukes and its neighbors, other than China and North Korea, don't.  that's a better situation for Russia than many of Russias neighbors also having nukes.

Garystuk

lucky-_bastard

AlwaysBeC1imbing

90% of nukes are targeted at _other_ nukes, not cities. 

The other 10% however ...

Inside-Wave8289

only if the center of gravity is threatened, which is the Russian Federation government.

rodface365

There’s like five countries just in Europe who would be helping the USA reduce Russia to ash and China at best would only publicly denounce them. Putin also would fall out of a window (iykyk) even if he didn’t get captured by coalition forces

TheDonCena

Putin may launch nukes today, tomorrow, next year.

He always could have done this, for any reason. 

If he's a mad man then maybe he will. If he isn't a madman then he probably won't. We can't really change that.   
  
What we can change is whether or not we let an evil man kill millions and enslave millions more. If acting to defend Ukraine triggers WWIII, then so be it. I would rather die knowing we had done the right thing, than live knowing we were skulking cowards.

nolinearbanana

As soon as Russia is threatened by a conventional army that threatens the leadership of Russia.  I.e: NATO or the U.S. nukes will be launched.  

Russia has tacticle nukes and could use them in Ukraine according to their doctrine of escalation to desecalate.  If Putin feels his job is threatened over Ukraine then it is very possible, I am not sure what Russian politics look like or if Putin might be deposed by a less war hungry leadership.

No reasons for us to have every been involved in this nonsense, but now it is hard to extricate ourselves.

Lanracie

I oppose all aid to Ukraine.  It is just delaying the inevitable loss and causing hundreds of thousands of Slavic deaths for no reason.  Russia will win.

That said, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Putin will use strategic nuclear weapons, a near zero chance.

Tactical nukes, OTOH, are far more likely, though still HIGHLY unlikely.

 Russia has a stated nuclear doctrine.  Their actions are not a mystery.  No first use and to be used only when the existence of the state comes into question (IOW, nuked or a foreign army is closing in on Russian cities)  Pay no attention to Russian propagandists who constantly pull out the nuclear risk card.  Sure, there is risk, but it is nowhere near as high as any of these people say.

chrispark70

There is no scenario in which the use of nuclear weapons allows Russia to achieve its strategic goals

ghosttrainhobo

1. Russia could credibly use tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons against Ukraine without triggering nuclear retaliation from NATO. Perhaps without even conventional retaliation. But right now they are clearly winning the conventional war, in terms of territorial gain and ability to replace manpower/material losses, even if it's not by a huge margin. So they have little reason for such a drastic escalation.

2. The scenario I'm more concerned about is if Russia were to unambiguously "lose" the war in Ukraine, i.e. no territorial or diplomatic gains for Putin to point to in order to claim some semblance of victory, he could face a coup. And if he believed his deposal and execution was imminent one way or another, he'd have very little reason to not attempt vengeance against those he deems responsible for his fate.

Total_Yankee_Death

Putin plans to get away with as much as he can, then retreat back into russia. If other countries then attack russia and invade, that's when he will use nukes. They are still a deterrent like they have always been. 

Launching nukes at Ukraine would cross a line where russia has no more escalation left, and there would be no further penalty for other countries to plunder russia and divide it up. This is how russia sees the world. There are no laws, only consequences. If russia uses nukes to attack, they will lose everything. If they wait until they are invaded, nobody will invade them. That's how nukes work. 

The nukes ensure nobody will pursue russia when they have run out of steam and retreat back into their UN recognized borders. Until then, they can do whatever they want outside of russia and play games to justify their aggression because the only penalty will be sanctions, and they will be left alone after they retreat.

Fearless-Diver-1381

Attacking them with nukes? Otherwise if they use it they would be fucked in no time and they know it

I seem to recall only one nation has proven it has the will to nuke humans. We should probably worry about those psychos.

SallySpits

A nuclear triad is the way Mutually Assured Destruction is supposed to work. ICBMs and IRBMs + Bombers for mop up. 

Russian Submarining is a joke, no one believes the deadman switch icbms work at all anymore, so what’s left? The Gigantic tupolevs we saw explode on the runway.

I’d be interested to see the “how many are left” column before I make a solid prediction though 😬

Rattfink45

The „nice“ thing about the nuklear stale mate since the cold war is, if any nuke gets used ever, evedybody else will do so as well probably destroying the entire world. 

Its relativly unlikely someone will every rationally see this as benefitial.

ThePafdy

Suppose that an invading army threatens to reach Moscow… what would Russia nuke? The invading army and its own territory? Or the invading country and invite retaliation from other countries?

leginfr

A nuclear strike on Russia, nothing else.

Even using a tactical nuke on enemy soldiers would make the few "friends" Russia have, completely abandon them. Sactions by the world would be so intense that Russia would likely collapse within a few months.

Many state actors and possibly internal ones would actively try to kill Putin, which would succeed rather quickly.

PleaseBePatient99

Only two things: 1) a moment of classic Russian nihilism, the sense of a game that is futureless for their people anyway, 2) a self inflicted political/economic meltdown in all its rivals (us or NATO) so extreme, that it allies with any other nuclear powers and decides to take its shot. They 'd be unlikely to try that if we were only hurting ourselves through our meltdown, only if they and their allies (I don't think they could go without China and a strong position of leverage over Ind/Pak) perceived extreme risk that we would eventually spiral into hurting them.

tsch-III

Also remember that while Ukraine has no nukes they do have enough nuclear reactors that they could build enough dirty bombs to turn large parts of Russia into a radio active waste land.

Buford12

They didn't nuke Afghanistan, either.

Putin is evil and thoroughly corrupt, but he's not completely unhinged. From an actual ordinance perspective, nukes are big bombs with even bigger political implications. The lines will be drawn. The world will respond. And you don't get to shape their response anymore.

Further, what would "winning" look like for Russia at this point? Their economy is bolstered by this war, how much shock could they handle for "winning" in Ukraine with a nuclear strike, but the meager lifelines they have decide that association is bad for business?

The status quo, no matter how costly, is that Putin gets to stay in power and bomb Ukraine. What incentive is there to nuke a country that poses no real existential threat to his power base? You can use the threat of nuclear war endlessly. Actually using nukes is final. And no one knows what that game actually looks like.

missionarymechanic

For the moment everything is unfolding like the prophetic vision of Alois Irlmaier, he predicts a strike between France and England causing a tsunami

Popular-Atmosphere-5

I would say killing Putin would trigger them.

__Salahudin__

Ukraine isnt one of I just cant see them launching nukes over OFFENSIVE war they waged on another country simple becouse they wanna conquer it and have even more land even tho they are the largest country on Earth. Not to mention Putin values his life way too much. If you saw this dudes meetings during Covid he was so scared he was sitting 10+ meters away from all the other officials. Even after Covid for few months he was still doing it. Dude is just way too scared to lose life and thats why I never see him actually doing it.

samuel10998

Them wanting to get nuked? 


So many nations have, preemptive response plans in place, so their own counter assault is already en route before the attackers even land. 


If they attacked UK for example, their own capital would be a fireball before their own even get to us. 


Mutually assured destruction baby. 


And one of our tridents is 100% currently stalking their coastline somewhere. Ready to go. 


So they would have to be very careful where they chose to use them. 

Skitteringscamper

The soviets operated a dead man’s hand situation that in the event of a nuclear strike on Moscow their own arsenal would also launch. I believe Russia still operates one. 

Beyond that it’s a possible first strike scenario which other nuclear powers also face. North Korea being the best example of this. Say you got to war and you know an enemy power will target your ability to launch nuclear weapons to a point they become unusable. You are faced with a choice, use them as it’s likely you will be nuked or risk losing them forever. Given how much nations have invested in them it’s a very difficult decision.

northern_chaos

Disagree with all the people saying Russia won’t use Nukes cause of &lt;extremely rational logic based reasons&gt;. Putin is very old and likely doesn’t have that long left. His pride is probably more important to him than life itself. If he feels he is going to lose the war, I think there is a chance he will say I am going to inflict as much damage on those who stopped me on my way out and I don’t think he will factor the lives of Russian ordinary people in his decision because, well, he doesn’t much care for their lives being lost for his personal causes now.

umlok

Nukes are not an effective weapon of war. The threat of nukes are a very effective weapon of war

If you use nukes, you lose the threat of nukes 

So what would make Russia use its nukes? Probably nothing

bluecandyKayn

Russia’s nukes literally don’t work

That’s why they won’t use them

WitchCackleHehe

Russia will never nuke some place, never. The biggest fear of dictators is losing their power. Putin will never nuke.

Illustrious-Gold5019

I think if he knew for sure he lost he may do something that drastic. But fear of nuclear war shouldn’t stop us from standing up to dictatorships, nor supporting those defending their freedom from our common enemy.

Edit: sp

sirlost33

Launching nukes ends it for everyone.  

If there is still hope to salvage anything from the Ukraine debacle, nukes are contraindicated.  Once a single one is used. Russia will be de-nuclearized one way or another.  The current idea is to isolate their economy so ruthlessly they face cultural collapse.  But incessant decaptitation strikes are a close second, and a retaliatory nuclear response will follow any attack on NATO with WMDs.

So putin launching a nuke means it is over for Russia, forever.

GamemasterJeff

Crowiswatching

NuclearPopTarts

The only thing that can trigger Russia to use Nukes is, if all its leaders (in Reality there is only one) have a virulent death wish.

The Moment Russia launches a Nuke is the moment Russia ceases to exist.

fastwriter-

Why does Russia need to take a hudge risks and launch nukes due to, let's be honest, not a big damage taken? Bears were not hit so hard as it's told by ua, but the main thing about them that they are actually cheap turbovent planes, and 10-15 of them taken out and out of personnel loss is not even close to Pearl Harbour. Russia fights ua nazi with the left leg, stretching that process for years to make it less expensive. There are obvious no reasons even to use tacticals, not even talking about strategic nukes. Eu by supporting ua is trying to solve it's economical problems as it can use this unaccounted help as an explanation to people of why the life there becoming to cost more in time, but in fact that's just about robbing it's people under cover of "imminent danger" - haha. It is told that madam Ursula have earned tremendous amount of money on that!

SEGA_DEV

Putin is both rational and also excessively a self centered coward. The threat is just that, pretending.

Apparently someone in Russia saw a few too many 80s action movies where Americans openly worried about the Russian “crazy Ivan” attack tactics, and are desperate to get a fear based reaction “but they are so unpredictable and cRaZy in Russia!!!”… literal stupidity.

Factually, you cannot give Russia whatever they want just due to them owning nukes, cause giving in doesn’t get rid of the nukes, so if it is a valid tactic to get stuff  even one time, it doesn’t go away by them getting it and they can ask for more and more.

KalAtharEQ

Ukraine blew up half of Russias Black Sea fleet. Nothing.
They downed A50s. Nothing.
They destroyed sections of the Kerch Bridge. Nothing.
They blew up nearly two dozen of their most critical airframes. Nothing.
They attacked dozens of their refineries. Nothing.
They destroyed one of Russias submarines!
They even did an incursion into Russian territory. Nothing.

Ukraine have basically eroded Russias red lines right down to the bone. I genuinely think the only thing that’s remaining that would be a red line is: 

- committing a nuclear attack against Russia
- making a LARGE land invasion significantly towards Moscow/SPB
- targeting multiple nuclear subs/silos
- Doing a MASSIVE aerial assault (I.e, WW2 scale blitz run) directly against Moscow/SPB 

Everything else has already been tested and proven to NOT be a red line…

Fresh_Bodybuilder772

kathmandogdu

The reason Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine works is that if one person fires nukes, the other nations are obligated to retaliate in kind. So as a result, the theory is that no one wants to end humanity and so everyone keeps their nukes to themselves...

The other point to consider is that IF Russia was to fire their weapons, the other nations would likely choose them as the first target in order to cut off their capabilities to fire any more of them.

So Russia gets off a first strike - every single other nation on earth is then going to launch enough ordinance to turn the Urals into a glass bowl...

The problems unfortunately come after that - whereby people in power start taking advantage of the confusion and potentially end of the world situation that's occurring and start cracking into their 'secondary targets'... Nations with historical animosity such as Pakistan and India - they might throw nukes at each other if they believe that "The end of the world has arrived - no way those bastards get to outlive us..."

Point is, nuclear escalation has every chance to end humanity as we know it, and Putin isn't there yet. And even if he was, there's a whole room of generals that would likely shoot his ass first.

RomaruDarkeyes

Likely not, but lets not rule anything out. There are two primary types of nuclear weapons:

Strategic - These are the ones everyone is scared of, your megaton city-wipers. Launching even one of these is almost guaranteed a global response, because the fallout alone would have global impact. Russia can't really afford a unified global response to one of these, let alone the possibility of global nuclear war.

Tactical - These are smaller-payload nuclear weapons that could be used to clear front-line defenses. Still devastating, but the real reason they likely wouldn't use these is because, obviously, they are radioactive. Any land you hit with a tactical nuke is essential inaccessible to either side, and couldn't be cultivated or mined.

Either way, using nukes is an insane idea. The only reason nations have them is M.A.A.D, because actually using them would have catastrophic results for the attacker. There's also limited, if any, tactical value in using them in long-term strategy.

Acescout92

They won’t because Russia is weak and full of pussy men

sanctus20

ByzFan

literally nothing? they do afraid to die. now they are is completely safe, thousands of miles away from the frontline, having parties in luxury houses, molesting kids etc. The time they launch nukes it will all be gone.

On the other hand, I don't believe that NATO countries have enough balls to retaliate, they might swallow it and add more sanctions lmao

Ami00

A warhead requires constant, expensive, continuous replacement , maintenance and testing to be assured you can deploy it and it’ll actually work. 

If he can’t afford to replace basic infrastructure or armaments like tanks or aircraft, I really doubt much of the nuclear arsenal have seen any attention for at best 10 years.

ActAccomplished586

I think the only times they would use Nukes for sure. 

- NATO attacks Russia and fights in Ukraine.

- NATO invades Russian territory.

talex625

If you are a Russian elite that supports Putin, u are incredibly wealthy and powerful, you lead an amazing life and you have a big family for which u do all the corrupt things u do, and this leader, Putin, decides to destroy the world to conquer some land, what will u do to Putin? What will the entire world do to the Russian legacy and people?

Regarding limited use. I think Russia might decide to use specific strikes in defense at an army advancing toward Moscow but they would never use them in offense. What will China think if Russia uses nukes to conquer land? Maybe China will be next.

So I think Ukraine has to be given any weapons and intelligence they need to defend their land until Russia will give up their war of conquest. They will give up someday. Ukraine just has to fight as much as they want. And they know they have to, else a genocide will follow.

alicozaurul

I believe that there is only one scenario where Russian would launch nukes.

Since no one is going to preemptively launch nukes at Russia, nor threaten it's existence as a state, the only reason to launch nukes is Putin himself.

If he feels he's going to die, due to internal coup or whatever and his legacy as the great ruler isn't secure, I think he'd manufacture a crisis to convince senior Russians in their missle command to go along with him. He launch nukes as a big FU to everyone. 

He's often said the world shouldn't exist without Russia in it. He's also said he is Russia itself. It's only a small step to thinking the world shouldn't exist without him in it.

ACompletelyLostCause

Suicidal thoughts. It would mean the end for russia. Not even china could stand by them if they deployed nukes.

today05

Build the dome, build the wall, concept of a health plan. Just another bag of shit from a shitbag. Resist!

AmmoTramp

Russia's generals would have putin killed before any of them pushed the button. Not happening. Unless NATO decides to invade russia and they are backed up into Stalingrad with 50,000 russians left out of the 143 million then they push the button and the world ends.

OneFeed7380

Tbh, I wish he would.
Then the pussies that call themselves world leaders would probably (not) fuck them up genocidally 

If Russia launches a Nuke into ukraine, NATO has a few options:

1. launch a nuke back - probably ending the world (so not a good option),

2. bluster and do nothing (losing all credibility in any future military standoffs so not a viable option),

3. Send all their ground troops to take over Russia (or at least significant Russian territory) as a penalty for the nuclear launch (this is the only one I can think of that makes any sense).

MammothWriter3881

Serious_Hair5270

They won't nuke ukraine because they would suffer the fallout just as badly. They won't nuke anyone else because they'll immediately get properly invaded by nato and possibly a pissed off China

Direct_Class1281

Being afraid of nukes is just insane. if they want to send they will send you have no power over it at all. fight for freedome and whats right or wtf is the point of you being alive?

Runaren

Putin deciding it’s all too much and he’s ready to die, that would cause a launch. He knows it’s suicide. If he thought he could get away with it he’d have done it.

He’s a KGB trainee through and through. He thinks he can get anything he wants with lies and murder, like his role model Stalin. Like Stalin, he expects his subjects to keep dying until he gets what he wants.

C_Dragons

Tensions have escalated between the US and Russia over nuclear testing, raising concerns about a potential arms race and destabilizing international relations.

US-Russia Nuclear Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want