Its interesting to read some of the other blogs out there these days in regards to the actions going on in Ukraine. There’s definitely a contingent of people who are certain that the current course of action, and the ‘permission’ given to the Ukes to use the US supplied long range munitions, will lead us into a genuine nuclear scenario.
Nuclear weapons are interesting weapons and deterrents. Ostensibly, no one wants to be the first to use them but no one wants to be the last to use them either. What is more liekly to happen if someone launches a (small) nuke at someone….the receiving side and it’s allies restrain themselves form retaliating in kind in the name of the moral high ground? Or they retaliate in kind?
Is the current likelihood of nuclear war, or at least a couple ‘tactical’ or ‘limited’ nuclear uses, higher or lower than what it was during the Cold War?
I was pretty sure the Russians weren’t going to invade Ukraine and I was quite wrong about that. My ability to reasonably predict the future is, obviously, not that great. Do I think someone is going to open up some canned sunshine in this conflict? I really don’t know. I think that it would be alot like the situation the Israelis were (supposedly) in back in ’73 – When their back was to the wall and it looked like they were gonna take it in the shorts, they made a somewhat public show of prepping their nuclear weapons for use and Nixom quickly fired up Operation Nickelgrass and turned on the taps of materiel. I could see the Russians letting the satellites see them moving nuclear munitions to a ‘ready’ position and suddenly US pressure for Kiev to make ‘reasonable compromises’ occurs. Of course, we’d never know about it…but I bet if there’s a dramatic shift in policy towards compromise or appeasement, I’ll bet its because someone put on a show for satellites.
But, do I think anyone will heave a nuke, even a small tactical battlefield nuke, at someone? No,but I’ve been wrong before.
On the other hand, it’s always a good idea to be prepared just in case. And even if thes no nucelar exchange, those preparation work for other non-nuclear disasters as well. I mean, if you’re prepared for WW3.5 youre probably prepared, by default, for lesser things like hurricanes.
“What is more likely to happen if someone launches a (small) nuke at someone…?”
Without knowing who the launcher and target are, it’s impossible to make a prediction. Cultures and mindset are too different among the current acknowledged and suspected nuclear club. Not to mention, what happens if the attack is via a means without a direct and glaringly obvious source – for instance, bomb in a cargo container, bomb in an airliner, etc.
Plus, the whole concept of MAD-based deterrence and restraint is based on assuming rational mindsets, as perceived from a Western perspective. This includes the likely Soviet / Russian leadership outlook; the Chinese are iffier but still not likely to embrace probable personal oblivion. What about cultures that believe death in battle equates to entrance to heaven? Does one hope their leaders are secretly hypocrites?
Well, the post here was in the context of a Russia/Ukraine incident. And, yes, deterrents and that sort of ting only work if all the players share the same values regarding self-preservation.