Current Events > In the event of a nuclear strike, what should Russia's punishment be?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What should the immediate response be?

Should clarify I mean a nuclear strike into Ukraine. I think it's obvious the only proper response to a nuclear strike against NATO states is nuclear retaliation

The concequences for firing the first nuke should always be the harshest possible one.

Umbreon posted...

The concequences for firing the first nuke should always be the harshest possible one.

...we're gonna force Russia to marry Donald Trump?

According to some users on here we should just wag our fingers and let them continue, otherwise they might nuke us as well.

gunplagirl posted...

...we're gonna force Russia to marry Donald Trump?

Okay maybe not that harsh.

gunplagirl posted...

...we're gonna force Russia to marry Donald Trump?

The consequence should preferably be something that hasn't already happened

That is simple, If Russia wants to play with Nukes then that gives The USA, Britain, France and China a reason to fire theirs at Russia.

In what world is it even remotely sane, let alone desirable, for the worlds foremost nuclear powers to go nuke to nuke with one another? What sort of short-sighted maniac would even entertain the thought? I dont think these people understand the consequences of all out nuclear war.

The idea that Russia will stop at one nuke is a fantasy of the absolutely deranged.

If they use nukes they need to be glassed. Any other form of retaliation and they'd nuke you as well, speed takes first priority.

AloneIBreak posted...

In what world is it even remotely sane, let alone desirable, for the worlds foremost nuclear powers to go nuke to nuke with one another? What sort of short-sighted maniac would even entertain the thought? I dont think these people understand the consequences of all out nuclear war.

It's not remotely desirable.

But allowing Russia to get away with nuking a nation is far more insane than retaliating with a nuke.

The agreement is "If you nuke unprovoked, you die." in so many words.

Blightzkrieg posted...

The idea that Russia will stop at one nuke is a fantasy of the absolutely deranged.

If they use nukes they need to be glassed. Any other form of retaliation and they'd nuke you as well, speed takes first priority.

Yep. No one wants to be in that hypothetical. But if we do end up in it? Then the land formerly known as 'Russia' needs to be a warning to everyone what happens when you use your nukes like a toy.

Umbreon posted...

It's not remotely desirable.

But allowing Russia to get away with nuking a nation is far more insane than retaliating with a nuke.

X+1 nukes will always be worse than X nukes and far more insane. Im okay with intervention if he deploys nuclear weapons, but Im not okay with nuclear holocaust. We can strike back without jumping straight to nuclear weapons.

There has to be retaliation, but not nukes. We don't need to kill countless civilians. Putin and his cronies are the ones who need to go.

The problem is that any retaliation that isn't another nuke would be too slow. If we declare war on Russia and fight them another way... what's stopping Putin from nuking us? He already did it to one nation, what's stopping him from doing it to another?

You realize that Russia no longer exists if Putin nukes anyone, right? Even if America isn't the one to do it personally, other nations have a self interested obligation to take down the wild animal before they're next.

The options suck.

The downside to nuking Russia/Moscow is because of the Dead Hand switch that launches all of Russia's nukes.

Basically Russia has their actual trump card in their back pocket in the event all the senior leaders die.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

Yes, it's possible that it won't work as intended but that's a huge fucking gamble

Alteres posted...

The options suck.

There's really no non sucky option when it comes to nuclear war.

And nuclear war begins at the first nuke. Even if everyone decides to take down Russia the slow way, it counts as a nuclear war(Especially when Russia fires off more nukes).

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

There has to be retaliation, but not nukes. We don't need to kill countless civilians. Putin and his cronies are the ones who need to go.

There is zero methods of retaliation that won't result in countless civilians being killed regardless. The world was already in a lose-lose situation once the hypothetical nuke took out Ukraine.

It's going to be tragic. It's going to be senseless. The world probably ends regardless.

Prevention is how you save people, and that's likely going to be achieved by Putin being assassinated from within. Which isn't exactly an easy task.

i wanted to vote for Nuclear retaliation, but there's two worst scenario:

• Mutually Assured Destruction happens, or
• it didn't happen, but nuclear supremacy for the winner.

and retaliation or not, if poo tin really launched a nuke everyone will be arming themselves with nukes too. that shitcan is a damn idiot for trying to use nuke as a threat.

what i hope if we have to use a nuclear retaliation it will be a swift and decisive strike that quickly ends the war. this isn't WW2 Japan, a prolonged war could cause another nuclear launched.

Anything but a retaliatory nuclear strike, I'd support.

Not interested in a nuclear war to protect egos.

That seems to be the biggest interest to many on this board. Nuclear armageddon to prove a point.

Go read gladius posts that got ignored in the other topic.

There are a number of options between nothing to full scale war and nuclear Armageddon.

I believe a use of major force would be necessary, glassing the entire country or its major population centers is perhaps too much force.

Umbreon posted...

The problem is that any retaliation that isn't another nuke would be too slow. If we declare war on Russia and fight them another way... what's stopping Putin from nuking us? He already did it to one nation, what's stopping him from doing it to another?

Too slow? What are you talking about? What makes you think nukes would reach their destination faster than a missile with a non-nuclear warhead?

And your implication that nuking Putin would stop Russian nukes from striking the United States has no basis in reality.

Annihilation

AloneIBreak posted...

Too slow? What are you talking about? What makes you think nukes would reach their destination faster than a missile with a non-nuclear warhead?

And your implication that nuking Putin would stop Russian nukes from striking the United States has no basis in reality.

His logic actually explains a ton. He seems to have a fantasy of how a nuclear war would turn out.

3, 6, and 9 all must happen in retaliation to a nuke

There's only one way a nuclear war ends. Tragically. Anyone telling you otherwise is an idiot.

Isn't nuclear retaliation like the worst possible outcome? As soon as they realize we, or any other country, fired a nuke, Russia would launch even more nukes.

wipe Putin and all of his supporters and enablers from the face of the planet

NoxObscuras posted...

Isn't nuclear retaliation like the worst possible outcome? As soon as they realize we, or any other country, fired a nuke, Russia would launch even more nukes.

and what's stopping russia to launch more nukes if there's no retaliation?
that's why this topic is created.

The problem is that it opens a floodgates.

If putin launches nukes at Ukraine, then an event horizon has been crossed.

If we respond with nuclear force, then it's immediate nuclear Armageddon.

If we respond with anything short of nuclear force, Putin learns that there is no threat of nuclear punishment, and begins flinging nukes at everyone else.

AloneIBreak posted...

What makes you think nukes would reach their destination faster than a missile with a non-nuclear warhead?

It really doesn't matter. Once the first nuke is fired, Putin will launch more if someone so much as sneezes in his general direction. Why on earth wouldn't he? Making the decision to fire that first nuke is essentially a declaration that you no longer care whether the world lives or dies. Whether it's a regular missile coming his way or a nuke, the response will be launching all the nukes before he dies. So, yes, the response WOULD be too slow. Anything short of a literal instantaneous obliteration of Russia's government and military leadership would be too slow.

It's a super shitty situation. Either the world ends, or the world except Russia ends (well, before they die out in the following months).

DarkBuster22904 posted...

The problem is that it opens a floodgates.

If putin launches nukes at Ukraine, then an event horizon has been crossed.

If we respond with nuclear force, then it's immediate nuclear Armageddon.

If we respond with anything short of nuclear force, Putin learns that there is no threat of nuclear punishment, and begins flinging nukes at everyone else.

It really doesn't matter. Once the first nuke is fired, Putin will launch more if someone so much as sneezes in his general direction. Why on earth wouldn't he? Making the decision to fire that first nuke is essentially a declaration that you no longer care whether the world lives or dies. Whether it's a regular missile coming his way or a nuke, the response will be launching all the nukes before he dies. So, yes, the response WOULD be too slow. Anything short of a literal instantaneous obliteration of Russia's government and military leadership would be too slow.

It's a super shitty situation. Either the world ends, or the world except Russia ends (well, before they die out in the following months).

It's almost like human beings aren't competent to hold the massive destructive powers we've developed.

It's actually really impressive/stupid that society has managed to forget the gigantic fucking sword of damocles that hangs over our heads. Like people forgot about the nuclear threat the instant the cold war ended. It never went away but people just sort of pretended it had.

ScazarMeltex posted...

It's almost like human beings aren't competent to hold the massive destructive powers we've developed.

It's actually really impressive/stupid that society has managed to forget the gigantic fucking sword of damocles that hangs over our heads. Like people forgot about the nuclear threat the instant the cold war ended. It never went away but people just sort of pretended it had.

It's really impressive we've lasted 77 years since the bombs

NoxObscuras posted...

Isn't nuclear retaliation like the worst possible outcome? As soon as they realize we, or any other country, fired a nuke, Russia would launch even more nukes.

Yes, of course. Putin launching nukes is bad. Putin and the US lobbing nukes back and forth at each other is significantly worse for everyone involved (and billions not involved). The question of nuclear retaliation is utterly absurd unless the goal is to propagate as much death and destruction as possible on as many living creatures as possible. Maybe thats what these people want, I dont know, but its beyond genocide. Lesser offenses are moddable, but calling for indiscriminate ending of human life is just another day at the office. Its grotesque.

Ricemills posted...

and what's stopping russia to launch more nukes if there's no retaliation?
that's why this topic is created.

There's literally a massive difference firing a nuke at a country who has no nukes of their own and a flimsy military alliance.....
To firing a nuke at other nuclear powers with nuclear allies.

There's actually many differences.

The people asking what stops Putin from firing at the US or NATO seem to not even understand that. Not to mention a plethora of other shit they seem to not understand.

Retaliation definitely needs to be made, but nukes are not the only option.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

The problem is that it opens a floodgates.

If putin launches nukes at Ukraine, then an event horizon has been crossed.

If we respond with nuclear force, then it's immediate nuclear Armageddon.

If we respond with anything short of nuclear force, Putin learns that there is no threat of nuclear punishment, and begins flinging nukes at everyone else.

Exactly.

All of us are already dead in this scenario. The world has ended. It's just a matter of how long it takes to realize it.

There's no winning in that scenario.

Ricemills posted...

and what's stopping russia to launch more nukes if there's no retaliation?
that's why this topic is created.

There's nothing stopping them from launching more either way, but launching a nuke at Russia pretty much guarantees they'll go scorched earth and launch all of the 1,500+ nukes that are already ready. It's literally an "everyone on earth dies" scenario. And no one wants that.

At least if we retaliate without nukes, they might not go that extreme.

Expecting Putin to be killed by his inner circle the moment he orders nukes to be used. They will say he decided to "retire" early.

Russia has already lost the war.

NoxObscuras posted...

At least if we retaliate without nukes, they might not go that extreme.

If you're willing to nuke one nation, you're willing to nuke another. There's no reason to believe Putin won't retaliate with a nuke, especially if we demonstrate that doing so won't result in being nuked back.

You're looking for a win condition in a scenario where there is none.

asdf8562 posted...

Retaliation definitely needs to be made, but nukes are not the only option.

And retaliation without nukes is impossible.

Ordinary military offensive? He'll launch nukes. He's threatened as much, and launching the first one is such a huge gamble that he no longer has any reason to care.

Assassination? Nukes. They won't be coming from him directly, but you're fooling yourself if you think he hasn't prepared for that contingency.

Launch ordinary missiles? Fire the nukes as soon as they're detected.

The only two options are doing nothing, or nuclear holocaust. Because even if we do not start said nuclear war, putin will, at the first sign of pushback. That's the problem. Launching the first nuke would be such a HUGE gamble, because of thebpossible response, that the only scenario in which he does so would necessitate no longer caring about or fearing nuclear retaliation. And once he's hit that point, it's over.

Umbreon posted...

Exactly.

All of us are already dead in this scenario. The world has ended. It's just a matter of how long it takes to realize it.

There's no winning in that scenario.

Not exactly. Good fucking lord you can't be this gone.

If Russia fires a nuke at Ukraine, unless it was fire at you in Ukraine you are not already dead. The world did not "already end."

If you have some death wish fantasy of being already dead, you can go on that fantasy all by yourself.

t5yvxc posted...

If Russia fires a nuke at Ukraine, unless it was fire at you in Ukraine you are not already dead. The world did not "already end."

If Russia nukes Ukraine, what should America do about it? Tell me.

Also did... you just tell me to off myself?

Umbreon posted...

If you're willing to nuke one nation, you're willing to nuke another. There's no reason to believe Putin won't retaliate with a nuke, especially if we demonstrate that doing so won't result in being nuked back.

This is really simplistic thinking. Its one thing to nuke Ukraine, which has no stockpile of its own and cant fire back, but its another entirely to nuke the US, which has nuclear capabilities worldwide.

NoxObscuras posted...

There's nothing stopping them from launching more either way, but launching a nuke at Russia pretty much guarantees they'll go scorched earth and launch all of the 1,500+ nukes that are already ready. It's literally an "everyone on earth dies" scenario. And no one wants that.

At least if we retaliate without nukes, they might not go that extreme.

And if we targeted the Kremlin and took out Putin, it triggers all those nukes via the Dead Hand. The only scenario where it wouldn't, would be an impossible series of events that involved a land war in Russia and Putin (and all his senior leaders) staying together in Moscow(or another place) during said land war and them getting eliminated in one non-nuclear strike. It won't happen but that might be the only way that the Dead Hand won't be activated.

It's a very damned if you do retaliate, damned if you don't retaliate

Umbreon posted...

If Russia nukes Ukraine, what should America do about it? Tell me.

Sure as fuck not take your advice.

Isn't the whole point of having nukes to make sure that other people don't use nukes? Unfortunately that's the only retaliation.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

And retaliation without nukes is impossible.

Ordinary military offensive? He'll launch nukes. He's threatened as much, and launching the first one is such a huge gamble that he no longer has any reason to care.

Assassination? Nukes. They won't be coming from him directly, but you're fooling yourself if you think he hasn't prepared for that contingency.

Launch ordinary missiles? Fire the nukes as soon as they're detected.

The only two options are doing nothing, or nuclear holocaust. Because even if we do not start said nuclear war, putin will, at the first sign of pushback. That's the problem. Launching the first nuke would be such a HUGE gamble, because of thebpossible response, that the only scenario in which he does so would necessitate no longer caring about or fearing nuclear retaliation. And once he's hit that point, it's over.

In the event of pushback, you'd expect many missile defense systems to be on high alert.

Which is its own issue, because if you shoot down one, they'll be tempted to just go all in

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Isn't the whole point of having nukes to make sure that other people don't use nukes? Unfortunately that's the only retaliation.

Not quite. The reason other countries got nukes is to deter anyone from using them on their country. Also a means to deter anyone from attacking their nation as well.

AloneIBreak posted...

This is really simplistic thinking. Its one thing to nuke Ukraine, which has no stockpile of its own and cant fire back, but its another entirely to nuke the US, which has nuclear capabilities worldwide.

Nuking any country would make him beyond insane. Ukraine may not have a stockpile of their own, but they're allies of a nation that does have one. Having nuked our allies, we would be obligated to respond. I don't see Putin not going scorched earth in that case.

Unless you're suggesting we should just shrug our shoulders at Ukraine dying and move on? I don't think you're saying that...

t5yvxc posted...

Sure as fuck not take your advice.

But what would you do?

You're so busy trying to insult me, what would you fucking do in this scenario? If you have a better solution, I would genuinely like to hear it.

Nuclear response. Otherwise they'll just keep nuking whoever they want.

They launch nukes; we launch nukes. This is the only possible punishment for Russia and humanity will suffer because of it.