A nuclear dilemma

[uk 75]

A friend of mine who has studied Russia for years posed a question which might arise if President Trump decides Europe is not worth defending.

In a future conflict with Russia it uses a nuke to destroy a European or UK city and then issues its demands saying that further cities will be destroyed if they are not met.

It adds that any British or French use of nuclear weapons against targets in Russia (including Kaliningrad) will result in the destruction of London or Paris.

The ultimatum is made public resulting in mass civil protests in UK and France and sit ins at nuclear bases.

Despite advice from the US military and some of his cabinet that the US cannot let this happen, Trump orders them to take no action.

My friend reckoned the UK and France would negotiate rather than take military action. Even if Moscow and St Petersburg were destroyed in revenge Russia could wipe out Britain and France with its nuclear arsenal intact.

 

[Justo Miranda]

A friend of mine who has studied Russia for years posed a question which might arise if President Trump decides Europe is not worth defending.

In a future conflict with Russia it uses a nuke to destroy a European or UK city and then issues its demands saying that further cities will be destroyed if they are not met.

It adds that any British or French use of nuclear weapons against targets in Russia (including Kaliningrad) will result in the destruction of London or Paris.

The ultimatum is made public resulting in mass civil protests in UK and France and sit ins at nuclear bases.

Despite advice from the US military and some of his cabinet that the US cannot let this happen, Trump orders them to take no action.

My friend reckoned the UK and France would negotiate rather than take military action. Even if Moscow and St Petersburg were destroyed in revenge Russia could wipe out Britain and France with its nuclear arsenal intact.

Nuclear weapons are neither the best defense nor the ultimate weapon, other types of revenge weapons must be considered. In 1945 the UK was a world power in chemical and bacteriological weapons and it is to be expected that some progress has been made since then. Try to catch a wasp with your hand and see what happens.

As far as I know of French nuclear policy, in my opinion they would only use limited nuclear weapons in the event that Russian tanks started crossing the Rhine and only for tactical purposes away from the cities.

Would the Russians be desperate enough to destroy a European city?... perhaps as a deterrent measure against a mass invasion of its territory... which will never happen.

How would Americans react?

In my opinion, if they did not go to war for Suez, nor for Cuba they would not do so on this occasion.

 

[publiusr]

It comes down to who is in charge.
Able Archer 83 occurred with Andropov already on his deathbed as it were. Cuban revolutionaries were more than willing to be glassed in that they actively wanted to use the missiles shipped there.


Putin on his deathbed might want to go out with a bang--but would be overruled I would think.

 

[Dilandu]

Sigh. Why do you assume that Russia is even interested in nuclear escalation? Our conflict with Ukraine was at least partiall out of public worries about "NATO missiles being placed there to first-strike our nuclear deterrence".

 

[Arjen]

I don't know how far up the chain of command former Russian president Medvedev is today, but as recent as July he raised the possibility of nuclear escalation:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-wed-have-use-nuclear-weapon-if-ukrainian-offensive-was-success-2023-07-30/

MOSCOW, July 30 (Reuters) - Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who has sometimes raised the spectre of a nuclear conflict over Ukraine, said on Sunday that Moscow would have to use a nuclear weapon if Kyiv's ongoing counter-offensive was a success.
Medvedev, who is deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, a body chaired by President Vladimir Putin, said in a message on his official social media accounts that Russia would be forced to fall back on its own nuclear doctrine in such a scenario.
His daughter Carolina Gonzalez was seen driving out of the base over the weekend,

"Imagine if the.. offensive, which is backed by NATO, was a success and they tore off a part of our land then we would be forced to use a nuclear weapon according to the rules of a decree from the president of Russia.
"There would simply be no other option. So our enemies should pray for our warriors' (success). They are making sure that a global nuclear fire is not ignited," he said.
Medvedev, who has cast himself as one of Moscow's most hawkish voices, appeared to be referring to part of Russia's nuclear doctrine which sets out that nuclear weapons can be used in response to aggression against Russia carried out using conventional weapons which threatens the existence of the Russian state.

Last year Medvedev mentioned the possibility of a missile strike on the ICC in The Hague, which happens to be a short drive from my home. I am less than thrilled about that.

 

[archipeppe]

I don't know how far up the chain of command former Russian president Medvedev is today, but as recent as July he raised the possibility of nuclear escalation:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-wed-have-use-nuclear-weapon-if-ukrainian-offensive-was-success-2023-07-30/

Last year Medvedev mentioned the possibility of a missile strike on the ICC in The Hague, which happens to be a short drive from my home. I am less than thrilled about that.

In the last 2 years and half, Medvedev treatened the use of nuclear weapons one day and even another....
His credibility in Europe is about zero absolute.

 

[alertken]

OP: this Q addresses "the rational actor"...who weighs pain: payoff, so taking a risk if he sees likely benefit.

Deterrence lapses faced with irrationality, so absolute defence to a murder charge is: disturbed balance of the mind.
Any Revisionist defence of Hitler, Tojo might include: he was mad, but...those implementing Policy were not, so rational actors invaded people for what were seen to be good reasons. Since 1945 neither CBW (local exceptions) nor AW has been used because the owners of those capabilities have been rational. Hitler at the end is said to have ordered CBW drenching of the Red Army in Berlin...declined by rational Officers.

There is no point speculating what if an irrational Leader extracted compliance with an NBC order. Doomsday.

 

[piginapoke]

It's on the slippery slope but what are Russia's views on limited yield tactical nuclear weapons being used to address the Ukraine incursion into Russia. This may be deemed acceptable to Putin seeing as Ukraine doesn't have nukes to reply.

 

[sferrin]

I doubt it would come to that. I think, at worst, the US would just reduce its funding to the level of the average European country, by percentage. Which only seems fair.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Money is very cowardly and has already disappeared from the main European countries before the war begins to play with scarcity and taxes. The European theatre of operations, including the UK and Russia, is considered secondary in the world's grand strategy. We are alone.

EU competitiveness: Looking ahead

Read Mario Draghi’s report on the future of European competitiveness. Its findings will contribute to the Commission’s work on a new plan for Europe’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness.

commission.europa.eu

 

[Dilandu]

I don't know how far up the chain of command former Russian president Medvedev is today, but as recent as July he raised the possibility of nuclear escalation:

Sigh. Medvedev today is playing the role of late Zhirinovsky - i.e. cartoonish ultra-nationalist with outstanding boasts without any substance..Your Westerners problem - you have very little understanding of specifics of Russian politics, and you are trying to fit everything into some simplified narrative.

 

[Dilandu]

In the last 2 years and half, Medvedev treatened the use of nuclear weapons one day and even another....
His credibility in Europe is about zero absolute.

Basically he plays the role of "bad cop" in our political system.

 

[Dreamfighter]

A friend of mine who has studied Russia for years posed a question which might arise if former and possibly future (*) president Trump decides Europe is not worth defending.

In a future conflict with Russia it uses a nuke to destroy a European or UK city and then issues its demands saying that further cities will be destroyed if they are not met.

It adds that any British or French use of nuclear weapons against targets in Russia (including Kaliningrad) will result in the destruction of London or Paris.

1) Then NATO - with the exclusion of the US if Donald Trump would indeed decide not to intervene and if the rest of the USA would not oppose such a decision by their president, a decision which most probably would greenlight North-Korea and/or Iran and/or China to undertake future nuclear (first) strikes as well - would in retaliation destroy 'major and very important Russian targets' - not necessarily a big city full of civilians - with conventional weapons OR with nuclear weapons.

A decision by Russia to nuke a European city (from a NATO and/or E.U. memberstate) would mean WW III. Even Russia nuking a city in Ukraine would probably mean WW III.


2) Australia, Japan and South-Korea would then wish Donald Trump 'good luck' with the (future) defense of Taiwan, and/or the (future) defense of Washington and Mar-a-Lago.

My friend reckoned the UK and France would negotiate rather than take military action. Even if Moscow and St Petersburg were destroyed in revenge Russia could wipe out Britain and France with its nuclear arsenal intact.

France and Britain (and their inhabitants) would be in ashes. Other European countries would face devastating consequences.
Major cities/parts of Russia (and it´s inhabitants) would be in ashes, other parts of Russia would face devastating consequences.
What would be the gain for Russia?
What would be the effect for/on the rest of Russia, and the world?




(*): Slight correction of mine to a specific part of your sentence.

 

[Arjen]

Basically he plays the role of "bad cop" in our political system.

Not much of a relief.
As deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Medvedev is part of the Russian establishment. I take his utterances at face value.

 

[pathology_doc]

If Trump becomes President again, all aid to Ukraine will cease and the war will be over in short order, probably with a settled solution in which the boundaries revert to status quo ante and Zelensky is permanently removed as Ukraine leader.

 

[Justo Miranda]

The time has come for change, delaying obvious solutions and trying to reproduce the policies of the twentieth century has not worked: wars in the Middle East do not automatically cause the price of oil to rise and nuclear blackmail is not taken seriously.

If we are not able to change, nature will do it for us.

 

[Desertfox]

Sigh. Why do you assume that Russia is even interested in nuclear escalation? Our conflict with Ukraine was at least partiall out of public worries about "NATO missiles being placed there to first-strike our nuclear deterrence".

What a self-fulfilling prophecy... The chance of NATO first-strike missiles in Ukraine was zero pre-invasion. Now Ukraine will get them for sure and Finland is part of NATO...

 

[Dilandu]

As deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Medvedev is part of the Russian establishment. I take his utterances at face value.

You shouldn't. You really shouldn't. Russian REAL politics historically isn't made on public; Russian political tradition is basically about "quietly reaching consensus and then presenting it to public".

 

[Arjen]

Unfortunately for the Russian establishment, the public utterances of its members aimed at Russian audiences also have an effect on Russia's neighbours. Without public disavowals by the establishment of messages of its extremist members, those extremists' messages are interpreted by Russia's neighbours as representative of opinion circulating within the establishment.

Why do you assume that Russia is even interested in nuclear escalation?

Because of messages from the Russian establishment's extremist members that nobody deigns to disavow.

I have moved about in circles where making threats you don't intend to follow up only resulted in an acute loss of your credibility. The war in Ukraine and other transgressions have riled Russia's neighbours enough to compensate for any loss in the Russian establishment's credibility over the last few decades.
So after centuries, Finland and Sweden were driven to join NATO. Even Switzerland, after even more centuries of neutrality, is ready to cooperate with NATO.

That is a massive own goal.

 

[TinWing]

You shouldn't. You really shouldn't. Russian REAL politics historically isn't made on public; Russian political tradition is basically about "quietly reaching consensus and then presenting it to public".

That is pretty much every society. There is always a superficial public agenda and there is the (sometimes) less obvious national agenda. Generally speaking, a change in government rarely impacts a national agenda. Mitterrand wasn’t much different in policy than Chirac and Starmer seems virtually interchangeable with any PM of either party since John Major. Electoral politics tend to highlight meaningless differences when the reality is almost complete continuity no matter who wins. In short, it makes no sense to argue about politics and when people don’t bother to vote, it isn’t apathy as much as good sense. Voting isn’t a productive use of anyone’s time. Except maybe in local elections. I’ve found it useful to befriend local politicians, as it’s nice to get a pothole filled within 2 or 3 days of complaining about it. Of course, maybe the same philosophy works for billionaires at a national or global level?

 

[Dilandu]

That is pretty much every society. There is always a superficial public agenda and there is the (sometimes) less obvious national agenda. Generally speaking, a change in government rarely impacts a national agenda.

Exactly.

 

[TMA1]

If your friend was educated professionally he would realize no single transition of power could cause such dramatic change in foreign or domestic policy and that no, cheeto Hitler cannot just decide generations deep military defense pacts mean nothing so we will just drop them. Trump is not popular amongst out political and military elites and is being watched like a hawk. If he even tried to pull some goofy stunt he would finally for once be absolutely ruined professionally and privately. As much as the idea of a deep state gets mocked it is true there are old cliques in power who have left behind bureaucrats and officials that keep certain policies going no matter who is really in charge. Does this make sense? Can you see why this whole topic is poisoned and even brilliant people have been brought to thinking loony stuff on all sides these days.

I mean think about it. Can you see why Russia might see Crimea as vital to their black sea naval presence? That they might not take kindly to our extremely subversive behavior in nations that they are neighbors to? And when you speak of sovereignty, be honest, does Mexico or Canada have any real sovereignty? Do you guys know why there are on running jokes of us flipping governmenrs left and right in south America? What if we some day become very weak and China starts doing exactly what we have done to others around the world?

Sorry for the rambling i am just shocked that so few speak against our geopolitics. I am not very smart and i just wish i saw smart voices speak on behalf of those like me. I so rarely see them.

 

[Justo Miranda]

If your friend was educated professionally he would realize no single transition of power could cause such dramatic change in foreign or domestic policy and that no, cheeto Hitler cannot just decide generations deep military defense pacts mean nothing so we will just drop them. Trump is not popular amongst out political and military elites and is being watched like a hawk. If he even tried to pull some goofy stunt he would finally for once be absolutely ruined professionally and privately. As much as the idea of a deep state gets mocked it is true there are old cliques in power who have left behind bureaucrats and officials that keep certain policies going no matter who is really in charge. Does this make sense? Can you see why this whole topic is poisoned and even brilliant people have been brought to thinking loony stuff on all sides these days.

I mean think about it. Can you see why Russia might see Crimea as vital to their black sea naval presence? That they might not take kindly to our extremely subversive behavior in nations that they are neighbors to? And when you speak of sovereignty, be honest, does Mexico or Canada have any real sovereignty? Do you guys know why there are on running jokes of us flipping governmenrs left and right in south America? What if we some day become very weak and China starts doing exactly what we have done to others around the world?

Sorry for the rambling i am just shocked that so few speak against our geopolitics. I am not very smart and i just wish i saw smart voices speak on behalf of those like me. I so rarely see them.

You won't see anyone smart speaking on your behalf to be shot in your name and if he survives stop voting for him next time. Instead, you will see less and less credible actors doing this work who try to adapt their role to the most numerous and uninformed social strata, because the others have not bothered to go to vote for a long time.

Do not fear the weakness of your country, it is only civilization and the rest of the countries tend to adopt the same model each in their own way.

China is a slow predator, even if no one opposed it, it would take thirteen hundred years to reach Los Angeles and possibly by then the conquest would no longer be useful. The price of raw materials has been falling since the nineteenth century.

 

[Nik]

Which way are the prevailing winds in Ukraine and near Kursk ??

IIRC, a lot of the Ukrainian drone attacks on Rus logistics are aided by riding the wind.
==
With regards to any US president deciding to pull plug on NATO commitments, I'm reminded of UK 'Urban Legend' that RN 'Boomers' have most of their missiles aimed at Rus targets, but at least one set for Washington DC to keep POTUS honest...

 

[publiusr]

The Dnepr a functional boundary between "East Ukraine" and "West Ukraine?"

 

[Arjen]

There is a considerable part of Ukraine east of the Dnieper not occupied by Russian forces. Kyiv sits on the west bank of the Dnieper.
Extremely unlikely to be acceptable to Ukraine. Thread drift.

 

[Justo Miranda]

https://www.nti.org/countries/ukraine/

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear warheads it would be at peace today, but it gave them up in exchange for political promises of freedom and independence and now pays the consequences of its naivety.

 

[Dilandu]

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear warheads it would be at peace today, but it gave them up in exchange for political promises of freedom and independence and now pays the consequences of its naivety.

Yeah, of course it would also means that a large number of nuclear warheads would be left under flimsy control of corrupt regime and incompetent military (you seems to forgot how poorly Ukrainean troops performed in 2014-2015?), so 11 September 2001 would probably be known as "the day when Islamic terrorist exploded megaton nuke in New York".

 

[Arjen]

The personality disorders of leaders of nations with nuclear weapons - I try not to think overmuch of that. And then I do

 

[Justo Miranda]

Yeah, of course it would also means that a large number of nuclear warheads would be left under flimsy control of corrupt regime and incompetent military (you seems to forgot how poorly Ukrainean troops performed in 2014-2015?), so 11 September 2001 would probably be known as "the day when Islamic terrorist exploded megaton nuke in New York".

His opinion does not contradict mine, both are valid, the one who has the bomb is not invaded.