Ask HN: We are getting close to Russia using nukes and few people care. Why?
Russia may use nukes in Ukraine soon, which could trigger World War III with conventional weapons and later with nukes.
Shouldn't everyone be scared now?
Shouldn't everyone be scared now?
In Russia, the only really interesting part is how and when and when to switch sides. Defect too soon you get shot. Defect too late you get shot. The herd is almost frantic with the desire to stampede, but nobody wants to be the first one or the last one.
I can draw out a 2x2 matrix:
A1. Worry, then die of radiation burns next month.
B1. Relax, then die of radiation burns next month.
A2. Worry, then die of cardiac arrest in 40 years.
B2. Relax, then die of cardiac arrest in 55 years.
I’ll choose options B1 or B2 please.
It’s not my job to worry about Russia. I have servants that worry about that for my servants.
The rationale is to conquer and exploit for ROI purposes, destroying everything is the opposite of that and is a recipe for ending up way worse than when you started off, even if you "win" the nuclear exchange.
It's the reason why China decided not to match Russia and US 5000+ nukes and stopped at 1000. Millions of diplomats and an ever growing movie industry will be their Weapons of Mass Persuasion.
Russian elites do not want to die. They won’t launch nukes.
With modern weapons, If an actual WWIII ever happens it’ll be over before you find out it started.
Watch some kpop videos maybe. Cheer up. Calm down.
What is it you'd like them to be doing? How can we sufficiently communicate our level of concern and when will we know that it meets your requirements?
Are we talking "rending garments" here or should we bust out the serious self mutilation gear?
Now, would even using something like that trigger a response from other nations, and could it still escalate to "Global Thermonuclear War"? Probably. But at least in the short-term it doesn't appear to be the case that as soon as Putin "pushes the button" it's automatically game over for everybody.
Also, supposedly three people are required to use even those nukes, with Putin being one of the three. There seems to be some thought that the other two might refuse to allow their use. How Putin would respond to something like that is an interesting question. Given the unrest over the Russian draft, I can't help but wonder if all of this is leading to a possible regime change in Russia.
The west doesn’t need to respond with nuclear weapons to dismantle Russian positions in Ukraine. NATO and it’s allies are more then capable of removing Russia from Ukraine with conventional weapons in a short period of time.
since whole world see how weak russian army is, fearmongering is хуйло (putin's) last weapon.
From what I've read, the nukes people think Russia would use are the small, "tactical" nukes. If Russia set off two or three of them, they won't lead to immediate nuclear winter. Fall-out and persistent radioactive contamination would depend on detonation altitude and other targeting factors. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but it's possible to detonate a small nuke without ending civilization.
But the problem with Russia detonating a small nuke is what happens then? How would we respond? Do we nuke something? We're not officially belligerents in the "special military operation." Would we declare war? Would we torpedo their Arctic drilling platforms?
I think at least part of the lack of public discussion from various governments is that we're not really sure what we would do until we know exactly what the Russians do.
I also think there is a strategic benefit to ambiguity about how we would respond. We've always said we would not be the first to use nukes in a conflict. But I don't think we (the west) have explicitly said we would consider a nuclear attack on Ukraine a nuclear attack on us. There's some benefit in being ambiguous about this as (I'm sure) someone in the national security policy hierarchy thinks there is a deterrent effect.
You can't live your life continuously frightened and expect to be effective at achieving any of your foreign policy objectives. But there are certainly times when it's legitimate to be more frightened than others. I started getting more nervous after Russia started massing troops on the Ukraine border. Personally, I thought Putin was bluffing. Then his troops performed less well than any of us seemed to anticipate and I started worrying a bit less. Now he's calling up more troops and is doubling down.
I think the nuclear threat comes in if Russia perceives the west has crossed the line to become a direct belligerent. We don't know if Russia would respond with a tac-nuke or the full tour nuclear armageddon.
I think it boils down to... We don't know if they're going to drop nukes. Which means they could maybe not drop nukes. If we truly believe they will drop nukes, prudence dictates we take steps to prepare for nuclear war. But they'll see us prepare and assume that we're going to launch first.
When Mutual Assured Destruction is no longer a deterrent, what then?
So yes. Be afraid. But also be brave. Assume there is a situation that doesn't lead to nuclear war, and that we can find a path to that future. Be brave because to show fear may be to invite your fears to manifest.
Or at least I'm sure this is what Kissinger would say.
To be sure, nuclear annihilation is horrible, but let us not miss this opportunity to appreciate 80s pop about armeggedon.
The brainwashing has been too effective. Leaders of western countries are acting irrationally an know it but don't want to oppose popular opinion.
So yes, Russia is indeed the most evil force at this moment. Every sane person realizes that.
They should also realize that it's GDP compared to it's size is laughable and shouldn't give in.
Fuck Putin and his enablers. Let them implode from within, we can wait like in 1991.
In contrary to Putin's Russia: "Go go Kazachstan, they have been the suprise for me the last 6 months" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32971727