Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcxdude | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it's not particularly plausible. Even if you believe that they are in a truly atrocious state of repair, that, say, 95% of them will fail to land on target and detonate, a nuclear strike from Russia would still be catastrophic.

The main reasons most observers are not super worried about nukes in the context of their invasion of Ukraine, is that MAD is still an effective policy against an all-out attack against NATO, and NATO (especially the US) has a credible red line of any attempt at a 'small-scale' use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine that will bring them into the war.

The main effect of nukes, though, is to make Ukraine's allies nervous about the collapse of the russian government, because that is a plausible situation in which nukes could be used. The US, especially, seems to by trying to help Ukraine win, but not win so hard that Russia collapses, and it's not obvious that a level of support exists that would satisfy both outcomes.

View on HN

Yes, this is arguably one of the points of overkill. Nukes are so powerful, and major powers have 100s to 1000s of them. Only 1 needs to get through to change history.

> and NATO (especially the US) has a credible red line of any attempt at a 'small-scale' use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine that will bring them into the war.

Do you feel that USA red line is still credible post election? I'm genuinely curious how you see it. To me it sounded like the new commander in chief wants nothing to do with the whole conflict there.

The US, especially, seems to by trying to help Ukraine win, but not win so hard that Russia collapses,

My sense is it's not that they don't want Ukraine to win that hard -- they just (very reasonably) don't see how anyone can expect that to reasonably happen within any meaningful time frame.

So they fall back on the next-best alternative, that Ukraine not lose, as a sibling commenter already pointed out. Much more definable, and infinitely more achievable -- if there's a broadly shared understanding (and consensus reality) in place as what that would necessarily entail.

Only problem is -- there's still been a lot of noise among those who run things in the US/West about pretending to believe in the former ("Ukraine must simply win") as a stated goal. Leading inevitably to reduced confidence in what the US/West says, and to the further erosion of public discourse as we're seeing here.

> The US, especially, seems to by trying to help Ukraine win, but not win so hard that Russia collapses, and it's not obvious that a level of support exists that would satisfy both outcomes

I've always thought the US wanted Ukraine not to lose. Tying up Russia's armed forces in an endless war of attrition seems like an ideal result on all grounds except humanitarian ones.

European countries have slightly different incentives because they would also like to stop the refugee crisis, but the US is basically the marginal supplier of arms here - if Estonia finds it can lend another 5 fighter jets, the US can just provide 5 fewer.

> The US, especially, seems to by trying to help Ukraine win, but not win so hard that Russia collapses, and it's not obvious that a level of support exists that would satisfy both outcomes.

What level of US support would allow Ukraine to win by way of Russia collapsing?

As Prighozin's escapade and surprising support from most of russian troops showed it may not require much, rather the right dose at right moment at right place.

Absolutely nobody is happy about the war in russia, from the very bottom all the way to the top. So nobody really knows how far the theoretical tipping point is, of course oligarchs with dictator promptly kill any emerging threat.

> Absolutely nobody is happy about the war in russia

I don't really go on Reddit much anymore these days, but the last time I was on there there were several subreddits where you could find people who were rather gleeful about the affair, trading anecdotes about Russian losses/deaths.

I find reddit to be a terrible place to gauge general public sentiment on almost any topic. Nowhere else can you find such a high concentration of content openly celebrating the misfortunes of your fellow man.

Just look at instantkarma, clevercomebacks, murderedbywords, fightporn, facepalm, leopardsatemyface etc etc etc. Most of the content is at the expense of someone else, and everyone is out to "score points".

I believe on an absolute scale, the vast majority of Humans are "not too impressive".

I wonder if this has something to do with why all Humans have a strong innate aversion to discussing absolute scales outside of physics, and will not talk about the proposition of whether they do.

Leaving same weapons just on time totaly aside: when Prigozhin started march to Moscow, and roads were dug - US called kremlin to assure "we have nothing in common, stay strong Vlad". Just imagine what if words "If Prigozhin will become leader we will speak with him" came from the White House...

Citation? I can’t find any information online about the White House response during the crisis, only a statement afterwards that Biden considered it an internal affair.

Full support, i.e. actually throwing everything that Ukraine is asking for. If Russia is resoundingly pushed out of Ukraine, such that they cannot claim any victory at all, it may threaten the stability of Putin's power, given how much he's staked on success with the invasion.

How likely this is depends on who you ask, but the US seems to be trying to trying to avoid taking any risks at all there.

There's a bit of a paradox with this analysis: a win for Ukraine means pushing Russia out. But Russia collapses if it's pushed out of Ukraine. Therefore there's no way to support Ukraine enough that they win. Could explain the timid attitude of the US and the mixed messaging - sometimes you could be mistaken for thinking that the US's position is that Ukraine already won by not being fully subjugated.

With the new President, who knows what the US's goal will be. Given the messaging from Trump and the head of "DOGE" it's looking ominous for Ukraine. (personally I'm baffled as to why making America great would require rewarding Russian imperialism, so I can't really get my head round their attitudes. Is it just contrarianism?)

> Could explain the timid attitude of the US and the mixed messaging

The US has given Ukraine over 80 billion US Dollars, I believe. It also applied every possible sanction it could on Russia, to the point there's nearly nothing left to sanction, from what I have read on the topic. Biden has also been about as clear about the US being on Ukraine's side, for as long as it takes, as he could've been without declaring full on war on Russia.

Do you really believe that's a "timid attitude"? The way I see it, the only way for the US to do more is to send troops on the ground, which amounts to full on war with Russia and the prospect of nuclear retaliation.

But Russia collapses if it's pushed out of Ukraine.

No, it just goes back into its corner with its tail between its legs for a while, like all colonial powers do. Whenever they choose to enmesh themselves in conflicts that are definitely not existential to them, or even in their coldly calculated rational interests.

Just like the French, the British, and the US have all done, and as it has itself done, countless times (and quite recently).

One thing that worries me is what if Putin gets a terminal illness? What incentive would he not have to go out by pushing the button?

His daugther?

And his country and his legacy.

World leaders don't do bad things "because YOLO". They do bad things as a means to some other end.

Because if he was, why not do it now? If your plan is to burn your country and the world to the ground, then there's not much reason to delay.

Putin is saving his own life first and foremost with his actions, so he's not suicidal. But then secondly if you listen to the man it's apparent he believes he's rebuilding the Soviet Union as he imagined it when he was stationed in Berlin as a young KGB officer, and that belief is powered by a very specific lens he casts over Russian history.

Which is to say: he doesn't want to destroy the empire he see's as his legacy (which is notably different to whether he actually cares at all about the Russian people in it - the Russian government historically does not overly concern itself with dead Russians unless politically convenient to).

EDIT: The third element of course is that there's not literally "a button". No leader has unilateral release control of strategic nuclear weapons, so the reality is one "mad man" can't fire them - orders have to be issued, codes input etc. If Russia was going to launch it's ICBMs, then you can't do it by waking up in a bad mood one day unless at least a few of your top generals agree with you.

> If your plan is to burn your country and the world to the ground, then there's not much reason to delay.

I didn't say that's his plan now. But if he got cancer or something I could see him doing it as a defiant act.

> he believes he's rebuilding the Soviet Union as he imagined it

I agree with that. But people who are corned can act out.

>it's apparent he believes he's rebuilding the Soviet Union

Russia has nothing in common (as a state) with the Soviet Union.

I've first read about Putin having a terminal stage of cancer in 2004 (that's not a joke). Since then I clearly recall him getting sick with some other kinds of cancer at least 3 other times.

Aren't you (yet) tired of dreaming about this?

That was a hypothetical, not a claim.

Unless you want to argue that Putin is immortal, he'll die of something. Unless that something is very sudden (possible) it will be fairly described as a terminal illness.

>That was a hypothetical, not a claim.

Those were all factual claims. Everybody will die, of course. But this belief "Putin is dying" seems to be a kind of spirituous ritual.

> what if Putin gets a terminal illness

No, this is a hypothetical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com