• geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    So what is russia waiting to use nuclear weapons? What is holding Putin to just push a button and end the whole thing. I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions . And I’m not adding the bombings on Tokio which where even worse.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Putin is very aware that a nuclear strike would mean immediate intervention by NATO

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Except when he is at the end of the line, and hopefully there is some humanity left in one of the people who hold the keys. Unless all the keys are held by Putler, then nuclear was is inevitable unless someone gets him before the “end of the line” moment comes.

          • BugKilla@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            If he’s made himself the only validator in Perimeter then he may well get the last laugh in death.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        A nuclear strike is the end of the World.

        And a tactical nuke, even if it didn’t trigger a wider-scale nuclear conflict, wouldn’t help their situation.

        If brigades of enemy tanks were closing in on Moscow? Sure, that would be a nasty but effective option. NATO had something similar planned during the Cold War in case the Soviet tanks started pouring down the Fulka Gap.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean US did it, twice, on civilians, no sanctions

      There are of course a lot of reasons why these two situations can’t really compare, but an obvious and major difference is that only the US had nukes at the time, so no MAD.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Winds would blow fallout all over Russia. China/India would break off economic ties. Also nukes wouldn’t end the war anyway.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      See, he knows that if he uses nukes, the US gets dragged in. He also knows we don’t have to Nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg, to effectively nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg. We developed the MOAB so that we could get away with big bada booms, with no radioactive or political fallout. He also knows that Russia never developed these weapons.

      He’s stuck between and immovable object and an unstoppable force.

      • fake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nobody’s dropping a MOAB on Moscow, because it’s dropped out the back of a C-130.

        And even if they did it’s got less than 4% the yield of a B61, on it’s lowest setting, that fits inside an F-35. On it’s highest setting the B61 is 30,000 times more yield.

        Conventional explosives are toys compared to nukes.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They are toys compared to nukes, but I guarantee if we wanted to use the toys because radiation = more political backlash, we could easily escort two wings of C-130 transports to both cities. When the US wants to bomb something, well there’s not a whole hell of a lot that anyone can do to stop it, unfortunately.