President Joe Biden said on Monday the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is "real", days after denouncing Russia's deployment of such weapons in Belarus. On Saturday, Biden called Putin's announcement that Russia had deployed its first tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus "absolutely irresponsible".

President Joe Biden said on Monday the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is “real”, days after denouncing Russia’s deployment of such weapons in Belarus. On Saturday, Biden called Putin’s announcement that Russia had deployed its first tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus “absolutely irresponsible”.

  • Tetsuo666@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    Out of curiosity, you say an overwhelming conventional force. Does that mean the NATO plan explicitly says it should be conventional?

    I always imagined that if a country nukes another they would immediately be nuked themselves. Because if a country is using their nuclear arsenal, it’s probably a bit late to moves armies around.

    • Badass_panda@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Does that mean the NATO plan explicitly says it should be conventional?

      No, but common sense dictates it should be. Nuclear weapons aren’t required; NATO can easily and quickly disable Russia’s military with conventional weaponry, and that’s the strategic goal.

      The reason the classic response to nukes is nukes, is that in the Cold War paradigm there was an assumption that neither country could win (or would be willing to try) a conventional war.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
      35·
      1 year ago

      The idea-here is two-fold:

      • One cannot allow any country to gain an advantage by detonating nukes, if that is allowed, more nukes will be used in the future. Using a nuke in any capacity has to be so detrimental that actually using one is never worth it.
      • If the exchange is currently limited to tactical nukes against military targets, there is still an escalation path to MAD, and that is best to be avoided.

      With those ideas in mind, the West does have a response available that doesn’t bring us to MAD, but does make another using a tactical nuke in any capacity an awful idea: overwhelming conventional force.

      If Russia gains a local tactical advantage by nuking 5,000 Ukrainian troops, then a response that involves the entire Russian Black Sea fleet exploding, logistical depots all over the front exploding, troops all over the front exploding, and the Kerch Bridge exploding has made what was a tactical victory for Russia into a massive strategic defeat for Russia. Using this method, we have not escalated to MAD, and have made it a very, very poor idea to use nukes for any purpose.

      Does that mean the NATO plan explicitly says it should be conventional?

      I am not aware of an explicit plan that says only a conventional response is authorized. However, notable US commanders have said a direct and overwhelming conventional response from the West is what will likely occur if Russia uses tactical nukes against Ukrainian troops.