Proposals had been made to change Russia's nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

Proposals had been made to change Russia’s nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    14·
    2 months ago

    Mutually assured destruction was supposed to be a deterrent to anyone using nukes. Not to enable an aggressor force to do what they want without repercussions out of fear that they would use nukes. If they use nukes, at a minimum they’ll no longer exist. Probably along with the rest of us.

    • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      MAD exists between two nuclear armies. If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back. Ukraine gave up it’s nukes (from the Soviet era). No country will ever make that mistake again.

      It’s still a deterrent, just not here.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      2 months ago

      Probably along with the rest of us.

      This is an age-old myth. If any of Puta’s nuclear delivery systems were actually successful in delivering the largest payload in their arsenal and detonating it, greater than 99% of the global population of humans would remain unharmed, even long term. And the likelihood that even one would be successful is exceedingly low.

      While we certainly don’t want thousands killed in a single strike, ruining an area for years and causing global panic, we are exceptionally prepared to prevent the very few that take flight from making it to their destination.

      The best shot at a detonation Putler has is driving the device to a target in a well-disguised box truck, just like any other terrorist.

      • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        2 months ago

        There is no reason to think Russia’s entire strategic nuclear arsenal is unusable. It’s entirely possible a decent chunk of it is due to corruption and neglect, but even if 10% work that’s still 160 city destroying nukes being detonated across Europe and North America if the world goes full MAD. That probably wouldn’t wipe out humanity but it would lead to hundreds of millions of people dying. Not something to be taken lightly.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          There is absolutely no scenario in which 160 or even 16 cities are hit with anything Putin launches.

          More than 30 capable nations, including the U.S. (who eclipses the rest combined) have been focusing their primary defense and intelligence efforts on countering Russia’s arsenal for the last 60 years. The most likely outcome of a nuclear attempt from Russia is that not even a single city is hit.

          The only effective nuclear offense Russia has is fear-mongering about a nuclear offense.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. I havent seen any credible assessments that Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal is so bad that it would be more that 90% non-functional. That’s an insane level of broken that there is just no reason to assume it.

            Put another way, way more than 10% of their tanks, planes, artillery and tactical ballistic missiles work, why would you assume that their strategic nukes are significantly worse?

            All of which isnt to say we should cower before Putin’s obviously empty nuclear threat, let Ukraine release the storm shadows! But to go from there to lol dumb Russians cant fire a single ICBM is just not credible.