A strategy of winning current “nuclear quasi war”

[GrLinkey]

Kim Jong Un and Putin have chosen the strategy of “rational irrationality”: they threaten the West a total nuclear war for making the West stop defending the Ukraine. This strategy is studied in the game theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)


For me, the best solution to overcome Putin can be as follows. Firstly, the USA leaders must declare, that they will retaliate Putin’s nuclear strikes symmetrically (if Putin nukes Washington – they will nuke Moscow, if Putin nukes 10 USA cities – the USA nukes 10 Russian cities, and so on). The people in Russia must be informed about these threats. Then, the NATO should declare - if Putin starts a really bug nuclear war (launches a lot of missiles), the USA will retaliate not only Russia but also China, because China is keeping Russia and Xi will be responsible for the nuclear war. And then the NATO should declare that it will join the war with Russia unless China and India stops buying the oil from Russia. This will be an ultimatum for Xi. And  these declarations must be supported by the voting in UN assembly. Do you understand my idea?

[paxmao]

All that, but not exactly that, has already happened, it is just not spoken openly.

There is already a thread on the war in Ukraine.

[GrLinkey]

All that, but not exactly that, has already happened, it is just not spoken openly.

There is already a thread on the war in Ukraine.

I totally don't understand, why it is not spoken openly.
If it was spoken openly, the Russians would know about this possibility, and the rating of Puting in Russia would decrease after each his nuclear threat. Why the leaders of the USA don't understand that?

[AVE5]

All that, but not exactly that, has already happened, it is just not spoken openly.

There is already a thread on the war in Ukraine.

I totally don't understand, why it is not spoken openly.
If it was spoken openly, the Russians would know about this possibility, and the rating of Puting in Russia would decrease after each his nuclear threat. Why the leaders of the USA don't understand that?

Maybe we don't really have to expect it happened as thought because it could either be rumours such as media strategious criticism to bring Putin down.
If he really said that indoor and meant it, he'd definitely come publicly to say it because he can't take the world on a surprise of waring.
I also believe his courage to be out spoken might lead to resolutioan hence the US wouldn't want an escalation.

[paxmao]

All that, but not exactly that, has already happened, it is just not spoken openly.

There is already a thread on the war in Ukraine.

I totally don't understand, why it is not spoken openly.
If it was spoken openly, the Russians would know about this possibility, and the rating of Puting in Russia would decrease after each his nuclear threat. Why the leaders of the USA don't understand that?

It does not exactly work like that. Putin's rating is largely irrelevant as he controls the mechanisms of power sufficiently.

US has anyway stated that they would respond to any nuclear incident or attack with conventional weapons but to an equivalent extent (the word "devastating" was used). At this moment, even the non-nuclear arsenal of the US is a deterrent for tactical or partial strategic attacks.

It is obviously much more convenient to respond without the resource to nuclear force, as it will not create all the side effects associated with nuclear weapons.

Other countries such as UK and France play more with the ambiguity of sending NATO troops, Germany with a non-nuclear missile response. There are different strategies in place to deter Putin from the worst situation.s

[GrLinkey]

US has anyway stated that they would respond to any nuclear incident or attack with conventional weapons but to an equivalent extent (the word "devastating" was used). At this moment, even the non-nuclear arsenal of the US is a deterrent for tactical or partial strategic attacks.

Russian "z-patriots" say that Russia should nuke something in Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, and the USA will be afraid of retalliating because they don't want an excalation of the nuclear war to a big one. Did the US authorities say what will they do in case of nuking something in Ukraine by Putin?

[kentrolla]

We cannot be experimenting with nuclear threats as there would be huge casualties and whoever starts it would be held responsible for all the killings, rather I would say they need to talk and resolve it through negotiation or this should be dealt and end in same way as we have seen how Ebrahim Raisi's life ended as that would be the best solve. If you want to remove a mass murderer you take him out rather than taking out people around him who may or may not support the murderet.

[bluebit25]

They all understand the power of nuclear weapons, so a nuclear war will only happen if all sides want to end everything. Even if there was just one atomic bomb, it would still receive reservations from all sides. I do not think that such a negative war will happen in the current social context, with Russia often acting Such actions all have their reasons. I don't belong to any side, so I think we shouldn't threaten war with war it only makes the conflict more tense.

[paxmao]

US has anyway stated that they would respond to any nuclear incident or attack with conventional weapons but to an equivalent extent (the word "devastating" was used). At this moment, even the non-nuclear arsenal of the US is a deterrent for tactical or partial strategic attacks.

Russian "z-patriots" say that Russia should nuke something in Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, and the USA will be afraid of retalliating because they don't want an excalation of the nuclear war to a big one. Did the US authorities say what will they do in case of nuking something in Ukraine by Putin?

US would not escalate with nuclear weapons on a limited strike, but if there is a radiation cloud entering NATO, it will be classed as an attack on NATO and have a proportional (non-nuclear) response ("devastating").

The "z-whatevershit" have been feed nuclear this and nuclear that and nobody has told them the sad truth: you cannot nuke without extreme consequences. That is the reason the US is trying to keep Putin where he is - because he does understand this, is mostly logical on this matter and keeps his finger off the button, but all while stopping the war from delivering anything useful for Ruzzia. A difficult equilibrium it is.

[GrLinkey]

We cannot be experimenting with nuclear threats as there would be huge casualties and whoever starts it would be held responsible for all the killings, rather I would say they need to talk and resolve it through negotiation or this should be dealt and end in same way as we have seen how Ebrahim Raisi's life ended as that would be the best solve. If you want to remove a mass murderer you take him out rather than taking out people around him who may or may not support the murderet.

If USA "avoid this risk now", in fact the risk will be even higher in future. If this nuclear strategy allows Putin and Kim to win, they will like it and use it more and more. After the Ukraine, Eastern Europe will be next...

[paxmao]

We cannot be experimenting with nuclear threats as there would be huge casualties and whoever starts it would be held responsible for all the killings, rather I would say they need to talk and resolve it through negotiation or this should be dealt and end in same way as we have seen how Ebrahim Raisi's life ended as that would be the best solve. If you want to remove a mass murderer you take him out rather than taking out people around him who may or may not support the murderet.

If USA "avoid this risk now", in fact the risk will be even higher in future. If this nuclear strategy allows Putin and Kim to win, they will like it and use it more and more. After the Ukraine, Eastern Europe will be next...

Putin's "nuclear" strategy is not driving any "victory". Ruzzia is not being stopped in the ground in their sluggish advance because the US is creating a permanent conflict just giving a little at the time.

The nuclear threat is simply keeping the US from removing Putin from power or causing a crushing defeat, while making sure Ruzzia looses swathes of people and material means. See the thread on the war in Ukraine.

[coolcoinz]

There's 2 basic types of nuclear weapons tactical and strategic. A tactical strike on Ukraine would not cause NATO to retaliate, but a strategic strike would likely trigger a conventional response. NATO would not nuke Russia, but would send its troops to Ukraine claiming that it wants to assess the damage, radiation, and help victims. If those forces got attacked by Russians, we'd have an all out war.

What's the difference between tactical and strategic nukes? Tactical can be launched from many different delivery systems. I don't think it's being done at the moment, but technically a shoulder fired system like a javelin could carry a tactical nuke. The power of that is small enough to level a part of a town, or a small village, without too much pollution.

[GrLinkey]

There's 2 basic types of nuclear weapons tactical and strategic. A tactical strike on Ukraine would not cause NATO to retaliate, but a strategic strike would likely trigger a conventional response. NATO would not nuke Russia, but would send its troops to Ukraine claiming that it wants to assess the damage, radiation, and help victims. If those forces got attacked by Russians, we'd have an all out war.

If Putin uses a srategic nuke in Ukraine, maybe a good strategy will be to nuke something in Russia, but not unexpectedly; US rulers should firstly declare what do they plan to nuke, maybe give the citizens a time to evacuate, and give Putin a time to turn off the automatic retalliation system. And constantly a threat to Russians should be declared - in case of big  nuclear war, USA will nuke all big Russian cities, maybe the Chinese cities too, and USA will find allies around the planet for a conventional war until the end. This would be just a response to the Putin's threats of nuclear unexpectedly.(voiced by Medvedev).
An alcoholic can stop drinking of he feels a threat to his life caused by his lifestyle, so this can be the same for the Russians who are currently in a kind of state of hypnosis.

[paxmao]

There's 2 basic types of nuclear weapons tactical and strategic. A tactical strike on Ukraine would not cause NATO to retaliate, but a strategic strike would likely trigger a conventional response. NATO would not nuke Russia, but would send its troops to Ukraine claiming that it wants to assess the damage, radiation, and help victims. If those forces got attacked by Russians, we'd have an all out war.

What's the difference between tactical and strategic nukes? Tactical can be launched from many different delivery systems. I don't think it's being done at the moment, but technically a shoulder fired system like a javelin could carry a tactical nuke. The power of that is small enough to level a part of a town, or a small village, without too much pollution.

It would. It has been clearly stated that there would be conventional retaliation, but to a large effect.

The use of an strategic weapon against Ukraine would carry an extreme response but it may not be a nuclear response - the US can retaliate to an equivalent degree without nukes. A Ruzzian strategic nuke against a non-nuclear power might even be too much for China to keep supporting Ruzzia.

If you think of it an strategic nuclear attack by Ruzzia would convert all their second strike capability platforms (e.g. subs, bombers, ...) and all their primary strike capability in valid targets. My guess is that these would be attacked in first instance, but to a very large extent, to the point that the Ruzzian capabilities will be halved in days. I do not picture a nuke in St Petersbourgh, Kurst or a large civil target as a first response.

If any excessive radiation gets into a NATO country, it is an attack, and it is not that difficult even with a tactical warhead.