Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

It always surprises me that most of the discussion on nuclear Armageddon is about sudden push of big red button.

I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation.

My assumption is that the intervening, enabling step is tactical nukes.

Somebody somewhere decides that a kilotone-range tactical nuke (as opposed to megaton range ICBM) is justifiable on the battlefield, will bring swift victory, and other side won't dare escalate further.

So now you're breached the "nuclear" threshold in a way you tell yourself is "limited" and "tactical" and "justifiable", but other side certainly doesn't perceive it as such, and brings "proportional response" otherwise you'll just go ahead and do it again, and off we go from there.

So yes, it 100% could happen. I'm hoping it doesn't.

edit: A bit of a read, but basically, Tactical Nukes have historically been a more practical aspect of Russian Military Doctrone.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.8?seq=1#metadata_in...

Russia will first tease and provoke with some nuke in the ocean, then someone's territorial waters, then somewhere in Ukraine, then in some small NATO country like Baltics.

Their fucked up bully goal is to be attacked so they can retaliate with full force.

They'll go one provoking everyone, but when first soldier will be killed by a NATO soldier (which might not even be factual) it's suddenly a drama and oh no poor Russia is invaded by fascists.

Why would Putin - not Russia - be out for nuclear annihilation? What can be gained by provoking such a conflict? Other than some version of apres moi, le deluge I don't see any upside for any country initiating a large-scale nuclear conflict.

No, I don't think this is a believable scenario. That does not mean an escalation can not occur, but I think it is far more likely to be initiated by the use of low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons with the intent of forcing a surrender. Once that threshold has been crossed the risk of a nuclear exchange rapidly increases, especially when it becomes clear that the radius of destruction from such an attack is rather limited compared to the doom scenarios which have been painted over the decades. This is not a good thing since it makes it more likely for "rational" minds to consider retaliating in a similar fashion.

He's not out for annihilation, he's out there to push limits. The moment he'll be slapped for it he'll cry like a little bitch he is.

Several of my personal friends are wondering if Putin has a cancer diagnosis or such that the world does not know about, and now he's scrambling to secure his legacy.

I'm trying to imagine if he would be the person to go "the world has never appreciated me, so if I go out, may as well take the world with me". But in now writing that out, I realize that's literally the villain's motivation in the movie Tenet, so probably a bit too one-dimensional of a motivation (although that character is coincidentally a Russian oligarch).

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage.

For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

(the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem to indicate West indeed does not consider a tactical nuke to be the appropriate response to another tactical nuke).

> Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

The impression I have thus far is that this is because

a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West".

b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has not yet used any forms of warfare that truly cross the line into "mad dog that needs to be put down at all costs". The cluster bombs are pretty bad, yes, and reflect very badly on Russia, but they're still conventional munitions.

If Russia breaks out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the calculation on (b) changes. Doesn't automatically mean everyone's going to jump on them—I don't pretend to know how any given country would respond to that, even my own (the US). But it at least means they have to start rethinking whether (a) remains relevant to their decision not to get directly involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com