I will say it actually has happened that nuclear wars have been stopped by, basically, the military refusing to go through with it.
Now, to be fair, we haven't seen something like a nuclear first strike be ordered without any element of miscommunication, at least not to my knowledge.
Leviticus 19:34I mean, Stanislav Petrov was literally just brought up. But the main takeaway I've always had from incidents like that is how contingent on the individual they are - they prove more that we've gotten very lucky so far than that militaries in general would successfully push back against a nuclear order. Especially, yeah, one that clearly made sense in context and wasn't a thing that needed bumping up to higher authority. Like I said earlier, Putin going "I'm just going to blow up everything because I don't want the world to outlive me" wouldn't happen, but Putin ordering a single nuclear strike against Ukraine on the grounds - incorrect but potentially believable - that it would salvage the war effort and not lead to escalation is a lot more likely to be obeyed.
I don’t think so. Military coups are a thing and have happened even for far less serious reasons.
![]()
![]()
There’s a video up of a Russian soldier in Ukraine saying that he was pulled from working with ICB Ms to be on the frontlines. He didn’t look like he was in any position to lie, and there is speculation that the ICBM troops were replaced with Putin’s fanatics. So color me scared
[self-thump]
Edit: Hold up, you can't just mention this video out of the blue that's floating around (where?) without even linking a source to the video. And then the speculation... well that's just that. Speculation. And to be honest, this just feels like an excuse to doompost.
Edited by AngrokVa on Sep 28th 2022 at 3:12:36 PM
Yeah, while Rob Lee (the oft-cited military analyst regarding Russian matters) does say that a handful of captured Russian soldiers appear to come from the strategic rocket troops, the idea that Putin is replacing people there with fanatics is something pulled out of thin air. Besides, in such a purge Shoigu would be the first to go, and he's still around. Can we be a lot more circumspect when it comes to bringing up scary crank theories, please?
Also, irrespective of whether the Russian nuclear doctrine is just a PR-piece or an actual policy, it is the General Staff that has to carry out a nuclear order, there is no "button". Notice how all the scenarios where Russian nuclear doctrine envisages nuclear weapon usage are scenarios where there is a good chance that a lot of Russians - not just nameless conscripts - are dead? That doesn't apply to a defeat in Ukraine - Putin can regard that as "existential" as much as he wants, it doesn't mean that the General Staff will automatically think the same and invite a Trident up its head. I think folks are knotting themselves into pretzels to disregard that the folks involved also have a self-preservation instinct.
Otherwise, another good thread:
- It's understandable that a few recent developments again made people worry again about nuclear use. I don't have a crystal ball, but there are a few things to consider. And they seem to suggest that we are still at least a few steps away from that point.
- First, the US keeps telling us that there are no signs of Russia's being prepared to use its weapons. But would they see them? I would say, most likely.
- With the exception of ICBMs and SLBMs, none of nuclear weapons are "deployed" - bombs are not loaded on aircraft, warheads are not mated to missiles. There are no Iskanders roaming around with nuclear-armed warheads. These weapons are in storage.
- They may not be very far from airbases (a few kilometers) or from missile bases (a few hours drive), but they are in bunkers. Yes, there is a procedure for deploying them, but it's a procedure.
- You have to take weapons out of the bunker, load them on trucks, drive them to the designated point, load them/mate warheads. As any process, it is visible. The US/NATO observed it during many exercises.
- Now, it might be possible to "sneak out" a few warheads - nobody can watch everything all the time - but Russia can never be certain that the movement is not detected. You never know who is watching you. It could be SIGINT or a guy with binoculars on the hill nearby.
- And, of course, there is absolutely no reason for Russia to hide any development like this. If the idea is to send a signal that you are ready to escalate (which would be the case in the "few warheads" scenario), you send the signal. You would want it to be visible.
- Now, speaking of signals, so far all "threats" made by Russia were very much defensive - if you attack us we will respond. All official statements have been very consistent - it is about an "aggression that threatens the very existence of the state."
- Yes, we may have a debate about how the Kremlin could interpret "the very existence" and indeed there is quite a bit of wiggle room there. But we cannot deny that the core message is that of a defensive response (and should insist on the narrowest interpretation).
- Moving non-strategic weapons out of storage (presumably in preparation for use) would be quite inconsistent with that "defensive" message. This is not to say that the message cannot be changed, but it will have to be changed. And we haven't seen that change yet.
- Of course, this invasion taught me to be (very) careful about making assumptions about what Moscow can or cannot do. But I do think that there is certain logic to this madness and that this logic should not be totally disregarded.
Here’s the video from Reddit of the ICBM trooper transferred to the frontlines
. People are speculating the guy got hit by a vehicle due to the shape of his stomach area. They were surprised he wasn’t dead yet (he probably is now).
EDIT: I only now realize that ICBM troops includes all personnel attached to the nukes, such as, say security. So probably not as bad as it sounded at first. Still worrisome.
Edited by Flameal15k on Sep 28th 2022 at 1:27:39 AM
![]()
I'm worried that it would stifle the discussion. Nuclear weapons are sort of doom saying by definition.
Also, while I generally disagree with njrlxl (or something, Why did not you choose a more memorable nickname ?). He does kind of have a point with claiming that institutions may not stop a madman.
Edited by Risa123 on Sep 28th 2022 at 10:58:52 AM
I should note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing. It is just that we should not take "institutions will stop X from doing Y." as absolute. Many have said X is not Y enough to do Z many times in human history. They are often, but not always, wrong. This is perhaps more suited for philosophy thread perhaps, but I do not believe that humans have some hard limits on behavior. It is naive and often attempt to justify things to believe so. For good or ill, we can do anything.
Edited by Risa123 on Sep 28th 2022 at 12:08:25 PM
I don’t think that Putin is likely to nuke Ukraine (how would that work on the battlefield? how would it help him? if he nuked a part of the front lines he’d be nuking his own troops too, or do we think he’d hit Kiev out of pure spite? why would he expect that hitting Kiev would break the Ukrainians rather than making them madder?).
But if it’s a genuine concern, isn’t the best option to set Ukraine up with a missile defence system?
Edited by Galadriel on Sep 28th 2022 at 4:20:26 AM
How so? It’s a military technology, we’re already transferrring Ukraine a bunch of weaponry, this is just one more piece.
(And I think there’s also already one in Poland that would probably(?) be capable of shooting down a Russian nuke over Ukraine?)
Edited by Galadriel on Sep 28th 2022 at 4:26:34 AM
Even if the video up above represents a broader phenomenon, I'd argue the likelier explanation for Russian nuclear operators being sent to Ukraine is less that Putin is replacing them with fanatics and more just the by now well-established fact that Russia is desperate for more troops in Ukraine. Why would they even need to fire an ICBM against a country next door, anyway? Like that russianforces guy notes it might be possibly to do so without the US figuring out in advance, but that's the only reason I can think of.
That guy does seem to have some pretty good analysis, BTW. He's one of the only people I'm seeing who's actually arguing for what I think the US and other governments should be doing - mass condemnation of any threat to use nuclear weapons, not just naming it as one among many Russian offenses or "normalizing" it as regular saber-rattling - and I also tend to agree with his criticism that part of the reason they're not is to leave the option open themselves. Completely forswearing the use of nuclear weapons would probably weaken our overall deterrence, but given the US's vast conventional superiority there really is no justification for not adopting a no first use policy. (I think I've said this before.)
That's another thing the guy Septimus linked points out. Talk of tactical nuclear weapons here is somewhat misplaced, because while the warhead used might have a low 'tactical' yield, the actual use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be purely strategic: to frighten Ukraine into surrender (and perhaps more probably its Western backers into backing off), along the lines of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And Putin should very well know it wouldn't work. However, the war so far has demonstrated both that he's not as smart/competent as people think (especially when it comes to understanding Ukraine) and that he's absolutely determined not to lose. If push comes to shove, I think he'd rather take the gamble than just give up.
I think people are overestimating the intelligence and accuracy of that self-preservation instinct. Moving against Putin, unless you win, will get you killed. I see no reason based on Russian elites' behavior thus far to think that they regard that as a safer option than using nuclear weapons and expecting the other side to blink first. Look how many people on our side have that exact same opinion when it comes to escalation "ladders", and they're not in danger of being killed for disagreeing. Plus, the most relevant individuals - the General Staff - are all military men who are inherently used to and trained to obey orders regardless of their nature.
Edited by nrjxll on Sep 28th 2022 at 9:24:26 AM
Well, my thinking is that you don't need to be an expert to understand that a nuclear explosion is bad for your health. Besides, if they were really that loose with doomsday weapon usage why didn't they do it after the battles of Kiev and Kharkiv?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThen, what could actually make Putin not do it or make people around him decide enough and enough and remove him before he does that stupid and irredeemable act? Perhaps a potential threat that their lives would be forefit if they allow him to do it?
In all honestly, I am just tired of Russia’s constant threats of using nuclear weapons and thinking whenever it is a bluff or a legitimate thing. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think Ukrainians should try to call this bluff of Putin’s, and in case he DOES decide to use nukes, NATO and USA’s response should be decisive and painful as possible, so that Putin would realize that losing a conventional war with Ukraine really was the better option. Sure my idea might be tad radical, but what other option do we have? Bow down to Putin and let him do whatever he wants? Have everyone bow to him and let him stomp all of us?
Bear in mind, if Putin does use a tactical nuke and Ukraine fails to surrender...well, he just completely fucked up any chance he could ever possibly have of succeeding at...well, basically anything.
Setting off a tactical nuke isn't going to wipe out Ukraine, it'll maybe damage a city at most. Which would be bad, but he'll have nowhere to meaningfully escalate beyond that. He can't actually threaten to irradiate every single corner of Ukraine because 1) that'd turn literally everyone against him and 2) it's entirely counter to his internal narrative. He's trying to "bring Ukraine back into the fold" and rendering the entire nation uninhabitable makes it impossible to keep that up.
Not to mention that Ukraine's government is pretty spread out and seem to be doing everything they can to avoid being concentrated in one place, meaning that even using a tactical nuke will do fuck all to Ukraine's government. He might take out Zelinskyy, but would the rest of the government surrender? Every single prediction Putin made has been incredibly wrong at this point and I think even he is going to not want to escalate to the ultimate option, given that fact.
Not about nuclear bombs per se: Agree with @MarkGaleotti that Putin is engaging in a very slow but steady escalation vs the West. It's interesting that it's been much slower and more risk-averse than most analysts (including myself) would have thought he'd do by now
so I guess we won't see any direct nuclear use for quite some time yet.

Red Storm Rising.
Edit: Dammit,
.
Edited by megarockman on Sep 27th 2022 at 11:22:36 AM
The damned queen and the relentless knight.