What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means?
— Benkei — Olivier5

Any fool knows that 1 nuclear strike is enough to black mark that nation for ever. They will be attacking Russians in the streets. Not an option. Wait till the pictures of irradiated babies comes over the lines.

No one is that stupid.

:smile: I'm a humanist, sorry about that.

Any fool knows that 1 nuclear strike is enough to black mark that nation for ever. — FreeEmotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

I don't expect Putin to use nuclear weapons but I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes.

so it's like we are trading with a terrorist. Are concessions the best strategy to deal with terrorists?

Perhaps he's got some decency left, also. — Olivier5

What? You really will drag up anything to avoid just having to concede won't you? Now Putin won't escalate because of his world-renowned decency? A minute ago we had to fight to the death because he was an incorrigible monster, now we're saved because he's too decent to use tactical nukes?

Suggest stopping the war by negotiation? - "Putin's a monster, you can't negotiate with him"

Suggest stopping the war lest it escalate? - "Putin's a decent guy, he won't escalate"

Anything, anything to just keep the war going...

I don't expect Putin to use nuclear weapons but I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes. — Baden

His spokeperson said yesterday that they will use nukes only in case of existential threat. He didn't mention failing to take Kyiv as an existential threat.

You can call Putin a banana for all I care if you can explain to me how this war can be ended without conceding to at least some of the Russian demands.

So, they can make one up. Again, I don't expect it to come to that but they know which buttons to push in more ways than one.

Where did I say he is a monster? And where did I say he is for sure a decent person?

Learn to read. I said: PERHAPS he's got SOME decency left. Do you need an English course from me?

His spokeperson said yesterday that they will use nukes only in case of existential threat. — Olivier5

He also said he was carrying out a 'special operation' to denazify Ukraine. You believe that?

said: PERHAPS he's got SOME decency left. — Olivier5

And that makes a difference to the argument how?

As I said, learn to read.

They communicated, in NATO's general direction, that they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. So I don't think they want NATO to believe that they will use nukes in Ukraine.

Or is that too logical?

I don't share your optimism. I think he would use it, particularly tactical nukes.

Or is that too logical? — Olivier5

Extraordinary! :clap:

PERHAPS he's got SOME decency left — Olivier5

They communicated, in NATO's general direction, that they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. So I don't think they want NATO to believe that they will use nukes in Ukraine.
Or is that too logical? — Olivier5

I was talking about the future, not now. Is that too logical?

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

I can't do anything with this. What limitations? Why? What would stop Putin from shooting a 1 MT tactical nuke into Kiev or Mariupol if he can't do it by conventional means? You think NATO or the US will all of sudden get involved? — Benkei

No, they won't get involved. And basically he doesn't need to use a strategic ballistic missiles. A tactical nuke will scare enough people, yet that happening has a very low probability.

Because... then what?

You think Russians would be fine with that? Ukrainians, who before were brotherly people now against are used nuclear weapons... because Russia had them? The time when nuclear weapons were just weapons with large firepower was in the thinking of American generals in the late 1940's.

You think China will be totally OK with Russia using nukes at Ukraine? I don't think so.

They communicated, in NATO's general direction, that they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. So I don't think they want NATO to believe that they will use nukes in Ukraine.
Or is that too logical?
— Olivier5

I was talking about the future, not now. Is that too logical? — Baden

I see. Another poster who needs an English course.

We normally use WILL to speak about the future. It is always combined with another verb.

Examples of Will:

I will go to the cinema tonight.
He will play tennis tomorrow.
The Kremlin spokeman said they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine.

But earlier you said...

Trying to invade Ukraine and overthrow the Ukrainian government was totally delusional on divorced from reality. Yet Putin did it. — ssu

...and...

he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. Especially when you start wars. I think the now noted exchange between Putin and his Intelligence Chief shows that people around him are terrified of him. Or at least, it seems like that.

The fact is that politicians start to believe their own lies. Believing ones own lies is then viewed as a sign of strength. — ssu

Now you're arguing he won't use nukes because it's not a strategically smart move.

It seems Putin swings from the empire obsessed isolated autocratic to the savvy, popularity-aware diplomat as and when it suits your argument.

Russian Minister of Defence Sergei Shoigu disappears from view, rumored to have 'heart problems.'

Apparently the same applies to Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff... Neither of them have been seen in public for nearly two weeks. Maybe there's a epidemic of heart diseases in the Russian top brass.

Weather today cloudy with some sunny intervals. Highs of 12 degrees.

I see. Another poster who needs an English course. — Olivier5

I taught academic English for over ten years. But I won't have to dig very far into that experience to clear this one up.

We normally use WILL to speak about the future. It is always combined with another verb.

Examples of Will:

I will go to the cinema tonight.
He will play tennis tomorrow.
The Kremlin spokeman said they will not use tactical nukes in Ukraine. — Olivier5

Your use of will above pertains to a present message of intention. My hypothetical concerned a future message of intention. I used the 'first conditional' to express this hypothetical.

I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes — Baden

The essence of the structure here is:

[If that is what it takes][clause 1]...[he will make us think (he will use nukes)] [clause 2]

"We use the first conditional when we talk about future situations we believe are real or possible."

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/conditionals-1

So, whether or not Russia is currently sending the message it might use nukes doesn't abrogate the possibility that it will send that message in the future. I mean Russia also assured NATO and the rest of the world the whole idea it was going to invade Ukraine was preposterous, didn't it? What basis do you have for the idea that because Russia isn't currently threatening to use nukes, it won't do so?

Ah yes this comes up. Who were on the 'nuclear bombers' side? Most of the world, including countries that were cruelly invaded. This time 'our' side is the victim. The whole world was against Japan, even Russia and China. China will not damage its reputation by siding with a nuclear attacker.

Any nuclear attack should be met with immediate ceasefire offers to prevent escalation. World opinion and isolation will kill the attacker. Not to mention unfettered and global insurgencies targeting that nations assets. All moral standing would be lost. That is according to my thinking.

Don't forget that during the Cuban Missile crisis Kennedy's generals were suggesting that he strike first.



Of course one could argue then that provocation leading to a nuclear attack would be the rational thing to do.

See also:

“However angry both of us would be,” Kahn writes, “we would not start an all-out [nuclear] war” over an invaded country or a nuclear attack “because suicide is not a rational way of expressing one’s anger.” [1]. And if a tit-for tat exchange were used instead (in the event of an actual nuclear attack), it eventually becomes irrational to continue with escalation. Both sides will eventually have an incentive to stop using nuclear weapons as continued conflict becomes unprofitable. — Herman Kahn, author of On Thermonuclear War, RAND Corps physicist, futurist, Princeton professor, and the historical inspiration for Dr. Strangelove.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?802613-How-to-Win-a-Nuclear-War-(According-to-Herman-Kahn)

Maybe there is a thread to discuss nuclear strategy.

Again, I'm not arguing they'll go through with it. Mostly because it would be a red line for China and India. But again, I expect scare tactics from Russia eventually if they don't get their way.

What basis do you have for the idea that because Russia isn't currently threatening to use nukes, it won't do so? — Baden

I propose to cross that bridge if and when we ever get to it.

As of now, lots of news outlets in the West want you to be very afraid of the Kremlin 'madman' and want you to think that he's going to use nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons etc. These are good headlines for media businesses.

And maybe, indeed, at some point Mr Putin will try and scare folks by making them think he's crazy. But i don't think so. To threaten nukes on Ukraine is to look weak, not strong.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell — FreeEmotion

Yes, that is an apposite quote. Is it true? If it is true today, must it always be so?

Those men on the wall, is what they are doing noble? As members of the non-fighting caste, we are inclined to engage in nuanced, systemic analysis of the role of the fighting caste, but many of them are not so inclined. Many people in uniform actually believe what we might dismiss as propaganda.



The "not built for this" issue has another side. Whether people wear the uniform and take up arms willingly, even eagerly, they will pay a price. I think we ask more of soldiers and police officers than should be asked of any human being. It is not only a question of the harm they might do, which is considerable, but of the harm to them.

They wouldn't even dream of resisting an invasion by a force that threatens their existence as a people without great powers "convincing" them to fight. — SophistiCat

(Just to be clear: I put "powerless" in quotes in my first sentence and called this "a can of worms" for a reason.)

My gut reaction is to feel a sort of pride and wonder at Ukrainian willingness to fight: they are the underdog; the aggressor is autocratic while they are at least trying to be democratic; and, since the war has a great and obvious material cost, it is fought not for material gain but for ideas, for feelings -- country, family, neighbor, home. @Benkei says we should never send anyone else to fight for abstractions, but to be willing oneself to fight for, if not abstractions exactly, non-material goods seems noble, so long as what you're fighting for is worth it. (Keeping in mind the myth of the lost cause, which is still powerful in my part of the world.)

That a few saints might come up with some genius method of passive resistance — Isaac

Like Leymah Gbowee?

Leymah is best known for leading a nonviolent movement that brought together Christian and Muslim women to play a pivotal role in ending Liberia’s devastating, fourteen-year civil war in 2003. — Nobel site

Why the dismissive tone, Isaac? What if nonviolence works and violence doesn't?

There are so many layers here -- including @StreetlightX's interesting points about "legitimacy", which I'm sorta passing over only because it's the whole thing, and I precisely don't know what to say about the whole thing -- but I'm not sure I want to discount the ethical as you do. "It's up to you not to heed the call up," you know? We talk of dictators sometimes, but no dictator ever single-handedly terrorized a nation; there must be others willing to do his bidding. Any of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine could have refused, could have not joined the army in the first place. You can say that, if you're inclined, to mark them as morally culpable; but it's another way of saying that these people, as a group, if they acted as a group, if they acted in solidarity with those they are charged with doing violence upon, have more than enough power to make Putin irrelevant. He is not, himself, fighting a war in Ukraine.


But all of that just leads back to my questions. What are our options in a world with people willing to use violence? Here's a different problem: is it violence that we should be concerned with, or control? But is there genuine control that is not backed by the threat of violence?

Thanks @StreetlightX, @Benkei, @FreeEmotion, @Isaac for thoughtful responses all.

(Just on the practical side here, might come back to the more philosophical point about violence later.) — Baden

I can't contribute anything on the practical side. Even on the philosophical, all I can manage is asking some questions.

all I care if you can explain to me how this war can be ended without conceding to at least some of the Russian demands. — Baden

Who knows? Maybe it will end as the Afghan wars with the Soviet Union first and with the US later ended. But most importantly, since making concessions to Putin's demands will have strategic consequences for the economic and military security of all players around the world, and not just for Ukraine, one can not possibly think that what is at stake is just Putin's demands to end this war. As long as the Ukrainian feel like fighting against the Russian oppression, whoever might feel strategically threatened by Russia and the imperial ambitions of authoritarian regimes around the globe now or in the near future can not do other than side with the Ukrainians one way or the other, forced by the same logic that Putin claimed to justify his attack against Ukraine and fend off the putative threat of having the NATO at their doorstep. And BTW Russian representatives are not stopping to spread their military threats against the West beyond what's happening in Ukraine: they clearly want the world to take the Ukrainian case as an example of the Russian Superpower status and so influence whatever "new world order" may come with it.

Like Leymah Gbowee? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, exactly.

Why the dismissive tone, Isaac? What if nonviolence works and violence doesn't? — Srap Tasmaner

If it does it does. I wasn't being dismissive of it as a method, more of its absence as a condemnation. I have the greatest respect for someone like Leymah Gbowee's methods, but I think it would be a mistake to suggest that no material circumstances allowed her that option, circumstances that may be denied to others. Again, this shouldn't be read as denying an ethical element, only in denying its usefulness when compared to an analysis of the material circumstances which propel some (not all) in the direction of violence.

Any of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine could have refused, could have not joined the army in the first place. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, indeed, and I'd cry out for them to do just that if I had the opportunity, but the more important question for us is why they didn't. If it was a moral failure, then why so many moral reprobates, what circumstances brought about such mass derogation? If the decision was too hard (for anyone) then we're back to material circumstances that way.

In essence, it comes down to this; if you can talk to that soldier, tell him he oughtn't fight in this war, listen to him tell you it's too hard, say he ought try harder...if, when he replies "but how?", you find you have an answer, then you have yourself a promising approach.

Me, I don't have an answer to that question.