Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

Mod note:

No trolling tonight please JL555

No off topic covid nonsense please Adversarial

In relation to Nuclear weapons, the key point is that their primary use is as a political weapon rather than a kinetic weapon. They are a threat and a warning. Their destructive power on cities is terrifying, and the size of the arsenals of the US and Russia is enough to cause millions of deaths and the effective end of those States, but the use of a single or a small number of nuclear weapons is very different.

The main use of tactical i.e. smaller yield weapons is to target military bases, airports and other areas with significant amounts of military equipment or large build ups of troops. But these things can also be effectively targeted with precision guided conventional weapons. If Russia has shown an inability to effectively use precision guided weapons, it is not clear how effectively they can deploy tactical nuclear weapons. They would get better and cheaper military results by continuing their conventional artillery campaign (if they can), and/or using their airforce more. A tactical nuclear weapon used on dispersed troops would kill maybe a few hundred, injure a few hundred more, and would make an area inaccessible for a number of weeks (with longer term environmental damage). This would be terrible for the individual soldiers and the environment, but in reality it isn't significantly worse than the deaths and environmental damage that is being done by the conventional war. Certainly, it would not stop the Ukrainians from fighting for their country.

In relation to strategic nuclear weapons, the Russians have no real reason to bomb Ukrainian cities. It would lead to massive deaths amongst a people who are considered by most Russians as their Slavic brothers, so it would be like if Ireland were to bomb Cardiff. That is aside from the fact that it would likely result in Russia losing China and India's support and for no real gain. The only reason for a strategic bombing apart from irrational motives (e.g. spite, insanity), would be the calculation that a strategic bombing with the threat of more to follow would cause Ukraine to negotiate. That's quite the gamble and based on what has happened so far, it is far from certain that Ukraine would surrender.

More importantly, however, is the impact of the threat of such weapons. The threat of tactical weapons can prevent large build ups of soldiers and weapons. They are forced to spread out to avoid creating a tempting target. This in turn reduces the capacity of the Ukrainians to prepare and conduct large scale offensives. The threat of strategic weapons is also an important part of the political arsenal i.e. it put forward as a reason for Ukraine to negotiate and for Europeans and the US to try to intervene with Ukraine.

If a single or small number of nuclear weapons of either type were used, there is a very real risk that it's military or strategic impact would be more significant than conventional weapons, but not so significant as to make any real impact on Ukraine's will or capacity to fight. As much as people like to believe that the risk of using a limited nuclear strike would result in disproportionate retaliation from NATO, the more realistic risk for Russia is that they would carry out such a strike, be condemned by the world (including China, India etc) but gain no significant advantage that could not have been achieved by conventional weapons. If they do this, the political threat of nuclear weapons will have dissipated.

So in my view, nuclear weapons are being used to their maximum effect at present. Their political power would be diminished if they are actually used in a small scale attack, and it would not achieve anything worth achieving for Russia or Putin. And, of course, Putin knows this!

Not sure what difference it makes, seeing as Russia hasnt been pumping gas for some weeks now!