@@atinofspam3433 "I stand by my opinion that Putin is still stuck in the Cold War, hence why his strategies aren't working." Agreed, his days behind a desk never left him.
@@concept5631 That is such a great way of describing it, Putin’s also had the Soviet dictator traits of letting massive amounts of people die for little to no real gain. And turning a blind eye to the now thousands of reports of his soldiers raping and killing for fun.
I see no feasible way in which “escalate to deescalate” works in a war where you’re the aggressor. It’s much easier for an aggressor to decide to cut their losses and consolidate when faced with nuclear war. Using it on people trying to reclaim their home lands is much more likely to embitter and harden resistance. You’re showing them why they must win. To prevent something else like that happening. On top of that as an aggressor using nuclear weapons you leave yourself open to global condemnation and retaliation. A defensive Nuke would be much more palatable to the world. And no matter what Russia says they are still the aggressors, they aren’t protecting their homes.
@@shgalagalaa And you think that the Germans won because of destroying my birth town? That is not true. The reason the Netherlands had to give up...nearly all munition in mycountry was used. No possibility to fight back and hold the lines anywhere (Except kornwerderzand). Just look to the history books at what moment the dutch govermnet evacuated to London...and part of the royal family to Canada. That was before the destruction of Rotterdam. In other words...technically the Germans had won already before this bombardment. But with very heavy losses in (transport) planes. And no munition/weapons left in only 5 days was because the (Dutch) pacifists (broken rifle) had forgotten Ceasars words...If you want peace be prepared for war (defending yourself). My father told me it was his only regret in life....that as a youngster also he was such a pacifist and assured me to make never that mistake.
Hence the annexation. Let’s not forget that those cities in the ethnically Russian portion of Ukraine probably don’t really see themselves as culturally Ukrainian, especially if they are speaking Russian and have deep familial ties to Russia. That’s why the reimposition of Ukrainian authority in those regions would be less likely, especially after the Russian referendums.
@@__Patrick Had Russia treated the annexed territories in a consiliatory fashion, and administered them well, then they might have had a chance at using Escalate to Deescalate to convince Ukraine to accept their loss. But instead, the engaged in an orgy of mass rape, looting, torture and mass executions. This has convinced the Ukrainians there is no way out but victory or death. Its a convincing argument.
And surely, if they use "tactical" nukes it'll be military targets only. Russia has shown great restraint & precision so far... Definitely not indiscriminate shelling directed at civilian populations! And seeing as how they still can't protect air power miles from their own border, or effectively use smart munitions, it's totally believable they'll suddenly be more capable & precise with actual nukes! 😅
@@gmw3083 Russia cannot win but since you think it is... please explain Russia's goal. From where I'm sitting, Russia looks unhinged. It doesn't have a clue.
@@gmw3083 lmao, by what possible metric is Russia winning?! I guess they’re winning at providing equipment to Ukraine by fleeing and leaving everything behind.
I always wondered what it felt like to live at the height of the cold war with nuclear war so close, now I think I might be beginning to know how it felt
Having gone thru that period myself, I can agree you now have an idea of what it was like. I served my country (our country? I live in the US, but I am not assuming you live here too ) and I hope that this is as close as you and yours come to what my generation faced.
There’s internal issues too. It’s quite possible Russian ministers, generals and officers may not be willing to carry out Putin’s order. Like Hitler’s order to destroy Paris landmarks, or Speer and the Nero order. Putin might have nothing to lose, but everyone else may think differently.
I think that the examples of Japan and Vietnam are illustrating under which circumstances escalating to deescalate is working or not. Japan more or less ignored the first nuclear strike (given the much worse bombing of Tokyo earlier in the year) and surrendered after it lost the perspective of any kind of settlement with the US besides the unconditional surrender. Those are the circumstances under which this strategy can work: one party is standing with the back to the wall with literally no other options. Vietnam on the other hand still had allies during and after Rolling Thunder and didn't stand with it's back to the wall.
Was not expecting a second derivative calculus joke. The territory recaptured may be decreasing at a decreasing rate, but all of the land is *integral* 😅
"Inflation is increasing at a decreasing rate" Richard Nixon as the first presidential candidate ever to use a third derivative in a political stump speech. 8>D
Let's add Econ. Law of diminishing returns is kicking in. Yes, the distribution of difficulty of targets vary, which is why the low hanging fruit eventually runs out.
escalate to de-escalate can work for a FINAL push to break the spirit and end a war if you are in a position to do so (take out highly important targets like main movement or military command, or show that you are in a position to do so). to turn a war around, not really. To stopping an invasion... well, only if you can target your opponent's home country with it.
You also need to consider what kind of peace deal they're getting for surrendering. For Japan they got a pretty good peace deal, they were able to rebuild the country and remain independent. The peace deal Russia is offering to Ukraine is enslavement of their population and genocide. That's why this will never work because Ukraine will never accept that kind of deal, anyone would rather fight to the last death as long as they can fight rather than accepting getting enslaved and genocided.
What you leave out is that even if 'escalate to deescalate' worked for the US in WWII to defeat Japan, keep in mind that Japan had already been fighting a losing war for three years when the nukes dropped. The Battle of Okinawa had shown the US just how fiercely Japan would fight until the last man standing, and they did not want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men on a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland. It was a calculated decision, and completely different to the current scenario in Ukraine. If Putin was to use a nuke, it would be an act of desparation, because he has cornered himself in a position where he can't win and he can't retreat.
This is not even really the case with Japan, a lot of the motivation for dropping the bomb was due In large part to the amount of money that had been spent on it and as a means of demonstrating its power to the global community.
@@_Atzin True. This was the true motivation. US did a horrible atrocity in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo too with all the napalm. But because they where "winners" everybody seems to be fine by this. Great. All the stories of "escalation-to-deascalation" and "feeling sorry to sacrifice many lives" are just made up by the people that want to justify this atrocity.
@@ScienceDiscoverer what the US did to Japan in WW2 is more retaliation and justice than atrocity. After all the Japanese People supported the Imperial Military in its massacres in China. They just received what they did and wanted to inflict on others. Same as Germany when it bombed to pieces. That’s what ya get for killing millions.
I've mentioned this before but all the nuclear saber rattling is just encouraging Ukraine to pursue its own nuclear capabilities. I'm not sure how long it'll take, but Ukraine should be far more capable than Iran and North Korea. Once it happens, it'll cause headaches for Russia for generations to come.
Which I think is one of the most disheartening things about this conflict. It proves that good faith nations can’t be secure in laying down nuclear arms. The only way for it to be truly safe is for the complete abolition of nukes.
I find it hard to imagine they'd maintain NATO support if they broke from the NPT. If NATO wanted them to have nukes, they could get them there over night.
I am more curious how the grain deal plays out given that Turkey is facilitating the protection of the grain ships.. If Russia accidentally nails a Turkish escort vessel... well, either article 5 or Turkey is going to obliterate their fleet.
Russia backed down already. They said there were chill with with grain deal Btw even if their ships try to approach grain corridor they might get into the range of Ukrainian anti-ship missiles.
Escalate to de-escalate only works if you're already winning. It eventually worked against Japan only because of resounding pressure on both sides that would have eventually caused them to sue for peace anyway. This is not the case in Ukraine. If they held everything East of the Dnipro and Odessa already they could threaten nukes to force Ukraine to surrender and it would be the right move for Ukraine in that moment to surrender. Currently, escalation would simply escalate to other countries getting involved and Russia losing much much faster. They would be then attempting to bring the rest of their allies into a global conflict that they are unlikely to win. The strong man in the room has a lot of friends all the way up until they go too far. None of the other smaller countries around Russia or China or even Middle Eastern nations are particularly interested in supporting the idea of a big country like Russia kicking the door in and the whole global community just saying that it's fine. What do you think Armenia or Georgia are going to say "Yeah!" subjugate that smaller country? No. They will be alone.
@@punkypinko2965 Definitely not a huge fan. But, I'm also mindful enough to understand that how I feel about it now isn't very relevant to the sentiments present back then. It's easy to look back on it from the present and draw negative conclusions, like perhaps there could have been a better approach. However, at the time, the vast majority of Americans (along with the rest of the west) were in full support of doing whatever we had to do to get Japan to surrender, because they were making it quite clear that they were willing to continue the war until the very last man was standing. Agree with the proposition or not, the reality is, dropping those two bombs actually saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the equation. Though I, and presumably many others, would have much preferred if all of those innocent lives didn't have to be the sacrifice.
@@punkypinko2965 Would you have preferred an invasion of Japan's 2 largest home islands? We didn't know it at the time but the Japanese correctly guessed which beaches we were going to use and plan accordingly. An invasion which the estimated U.S. casualties were North of 500k including 100k KIA. I could give more reasons but I don't want to create a wall of text.
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 So lets nuke school children? Sorry no. So to you the US can justify nuking civilians .... you're a monster. Guess you think Russia should nuke the US then because it's easier than invading? Ok that's you. I think that's insane. Anyone who thinks nuking cities is a good idea is just a monster and shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess war crimes are just a good strategy to you. Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. You need to hear it. I guess the Nazis gassing people was good because it was more efficient? Wow. You are off your rocker.
Ukraine (nationally, ethnically, ideologically, etc) will cease to exist if russia wins. The way i see it, in the end, Ukraine has nothing to lose by never standing down. I hope Ukraine wins. Slava Ukraini!
That is a somewhat silly leap of logic. Because Ukraine in this context is none of these things, well it is one of these things, nationality, but it's not an ideology and not an ethnicity. Ukraine is a state that comprises its citizens, who are multi ethnic and have a variety of ideologies. So you would suggest that subjugation and oppression is worse than death, which I assure you we aren't that suicidal. You can recover from slavery, you can't recover from death. The calculation here is different. That we need to push Russia back hard because otherwise they'll come back deadlier, they need to be shown their place in the world, namely that they don't have the right to interfere in their neighbours' business. You can't have a truce with Russia, and you can't count on it not sacrificing millions of its own citizens. We'll definitely need a NATO membership going forward for protection, but for that, our territorial integrity in internationally recognised borders needs to be restored.
We pray and hope that everyone will realise the horrors of Hiroshima and refrain from being the first to 'esccalate to deescalate' as appropriately described on the video
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved at least 50,000 lives and Japan as a nation, since it was envisioned that EVERY man, woman and child in Japan would fight to the death! I knew Okinawans on Okinawa who told me that few Japanese soldiers were captured during the battle of Okinawa and many Okinawans committed suicide on Okinawa since they were told the Americans would kill and EAT them and rape their children. They told me that they REALLY believed what the Japanese Authorities told them only to find out that the Americans in fact gave aid, food and medical treatment to the Okinawan civilian populace!
I watch your videos for insites that I can find anywhere else. The Escalate to Deescalate theory comparing the Tokyo fire bombing to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake is a great example of your ability to make me just stop and think, rewind and listen to your narration again. After doing a rewind to listen again to your narration I caught a fascinating little Easter Egg in your video, if you pause at 3:28 you can hear Mr. Spaniel say "what exactly caused the end of the war is Unclear" and see "Unclear" in the lower right of the video, but if you have closed caption English turned on the text is "what exactly caused the end of the war is Nuclear" ... just 2 letters swapped and the whole narrative changes.
Bravo…. Brilliant catch. I wouldn’t have caught that in a million years . Ohhhh Easter egg maybe at 5:01 …. Step 2 = intermediary step. Still image of a shroom cloud while he said it’s often “nebulous”.., either way brilliant script.
One thing HOI4 taught me about war, is when the line stops while defending, the other side is exhausted. Not saying a video game makes me an expert, but that seems like what Russia is waiting for.
Yup, it's actually called attrition, I know it's just a game and all and that doesn't always transfer 1:1 in real life but it's surprising how many real life concepts are in the game
Honestly the nuke in ww2 supposedly causing the ending of war is dubious at best. Escalating to deescalate is only going to work when the other side doesn't have any ability to continue or when something that has never been seen bomb went off. So the shock and aw of it, mixed with the fact that Japan did not have any nukes of there own and everything else with the war ended it, not a single nuke or 2.... it's stupid to believe that escalating war with nukes would lead to Ukraine giving up. That's just not Ukraine.
🤨🌐♾️🌐 IF you say sooo....?!? IF PUTIN'S RUSSIAN 🇷🇺 MAIN GOAL IS EAST OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 THEN HE WON'T HESITATE TO DESTROY with 🇷🇺JETS / WARCOPTERS & TANKS EVERYTHING IN HIS PATH TO THE EASTERN BORDERS OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 THAT TRANSLATES TO WAY MORE CASUALTIES & DEATHS PER DAY TO REACH PUTIN'S 🇷🇺 GOALS OBJECTIVES WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE....⁉️ NOT TO MENTION A STRATEGICALLY PLACED NUCLEAR STRIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 TERRITORY BORDERS KILLING MILLIONS OF UKRAINIAN 🇺🇦 POPULATIONS....‼️
We’d all cease to exist. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle then we’re all screwed lest there’s a coup in Russia or the US has some kind of wonder weapon up it’s sleeve (I’m not counting on either)
Even if Russia uses nuclear weapons, Ukraine will still continue to fight. Going on with nuclear blackmail simply doesn't make sense, since Russia would ask for more and more. Actually, some analysts say that initial Putin's plan was to conquer Ukraine quickly, then invade Baltic states and start making nuclear threats as soon as NATO tries to retaliate. Before the war, Putin believed that Western politicians are weak and would abandon Baltic states quickly. Also, even if Ukrainian advance has slowed down a bit, time works against Russia due to sanctions, casualties and overall unhappiness of Russian population Though Putin thinks otherwise. In his mind both EU and Ukraine will freeze in Winter and surrender to him
Russia is running out of metal of all sorts. They still have a lot but at this rate, he won't have much military left by next summer. At some point, Pootin will need to retreat. If he doesn't, someone close to him will show him the window.
Western leaders arent weak, they are just as corrupt than Putin, anything, also stronger and even dangerous, both sides gotta stop, it's destroying countries worth of peace! Only a fool would fight for another man's cowardness
Edit: Thoughts before watching Slight problems with this theory. 1: At this point, after so much pain and devastation in such a relatively short time frame, I highly doubt a nuke would make Ukraine stop in its tracks 2: The west has pledged a powerful response to any nuclear use, up to and including destruciton of russian forces in ukraine and destruction of the rest of the black sea fleet 3: It wouldn't be much of a surprise 4: International condemnation, even from China and India 5: Even the Russians deny they have an escalate to deescalate strategy(Grain of salt) 6: The nuclear rhetoric has been taking a harsh reverse in the past few weeks.
Almost certainly it wouldn't stop the UA. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if it just further stiffened resolve. Using tactical nukes is basically admitteding you have no other cards to play imo.
@@gigacanno750 Then you should watch the video first before commenting, right? You could've captioned your statement with "Initial thoughts before watching the vid" or something to that effect so people wouldn't think you have comprehension problems. With this comment, you're making it appear to others that the video didn't discuss these points, which it did.
"Everyone is aware of Russia's nuclear capability." I am not terribly sure about that. Questions like weapon accuracy under real world conditions, launch failure rate, non-detonation rate, conventional-only detonation rate, fizzle rate, boosting failure rate, fusion failure rate, and unintentional yield variation are complete unknowns. How are Russia's weapons maintained? Especially the "physics package?" Do they work and how well and how often?
Big question marks given money to maintain weapons never expected to be used sounds like money better spent on something else by the people responsible - especially 30 years into the life of a kleptocratic mafia state.
Seeing that russia can slam two of its fighter planes int otheir own civilian buildings in timeframe of one week projects a possibility where russia nukes itself.
I wouldn’t be surprised if things quieten down because of the winter. Even after the snow has cleared, they’ll have to fight in marshes which will be absolutely brutal.
I think Ukraine wants to cut off supplies from the north and take back Kherson by winter. Then I can see things settle until late spring. Hopefully the west keeps sending Ukraine the aid the desperately need. If Ukrainians are being trained on F-16's then maybe we'll see a change of pace in early spring? I guess we'll see.
True, but the Ukrainians have the advantage, the fighting is in their country, they are properly dressed for the weather and they can rotate out and in of the combat zone, it is NOT practical for the Russian troops to do the same! I believe this Winter will destroy Putin's Forces in the Ukraine!
@@khiem1939 Why would you assume the Russians aren't properly dressed for winter? If there's anything Russia military would understand, it's fighting in winter - after all: letting invaders overstretch their supply lines and surviving winter better than they did, was how Russia won her greatest victories.
I think the entire basis of your argument is off here.. The war in Ukraine is not a total war, while WW2 was. The firebombing of Tokyo and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not attempts escalating to de-escalate," They were rather parts of the total war strategy of the US. Likewise, nobody was coming to step in on Japan's behalf once the US bombed Japanese cities, in the same way that NATO is prepared to counter-strike Russia.
I think there are some important things you left out. First of all, the existence of the Russia's escalate to de-escalate threat is seriously doubted. Russia experts Michael Kofman and Anya Fink called it a "nuclear ghost story" in one of the articles he wrote (Escalation Management and Nuclear Employment in Russian Military Strategy). Second of all, nuclear use would have massive effects on Russia. It would cause China and India to drop support for Russia, because Russian nuclear use would encourage Taiwan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear use would probably cause a conventional strike from NATO, according to nuclear expert Scott Sagan in a panel discussion (posted on RU-vid) called "The War in Ukraine and the Prospects for Peace".
It's not just probable USA have outright said that if Russia uses nukes then they would use conventional means to take out Russia's forces near Ukraine.
A comment: "Escalate to deescalate" is not uniquely Russian, and was probably an aspect of US nuclear policy in the tail end of the Cold War. It's probably an option even now. I think the key misassumption is that escalate to deescalate is part of first use of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, many US public analysts and think tanks talked about "demonstrations of resolve", which are basically the same thing. The idea being that one side could move up a rung on the escalation ladder to demonstrate that they have the capability and will to fight at a higher intensity of nuclear conflict. This would then deter the other party from escalating themselves and potentially lead to a negotiated peace. However, this is hinged on the concept of intrawar deterrence and tactical nuclear warfare without immediately devolving into strategic nuclear warfare being possible. A lot of literature from serious analysts suggests this may be possible and I personally find it convincing, but I hope we never have to test it. I believe "Managing Nuclear Operations" (1987) by Ash Carter, John Steinbruner and Charles Zraket discusses the matter.
Another important aspect is the fact more countries now have nukes than in WWII. Even of Ukraine doesn't have any, their allies do, US, UK, France, and NATO as a whole.
Why can't we use game theory? Putin may have goals that we don't like, but that doesn't mean that he's going about achieving them in irrational or counterproductive ways. What's more, if he is crazy, his inner circle would get rid of him. A madman might be an OK figurehead, but it would jeopardise their wealth and power if one were actually in charge. Putin's goals appear to be to stay in power, and to grab as much Ukrainian territory as possible. Lots of people in history have had goals like this. They're hardly the goals of a madman, even if they offend our sensibilities in the West. So, Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine. Why? He thought it would be easy. Given that plenty of analysts in the West thought it would be easy for him as well, it is hardly an irrational act. Perhaps a bit risky, but I suspect that people with low tolerance for downside risk don't tend to become presidents of Russia. After invading, Putin finds out that Ukraine isn't going to collapse, and that his army is less effective than he thought. Still, he has a bunch of territory, so he gives up on attacking Kyiv, and moves his troops to defend what he has. Did you just expect him to give up and order his troops home? Why would he do that? Losing a bunch of men and gaining nothing would hardly make him safe politically. Losing more men, but having something to show for it might save his neck, and, after all, more territory is better than less territory anyway. Still, he doesn't mobilise. That's politically risky, and maybe his troops can fight to a standstill. If they hold until winter, he can try cutting off the gas to blackmail Europe into withdrawing support. Devoid of weapons and economic aid (or at least threatened with such), Ukraine either accepts the status quo, or fights it much less effectively. Ukraine gets more equipment, and makes some gains in the field. If Putin loses in Ukraine, he's in serious trouble at home. Faced with a bad situation either way, he chooses the less bad option of mobilisation. If losing a little and losing a lot will both result in a loss of power (and probably death), why not gamble for resurrection? Why not at least try to hold on until January and see how willing Europe is to go without gas? And why not force Ukraine to shoot down thousand dollar drones with million dollar missiles, and damage some infrastructure? This is roughly where we are now. Putin may have been wrong about Ukraine's ability to resist, but I can't think of anything he's done that is irrational. Sure, he rattles the nuclear sabre a bit, but why shouldn't he? It's free, and it may persuade gullible voters in the west that he's mad and might end the world if he doesn't get what he wants. Then, those voters, who don't want the world to end, put pressure on their governments to force Ukraine to make a settlement. He hasn't even violated the test ban treaty yet. If he's not even willing to 'test' a nuke underground, why would we believe he's ready to use one to 'defend' territory annexed in a sham referendum that no one else recognises as Russian?
@@lacklustermathie They have mainly gone after civilian targets, not military ones. The civilian killings in Bucha and Izyum. How is this even remotely rational from a game theory perspective ?
@@williambreedyk7861 From the news sources I've had a look at, each incident was about ~500 people. Certainly devastating for the communities, but even if we stipulate that these killings served no purpose for controlling the population and preventing spying, I don't see how anything substantial would have changed. Did 1000 murders take away troops that would have turned the tide of a particular battle? Do we really believe that enough Ukrainians to make a difference were indifferent to Russian progress until Bucha was discovered? All it proves is that Putin and the Russians more generally place very low value on Ukrainian lives. But that doesn't mean that game theory doesn't work. Attacking civilian targets isn't necessarily irrational either. They're easier to find and hit, and the Ukrainian government must deal with the aftermath, and expend political effort acquiring countermeasures from the West. If the drones are cheaper than the missiles that shoot them down, Russia wins even more. It is not very likely that the West will let Ukraine make comparable attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure, so a tit for tat threat doesn't apply. Or, maybe, the Kremlin is maintaining the tit for tat threat by getting revenge for the Crimean Bridge. This also lets Russia test the effectiveness of the different air defence systems that the west has. I'd also point out that attacking civilian targets also shows that Putin is 'doing something', and so is likely to be popular, at least among some people, and help his political survival. Sure, military gains would be better, but that would rely on his ground forces being able to exploit whatever advantage the attack gives. I certainly wouldn't bet my life that Russian forces could successfully execute a coordinated land and air joint offensive. I don't see why Putin would want to do that either, if he has other options.
@@CountingStars333 imagine letting the war continue and having to invade conventionally. Do you know, the japanese government at that time had a plan for a basically mass suicide??? In the battle of Okinawa (conventional naval invasion), almost a half of the civilian population died, using this for reference, the atomic bombs saved tens of millions of people from the same fate(and probably a soviet occupation).
Not really that different both have an enemy at their border taking Japan would have been a long bloody campaign same as Ukraine both the US and Russia (if they do) hoped they could supplement that cost with nuclear weapons. Although the big difference is the world would immediately turn on russia it would be their end as a country no doubt about it.
@@CountingStars333 lol worse than who? Japan? If you're so you know nothing about ww2. Russia? Again not really Japan attacked the US while Russia started this war and immediately started committing war crimes against their "brother" nation who's military wasn't even close to being formidable. You're just an idiot all the way around. 🙄
@@CountingStars333 wars are never meant to be fair, if you’re trying to always fight in a fair basis you’re doing it wrong. You try to get the ahead either with doctrine, numbers, technology etc. You don’t see in the latter parts of WWII military units be fighting with equal numbers, Soviets had millions of troops poured into the invasion of Germany till the battle for Berlin and the US having dozens of carriers compared to Japans handful. Even desert storm is a good example, coalition forces sent the Iraqi’s back to their border and amassed hundreds of aircraft that dwarfs the Air Force of Iraq.
'Escalating to deescalate' is an insane gambit that only General Douglas MacArthur is ignorant enough to believe that it is a plausible scheme. MacArthur: "Nuke 'em." Truman: "No." MacArthur: "Nuke 'em!" Truman: "No!" MacArthur: "Aw c'mooooon..." Truman: "You're fired."
Something else of note, the japanese government realized defeat was inevitable, but they fought so they could surrender on their OWN terms. At first, the US had planned a land invasion of Japan, that they feared would cause an untold amount of casualties to both sides, and that alone would've been one of Japan's remaining defenses, that you as a General should fear: Urban Combat. However... once those terrible weapons were deployed, the japanese government realized there was no way to fight. As terrible as firebombings are, there's still land to fight in. But a nuclear weapon destroys a city, and poisons the land. It was something monstrous for which troops would no longer be necessary. All Japan had left a that time were hungry soldiers inside their mainland, as even the civilian population was suffering. Now, against two nuclear weapons? They had nothing else to bargain with. Once the Emperor transmitted to Japan about their surrender to the US after those weapons, people in Japan were furious, horrified, saddened, because all those hopes for a surrender under their own terms were now gone. Ukraine... is a different scenario. I won't claim I know everything, but Ukraine still has resources at their disposal, one of them being the fact that the russian government WANTS that land, especially as agricultural grounds. While Saddam Hussein burned the oil fields upon the retreat of his forces from Kuwait in 1991, Russia poisoning farming grounds they NEED could be a movement out of spite, much like Hussein's historical precedent -- but it would end in the war having been futile for Russia, nothing to gain from it, and no ability to sustain and grow their population. If the worst came to happen, Russia could continue the war to save face, but the outcome for the country would be the same: Crippled economy, few to no lands to grow food in, and rising tensions at home. In the end, I hope you are right. I wish for Ukraine to remain independent and for Putin to not be bolstered like his predecessor in Europe was just before WWII, and for him to either stop this damned war or be kicked out of his presidential seat. However, I do not envy the world leaders who have to measure their words, while these weapons remain aimed and loaded.
2:45 - Wrong, the two strategic bombings of August 1945 ended WW2 as Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki well after the Soviet Invasion of Jurchenland on 08/08/1945; therefore, it cannot be concluded that, yes, nukes ended WW2. However, his use of Nukes in that example was dubious because it worked not because of Commieboo BS but because Japan was losing, and the Nukes made them realize their attempt to make their loss unacceptable to their enemies is a futile tactic in the face of absolute and unexemptive Atomic strategic bombing. However, Russia's potential use of nukes to attempt to succeed in their genocidal invasion of Ukraine will not by any means work in the current stage of the Muscovite Fascist Invasion of Ukraine as the context of the events that unquestionably ended WW2, and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine couldn’t be more different than each other. 1. Ukraine is winning, not losing. 2. Like Japan at the end of WW2, Russia is losing badly and is extremely desperate. 3. Russia using Nuclear Devices in Ukraine would prove Russia is not a strong and stable power that can win a war against a smaller neighboring country by conventional means but a pathetic sorry excuse of a terminally ill Rabid beast that needs to be put down to protect the world and it’s peoples especially those peoples enchained to the maw of the rabid and dying beast called Russia.
This is all accurate. Japan was losing, but contrary to what revisionists like to claim, weren't just "going to surrender anyway".... they wanted to bait the US into an invasion & have them stack up massive losses to secure a better deal. They were desperate to avoid an unconditional surrender, but after the second nuke, the writing was on the wall. Even still, it took the Emperor to step in to agree to a surrender, as Many in command still wanted to fight. Russia's situation is so much different, not to mention our understanding of nuclear weapons has improved dramatically since 1945.
Tbh though, if you escale and destroy enough enemy troops to cause a surrender - I dont think its escalate to de-escalate anymore otherwise we can say that Soviets, USA, UK escalated in 1945 until de-escalation because Germany surrendered. (Any surrender can be taken as that) I really think this war will turn into a drawn out economical struggle which can end with either Putin's death, removal from office, depletion of all Russian resources for the war, nuclear war or west abandoning Ukraine => Russian victory. At this point the most probable is "depletion of all russian resources for the war causing it to negatively impact Russia itself which will call for Putins execution or removal from office ending in him going MIA somewhere and be left in a ditch" combination of those.
Given Russia's treatment of civilians in captured territories, the claim that Ukraine could avoid a worse outcome by surrender assumes that they consider a life of terror and murder preferable to a comparatively quick death by nuke. Then there's the assumption that the use of nukes would actually achieve any escalation at all. Like the firebombing of Tokyo, Russia has been bombing and shelling civilian targets, hospitals, and critical infrastructure. A continuation of hostilities with the current Russian tactics against civilians might even be seen as worse than a series of nuclear strikes. Given the resolve Ukraine has shown so far against Russia, I think it unlikely they will deescalate after a nuclear strike. More likely, Ukraine would use that as an excuse to ignore Western concerns and attempt to counterstrike Russian targets inside Russia. For example, striking oil and gas infrastructure inside Russia. If they can convince Russia that Ukraine has forces inside Russia, they can render nuclear tactics ineffective. Basically, Ukraine would see a nuclear strike as justification for taking the gloves off.
I think NATO responses need to be considered in this calculation. I'll be surprise if they let Russia win after using any nuclear weapons as it set a really bad precedent
Yeah if Russia were to use Nukes it would set a terrible precedence to not intervene, because that would signal to other countries that in order to defend themselves they need their own nuclear arms it's a deep rabbit hole
The bombing campaigns in north Vietnam did absolutely bring the north Vietnamese to the negotiating table. And eventually ended the war with a peace treaty. Years later after the US had left, the north broke the treaty and invaded south Vietnam.
'Escalate to de-escalate' is a purely western idea and interpretation of what Russia has been applying in the last decade or so. Nobody in Russia, be it politicians, opposition in exile or insiders mention anything of the like.
Doesn't seem that Ukraine is in a negotiating mood. There's an outsiders view that time is running out on Putin. That's an active variable in the larger equation. Isn't that so? The Russian diplomat who defected says he doesn't believe the war will last past year-end. Kissinger said that negotiating has to begin with the status quo ante. Which one?
@@sheepdog5799 there were never any serious peace talks. Russia made demands, and Zelensky rightfully flipped him the bird. Russia can't be rewarded in any way for this illegal invasion. The west has already said Ukraine would win this war. Do you think they'll back down and let Ukraine fall after all this?
i think a difference is that other parties have nukes too. man i love this channel. gives ya a lot to think about. thanks man - you actually help to calm a lot of anxiety and stuff about what might go on.
If the Kherson offensive goes into the winter, the Ukrainians are just going to HIMARS the crap out of them until the Russians collapse. A bit like a firing range....
If you look at the tension in Taiwan strait and within China, I am pretty sure China will not abandon Russia even if Putin orders a nuclear strike on Ukrain. They have no ally other than Russia, and they are certainly fucking themselves up with this Zero Covid idiocy... the tension in China is so high, and we Taiwanese are, quite frankly, enjoying it and afraid of it at the same time.
What does Russia have that China needs, and would it even trust Russia as an ally? Russia has hydrocarbons and other natural resources. Is there another way that China can get this without cooperation and without offering something in return? Yes. They can wait things out until Russia goes to shit, shake a few trees and lean things just a little to make it fall apart, and then pick up the pieces that it wants. A much better strategy than relying on a piece of paper signed by Kremlin, which, as Bismarck observed, are not worth much. Just now Armenia tried to call in a mutual defense agreement against Azerbaijan. Crickets.
China has an incentive to maintain the nuclear taboo. A full scale nuclear war would be bad for everyone (including the Chinese leadership), and 'allowing' the use of nuclear weapons increases the chance of that happening in the future. Perhaps the probability of full scale nuclear war by moving from 'never use nukes' to 'sometimes it is OK to use nukes' is small, but the cost of full scale nuclear war is so large that allowing the shift still isn't worth it. Beyond that, if the public thinks that a nuclear war is possible, they'll probably shift some of their money from savings/investment to consumption. After all, you know for sure you're here today to consume stuff, but the world might end tomorrow. That doesn't mean you blow everything, but you might just weight the future a bit less strongly in your decisions. In any case, even if China is indifferent in its own right, I think the West would be sufficiently outraged by a nuclear strike that we will bear the cost of secondary sanctions if China (or India) doesn't respond.
China is likely to invade Vladivostok if they think they can get away with it. They've made it clear they think its theirs and that they eventually intend to take it back. The problem with a gang of thieves is they all steal from each other if they think they can get away with it. Look up the Sino - Soviet Border conflict of 1969, they fought an undeclared war for 7 months. Both Putler and Winnie the Pooh have a gangster mentality.
China and Russia were "friends" of convenience. China must be looking at Russian military performance in a whole new light, as we all are. China now knows they can't depend on Russia for anything but oil. Russia's military is history.
It is pretty widely accepted thag the nukes were a significant factor in the surrender of Japan. Certainly wasn't the only reason but they did have a large amount of fear over the remaining nuclear capability of the US and specifically were worried that one plane could drop so much devastation.
I think you are quite correct. It might have been a significant reason, but on it's own, it wouldn't have been enough. positioning of the fleet to make it likely that there could be more incoming, Russia politically getting them in a worse position... really made the nukes go from a threat to a threat that broke their backs. Edit: Not that they where necessary, as pointed out, it really was the other things that made it a problem. Their loss was imminent. had the nukes not fallen, they might have made a conditional surrender within a few weeks, the nukes just put it up to unconditional and the date earlier. But yeah, they US knew that they where running out of time to try their new shiny weapon, and took the chance while they could. And it ended the war earlier, as it fully broke their spirit. nukes didn't fall over important cities, they fell over large immigrant filled cities. Sort of like if an enemy bombed Detroit suburbs. Sure, America would think it was horrible, and worth vengeance normally, but would also joke about it, and that at least the crimerate was dropping this year...
"It is pretty widely accepted" doesn't mean its true. There have been serious doubts raised about that interpretation of history, much focused on the fact the Japanese imperial authorities were already debating how to surrender, and were largely unbothered by further civilian casualties.
@@chipmo Yeah, well after the fact, it's not in the context of the time. I say they did what was best to them and there was NO good answer, maybe one less costly than the other, we will never know. They did what was more safe especially for USA, which is understandable, especially after all that happened.
No just no. They were more terrified of being annexed by the Soviet’s and also they had been fire bombed into oblivion which was far worse then the nukes and much easier to do. Trust me the nuclear devastation at first looked like fire bombing runs and wasn’t anything special. We often high light it when really it was just the USA flexing their power
Using nukes on the battlefield so close to their own territory would be self defeating. Plus, given the state of the rest of the army they probably have very few working warheads anyway.
It's true that Russia spends an oddly low amount of money on their warheads compared to USA, UK, France, China, even accounting for the domestic spending power advantage of the ruble vs the dollar or pound. I would never bet on that - it might be more the case that thousands of their weapons are broken down but some portion of their warheads are given appropriate attention. Russia and USA do not have nearly as big as an advantage on strategic weapon numbers vs China or UK/France as some people suggest as a big portion of the thousands of weapons are tactical, and most tactical weapons are on the mid to smaller end.
"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting". -Gen. Curtis LeMay. Russia lost 10 million people in WW2, so their tolerance to losses is pretty high.
Simply put a nuclear action by Russia as it stands does not reap any productive results, it would draw in actual NATO involvement and world wide condemnation even from India and China, the risks don't justify the reward.
India and China would look down on Russia with their arms crossed if they even use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine I just shows what a massive desperate loser Russia is And that they would ever use a nuclear weapon all because they are losing a small state country
I think Japan was already willing to surrender before the nukes happened, they knew they lost already, but the nukes made it so they had to unconditionally surrender, they wanted to surrender while holding the land they gained.
not enough lines. I think its telling that were measuring Ukraine regaining its territory and not the other way around considering this is meant to be an invasion
If Russia goes nuclear I expect Japan will within six months with S Korea, Turkey, and possibly Germany and maybe Poland shortly afterwards. Any nation near Russia with the means to build them will decide they need to deter the lunatic state next door. I have to think Russia knows this. Putin might be desperate enough but I doubt the people in the chain of command would feel as suicidal.
It was crazy, but it probably won't work now. This was at a time where only the US had nuclear bombs. Now many countries have nuclear bombs which can cause a further escalation to a nuclear war.
I agree that it's unlikely we will see a nuclear attack in the short-run. The really interesting question is what is going to happen this Winter. Who will be weakened by General Winter and by how much? Traditionally, we think of the Russian military as being strong in the Winter but their supplies are stuck moving on roads; and therefore easily ambushed, and their conscripts don't have even normal non-Winter gear. Perhaps near the end of Winter we should get an indication of who will ready for next Spring and Summer.
Excellent channel 👍👍🇺🇸 I have a different opinion. Japan knew they must surrender to the Americans after Russia entered the Japanese conflict. If Russia occupied Japan, their country would be occupied and lost forever. The atomic bomb allowed Japan to surrender to the Americans while saving face.
Possibly the Civilian sector surrendered due to the Nuclear Bombs while the Military Sector surrendered due to the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. People who get fire and conventionally bombed everyday wouldn’t really care or feel the effects of a Soviet invasion of a puppet state that’s a sea away from them. Let alone the could the Soviets logistically sustain an amphibious assault to Japan without having to do so something of scale and Kamikaze as a factor as well. So having a nuclear bomb to wipe out a whole city and it’s populace compared to just raging firestorms that burn buildings and people for hours could be a factor for surrendering to the US.
At this point, Ukraine and backers seem really resolute in their support and willingness to fight. Of course, there's people out there that just want this to end by any means necessary but they seem to be the minority. If Russia escalates, I see the other side escalating the conventional and economic war as well as loss of neutrality from many other parties. I could be wrong but the nuclear saber rattling seems to just be making people angry and resolute against a belligerent power.
One big problem with using Japan and Vietnam as examples of "Escalate to De-Escalate:" unlike Ukraine and the West in the current situation, Japan and Vietnam did not have the ability to escalate in return. If Russia escalates to nukes, then it's the West's hand on the Escalation Knob, and Russia has no say in how far they turn it. There are two ways to go about trying to "win" a nuclear war. The first, and only sure bet is: "The Only Way to Win is Not to Play." Once that option has been foreclosed and nukes are in play, the logic shifts to: "Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy." The nation that launches a retaliatory strike is already dead. But the nation that strikes first can hope to destroy enough of the enemy's nuclear arsenal, command-and-control, and so on that it can weather a weakened retaliatory strike and still come out on top. Russia's massive military failures in this war (command-and-control, logistics, poor maintenance of military hardware, endemic corruption, etc.) place doubt on the readiness of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and on their ability to respond effectively to a massive, swift attack. A nuclear first strike from the West is still Russian roulette, but there are fewer bullets in the cylinder than there were in the (first) Cold War. If Russia deploys a "tactical" nuke, then they demonstrate that they are willing to employ a nuclear first strike (of sorts) in order to win this war. If the West responds with some kind of tit-for-tat retaliation, they hand Russia back control of the Escalation Knob with full knowledge that Russia is willing to engage in nuclear warfare. I think Western (or at least US) war-planners would have to very seriously consider a "preemptive" strategic nuclear strike, or if possible, a conventional response that would destroy the Russian state and its ability to launch nuclear weapons. Hopefully, the Russians understand this, and realize that crossing the nuclear threshold would be far more dangerous for them than merely losing a war of choice in Ukraine. 🎶What might save us me and you, is if the Russians love their children too...🎶
Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was not "escalate to deescalate" it was "annihilate to deescalate". If Russia hits Ukraine with anything less than a strategic (BIG) nuke it will just piss of Ukraine more. Remember Ukraine has already lived through Chernobyl.
The west has already warned Russia that there would be a devastating response. As reported by the Pentagon. Russia knows the risks are very high for little to no reward.
@@neogeo6431 you think that would end this war? I don't think you actually believe that. Not with all the NATO submarines in the area, just waiting for orders. Russia's been warned. We're just waiting. Patiently.
@@neogeo6431 Russia does not have a Tsar Bomba. Besides, Russia would do itself an unmeasurable disservice by wiping out Kyiv, killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians _and Russians_ who live in *the cradle of the Kievan Rus.* Even if such a frnakly moronic action did end the war, it would only herald the beginning of another.
3:50 I knew of the incendiary munitions attack, but I hadn't realized they used napalm. Interesting. From Wikipedia's entry on Operation Meetinghouse: "The bombs were mostly the 500-pound (230 kg) E-46 cluster bomb which released 38 napalm-carrying M-69 incendiary bomblets at an altitude of 2,000-2,500 ft (610-760 m). The M-69s punched through thin roofing material or landed on the ground; in either case they ignited 3-5 seconds later, throwing out a jet of flaming napalm globs."
Thank you for this as always very interesting analysis. I believe things are different from US vs Japan and the drop of the two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... The US were the only country to have the nuclear bomb and it was very new at the time. I suspect (I may be wrong of course) that their use on cities was also a test in real conditions even if that is cynicism bordering to monstrosity (bordering, really?)... There was a huge element of surprise which lead to paralysis from shock. Now many countries have nukes and some host other countries nuclear heads so I hope it will keep everybody from using them, a bit like in movies where you can have five people pointing guns at each other so in the end they all have to lower their guns unless they want to risk that all of them die. 2) would Putin want to be remembered as the one who launched the first nuke ? No way. He wanted to reunite former Soviet republics to restore his nation's power. Not to be the most cursed and hated name in history, even before a certain former German dictator...
I agree with all except for the testing part. Hiroshima was the location of an Army barracks used to train newly conscripted soldiers making it a valid target under the Law of Armed Conflict. Further, Nagasaki was the primary munitions production site, with ALL of the torpedoes used by the IJN and most of the artillery shells having been produced there. Munitions production is also a legitimate military target under LOAC.
@@davidford3115 thank you very much for your answer ! But with all due respect, if it explains the choice of the target, I still wonder about the choice of the bomb... Was there no powerful enough conventional bomb(s) ? Was there a legislation about the use of the nuclear bomb since it was a first ? I might go ahead of myself for the testing part, of course, I wouldn't think it was the first purpose...
@@karineroumache9124 Your questions are an example of presentism (chronological fallacy). You are judging their actions based on today's standards which is an inappropriate way to analyze that situation. By the laws in place for that time (both American and international), it was absolutely justified. And yes, they did test the trinity device before they dropped it on Nagasaki.
@@davidford3115 I see what you mean but...yes and no ;) Yes because I am aware of that bias and no because they are genuine questions and not disguised statements. I am also aware that I don't know enough history, which is why I ask. You seem to know that part of history much more accurately than I do and I am not trying to flatter you. When I was a teenager, I was fascinated by two aspects : the Manhattan Project and the rise of Nazism in Germany. I have forgotten a lot and also, the military part was not what I studied most at the time. So I may not know what seems obvious to you. Now I find it all very interesting especially in the light of the times we live in.
@@karineroumache9124 Nothing wrong with asking questions with the purpose of gaining a better understanding. I applaud that. Sadly, most discussions of American use of nuclear weapons degenerates into insipid recriminations and loaded questions rife with anachronistic claims. To your first question, the US had already used large scale incendiary weapons in Tokyo. Compared to that, the use of nuke was actually LESS destructive than the firebombing. As for legislation, there was none specifically regulating the use of nukes and so their use actually fell under the auspices of the local commanders. They just happened to choose to defer to the POTUS, setting the standard by which modern nuclear use doctrine follows.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s, then joined the RAN in the closing stages of the Cold War in early 1988. I remember the concern about a possible nuclear war as Reagan increased military spending. His escalation worked in that it brought the USSR to breaking point economically by being forced to spend so much on defence. I don’t think that was necessary. There had been in a period of relative detente in the late 70s. Putin was around in the 80s, obviously, so I wonder if this kind of escalation was his influence… Just a thought bubble, I’m no scholar! edit to add: Oh, and I love the Underpants Gnomes reference!!! 🤣
I'm really not sure I agree that cycling experienced units with fresh ones indicates an imminent withdrawal. We may yet see such a retreat, and certainly if they felt they were at risk of losing those troops they would prefer to lose inexperienced ones, but this is also what you would do if you wanted to simply hold the line while moving your best forces elsewhere for offensive operations.
Russian units being inserted NOW are nothing more than cannon fodder to gain Putin some time! Many are being killed, wounded, captured or surrendered within 10 days of entering the Ukraine! They have NO training and in one picture I saw taken by the Ukrainians, it appears that an entire squad of about 10 Russian soldiers were bunched together at the end of a building and one or two Ukrainian soldiers killed them all with small arms fire!
@@khiem1939 This isn't the approach Russia has taken in the past when evacuating dangerous areas of their forces. When Izyum was closing Russia brought in their absolute best forces to hold the line while the others evacuated, then they evacuated themselves. The exact opposite is happening in Kherson. Either they're throwing forces away when still their biggest problem is manpower or they expect these forces to be able to hold the line. I can't guarantee that Russian command isn't absolutely moronic, but if you're assuming that every action your enemy takes is the wrong one because they've made mistakes in the past, you'll eventually be in for a nasty surprise. Maybe this is Russia preparing to abandon the area they just annexed, have fought like hell to hold, and are pumping fresh troops into, or maybe they expect that these forces will be able to hold the line and that Ukraine's focus is shifting away from Kherson. Only time will tell.
I'm totally in support of Ukraine but I can't see them in Crimea this year. Maybe by next summer? This is one time where I'd love to be proven wrong though. Slava Ukraine!!
There is a fundamental problem with comparing Japan situation with Ukraine. In Japan case, the US was the only holder of such weapons, Japan was already militarily defeated, just not politically, Japan was the original aggressor and the motivations by the US may not only just to finish the war quickly. Russia knows that the escalation is likely to lead to being cut off by India and China, at minimum, strategic strikes against Russian military and infrastructure targets in Russia to cripple its already weakened military production capabilities….
The Kremlin is an EVIL bully, not a sad one. That said though, I feel really bad for the people of Russia.The Kremlin has made both Ukrainians AND Russians victims in this conflict.
Escalate to de-escalate has nothing to do with using nuclear weapons on Japan. 1 - there was no escalation possible from Japan, and 2 - the Soviet invasion of Japan had more to do with Japan's surrender than the nuclear attacks on Japan. There is also no possibility Russia can escalate to de-escalate. Escalation and complete disaster for Russia are the only outcomes.
Ultimately, if the world community allows offensive nuclear use (which this would be), then it invites it being used more in the future, which puts humanity itself at serious risk. This alone should be plenty reason enough for everyone with the military capacity to involve themselves trying to put Pootz's head on a pike, which I suspect would take about a week, assuming his own forces don't do it themselves to try and preserve what little of Russia will survive the merrymaking. Everything about Russia's combative capability besides nukes has already proven to be a paper tiger, so the only reason the US or China is entertaining them at the moment is those nukes. That genie leaves the bottle, and they become a liability.
Completely agree. Arguably the genie was already out of the bottle since Hiroshima, but further use, even 'tactical' low yield weapons, means they're more and more likely to be used in other conflicts, and will naturally get larger and larger until strategic nukes are realistic considerations to win wars. The doctrine of MAD seems to have been forgotten by many world leaders, despite most having grown up and lived in the Cold War. No one can win a nuclear war, and opening Pandora's box again, even just a little, is so dangerous. There is no way back once a mushroom cloud erupts over Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson or some random Ukrainian tank battalion.
Nuclear attacks are fundamentally different than even massive conventional attacks, due to the psychology of nuclear war. However, Rolling Thunder is perhaps not the strongest example to use of the failure of a conventional escalate to de-escalate strategy. North Vietnamese officials admitted after the war that the bombing campaigns had them within a few days of suing for peace... but the US always ended up terminating the current bombing campaign at the last minute. So, North Vietnam determined that all they needed to do was wait out the US.
That sounds like bullshit, you mean to tell me that Vietnamese officials started a countdown timer every time bombs dropped, but they stopped just a few seconds before the "Sue for peace threshold"? Copium is a hell of a drug
Escalating to de-escalate is in fact how the first two and only nuclear bombs deployed in a conflict were used against Imperial Japan. But those times were very different. Now everybody and their grandmother have nuclear weapons. Nuclear armaments only work as deterrent, otherwise they are pretty useless, except if you want to extinguish humanity as we know it. Russia is also being an extremely bad and clumsy actor. The clumsiness and irrationality of the regime is actually the scariest thing about Russia at the moment. The whole invasion and annexation makes no sense.
"Imagine using a nuclear weapon to scare your opponent into submission and end a war. Sounds a bit crazy, right?" Well, that's the proven record of nuclear weapons right?
Not a good case. It was the Soviets and the nukes together that led the Japanese to surrender, and even then, the Japanese government was deadlocked on what to do. Even when the Emperor broke the tie for surrender, elements of the army tried to launch a coup to fight on
@@connormclernon26 Now I can understand why Japan is become an ally of u.s after the ww2.since soviets is apparently the reason why japan lose the war and since then Japan is been under u.s.regime militarily.
There is another example, USA threatened China with nukes when they are shelling Taiwan in 1958 (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis). Mao backed down of course since Taiwan is not worth being nuked. The question goes, is a few extra oblasts in Ukraine worth the risk of nukes in Moscow?
I don't think Russia is crazy enough to use nukes in Ukraine, they are already suffering under the sanctions and there is a big chance of pretty much everyone abandoning any coperation with Russia if they used nukes. And even if Putin gets desperate and tries I think his buddies won't let him.
I'm sorry but American use of nuclear weapons is not what caused the Japanese to surrender. It was knowing that the Soviets were on their way and would do to Japan what they did to the Nazi's.
Wrong, the nukes ended the war Fat Man was used after 08/08/1945; therefore, nukes ended WW2. However, his use of Nukes in that example was dubious because it worked not because of Commieboo BS but because Japan was losing, and the Nukes made them realize their attempt to make their loss unacceptable to their enemies is a futile tactic in the face of absolute and unexemptive Atomic strategic bombing. 1. Ukraine is not losing. 2. Nuking Ukrainian would prove Russia is not a strong and stable power but a terminally ill Rabid beast that needs to be put down.
@@InquisitorXarius I'm with bert26a on this one, recent examination of Japanese government documents showed that they barely took note of the loss of 2 more cities. They were were losing cities to fire bombing almost constantly. The Japanese had hoped that Stalin would mediate a peace settlement, and when Russia finally declared war on Japan they knew that hope was dead. Further I think the US govt. oversold the effectiveness of the atomic bomb just as hard as they could both to justify the immense cost of the bomb to the US taxpayers and to back Stalin off. By the time the surrender of Germany and Japan had been signed it was looking pretty clear that Stalin was spoiling for a fight and would attack the minute he thought he had a winnable scenario. Propaganda to make the atomic bomb look as deadly as possible was worth its weight in blood. The first atomic bomb was 13 kilotons. The USAF had enough B-29s to deliver that weight of ordinance every 4 to 5 days. It would have been cheaper and more effective.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus So you are ignoring that Japan surrendered after Fat Man Dropped Nagasaki, which occurred after the Soviets invaded Manchuria? Ok, thanks for the Wumao, Commieboo, and Weaboo BS.
@@fv5855 The Comintern was allied with the European Axis Powers in WW2 from 1939 - 1945. The Comintern was allied with the Asian Axis Powers in WW2 from 1937-1945.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus depends on who. If it was the army, then because Soviet. If it was the emperor government in Tokyo then it was because of American.
Limited nuclear war is a very dicey gambit, so to speak. The US was the only nation with atomics when they used them in 1945 and no one, not even the US, had much insight about the long-term ramifications. The moment Russia crosses the nuclear line, they've opened Pandora's Box, and no one knows what will come out. However, the temptation for extremely fast and drastic measures from the Western alliances will be enormous if a nuclear weapon is detonated on a European battlefield. And once nukes start going off, the whole cooler heads prevailing thing seems like a pipe dream to me. Especially on the Russian side, with the insane ego(s) at the top of the command chain in that nation currently.
I think a single tactical nuke would result in a massive conventional attack by the west within Ukrainian territory, including the Black Sea and Azov Sea. Then the ball would be in Pootin's court. The devastation would be much worse than one tactical nuke so the fuhrer would have to think long and hard.
A nuclear attack by Russia would have massive negative consequences for them. I suspect they'd lose a lot of international support and trade. The weapons sent to Ukraine would be far more powerful. I could imagine boots on the ground from NATO in Ukraine to offer humanitarian aid. And I wonder if they'd have a Navy afterwards. Are Russian subs with nukes a thing other countries can tolerate if Russia is using nukes? I think not.
I believe 2 larger questions will help to define whether Russia will escalate to de-escalate. The first question is about Ukraine's will to fight. Continued Russian indiscriminate bombardment of largely civilian targets in Ukraine will just stiffen Ukrainian resolve. In WWII, indiscriminate bombardment of targets in Germany served only to stiffen German resolve to pursue the war. The Strategic Bombing Survey led by J. K. Galbraith came to that conclusion, even in spite of the Hamburg and Dresden firestorms. Likewise Japan was determined to pursue the war in the aftermath of the Tokyo firebombing and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It was only after the post-attack team headed by Professors Nishina and Arakatsu determined that the Nagasaki bomb's fission debris were the result of a Plutonium fission, and realized that Plutonium weapons were easier to produce than a Uranium bomb, and that more Plutonium bomb attacks were likely, thus it was in Japan's interest to accede to the demands of the Allies. The second question is at what point will Russia lose the ability to apply enough combat power to win over Ukraine and what might that win be? If Russia runs out of enough manpower, capable combat leaders, munitions, tanks, artillery, etc. to apply combat power to win on the battlefield, then they won't be able to advance to secure the territory they claim belongs to Russia. Furthermore, as long as the western nations keep supplying Ukraine with munitions, tanks, AA systems, and targeting intelligence the Ukrainians will have the ability to apply combat power over the Russians and gain back more territory. I believe the current slowdown in taking back territory is due to the cold, rainy weather and is thus a temporary slowdown from now until about February, when the ground is frozen. If Russia uses a tactical nuke, the result could be international outrage and greater resolve from both the western nations and Ukraine to press on with the battle. Of course, the elephant in the room comes to targets if Russia pursues the nuclear option. That is a discussion for another day.
I think it depends entirely how the NATO and the West react... There is no question that Russia could nuke Ukraine into submission, and if the NATO refused to confront Russia militarily then it's worked. If they do confront Russia militarily then it fails. Would the West want to enter into nuclear conflict in order to save Ukraine? Probably not, but they also wouldn't want Russia expanding toward them, gaining power as they increase and that may be worth going to war to stop. After it'll be easier to stop them sooner rather than later.
the West would have no choice but to react militarily. if they allowed Russia to get away with a nuclear attack, then Russia would be emboldened. Remember Putin has already stated he wants to re-establish the Soviet Union - meaning he wants to take back the Baltics & all the other countries that left in 1991. If the West allows Ukraine to fall or capitulate, then Russia will turn on the Baltics & others. No sir, a forceful response is the only way to stop a bully like that. Russia has already named it's goals, the West, especially Europe, has no choice but to stop them.
I do think that Russia can escalate to de-escalate, but to do so with chemical weapons rather than nuclear weapons. Using Sarin gas on Kerson would kill vast numbers of Ukrainian forces, and likely many Russians as well. Unlike a dirty bomb or a tactical battlefield nuclear which spreads radioactive material that will take hundreds of years to allow for any inhabitation, a Sarin attack would at worse result in contamination that would last tens of years as opposed to hundreds of years. Russia permitted Syria to use chemical weapons, thought to be Sarin gas, on Syrian civilians; therefore, Russia has some experience with the pros and cons of using something like Sarin gas. Also considering that neurotoxins and poisons are Putin's method of choice when dealing with political opponents, it seems easy to imagine that he would just scale up the use of neurotoxic agents to attack the Ukrainian Army. Also, how NATO would respond to the use of chemical weapons is far less clear than the reaction of NATO to the use of a nuclear weapon. Putin may suffer international condemnation for using chemical weapons like Sarin, but he would likely keep India and China neutral, and the expected response from NATO is much more ambiguous.
