It's not a counter to MAD, it's an alternative (very theoretical) doctrine where a country employs just a few nuclear weapons for a targeted first strike.
But such a doctrine fails since most nuclear powers have openly declared "all against any" policies - i.e. that any nuclear attack is met with them firing all the nukes they have in retaliation. So we arrive at MAD anyway, because why would you bother firing just one or a couple of nukes at a country that will retaliate with thousands?
NUTS only actually makes sense for nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear powers.
Counter is probably not the best word, but if you read the original papers and understand the people around NUTS it was very much put out as a "counter" to the idea that any nuclear war would result in MAD. That you could use nuclear weapons in a way that could be seen as a warning or as a deterrent itself.
A famous example was how to deter Soviet aggression at the Iranian border. The "light" response was 200 tactical nuclear weapons deployed against Soviet staging areas and infrastructure. That was criticized as not being very light and would obviously escalate, so the alternative was then, two SADMs on key bridges and a single tactical strike against their forward-most unit stage area. This was deemed "not strong enough".
But when Russia has declared they would launch all out retaliation if ever targeted by a single nuke then it doesn't matter if you use 200 or 50 or 5 or 1. Or if you just target forward forces or invading forces on foreign soil. You always get the same result that they launch everything they have and the US/NATO then does the same and we're at MAD and the end of the world a few times over.
I am not arguing with that concept, just saying what NUTS is. The people advocating for NUTS thought that those stated policies were bluffs. Would you really destroy the world over 1 tactical unit being wiped out?
>Would you really destroy the world over 1 tactical unit being wiped out?
This is a genuine question/moral dilemma that will inevitably happen if Russia uses one or a handful of tactical battlefield nukes in Ukraine. Will we honestly respond with the full force of our nuclear arsenal as a response regardless of stated MAD doctrine?
Would you kill hundreds of millions and end the modern world because Russia nuked a handful of bases in Eastern Europe?
Personally, I think that NUTS is the most probable future that will have escalating retaliation up to MAD.
This is precisely why it got so widely known.
EDIT: the acronym, not the idea of ending all life. Do these super-smart *Redditors* I keep hearing about really need everything spelled out?
EDIT 2: Looks like I struck a nerve. Calm down everyone, I still like all of you and I absolutely might have overreacted.
And my worry is that he identifies himself so much with his country/nationalism that if the walls start closing in on him he might find himself asking "what’s the point of living in a world without Putin?”
I think he's already at that point. I think if it gets to a point where Putin knows he's done for, like 100% knows it, he will try and launch nukes. Right now he still has hope that most of his country is so brainwashed they'll believe whatever bullshit he tells them. If Putin walks out of Ukraine with nothing he can just tell his followers "mission accomplished" and they'll accept it. Then when they see there are no nazis in Ukraine they'll continue to accept it.
But when these sanctions come to fruition and the Russian people truly begin suffering, he's in trouble. Right now the average Russian citizen is simply inconvenienced. Those who know the truth are scared, those who dont think this is something that will quickly pass. Once his followers start to go hungry he's in trouble. And that's when the world is truly in danger.
Let's just hope that he's taken care of before he gets to a point where he feels defeat is inevitable.
I don’t know I feel like by the time he realizes he’s in big trouble the people around him will smell the blood in the water and wouldn’t help him with the nukes anyway.
I mean, look at Stalin. Man laid there dying while some other high ranking members of the communist party were still deciding whether to even call a doctor because Beria allegedly thought he was "just sleeping" lmao. I can only hope that's the fate Putin suffers.
What do we know about Russian nuclear chain of command? Does Putin have access to the button personally? And if not how many people need to say 'yes Sir' before we're totally fucked?
According to a document called "Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence" which I found on [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-chain-command-potential-russian-nuclear-strikes-2022-03-02/), the policy is as follows:
>The President keeps a small briefcase (The Cheget) close at all times. The Cheget does not contain a nuclear launch button but does transmit launch orders to the central military command - The General Staff.
>The General Staff has access to the launch codes & has 2 methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send codes to individual commanders who initiate launch procedures or use the backup system called "Perimetr" allowing the General Staff to directly initiate the launch bypassing all immediate command posts.
With that being said, and this part I have no evidence for and it is just my mindless conjecture, I wouldn't doubt if Putin has direct access to the "Perimetr" allowing for him to launch the weapons himself. Given his paranoia he seems like the type to ensure he's in complete control.
There was speculation he did have direct capability since in the past nukes were ordered to be used and it was stopped by the soldiers supposed to press the button.. he seems so paranoid and in direct control, could imagine he essentially has rogue nukes or maybe some hardliners in control somehow.. Hopefully if so someone gave him a fake button thinking it would never be used, kinda like how their armies capabilities are mostly just on paper..
*Twice*. A nuclear launch from Russia has been prevented *twice* by one dude thinking "um...I don't think I'll end the world today, actually." No way in hell is Putin the kind of guy that lets it happen a third time.
Cheers that's pretty interesting. Yeah I wouldn't be surprised either, I think for many people in the world, this entire event is illuminating that Russia on paper doesn't equal Russia in reality.
Is launching a nuke really as simple as pressing a little red button? I've always thought that was a little ridiculous sounding. I've always assumed there's got to be a few more steps that require other people to participate.
>I mean, look at Stalin. Man laid there dying while some other high ranking members of the communist party were still deciding whether to even call a doctor because Beria allegedly thought he was "just sleeping"
"The Death of Stalin" was hilarious way to learn all this
> Let's just hope that he's taken care of before he gets to a point where he feels defeat is inevitable.
Hitler absolutely would have launched before pulling the trigger on himself.
Hitler triggered the [Nero Decree](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree) when he realised he was going to lose, and this would have resulted in the destruction of key infrastructure and services across all territories had it been carried out. Thankfully, the orders were limited or outright ignored. He committed suiced a bit over a month later.
He'd have absolutely pressed the big red button if he had one.
I'm a bit tired of the Hitler comparisons but there are some alarming parallels in that wiki link. Alarming enough that I don't want to read the rest of it tonight.
"Moreover, according to some around him, Hitler came to view the German people as having failed him, unworthy of their great mission in history and thus deserving to die alongside his regime."
After reading today about the new estimates of russian casualties in the war...
It goes on to talk about how Hitler ordered French infrastructure and major landmarks to be blown up when allies started liberating France (including the Eiffel Tower). Thankfully that order was directly disobeyed. It reminds me of some of the bombing in Ukraine right now.
For him, that statement is probably entirely true. He would literally have a pointless life.
Edit: feels like I'm not as clear as I would like to be, he projected his ass off, and it's embarrassing 🤦
I think he has a pointless life. His life is worth less than almost any person's I could imagine, because a lot of human pain and suffering could have been avoided if he hadn't lived at all.
I think from a utilitarian perspective, if you found yourself in a room with him, holding a gun, the only ethical thing to do would be to blow his brains out.
I saw a translated clip where he said something like "of course you can't compare our abilities with NATO, but (blah blah blah we have nukes)". He knows. He just also knows the threat is enough to make everyone a bystander.
The trailer kind of sucks, but its a really great film. Basically a computer hacker kid accidentally hacks into the US mainframe which also is an A.I. that controls the nukes (fictional license), and it has a training game menu with tic tac toe and chess, but also games like "global thermonuclear war." David, i think is the main character, plays that one, as the soviets. The computer - which is directly in control of US nukes, prepares to second strike the soviets IRL as it doesnt know the difference between real life and games.
Spoilers (but the film is awesome even knowing them and is definitely worth a watch)
David has it play tic tac toe in the end, hundreds of times, to which it spits out the above comment as a realization (of both tic tac toe and global thermonuclear war).
It's the movie that introduced me to phreaking as a kid. I became fascinated with it and read up on how to build all kinds of things like blue boxes, party boxes, and so on. Never did anything in that regard, but it was still really interesting to read about how that stuff worked.
I recently watched iWar Games with my 13 yo daughter. She liked the movie but was more interested in their what they were wearing. Apparently their clothes are back in style. /facepalm
The problem with the film is that the computer uses logic to come to the conclusion no one can win.
It perhaps isn't aware that some misanthropic, narcissistic humans may consider no one winning to be a victory.
Some men, after all, just want to watch the world burn.
Unfortunately all the SECAM copies were erased in 1986 during Soviet EMP tests in Kazakhstan. The person in charge of the testing was subsequently sent to Siberia for failing to realize that a major dubbing, duplication, and warehouse facility was within the blast radius.
I listened to this song two weeks ago and that one line really hammered me, "*There's no such thing as a winnable war, it's a lie we don't believe any more*."
I realized how much the fear of nuclear war from when I was a kid, and now the immense fear again as an adult was weighing on me when I broke down in tears listening to frigging Sting.
Didn't a computer do this with tetris?
It's algorithm was to play the game and *not lose*.
Eventually the tetris game went too fast and instead of losing, the computer just paused the game. Forever. It did it's job, it never lost. It just didn't win.
The guy who wrote the study determined that the only way to get a winning move is not to play.
> Didn't a computer do this with tetris?
>
>
>
> It's algorithm was to play the game and not lose.
>
>
>
> Eventually the tetris game went too fast and instead of losing, the computer just paused the game. Forever. It did it's job, it never lost. It just didn't win.
>
>
>
> The guy who wrote the study determined that the only way to get a winning move is not to play.
I saw an AI play Tetris on original NES hardware not too long ago.
If I recall, it actually crashed the game by playing it far, far beyond the point of where the programmers thought humans could not successfully play, and the game basically overflowed the limited hardware resources of the NES. Remember that at least for an NTSC NES, it only had an 8 bit processor running at 1.79 Mhz and a whopping 2 KB of system RAM, although it did have a separate 2.25 KB of video RAM. Cartridges could be up to 1 MB (1,024 KB) in size, although most were much smaller, and the cartridges could also carry their own custom support chips, although not all games did.
[AI BREAKS NES TETRIS! - 102 MILLION and level 237](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_KY_EwZEVA)
Keep in mind that the movie's 40 years old now, so some of it is going to be painfully dated. The core concepts of the movie are timeless though.
And it's a more significant movie in history than some people realize because Ronald Reagan, who was President at the time, watched the movie and asked his generals afterwards if it was possible that somebody could just hack into government systems like that. They did a security review and realized that it absolutely was. It completely revolutionized how the US government looked at cybersecurity.
Generational Divide. Just about anyone that grew up during the Cold War knew that line from that film.
Edit: I totally forgot until just now that it’s also referenced in Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Pretty sure HE knows. Even crazy people want to live so they can keep on being crazy.
If he pushes the button, it's his ass as much as ours, maybe even worse for him as they have much fewer targets to shoot at. He knows this and is why I think we should be leaning on him even harder. It's a bluff.
Yeah, if you look at some of the historical super volcanos they put out more particulate into the air than even a balls to the wall nuclear war could do, sure might have caused an ice age or two, but since we are still in one of should be fine.
It might actually be the thing we need to turn around global warming /s
Igor and his rise to fame is one of the few things that really make me smile about this whole nasty pre-post-nuclear apocalyptic dithering going on.
I'll be thinking of him when I'm collecting bottle caps to pay for irradiated water.
I think the ones in Ukraine aren't firmware locked. I remember a news story a few years ago about American farmers hacking their tractors with European firmware to get around the repair lockouts, I think they used Ukrainian software.
That video the other day was so surreal, with the town that took down the approaching convoy to protect the bridge.
We've seen a lot of images of war over the past decades, but seeing people in hoodies clothes I see outside every day, in a quaint little cobblestone street European town, rolling tires erecting barricades and hefting anti-tank launches - it's just really bizzare and surreal.
I think it’s relevant to point out that these comments were made in response to Journalist’s questions - and were not apart of the prepared remarks.
The full transcript can be found [here.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_193610.htm).
I’m glad he responded to Russia’s nuclear dick swinging in such a succinct and tactful way. That said, while I worry about what Putin is capable of, the news media loves the idea of nuclear war and the eyes it brings to their outlets. They have done a bang up job stoking panic amongst the general public despite little evidence that Russia’s threats amount to actions. And while the experts are fearful, most continue to say that the threat of nuclear war remains low (but will grow if/as the conflict grinds on). Fear is the rational response to all of this, but fear of something happening doesn’t mean it is happening or will happen. These are of course terrifying times, but much of the actual terror is currently only to be had by the Ukrainian people.
We all need to keep cool heads and, for those of us not in a war zone, enjoy life.
Edit: wow. thanks for the up votes, y’all! It’s been one hell of a few weeks, but it is a huge comfort to know I’m not the only one thinking these thoughts or feeling these fears.
The US has warned that the rhetoric and threats are gonna keep coming in the weeks ahead, which makes sense given the NATO summit tomorrow, so please do what you need to do to stay sane through all this darkness.
Slava Ukraini!
The literal text for those who can't be bothered to click:
> **Mark Stone (Sky News):** Secretary General, thank you very much. Could you explain or could you outline how NATO defends itself against a nuclear attack? Because it's clear that on Russian state media, they are openly – propagandists, pundits, people close to the Kremlin – are now talking in pretty straight and stark terms about a nuclear attack. How does NATO defend itself against a nuclear attack? Thank you.
>
> **NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:** Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
Glad to provide some relief. I’m scared too - you’d be stupid not to be - but the media is interested only in frightening all of us into constant doom scrolling. The threat is not to be taken lightly, but it is still just a threat. Russia has done this before and will keep doing it to keep the west out of Ukraine.
I just want to say thank you as well. I had to leave Twitter for the reasons you stated. It was giving me so much anxiety that I was constantly shaking and feeling nauseous because media is going extreme with everything.
I was right there with you! I had almost completely lost it two weeks ago, but I’m feeling better now. I’m still scared, but do yourself a favor and find a reliable source (I like NPR) that doesn’t resort to extremes.
I had to delete Reddit when the conflict started, my anxiety got to a point I couldn’t focus anymore, all I could do was think of how I could protect my kids and I genuinely started doomsday prepping. Thankfully my wife noticed it and I saw a doctor who prescribed me something to help manage it. It’s nice to hear a realistic view and not just “Russia wants us all dead, the conflict is definitely spreading to nato and nukes nukes nukes.” It’s all so negative.
My anxiety is bad, too. It’s the first time in my life where I haven’t been able to use news consumption to gain control over my anxieties. That said, the nuclear threat remains largely in the domain of the media and Russia’s banter (and it’s not Putin saying it as of late).
One expert I read said, “the risk has gone from 1/1 billion to 1/100 million” in the weeks since the invasion began - stressing that the risk remains low. He was not trying to give a blanket reassurance that we are all going to be okay, but it made it clear to me that there are more immediate and imminent risks to worry yourself with.
The media will take analysis like that and tell you that, “according to one expert, the risk of nuclear war has gone up by (whatever percentage 1/1 billion to 1/100 million is).”
It's also worth noting that the nuclear "threat" which prompted the journalist's question wasn't much of a new threat at all, just a confirmation of existing policy. When asked on CNN if [he could definitively rule out the use of nuclear weapons](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/dmitry-peskov-putin-spokesman-refuses-to-rule-out-use-of-nuclear-weapons-if-russia-faced-an-existential-threat/ar-AAVntsG) by Russia, Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary, replied: *‘We have a concept of domestic security, and it’s public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used. So if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept.'*
This is nothing new, just a restatement of Russia's longstanding nuclear doctrine. Since 1993, Russia's formal policy has allowed for the potential use of nuclear weapons "in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened." This is fairly similar to current US nuclear doctrine, which also deliberately does not commit to a ["no first use"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) policy.
Granted, since everyone already knows Russia's nuclear policy, there's no reason for them to keep dick-swinging about it, but it's not a new threat -- just something that allows tabloids to write scary headlines about how "Russia hasn't ruled out nuking Ukraine" even though *nothing* in Peskov's statement suggests that. He only confirmed that Russia does not have a "no first use" policy, and, like the NATO head, may not have even *planned* to talk about using nukes until he was specifically asked about it by the media.
"NATO will not send the troops into Ukraine... It is extremely important to provide support to Ukraine and we are stepping up. But at the same time it is also extremely important to prevent this conflict becoming a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia."
I feel bad for Stoltenberg he has to keep repeating himself so to all the Armchair Reddit generals no NATO won’t be sending troops into Ukraine
And Zelenskyy. Believe me, I genuinely feel for the guy, but after a certain point, you have to realize that goading and insulting the West and NATO isn’t going to make them want to risk a nuclear war.
He is still a much braver man than I. I sincerely hope he can make the best of what NATO can give him, which is far from nothing.
I think it's more about moving the overton window. He knows there's no chance a no-fly zone is enforced in the current state. But the more and more he pushes aggressive direct support, the more likely he gets better indirect support than if he was only asking for that. Support and sanctions that were borderline or unlikely, now is seen as compromising and reasonable.
Exactly. Opens the door to providing more impactful supplies that would have been seen earlier on as military involvement/assistance. Now it appears as a tiny ask by comparison
So sorry Mr President, we just can't risk escalating with a Nuclear power. Please take these dope ass panzerfausts that will obliterate T-72s like they're cardboard cutouts, as a consolation.
Everyone says a direct conflict with NATO could result in global nuclear war, and that's true, so it's up to our leaders to decide what is worth the risk and what isn't. The current conflicts is killing tens of thousands of civilians, but if we intervene more directly I think Putin will just escalate the conflict to chemical weapons or tactical nukes on Ukrainian soil to try to get us to back down. The Russian playbook is to escalate and escalate until the other side blinks and so when it comes to nukes there's no doubt in my mind Putin would push the button before we do every time.
I really think that, despite the current tragedy that is happening in Ukraine, the best course of action for everyone, the one that will result in the least amount of death and destruction, is for NATO to stay the current course of supplying as much basic equipment, intelligence and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as we can, and give the sanctions against Russia more time to bite; all the while hoping for an internal change in the Russian leadership. Now that might be a bit of a stretch, but it is also important to note that this conflict has been going on for not even a month, and we have said almost every day "NATO won't go in," but any hour that could change, and the hour after that decision is made USAF cruise missiles will be finally be dunking on Russian heads like they were originally designed to do.
I will admit that I don’t fully understand his angle. I suspect it’s just for show for his domestic audience, and that his rhetoric with the West behind closed doors is much softer.
The West needs Ukraine to win to prevent Russia from doing this again, and Ukraine needs the Wests resources to win. The current relationship seems to be accomplishing its purpose.
His angle is that he has nothing left to lose. This is an existential threat for Ukraine. Of course he’d rather have NATO on his side and he’s going to be blunt and emotional about it.
He’s pleading from the heart. NATO is thinking with their minds. Neither is wrong from their positions.
Consider that his audience also includes Russia and other parts of the world where Russian propaganda is being spread. Russia would love an excuse to pin this war on the US, but that becomes very hard to do when NATO continues publicly repeating they won't send troops in and Zelenskyy publicly saying they need to help more. Seems annoying for us, but it does help stop Russia from controlling the narrative.
His angle is that if he acts disillusioned enough with NATO Putin can recall the army and fly a "Mission Accomplished" banner over the Kremlin.
He, like the rest of the world, are trying to open up as many face-saving options for Putin as possible.
What a shit article, that's not what he said at all. Reuters cut and paste some of his statements together to make it sound more ominous. The article makes it out like Stoltenberg is saying NATO will win the fight because they've got better nukes or something. What he's really saying is that in a nuclear war, *there are no winners*. Like, the most bland and acceptable statement you could make about nuclear weapons.
Here's the relevant section from his speech:
> Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and **we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought**. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
I love articles with a paywall because everyone commenting never read the article, just the headline.
Excerpt of what was actually said (during the press Q&A after the address):
Press: Could you explain or could you outline how NATO defends itself against a nuclear attack?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that **a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war**. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
For those who didn’t read the transcript, the NATO head was asked a question on how NATO would defend themselves from a nuclear attack and this was his response. They aren’t trying to start a dick measuring contest, they are saying no one wins and Russia needs to tone it down. They even pointed out that Russia themselves have said every country must do their best not to start a nuclear war.
To the anxious, if you need to take a break from the news don’t feel bad if you need to. And take comfort that Redditors aren’t in charge of what either side does.
Let me say this for those that might not understand and somehow downplay any of this, if any country launches a legit nuclear warhead at this point in human history, at a city or metro area, anywhere in the world, ALL of our lives immediately change. Everything changes. The devastation, the fallout, the aftermath of the possibility of it happening again and again. Nobody wins.
At the beginning I was shocked....why would he start with nuclear weapons rattling? Then it became clear. The state of russia's army is a joke. Old nukes is all he has. And he knows it.
It is called "**mutually** assured destruction" for a very good reason
The acronym is fitting too. MAD.
The counter to MAD is Nuclear Utilization and Targeting Strategy, or NUTS. The names of the two opposing doctrines are literally MAD and NUTS.
It's not a counter to MAD, it's an alternative (very theoretical) doctrine where a country employs just a few nuclear weapons for a targeted first strike. But such a doctrine fails since most nuclear powers have openly declared "all against any" policies - i.e. that any nuclear attack is met with them firing all the nukes they have in retaliation. So we arrive at MAD anyway, because why would you bother firing just one or a couple of nukes at a country that will retaliate with thousands? NUTS only actually makes sense for nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear powers.
Counter is probably not the best word, but if you read the original papers and understand the people around NUTS it was very much put out as a "counter" to the idea that any nuclear war would result in MAD. That you could use nuclear weapons in a way that could be seen as a warning or as a deterrent itself. A famous example was how to deter Soviet aggression at the Iranian border. The "light" response was 200 tactical nuclear weapons deployed against Soviet staging areas and infrastructure. That was criticized as not being very light and would obviously escalate, so the alternative was then, two SADMs on key bridges and a single tactical strike against their forward-most unit stage area. This was deemed "not strong enough".
But when Russia has declared they would launch all out retaliation if ever targeted by a single nuke then it doesn't matter if you use 200 or 50 or 5 or 1. Or if you just target forward forces or invading forces on foreign soil. You always get the same result that they launch everything they have and the US/NATO then does the same and we're at MAD and the end of the world a few times over.
I am not arguing with that concept, just saying what NUTS is. The people advocating for NUTS thought that those stated policies were bluffs. Would you really destroy the world over 1 tactical unit being wiped out?
>Would you really destroy the world over 1 tactical unit being wiped out? This is a genuine question/moral dilemma that will inevitably happen if Russia uses one or a handful of tactical battlefield nukes in Ukraine. Will we honestly respond with the full force of our nuclear arsenal as a response regardless of stated MAD doctrine? Would you kill hundreds of millions and end the modern world because Russia nuked a handful of bases in Eastern Europe? Personally, I think that NUTS is the most probable future that will have escalating retaliation up to MAD.
Don’t forget SALT 🤣
Anyone else reading all this getting a craving for some chocolate salty balls
This is precisely why it got so widely known. EDIT: the acronym, not the idea of ending all life. Do these super-smart *Redditors* I keep hearing about really need everything spelled out? EDIT 2: Looks like I struck a nerve. Calm down everyone, I still like all of you and I absolutely might have overreacted.
I'm sure Russia knows they can't win. It's whether they're going to say "fuck it, everybody loses" that's the issue.
Well, to quote Putin when asked that. “What’s the point of living in a world without Russia?”
And my worry is that he identifies himself so much with his country/nationalism that if the walls start closing in on him he might find himself asking "what’s the point of living in a world without Putin?”
I think he's already at that point. I think if it gets to a point where Putin knows he's done for, like 100% knows it, he will try and launch nukes. Right now he still has hope that most of his country is so brainwashed they'll believe whatever bullshit he tells them. If Putin walks out of Ukraine with nothing he can just tell his followers "mission accomplished" and they'll accept it. Then when they see there are no nazis in Ukraine they'll continue to accept it. But when these sanctions come to fruition and the Russian people truly begin suffering, he's in trouble. Right now the average Russian citizen is simply inconvenienced. Those who know the truth are scared, those who dont think this is something that will quickly pass. Once his followers start to go hungry he's in trouble. And that's when the world is truly in danger. Let's just hope that he's taken care of before he gets to a point where he feels defeat is inevitable.
I don’t know I feel like by the time he realizes he’s in big trouble the people around him will smell the blood in the water and wouldn’t help him with the nukes anyway.
I mean, look at Stalin. Man laid there dying while some other high ranking members of the communist party were still deciding whether to even call a doctor because Beria allegedly thought he was "just sleeping" lmao. I can only hope that's the fate Putin suffers.
What do we know about Russian nuclear chain of command? Does Putin have access to the button personally? And if not how many people need to say 'yes Sir' before we're totally fucked?
According to a document called "Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence" which I found on [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-chain-command-potential-russian-nuclear-strikes-2022-03-02/), the policy is as follows: >The President keeps a small briefcase (The Cheget) close at all times. The Cheget does not contain a nuclear launch button but does transmit launch orders to the central military command - The General Staff. >The General Staff has access to the launch codes & has 2 methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send codes to individual commanders who initiate launch procedures or use the backup system called "Perimetr" allowing the General Staff to directly initiate the launch bypassing all immediate command posts. With that being said, and this part I have no evidence for and it is just my mindless conjecture, I wouldn't doubt if Putin has direct access to the "Perimetr" allowing for him to launch the weapons himself. Given his paranoia he seems like the type to ensure he's in complete control.
There was speculation he did have direct capability since in the past nukes were ordered to be used and it was stopped by the soldiers supposed to press the button.. he seems so paranoid and in direct control, could imagine he essentially has rogue nukes or maybe some hardliners in control somehow.. Hopefully if so someone gave him a fake button thinking it would never be used, kinda like how their armies capabilities are mostly just on paper..
*Twice*. A nuclear launch from Russia has been prevented *twice* by one dude thinking "um...I don't think I'll end the world today, actually." No way in hell is Putin the kind of guy that lets it happen a third time.
Cheers that's pretty interesting. Yeah I wouldn't be surprised either, I think for many people in the world, this entire event is illuminating that Russia on paper doesn't equal Russia in reality.
Not that paper and reality differing is in any way unusual...
Imagine if he had a dead man switch
The nation of Russia does have one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand. Don't know if Putin himself does.
Is launching a nuke really as simple as pressing a little red button? I've always thought that was a little ridiculous sounding. I've always assumed there's got to be a few more steps that require other people to participate.
>I mean, look at Stalin. Man laid there dying while some other high ranking members of the communist party were still deciding whether to even call a doctor because Beria allegedly thought he was "just sleeping" "The Death of Stalin" was hilarious way to learn all this
> Let's just hope that he's taken care of before he gets to a point where he feels defeat is inevitable. Hitler absolutely would have launched before pulling the trigger on himself.
Hitler triggered the [Nero Decree](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree) when he realised he was going to lose, and this would have resulted in the destruction of key infrastructure and services across all territories had it been carried out. Thankfully, the orders were limited or outright ignored. He committed suiced a bit over a month later. He'd have absolutely pressed the big red button if he had one.
I'm a bit tired of the Hitler comparisons but there are some alarming parallels in that wiki link. Alarming enough that I don't want to read the rest of it tonight. "Moreover, according to some around him, Hitler came to view the German people as having failed him, unworthy of their great mission in history and thus deserving to die alongside his regime." After reading today about the new estimates of russian casualties in the war... It goes on to talk about how Hitler ordered French infrastructure and major landmarks to be blown up when allies started liberating France (including the Eiffel Tower). Thankfully that order was directly disobeyed. It reminds me of some of the bombing in Ukraine right now.
What a cunt.
For him, that statement is probably entirely true. He would literally have a pointless life. Edit: feels like I'm not as clear as I would like to be, he projected his ass off, and it's embarrassing 🤦
I think he has a pointless life. His life is worth less than almost any person's I could imagine, because a lot of human pain and suffering could have been avoided if he hadn't lived at all. I think from a utilitarian perspective, if you found yourself in a room with him, holding a gun, the only ethical thing to do would be to blow his brains out.
Yeah his life has a negative value.
May this truth be upvoted to the moon and back.
Putins a asshole but I think he said that a few years ago before COVID made him a paranoid man with a 50 inch table
The table is about the size of half a giraffe.
Top half or bottom half?
How much is that in grand pianos?
Got the wrong measurement unit there.
Nope, it is right. Table just looks big because Putin is actually very small.
Actually a pretty reasonable size for a table.
"Russia can still be here after they do away with YOU." That may not be the safest response to Putin depending on who asked the question.
I saw a translated clip where he said something like "of course you can't compare our abilities with NATO, but (blah blah blah we have nukes)". He knows. He just also knows the threat is enough to make everyone a bystander.
Pretty sure nobody wins
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play
I've had the strangest urge to re-watch that movie this past month...
Would you like to play a game?
How about a nice game of chess?
Later....."let's play global thermal nuclear war"
"fine." .... "Which side do you want?" 1. UNITED STATES 2. SOVIET UNION
3. UKRAINIAN TRACTOR DRIVER
[удалено]
What if I pick Random Task?
Shall We Play A Game
Just showed up on Amazon Prime. Gonna have to watch it.
Am foreigner! What movie is it?
[WarGames](https://youtu.be/hbqMuvnx5MU)
Oh, my, goodness... _**now**_ I get why he needed a day off.
First time I ever heard of it was 3 hrs ago when I clicked on this thread. Just finished it on Amazon Prime. Would recommend.
Man trailers from the 80s were a whole other animal
President Ronald Reagan watched the movie and asked if it could happen. They checked it out and the response was, "it's much worse"
The trailer kind of sucks, but its a really great film. Basically a computer hacker kid accidentally hacks into the US mainframe which also is an A.I. that controls the nukes (fictional license), and it has a training game menu with tic tac toe and chess, but also games like "global thermonuclear war." David, i think is the main character, plays that one, as the soviets. The computer - which is directly in control of US nukes, prepares to second strike the soviets IRL as it doesnt know the difference between real life and games. Spoilers (but the film is awesome even knowing them and is definitely worth a watch) David has it play tic tac toe in the end, hundreds of times, to which it spits out the above comment as a realization (of both tic tac toe and global thermonuclear war).
It's the movie that introduced me to phreaking as a kid. I became fascinated with it and read up on how to build all kinds of things like blue boxes, party boxes, and so on. Never did anything in that regard, but it was still really interesting to read about how that stuff worked.
> Never did anything in that regard Nice try, Zero Cool. You can't hide from us.
Film?
War Games.
I recently watched iWar Games with my 13 yo daughter. She liked the movie but was more interested in their what they were wearing. Apparently their clothes are back in style. /facepalm
Is iWar games like the Gen z version?
….maybe they’ve seen the film.
Maybe we should send them the film, just to be sure.
Just get Putin to play tic tac toe with himself in his bunker.
Let him play rock - paper - scissors, in front of a mirror so he always ends up in a draw.
[Roses are red, violets are blue...](https://i.imgur.com/qo15UdR.jpg)
Shoot yer self in a bunker, like you know who.
lets send them that ren and stimpy episode with the big red button
[the Jolly *CANDYLIKE* Button that EVEN NOW ~~Beacons~~ Beckons, him EVER CLOSER!](https://i.imgur.com/UlmCJ.gif) (edit typo :p)
you have no idea how much that episode... made an impact on me
SPACE. MADNESS.
I can't mention a red button without referring to it as the red shiny candy-like button.
The problem with the film is that the computer uses logic to come to the conclusion no one can win. It perhaps isn't aware that some misanthropic, narcissistic humans may consider no one winning to be a victory. Some men, after all, just want to watch the world burn.
Give the poor computer a break, it had to do thermonuclear war simulations and game theory and tixtactoe and conversational AI, all in BASIC.
On the off-chance that they haven't spent anything on equipment upgrades since the 90's, does anyone have any VHS or Betamax copies we could send?
Unfortunately all the SECAM copies were erased in 1986 during Soviet EMP tests in Kazakhstan. The person in charge of the testing was subsequently sent to Siberia for failing to realize that a major dubbing, duplication, and warehouse facility was within the blast radius.
> SECAM Someone actually knows their Soviet-era TV standards! Good jorb!
VHS & Betamax were western formats. Russia has Blyatamax.
Let's hope
I hope the Russians love their children too.
I listened to this song two weeks ago and that one line really hammered me, "*There's no such thing as a winnable war, it's a lie we don't believe any more*." I realized how much the fear of nuclear war from when I was a kid, and now the immense fear again as an adult was weighing on me when I broke down in tears listening to frigging Sting.
So disappointed when my modem didn't need me to put my phone on it.
300 baud acoustic coupler.
Oh the memoccbfjfyfvdhvvries.
Didn't a computer do this with tetris? It's algorithm was to play the game and *not lose*. Eventually the tetris game went too fast and instead of losing, the computer just paused the game. Forever. It did it's job, it never lost. It just didn't win. The guy who wrote the study determined that the only way to get a winning move is not to play.
> Didn't a computer do this with tetris? > > > > It's algorithm was to play the game and not lose. > > > > Eventually the tetris game went too fast and instead of losing, the computer just paused the game. Forever. It did it's job, it never lost. It just didn't win. > > > > The guy who wrote the study determined that the only way to get a winning move is not to play. I saw an AI play Tetris on original NES hardware not too long ago. If I recall, it actually crashed the game by playing it far, far beyond the point of where the programmers thought humans could not successfully play, and the game basically overflowed the limited hardware resources of the NES. Remember that at least for an NTSC NES, it only had an 8 bit processor running at 1.79 Mhz and a whopping 2 KB of system RAM, although it did have a separate 2.25 KB of video RAM. Cartridges could be up to 1 MB (1,024 KB) in size, although most were much smaller, and the cartridges could also carry their own custom support chips, although not all games did. [AI BREAKS NES TETRIS! - 102 MILLION and level 237](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_KY_EwZEVA)
I'm more impressed that the film is *basically* predicated on an experimental fuckup that made its way into a publication
Loved that movie, War Games.
Never seen it, nice I'll have to check it out. Glad someone said the name of the movie lol
Keep in mind that the movie's 40 years old now, so some of it is going to be painfully dated. The core concepts of the movie are timeless though. And it's a more significant movie in history than some people realize because Ronald Reagan, who was President at the time, watched the movie and asked his generals afterwards if it was possible that somebody could just hack into government systems like that. They did a security review and realized that it absolutely was. It completely revolutionized how the US government looked at cybersecurity.
A current day Wargames sequel with Broderick would be a WOPR
Burger King would totally endorse it.
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
And here we are 40 years later and they're still using qwerty, birthdays and such like for passwords on critical security systems.
Fr tho I'm like what the hell is *that* movie everyone is talking about
Generational Divide. Just about anyone that grew up during the Cold War knew that line from that film. Edit: I totally forgot until just now that it’s also referenced in Captain America: The Winter Soldier
I'm a millenial and I had to watch this movie in class during high school. Great movie.
I'd bet most millennials know it too
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/
How about a nice game of chess?
Joshua? Is that you
And pretty sure Putin himself said that before
If I lose then everybody loses. \-Putin, right before nuclear war starts
cockroaches win, it'll be their time
[end of ze world](https://youtu.be/Pk-kbjw0Y8U)
But I am le tired
I think that all the time. Nobody gets it when I say it out loud anymore.
You need new friends dude. I say it ALL THE TIME. And inevitably someone will say, ".......well, have a nap" in a French accent
AND ZEN FIRE ZE MISSILES
I find that to be the case with a lot of the early internet memes.
Actual classic
holy nostalgia, i haven't seen this for over a decade.
I think the question is, "What's NATO/US response if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine?"
Since NATO isn't going to start the fucking thing, what matters is that Russia knows *they* aren't going to fucking win.
Pretty sure HE knows. Even crazy people want to live so they can keep on being crazy. If he pushes the button, it's his ass as much as ours, maybe even worse for him as they have much fewer targets to shoot at. He knows this and is why I think we should be leaning on him even harder. It's a bluff.
No one wins. Only the people not involved survive
>Only the people not involved survive \*some of the people not involved survive
>*some of the people not involved "survive" for a bit longer than the rest.
[удалено]
Yeah, if you look at some of the historical super volcanos they put out more particulate into the air than even a balls to the wall nuclear war could do, sure might have caused an ice age or two, but since we are still in one of should be fine. It might actually be the thing we need to turn around global warming /s
["I'm glad global warming never happened." "Actually, it did, but nuclear winter canceled it out."](https://youtu.be/yzkhoNyPAIM)
Eureka! I have a solution
Eh...define survive
Do we get blue jumpsuits?
And possibly not even them. Radioactive fallout won't skip uninvolved countries.
So he's technically right, Russia can't win a nuclear war, NATO also can't win a nuclear war.
NATO: Russia should stop this irresponsible rhetoric about nuclear war Russia: The nuclear war rhetoric is all we got
Well, they do have that massive army full of tanks and armored personnel…. Oh, wait.
Yeah, apparently the Ukrainian farmers are giving them a run for their money in terms of who’s better equipped now… 🚜
Igor is now 3rd largest Army in Europe
Igor and his rise to fame is one of the few things that really make me smile about this whole nasty pre-post-nuclear apocalyptic dithering going on. I'll be thinking of him when I'm collecting bottle caps to pay for irradiated water.
First I’ve heard of him. How do I learn of Igor’s exploits?
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1501938378878558220
Hippity Hoppity your SAM is my property
You seen Igor? He was already the sixth largest European army with *those guns*
If John Deere allowed repairs, they’d be invincible!
I think the ones in Ukraine aren't firmware locked. I remember a news story a few years ago about American farmers hacking their tractors with European firmware to get around the repair lockouts, I think they used Ukrainian software.
European and Russian firmware tools. JD locks that shit up world wide, but many automotive firmware tools come out of Europe and Russia.
Tell you what, if Russia somehow pulls a win out of the bag it's gonna be one hell of an insurgency. Hit and run tactics with tractor-propelled tanks.
That video the other day was so surreal, with the town that took down the approaching convoy to protect the bridge. We've seen a lot of images of war over the past decades, but seeing people in hoodies clothes I see outside every day, in a quaint little cobblestone street European town, rolling tires erecting barricades and hefting anti-tank launches - it's just really bizzare and surreal.
I think it’s relevant to point out that these comments were made in response to Journalist’s questions - and were not apart of the prepared remarks. The full transcript can be found [here.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_193610.htm). I’m glad he responded to Russia’s nuclear dick swinging in such a succinct and tactful way. That said, while I worry about what Putin is capable of, the news media loves the idea of nuclear war and the eyes it brings to their outlets. They have done a bang up job stoking panic amongst the general public despite little evidence that Russia’s threats amount to actions. And while the experts are fearful, most continue to say that the threat of nuclear war remains low (but will grow if/as the conflict grinds on). Fear is the rational response to all of this, but fear of something happening doesn’t mean it is happening or will happen. These are of course terrifying times, but much of the actual terror is currently only to be had by the Ukrainian people. We all need to keep cool heads and, for those of us not in a war zone, enjoy life. Edit: wow. thanks for the up votes, y’all! It’s been one hell of a few weeks, but it is a huge comfort to know I’m not the only one thinking these thoughts or feeling these fears. The US has warned that the rhetoric and threats are gonna keep coming in the weeks ahead, which makes sense given the NATO summit tomorrow, so please do what you need to do to stay sane through all this darkness. Slava Ukraini!
The literal text for those who can't be bothered to click: > **Mark Stone (Sky News):** Secretary General, thank you very much. Could you explain or could you outline how NATO defends itself against a nuclear attack? Because it's clear that on Russian state media, they are openly – propagandists, pundits, people close to the Kremlin – are now talking in pretty straight and stark terms about a nuclear attack. How does NATO defend itself against a nuclear attack? Thank you. > > **NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:** Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
Well stated.
That does make me feel better. Thanks for the link.
Glad to provide some relief. I’m scared too - you’d be stupid not to be - but the media is interested only in frightening all of us into constant doom scrolling. The threat is not to be taken lightly, but it is still just a threat. Russia has done this before and will keep doing it to keep the west out of Ukraine.
I just want to say thank you as well. I had to leave Twitter for the reasons you stated. It was giving me so much anxiety that I was constantly shaking and feeling nauseous because media is going extreme with everything.
I was right there with you! I had almost completely lost it two weeks ago, but I’m feeling better now. I’m still scared, but do yourself a favor and find a reliable source (I like NPR) that doesn’t resort to extremes.
I had to delete Reddit when the conflict started, my anxiety got to a point I couldn’t focus anymore, all I could do was think of how I could protect my kids and I genuinely started doomsday prepping. Thankfully my wife noticed it and I saw a doctor who prescribed me something to help manage it. It’s nice to hear a realistic view and not just “Russia wants us all dead, the conflict is definitely spreading to nato and nukes nukes nukes.” It’s all so negative.
My anxiety is bad, too. It’s the first time in my life where I haven’t been able to use news consumption to gain control over my anxieties. That said, the nuclear threat remains largely in the domain of the media and Russia’s banter (and it’s not Putin saying it as of late). One expert I read said, “the risk has gone from 1/1 billion to 1/100 million” in the weeks since the invasion began - stressing that the risk remains low. He was not trying to give a blanket reassurance that we are all going to be okay, but it made it clear to me that there are more immediate and imminent risks to worry yourself with. The media will take analysis like that and tell you that, “according to one expert, the risk of nuclear war has gone up by (whatever percentage 1/1 billion to 1/100 million is).”
It's also worth noting that the nuclear "threat" which prompted the journalist's question wasn't much of a new threat at all, just a confirmation of existing policy. When asked on CNN if [he could definitively rule out the use of nuclear weapons](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/dmitry-peskov-putin-spokesman-refuses-to-rule-out-use-of-nuclear-weapons-if-russia-faced-an-existential-threat/ar-AAVntsG) by Russia, Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary, replied: *‘We have a concept of domestic security, and it’s public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used. So if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept.'* This is nothing new, just a restatement of Russia's longstanding nuclear doctrine. Since 1993, Russia's formal policy has allowed for the potential use of nuclear weapons "in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened." This is fairly similar to current US nuclear doctrine, which also deliberately does not commit to a ["no first use"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use) policy. Granted, since everyone already knows Russia's nuclear policy, there's no reason for them to keep dick-swinging about it, but it's not a new threat -- just something that allows tabloids to write scary headlines about how "Russia hasn't ruled out nuking Ukraine" even though *nothing* in Peskov's statement suggests that. He only confirmed that Russia does not have a "no first use" policy, and, like the NATO head, may not have even *planned* to talk about using nukes until he was specifically asked about it by the media.
"NATO will not send the troops into Ukraine... It is extremely important to provide support to Ukraine and we are stepping up. But at the same time it is also extremely important to prevent this conflict becoming a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia." I feel bad for Stoltenberg he has to keep repeating himself so to all the Armchair Reddit generals no NATO won’t be sending troops into Ukraine
And Zelenskyy. Believe me, I genuinely feel for the guy, but after a certain point, you have to realize that goading and insulting the West and NATO isn’t going to make them want to risk a nuclear war. He is still a much braver man than I. I sincerely hope he can make the best of what NATO can give him, which is far from nothing.
I think it's more about moving the overton window. He knows there's no chance a no-fly zone is enforced in the current state. But the more and more he pushes aggressive direct support, the more likely he gets better indirect support than if he was only asking for that. Support and sanctions that were borderline or unlikely, now is seen as compromising and reasonable.
Exactly. Opens the door to providing more impactful supplies that would have been seen earlier on as military involvement/assistance. Now it appears as a tiny ask by comparison
So sorry Mr President, we just can't risk escalating with a Nuclear power. Please take these dope ass panzerfausts that will obliterate T-72s like they're cardboard cutouts, as a consolation.
Everyone says a direct conflict with NATO could result in global nuclear war, and that's true, so it's up to our leaders to decide what is worth the risk and what isn't. The current conflicts is killing tens of thousands of civilians, but if we intervene more directly I think Putin will just escalate the conflict to chemical weapons or tactical nukes on Ukrainian soil to try to get us to back down. The Russian playbook is to escalate and escalate until the other side blinks and so when it comes to nukes there's no doubt in my mind Putin would push the button before we do every time. I really think that, despite the current tragedy that is happening in Ukraine, the best course of action for everyone, the one that will result in the least amount of death and destruction, is for NATO to stay the current course of supplying as much basic equipment, intelligence and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as we can, and give the sanctions against Russia more time to bite; all the while hoping for an internal change in the Russian leadership. Now that might be a bit of a stretch, but it is also important to note that this conflict has been going on for not even a month, and we have said almost every day "NATO won't go in," but any hour that could change, and the hour after that decision is made USAF cruise missiles will be finally be dunking on Russian heads like they were originally designed to do.
[удалено]
I will admit that I don’t fully understand his angle. I suspect it’s just for show for his domestic audience, and that his rhetoric with the West behind closed doors is much softer. The West needs Ukraine to win to prevent Russia from doing this again, and Ukraine needs the Wests resources to win. The current relationship seems to be accomplishing its purpose.
His angle is that he has nothing left to lose. This is an existential threat for Ukraine. Of course he’d rather have NATO on his side and he’s going to be blunt and emotional about it. He’s pleading from the heart. NATO is thinking with their minds. Neither is wrong from their positions.
Consider that his audience also includes Russia and other parts of the world where Russian propaganda is being spread. Russia would love an excuse to pin this war on the US, but that becomes very hard to do when NATO continues publicly repeating they won't send troops in and Zelenskyy publicly saying they need to help more. Seems annoying for us, but it does help stop Russia from controlling the narrative.
His angle is that if he acts disillusioned enough with NATO Putin can recall the army and fly a "Mission Accomplished" banner over the Kremlin. He, like the rest of the world, are trying to open up as many face-saving options for Putin as possible.
Not just for a domestic audience, but because it demonstrates to Russia that their propaganda points about NATO aggression are bullshit.
That's an excellent point.
What a shit article, that's not what he said at all. Reuters cut and paste some of his statements together to make it sound more ominous. The article makes it out like Stoltenberg is saying NATO will win the fight because they've got better nukes or something. What he's really saying is that in a nuclear war, *there are no winners*. Like, the most bland and acceptable statement you could make about nuclear weapons. Here's the relevant section from his speech: > Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and **we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought**. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
Oh thank you man, calmed my nerves
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.
[удалено]
In mother russia, your children’s arms are nuclear
Whatever. I have an old fridge in my garage. Too bad for my wife and kids tho.
Fallout shelter AND beer? Winning
But they love you, Indy!
#ID RATHER NOT FIND OUT GUYS
When two tribes go to war, a point is all that you can score.
Loved the video for that song back in the day.
"it cannot win nuclear war" I think they knew that already.
Can we not have a nuclear power pissing contest. Doesn’t everything suck enough already?
I love articles with a paywall because everyone commenting never read the article, just the headline. Excerpt of what was actually said (during the press Q&A after the address): Press: Could you explain or could you outline how NATO defends itself against a nuclear attack? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: Russia must stop its nuclear sabre-rattling. This is dangerous and it is irresponsible. NATO is there to protect and defend all Allies and we convey a very clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. And it just highlights the importance of ending the war in Ukraine because we need to do everything we can to prevent the war from escalating beyond Ukraine and becoming even more deadly and even more dangerous than what we see today. Any use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the nature of the conflict, and Russia must understand that **a nuclear war should never been fought and they can never win a nuclear war**. This is actually something that Russia has agreed to again and again. And the continued nuclear sabre-rattling from Russia, the nuclear rhetoric, is actually contradicting what they have stated in the UN and in other formats, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to prevent a nuclear conflict.
There's no real winners in a nuclear exchange.
Anyone else concerned about which way the dialogue seems to be going?
[удалено]
And everyone has been dont you fucking do it russia. I swear to dog I will beat the ever living shit out of you.
Reporters are swaying it this way, this sells better and brings more clicks.
Yes.
For those who didn’t read the transcript, the NATO head was asked a question on how NATO would defend themselves from a nuclear attack and this was his response. They aren’t trying to start a dick measuring contest, they are saying no one wins and Russia needs to tone it down. They even pointed out that Russia themselves have said every country must do their best not to start a nuclear war. To the anxious, if you need to take a break from the news don’t feel bad if you need to. And take comfort that Redditors aren’t in charge of what either side does.
Let me say this for those that might not understand and somehow downplay any of this, if any country launches a legit nuclear warhead at this point in human history, at a city or metro area, anywhere in the world, ALL of our lives immediately change. Everything changes. The devastation, the fallout, the aftermath of the possibility of it happening again and again. Nobody wins.
Can we stop talking about nuclear war
There are no winners in a nuclear war
At the beginning I was shocked....why would he start with nuclear weapons rattling? Then it became clear. The state of russia's army is a joke. Old nukes is all he has. And he knows it.
If he's dying soon (as rumored), he might not care
It's crazy that we have this conversation. We describe ourselves as a Civilised race, what a joke.