You're saying you believe the response to Russia dropping a nuke on Ukraine would itself be nuclear in nature? There's no way anyone would do that, it would trigger a nuclear WWIII. No nuclear power (Russia or the others) would just sit by and let a nuke get dropped on their own head. They would immediately escalate back.
That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it.
The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this equilibrium and must then be disarmed.
Multilateral escalation ensues as a logic step. There’s no WWIII because this happens and is « settled » in a matter of a few hours.
Don’t want it to happen? Don’t ever use a nuclear weapon. Simple as that.
I still don't follow why the first response has to be nuclear. You could respond conventionally, and if another nuke gets used 1-2 more times, then escalate. You can get the point across without actually responding in kind the first time.
Because it’s a matter of both time (if you don’t react definitely, that means that you may have the weapons but not the discipline to use it, so no credibility), and deterrence (conventional destruction is not a deterrent in this case, and you will only refrain from using your nukes if your are confident that the response will be more nukes towards you - in which case, your initial military objective is void, because the consequence of your action is that you don’t exist anymore).
I'm sorry, I still don't follow. Both of those just sound incorrect on their face.
> if you don’t react definitely, that means that you may have the weapons but not the discipline to use it, so no credibility
You can react "definitely" with conventional weapons. I don't get it. If for some reason you really think they won't get the message that your threat is credible, you could even run a nuclear test somewhere. I see no reason why you have to perform a nuclear attack here.
> conventional destruction is not a deterrent in this case
Sure it is. Destroying/disabling your enemy's nuclear facilities would jeopardize their security, no matter how it's done -- which is absolutely a deterrent. If anything, doing so with conventional weapons should make your enemy worry more, not less.
> and you will only refrain from using your nukes if your are confident that the response will be more nukes towards you - in which case, your initial military objective is void, because the consequence of your action is that you don’t exist anymore
> I see no reason why you have to perform a nuclear attack here.
You reason like a person here, not as a state.
It’s not a matter of life and death for a few single individuals in a triangle. It is of millions of individuals at once, and whole countries.
You do not want to leave the option of a potential other nuclear attack, the scale of the damage is nothing comparable. You do not want the statu quo to be broken, to have been broken. The fact is was shows that the state in front of you (which triggered the initial nuke) effectively lost its sound mind. There is a single solution to that, however brutal it is. And that’s the perspective of this single solution that is at the core of the deterrence: if you shoot, you have the absolute guarantee that you’ll be dead in return. So you don’t shoot.
If there is no such guarantee of retaliation, you have no incentive not to use it.
> It’s not a matter of life and death for a few single individuals in a triangle. It is of millions of individuals at once, and whole countries.
OK, I think this is why we disagree -- because this isn't the scenario I was positing. I was thinking of a case where a "small" (tactical) nuke would get dropped during battle on military forces, to get them to stop fighting. Not a strategic nuke in a population center actually trying to kill millions of people. Those will provoke very different responses in my mind, and I don't think the strategic case is likely. The tactical case is what I'm not so sure Russia will shy away from.
It’s been made very clear to them by the OTAN (https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_192648.htm?selecte... ) that it was the red line before a « fundamentally change the nature of the conflict ». That’s the diplomatic way to say: you want to nuke? Just try it, something might happen to you, fast.
China also discouraged Russia to use it, even small ones.
The OTAN capacity may seem reduced without the USA, but escalation is very much more likely since Europeans realize/accept that Russia only speaks/understands « strong language ». They got the memo several times from the US that appeasement seems not to be a working response at this time.
> It’s been made very clear to them by the OTAN that it was the red line before a «fundamentally change the nature of the conflict».
"Fundamental change in the nature of the conflict" sounds to me more like "you will now be fighting NATO", not "NATO will immediately retaliate with its own nuclear weapons." And even if they did mean what you're saying, I don't see NATO or any member following through with this.
To be clear, I don't think anyone's use of nuclear weapons is likely. I'm just saying that if Russia ends up in a situation where its only avenue for "winning" ends up being the use of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually uses one.
Note that NATO talks about the « nature », not the « scope » or region of the conflict.
I don’t think nuclear is likely either. Because of the deterrence.
But again, if Russia thinks its only way of winning is firing a nuke, I do believe they will not have the time to be disappointed about their miscalculation.
Because the retaliation is a no-brainer (and again, the scenarios have been discussed and examined for decades, and the procedures are all ready to run).
It will not be about only Russia/Ukraine or Russia/NATO afterwise but about the whole world doctrine on nuclear arsenals and their use.
