▲ 202 ▼ US says Russia’s advance on Kharkiv is ‘all but over’ (thehill.com) submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Unlikely. There's kind of only two hard-and-fast rules for nuclear war: Never strike first. Never strike a non-nuclear enemy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Russia were to strike Ukraine with a nuclear bomb, first and foremost that puts every nation on a knife's edge globally... someone else with an itchy trigger finger could launch against Russia in the confusing hours afterwards. Next up, the PRC and India would likely abandoned Russia as waves of condemnation would flood the global media. Finally, the whole goal of the war is to take Ukraine, not to make it uninhabitable... why nuke what you want to own? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago "if I can't have it, no one can!" smashes all the toys before going home permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nukes don't have to leave behind radiation and make an area uninhabitable anymore. Those were the "Dirty" fission bombs. Fusion bombs are considered more clean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, more clean but not completely... this is not to mention the amount of damage caused by the bomb. Striking Kiev or another city would effectively decimate Ukraine's infrastructure and economy for decades. If the goal of the war is to subjugate, you don't want to be in the hook for all those repairs. A nuke on any of Ukraine's cities would make that dam break last year look like nothing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago FYI the United States has always maintained a first-strike policy as official nuclear doctrine. There is no language restricting nuclear weapons to just nuclear retaliation. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Spotlight/2022/NDS/NUCLEAR%20STRATEGY%20AND%20POLICY%20-%20NPR%20Factsheet.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Russia were to strike Ukraine with a nuclear bomb, first and foremost that puts every nation on a knife's edge globally... someone else with an itchy trigger finger could launch against Russia in the confusing hours afterwards. Next up, the PRC and India would likely abandoned Russia as waves of condemnation would flood the global media. Finally, the whole goal of the war is to take Ukraine, not to make it uninhabitable... why nuke what you want to own? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago "if I can't have it, no one can!" smashes all the toys before going home permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nukes don't have to leave behind radiation and make an area uninhabitable anymore. Those were the "Dirty" fission bombs. Fusion bombs are considered more clean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, more clean but not completely... this is not to mention the amount of damage caused by the bomb. Striking Kiev or another city would effectively decimate Ukraine's infrastructure and economy for decades. If the goal of the war is to subjugate, you don't want to be in the hook for all those repairs. A nuke on any of Ukraine's cities would make that dam break last year look like nothing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago "if I can't have it, no one can!" smashes all the toys before going home permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SuspiciousCatThing@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nukes don't have to leave behind radiation and make an area uninhabitable anymore. Those were the "Dirty" fission bombs. Fusion bombs are considered more clean. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, more clean but not completely... this is not to mention the amount of damage caused by the bomb. Striking Kiev or another city would effectively decimate Ukraine's infrastructure and economy for decades. If the goal of the war is to subjugate, you don't want to be in the hook for all those repairs. A nuke on any of Ukraine's cities would make that dam break last year look like nothing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah, more clean but not completely... this is not to mention the amount of damage caused by the bomb. Striking Kiev or another city would effectively decimate Ukraine's infrastructure and economy for decades. If the goal of the war is to subjugate, you don't want to be in the hook for all those repairs. A nuke on any of Ukraine's cities would make that dam break last year look like nothing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago FYI the United States has always maintained a first-strike policy as official nuclear doctrine. There is no language restricting nuclear weapons to just nuclear retaliation. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Spotlight/2022/NDS/NUCLEAR%20STRATEGY%20AND%20POLICY%20-%20NPR%20Factsheet.pdf permalink fedilink source parent