Is MAD logic at risk of failing?

[lucklucky]

Some of discourse by British Government in relation to Ukraine seems to think that using Nukes in this crisis is inconceivable. But they seem to base that judgment clearly  on own bias.

Are we entering an era where MAD fails because using Nukes cannot be conceivable, something so distant, so outlandish, that actors start to act like if it is impossible making the whole MAD logic collapse. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by lucklucky

[Roman Alymov]

21 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Some of discourse by British Government in relation to Ukraine seems to think that using Nukes in this crisis is inconceivable. But they seem to base that judgment clearly  on own bias.

Are we entering an era where MAD fails because using Nukes cannot be conceivable, something so distant, so outlandish, that actors start to act like if it is impossible making the whole MAD logic collapse. 

Not sure if it helps, but below is the recent interview with pro-Ukrainian expert who insists nules are paper tiger ("toy sword" in his words) and only not used because Russia is affraid to demonstrate that it is no more nuclear-capable

 

Noods like this are quite often among pro-Ukrainian experts.

[RETAC21]

26 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Some of discourse by British Government in relation to Ukraine seems to think that using Nukes in this crisis is inconceivable. But they seem to base that judgment clearly  on own bias.

Are we entering an era where MAD fails because using Nukes cannot be conceivable, something so distant, so outlandish, that actors start to act like if it is impossible making the whole MAD logic collapse. 

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy, they are not "usable" unless a power has an overwhelming superiority over the target as even a minimal response is devastating, so the UK's nuclear weapons are useful only when UK's national interests are at extreme risk. Ukraine doesn't fall there.

And MAD was dead by the early 60s, when the US switched to flexible response due to the USSR building up a capability to hit CONUS, at which point they didn't felt the need to exchange Paris for New York.

[TrustMe]

If a NATO nation's armed forces intervenes in Ukraine military. I'm 100% certain that Russia will drop the bomb on them.

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

If a NATO nation's armed forces intervenes in Ukraine military. I'm 100% certain that Russia will drop the bomb on them.

I doubt so, doing so will allow a retaliation that will undercut the Russian deterrent forever (like losing their SSBNs). No nuclear power can affford to be perceived as unstable (not even North Korea) by using nukes just to make a point.

[TrustMe]

I disagree. In a war with nuclear armed foe's, which ever side is loosing will deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the side that's winning. In Ukraine, neither NATO or Russian will care as the device will be not dropped on their terrority.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Why do you assume NATO would use tactical weapons in Ukraine?

If Russia is using nuclear weapons, either we will use them in Theatre level targets in Russia, or reciprocate conventionally doing the same.

[Josh]

Alternatively Belarus might make a suitable surrogate.

Russia has publicized a escalate-to-deescalate strategy previously; it wouldn't shock me if they are seriously considering first use if NATO gets directly involved or Ukraine starts to gain ground on them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Escalate to deescalate proposed demonstrative use, but not necessarily on a military target. Or such is the impression I've gotten. Possibly an open air test, possibly a use on an uninhabited location. Snake Island comes to mind.

It makes no sense for NATO to get into a tactical exchange. I think Russia has a couple of thousand tactical weapons (admittedly most of the delivery systems have been used up). NATO has a stockpile of 200. We would be fools to do that kind of fight, when we have had the ability to strike such targets conventionally once the 1980s.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[lucklucky]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy, they are not "usable" unless a power has an overwhelming superiority over the target as even a minimal response is devastating, so the UK's nuclear weapons are useful only when UK's national interests are at extreme risk. Ukraine doesn't fall there.

My point is that the UK thinks that Ukraine does not mean their utmost interests are at risk so a nuclear war is inconceivable and mirror that view to Putin interests.

What if Putin make a demonstration. lets say explode a nuke in North Sea?

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by lucklucky

[TrustMe]

50 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why do you assume NATO would use tactical weapons in Ukraine?

If Russia is using nuclear weapons, either we will use them in Theatre level targets in Russia, or reciprocate conventionally doing the same.

I never said that. What I said was that in a NATO / Russia war in Ukraine, whichever side is loosing will drop the bomb first.

[KV7]

8 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I never said that. What I said was that in a NATO / Russia war in Ukraine, whichever side is loosing will drop the bomb first.

It makes some sense as continued strong conventional losses probably will raise their use anyway, so perhaps it is better to do it earlier. But more likely is that some red line will be placed or calls for a ceasefire will be made with a nuclear threat, and if little is at stake for the attacker, then that would likely work.

Tactical nuclear use on one's own territory would have a lower bar for deployment, because the risk of retaliation would be lower.

[RETAC21]

12 hours ago, lucklucky said:

My point is that the UK thinks that Ukraine does not mean their utmost interests are at risk so a nuclear war is inconceivable and mirror that view to Putin interests.

What if Putin make a demonstration. lets say explode a nuke in North Sea?

 

Then, the second part of my post becomes relevant, as Russia has trespassed the threshold for no good reason, every nuclear power will feel their right to deprive Russia of nuclear weapons by conventional means. The first, covert, step would be to sink Russia's SSBN and eliminate the second strike capability, which should be doable within a very short period of time for the US/UK.

[lucklucky]

That will make sure Russia will send a full nuke attack then. I don't see how you could do a "covert" attack to all SSBN's.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I never said that. What I said was that in a NATO / Russia war in Ukraine, whichever side is loosing will drop the bomb first.

Well NATO wont, because as Ive said, it would be inviting a form of warfare at which its outclassed, before the first bomb gets dropped. That and we would be made pariahs, as I mention below.

Russia certainly might, but its unlikely to do so without the preamble mentioned above. They dont actually WANT to fight a nuclear war, just make a realistic case they are going to. Which to me suggests they view them as much political weapons as we do.

As RETAC says, there are enough conventional capablities in the NATO arsenal to go after their delivery systems, without having to resort to kind. There was in fact a recent debate in the DOD over this, where supposedly the generals were all bullish to go nuclear, just as their cold war predecessors were. And one academic pointed out, probably rightly in my view, that the world would be so changed politically by a nuclear weapon use, there would be no need to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. We could just go all in on our conventional systems and keep the high moral ground.

If you are the Irans or North Koreas of this world, that would be actually more scary than the threat to go nuclear, which western nations are increasingly hobbled to only use in response. Conventionally of course, you can just go first, as we saw in iraq. It might be politically contentious, but you dont end up becoming a pariah that using a nuclear weapon first would make you.

[seahawk]

NATO always had a strategy of attacking innocent countries.

Edited April 28, 2022 by seahawk

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

NATO always had a strategy of attacking innocent countries.

Of course not. It is one of the few military powers in history that has never used false flags as excuses to attack other countries, regardless of their evil acts.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://player.fm/series/angry-planet/will-there-be-a-nuclear-war

When it comes to U.S.-Russia relations, everything old is new again. Russia and the West are separating. Fast. For those of us who were alive in the 1980s, it all feels bracingly familiar. That includes, especially, nuclear saber rattling. Putin, the Duman, and Russian TV feel like they’ve gone out of their way to remind the rest of the world: hey, we’ve got nukes.

But how likely is the possibility of nuclear war, really? And what are Russia’s nuclear capabilities exactly?

Here to help us answer those questions is Emma Claire Foley. Foley is an Associate Partner for Research & Policy at Global Zero, an organization working to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons.

[RETAC21]

On 4/28/2022 at 9:59 AM, lucklucky said:

That will make sure Russia will send a full nuke attack then. I don't see how you could do a "covert" attack to all SSBN's.

It is deniable by its very nature, the submarine stops responding, is it an accident? has it been sunk? all the US/UK needs to do is shut up. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Although the problem with that theory is, when the Kursk sank, the Russian Navy's default mode was 'The Americans did it!'.

That said, they dont have that many launchers. An estimate on the programme I linked suggests something like 300, which I guess includes land and sea based. If you only take out the SSBN's, though a mixture of 'accidental' sinkings, and maybe even an airstrike against major Russian Naval bases (I personally doubt they practice launching tied up at the quay as the Soviets did), then you could do a serious attrition on the nuclear projection capablities.

Unfortunately that still leaves a considerable tactical stockpile. Which is easier to get at, but seemingly rather more numerous.

[lucklucky]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

It is deniable by its very nature, the submarine stops responding, is it an accident? has it been sunk? all the US/UK needs to do is shut up. 

Submarines can send messages that are being engaged, plus if a couple of submarine suddenly stop responding no way Russia will think it will be simultaneous accidents.

[RETAC21]

23 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Submarines can send messages that are being engaged, plus if a couple of submarine suddenly stop responding no way Russia will think it will be simultaneous accidents.

And how would they be sure enough? particularly as it would show that the US means business and the second strike capability is gone. Russia would suicide on a hunch? me think not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It depends how good their communications is. From what ive read about whats happened to their doomsday planes being pilfered by looters, there is a lot of reason to suspect quite a lot of their communications capablities, particularly in a crisis, may well be threadbare.

How often do their boats check in? How viable is it for them to send a message if they get ambushed? Have their communications systems, land or space base, been atritted? Its all dependent on circumstance.

[lucklucky]

Any submarine can launch a coms buoy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well Im pretty sure the Golf that sank off Hawaii would have had one. It didnt deploy. If you get surprised, there is no guarantee they are getting launched.

During the cold war, British boats (im sure American boats were doing the same thing) got in the Soviet boats baffles, couple of hundred metres back. Yes, it made for a fairly safe place to shadow from where they would never be picked up. But equally British ASW torpedos were pretty crap. They regularly practiced that capablity to be able to rapidly drop a Soviet submarine with no misses. It was so close that it would hit before the torpedo was detected, no chance to accelerate out of danger.

Considering most of the Russian missile boats are still Delta IV's, that might still workable. Our boats have got quieter, I doubt very much whether their sonar has improved enough to keep up with it, particularly on boats that old.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith