Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday signed a revised nuclear doctrine declaring that a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country.

The signing of the doctrine, which says that any massive aerial attack on Russia could trigger a nuclear response, reflects Putin’s readiness to threaten use of the country’s nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow presses a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm from the only country that has ever dropped a nuke in anger. I bear some of the weight of that. It's real to me.

Everyone knows Russia is just posturing, but it still personally offends me on a moral level.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

They aren't though. They can drop a few nukes without suffering nuclear retaliation. Any nukes fired at Russia automatically triggers a full scale Russian launch.

So while Russia could nuke others, others cannot nuke Russia, not without triggering the end of the world.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You know the US also has a launch on wanting policy.

If any of the billion dollar spy satellites see an ICBM launch that’s even vaguely going towards the US, we launch an overwhelming response.

Russia isn’t going to drop a few nukes and waltz away, because the US has the same system or better in place already. Especially if Russia hits a nato country, we’re all gonna die due to MAD. One bomb breaks MAD.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

The US does not have a launch-on-warning system in place.

while the United States maintains the capability to launch nuclear forces under conditions of an ongoing nuclear attack, it does not rely on a launch-under-attack policy to ensure a credible response. Rather, U.S. nuclear forces are postured to withstand an initial attack. In all cases, the United States will maintain a human “in the loop” for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President to initiate and terminate nuclear weapon employment.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.pdf

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The US absolutely has a missile warning system

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yes thank you. What I said was that our warning system is not our trigger. Our triggers have people pulling them. I went back and hyphenated it properly for you.

Unlike Russian nuclear policy in this regard, known a Dead Hand aka Permitr, where the warning system is also the trigger.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 1 points 5 days ago

Heard makes sense now. I only browse stoned lol

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just because it’s not mechanically automatic, does not mean it’s not a launch on warning system.

The key phrase there is “it does not rely on a launch-under-attack policy to ensure credible defense”

If the US detects a ICBM launch, it will launch a response. It does not matter if the thing that presses the button is a person or an automated program.

Launch on warning just means a country won’t physically absorb a nuclear strike before launching, but will launch if an enemy launch is detected. It has nothing to do with automatic launch systems.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Oh I see what you're saying, I thought the term was more literal than you're suggesting.

I suppose the US president could launch a retaliatory strike based on a first strike that is still in the air, which is launch on warning, but the policy is to wait for a first strike and then have the president issue an order.

My understaning of launch on warning is any policy with no discretion, based on standing orders, not that it was necessarily strictly computer automated. The US policy is "hair trigger alert" which means that the strike systems are constantly in ready state, awaiting a valid order.

All I mean to say is that this is unlike the Russian system, which upon detecting an incoming missile issues valid, pre-approved orders to launch, with perhaps a human needed only to turn the key, but with no built in discretion once the pre-approved order is authenticated. The US does not have pre-approved launch orders.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Bold of you to assume Russia can nuke anybody. Putin would have to do a lot of talking to explain why they had to nuke Ukraine when the war is going sooo great according to all the state media. He isn't invincible even in Moscow. And if they hit anyone else, then it's pretty much all over but the crying for all of us.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate this comment because it's the one thing that might stop Russia. It's not going to be nuclear deterrence, it's going to be internal and external pressure.

I don't trust Putin to be rational though and neither should anyone else.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Kinda it. He's set up his government to operate like an organized crime syndicate, so our best hope at the moment is to weaken them by degrees and wait for a more risk-averse (or at least more realistic) power player to usurp him.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think counting on a coconspirator to become rational and brave is a hope. He's president for life though and lives in a literal villain lair. Miles of impassible mountains with one way in patrolled by heat seaking drones and all matter of radio and seismic sensors, and an frigid ocean patrolled by everything up to nuclear submarines on the other. I'd put about as much faith in it as I would waiting around for natural causes or a jilted lover, a disgruntled chef, or whatever dumb luck might bring the world closer to peace.

To add to this, I think Russia has already committed to losing at least ten million people if hot war breaks out, and for Putin that would be like no big deal if it got him a good enough strategic advantage, whether it's pushing back NATO or undermining democracy. That is to say, I hope it won't take an utter humanitarian catastrophe to rock Putin's goons hard enough to turn on him.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Agreeing again - all we have is hopes at this point, as far as I can see.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

Maybe the end of a bunch of capitol cities

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (3 children)

To be honest it's worse than that. Japan was already moving towards a ceasefire and looking to exit the war when we dropped the bomb. It was posturing, specifically against Russia that we dropped those two bombs.

We dropped those two bombs on Japan to justify the cost of the program and to showcase our new weapon that would project power and create a new US hegemony.

Here's a great interview about it. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1193189051/looking-back-at-the-decision-to-drop-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 18 points 5 days ago

That's a very one-sided take on why the 2 bombs were dropped. Far more significant is that the Potsdam ultimatum had still not been publicly acknowledged let alone officially accepted and that Japanese resistance was significantly increasing every km closer the allies got to the Japanese mainland despite almost every city already being levelled due to prior bombing campaigns.

The Japanese government wasn't working towards a ceasefire. It was split evenly for vs against surrender and the Hawks attempted a coup even after the bombs were dropped.

Saving American lives (and Japanese lives in the aggregate) was the foremost reason they were dropped. and fixating on tertiary bonus goals is disinformation when the whole situation is considered.

[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan six days earlier. The bombs were meant to send a strong message to the Soviets and prevent them from taking Japan.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 7 points 5 days ago

Really not true. Minutes were taken during meetings where these decisions were made and it's possible to see what people actually were thinking and saying rather than speculating.

That being said, the firebombing of Dresden was absolutely as a warning to the Soviets. The RAF put out a memo saying that they "want to show the Soviets what Bomber Command can do."

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Oh I know. It's a centerpiece national shame among a wide collection.