What's the correct response if Russia launches a tactical nuclear warhead at a Polish military base without escalating to nuclear Armageddon?

They should try and talk to Putin which will probably work or go in Russia and attack. These may not work though.

They tried to talk to Putin to convince him to not invade Ukraine. Did not work.
Trying to talk to Putin after he nukes a NATO country? Definitely not going to work. If anything, it would give him the green light to use some more nukes, since he may start to think that all that he would get in response is finger-wagging.

Also, “tactical” nukes have yields starting at Hiroshima/Nakasaki levels. Civilian casualties will not be “minimal”.

@ragingloli There have been smaller ones than that. For example the “W25”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead) which is 1/10th the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Not sure exactly what Russia’s Tactical Nuclear arsenal is today though.

What do you think are the correct responses for scenarios A & B assuming there was a low-yield mini-nuke?

It’s probably clearly spelled out in the rules of Nato. Since Poland is part of Nato, the rules would be clear.

Don’t respond in kind.

We should respond not in kindness but in rage.

The correct response? To begin with, Russia should certainly be capable of destroying a Polish military facility without reverting to a nuclear solution; and in the event that this is not the case—if the Russians are so desperate as to employ the nuclear option, we are all probably doomed. That is the perspective to consider regarding the current conflict. Just how important is Ukraine in the mind of Putin? And to extrapolate further, if Putin has indeed bitten off more than he can chew, what prevents him from tripping that nuclear switch?

@HP The idea (from Putin’s perspective) behind such a strike would be to divide NATO. Poland gets nuked, and expects the NATO calvary to come, but other NATO countries are (understandably) afraid of triggering global thermonuclear war. There’s a rift in NATO as to how to proceed. Article 5 gets stretched to the breaking point and NATO collapses or fractures as a result.

I have no idea if that’s a reasonable take, or how realistic that scenario is from Putin’s position, but that’s the context behind the hypothetical—as I understood it. It’s not that the nuke is required to achieve the destruction of the target, but that the nuke is being used in brinksmanship to break NATO’s cohesion.

Best response is to call Putin’s psychiatrist to get him put in a strait jacket.

While there are 3 NATO members known to possess operational tactical nukes, it is more or less assuredly an American weapon which will be utilized by American troops under fully American command and control. This is no secret. It also makes sense that France in particular and Britain as well, for obvious reasons, might be be more resistant to the idea of detonating a nuke in Europe. I still insist that regardless of the outcome concerning the current conflict, Putin has achieved his primary aim of severing Ukraine from prospects of both EU and NATO membership ambitions.

The rules and procedures are in place. The US would likely not respond in kind.
It would however send a barrage of cruise, short range, and long range ballistic missiles armed with thermobaric and kinetic energy bunker busting bombs with enough firepower to rattle the windows in Kansas.
Nukes are unofficially kept in reserve in case something lands in the US.

It would be a big mistake for anyone to outright attack a NATO country.

Speaking of outright attacking a NATO country. Have you noticed how they have stepped up cyber attacks on your computer systems? More scams, more port scans, more false log in attempts, etc.
Harden your systems. Keep up with the latest security updates. Turn off your systems when you’re not using them. Don’t open attachments unless you expect them.

@LuckyGuy Great answer. Do you think the response would be different if the Russian mini-nuke was intercepted and destroyed vs. actually hitting its target?

I am not even going to waste my thoughts on a hypothetical question like this. Thinking this way at this point is not something we should focus on. The humanitarian efforts are what is needed currently.

@LuckyGuy – I’m getting a lot more “follow requests” from strangers via LinkedIn and Twitter. Most have very few followers.

@gorillapaws. Sadly, the answer is no. The response would be the same.

Remember, 70 – 80% of the incoming would likely be intercepted. That still leaves a remainder packing a horrendous amount of destruction.
The only way to stop this mess is to stop Putrid. He knows he’s a target. That’s why he has to wear a larger and puffier coat to hide his body armor.

@RocketGuy Absolutely. Many more Linked in requests, Many more RFQs. Many more spoofed emails. Note they are originating in the US! That is to limit NSA’s reach..

My correct response is to excuse myself, leave the room, and try to find a decent wine and some good sex for my last hours and days.

The hard thing about answering a question like this is that there’s no reasonable answer that anyone can research and recommend just by learning some new facts. Wars happen when rational problem solving fails, and nuclear “deterence” is really based on the odds of insane action.

So when you try to focus what you ask by saying ”...without escalating to nuclear Armageddon”, my brain stops. What we’ve all learned and had to live with is that most of our military & political “leaders” believe that without willingingness to respond “in kind” to a nuclear strike, deterrence fails and escalation is inevitable. But by retaliating we then guarantee more in kind attacks.

As far as I know, none of the strategic thinkers who game any of these scenarios out ever resolve the built in dilemma of a nuclear battlefield – You can’t really be sane if you want an enemy to recognize danger, but if you’re crazy where are your own limits?

A no-fly zone should be established. Putin said that this would permit the use of nuclear weapons, but he will have taken this step on his own.

@LostInParadise Putin has ignored most agreements. If there is a no fly zone he may at first not have any planes or missiles until a certain point when he decides to ignore it no matter what other countries are doing.

The issue with a “no fly zone”, is that it would mean war with Russia.
It is not just NATO saying ‘you can not fly here’, while wagging their finger
A “no-fly zone” means establishing air supremacy over Ukraine, removing all enemy aicraft from Ukrainian Airspace, and removing all threats to allied aircraft in Ukrainian airspace.
It means NATO would have to:
– actively shoot down Russian aircraft and helicopters over Ukraine.
– actively seek out and destroy Russian anti-air units in Ukraine.
– because anti-aircraft systems can have effective ranges of several hundred kilometers, they would have to destroy anti-aircraft systems within Russian and Belarusian territory.
– because enemy aircraft have missiles, they would have to shoot down Russian aircraft in Russian and Belarusian airspace.

Exactly, @ragingloli, which is why many say that establishing a no fly zone would be WW3. So many people don’t seem to comprehend that.

And I am saying that use of nuclear weapons would also signal the start of WW3

I don’t want WWIII so we should not use a no-fly zone other wise that could start up a world war.

If NATO shoots down Russian aircraft, things will escalate.

@RocketGuy you are dead right on that. But things will start escalating quicker then the news can get a single story.

@LostInParadise: I don’t disagree with you.

@LostInParadise I don’t disagree with you either. I’m the same as @jca2.

I guess what I’m really asking is if Russia decides to strike a NATO military target with a mini nuke, is the extinction of the human race the only outcome? Or is there a non-nuclear response of sufficient magnitude to deter future nuclear strikes by Russia without triggering the end of the world?

Again, this comes down to Ukraine’s importance to NATO against it’s importance to Russia. Putin clearly believes the country’s threatened change of orbit from Russia to the West a matter worthy of risking his country’s economic viability as well as his own political destiny as its leader. This is a war neither he nor his country can possibly afford, and for all his faults, there is no way in hell he might be unaware of this. This situation should be viewed without sentiment or slogans for what it is. Short of his nukes, there is no actual comparison to be made between Russia and NATO or Russia and the United States. There isn’t a single aspect of Russia that hasn’t markedly trailed the West since the 70s, and the country can anticipate little else than continue its steady decline as a power on the world stage. Putin just viewed (correctly) that the transfer of Ukraine to Western hegemony was beyond that steady decline of his country, it would be instead abrupt and undisguised catastrophe. In truth both he and Russia have more to lose than we and NATO can ever reasonably claim in this, and the Eastern expansion of NATO sparked Putin to act. This may well be his destruction, and this may be exactly what his detractors dream about, his rein at an end. But that ignores the question—then what? I still insist that we should have seen this coming and guaranteed neutrality to former Soviet Republics. They would surely integrate economically with the West minus NATO membership simply because that’s where the money is.

@HP Nothing has changed or could change Russia’s orbit more than Putin. While he’s been in charge Russia has gone from a democracy to an Orwellian dictatorship. Ukraine never wanted to be part of a “Western hegemony”, it just wanted to be itself. It certainly doesn’t want to become a part of Russia, and it has been making that very clear. Putin has no claim to it, nor does NATO, which is simply a mutual defence pact and not some sort of neo colonial enterprise.

Ukraine’s neutrality was guaranteed by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. That Russia under Putin can’t keep to its word anymore is no longer a surprise.

@HP This conflict is ultimate about the huge natural gas reserves discovered in Ukraine and offshore about a decade ago. Russia doesn’t want a second petrostate competing with it and allied with the west economically. But we’re drifting off topic.

No. You’re right on point. It’s just another of the reasons Ukraine is vital to Russia’s viability. Not only is Ukraine’s recent gas field jackpot a direct threat to Russia’s continental monopoly, the Russians are currently saddled with several billion dollars of tolls paid annually to Ukraine for pipeline transit of Russian gas through Ukraine to Western nations. The pipelines and infrastrucure date back to Soviet days and were a product of that Union. Those gas and petroleum revenues are in large part the reason Russia persists. It is the primary source of financing for the government and enrichment of the oligarchs. After all, the people have no money to pay taxes. But even more critical to the country is again Ukraine’s indispensable access to Crimea and the Black sea. There are more reasons why Ukraine has for hundreds of years been essential to Russia than you can shake a stick at. And if Americans believe Putin a crazy bully for apparently punishing Ukraine without reason, they should pause for a moment and consider Cuba and our intransigence regarding its self determination. There is nothing essential about the place regarding our national interest. Our boot stands on the island’s neck simply because it’s next door. Ukraine, like Cuba is a victim of its geography.