US responses if Putin uses nuclear weapons
Is developing contingency plans for the Russian and Ukraine war.
Including the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons also the possibility of what one source described as a nuclear display that would be something short of a nuclear strike.
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military fails. Also, the former Deputy Director for Plans and Strategy at the US encompasses general.
The US is taking these Russian nuclear threats and developing contingency plans for some time you describe what such contingency plans might involve?
There’s the public face of all of this. Which is how we communicate to Russia about what prepared to do.
What we’re not prepared to do we ought to be deliberately vague on what prepared to do any time you draw a red line that commits you to a certain course of action look.
Simple to lay down the options soft side of it. Which is doubling down on sanctions.
Doubling down on export controls ranging to a nuclear response of our own and everything in between it would be likely that this president is not looking at the far end of that sort of looking at a response in kind.
He’s not basing this on any public revelation of intelligence we would respond by leading a NATO collective effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we could see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine.
The options that be considered because a concern from the start of this war has qualified every US.
NATO step in response to the Russian invasion. The quality of weapons. The range of weapons. The degree of military support for Ukraine has been concerned about sparking a broader war with Russia for instance that’s why the idea of a no-fly zone was limited because that would be putting NATO warplanes in direct conflict with Russian forces would a response like this. That has to be part of the calculation.
The US to date has not detected any movements of Russian nuclear forces or weapons that would indicate that such an attack is imminent.
The battlefield right now and Ukrainian progress because we saw that rapid advance in the northeast at the start of this counter-offensive, and now we’re seeing, if not quite a rapid advance, but still substantial advance in the south around Hersan.
At that moment, he may reach for whatever he has got. Now, You notice it in the speech. The first thing that won last week, there was Hiroshima, there was Nagasaki.
That is so alarming because that’s part of what has been this campaign of rationalization, they set the precedent, the US. Set the precedent.
When you look at Russian military doctrine, and he keeps reemphasizing this, as have other Russian officials, nuclear weapons can be used if there is an existential threat to Russia.
So if you go after this, yeah, we can use a nuke. That is backward rationalization. It would also seem to apply to Crimea. The Ukrainians attack Crimea, and not reached nuclear weapons.
