Nuclear Weapons & War Discussion Thread

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

There's a scenario that I've been toying with in my head and I'd like to see how people here would respond (if this thread isn't too dead).

In short:
Let's say there is a conventional war between red and blue. Both sides are major nuclear superpowers. During the war, red uses a single low yield nuclear weapon against a major blue military asset (logistics hub, airbase, etc.). How should blue respond?

I think it depends on doctrine and other factions (geography, conventional military power, etc.), as well as the actual situation.
A tac-nuke out of desperation to try and turn the tide in a backsliding conventional military situation presumably warrants a different response than does a nuclear warning shot designed to force negotiations/de-escalation.

 

[Jewthulhu]

I think it depends on doctrine and other factions (geography, conventional military power, etc.), as well as the actual situation.
A tac-nuke out of desperation to try and turn the tide in a backsliding conventional military situation presumably warrants a different response than does a nuclear warning shot designed to force negotiations/de-escalation.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what the "third option" is. Going MAD is completely non-credible in response to a small attack, and tit-for-tat doesn't always work, especially when fighting defensively.

Massive conventional retaliation is an option, but during a war, how much more "massive" can retaliation get, assuming the conflict is already high-intensity?

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I'll just wait in Mount Yamantau. Nothing bad happens in there, right?

Only one of the most boring vidya levels I ever had the displeasure of playing.

 

[Neodymium-60]

This is my Bible when it comes to nuclear war.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

If no one mentioned it, I highly recommend The Great American Gamble: Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century by Keith Payne and also Conventional Deterrence by Mearsheimer for this topic. Mearsheimer's book is obviously more about non-nuclear deterrence, but that is fundamental for understanding how things escalate and how governments think regarding the subject. Also, anything by Robert J. Art about nuclear deterrence is excellent. Robert J. Art is very succinct and easy to digest despite dealing with meaty topics.

 

[Slap47]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/world/europe/putin-russia-nuclear-doctrine.html

https://archive.is/3Ed5M

Russia seems to have changed their nuclear doctrine. It allows nuclear launch in case of a direct attack from a nation backed by a nuclear power. In other words, if Ukraine hits back.

How fucked are we?

Why would they nuke the west over the actions of Ukraine? Because Ukraine is being funded by the west? That is a pretty shallow reason. The Cold War had hundreds of proxy wars.

Call me a bit conspiratorial but I don't believe nukes are real... I figure if they were real Pakistan and India would have gone at it by now.

Wouldn't a less insane idea be that they are both just lying about having nukes?