Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Do you think Putin will use nuclear weapons?

507 replies

colddayinhell · 21/09/2022 20:41

I'm getting very nervous about the ramping up of the war and Putin's calling up of 300,000 reservists. It feels like this is a major escalation. I know that any use of nuclear weapons would mean instant retaliation but it no longer feels like a MAD scenario as it almost feels now like he wants a scorched earth and has nothing to lose and doesn't care that it would destroy everything.

OP posts:
Hue · 08/10/2022 23:14

The thing that baffles me is that as well as thousands of Nuclear Weapons, they also have a lot of conventional cruise missiles that could deliver a huge amount of destruction to Kiev. He has for whatever reason chosen not to do this yet so I can’t see it escalating to Nukes currently. I wouldn’t rule it out though. I tend not to worry about things like this as it’s completely out of my control.

GonetoGround14 · 08/10/2022 23:29

TrickorTreacle · 08/10/2022 22:48

@colddayinhell - the threat of a nuclear war was far greater in the 1980s than it is now. I remember seeing those "safety adverts" like instructing kids how to cross the road (green cross code) and "kids, say no to strangers". Except these ads were about what to do when a nuclear bomb has gone off near you. Also, there was that documentary-drama in 1984 called "Threads" which was the most terrifying thing I've seen on TV. It gave me a recurring nightmare.

Current nuclear bombs are far more powerful, but even in the 70s there was no plan to help people to survive. They were told to fend for themselves while a few civil servants, politicians and army hid in a series of secret bunkers. I've read the leaflet that was prepared to circulate to people in the 70s I think if a nuclear strike was anticipated. It's called "Protect and Survive". You go into a cellar if possible. If no cellar then the ground floor. If you live in a bungalow there is no hope. If you live near the top of a block of flats there is no hope. Then you go into the most central room you have and barricade it with as much insulating material as you can. Then you make an inner shelter inside that room, insulating it as much as possible. Then you hide in the inner shelter for as long as you can. The first 2 days are the most dangerous. You mustn't leave your inner room for 2 weeks. The air will still be dangerous, but less immediately dangerous.
Reading that leaflet is suicide-inducing. There was never any hope.

Igotjelly · 08/10/2022 23:30

GonetoGround14 · 08/10/2022 23:29

Current nuclear bombs are far more powerful, but even in the 70s there was no plan to help people to survive. They were told to fend for themselves while a few civil servants, politicians and army hid in a series of secret bunkers. I've read the leaflet that was prepared to circulate to people in the 70s I think if a nuclear strike was anticipated. It's called "Protect and Survive". You go into a cellar if possible. If no cellar then the ground floor. If you live in a bungalow there is no hope. If you live near the top of a block of flats there is no hope. Then you go into the most central room you have and barricade it with as much insulating material as you can. Then you make an inner shelter inside that room, insulating it as much as possible. Then you hide in the inner shelter for as long as you can. The first 2 days are the most dangerous. You mustn't leave your inner room for 2 weeks. The air will still be dangerous, but less immediately dangerous.
Reading that leaflet is suicide-inducing. There was never any hope.

Well aren’t you a little ray of sunshine 😂

GonetoGround14 · 08/10/2022 23:39

I'm not sure how that takes the discussion forward? Are we supposed to admire you for not taking the nuclear threat seriously, and laughing at those of us who are? Because there's every reason to take the threat seriously, looking at it objectively. There is hope, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a very serious risk.

Wichit · 09/10/2022 00:06

I'd take the threat seriously from the yanks because they've used them before. Russians didn't, including twice when their own protocols told them to do it. Russians are a lot less crazy with nukes than americans are.

Forfrigz · 09/10/2022 00:08

He wouldn't nuke Ukraine, it's a country he wants to take over fully and have functioning.
The whole of the west is an enemy of Russia and without being funny the UK is a preferable target, because it would send a strong message while minimising the effect on other countries, since we are an island.
I think the threat is very high, and I think I would panic at the time of it happening if it did (as anyone would panic). But I just can't find it in me to worry about it over time. I think it's a reasonable thing to worry about but I just feel so drained that I don't have the energy to expend worrying.

blueshoes · 09/10/2022 00:11

GonetoGround14 · 08/10/2022 23:39

I'm not sure how that takes the discussion forward? Are we supposed to admire you for not taking the nuclear threat seriously, and laughing at those of us who are? Because there's every reason to take the threat seriously, looking at it objectively. There is hope, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a very serious risk.

@GonetoGround14 your discussion has run out of road. Feel free to take your nuclear scaremongering self into a basement shelter and stay there for maximum safety.

blueshoes · 09/10/2022 00:15

Wichit · 09/10/2022 00:06

I'd take the threat seriously from the yanks because they've used them before. Russians didn't, including twice when their own protocols told them to do it. Russians are a lot less crazy with nukes than americans are.

Americans are not threatening to use nuclear weapons, only Putin and his ilk are. You can rest easy now. Don't need to thank me.

GonetoGround14 · 09/10/2022 00:18

blueshoes · 09/10/2022 00:11

@GonetoGround14 your discussion has run out of road. Feel free to take your nuclear scaremongering self into a basement shelter and stay there for maximum safety.

Well I'll be in good company - since I'm only repeating what the President of the United States has said.

GonetoGround14 · 09/10/2022 00:19

Plus many experts - but we all know that experts are a waste of space.

Wichit · 09/10/2022 00:23

@blueshoes yes, exactly. We're ok until the americans start talking about it. Russians use nukes as strategic deterrents. Americans drop them on people. Biden's making noises it's true, but he's not looking active as yet.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 09/10/2022 00:28

I can't see any situation whereby detonating a tactical nuke over the Black Sea benefits Putin in any meaningful way, other than perhaps enabling him to play it out at home along the lines of 'Russian military might brings the fascists to their senses'.

In reality, it would mean China and India totally abandoning their already lukewarm support for him. Russia would instantaneously become even more of a global pariah than it is already, and I suspect it would provoke an overwhelming US and NATO conventional response which would see Russian forces expelled from all Ukrainian territory, including that stolen in 2014, a drive right up to the Russian border, expedited Ukrainian membership of NATO, and then a simple 'your move' message to Putin.

His options would be to escalate into a full nuclear conflagration, which achieves nothing, or crawl away with his tail between his legs and spin it as 'operation complete' at home. Russia is heading for defeat and humiliation as it is. Putin going nuclear in even a limited way would just expedite that. I think that ultimately he will not risk direct NATO involvement, but the outcome will be much the same nonetheless. It's a question of timing, re which juncture suits him best to get out of this in the least humiliating way possible.

blueshoes · 09/10/2022 00:31

I am reassured by Biden's response. The use of nuclear weapons by Putin will merit a strong response. It is a false economy to bow to Putin's irresponsible nuclear threats. If Putin were stupid or crazy enough enough to use a nuke, the US and NATO can destroy Russia's forces in Ukraine using conventional weapons which Russian forces are so dismal at using against a seemingly weaker opponent to have to resort to nukes. This will seal Russia's utter humiliation on the world stage.

Greenshake · 09/10/2022 00:32

Forfrigz · 09/10/2022 00:08

He wouldn't nuke Ukraine, it's a country he wants to take over fully and have functioning.
The whole of the west is an enemy of Russia and without being funny the UK is a preferable target, because it would send a strong message while minimising the effect on other countries, since we are an island.
I think the threat is very high, and I think I would panic at the time of it happening if it did (as anyone would panic). But I just can't find it in me to worry about it over time. I think it's a reasonable thing to worry about but I just feel so drained that I don't have the energy to expend worrying.

The major risk for Russia in sending a nuke towards the UK, (before we even get to the NATO response) is that our own Nuclear Deterrent ‘Trident’ would kick in. Putin could very quickly kiss goodbye to Moscow.

blueshoes · 09/10/2022 00:33

Wichit · 09/10/2022 00:23

@blueshoes yes, exactly. We're ok until the americans start talking about it. Russians use nukes as strategic deterrents. Americans drop them on people. Biden's making noises it's true, but he's not looking active as yet.

You misunderstood. Maybe English is not your first language, so that is understandable. Nothing I said was remotely in agreement with you.

Wichit · 09/10/2022 00:47

@XDownwiththissortofthingX agree re China and India. It's in Russia's interest to get this reserve BRICS currency moving so he needs to keep them onside.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 09/10/2022 00:55

@Wichit

China also needs to think very carefully about which markets it values more. They really don't want to find themselves in a situation whereby their support, material or otherwise, sees them facing sanctions or restrictions on where they can export their mass-produced tat to.

Ok, they are already at loggerheads with the US over southeast Asia and Taiwan, but if those container ships coming through the Suez suddenly get turned away at Rotterdam and so on, that's a massive hit to their economy that they can ill afford.

China has always been sceptical of Russia, and I genuinely believe that if push came to shove they would drop the buddies act in order to maintain relations with Europe, even if that's only for pragmatic purposes.

Wichit · 09/10/2022 01:03

Yes, they want the European market open for now and if Putin screws it for them they will drop him. I'm pretty sure he's well aware of this as he is shrewd enough internationally.

Long term though China is after the emerging markets in the South - all those countries with massively rising GDPs and young populations where the majority of citizens have a good few decades of healthy work activity ahead of them - unlike Europe.

zigahzigah · 09/10/2022 01:11

kirstywursty012 · 21/09/2022 20:53

There's a great TikTok account called "countdaedalus" - he's a very rational (albeit a little bit grumpy!) guy and calmly and logically describes the Ukraine war and any potential outcomes. What many people don't realise is that there are satellites constantly watching Putin's rockets. If the hatch was so much to open, the retaliation would be be global. It's also not just up to it Putin - there is a process in launching nuclear weapons and a number of generals need to be on board for it to happen.

Also he really isn't stupid - he has a lot to lose with nuclear war and so does China (his closest ally). For example China has number of cities protected by a HUGE dam - a simple missile attack there could put millions of Chinese people underwater.

Please try not to to worry and don't read the news! You just need a quick daily glance to be well informed - don't obsess over it. Putin is doing really badly in the Ukraine war and is just trying to save face and look tough.

Great post

HRTQueen · 09/10/2022 01:50

No

vera99 · 09/10/2022 06:10

North Korea is chucking missiles over Japan, and Iran is close to getting nukes and has the delivery mechanisms to put missiles straight onto their targets (when they responded to the death of General Salemi and evaded US anti-missile systems and had a direct hit on a US base). India and Pakistan have frequent border skirmishes as does China with India and China itself is waiting for it's moment to reunite Taiwan with the motherland.

Meanwhile, a Harvard Professor has asserted there is a 10-20% chance of Russia using nukes in Ukraine whilst Biden lets slip that Putin isn't bluffing and there is a possibility of nuclear armageddon. There is obviously nothing that we as mere plebs can do about this but without doubt, this is the most serious threat to global peace in my 62 years and is looking like an increasing series of dodged bullets. So much for the post-pandemic roaring twenties that pundits were predicting no to so long ago and fuck Putin for his deranged warmongering.

I was a CND member in my youth but now they seem to be almost invisible and somewhat naive. Fuck men and their warmongering ways it's not as if we aren't facing climate catastrophe as a global problem to solve and then this shit blows up.

cnduk.org/

vera99 · 09/10/2022 06:37

www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/08/vladimir-putin-escalate-assault-ukraine-latest-humiliation/

Western analysts said the Russian president will now escalate his assault on Ukraine with the threat of nuclear warfare increased.
General Lord Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said that he would expect more indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilian targets and that there was also the threat that Mr Putin “might go nuclear”.
Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, said Putin would take the alleged attack on the bridge personally. He said renewed attacks on civilian infrastructure are likely in addition to measures which cause “maximum economic harm and disunity across the West”.

The threat of nuclear weapons was now “much increased”, Mr Ellwood added.

shreddednips · 09/10/2022 09:33

Forfrigz · 09/10/2022 00:08

He wouldn't nuke Ukraine, it's a country he wants to take over fully and have functioning.
The whole of the west is an enemy of Russia and without being funny the UK is a preferable target, because it would send a strong message while minimising the effect on other countries, since we are an island.
I think the threat is very high, and I think I would panic at the time of it happening if it did (as anyone would panic). But I just can't find it in me to worry about it over time. I think it's a reasonable thing to worry about but I just feel so drained that I don't have the energy to expend worrying.

The UK would be the opposite of a preferable target, especially to send a message. We have our own sea-based nuclear deterrent, he literally couldn't pick a worse place to make a point other than America.

I think sometimes people underestimate Trident because the numbers of warheads seem tiny in comparison to Russia's arsenal but it is, AFAIK, more than sufficient to wipe out Russia. Once both sides have enough warheads to wipe out the other, arguing about who has more seems rather irrelevant.

Greenshake · 09/10/2022 09:41

vera99 · 09/10/2022 06:37

www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/08/vladimir-putin-escalate-assault-ukraine-latest-humiliation/

Western analysts said the Russian president will now escalate his assault on Ukraine with the threat of nuclear warfare increased.
General Lord Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said that he would expect more indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilian targets and that there was also the threat that Mr Putin “might go nuclear”.
Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, said Putin would take the alleged attack on the bridge personally. He said renewed attacks on civilian infrastructure are likely in addition to measures which cause “maximum economic harm and disunity across the West”.

The threat of nuclear weapons was now “much increased”, Mr Ellwood added.

This is nothing we did not already know.

BringBackCoffeeCreams · 09/10/2022 09:53

The minute he tries to use nukes is the minute his reign ends and he knows it