Forget No-Fly Zones, experts feel Putin could use nukes anyway due to current NATO pressure
Today, both Russia and the United States have nuclear arms that are much less destructive — their power just fractions of the Hiroshima bomb’s force, their use perhaps less frightening and more thinkable.
Concern about these smaller arms has soared as Vladimir V. Putin, in the Ukraine war, has warned of his nuclear might, has put his atomic forces on alert and has had his military carry out risky attacks on nuclear power plants. The fear is that if Mr. Putin feels cornered in the conflict, he might choose to detonate one of his lesser nuclear arms — breaking the taboo set 76 years ago after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Analysts note that Russian troops have long practiced the transition from conventional to nuclear war, especially as a way to gain the upper hand after battlefield losses. And the military, they add, wielding the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, has explored a variety of escalatory options that Mr. Putin might choose from.
“The chances are low but rising,” said Ulrich Kühn, a nuclear expert at the University of Hamburg and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The war is not going well for the Russians,” he observed, “and the pressure from the West is increasing.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/science/russia-nuclear-ukraine.html
Much more on Russia's in place policy of regarding "nuclear arms as utilitarian rather than unthinkable" at the link.
My take on this is that the longer the war drags on and the more men and resources Putin loses the more likely he will fall victim to the "sunk cost" fallacy like gamblers often do. Namely, as he loses more and more he will keep doubling down and raising the stakes.
I can't help but feel that the earlier NATO makes it clear it will become directly involved militarily unless fighting stops, the sooner this war will be brought to a diplomatic end and the less chance there will be of nuclear escalation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The sooner the better to avoid the "sunk cost" fallacy.
I type slowly.
As in "if we only do this much Putin won't use nukes".
That was a fallacy, because as the article makes clear, the Russians are always prepared to go nuclear if they are losing what they view as an "existential" war.
OK.
I am down with that.
So, you think that Putin would do the "dumbest thing" and use nukes if a NO-Fly Zone was implemented, even if he was given warning weeks ahead of time?
OK, I can understand that viewpoint
My question is, do you think that Putin would also use nukes if he keeps losing men and equipment in a year long war as things stand now?
I think he would. Infact, I think he would be more likely to use nukes then.
What say you?
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
The comments "he's gaslighting NATO" and "abusers do the dumbest things" seem, on the face, ambiguous in regards to Putin actually using nukes.
So, would he do the dumbest thing and use nukes?
Or is he just gaslighting NATO and won't use nukes?
Or is he just an unpredictable abuser and god only knows what would trigger him to use nukes?
Thanks for the discussion.
Do you really think that Russia can not be defeated by the rest of the world? In practical terms, Russia is a piss-ant compared to 1941 Germany. Do you think that it is not within our power to melt Moscow and St. Petersburg? If the nuclear missiles start flying, that is where we are headed, the destruction civilization, theirs, ours and everyone else's. Even in a conventional war, the miles aren't as long as they were in Napoleons day, or for that matter, Hitler's day. We are no longer bound by the speed of a draft horse.
It would be either to defend the world or hand it over to a madman that would still have a nuclear arsenal. Our species has had a good run, maybe it is something else's turn. I would love to see dogs have the chance to run the world, given a few million years of evolution, who knows. 
Because doing what you suggest would lead to a major nuclear exchange between the US and Russia where there could be no "winners".
Well, maybe China, or more likely Brazil since they are in the southern hemisphere.
To be clear, I am saying this in response to your comment:
If the Russian people can't govern themselves in a manner that keeps the world from nuclear war, than someone else will have to govern them until they get their priorities in order.
But, I think I understand your position, thanks for the discussion.
Escalating than de-escalating...
first targeting empty ground...
bullshit like that.
That's the danger of thinking that our current policy has no risks of nuclear escalation.
Honest question.
Perhaps that should be it's own OP actually.
Thanks for pointing out that as a possibility.
