Does having nuclear weapons make it virtually impossible for a country to win wars?

[Rustynaerduwell]

Maybe it's a stupid question, but it seems the nuclear powers have generally failed in conventional warfare. I'm 61 years old and the US hasn't won a protracted war in my lifetime. Ditto Russia. Does having nuclear weapons induce a country to fight consistently with one hand metaphorically tied behind its back? I hope someone who knows more than me can give their thoughts on this.

[Hoyt]

1. Not one of those wars was justified, either. Invasions don't work period. Germany didn't win either.

[VMA131Marine]

2. It's almost impossible to win against an insurgency

which is how I would characterise Vietnam and Afghanistan, unless the invading power is willing to take extreme measures. And by extreme, I’m talking about genocide. That’s why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is doomed to fail in the end because the Ukrainians can just make life short and miserable for the occupying Russians.
Iraq stands as a qualified success, if you ignore that the original reasons for attacking were completely fabricated. Iraq has a somewhat functioning government to the point that it’s rarely been in the news since the defeat of ISIS. Clearly we did not manage to install a liberal democracy in Iraq and there is still the persecution of the Kurds to consider but that’s why I said it’s been a qualified success.

[paleotn]

3. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. i.e., it's complicated.

In my mind, Iraq qualifies as a "win" of sorts. Saddam's regime is long gone. What the Iraqis do with their broken country is up to them, since we've not the stomach for fixing it or making Iraq a middle eastern colony.

Afghanistan was too costly to "win" militarily due to it's complexities of geography culture and lack of infrastructure. The smart move would have been a "monetary solution", but Bush and much of our populace were more into dick wagging after 9-11. For monetary solutions, see Iraq above. We bought the Sheikhs in the Sunni Triangle, thus ending the insurgency. "The Surge" was a dick wagging, cover story for the real deal. Why, oh why didn't we do the same with the Taliban? 9-11 was too fresh in peoples memories I think.

Other than that, virtually every other conflict since 1945 has been a proxy war between nuclear armed superpowers, where going to far, i.e. winning in conventional terms, would lead to direct, superpower conflict. Something neither side wanted for fear it would get out of control and we'd be unlucky to live through it. I'd rather not see nuclear winter and the end of civilization as we know it.

As far as Ukraine, we're seeing the rotted out shell of a superpower fail in its own backyard. The Russian military is but a ghost of the vaunted Red Army that stormed the Reichstag.

Plus, wars of conquest, where winning can be easily measured, just aren't palatable anymore. What's necessary to win causes one to become a pariah state no one wants to do business with.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. A nihilist in the position of power, that is, in charge of launching nuclear weapons

doesn't necessarily think in terms of "winning". That person thinks in terms of revenge and destruction. And as far as destruction, they see themselves as turning out all right after the nuclear dust has settled. They don't see their choice as dystopia indefinitely. They just have a "satisfaction" of "So there!"

And that's why having Trump in the WH had me on edge.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I think the better question is can you hold a country with nuclear weapons accountable

If Putin comes out tomorrow and says remove all sanctions immediately or I'm going to launch a nuclear missile what would we do? I suspect there would be considerable huffing and puffing but many countries would step away from their sanctions.

That said, when you make such a threat you have to be prepared to carry it out.

We'll see what happens as the sanctions make things dire in Russia.