Kyiv could rapidly develop a rudimentary weapon similar to that dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 to stop Russia if the US cuts military aid, it has been suggested
Plus i mean its 1 bomb and as soon as they use it Russia turns them into glass. Makes more sense to not use it. Its more valuable as leverage than as a weapon.
With regards to Ukraine: IHave69xibucks is right. A nuke is more useful as leverage than an actual weapon. Russia will absolutely be more generous to Ukraine during negotiations should Ukraine develop a nuke. 1 nuke in Moscow wouldn’t bring down the whole country, but it’s not nothing either.
Hence the threat of MAD is used as a valuable tool for leverage during negotiations. Might as well have a nuke to scare Russia into attenuating their strikes and force them to agree to more of Ukraine’s demands.
China, Russia, and the US don’t nuke each other because of the threat of MAD. That’s why they try to strike each other through proxies. Even if the proxies were to land direct strikes on Beijing, Moscow, or Washington, it’s a risk they’re willing to take bc the risk of MAD is zero in that regard.
They’re still going to hit each other and even aim for their capitals and heads of states when it gets bad enough, they’ll just do it through proxies so they don’t have to worry about MAD.
It’s the proxies that are going to deal with the assured destruction, after all.
That’s what I meant by the threat of MAD is a bigger deterrent than MAD, bc they’re still going to strike each other through those proxies.
One nuke is not MAD. Even a few nukes, should Ukraine get them, would not be MAD. They are a deterrence, sure. But MAD means something very specific and unless Ukraine is getting dozens of nukes along with rapid, reliable deployment methods it is, by definition, NOT MAD.
Plus i mean its 1 bomb and as soon as they use it Russia turns them into glass. Makes more sense to not use it. Its more valuable as leverage than as a weapon.
The threat of MAD is somehow a greater deterrent than MAD itself.
This is, by definition, not MAD
Explain yourself?
The M and A in MAD stand for “mutually assured”, where is the confusion?
With regards to Ukraine: IHave69xibucks is right. A nuke is more useful as leverage than an actual weapon. Russia will absolutely be more generous to Ukraine during negotiations should Ukraine develop a nuke. 1 nuke in Moscow wouldn’t bring down the whole country, but it’s not nothing either.
Hence the threat of MAD is used as a valuable tool for leverage during negotiations. Might as well have a nuke to scare Russia into attenuating their strikes and force them to agree to more of Ukraine’s demands.
China, Russia, and the US don’t nuke each other because of the threat of MAD. That’s why they try to strike each other through proxies. Even if the proxies were to land direct strikes on Beijing, Moscow, or Washington, it’s a risk they’re willing to take bc the risk of MAD is zero in that regard.
They’re still going to hit each other and even aim for their capitals and heads of states when it gets bad enough, they’ll just do it through proxies so they don’t have to worry about MAD.
It’s the proxies that are going to deal with the assured destruction, after all.
That’s what I meant by the threat of MAD is a bigger deterrent than MAD, bc they’re still going to strike each other through those proxies.
One nuke is not MAD. Even a few nukes, should Ukraine get them, would not be MAD. They are a deterrence, sure. But MAD means something very specific and unless Ukraine is getting dozens of nukes along with rapid, reliable deployment methods it is, by definition, NOT MAD.