Active Conflicts & News Megathread September 01, 2025

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/reddituserperson1122]

I think the logic is the opposite. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be scary. But I think if the west didn’t respond forcefully it would basically be the end of deterrence. You’d be ratifying nuclear blackmail in the future and announcing to the world, “if you get nukes we’ll just give up.” It would certainly make a defense of Taiwan untenable. I don’t see how that situation is tolerable for Europe or the US.

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Nuclear blackmail was the core of the MAD doctrine on which the Cold War was based - for 40 years.

We only pretend to be shocked now because it is about Russia. Those same Western experts calmly discussed possible Israeli nuclear deployment against Iranian underground facilities without ever mentioning "nuclear taboo" or plans for the USA to attack Israel if that happened.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

Israel is not Russia and Iran doesn’t share a border with half of NATO. Nuclear blackmail during the Cold War is why we have a large standing military. It was understood that if the Soviets had been able to detonate a nuke on Germany’s border and dare the west to nuke them back, our deterrent wouldn’t be credible. Conventional force was what allowed us to plan on stopping Soviet forces in the field while retaining an escalation ladder. That remains true.

However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it. Again, I don’t find either of those ideas likely. You said we would impose additional sanctions on Russia. Why wouldn’t Putin just threaten to nuke Kiev if we didn’t normalize trade? No risk to him, right? He could probably break NATO by dropping a bunch of big dirty nukes right on the Ukrainian side of Poland’s border on a windy day. Poland would invoke article 5 and half of NATO would presumably be looking for any excuse to not respond while the Baltic states would be screaming bloody murder. I just don’t see how this could all be allowed to unfold.

(And that’s not even talking about what China would do once we’ve announced that if you set off a nuke we’ll stand down. Nor does it take into account domestic pressure to avenge dead NATO troops.)

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it.

I said that?! I am consistently saying in every post that they would pay a significant price in sanctions (including by China and India), diplomatic fallout and worldwide reputational damage.

What I am saying is that the threat of the West (or Europe alone) conventionally attacking Russia in retaliation is totally non-credible.

Also, I don't think that, even if Russia used nukes, they would be dirty nukes. They would probably use nukes in air-burst mode, which leaves no significant radiation - not in Ukraine and certainly not in NATO countries.

Why don't they do that? The profit/loss calculation is currently completely against it. They are advancing, and their army keeps growing, so why risk massive sanctions and international odium?

My comment is just referring to the ridiculous notion that, in case Russia used nukes in Ukraine, the West would attack it. That's fine for public consumption but utterly lacks any logic.

[u/ViriditasBiologia → u/Glideer]

You do realize, the invasion, the current president of the United States, and much foreign policy, "lacks logic" the world doesn't work like this subreddit.