Toggle sidebar

Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

I asked ChatGPT -- AI -- about the odds of Russian resorting to nuclear weapons. Here is the response:

The likelihood of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in its war against Ukraine is a complex and speculative question, as it depends on a mix of military, political, and psychological factors. Analysts and governments have varying perspectives, but several key factors inform assessments of the probability:
Factors Reducing the Likelihood:
  1. International Backlash:
    • Using nuclear weapons would provoke a global outcry, likely alienating even Russia's few remaining allies. It could also trigger severe economic and political consequences, including further sanctions and possibly military responses from NATO.
  2. Strategic and Tactical Uncertainty:
    • The use of tactical nukes may not guarantee a decisive military advantage, especially if Ukraine’s forces are dispersed. It risks escalation and retaliation from nuclear-armed states like the U.S.
  3. Russian Doctrine and Control:
    • Although Russia’s military doctrine allows nuclear use in cases of existential threat, it’s unclear if the Ukraine conflict would meet this threshold. Political and military leaders may resist such drastic action given the risks.
  4. Nuclear Deterrence:
    • NATO’s clear warnings against any nuclear use serve as a deterrent. The consequences could range from military strikes to severe non-nuclear responses.
Factors Increasing the Risk:
  1. Perceived Existential Threat:
    • If Russian leadership feels that defeat in Ukraine threatens their regime's survival, they may consider escalation, including tactical nuclear use, as a last resort.
  2. Escalation Dynamics:
    • If conventional losses continue or escalate, Russia might gamble on nuclear weapons to force a Ukrainian or Western concession.
  3. Ambiguity in Russian Doctrine:
    • Russia’s doctrine includes “de-escalation through escalation,” where nuclear use is aimed at forcing adversaries to negotiate. This could be miscalculated as a viable option.
  4. Internal Pressure:
    • Hardline factions within the Kremlin or military could push for nuclear options if they perceive conventional strategies as failing.
Current Expert Consensus:
Most analysts believe that the use of tactical nuclear weapons remains unlikely but not impossible. It’s seen as a desperate option Russia might consider only in the most extreme circumstances. The threshold for such an act would likely involve a direct threat to Russian territory or regime stability, which is not currently the case.
Conclusion:
While the risk is real, it is currently assessed as low due to the overwhelming strategic, political, and moral consequences. The situation, however, is fluid, and monitoring developments is critical.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH and dtgreg
Padreruf said:
I asked ChatGPT -- AI -- about the odds of Russian resorting to nuclear weapons. Here is the response:

The likelihood of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in its war against Ukraine is a complex and speculative question, as it depends on a mix of military, political, and psychological factors. Analysts and governments have varying perspectives, but several key factors inform assessments of the probability:
Factors Reducing the Likelihood:
  1. International Backlash:
    • Using nuclear weapons would provoke a global outcry, likely alienating even Russia's few remaining allies. It could also trigger severe economic and political consequences, including further sanctions and possibly military responses from NATO.
  2. Strategic and Tactical Uncertainty:
    • The use of tactical nukes may not guarantee a decisive military advantage, especially if Ukraine’s forces are dispersed. It risks escalation and retaliation from nuclear-armed states like the U.S.
  3. Russian Doctrine and Control:
    • Although Russia’s military doctrine allows nuclear use in cases of existential threat, it’s unclear if the Ukraine conflict would meet this threshold. Political and military leaders may resist such drastic action given the risks.
  4. Nuclear Deterrence:
    • NATO’s clear warnings against any nuclear use serve as a deterrent. The consequences could range from military strikes to severe non-nuclear responses.
Factors Increasing the Risk:
  1. Perceived Existential Threat:
    • If Russian leadership feels that defeat in Ukraine threatens their regime's survival, they may consider escalation, including tactical nuclear use, as a last resort.
  2. Escalation Dynamics:
    • If conventional losses continue or escalate, Russia might gamble on nuclear weapons to force a Ukrainian or Western concession.
  3. Ambiguity in Russian Doctrine:
    • Russia’s doctrine includes “de-escalation through escalation,” where nuclear use is aimed at forcing adversaries to negotiate. This could be miscalculated as a viable option.
  4. Internal Pressure:
    • Hardline factions within the Kremlin or military could push for nuclear options if they perceive conventional strategies as failing.
Current Expert Consensus:
Most analysts believe that the use of tactical nuclear weapons remains unlikely but not impossible. It’s seen as a desperate option Russia might consider only in the most extreme circumstances. The threshold for such an act would likely involve a direct threat to Russian territory or regime stability, which is not currently the case.
Conclusion:
While the risk is real, it is currently assessed as low due to the overwhelming strategic, political, and moral consequences. The situation, however, is fluid, and monitoring developments is critical.
Click to expand...
That is a pretty good breakdown.

When I was learning about assessing risk, the instructor compared the likelihood of an event an the effect of that event happening. Then he contrasted stubbing your toe (likely over the next year, but only a little painful for thirty seconds) and asteroid hitting the earth (extremely unlikely but genuinely catastrophic for all ife on earth). So what is the residual risk? And if you had a limited budget for risk mitigation, which would you spend the money on?

The likelihood of Russia employing nukes against the West is extremely low, but if they do, it is A Canticle for Leibowitz time. The likelihood of the Kremlin using nukes against Ukraine is still low, but slightly higher than the likelihood of using them against the West.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Huckleberry, Padreruf, UAH and 1 other person
mdb-tpet said:
Stupid moves like this only harden the resolve, and jump start contingency planning for the Northern Europe countries.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of Europeans who have "gone wobbly" on Russia. Things like this will tend to return them to a hardline stance on Russia.
From the Russian perspective, the intended audience is European leaders, remind them that Rauusia has the capability to cut undersea cables.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Padreruf and UAH
CrimsonNagus said:
Is that how they are being cut, dropping an anchor? How deep are these cables?
Click to expand...
Not sure. I would guess that they are being cut intentionally with a submersible with a circular saw on an arm or a device strapped to the front of the submarine.
The Baltic Sea is not that deep, but the really important ones, the ones the Russians are not (yet) cutting are trans-Atlantic ones and those are really deep. They might just be experimenting with capabilities.
I would guess that the Chinese ship was also seeing if it could be done with an anchor (It can), but never underestimate the incompetence of a Chinese ship captain.
 
Tidewater said:
Not sure. I would guess that they are being cut intentionally with a submersible with a circular saw on an arm or a device strapped to the front of the submarine.
The Baltic Sea is not that deep, but the really important ones, the ones the Russians are not (yet) cutting are trans-Atlantic ones and those are really deep. They might just be experimenting with capabilities.
I would guess that the Chinese ship was also seeing if it could be done with an anchor (It can), but never underestimate the incompetence of a Chinese ship captain.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely NOT an accident. This is standard cloak and dagger stuff where they screwed up and cut the cable.
 
mdb-tpet said:
This is absolutely NOT an accident. This is standard cloak and dagger stuff where they screwed up and cut the cable.
Click to expand...
The two latest ones connecting Sweden and Lithuania and connecting Finland and Germany were almost certainly intentional. The Chinese (in Estonian waters last summer) one might have been an accident of an experiment, so see if it was possible.
If you think about it, if you were trying to hit an undersea cable with an anchor, you would need to have pretty good aim. I'd bet that ain't easy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UAllday, Bama75&80, Padreruf and 1 other person
jthomas666 said:
An incredibly good book
Click to expand...
Yeah, I read that in 9th grade when an English teacher suggested it.

I still remember. Everyone had heard of the horrors of the Fallout. The monk, Brother Francis, finds an opening in the ground and a sign in the ancient language saying, "Fallout Shelter. Capacity 21." He had never seen a Fallout, but this structure apparently sheltered 21 of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back