1: None of their nuclear weapons work anymore, and the lost the expertise to restore them2: The United States has an undisclosed means of ensuring that Russia physcially use them3: Nuclear weapons never existed to begin with4: The Ukraine war has a hidden motive relating to demographic changes5: None of the above
>>538019597The non-retardbrain reason: using nukes is bad optics both internationally and domestically, if Putin even hovers his finger over the button chances are he'll get snuffed by the 2nd in command to avoid nuclear holocaust retaliation.
>>5380195974chan told me that Russians are literal niggers, so I guess that means nukes are fake.
>>538019597putler is god of piggershe would never hurt his most loyal serfs
Perpetual war is good for an oligarchy, why do you think America hasn't gone without one in our lifetimes?
>>538019597Profoundly bad for international relations.
>>5380195971 or simply because they don't want to open that can of worms. Nobody does.
5. None of the above...there would be severe financial ramifications globally
>>538019597>3: Nuclear weapons never existed to begin withit is this
>>538019701No real power gives a shit about "optics", that's reserved for vassal states like Germany
>>538019597>3: Nuclear weapons never existed to begin withThis. It's complete nonsense for gullible idiots.
>>538019701You can't get worse optics than the ones russia currently has, especiall that they bobm their cities. And they don't have to use a giga nuke. A tactical one would do the trick
>>538019597Ukraine's like their girlfriend leaving them and Russia is like "NNNNOOOO!" You don't want to nuke your girlfriend. She isn't a bunch of gooks who think surrender is dishonorable and use suicide tactics and think their Emperor is God and will not quit.
>>5380195976. China said no
>>538019597>a bunch of bullshitnone of the above, clearly
>>538019597What for? Invading Ukraine was retarded idea to begin with, nuking it is retarded^4
>>538022847Only Europe hates Russia. The 3rd world loves them for fight "the west"
>>538019597you don't lead with your best handbut if the war drags on and ukraine insists on keeping this senseless war going on, then i could see it happeningalthough not against a city but either a depot or military troops as a show of force
>>538024322>but if the war drags onso, you mean like 20 more years?
>>538019597>3: Nuclear weapons never existed to begin with
>>538022847>tactical nukeTactical nukes don't exist and are a meme used to justify McArthur's retardation.
>>538019597Nukes are fake. One of the biggest modern age psyop.
>>538019597They're still playing the hearts and minds game and pretending they're liberators, not conquerors. You know, the same reason the US lost in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
>>538022654100%. Is it more likely the Jewish states of america invented a superweapon? Or that they used Hollywood illusion to trick everyone?
They have nukes but they open pandoras box if they use them. It would normalise the use of nukes in conventional war against non nuke opponents.
6: The bombs are in such bad shape that they could explode at any moment if armed.
>>538019597> None of their nuclear weapons work anymore, and the lost the expertise to restore themMore likely corrupt Ziggers have stolen all the plutonium and sold it the third world despots like Mr Kim and the IRGC Sandniggers. Stolen Pu can be mixed with partially refined U to create fissionable cores. Kim couldn’t possible refine his own Uranium
>>538019597>4: The Ukraine war has a hidden motive relating to demographic changesThis and also to not make a radioactive wasteland out of New Khazaria
>>538019597>1With extra twist of nukes being not physically present in Russia anymore after whatever Yeltsin sold them for pennies.
>>5380195971: Nukes aren't magic for tactical goals and strategic saturation of cities "might" hurt international relations.2: Nuclear taboo is very shaky and largely based on the assumption of Mutually Assured Destruction. Countries like China are extremely against that taboo being loosened especially in the short term because they can't compete with USA or Russia in an actual nuclear war.3: Easy escalation. USA / NATO could motivate a very strong non-nuclear response.4: Moscow wants to keep an actual deterrent. If they start just using nukes both Ukraine and the west can go all out.So yeah, tons of reasons. Russia sitting on world ending nukes is part of why the west is so afraid of its collapse and will act accordingly so it's a very dangerous game to play. Russia obviously wants to conquer Ukraine but there's some outcomes that could be bad if they use all their cards.
>>538028073Nukes can't accidentally "explode". It's not TNT.
>>538019597What is the cost/benefit ratio?>benefitUkraine possibly surrenders and the conventional war ends.>costIf Ukraine formally surrenders, the armed strength it has gets converted to a guerilla force. The war, in fact, does not end. Nukes will justify unlimited terrorism against Russia. Last week drones attacked oil infrastructure, from then on, Russian schoolchildren would be hunted for sport. Speaking of children, all of the Russia elite's children and relatives studying or living in the West will suffer accidents that result in drawn out deaths and dismemberment. Russia's allies will be forced to cut it loose, since openly being in alliance with them after such terrible optics would have serious internal ramifications. The radioactive falloud would probably result in the EU/NATO escalating its hybrid war with newfound support from thus far reluctant populace. The issue would be severe enough that disagreements over it could cause fractures and serious instability in the Russian government. etc etc.
>>538028277>Russia sitting on world ending nukesNigger, please. We have heard so many things about Russia since the late 00s. In the end everything turned out to be a lie and obnoxious propaganda of success. The Cold War theory of MAD was false, the US could wipe out the USSR. "World Ending" nukes, the global contamination, post- nuclear war, it's all just a Cold War propaganda aimed at western boomers by the USSR, proven to be false long time ago.What makes you think they have nukes at all?
Isn't it obvious? Retaliatory nukes. Ukraine has none, so Russia would get away with it for the time being. But the moment Russia ever acts aggressively with any country with nukes (i.e. NATO countries), they will get insta nuked first because now we all know Russia will nuke you first if they start losing. Better to instead nuke them first.
>>5380195975
>>538028281>I bet the nuclear thermoelectric generators out of the Siberian Marine Navigation lights also ended up in Iran or North Korea
>>538028277best post ITT
>>538019597If Russia decided to genocide Ukraine with nukes because they can’t beat them conventionally, Taiwan, Vietnam, Iran, and maybe even South Korea are developing nuclear weapons the next day. If a larger country can’t beat a smaller one and decides nukes are the only way, then other smaller countries threatened with possible invasions from China and the US can only react with nukes of their own. China knows this and doesn’t want Taiwan permanently out of reach because Putin is a retard in over his head, so they give him money not to do that
#1 is an interesting topic. I do think that russians have a valid reason to be concerned about the state of their nuclear weapon stockpile. Late soviet nukes that russia relies on were fairly complicated devices, with a limited shelf life, that require periodic maintenance. Expensive specialist maintenance. Money allocated for such upkeep would be very tempting target for corruption, as nukes are the least likely weapons to see actual use (and even if they would get used, it might be better for vast majority of russians that they wouldn't work).Imagine you're a russian millionaire general with a villa in Nice. If things got bad enough that putin starts flinging nukes, it might be better that they wouldn't work. You might just slip out to Dubai, and wait for things to cool down. Actual nuclear warfare would have unpredictable, and likely unpleasant results for most.>>538019701I think this is mostly also true. Using nukes would be a bad move for a multitude of reasons, both domestic and international
