Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Well, Russia is sort of holding back. They have tactical nukes, not sure how many of those nato has without the US. And going ballistic doesn’t end well for anyone. But Russia need the land of major nato members. They will pick on non-nato countries mostly, and more often they will do it by cutting off trade routes and such. Maybe they use thier now seasoned military to pick off some minor nato members, just to distract Nato from everything else. With the US pulling back from the international stage, Russia and Chine can divvy up a lot of the world.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        The tactical ones are a grey area. They can be small enough not to end the world. They can also have far less long term effects than the larger and older ones. In short, you could nuke a military base as apposed to a city. They can be delivered as an artilery shell. So if Russia used one. I doubt the world would immediately luanch thier strategic arsenal in response.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s dubious that they have useful nukes available to just drop in an shell to start with. For practical purposes their nukes are fairly large and there are other considerations. Poorly maintained shit may malfunction creating additional doubt as to their military might and it might trigger additional aid by the rest of the world. They can’t actually fight NATO so actions have to be carefully calibrated so as not to bring the rest of the world or even just more of their aid into the fray lest it become even more expensive or even impossible to win.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I will say I don’t know what Russia specifically has in thier arsenal beyond the general “tactical nukes”. But artillery shell or missle… it makes little difference. Tactical nukes are relatively new, so aren’t much of an age concern as the bigger older stuff. Functionality concerns, only they really know. And I agree, which is why I said they are holding back. But if the situation changes, they may not need to hold back.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Tactical nukes are relatively new

              Like new if you time traveled from the 50s We literally conceived of a bazooka launched personal nuke. Generally speaking not much was actually made by anyone and is unlikely to have been maintained as they would have been deemed basically useless for decades as is very expensive to maintain.

              • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Well TIL. I though they couldn’t make them that small back then. But anyway, the russians were producing the latest version of small tactical nukes in the 20 teens. Those are pretty new.