It is not exaggerated to say that Russia prefers to surrender rather than use nuclear weapons first, that Russia does not dare to use nuclear weapons, not because it is soft, but that nuclear war was not designed from the beginning to "win".
Nuclear weapons are not the "great trick" in the game, and if you use it, scientists have calculated that if the US and Russia really fought, the world would kill hundreds of millions of people in 48 hours.
What is the concept? it is equivalent to emptying the entire population of Europe again! it is only a deadly wound at the scene of the explosion, and the subsequent disaster can bear no more.
The worst place in the nuclear war is not the explosion, it has no "end" at all, scientists have long even said, if the US and Russia used 4,000 nuclear warheads, the global temperature could drop by 8 degrees, many years can not come back, the ground does not grow food, there is no clean water in the river, radiation flows everywhere, whether it is U.S. New York or Russian Moscow, all turned into an uninhabited zone.
Even if Russia first bombed several U.S. cities, U.S. nuclear submarines and strategic bombers could immediately counter-attack, Russian missile wells, large cities must be bombed, Moscow may be ruined before Washington.
How can there be a "win" in this mutually destroying game? It's just who dies first and who dies worse.
Some people say whether Russia will try the waters with a small-yield tactical nuclear bomb? This idea is even more naive. Tactical nuclear bombs are also nuclear bombs. As long as one is dropped in Ukraine, NATO cannot sit idly by and do nothing.
The United States has deployed B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs in Britain early, and F-35 stealth fighters can take off at any time. Russia's air defense system simply cannot stop all counterattacks.
At the time, the small nuclear bomb triggered the big nuclear war, which was only the conventional war lost the shame, becoming a nuclear war is the whole country was erased from the map, this account Putin more clearly than anyone.
What is more realistic is that Russia simply cannot bear the economic cost of nuclear war. Now Western sanctions have left Russia short of chips and precision instruments. Even domestically produced chips cannot fill the gap, and it is all supported by energy exports.
If nuclear weapons were really used, the global financial system could instantly freeze all Russian overseas assets, the ruble directly collapsed, the money in the hands of the people turned into waste paper, gas stations could not add oil, in the stores could not buy food, at the time without external hostilities, the domestic would be messy.
Putin’s rule is based on “stability”, not “survival of the end”, he would rather admit that the conventional war is lost than dare to let the people down, which is really unable to maintain the regime.
International pressure can overwhelm Russia even more. Now neutral countries such as China and India can still remain neutral. If Russia really starts a nuclear war first, these countries will have to draw a clear line immediately.
The United Nations may launch comprehensive sanctions or even authorize other countries to intervene militarily. By then, Russia will be the enemy of the world, more isolated than Germany during World War II.
Conventional war is lost, the most lost land, lost some money, surrendered can still preserve the state base; with nuclear weapons, it is to be crowned on the pillar of shame of history, even future generations can not raise their heads, this buying and selling who will do?
If you look at Putin’s recent proposal to extend the Russian-American nuclear treaty, saying he is willing to continue to abide by the number of nuclear warheads, this illustrates the problem.
Russia itself does not want to break the nuclear balance, screaming in the mouth, but in action is restraining, because they know more than anyone else that the use of nuclear deterrence is "terrible", it is useless to use it, like hiding a knife at home, is to make the bad people dare not come, not to end up with the bad people.
Moreover, the nuclear button is not the one Putin can press, Russia has a complex command system, not the head can be decided, the generals below have to measure the consequences, really to launch a nuclear attack, maybe inside the first issue.
Moreover, in Russia's nuclear policy, it has never been said that nuclear bombs can be used if a conventional war is lost. It will only be considered when it suffers a nuclear attack or when the country's survival is "threatened". This is completely different from "strike first".
Those who think that Russia will use nuclear bombs to make a comeback regard nuclear war as a game. In the game, the final move can be resurrected with full blood. In reality, only a piece of scorched earth is left after the nuclear bomb is exploded.
Russia, even if it has lost in the battlefield and returned to protect the mainland, how can it bet the future of the whole country? surrender, although shameful, but at least can preserve the regime, preserve the lives of the people; with nuclear bombs, although discharged, but is to drag itself and all of humanity into the pit of fire, this foolish thing, crazy people can not do.
In the final analysis, from the day it was invented, nuclear war was not about "winning", but about "not daring to fight". When the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was because only the United States had nuclear bombs at that time. Now the United States and Russia can blow each other up ten times, and whoever does it first is a fool. No matter how tough Russia is, it knows where its bottom line is-it's okay to lose face, but it's not the country.
So don’t believe the rumors that “Russia is going to use a nuclear bomb,” they prefer to surrender rather than press the suicide button, which is not cowardice, it’s the only rational option.
Nuclear weapons are not the "great trick" in the game, and if you use it, scientists have calculated that if the US and Russia really fought, the world would kill hundreds of millions of people in 48 hours.
What is the concept? it is equivalent to emptying the entire population of Europe again! it is only a deadly wound at the scene of the explosion, and the subsequent disaster can bear no more.
The worst place in the nuclear war is not the explosion, it has no "end" at all, scientists have long even said, if the US and Russia used 4,000 nuclear warheads, the global temperature could drop by 8 degrees, many years can not come back, the ground does not grow food, there is no clean water in the river, radiation flows everywhere, whether it is U.S. New York or Russian Moscow, all turned into an uninhabited zone.
Even if Russia first bombed several U.S. cities, U.S. nuclear submarines and strategic bombers could immediately counter-attack, Russian missile wells, large cities must be bombed, Moscow may be ruined before Washington.
How can there be a "win" in this mutually destroying game? It's just who dies first and who dies worse.
Some people say whether Russia will try the waters with a small-yield tactical nuclear bomb? This idea is even more naive. Tactical nuclear bombs are also nuclear bombs. As long as one is dropped in Ukraine, NATO cannot sit idly by and do nothing.
The United States has deployed B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs in Britain early, and F-35 stealth fighters can take off at any time. Russia's air defense system simply cannot stop all counterattacks.
At the time, the small nuclear bomb triggered the big nuclear war, which was only the conventional war lost the shame, becoming a nuclear war is the whole country was erased from the map, this account Putin more clearly than anyone.
What is more realistic is that Russia simply cannot bear the economic cost of nuclear war. Now Western sanctions have left Russia short of chips and precision instruments. Even domestically produced chips cannot fill the gap, and it is all supported by energy exports.
If nuclear weapons were really used, the global financial system could instantly freeze all Russian overseas assets, the ruble directly collapsed, the money in the hands of the people turned into waste paper, gas stations could not add oil, in the stores could not buy food, at the time without external hostilities, the domestic would be messy.
Putin’s rule is based on “stability”, not “survival of the end”, he would rather admit that the conventional war is lost than dare to let the people down, which is really unable to maintain the regime.
International pressure can overwhelm Russia even more. Now neutral countries such as China and India can still remain neutral. If Russia really starts a nuclear war first, these countries will have to draw a clear line immediately.
The United Nations may launch comprehensive sanctions or even authorize other countries to intervene militarily. By then, Russia will be the enemy of the world, more isolated than Germany during World War II.
Conventional war is lost, the most lost land, lost some money, surrendered can still preserve the state base; with nuclear weapons, it is to be crowned on the pillar of shame of history, even future generations can not raise their heads, this buying and selling who will do?
If you look at Putin’s recent proposal to extend the Russian-American nuclear treaty, saying he is willing to continue to abide by the number of nuclear warheads, this illustrates the problem.
Russia itself does not want to break the nuclear balance, screaming in the mouth, but in action is restraining, because they know more than anyone else that the use of nuclear deterrence is "terrible", it is useless to use it, like hiding a knife at home, is to make the bad people dare not come, not to end up with the bad people.
Moreover, the nuclear button is not the one Putin can press, Russia has a complex command system, not the head can be decided, the generals below have to measure the consequences, really to launch a nuclear attack, maybe inside the first issue.
Moreover, in Russia's nuclear policy, it has never been said that nuclear bombs can be used if a conventional war is lost. It will only be considered when it suffers a nuclear attack or when the country's survival is "threatened". This is completely different from "strike first".
Those who think that Russia will use nuclear bombs to make a comeback regard nuclear war as a game. In the game, the final move can be resurrected with full blood. In reality, only a piece of scorched earth is left after the nuclear bomb is exploded.
Russia, even if it has lost in the battlefield and returned to protect the mainland, how can it bet the future of the whole country? surrender, although shameful, but at least can preserve the regime, preserve the lives of the people; with nuclear bombs, although discharged, but is to drag itself and all of humanity into the pit of fire, this foolish thing, crazy people can not do.
In the final analysis, from the day it was invented, nuclear war was not about "winning", but about "not daring to fight". When the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was because only the United States had nuclear bombs at that time. Now the United States and Russia can blow each other up ten times, and whoever does it first is a fool. No matter how tough Russia is, it knows where its bottom line is-it's okay to lose face, but it's not the country.
So don’t believe the rumors that “Russia is going to use a nuclear bomb,” they prefer to surrender rather than press the suicide button, which is not cowardice, it’s the only rational option.