Sanity check: US shooting down a Russian aircraft will NOT start a nuclear war

I am NOT in favor of shooting down manned Russian aircraft to protect drones. Of course, this will be ignored and many of the replies here will pretend I said the exact opposite and whine about warmongering. So be it.

The idea that if we shot down a Russian aircraft means "AUTOMATIC NUCLEAR WAR," as people are talking about in the thread about Lindsey Graham, is just not based in reality guys.

There's no such thing as "automatic" war. People have to make decisions to go to war. Could such an event lead to escalation that leads to miscalculation that leads to nuclear war? Of course. There aren't any laws of physics preventing it, so it's possible. But possible is a far cry from likely, much less "automatic."

If you read just a little history, it's very unlikely. The major nuclear powers have a history of bending over backwards to avoid going into major conflict with each other, specifically because if that happens neither side wins and the leaders all die. If Russia launched at us right now, Secret Service (the last few years haven't exactly made them look uber-professional and competent) would never get Biden to a nuclear-safe bunker in time, assuming he's even at the White House, which he's frequently not. When he's at home in Delaware, or traveling, the odds of them getting him to a presidential shelter in time are practically non-existent.

During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union killed each others' troops on numerous occasions, including numerous shootdowns of each other's manned military aircraft.

No nuclear war.

India and Pakistan have a long history of armed conflict. Once they both had nuclear weapons, their conflicts have been much more limited. They've still had border clashes in which both sides had dozens of soldiers killed though, much worse than 1 aircraft and 1 pilot being lost.

No nuclear war.

That is of course no guarantee that that pattern would hold in the future. But it does demonstrate that the idea that if nuclear powers take any direct action against each other, the result will be "AUTOMATIC NUCLEAR WAR" is ridiculous. You guys don't understand the concept of nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons doctrine. They're not there to be used if another country farts at you aggressively. They're there to protect you against existential threats. That's why, despite all the hype from the media, peaceniks, and environmentalists during the Cold War, we're all still here. Despite all the aggression towards each other, including direct military action on multiple occasions, we never posed an existential threat to each other. If the U.S. shoots down one Russian plane, that is not an existential threat to Russia.

This kind of thinking is no different than gullible progressives who thought Hillary's claim that Trump would start a nuclear war over someone insulting him on Twitter was in any way realistic. Some people really were knowledgeless enough to think if Trump said to launch nuclear missiles because someone insulted him on Twitter, the military would respond, in a 50s movie robot voice, "Yes. Sir. Launching. Missiles."

You also have to consider your leaders. Biden and Putin are both spoiled rich men used to living a certain lifestyle. Even if they survive a nuclear war, they will not be able to go back to living that cushy lifestyle anymore, as much of the support for it will be destroyed and stockpiles of supplies don't last forever. Neither one of them is going to compromise themselves unless there's no other option.

Finally, I'd like to remind you all that a lot of people here thought if the U.S. took any action in Syria it would be "automatic war" with Russia because Assad is Putin's ally. Everyone who thought that was wrong, and now pretends they meant that would only happen if we attacked Russia. But no, people here said we couldn't bomb Syria because it would mean war with Russia. We bombed Syria twice and Putin did nothing. We have forces in Syria to this day, and Putin has done nothing.

I still don't recommend shooting down Russian planes to protect drones or going to war with Russia. I'm also no fan of Putin or Russia, just to head off all the usual lies that weak-minded people who are hurt by this post will trot out.

Stay away USA
Stay away USA

a reply to: face23785

Russia won't use nukes if the US decided to formally enter what will be WW3 if they shot down a MIG.

They'll use nukes when they believe it has gone far enough and they are losing.


There won't be a surrender to the Internationalists this time because they aim to play for keeps.

January 6 would never have happened if it weren't for the short-sighted radicals. I wonder if all the countries backing Russia are as 'level-headed' (:roll as Biden and Putin?
Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia have all been portrayed as having loose cannons for leaders. When dyeing to wipe out Islamic non-believers is considered to be the highest honor in Gods' eyes the 'level-headed' leaders are the least of our worries-but that's where our attention is being focused.

The loss of millions of lives-be it nuclear or missiles-seems to be an ever-present increasing threat, and world leaders are playing Russian Roulette, and the country refusing to lead nations into negotiating any form of peace in the USA.

Biden is soft on crime on the home front, yet all in for war on the world front. Looks like a well-planned world-wide agenda from where I sit.

a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

I don't think he is bluffing about using nukes-but It would likely take more than one downed plane.
A full assault on Crimea might do it,which the Ukrainians claim they will take back,so I guess we will find out.

I also think there are those on both sides who believe a nuke or two won't lead to an all out global nuclear war.
Which is a crazy gamble IMO

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

Yeah I said pretty much the same thing in my OP. Except I'm not worried about Putin's mental state. There was a lot of that talk in the early days of the war, but you hear a lot less of it from the "experts" now, because they were all wrong. If he was crazy and really thought he was going to win in a week and he was just itching to start lobbing nukes, he'd have done it by now. I'd be more worried about miscalculation, a la Saddam deciding to invade Kuwait because he was convinced the West wouldn't do anything but sanctions in response.

I don't think he is bluffing about using nukes-but It would likely take more than one downed plane.
A full assault on Crimea might do it,which the Ukrainians claim they will take back,so I guess we will find out.

I disagree. Even if Ukraine succeeded in taking back Crimea, that's not an existential threat to Putin. You have to keep in mind that any decision to escalate to nuclear war is essentially a decision to commit suicide. Does anyone genuinely think Putin is willing to die for Crimea? I doubt many people believe that.

I also think there are those on both sides who believe a nuke or two won't lead to an all out global nuclear war.
Which is a crazy gamble IMO

I agree. It's possible to have limited nuclear conflict, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. And I don't think Putin or Biden would either.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

Yeah I said pretty much the same thing in my OP. Except I'm not worried about Putin's mental state. There was a lot of that talk in the early days of the war, but you hear a lot less of it from the "experts" now, because they were all wrong. If he was crazy and really thought he was going to win in a week and he was just itching to start lobbing nukes, he'd have done it by now. I'd be more worried about miscalculation, a la Saddam deciding to invade Kuwait because he was convinced the West wouldn't do anything but sanctions in response.

I don't think he is bluffing about using nukes-but It would likely take more than one downed plane.
A full assault on Crimea might do it,which the Ukrainians claim they will take back,so I guess we will find out.

I disagree. Even if Ukraine succeeded in taking back Crimea, that's not an existential threat to Putin. You have to keep in mind that any decision to escalate to nuclear war is essentially a decision to commit suicide. Does anyone genuinely think Putin is willing to die for Crimea? I doubt many people believe that.

I also think there are those on both sides who believe a nuke or two won't lead to an all out global nuclear war.
Which is a crazy gamble IMO

I agree. It's possible to have limited nuclear conflict, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. And I don't think Putin or Biden would either.

I agree completely simply he isn't going to use nukes in Ukraine because he would be a pariah and he would never be able to unite Ukrainians as his stated goal. Even in the eastern regions, he would bleed off some support. Additionally, he isn't gonna use nukes elsewhere as it would garner a heavy response if not complete annihilation.

I could easily see a tit-for-tat move though, we shoot down a Russian plane they shoot down 2 or ours. Even that is full of dangers of escalation on purpose or accidentally. The percentage that opposes the war here in America would shrink drastically with the downing of an American plane provoked or not.

That said he can still at least likely hold on to the territory already occupied unless something changes drastically. If Ukraine insists on Crimea they will have to take it by force. The Ukrainian troop numbers and most of the terrain really are not conducive to battle where you can expose large amounts of troops to invade an entrenched force like the Russians have. A battle for Crimea would likely result in Russia holding most areas and with essentially Ukrainian guerilla fighters forced to do hit-and-run raids from the mountains at best.

originally posted by: putnam6

I could easily see a tit-for-tat move though, we shoot down a Russian plane they shoot down 2 or ours. Even that is full of dangers of escalation on purpose or accidentally.

Totally agree, that's why I'm not in favor of shooting any down over an old drone. Sure they're expensive, but they cost peanuts compared to what we've sent to Ukraine already. If the money was a reason to attack Russia, we should've attacked them months ago. It's not worth the risk at this point.

a reply to: face23785

like the previous version of MAD what happens in reality is those places that don't have an equal defence will be on the receiving end of attacks..

ponder what may have happened if Hitler used his nerve weapons on London at the beginning the war as the fear from gas bombs (post great war) would have sent the uk population into a tizz.. but the Hitler didn't use them even when losing the war for fear of the allies using similar weapons on Germany, that fear held even post the firebombing of Dresden..

the Japanese had similar fears so restricted the use of such weapons on those they deemed lesser peoples as there is no fear of reprisal.

that kind of cascade will stay hands today but will lead down the path to a hot war but also allow use of such weapons on those deemed lesser and open the door to the use of new weapons.. we are more at risk of biologics than nuclear weapons and we can see that from how the west responded to covid in the same way from 35 to 39 there was a major focus on gas masks..

now we open vaccines plants then it was gas mask plants.. the fear then gas/nerve agents now its biologics not nuclear bombs..

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: face23785

like the previous version of MAD what happens in reality is those places that don't have an equal defence will be on the receiving end of attacks..

ponder what may have happened if Hitler used his nerve weapons on London at the beginning the war as the fear from gas bombs (post great war) would have sent the uk population into a tizz.. but the Hitler didn't use them even when losing the war for fear of the allies using similar weapons on Germany, that fear held even post the firebombing of Dresden..

the Japanese had similar fears so restricted the use of such weapons on those they deemed lesser peoples as there is no fear of reprisal.

that kind of cascade will stay hands today but will lead down the path to a hot war but also allow use of such weapons on those deemed lesser and open the door to the use of new weapons.. we are more at risk of biologics than nuclear weapons and we can see that from how the west responded to covid in the same way from 35 to 39 there was a major focus on gas masks..

now we open vaccines plants then it was gas mask plants.. the fear then gas/nerve agents now its biologics not nuclear bombs..

The same reasons Putin won't use nukes apply to biologicals, and maybe more so.

Even mustard gas causes brutal injuries and painful deaths, they can't use biological agents without potentially poisoning their own troops, and causing mass casualties among civilians, the same civilians they are trying to convince to become Russian again.

Below is a link to the pros and cons you got to ask yourself do the pros outweigh the cons of the use of biologicals in Ukraine?

connectusfund.org...

List of Cons of Biological Warfare
1. It is never 100% effective.
In spite of their deadly nature, research found that 1% to 10% of the world’s general population is naturally immune to the compounds that have been integrated in to many of biological weapons. This means that a nation would be forced to expose their own soldiers to these compounds to effectively remove an enemy population and to make sure survivors could be eliminated.

2. It causes a massive amount of collateral damage.
Of course, there are definitely civilians who are not actively participating in whatever conflict is going on in any given population. Biological warfare can eliminate the entire population, and not just the military forces, which mean that a toxin to be released in a region of millions could potentially murder all of them in the name of war.

3. Its weapons are unpredictable.
In many instances where biological weapons were used, there was great risk that the offensive country could infect their own troops with compounds that were originally meant for its adversary. What’s worse, some components can live for a longer period in the water or soil, which means that a place can be unusable for years or decades.

4. Its biological agents are “live” in nature.
One huge disadvantage of biological warfare concerns the “live” nature of the biological agents used. The weapons explode once, kill hundreds of people and maim thousands of others, but the agents are still active spreading their effects further across a country or even a continent.

5. It is hated by most people.
People do not like biological weapons. However, if these weapons are used on them, they would not be able to complain much since they would already be dead. Now, imagine the leader of the offensive country being accused by the media of using a biological weapon for military gain. He would surely receive unfavorable comments.

6. It can be used for terrorism.
Biological weaponry has managed to enter the realm of terrorism with the anthrax attack in the US in 2001. It was delivered through the country’s mail system and affected citizens in various states. All in all, there were 27 casualties, with 5 people dead and 22 others seriously got ill. The perpetrator, so far, has remained unknown, but there was clear evidence that some terrorist groups, such as the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo and Al-Qaeda, were considering and experimenting with biological weapons. Fortunately, there have been no other lethal terrorist attacks like that one since then.

7. It is associated with a nasty stigma.
It is important to note that biological warfare has a nasty consequence with its use. Imagine this: a child affected by the biological agent bleeding out of every orifice of his body and getting his internal organs liquefied and saturated with particles of the infectious Ebola virus. A national leader accused of purposely causing it to happen would not be very popular for very long.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

I disagree. Even if Ukraine succeeded in taking back Crimea, that's not an existential threat to Putin. You have to keep in mind that any decision to escalate to nuclear war is essentially a decision to commit suicide. Does anyone genuinely think Putin is willing to die for Crimea? I doubt many people believe that.

Ummm...except that Crimea...Donetsk...Luhansk...Kherson and Zaporizhia...are now constitutionally a part of the Russian Federation...

So...according to Russia...They are Russia...

So that makes them existential also...and a part of that whole equation...


That's what the west is just not acknowledging...or comprehending...

Those new Russian territories are Russia Proper...and from the Russian point of view...Ukraine is occupying Russian territory...


Let that thought steep for a while and you'll understand the true nature of this conflict...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

"So...according to Russia...They are Russia..."

Because of laughable "referendums"?

Yes, "according to Russia".

Therein lies the problem.

You seem fine with Russia invading a sovereign country by force and annexing bits of it, some of which they don't even control.

"Ukraine is occupying Russian territory..."

Blimey.

That is just.....I don't actually have the words.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

Yeah I said pretty much the same thing in my OP. Except I'm not worried about Putin's mental state. There was a lot of that talk in the early days of the war, but you hear a lot less of it from the "experts" now, because they were all wrong. If he was crazy and really thought he was going to win in a week and he was just itching to start lobbing nukes, he'd have done it by now. I'd be more worried about miscalculation, a la Saddam deciding to invade Kuwait because he was convinced the West wouldn't do anything but sanctions in response.

I don't think he is bluffing about using nukes-but It would likely take more than one downed plane.
A full assault on Crimea might do it,which the Ukrainians claim they will take back,so I guess we will find out.

I disagree. Even if Ukraine succeeded in taking back Crimea, that's not an existential threat to Putin. You have to keep in mind that any decision to escalate to nuclear war is essentially a decision to commit suicide. Does anyone genuinely think Putin is willing to die for Crimea? I doubt many people believe that.

I also think there are those on both sides who believe a nuke or two won't lead to an all out global nuclear war.
Which is a crazy gamble IMO

I agree. It's possible to have limited nuclear conflict, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. And I don't think Putin or Biden would either.

I agree completely simply he isn't going to use nukes in Ukraine because he would be a pariah and he would never be able to unite Ukrainians as his stated goal. Even in the eastern regions, he would bleed off some support. Additionally, he isn't gonna use nukes elsewhere as it would garner a heavy response if not complete annihilation.

Ummm...actually...the reason is historical...President Vladimir Putin could care less if others attempt to hang the pariah descriptor on him...He simply doesn't acknowledge any other entity as possessing the requisite character...honor...or integrity...to possess a clean enough conscience...to be able to pass any judgement...

The honest answer is that He would not wish to irradiate historical Russian land...and quite frankly does not enjoy being forced to advance this military objective...

It's obvious how measured he's been when he could have simply carpet bombed the entire Ukraine from the stratosphere...

Everything he's done so far has been measured...methodical...goal oriented...

Had the US and NATO not funneled in hundreds of billions of dollars in support and hardware...this would have been over long ago...and well over a hundred thousand Ukrainians would be alive...at home with their families...

However...the Biden administration said no to the proposals from Russia before this Special Military operation began...and since then we've heard from Angela Merkel...Franscois Hollande...Petro Poroshenko and Zelinskyy all stating that the Minsk agreements were a bold faced lie...




YouSir

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: YouSir

"So...according to Russia...They are Russia..."

Because of laughable "referendums"?

Yes, "according to Russia".

Therein lies the problem.

You seem fine with Russia invading a sovereign country by force and annexing bits of it, some of which they don't even control.

"Ukraine is occupying Russian territory..."

Blimey.

That is just.....I don't actually have the words.

Ummm...you never have the words...you simply denigrate and obfuscate...

I simply presented in context the Russian position vis a' vis...their position on these new Russian territories...and it doesn't matter a whit whether you agree...or anyone else agrees to that position...it simply is...

Perhaps NATO shouldn't have carved Kosovo out of Serbia...and provided precedent for making racial and ethnic areas independent nations...

The ethnic Russian people of former eastern Ukraine held referendums in Crimea...Donetsk...Luhansk...Kherson and Zaporizhia and voted to become part of Russia...Now these former Ukrainian provinces have been ratified into the Russian constitution and charter...and are de facto Russia proper...

So...like it...hate it...disregard it...I could give a rats ass...

That is the reality on the ground going foreward...

No one even remotely cares for your consternation...No...One...



YouSir

At this point its a total crapshoot and anyone that says or especially thinks any different is delusional.

We have no idea what Putin will or won't do, he is playing a game and antying up with bodies upon bodies, got a big pile going.

If the US continues this way Russia will achieve its objective by micro stepping up the force ladder..Now the question..Which way will have a higher American civilian body count..Thats the wild card, and the threat that Putin is going to use to win.

Now the rumors of replacing him and this arrest warrant, that sounds like the black stars have come out to me.

a reply to: YouSir

"No one even remotely cares for your consternation...No...One..."

Pretty much sums you up. So much for being congenial.

If you think those "referendums" are legit, well......

Da, comrade.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: face23785
History may tell us that downing a Russian lane has not yet started a nuclear war.
But history cannot tell us the true state of Putins mind as it is today.

I disagree. Even if Ukraine succeeded in taking back Crimea, that's not an existential threat to Putin. You have to keep in mind that any decision to escalate to nuclear war is essentially a decision to commit suicide. Does anyone genuinely think Putin is willing to die for Crimea? I doubt many people believe that.

Ummm...except that Crimea...Donetsk...Luhansk...Kherson and Zaporizhia...are now constitutionally a part of the Russian Federation...

So...according to Russia...They are Russia...

So that makes them existential also...and a part of that whole equation...


That's what the west is just not acknowledging...or comprehending...

Those new Russian territories are Russia Proper...and from the Russian point of view...Ukraine is occupying Russian territory...


Let that thought steep for a while and you'll understand the true nature of this conflict...

YouSir

That's not news to me.

Like I mentioned before, what matters in that calculus is whether Putin is willing to die for them. I doubt he is, so it's very unlikely he'd use nukes to defend them.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: YouSir

"No one even remotely cares for your consternation...No...One..."

Pretty much sums you up. So much for being congenial.

If you think those "referendums" are legit, well......

Da, comrade.

Ummm…do you have a comprehension issue…?

It doesn’t matter what I think…or if I think about any of this…

What matters is how the Russians perceive…and think…and act about this matter…


The premise is to deny ignorance…not gorge yourself on it until you throw it up all over the page…



YouSir

Probably not, but you never know....

You would think a nuclear armed world would be a polite world, but I guess not.

There's a youtube video of a neighbors argument over snow removal that ended in gunplay and ALL dead.
Over snow. That melts.