How and why Russia might use nukes | DW News

A leading expert explains three circumstances under which Russia might use nuclear weapons. James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace breaks down Vladimir Putin’s latest threat to use weapons of mass destruction in the Ukraine war, what it says about the state of the conflict and how dangerous things could get.

In an interview with DW’s Richard Walker, Acton warns, “Once the nuclear threshold has been crossed, there is no guarantee you're going to be able to stop short of the end of civilization.” And he explains what the international community should do to reduce the risks.

James Acton last spoke to DW in the early days of the war — rewatch that interview here:

Follow DW on social media:

#Russia #Ukraine #ukrainewar

[summerrain]

The thing with a threat is, the first time you use it there is great shock and fear, but after you've repeated it a hundered times it loses it's meaning.

[hugodesrosiers-plaisance]

In such scary times, interviews like this are essential to keep people calm and reasonable. Great work, Mr Acton and DW.

[omidpourhossein]

I must admit that human beings puzzle me. It boggles my mind how one demented old man can cause such death and destruction.

[thenzlander]

What a change to hear someone to give us such a sane analysis.

[aNDY-yum]

Maybe Putin wants us to think it's a bluff, by saying it's not a bluff
But it's actually not a bluff

[jimjonsen]

There is a reason why the Soviet Union, nor any nuclear power, never launched a first strike (nuclear attack) since Word War 2, despite all of the Cold War fears that the Soviets would. And its because you can't launch a first strike without being annihilated in the second strike. I remember in the 80s when The Day After aired, and everyone hoped the Soviets would see the movie and learn the lesson. Probably not realizing the Soviets can be trusted to act in the best self-interests...which mutually assured destruction is clearly against... and that the Soviets knew this since the 60s, if not the 50s. -- How is it any different today? 

Even if Putin had the launch codes (he doesn't), or the ability to order a first strike by himself (he doesn't), even he would know the response is not going to be 'more sanctions'. -- The only way I could fathom Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, or against any enemy country, is the FSB had a foolproof plan to blame am ISIS terror cell, or rogue Chechen element, or claim the Ukrainians did it in a false-flag conspiracy to frame the Russians. -- But that would require a convincing story on how such an element got the nuclear weapon 'elsewhere', and eliminating everyone involved in the planning and execution. Whatever the case, Russia would need absolute plausible deniability. -- Here's my two cents, if there was really a way to use a nuclear weapon against an enemy without equal repercussions, Russia and China (and the US) would have figured it out a long time ago and did it already.

All NATO must do is take out Moscow and 5 -6 other city's to take out all of Russia.... But Russia must take out city's all over the planet from USA, CANADA, FRANCE UK. ALL OF EUROPE and as far away as, AUSTRALIA and so on and so on ...

United Kingdom 225 warheads (submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )

France 300 warheads

(submarine delivery systems new and up to date systems )

United States 7, 315 warheads

(Mixed delivery systems new and up to date systems )

Russia 8, 000 warheads

(Mixed delivery systems old mostly from the soviet union times NOT up to date systems )

RUSSIA IS AT DISADVANTAGE !!! and they know it Putin's regime knows its and that is why they will not use nukes they will hint and shout about nukes but that's it !!

ON A SIDE NOTE : Missiles require a huge amount of upkeep and if the maintenance that we've seen on Russian captured tanks in Ukriane is anything to go by, or how there nuclear sublime fleet upkeep is I figure half of Russian Missiles would be defect or even blow up on in mid flight ; Any NBC specialist can tell you that they estimate that without extensive maintenance an ICBM has about a 5% per year cumulative failure rate. And mote of Russia ICBMs are form the late 80s early nineties so based on those facts like I say many as much as half of their weapons can end up and would failx.

ALSO ON A 2nd NOTE ; Putin can not just wake up one day and press a button because he wants to when it comes to sending nukes around the world !!!

[MyNomDePlume]

“I have experienced many terrible things in life, a few of which actually happened." – Mark Twain

[maxsupernova]

What a thoughtful and informative interview. Thank you for doing this!

[mikeoleksa]

Putin is a real tough guy from hundreds of miles behind the front lines. 🤣

[PeterSedesse]

" it is not a bluff' is exactly what someone says when bluffing. If it wasn't obviously a bluff, you wouldn't need to say that.

[kanadashyuugo]

At this point nuclear use would only achieve one thing: the international community destroying the current Russian state and denying russian people statehood for the foreseeable future, if not forever. The nuclear taboo is far too strong, and being THE FIRST to break it will make Russia a pariah state on the level of.... well on a level never seen before in human history.

[MrFacemeltify]

We can't ignore the threat, but I do think it's worth questioning what state Russia's Nuclear stockpile is in. The fact that the US spends almost the entirety of Russia's annual defense budget just on nuclear maintenance despite having >500 less warheads really gives me a reason to pause, especially when you look at condition the rest of Putin's "modernized" forces have been deployed in. Russia hasn't so much as tested a nuclear weapon since the fall of the USSR out of international agreements, 30 years is a long time for something to just sit unmaintained like that.

[michaelparker]

I think the discussion was the most interesting and coherent I have heard on the subject.

[machdaddy]

When you are gambling and loosing...it's a really bad idea to "double down"!

[-.]

Okt: My finger is a foot away from the button
Nov: My finger is less than a foot away from the button
Dec: My finger is 3 inches away from the button
Jan: My finger is 1 inches away from the button
Feb: My finger rests on the button
Mars: Just give me something.

[TheRivas]

This guy is too rational to speak on tv. It's really refreshing.

[paulmakinson]

Unfortunately, it seems that the only way out is a long drawn out war, more like a stalemate, and then a Russian retreat as it becomes politically and economically unsustainable, just like in Afghanistan. A quick overwhelming victory by Ukraine could be interpreted by Russia as an existential threat.

[suberanka]

as a former hiroshima citizen when it dropped you just hope you are closer to its epicenter because it instantly evaporates you like my great grandmother.

[theobserver]

We need to put all our best minds together to figure out a way to prevent the use of any nuclear weapons by anyone at any time. Right now. There must be a way to make it impossible.

[Kokozaftran]

The first threat in February 24 was scary.

Now, feels like empty threats of a petulant child.