Granted, the Russians like to wave their nukes around for any damned reason. But that doesn't mean their threats are hollow in the face of Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk province. Credible nuclear threats can only be made for seriously lethal threats to a country's survival.
For decades, nuclear-escalation theory has presumed that countries with atomic weapons were largely immune from attack because an aggressor risked triggering armageddon.
Nuclear weapon threats are not credible against a small or shallow invasion that does not threaten the existence of the state. Claiming that Ukraine's occupation of a small amount of Russian territory eliminates nuclear deterrence is dangerously wrong.
Just as nukes don't deter subversion and irregular warfare, nukes don't deter invasions that fall short of destroying the defending state.
Think about it. Is it really credible to think that risking nuclear destruction is the sane response to losing a small amount of territory? Really? You wouldn't think of an alternative?
India did not nuke Pakistan when Pakistan made an incursion into Indian territory in 1999 at Kargil. India gathered forces and eventually ejected the invaders. Not only didn't the war go nuclear, it did not broaden into general conventional warfare.
Nor did Israel's nukes prevent Hamas from invading Israel and slaughtering Israelis on October 7, 2023. Or prevent Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973.
And American nukes clearly didn't prevent North Korea from invading our ally South Korea in 1950.
Don't go back in time to the 1950s when serious people thought nukes meant you didn't need conventional military forces to defend your country.
There are no simple, relatively cheap silver bullets for our defense needs.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
