We are getting close to Russia using nukes and few people care. Why?

There are thousands of people on both sides involved, and almost all of them are well aware the preferred outcome will be that a certain 69 year old dictator is removed from power. The game is still playing itself out is all.

In Russia, the only really interesting part is how and when and when to switch sides. Defect too soon you get shot. Defect too late you get shot. The herd is almost frantic with the desire to stampede, but nobody wants to be the first one or the last one.

I think that there is a difference between threatening to use nukes and actually using them. Threats make people scared and perhaps willing to compromise, which sows division among Ukraine's allies and favors Russia. However, I think that detonating a nuke in Ukraine would achieve the opposite. It would unite people in anger and revenge. This is why I think Russia's threats are probably empty. Of course, in any cases, mutually assured destruction works. People in Moscow have as little desire to be nuked as we have. They will remove the mad dictator before things get out of hands.

What are the advantages of me being scared? I am so far removed from the situation that spending my attention on it would have no positive change for me or anyone else.

I can draw out a 2x2 matrix:

A1. Worry, then die of radiation burns next month.

B1. Relax, then die of radiation burns next month.

A2. Worry, then die of cardiac arrest in 40 years.

B2. Relax, then die of cardiac arrest in 55 years.

I’ll choose options B1 or B2 please.

For the same reason people dismissed Covid in Dec and Jan news. It's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

People and nations do stuff for ROI. Even if Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't intact (it still is) there is no ROI in creating a wasteland, people might be evil but they are evil with rationale.

The rationale is to conquer and exploit for ROI purposes, destroying everything is the opposite of that and is a recipe for ending up way worse than when you started off, even if you "win" the nuclear exchange.

It's the reason why China decided not to match Russia and US 5000+ nukes and stopped at 1000. Millions of diplomats and an ever growing movie industry will be their Weapons of Mass Persuasion.

Chill. Take a walk without your phone.

Russian elites do not want to die. They won’t launch nukes.

With modern weapons, If an actual WWIII ever happens it’ll be over before you find out it started.

Watch some kpop videos maybe. Cheer up. Calm down.

Why do you think people don't care?

What is it you'd like them to be doing? How can we sufficiently communicate our level of concern and when will we know that it meets your requirements?

Are we talking "rending garments" here or should we bust out the serious self mutilation gear?

Give yourself a break from the news for a while.

AIUI, the consensus thinking seems to be that even if Russia decides to employ nukes in Ukraine, they're not necessarily the "trigger mass retaliation and cause a nuclear winter" type. Apparently they have "tactical nukes" that are much (much) less powerful (in terms of yield) than the ones tipping the ICBM's and that figured in "War Games" etc.

Now, would even using something like that trigger a response from other nations, and could it still escalate to "Global Thermonuclear War"? Probably. But at least in the short-term it doesn't appear to be the case that as soon as Putin "pushes the button" it's automatically game over for everybody.

Also, supposedly three people are required to use even those nukes, with Putin being one of the three. There seems to be some thought that the other two might refuse to allow their use. How Putin would respond to something like that is an interesting question. Given the unrest over the Russian draft, I can't help but wonder if all of this is leading to a possible regime change in Russia.

I share your worries and believe that Russia will use nukes in Ukraine, safe in the knowledge that like for like retaliation by the west is impossible. Comments advising you to not worry, or use your phone less, or stating that someone in Russia will do something to stop it are condescending at the least and falsehoods at the worst. Current nuclear doctrine does not allow for retaliation by a western power unless that power is directly facing annihilation because the costs are too great and this is well known by all including Putin.

> Shouldn't everyone be scared now?

since whole world see how weak russian army is, fearmongering is хуйло (putin's) last weapon.

You shouldn't be scared. The U.S. and allied governments have the situation under control. Mutually assured destruction remains in effect. A Russian nuclear attack on NATO would be met in kind.

I suspect there are plenty of people who worry quite a bit about the Russians dropping nukes, but don't speak of it publicly.

From what I've read, the nukes people think Russia would use are the small, "tactical" nukes. If Russia set off two or three of them, they won't lead to immediate nuclear winter. Fall-out and persistent radioactive contamination would depend on detonation altitude and other targeting factors. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but it's possible to detonate a small nuke without ending civilization.

But the problem with Russia detonating a small nuke is what happens then? How would we respond? Do we nuke something? We're not officially belligerents in the "special military operation." Would we declare war? Would we torpedo their Arctic drilling platforms?

I think at least part of the lack of public discussion from various governments is that we're not really sure what we would do until we know exactly what the Russians do.

I also think there is a strategic benefit to ambiguity about how we would respond. We've always said we would not be the first to use nukes in a conflict. But I don't think we (the west) have explicitly said we would consider a nuclear attack on Ukraine a nuclear attack on us. There's some benefit in being ambiguous about this as (I'm sure) someone in the national security policy hierarchy thinks there is a deterrent effect.

You can't live your life continuously frightened and expect to be effective at achieving any of your foreign policy objectives. But there are certainly times when it's legitimate to be more frightened than others. I started getting more nervous after Russia started massing troops on the Ukraine border. Personally, I thought Putin was bluffing. Then his troops performed less well than any of us seemed to anticipate and I started worrying a bit less. Now he's calling up more troops and is doubling down.

I think the nuclear threat comes in if Russia perceives the west has crossed the line to become a direct belligerent. We don't know if Russia would respond with a tac-nuke or the full tour nuclear armageddon.

I think it boils down to... We don't know if they're going to drop nukes. Which means they could maybe not drop nukes. If we truly believe they will drop nukes, prudence dictates we take steps to prepare for nuclear war. But they'll see us prepare and assume that we're going to launch first.

When Mutual Assured Destruction is no longer a deterrent, what then?

So yes. Be afraid. But also be brave. Assume there is a situation that doesn't lead to nuclear war, and that we can find a path to that future. Be brave because to show fear may be to invite your fears to manifest.

Or at least I'm sure this is what Kissinger would say.

I believe some people are still here who were threatened by global nuclear annihilation for over 30…

Because people have been so brainwashed to think Russia is the most evil force on the planet and must be stopped at any cost (including nuclear war).

The brainwashing has been too effective. Leaders of western countries are acting irrationally an know it but don't want to oppose popular opinion.