It seems unlikely because why would you want to irradiate the land you want to occupy? However, suppose Putin did use a nuke, how would the US and other nations respond? It would probably not be a nuclear response. Could a response be a massive conventional strike by thousands of cruise missiles?

I don’t think the US would have any military response. Trump would blather on about how he’s disappointed, how there will be consequences, say it’s actually Ukraine’s fault, and something will happen in two weeks.

"why would you want to irradiate the land you want to occupy?"
It may be dawning on Putin that he's not going to occupy much.

The UK can operate independently of the US if I am not mistaken. Subs.

An attack on the Ukraine would be a strike on the west.

I hope the response would be a nuclear response.

V Putin doesn't care about ruining land, even his own.
Look at what the former USSR did to Chernobyl, the draining of the Aral Sea, attempted nuclear extraction of their 'oil sands' equivalent, ground-based nuclear tests, and much more.
He doesn't care about the people; he'll be in Moscow or St Petersburg.

If the US does nothing about it, which is likely considering the President, I doubt Europe will do anything about it either.
France possesses almost 300 strategic M51 submarine-launched nukes for deterrence but has as few as 20 TN81 tactical nukes.
The UK gave up their air launched tactical nukes about 30 years ago and only have strategic Trident Submarine deterrence.

I don't think either of them will launch hi-yield strategic ballistic missiles at Moscow/St Petersburg.

Apparently the UK has ordered an additional 12 F-35As, with the capability of carrying tactical nuclear missiles or bombs and IIRC France was to build a model of the Rafale specifically for the carriage of tactical nukes ( although, not being 'stealth', I don't know how far it would get into heavily defended Russian airspace ) so maybe they will be both re-introducing tactical battlefield nukes.

Edited September 9Sep 9 by MigL

On 9/9/2025 at 1:56 PM, John Cuthber said:

"why would you want to irradiate the land you want to occupy?"
It may be dawning on Putin that he's not going to occupy much.

How long would nuking a target deny use of that land? Neil deGrasse Tyson asserted recently that modern nukes release significantly less radioactive fallout than the original (1940s) style nukes and we can see that the only two cities ever nuked were not abandoned but were inhabited continuously to this day. I admit to less than perfect knowledge on this so I could be far off the mark.

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

How long would nuking a target deny use of that land?

That in large part depends on who presumes to send troops into said area. I suspect Putin would do so much sooner than a Western power would.

Has Putin attacked Poland? Pre Ukraine war how would that be perceived?

He is testing, probing, testing. This bastard needs glassing. Does that mean I die, my mum, sister son and niece?

Unfortunately yes.

A Neo Soviet Union under that despot is too horrible to imagine. "The West" as it was though is no longer.

We have a madman as CIC of the US, and the UK has left the EU. Perhaps Europe will take us back?

A mess.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by pinball1970
Missed word

2 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Has Putin attacked Poland?

Yes. Luckily Poland chose not to escalate, and only shot down the drones. Putin was likely testing the response.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes. Luckily Poland chose not to escalate, and only shot down the drones. Putin was likely testing the response.

I wonder what is next on his list? For all my tough talk I really hope this was a mistake not a test.

6 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I wonder what is next on his list? For all my tough talk I really hope this was a mistake not a test.

Baltics? But I still have doubts that there's a list of EU states he wants to poke with a stick. Russia has a small struggling economy, labor shortages, and their military machine is struggling to keep up with supplying munitions (and there's a shortage of TNT) and released criminals for cannon fodder.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Baltics? But I still have doubts that there's a list of EU states he wants to poke with a stick. Russia has a small struggling economy, labor shortages, and their military machine is struggling to keep up with supplying munitions (and there's a shortage of TNT) and released criminals for cannon fodder.

So nothing to lose then?

"Why do we need a world if Russia ceases to exist?" Putin 2018

20 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

So nothing to lose then?

If Russia used nukes in a war of aggression, they would lose the support of China, India, and the 'crazy' states.
I would say, even now, some of his military commanders must be questioning Putin's choices, but are afraid of pushing back for fear of getting pushed out of windows.
Once it becomes clear that Putin intends to sacrifice everyone if he can't get what he wants, they, and the population, will push back, and take him out.

Remember B Yeltsin standing on top of a tank holding a Russian flag, and the Armed Forces backing down ?
Not all Russians are crazy.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

If Russia used nukes in a war of aggression, they would lose the support of China, India, and the 'crazy' states.
I would say, even now, some of his military commanders must be questioning Putin's choices, but are afraid of pushing back for fear of getting pushed out of windows.
Once it becomes clear that Putin intends to sacrifice everyone if he can't get what he wants, they, and the population, will push back, and take him out.

Remember B Yeltsin standing on top of a tank holding a Russian flag, and the Armed Forces backing down ?
Not all Russians are crazy.

I'm not so sure about this, unless Americans are crazier than Russians! Here in the US we seem to be ok with the dear leader doing whatever he wants. Once the nukes start flying push back by the population seems a bit of a day late and a dollar short scenario.

Support of the crazy states would be immaterial at that juncture.

Does the EU or NATO have access to nukes independent of US approval?

Edited September 15Sep 15 by Moontanman

How did we reach here? Talking about nukes as if they were toys...I think it's high time given the modern media..tik tok, Instagram,u-tube and all the others should be alerted prior to a live stream of nukes destroying an island somewhere safe...for the current generation to be reminded what nukes are...

What seems to be going on it's a war of cultures... Europe wants it's sphere of influence to be entrenched in Ukraine...Ukraine has a significant Russian speaking group...that Russia doesn't want to let go... lf it let it go,that's a disaster to Russia on a future date... therefore,what Russia is doing is self preservation...from my point of view Russia doesn't need to attack other European states,where Russian speaking population is less significant...what happened to Poland I think it's a reminder of what will happen if Russia get economically choked off completely i.e a response to extremely high secondary tariffs to it's trading partners.

I think it's high time for the inhabitants (humans) of earth to appreciate each other's cultures...coz someone may see some other's people leaders as if they are a dictator while others/for them they see that leader as a source/point of stability...the issue of imposing values on others should be a forgotten thing/a thing of the past...what we should be doing is avoiding fragmentation of internet, encourage social media, then let people advertise their values,cultures if something is good human beings have common sense, given enough time they will embrace values and cultures they think it's best for them...at the same time we should not forget international trade has been a source of peace on itself.

30 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What seems to be going on it's a war of cultures... Europe wants it's sphere of influence to be entrenched in Ukraine...Ukraine has a significant Russian speaking group...that Russia doesn't want to let go... lf it let it go,that's a disaster to Russia on a future date... therefore,what Russia is doing is self preservation...from my point of view Russia doesn't need to attack other European states,where Russian speaking population is less significant...what happened to Poland

The only 'influence' being challenged is that Russia wants to control/dominate their 'sphere', while Europe wants their 'sphere' to be equal members and free. It has established NATO as a DEFENSIVE treaty ( see article 5 ) precisely to safeguard against Russian aggression ( see the Ukraine invasion ). Unfortunately Europe spends too much time 'hand wringing' and not enough taking decisive action.
Russia sent drones into Poland > Poland, with the backing of NATO should have the right, and the will, to retaliate.

People believed appeasement would stop a repetition of a world war 85 years ago; history proved them wrong.
Thinking such as yours will do it again.

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Does the EU or NATO have access to nukes independent of US approval?

Only France has independent nuclear capabilities.

Ukraine once did, but gave them up on condition of security guarantees from Russia and the US.
That didn't work out too well, did it ?

Edited September 15Sep 15 by MigL

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

The only 'influence' being challenged is that Russia wants to control/dominate their 'sphere', while Europe wants their 'sphere' to be equal members and free. It has established NATO as a DEFENSIVE treaty ( see article 5 ) precisely to safeguard against Russian aggression ( see the Ukraine invasion ). Unfortunately Europe spends too much time 'hand wringing' and not enough taking decisive action.
Russia sent drones into Poland > Poland, with the backing of NATO should have the right, and the will, to retaliate.

People believed appeasement would stop a repetition of a world war 85 years ago; history proved them wrong.
Thinking such as yours will do it again.

From where am, am outside the competing spheres... NATO, Russia, Europe...when it comes to nukes radiation affect every inhabitants of earth.. therefore, My concern...otherwise here we're just spectators...I think a spectator outside the competing spheres has unbiased view, from a vantage point of view, outside of competing spheres.

Policy of appeasement,is not applicable in this case,unlike 85 years ago...there is nuclear weapons and satellite imagery(it's almost impossible to creat secret armies and launch mass surprise attack on others without being noted).

In one way or the other nukes brings strategic stability to world peace...but it's advisable not to sleep walk into nuclear war coz of our egos...i.e wanting not to appear as if we are week....I think Chinese and indians trading with Russia(buying Russia oil) offers breathing space for Russia, therefore,swaying Russia from idea of using nukes... weakening Russia is more dangerous to world peace than a strong Russia...it can just decide to export it's nuclear tech to every other country...which one is better?

It is not 'competing spheres of influence'.
It is aggressor and victim; and any 'spectator' that allows it, eventually becomes a victim also.

59 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

it's almost impossible to creat secret armies and launch mass surprise attack on others without being noted

Apparently it's even possible not to do it in secrecy, have everyone notice it, and nobody do anything about it for fear of nuclear weapons.
But who cares; it's happening to someone else ( so far ).

THAT, is appeasement.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Only France has independent nuclear capabilities.

I believe England also has an independent nuclear deterrent.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I believe England also has an independent nuclear deterrent.

Air bases, air craft and subs. Trident is getting a refurb, that is independent IIRC. The bases here and in Germany are joint NATO/US, UK. (Wiki)

Yep, the warheads are UK designed, which are mounted on US missiles. So there's some independence.

17 hours ago, MigL said:

Ukraine once did, but gave them up on condition of security guarantees from Russia and the US.
That didn't work out too well, did it ?

You have to wonder how many people have sat out attacks in bomb shelters, grumbling over that decision. Everybody eventually learns the hard way that Russian promises don't mean anything.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Everybody eventually learns the hard way that Russian promises don't mean anything

And everyone is learning American 'promises' are only valid if there's profits to be made.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And everyone is learning American 'promises' are only valid if there's profits to be made.

I am not even sure about that one. Economically they have started to implement a "shoot-your-own-foot" approach to things. And I am not sure how much of that is ideological vs incompetence.

It is very much in line with Stalinist/Maoist authoritarian approach, were folks try to make brainfarts a reality.

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am not even sure about that one. Economically they have started to implement a "shoot-your-own-foot" approach to things. And I am not sure how much of that is ideological vs incompetence.

It is very much in line with Stalinist/Maoist authoritarian approach, were folks try to make brainfarts a reality.

Yeah, the US has always had that problem where promises made by one president are backpedaled or modified by another one. I guess it would have been worse if we hadn't written a formal Constitution. Fifty states, a dozen ideologies, many miscellaneous cults.... it's like herding cats. I think it's Ben Franklin with that quote, something like "A republic, if you can keep it."