How would the West respond if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine?

[Helsinkian]

No matter how unlikely you think the scenario is, it is not an impossibility. I'm not sure Putin is a rational actor anymore.

[DavidB.]

We have to use nukes on Russia then, as awful as that would be. Can't really think of another scenario. If we don't use them after one Russian nuke, the threat is gone.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

A rogue state like Putin's Russia using a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression like this is - a war of defense would be different - would likely necessitate a nuclear response.

[Mehmentum]

Option 4.  Putin would 'commit suicide' via jumping out a window.  Perhaps before (thus averting the disaster) or perhaps shortly after the nuke is launched.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The West would try to do Option 4. But they might not be successful.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Option 4.  Putin would 'commit suicide' via jumping out a window.  Perhaps before (thus averting the disaster) or perhaps shortly after the nuke is launched.

"Defenestration of Moscow" does have a certain ring to it

[HillGoose]

how would they? idk

how should they? option 6

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Also wouldn't Russia be more likely to use tactical nukes than actual strategic missiles? I don't see how that could justify a nuclear response from the West but it would certainly signify a new stage of global politics.

Anyone who votes option 6 I have very serious doubts about and hope they never get near a position of power, ever.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

If I was President I'd go with option 4.

[TheTide]

Moscow, New York and London are annihilated within hours or minutes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Proportional retaliation is the only tenable response. Anything less would doom the world.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I voted for the fourth option btw, but would understand a limited version of option five.

I could see option two actually being the most likely though if the use of nuclear weapons really shocked the world, including currently uninvolved or neutral parties, into action and demanding a peace before MAD was really put to the test.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Leaders who (quite understandably!) have more of an interest in seeing tomorrow than world governance 20 years down the line will not opt for war and probably won’t opt for “limited conflict” (war).

A mix of diplomacy, sanctions/blockades and clandestine operations is the most likely option, plus a horrid amount of money thrown at anti-ballistic missile technology.

[Middle-aged Europe]

If it is actually a nuke that is used in Ukraine and not on NATO territory, then Option 3, plus much more sanctions. All existing limitations on arms deliveries to Ukraine would fall. Giving them main battle tanks of Western production and fighter jets would be the new norm with regards to military aid. A serious push to suspend Russia from the UN Security Council is also to be expected, for one thing.

The West can't (and doesn't really want to) intervene directly because the end of the civilization as we know it isn't something anyone desires.

[CumbrianLefty]

If it is actually a nuke that is used in Ukraine and not on NATO territory, then Option 3, plus much more sanctions. All existing limitations on arms deliveries to Ukraine would fall. Giving them main battle tanks of Western production and fighter jets would be the new norm with regards to military aid. A serious push to suspend Russia from the UN Security Council is also to be expected, for one thing.

The West can't (and doesn't really want to) intervene directly because the end of the civilization as we know it isn't something anyone desires.

I think Option 4 is arguably justifiable then, and there's a good chance Putin has been told this.

[Person Man]

If it is actually a nuke that is used in Ukraine and not on NATO territory, then Option 3, plus much more sanctions. All existing limitations on arms deliveries to Ukraine would fall. Giving them main battle tanks of Western production and fighter jets would be the new norm with regards to military aid. A serious push to suspend Russia from the UN Security Council is also to be expected, for one thing.

The West can't (and doesn't really want to) intervene directly because the end of the civilization as we know it isn't something anyone desires.

I think Option 4 is arguably justifiable then, and there's a good chance Putin has been told this.

Like I said, if there is news about attempted assassinations of Putin, this could have something to do with it.

[sting in the rafters]

If they launch nukes then not only does the USA have a strategic obligation to get involved, but every other Nuclear NPT signatory does as well. NATO has no obligation to prevent a Ukrainian genocide; it is obligated to provide for its members’ safety via a credible nuclear deterrent.If the UN, or realistically NATO acting in a UN Peacekeepers’ capacity due to the former’s Russian-stymied Security Council doesn’t retaliate, or appears to lack a credible deterrent, then when the hell is the bomb even for?

Putin knows that. The Kremlin threatens nuclear deployment for domestic consumption, not foreign. It provides a source of power nobody can take away from Russia; that a world without Russia is a world without existence. Forgive my tone, however it is quite grating to read posters treating the tangible prospect of nuclear holocaust as if it isn’t something the globe has worked to avoid for the past 77-and-change years. If Putin changes that he is signing the humanity’s death warrant, and I’d like to think he hasn’t gone full I Am Legend quite yet.

Reiterating. We should all hope the situation doesn't escalate, however if the unthinkable happens I struggle to envision an appropriate response which doesn't involve blowing them down as a brother should.

[Coldstream]

Nuclear attack is the only reasonable response to Putin should that happen. The alternative is submitting to his rule now.

The goal would be to take out their missile bases/military capacities rather than Russian cities, save perhaps Moscow.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Nuclear attack is the only reasonable response to Putin should that happen. The alternative is submitting to his rule now.

The goal would be to take out their missile bases/military capacities rather than Russian cities, save perhaps Moscow.

Even if it worked (and it almost certainly wouldn't), this would kill millions of civilians and therefore isn't reasonable.

[rc18]

A Biden who pre-war practically offered up parts of Ukraine and then has spent the months since fastidiously 'de-escalating' is not going to start a nuclear war over Putin nuking a non-allied state.

[Zinneke]

A Biden who pre-war practically offered up parts of Ukraine and then has spent the months since fastidiously 'deescalating' is not going to start a nuclear war over Putin nuking a non-allied state.

No man, you don't get it. Any state that uses a nuke against another, hell even uses a nuke just to intimidate...then the nature of the conflict itself changes. It no longer becomes salami slice warfare (and with all due respect to the Donbass, we all thought the initial Putin plan was basically to get those two provinces and declare his innings), it becomes a situation of Total War between nuclear powers. The whole idea of "we only use nukes as a deterrent " is no longer a doctrine and instead it's a Mexican stand off with Putler the first to tell "DRAW".

Already the use of a nuke would affect the power grid, the markets would collapse, the radiation levels in Europe would cause Article 5 déclarations, and Russia itself would probably break down into an even uglier barbaric society than it currently is. At that point it's in everyone's, including China's, interest to intervene, get rid of the unhinged deluded psycho at the top and reduce Russia to a client state.  

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

At that point, the calculus is the same whether Putin lays claim to Kyiv, Warsaw, Berlin, or Washington DC. He's shown that he is willing to use nukes to destroy his opponent and respects no borders anywhere. He has to be removed by any means necessary, or there no longer is a free world anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/

This article is a good read into various ideas floating around the powers that be (schlosser also wrote a really good book on the history of nuclear weaponry). The general consensus seems to be that if russia was to launch a tactical nuke on a military target, the US would respond in conventional means, through for example targeting the russian navy - as well as using the moral high ground to get the fence sitting nations away from Moscow. Especially interesting bit about the Obama era training exercise on how to deal with a russian invasion of the baltics (Obama's top guys recommended a nuclear attack on Belarus, Biden's allies recommend purely conventional response).

[Coldstream]

Nuclear attack is the only reasonable response to Putin should that happen. The alternative is submitting to his rule now.

The goal would be to take out their missile bases/military capacities rather than Russian cities, save perhaps Moscow.

Even if it worked (and it almost certainly wouldn't), this would kill millions of civilians and therefore isn't reasonable.

If you allow Putin to use nuclear weapons with impunity then you have surrendered to his tyranny. Perhaps some would sooner live on their knees, but like the people of Ukraine I’d sooner die on my feet.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Nuclear attack is the only reasonable response to Putin should that happen. The alternative is submitting to his rule now.

The goal would be to take out their missile bases/military capacities rather than Russian cities, save perhaps Moscow.

Even if it worked (and it almost certainly wouldn't), this would kill millions of civilians and therefore isn't reasonable.

If you allow Putin to use nuclear weapons with impunity then you have surrendered to his tyranny. Perhaps some would sooner live on their knees, but like the people of Ukraine I’d sooner die on my feet.

There are options between 'impunity' and nuclear mass murder which could dissuade future use of nuclear weapons. In the long run, mutually assured destruction would have an excellent chance of dissuading future use, but that's akin to cutting both of your legs off to remind yourself that playing with knives is bad.
 
The goal of any response to nuclear strikes would be to prevent more of them, in the long and the short term. If Putin nukes Ukraine, he will likely start with a warning shot - a tactical nuke on Snake Island or a lightly populated area. Commencing MAD in response to that would be a decision we'd take, not Ukraine - but there's a fair chance some of the Russian nukes fired in response would be aimed at Ukraine anyway. They wouldn't be warning shots.