NATO's Reaction to a Nuclear Attack

What is NATO's strategy in the event of a nuclear attack? Read this new unbelievable narrative to learn how NATO's allied troops might respond to a nuclear strike on any of the nations it protects. 💥☢☢💥

Unimaginable news breaks as the world awakens. As Putin escalates the situation by triggering nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945, a mushroom cloud is seen forming over a city in Ukraine. NATO forces assemble to plan their next course of action. There are several options, and the majority will depend heavily on the circumstances surrounding the attack. This escalation and the associated loss of life cannot be tolerated, but how should they react? What retaliation is necessary—and how will NATO avoid World War 3? But such an assault could not go unpunished. This response would be more likely if Putin used tactical nuclear weapons in an area close to the Russian border, such as Kherson or the Donbas. A tactical nuclear weapon isn't likely to cause the same kind of devastation that we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the regional fallout is only likely to hit Ukraine and possibly Russia, which is the risk of nuking someone on your border.

The immediate loss of life would be terrible, and radioactive contamination in the area could impact Ukraine for years to come. But such an assault couldn't go unpunished. This response would be more probable if Putin used tactical nuclear weapons in an area like Kherson or the Donbas, close to the Russian border. While the immediate loss of life would be terrible and radioactive contamination in the area could impact Ukraine for years to come, a tactical nuclear weapon isn't likely to cause the same kind of devastation that we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the regional fallout is only likely to hit Ukraine and possibly Russia, which is the risk of nuking someone on your border. NATO would therefore undoubtedly respond, even though they might not feel compelled to join the battle.

Talking to Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky would be the first step. No matter what the cost, the obstinate Ukrainian president has been adamant about not ceding even a single square inch of his country, although probably not significantly, a nuclear attack could alter that calculation. The stakes are still the same; Ukraine is aware that, depending on the outcome, it will either remain an independent nation or turn into a puppet of Russia, subject to severe punishment for its defiance. Ukraine is aware that the choice is theirs: either they triumph or they turn into a puppet state of Russia and face severe punishment for their defiance.

Therefore, even though the cost would be high, they are likely to keep fighting and will seek out any assistance from NATO they can. If the purse strings were getting a little tighter before, they are likely to loosen now as the outrage over Putin's nuclear attack grows. As Ukraine retaliates against Russia, more HIMARS rocket systems and other cutting-edge equipment would enter the country, and any limitations on their use might be relaxed. It's possible that even reluctant allies with complicated relations with Russia, like Israel and India, will be forced to provide military support. And some of the things on the wish list might become available. Major requests from Ukraine to international governments have occasionally been denied.

Some nations are concerned that giving Russia advanced weapons might be viewed as an act of war, but if Putin goes too far, those concerns might be overruled. One illustration is Israel's Iron Dome system, which is essential in thwarting rocket fire from Hamas. The system is not made to withstand powerful Russian rockets, so it may be difficult to transfer, but Israel could give Ukraine important adaptable parts. The Army Tactical Missile System, a potent surface-to-surface missile that would give Ukraine long-range striking capabilities, follows the same logic. In this case, the US has waited because it was worried that Ukraine might attack Russian cities, but it might decide to drop the gloves now. The screws would be tightened for Russia as well.

A nuclear strike would be a blatant sign from Putin that he won't back down and will stop at nothing to win the conflict. And NATO would immediately escalate again. Economic sanctions, which isolate Russia from a large portion of the global economy, have been the world's main weapon against Russia as of late. Some important items, however, were exempt. The import or export of necessities from or to Russia is not prohibited, and many businesses have decided to keep doing business with them. If the world decides to try to starve Putin out, that may change. However, Russia still has a few important allies. These allies include Iran, which gleefully supplies Russia with drones, and China, which has given Russia essential supplies while maintaining a neutral stance toward the conflict in Ukraine.

And it might be appropriate to attack those allies. With the exception of those two, Russia has very few allies left, and many of them lack substantial resources, such as Venezuela and Syria. Even Russia's traditional ally, Pakistan, which has largely maintained its neutral stance in the current conflict, supports Ukraine's sovereignty. By imposing a secondary embargo on them and severing trade relations with them as long as they support Russia's military action against Ukraine, the US and NATO could increase pressure on Russia's allies. While the US has only minimal trade with Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, trade between the US and China is a significant contributor to both countries' economies.

The US would experience significant supply chain issues if that tap were to be shut off, but China might experience enough pain that they would decide it is not worthwhile to continue supplying Russia with weapons to fight Ukraine. Moreover, NATO has additional resources at its disposal to use against Russia, one such resource that Russia lacks is the human capital necessary to win a war. A recent attempt at a draft resulted in countless untrained young men being sent into battle as glorified cannon fodder, frequently with outdated weapons and little hope of surviving. They have lost a tremendous number of soldiers in Ukraine, far more than Ukraine has. Since many Russians are now opposed to Putin as a result of this, Ukraine and its allies may have an opening. Putin's army could be severely unbalanced and cause a flood of people to the border if Ukraine and NATO provided asylum to any soldier defecting from Putin.

Putin could undoubtedly slam the doors shut and put down protests with force, as he always does, but it is a universal truth that any leader who is firing at his own people is in bad shape. The international community may also weigh in at the end. By way of the Security Council, the UN could also be used against Russia. There, one of the five permanent members—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia—can veto any resolution. Because of this, Russia has avoided any UN sanctions. It's unclear whether it would be possible to remove Russia from the Security Council. Bylaws may stipulate that such resolutions must first be approved by the Security Council, but a two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly is required to expel a member from the UN. No matter how it turned out, Russia would suffer another diplomatic setback.

But there are limitations to this tactic. Escalating sanctions and isolation against Russia are intended to strain Putin to the limit and force him to leave Ukraine or face overthrow by his own people. A second possibility, however, is that he decides to take everyone with him when he reaches the point of no return. At some point, Putin may simply decide that the sanctions are an act of war and that it is acceptable for him to shoot at NATO weapon shipments or even do worse. When that happens, the bigger conflict that sanctions were meant to prevent has already erupted, and NATO may be caught off guard as World War 3 begins. Due to this, some NATO forces are pushing for the most forceful possible response. Option two: NATO engages when asked about the possibility in October, a NATO official said that a nuclear strike would probably result in a physical reaction from the alliance.

This could indicate a variety of things, but it is likely that it would be relevant if Russia used higher-yield nuclear weapons against significant Ukrainian cities or if this started to happen frequently. If that happens, the price of doing nothing could become too great, and NATO would decide it was time to give Ukraine more than just supplies. What would this look like, though? If possible, the first objective would be to prevent this from turning into a full-fledged conflict between NATO and Russia. That would entail supporting Ukraine militarily while attempting to avoid directly engaging Russian forces. Instead of a full mobilization like what is occurring in Russia, elite NATO teams and weapons would be stationed either on Ukraine's border or inside its borders to thwart Russian aggression in the future.

This would aim to corner Putin and cause his generals to fear that directly challenging NATO would result in the overthrow of the Russian government. However, this could backfire, and Putin isn't the kind to yield. Therefore, the time for another tactic may have arrived. There was a call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine in the early stages of the conflict, but this was rejected for the obvious reason that it wasn't what it seemed to be. Many of the supporters claimed that the US and NATO could magically prevent Russian planes from entering Ukrainian airspace, but in reality, all they would do is station NATO planes in Ukrainian airspace to shoot down any foreign planes that entered. It would now be a shooting conflict over Ukrainian territory in what is essentially a neutral zone, or at least that is how we categorize it because Russia continues to assert that Ukraine is a part of its territory.

And there's a chance of an escalation there as well. Without actually starting a larger conflict between superpowers, the objective is to offer enough military assistance to stop Putin from launching additional nuclear attacks and to defend Ukraine. That tactic has a flaw in that it depends solely on Putin's judgment, and his assessment of the situation may be very different from yours. Remember that this is the same person who sent armed troops into occupied areas to force people to cast their votes for Russian annexation while being pointed at by armed soldiers, and who then proudly displayed the results. With him, it is difficult to thread the needle.

What could NATO do to militarily protect Ukraine without starting a larger conflict? It's important to keep in mind that this would primarily be a defensive conflict. NATO's capabilities would probably be limited to attempting to stop and divert Russian aircraft that are headed for urban areas, shooting down Russian missiles before they reach their target, and defending critical infrastructure like power grids and nuclear plants. NATO wouldn't start a battle with Russian forces, despite it being inevitable. As opposed to contested regions like Crimea and the Donbas, it would probably focus on defending the majority of Ukraine, especially important cities like Odessa, Kyiv, and Lviv, despite the fact that none of those regions have been ceded by Ukraine, they are all either partially or entirely occupied by Russia, which views them as part of itself.

As a result, shooting down Russian aircraft in those areas may be regarded as an act of war. Therefore, it would likely be up to Ukrainian forces to defend those areas. However, there is another important area where NATO could be of assistance. One of Russia's strategies has been to try and restrict Ukraine's access to the sea, particularly to the Black Sea. This is a crucial shipping route for grain and other resources, and Putin's attempts to blockade it put the world's food supply in danger. Putin recently caved in when Turkey challenged the blockade, but the threat still exists, and NATO forces enforcing freedom of movement on Ukraine's maritime border might make him think twice before interfering with trade again. In this scenario, NATO's role would, in some ways, be less to declare war on Russia and more to try to impose a stable status quo in the area. This depends greatly on a number of variables.

For starters, it necessitates that Putin act rationally, which is doubtful if not impossible. Nothing will be able to stop him from escalating if he perceives any NATO presence in Ukraine as an attack. But if he permits it to degenerate into a war of attrition, NATO's presence might turn out to be a long-term means of bolstering Ukraine's defenses. For a variety of reasons, NATO would probably place more of an emphasis on providing troops and weapons than on bringing in heavy-duty troops. One of them is that Ukraine is not in need of troops. Soon after the war started, Zelensky established a draft for men of fighting age, and the majority of Ukrainians are fiercely patriotic and prepared to fight. Even in the cities, you might come across a few courageous grandmothers carrying their rifles. Second, Ukraine has suffered fewer military casualties than Russia, and every Ukrainian soldier is aware of why they are in battle. But this tactic also has other advantages.

To safeguard the nation's infrastructure during the conflict, a limited NATO presence in Ukraine could be extremely beneficial. The Belarusian government, whose border is close to Kyiv, would also be discouraged by it. Aleksandr Lukashenko, their leader, is the only other dictator in Europe besides Putin and is a close ally of Russia, almost to the point of being a puppet state. While Russia focuses on the east, there have been persistent rumors that Belarus may try to invade and move on Kyiv. Given that Belarus has significantly lower military capabilities than Russia, NATO's presence might prevent that. However, this tactic carries a significant risk. By increasing troop levels and arming against Putin and his allies, the aim is to escalate and then de-escalate. However, that is entirely up to his whim, and it is impossible to predict precisely which provocations Putin would find sufficient to justify going to war over and which he wouldn't.

Every encounter with Russian troops would become a sword of Damocles, with Putin standing over the nuclear button. Will the NATO forces in charge have the guts to pull the trigger and blow them out of the sky when the first opponent to a no-fly zone over some areas of Ukraine comes streaming through? What would happen after that? Some people argue that if you're going to escalate, you might as well go all the way. The worst-case scenario would see Putin use a nuclear weapon as well as a high-yield weapon to target one of the major cities in Ukraine. Numerous more people will perish from radiation poisoning and burns after the initial tens of thousands have already perished. The nation is plunged into chaos, the city is essentially destroyed, and at first it's even unclear whether Ukraine's government has survived. The fact that Zelensky was able to contact NATO leaders from a secure location shows that the attempt to decapitate a foreign nation was a failure. And the horror is only getting started.

The effects are spreading, and some have already sickened people in NATO allies. Now that there is a global crisis, Putin has responded by threatening to attack NATO directly if there is any retaliation. The war is clearly escalating; the only remaining question is how to escalate it and how far. The initial stage would probably be similar to the previous plan, sending in NATO weapons and a few troops to bolster the nation's defenses, but it wouldn't stop there. This time, all possibilities are on the table. And in this case, Russia itself is the target. NATO must proceed with caution in this area because a misstep could potentially lead to the start of World War 3. No one is sure how many of Russia's nuclear weapons are operational, making it the nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world.

Its nuclear missiles date back to the Cold War, and it is unknown how many of them are still in use, despite the fact that its smaller tactical nukes are more recent and more likely to function. Russian retaliation could backfire or result in a world destroyed by nuclear fire and the extinction of human civilization. Thus, even in retaliation for a significant nuclear attack, an attack directly on Russia is extremely unlikely. The search for Osama bin Laden, a wanted criminal who is a plague on humanity, may resume in the future. The US took great care not to unintentionally declare war on an ally in its search for the terrorist leader, who was notoriously difficult to capture and frequently changed safe houses. In the event of NATO retaliation, Putin most likely did the same, relocating to one of his safe house bunkers far from the most dangerous areas.

Because NATO likely only has one chance to get it right, any retaliatory attack against him would need to be very carefully planned. The crisis is not resolved, though, by focusing on Putin. Some, like Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of the Chechen nation, are even more extreme than many of Putin's top lieutenants when it comes to militancy. Getting rid of Putin without making plans for the country's future could make things worse because the new Russian leader would likely intensify the conflict in retaliation for the assassination. So, while NATO was trying to find Putin's hiding place, they might also want to recruit a key figure in the Russian government who was thought to be saner and could possibly succeed in the future.

Certified. You're definitely going to miss out.

Make sure to always be updated. Possibly Daily. 😁