The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the chances of the unthinkable happening. In 1945, President Truman decided to use atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shorten the war and prevent a rising number of American casualties should American forces have to fight on Japanese soil where stiff resistance was expected. It was also a political statement for the then Soviet Union and to prevent a Soviet attack against Japan.
In 2022, the presence of nuclear devices is supposed to be a deterrent,but there is always a 'what if...' scenario in which the parties might decide to use nuclear devices. In 2020, NATO carried out military exercises 'to prepare for nuclear war'. If you prepare for something, you anticipate that it might come the time when it will actually happen. If it were to happen, it would open a whole series of new possibilities. One thing is combat with conventional forces and quite another is a scenario in which weapons that are much power powerful than the atomic devices used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are detonated in Europe and elsewhere. What would trigger the use of nuclear devices? Would there be a preemptive attack? Who will make the first move? If there is an attack going one way, it is going to be immediately followed by an attack going in the opposite way.
If we can imagine the commotion created by the bombs thrown in Japan decades ago, it is not difficult to foresee the commotion today if nuclear bombs were to fall destroying capital cities. In order to understand what would be the prevailing mentality, we need to remember what happened in World War Two. If any of the parties had had such bombs earlier during the conflict would they have hesitated? If instead of sending bombing crews one after another to be shot down, if instead of sending U-boots to be sunk, the parties had had nuclear bombs to wipe out any armed resistance, to destroy every industrial capability, in one go, what would they have done?
Think about D-Day. If the allies had had the choice of using nuclear bombs instead of sending hundreds of thousands of men across the sea, many of whom lost their lives before reaching France, would they have they used nuclear bombs instead? If instead of loading V1s and V2s with conventional explosives Germany had had nuclear devices to put an end to the war in one go, would Germany have used nuclear bombs instead of conventional forces? The reason heavy water installations were bombed by the allies was that they did not want Germany to develop atomic devices. If Germany had had atomic bombs, would the Soviets have reached Germany?
Now, coming back to today's realities. If there is the scenario in which it is foreseen that millions of troops would lose their lives in combat, would any of the parties choose to use nuclear weapons instead of suffering heavy casualties at the front? Why does Israel have nuclear devices? Why do Pakistan and India have nuclear devices? Why does Britain have nuclear devices? Why does anybody want to have nuclear devices? The reason is pretty obvious.
What is the danger of economic sanctions? What was the danger of the American oil embargo against Japan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? If you push a country towards the wall, somebody might decide that if there are no economic benefits then war is a preferred option. Japan was becoming an industrial power in Asia and needed oil. This is why Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour, to attack the one country that had limited Japan's chances to achieve economic development. The economy was the core issue that led Japan to attack the USA.
President Putin's immediate reaction to the mention of further economic measures was to put the Armed Forces on alert. If the so called West is genuine, if the USA is genuine, in terms of favouring a peaceful outcome to put an end to the conflict, putting up pressure is not the right answer. If it is believed that the only way forward is nuclear war, the entire world loses.
