Do we really want to gamble that Putain won't use nuclear weapons?

 Gary Kasperov has a tweet where he argues like a chess player about this situation. https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1503819568879394822

A chess player isn't who I would listen to in this situation. I would want the opinion of a high stakes poker player. Especially since Putain should have folded long ago. 

Chess is logical. It has rules and defined moves. It's hard to cheat in Chess.

Unless someone overturns the chess board.

Poker is a different thing. Bluffing and cheating are commonplace. Toss in the pieces aren't sitting on a board. 

One can argue that war is like chess. Ok, it's a game of strategy in the battlefield, but there is a whole lot more involved than just fighting battles. There are politics, diplomacy, weather, logistics, intelligence, and a whole lot more to consider.

The Baedeker raids happened despite British Intelligence knowing they would occur because they didn't want to give up Enigma. Generals and leaders make decisions that cost lives.

Sure, Putain's Generals MIGHT not follow the order to fire a nuclear weapon, but we have seen that the Russian soldiers are going into a losing battle. Assume also that some of them knew of FSB's advice not to invade Ukraine and you see where this is going.

Another consideration: where would Putain use a nuclear weapon? He's already destroyed a couple of cities: Mariupol and Volnovakha. He's destroying the people he claims to be saving. The reality is that this action is more retribution toward a wayward people than anything else.

So, a first strike could be on a Ukrainian city. The same way Nuclear Weapons were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reasoning behind those cities being destroyed was to save lives. Russian forces are being crushed by Ukrainian forces.

I've learned that one cannot reason with unreasonable people. Unreasonable means not logical and they don't follow rules. Putain is crazy and has shown that by starting this war against the advice of the FSB. Still, the Generals and troops still invade against the FSB recommendation. 

Loyal people do stupid things. And someone who is loyal enough will indeed launch a weapon. It's also a whole lot easier to set off a nuclear weapon than most people would like to think. Not many people know about Black Saturday, 27 Oct 1962, Cuban Missile crisis. 

The USS Randolph had detected the Soviet submarine B-59  near Cuba. The destroyer, USS Cony [DD-508] was sent to investigate. Following standard procedure for the Navy during those cold war encounters, the destroyer dropped small, practice depth charges such as those used in training. Those held small amounts of explosives and were not designed to cause damage. The purpose of the small depth charges was to force the diesel submarine to the surface for positive identification. However, B-59 had been submerged for some time with its air conditioning system out and with no source of fresh air. The captain and the crew were exhausted and suffering from oxygen deprivation. There had been no radio contact with Moscow since they submerged and they did not know if war had started. With the submarine’s condition bad and deteriorating, the commander, Captain Valentin Savitsky, ordered his crew to arm its nuclear torpedo and get ready to launch it at the Cony. 

Fortunately, things turned out well, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although, the example of a Submarine armed with nuclear weapons is one of Nigel Calder's nuclear nightmares. As I said, it's a lot easier to set off a nuclear weapon than most people want to believe.

Nuclear weapons are no longer the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The "suitcase nuke" is not just something from Frederick Forsyth's Fourth Protocol. They are part of the family called tactical nuclear weapons, which are a part of the Russian nuclear arsenal. They are small enough they can be delivered by artillery shell.

Is having a Ukrainian city destroyed by a nuclear weapon a gamble someone wants to take?