[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Do you think that if Russia thinks that Russia is being cornered, like Japan before WW2, Russia will go nuclear just to release its country from all sides? Is Nuclear War imminent?

[Bored chemist]

[Petrochemicals]

The Ukraine is cornered on 3 sides, by Russia, who has launched a war against it. Russia is being cornered only by international opinion and judgement.

[alancalverd]

Putin is not Russia. I doubt that his rich friends and sensible generals see much profit in a nuclear war. With whom? If the objective is to occupy Ukraine, does anyone (apart from a deranged president) want to inherit a radioactive wasteland with no infrastructure and a lot of very grumpy inhabitants?

Japan was a different kettle of fish. There was no Allied intention to occupy the country but to stop the Japanese from attacking everyone else. As far as could be ascertained the war was popular but becoming a bit of a drain on most people's lives, so a demonstration of the capacity to annihilate any city was persuasive. So by analogy a nuclear attack on Moscow might have the desired effect, but not the other way around.

[Origin]

No.

[Bored chemist]

Putin is not Russia.

The finger on the button is not Russia's.

[Kartazion]

No.

@Origin the divine who knows closes the answer. Origin of discord.

[Kryptid]

Putin is not Russia.

The finger on the button is not Russia's.

This is something I'm not clear on. Can Putin launch nuclear missiles directly with just the push of a button? Or does pushing that button send an alert to others whose duty it is to launch those missiles?

[Kartazion]

This is something I'm not clear on. Can Putin launch nuclear missiles directly with just the push of a button? Or does pushing that button send an alert to others whose duty it is to launch those missiles?

For the button I don't know (I even think it's a key), or this means that Putin alone does not represent Russia.

[Origin]

@Origin the divine who knows closes the answer. Origin of discord.

Go away, clown.

[Kryptid]

Let's keep this civil, please...

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

       Why aren't Nuclear weapons just simply banned by the Geneva convention?    Their primary function isn't to damage military targets but just to go after the infrastructure and leave civilians in a place or situation where no help can be given to them.
     Shops will not function, civilians will not be able to get supplies.  Most natural bodies of water and food will be contaminated.  There will be no fresh water coming out of a tap since most pipe networks will have suffered significant damage.  Electrical power and gas supply, that's all gone, telephone networks will be down, roadways will be damaged and buildings will continue to collapse due to structural damage.  Emergency response services like fire and police cannot respond.   Hospitals in surrounding areas will be over-run.   There is a complete breakdown of the infrastructure.  For all the people in the cities help will not be coming since outside rescue teams will not be allowed to enter contaminated regions.   The primary function of a nuclear weapon is to smash the infrastructure and kill millions of civilians in a way that is quite simply unacceptable. 
      The moment a nuclear weapon has been deployed on a city, a decision has been made to deny all access for humanitarian aid teams in the future.   They simply will not be able to enter a contaminated region.
   
How does International Humanitarian Law permit this?

Rule 55. The parties to the conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, which is impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction, subject to their right of control.

[ICRC, Customary IHL Database.   https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1_rul_rule55   

Best Wishes.

[alancalverd]

Contamination isn't too much of a problem, but disruption of infrastructure is. This distinguishes between societies that could survive a nuclear war and those that couldn't. Survivors would be decentralised with lots of local autonomy and an overall low population density. Thus the USA and Russia could rebuild a reasonable facsimile of their previous societies but the UK almost certainly could not.

But you need to look at the broader picture: what is the purpose of war and how do you know who won? There must be an aggressor whose intention is to occupy new territory. The winner is either the aggressor who has established effective control over the activities of everyone in the target territory, or the defender who has repelled the invasion and secured his border.

Flattening a city does not put boots on the ground and thus does not establish a successful aggression: H G Wells pointed this out in 1908 and it has remained true ever since. Allied bombing of Germany reduced the aggressor's capacity to fight but the war wasn't won until the armies met in Berlin, and Operation Sealion was not predicated on the destruction of London, but on reducing the capacity of the navy and air force to prevent an invasion.

The one nuclear war so far was principally a demolition of the aggressor's will and capacity to fight, with comparatively little requirement for a followup invasion as there was no Allied intention to occupy Japan. The war in Europe was something of an anomaly as  the Nazis didn't have the wit to surrender to obviously superior forces and the Allies didn't have a nuclear bomb available in time, so counterinvasion was necessary.

Not sure how this would play out in Ukraine. There's no point in the aggressor flattening the cities, and a nuke on Moscow wouldn't necessarily stop the invasion because the aggressor has plenty of resources close to the front line. It might shake public confidence in the scum at the top, but they don't rule by consent anyway.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Contamination isn't too much of a problem

   It is a problem.
   If it keeps aid teams out of the city for 48 hours, which it will, civilians are forced to eat and drink whatever they can and they will most probably die, even if you can subsequently get them out of the city. 
   If it keeps the aid teams out of the city for a week, which it might, most survivors will just die in the streets.

Anyway, there is little dispute that the infrastructure is destroyed and there is no realistic procedure for recovering survivors or getting supplies to them.

   As far as I can see a nuclear strike against a city is the use of what is often called "starvation and deprivation tactics" against a civilian population, this is expressly forbidden by most country states.   To say that another way, it is a war crime:

It is also relevant that under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, extermination, defined as including “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”, constitutes a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.[12] The legislation of numerous States provides for the crime of extermination.[13]

[Taken from ICRC, Customary IHL database]   

    In fairness I must point out that this section relates to non-international conflict although many country states have agreed to comply with the rule in international and non-international conflicts

    The majority of deaths that occur from a nuclear bomb deployed on a city are not immediate results of the blast.   Many deaths follow after the blast and are the direct result of deprivation from basic human rights including the right to food and medical supplies.  This is known and it is very much calculated and included in the expected casualties inflicted on the population.  (This is important because it satisfies the conditions stated in the above extract of law - the effects of the attack were known).
   As far as I can see a nuclear strike against a city could only comply with  I.H.L.   if there was some procedure in place to get aid into a city for the survivors after the bomb was dropped, there is no such plan or procedure.   For example, if the U.K. submarine fleet were ordered to launch a missile on Moscow,  the Air Force aren't simultaneously told to prepare a team of sky-divers with radiation suits, food and medical equipment that can also be dropped onto the city after the detonation.   The expectation is that the strike against the city would incur the full loss of life due to a deprivation from basic human rights.

    Anyway, knowing what we do now know, it is not just horrific to consider making a strike against a city, it would be a war crime.  (Well, that's my opinion anyway, I'm not an expert on I.H.L.).

Best Wishes.

(Late editing to correct spelling errors).

[Kartazion]

Tactical nuclear weapons can be used without there being an intercontinental nuclear war.

[alancalverd]

All sorts of things are forbidden by international law, but as with national law, crime pays, which is why people do it.

"Aid teams" aren't much use after a nuclear strike. We used to model a megaton detonation over Birmingham. The epicenter would be vaporised, so no survivors.  Anyone caught in the open will be "walking dead" in the mid zone, alive but not worth treating. Around the periphery will be hundreds of thousands of folk with injuries that could be treated if you had tens of thousands of fit aid workers with nothing better to do.  Survival and recovery depend on those already in place and sheltered.

I spent some time as a scientific adviser to  county civil defence. In one area I was paired with the nominated community leader, an ex-artillery officer with strong views based on experience. An enthusiastic young Home Office numpty  gave a rousing talk on organisation and discipline.  Lt Col Jones  (RA, retd) [not his real name] said "Have you ever seen civilians under fire,sir? F***ing shambles." He had surveyed local resources and identified our post-WWIII headquarters: the stone cellar of an old pub. His plan was simple. "When the balloon goes up, Calverd, you and I will commandeer the cellar and shoot any bugger that comes near us."     

 Our police lecturer explained his orders during the "transition to war" period, which included releasing minor villains like murderers, and locking up Fifth Columnists.Asked how these would be identified, he said "left-wingers and people with foreign names". My fellow adviser, a chemist named Lukas Somethingowski [changed to protect the innocent], said "When you have incarcerated the two blokes who understand the problem,  where will you look for advice for dealing with it?"

[evan_au]

I had the privilege of visiting the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum.
Very sobering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki_Atomic_Bomb_Museum

Can Putin launch nuclear missiles directly with just the push of a button?

You know the cartoon image of the president's desk with a big red button that launches all the nukes...
Donald Trump had a red button on his phone - it summoned a butler with his favorite beverage on a silver tray.
Biden had the red button removed...

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey]

If we avoided it during the Cold War, we can avoid it here. Putin wants to show the world how big his dick is. This is a game of phalluses, and Putin is the most eager to prove how big his is and how powerful his orgasms are.
Also, Anonymous says Putin is gay. A clue is in his personal diary where he refers to the invasion of Ukraine as "An Extreme Makeover". I personally see nothing wrong or unmanly about homosexuality, but the vast majority of his country seems to.
Solution: we need to covertly snap a picture of Putin's penis, which experts surmise to be the opposite of gargantuan. We then threatened to show it to the world if he fails to stop this war.

[Petrochemicals]

Do you think that if Russia thinks that Russia is being cornered, like Japan before WW2, Russia will go nuclear just to release its country from all sides? Is Nuclear War imminent?

There is now talk of small nuclear weapons being deployed by Russia, according to the unkranian treaty when the Ukraine decommissioned its nuclear arms, the uk, the US China and Russia have agreed to rearm the Ukraine  with nuclear weapons if nuclear arms are used against the Ukraine. This should lead to Russia nuking itself. Article 4

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

The threshold may have already been passed l.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

the uk, the US China and Russia have agreed to rearm the Ukraine  with nuclear weapons if nuclear arms are used against the Ukraine.

    I'm not aware of that obligation and a brief perusal of the Wikipedia link doesn't seem to stipulate this either.   Re-arming the Ukraine with nuclear weapons was never in any agreement (to the best of my knowledge).

    There is just a weak implication or understanding that countries such as the U.K. and the U.S.A. would actually assist in their defence.   That's where you could have made more discussion - is the U.K. and the U.S.A.  doing enough to assist the Ukraine in light of the spirit of the agreements following their nuclear disarmament?

Best Wishes.