Imagine that Russia uses a Nuke in Ukraine. How should the West respond?

[AgnosticBoy]

Russian president Vladimir Putin recently annexed some Eastern parts of Ukrainian, and he now considers it Russian territory. Here's some reporting on that from the New York Times:

In a speech on Friday, Mr. Putin raised the prospect anew, calling the United States and NATO enemies seeking Russia’s collapse and declaring again that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory — which he has now declared includes four provinces of eastern Ukraine.

Mr. Putin reminded the world of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 77 years ago, adding, “By the way, they created a precedent.” On Saturday, the strongman leader of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, said Mr. Putin should consider using “low-yield nuclear weapons” in Ukraine, becoming the first prominent Russian official to openly call for such a strike.

Senior American officials say they think the chances that Mr. Putin would employ a nuclear weapon remain low. They say they have seen no evidence that he is moving any of his nuclear assets, and a recent Pentagon analysis suggests the military benefits would be few. And the cost for Mr. Putin — in a furious international response, perhaps even from the Chinese, whose support he needs most — could be tremendous.

I've listened to several analysts and retired U.S. generals that say that the U.S. and NATO should respond militarily in Ukraine if a nuke is used. Here's one analysis of a U.S. and NATO response if nukes were used:

For Debate:
1. Should the United States and Nato respond militarily against Russia if a nuke is used? If not, please explain why.
2. Putting aside the hypothetical in this thread, do you think a nuke will be used by Russia?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Should the United States and Nato respond militarily against Russia if a nuke is used? If not, please explain why.

Contrary to some of the experts, I would say that the United States should not respond militarily to a nuclear strike by Russia. The US and NATO can respond economically through sanctions. I say this because the time to strike Russia should've been when the war is was just starting or not as dangerous. NATO did not strike because they did not want the war to get worse so it makes no sense to strike when the war is at its worse. Doing so could potentially cause the war to spread, drawing in the US and NATO, leading to WWIII or even a nuclear exchange. I would sure hope the US allows any strike to be approved or field for public support before we get ourselves into a big mess.

I feel that the war hawks feel bold that they can strike Russia because they see Russia as being weak given the recent gains by Ukraine. But that doesn't mean that Russia is incapable of causing mass devastation with WMDs even if they're not good at conventional warfare. UNLESS we're willing to take Russia out completely then we should expect for them to respond.