@[email protected]

These are good questions indeed. My answer to 1) is that a "conventional retaliation" would come with a huge risk of a "major conflagration." And, 2), there are no benefits that would be worth that risk. The only way to deal with it is to prevent/delegitimize nuclear use.

(6/10) But public signals suggest to Russia that there would be no nuclear response. If so, is it a good thing (it would not be credible to agitate such a threat, and public opinions would panic)... or is it a bad thing (Putin sees us as having no guts)? The jury is out.

These are good questions indeed. My answer to 1) is that a "conventional retaliation" would come with a huge risk of a "major conflagration." And, 2), there are no benefits that would be worth that risk. The only way to deal with it is to prevent/delegitimize nuclear use.

On this point, my vote on the jury is: Russian use of a non-strategic nuclear weapon should result in an overwhelming conventional response by the West on Ukraine's side to eject Russia from all Ukraine that could include attacks on Russian positions in Russia. No need for nukes.