Before I get into this post, I just want to say that even if I don't fully agree with you, I appreciate the earnest discussion. I sometimes come across as being argumentative when I don't mean to be, so if I do that here, let me know and I will try to fix it.

So, that being said, I think I do agree with you, in part, but I also disagree partially.

This conflict has been escalating month after month, year after year. Now the US is about to give permission for Ukraine to use US missiles for long range strikes deep inside of Russia, and Moscow knows it's coming. Just a year ago Biden refused to give tanks for fear that it would trigger WW3, now he wants to approve missile strikes on Moscow.

There's pretty much always going to be some escalation in war; when a side doesn't meet their objectives within a period of time, they'll generally either step up their attacks, or call the whole thing off, yeah, it's an overgeneralization, but the basic idea is there. More weapons are used on more targets when they become available, and so on. To the point, though, as you said, a year ago, Biden refused to give tanks for fear that it would trigger WW3. Eventually though, he did give those tanks...and no WW3. Ukrainian forces took ground in Kursk Oblast -- hostile troops in Russian territory was feared to trigger WW3, until it didn't. Ukraine has launched drone strikes against Moscow, with no WW3.

I am not trying to dismiss your concern out-of-hand, because obviously, even if it's a low risk, the potential of harm from that risk is enormous, so it should be taken seriously.

Putin's only chance will be to prove that there is a red line, and only dropping a nuke will achieve that. Anything else will just prove that he's bluffing, nuclear deterrent only works if the other side thinks you'll actually do it.

Part of the problem is that there have been so many red lines that have been crossed without the kind of horrific consequences that have been threatened. Those kinds of threats become empty when they aren't backed up. It's the boy who cried wolf.

The number of people arguing that Russian nukes don't work is surreal.

Maybe, but at the same time, I think there is good reason to come to that conclusion. As one redditor noted earlier, the US, for example, spends about as much on maintaining nuclear weapons as Russia's entire yearly defense budget prior to their invasion in Ukraine. But it's not just the cost to maintain the weapons in a state of readiness, but all of the support structure behind it. And while sure, we can talk about a bloated budget spending more than is absolutely necessary, but we've seen how well Russia spends its defense budget, too. It's not hard to imagine that funding might be "diverted" from the one weapon program most of their officers probably never thought would ever actually be used as more than a threat.

I will say, though, that I think it is more likely that the nukes on their submarines are functional, if any of them are.