|
|
|
|
|
|
by avmich
1359 days ago
|
|
|
> So, a nuclear war would be the consequence of NATO nuking Russia as a consequence of Russia nuking Ukraine. No, NATO won't nuke Russia. The brilliance of the situtation is that Russia is so broken NATO can neutralize it using only conventional weaponry. Russia will still claim it has to use nukes, as it's "too dangerous to the state existence itself". They won't have means, but more importantly, they won't have the will. Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible. |
|
|
First of all, it does not matter to Russia if NATO uses nuclear weapons or not. If Russia is on the verge of total defeat in their own country, they will use nuclear weapons on us. They have no reason not to, and they have said that they would. So they will.
How exactly is NATO going to use conventional weapons to neutralize nuclear launch facilities buried deep under mountains and in remote parts of Siberia?
What are we going to do if a single ICBM is launched? We do not have any effective defenses against even a 1960s style ICBM, much less Russia's hypersonic ICBMs. They can be launched from anywhere on the planet, and Russia has many of them.
What if we assume that only 1/10th of them are in working order. Or even 1/1000. Many of them would still get through.
> Of course this is all not clear nor guaranteed. That's the nature of a serious war. But we have what we have, and surely attempting to make the best steps possible.
We have no right to risk hundreds of millions of lives. This was a debate that was already had in the 1960s, and thankfully people like you did not get their way.
The millions of people who risk nuclear incineration are not acceptable losses. Any leader who would casually put us in harms way like that has no business making decisions at all.
You should educate yourself about concepts like mutually assured destruction, and the nuclear triad.