(March 27, 2022 at 11:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Putin has said, via one of his mouthpieces, that they would only use nuclear weapons to counter an existential threat to Russia.
He’s either missing or ignoring the fact that the use of even a single nuke in Europe would itself spell the end of Russia. He’s already been warned that even an accidental incursion in any NATO country would trigger Article 5. Russia can’t even take Ukraine - how long would it stand against NATO?
Boru
Given his obvious like of bullshit pretexts, I'm not sure he's not bruiting about the tales of American chemical-weapons labs in order to "justify" Russia deploying them. I consider that more dangerous than nukes, insofar as I'm sure he knows that any nuclear use will invite retaliation in kind, while a chemical attack may be seen as more ambiguous.
The reason I think it'll be more dangerous is because at that point public opinion in the democracies will go batshit and it will be hard for our politicians to resist such a groundswell of opinion ... thus dragging us into te war anyway, and greatly increasing the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.
There's no way that Russia can take on NATO. NATO will seize air supremacy and then it becomes a shooting gallery for attack aircraft. And then we're sent back to the conundrum of how Putin gets out of an embarrassing defeat. That's my take on it, at least.
