Rubio: Russian Use of Nuclear Weapons Would Trigger Article 5

[Toro]

Probably.

The Kremlin has got to know this.

WASHINGTON — Senators reacted with alarm to a new report that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin could deploy a small, targeted nuclear bomb as his troops get bogged down in a costly, drawn-out battle against defiant Ukrainian fighters.​

​

One key senator, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he believed such an attack could force NATO allies, including the United States, to invoke their collective defense under Article 5 of the alliance's charter and retaliate against Russia — especially if nuclear fallout drifts over the Ukrainian border and kills or sickens civilians living in Poland or other NATO countries.​

​

​

“As you detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine depending on what it is they detonate, even in a demonstration, that would spread radioactive material that would cross borders potentially," said Rubio, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who frequently tweets his analysis of the Russian invasion.​

​

"If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they’ve been attacked,” he added.​

Senators mull the unthinkable: Putin detonating a nuclear bomb

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said such an attack could trigger NATO's Article 5, which requires a collective defense in the event of an attack on any member.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[pknopp]

Hopefully Marco suits up and leads the way into any war.

 

[Toro]

The Kremlin's psyops is to escalate the rhetoric so that the West backs down.

Too often we do that.

Now, we need to escalate.

Power is the only thing Putin respects.

 

[fncceo]

Probably.

The Kremlin has got to know this.

WASHINGTON — Senators reacted with alarm to a new report that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin could deploy a small, targeted nuclear bomb as his troops get bogged down in a costly, drawn-out battle against defiant Ukrainian fighters.​

​

One key senator, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he believed such an attack could force NATO allies, including the United States, to invoke their collective defense under Article 5 of the alliance's charter and retaliate against Russia — especially if nuclear fallout drifts over the Ukrainian border and kills or sickens civilians living in Poland or other NATO countries.​

​

​

“As you detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine depending on what it is they detonate, even in a demonstration, that would spread radioactive material that would cross borders potentially," said Rubio, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who frequently tweets his analysis of the Russian invasion.​

​

"If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they’ve been attacked,” he added.​

Senators mull the unthinkable: Putin detonating a nuclear bomb

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said such an attack could trigger NATO's Article 5, which requires a collective defense in the event of an attack on any member.

www.nbcnews.com

You're being particularly bloodthirsty today, General Ripper.

Too much fluoride in your drinking water?

 

[Delldude]

Probably.

The Kremlin has got to know this.

WASHINGTON — Senators reacted with alarm to a new report that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin could deploy a small, targeted nuclear bomb as his troops get bogged down in a costly, drawn-out battle against defiant Ukrainian fighters.​

​

One key senator, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he believed such an attack could force NATO allies, including the United States, to invoke their collective defense under Article 5 of the alliance's charter and retaliate against Russia — especially if nuclear fallout drifts over the Ukrainian border and kills or sickens civilians living in Poland or other NATO countries.​

​

​

“As you detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine depending on what it is they detonate, even in a demonstration, that would spread radioactive material that would cross borders potentially," said Rubio, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who frequently tweets his analysis of the Russian invasion.​

​

"If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they’ve been attacked,” he added.​

Senators mull the unthinkable: Putin detonating a nuclear bomb

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said such an attack could trigger NATO's Article 5, which requires a collective defense in the event of an attack on any member.

www.nbcnews.com

Dude, Russia pops a 500Kt flash bang, I don't think Article 5 will be an issue at all.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

They should aim for GoGo Boy Marco's house first.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Probably.

The Kremlin has got to know this.

WASHINGTON — Senators reacted with alarm to a new report that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin could deploy a small, targeted nuclear bomb as his troops get bogged down in a costly, drawn-out battle against defiant Ukrainian fighters.​

​

One key senator, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he believed such an attack could force NATO allies, including the United States, to invoke their collective defense under Article 5 of the alliance's charter and retaliate against Russia — especially if nuclear fallout drifts over the Ukrainian border and kills or sickens civilians living in Poland or other NATO countries.​

​

​

“As you detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Ukraine depending on what it is they detonate, even in a demonstration, that would spread radioactive material that would cross borders potentially," said Rubio, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who frequently tweets his analysis of the Russian invasion.​

​

"If radioactive material blows across the Polish border, they would argue they’ve been attacked,” he added.​

Senators mull the unthinkable: Putin detonating a nuclear bomb

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said such an attack could trigger NATO's Article 5, which requires a collective defense in the event of an attack on any member.

www.nbcnews.com

He's correct even though I'm no fan of Rubio.

Putin is also not a fool, he knows the first use of a nuke means the destruction of Russia, every thing, and every one he ever cared about including himself.

He's not willing to risk that for Ukraine so we need to calm down and deal with first the likely and most likely while just keeping an eye on the least likely including the use of Nukes.

He's far more likely to employ Chemical weapons which he has a lot of experience with in recent conflicts.

 

[Darkwind]

Dude, Russia pops a 500Kt flash bang, I don't think Article 5 will be an issue at all.

You do know that in order for Article 5 to be invoked, that 500kt flashbang will have to hit a NATO country, right?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You do know that in order for Article 5 to be invoked, that 500kt flashbang will have to hit a NATO country, right?

Not necessarily, fallout crossing the boarder could meet the threshold.

 

[Darkwind]

Not necessarily, fallout crossing the boarder could meet the threshold.

It does not.

Care to think through why it does not? I hope you do cause I don't really have time to explain it to you.

 

[Toro]

You're being particularly bloodthirsty today, General Ripper.

Too much fluoride in your drinking water?

Your tinfoil hat is on too tight tonight, appeaser.

 

[Delldude]

He's correct even though I'm no fan of Rubio.

Putin is also not a fool, he knows the first use of a nuke means the destruction of Russia, every thing, and every one he ever cared about including himself.

He's not willing to risk that for Ukraine so we need to calm down and deal with first the likely and most likely while just keeping an eye on the least likely including the use of Nukes.

He's far more likely to employ Chemical weapons which he has a lot of experience with in recent conflicts.

Never heard of limited nuclear war? Battlefield nukes....
Ivan has us outgunned here.

While the U.S. and Russia have a similar number of deployed strategic (i.e., high-yield) nuclear weapons as limited under New START, Russia has a 10:1 advantage over us in nonstrategic (i.e., low-yield) nuclear weapons—aka tactical or battlefield nukes.

Moscow attacks one—or all—of the Baltic States with its conventional forces to establish control over some or all of these nations’ territory. Invoking Article V, NATO responds with conventional forces—and the battle ensues.

Moscow, concerned about the inferiority of its military in this fight with U.S.-led NATO, contemplates exploding a low-yield nuclear weapon somewhere in theater as a warning of worse things to come.

In Moscow’s eyes, perhaps NATO will become concerned about the escalation of the fighting from the conventional to the nuclear—especially Russia’s potential use of more powerful nuclear weapons against European and American cities—and pause its counteroffensive against Russian forces.

Indeed, Moscow may misperceive that if NATO does not have the tactical nuclear capabilities to respond in kind, it would likelier back down than launch a high-yield, strategic weapon at Moscow and risk further escalation.

You do know that in order for Article 5 to be invoked, that 500kt flashbang will have to hit a NATO country, right?

My point was if they go nuclear, who cares?

Not necessarily, fallout crossing the boarder could meet the threshold.

Not sure about that.

 

[Darkwind]

Never heard of limited nuclear war? Battlefield nukes....
Ivan has us outgunned here.







My point was if the go nuclear, who cares?



Not sure about that.

Well you should have said that if it goes nuclear, who cares. That I'd agree with.

But you're wrong about Ivan out gunning us. Not even half of each arsenal will be required.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Never heard of limited nuclear war? Battlefield nukes....
Ivan has us outgunned here.







My point was if the go nuclear, who cares?



Not sure about that.

No, I've never heard of a "limited nuclear war" as anything but a theory since there's never been one and not likely to ever be one.

If you really don't understand the ramifications of "going nuclear" you need to do some serious studying up.

With the use of the first nuclear weapon we will be facing for the first time in history a nuclear exchange.

Of course, that would go a long way towards solving a lot of environmental problems and the problem of over population but in a way most people around the world are not going to like very much.

 

[Delldude]

Well you should have said that if it goes nuclear, who cares. That I'd agree with.

But you're wrong about Ivan out gunning us. Not even half of each arsenal will be required.

The US doesn't have the low yield nukes compared to Russia. 10:1, that was the logic behind doing battle against NATO in Europe. Remember all the tanks they had, their strategy was overwhelming use of tanks, backed up by smaller nukes.

 

[Delldude]

No, I've never heard of a "limited nuclear war" as anything but a theory since there's never been one and not likely to ever be one.

If you really don't understand the ramifications of "going nuclear" you need to do some serious studying up.

With the use of the first nuclear weapon we will be facing for the first time in history a nuclear exchange.

Of course, that would go a long way towards solving a lot of environmental problems and the problem of over population but in a way most people around the world are not going to like very much.

Limited nuclear war is a bigger chance here. You seem to be wrapped up in the all out thought.
The days of MAD pretty much go with a first strike scenario.

 

[Darkwind]

The US doesn't have the low yield nukes compared to Russia. 10:1, that was the logic behind doing battle against NATO in Europe. Remember all the tanks they had, their strategy was overwhelming use of tanks, backed up by smaller nukes.

LOL Sure.

They back tanks and we own tanks. They back inferior fighter jets, and we own fighter jets.

They can think that they can win a low-yield war, but they can't. But then, neither can the West.

Dirty bombs are like Chernobyl. They render their use obsolete by the fact that what they destroy that which the user wants and renders it useless for decades if not centuries.

In this regard, Putin loses. He wants territory. We don't.

 

[Delldude]

LOL Sure.

They back tanks and we own tanks. They back inferior fighter jets, and we own fighter jets.

They can think that they can win a low-yield war, but they can't. But then, neither can the West.

Dirty bombs are like Chernobyl. They render their use obsolete by the fact that what they destroy is destroyed for the user as well.

In this regard, Putin loses. He wants territory. We don't.

Limited nuke war is already being discussed. He fires a low yield on a target and test the response.....if their would be one. No guarantee there would be.

 

[Toro]

 

[Darkwind]

Limited nuke war is already being discussed. He fires a low yield on a target and test the response.....if their would be one. No guarantee there would be.

Who is discussing it? People who are paid to try and find a way to win? Well, that would rule out the US military. Still, anyone with any brains knows that there will be no winners.


Only survivors.