Rubio: Russian Use of Nuclear Weapons Would Trigger Article 5

[Big Bend Texas]

yeah, so is the West and NATO. So, I'd call that a push.

No, if you look hard you can glean a lot of truth out of the west, sometimes it just takes a lot of work.

At least we get opposing views and discussion.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Possibly, but the reality is that none of us KNOW what would happen in the period after such an event. My guess would be a lot of posturing but no immediate decision on a response. IF that's the case then he'd feel like he could do it again. OTOH, if NATO reciprocated immediately and sent troops across the border into Ukraine to help eject Russian forces, Putin would almost certainly use tactical nukes against THEM.

The best hope is that he's bluffing and will angle for forcing NATO to negotiate a favorable stance on Ukraine. I have no animosity toward Ukrainians. I don't, however, want to see the world lit up with nukes over it!

There would be a lot of pressure put on the Poles or any other country caught up in a fallout event not to invoke Article 5 and if they did, then we have what I term an Article 5 crisis.

If Poland chooses then to call it an attack and the others refuse to agree, it could conceivably end NATO as we've known it.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And we keep poking him in the ass. I heard tonight, US troops are massed on the Polish border, no reporters allowed.

This will get out of hand.

Horse hockey, putting a few troops on the border is not "Massing Troops" and it's simply a deterrent.

A few hundred Troops from the 82nd is not a threat to his over 100k in the field with reinforcements arriving daily, it's just to let them know we're there and ready if he crosses the border.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Russian military doctrine calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation." Here's why.

Since 2000, Russian military doctrine has included the concept of de-escalation—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike aimed at forcing an opponent to retreat. Here's why.

thebulletin.org

A few years back, seeing the obvious imbalance of forces with the U.S., let alone all of NATO, little Vlad made himself some new rules. Maybe it's all a bluff but if it isn't, discovering that at the cost of a vaporized NATO base or a U.S. aircraft carrier is NOT an ideal situation.

Neither is bending over to nuclear threats from a Tyrant that has everything to lose if he was stupid enough to do so.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Dial-a-yeild

Always liked those neutron devices......real estate salesman's dream.

Yep, kill off everyone and move your people in the next week.

The perfect weapon actually for wars of expansion when you plan to keep what you gain after the genocide.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Shouldn't we loan Ukraine a few medium nukes delivered by artillery? I am sure we are never going to use them...

High on the list of really dumb ideas.

 

[Delldude]

That I think is an understatement. I fully expect a Stalinistiic purging of the leadership over the embarrassment.

He already made it known that the motherland needs to purge itself of all dissenters.

 

[Delldude]

Yep, kill off everyone and move your people in the next week.

The perfect weapon actually for wars of expansion when you plan to keep what you gain after the genocide.

Actually, in the eighties, a Chinese general admitted in a speech that biological's were a better option if you want to conquer a country and it's citizenry.

 

[Delldude]

Horse hockey, putting a few troops on the border is not "Massing Troops" and it's simply a deterrent.

A few hundred Troops from the 82nd is not a threat to his over 100k in the field with reinforcements arriving daily, it's just to let them know we're there and ready if he crosses the border.

Who's to say when DOD is keeping a lid on it, suddenly?

 

[Toro]

 

[Delldude]

I heard Lindsay Graham an hour ago saying , specifically, If Putin uses a nuke inside Ukraine or uses chemicals, there will be a NATO response.

He went out of his way specifying a nuke inside Ukraine. There is a war game scenario where he pops one over the Black Sea to make a point. It made me think that was why Graham said that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This whole event is really unlike Putin. He's a spy. Always been a KGB spy. He is a sneaky poisoner. This type of escalation is unlike his basic personality unless something drastic happened that we don't know about.

Russia has now joined numerous other countries in refusing to take phone calls from anyone in this administration. Is it Russia being excluded from the family of nations or the United States?

 

[Turtlesoup]

And we keep poking him in the ass. I heard tonight, US troops are massed on the Polish border, no reporters allowed.

This will get out of hand.

Again, the billionaire investors are saying that we are already in ww3, but most don't know it.

 

[Delldude]

This whole event is really unlike Putin. He's a spy. Always been a KGB spy. He is a sneaky poisoner. This type of escalation is unlike his basic personality unless something drastic happened that we don't know about.

Russia has now joined numerous other countries in refusing to take phone calls from anyone in this administration. Is it Russia being excluded from the family of nations or the United States?

He is old school Russia, was KGB when the regime collapsed. Commie all the way, Mother Russia and all that. Wants a 'back in the day' USSR again.

 

[Silver Cat]

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

There are three basic kinds of deterrence.
Type I Deterrence is the deterrence of a direct attack. Type II Deterrence is defined as using strategic to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts, other than a direct attack on the United States itself. Type III Deterrence might be called "tit-for-tat", graduated, or controlled deterrence. It refers to acts that are deterred because the potential agressor is afraid that the defender or others will then take limited actions, military or nonmilitary, that will make the aggression unprofitable.
Type I Deterrence demands, first of all, the Second Strike Capability. Our Strategic Forces must survive his first counter-force strike and then, under any circumstances, must be ready to cause in his camp "unacceptable damage".
Type II Deterrence demands, first of all, Credible First Strike Capability. It means capability to attack enemy's strategic forces to degrade his capability of retaliation strike to the level in which he can't cause in our camp "unacceptable damage".

Type III Deterrence means, first of all, ability to fight some kind of a Limited Nuclear War.


So, what do we have now? The USA do not have, in fact, capability to fight a Limited Nuclear War. The few tens of B61 in Europe is really nothing.
What about the Credible First Strike Capability?
In the absolute majority of more or less realistic scenarios where Russia is a more or less prepared aggressor (and made even minimal measures to protect her strategic forces and population), fighting for really valuable (for them) goals, the USA can't degrade Russian strategic forces enough to avoid retaliation strike from them (which definitely will cause unacceptable damage because of our nearly non-existing Civil Defence and ineffective ABD). Therefore, the USA don't have reliable Deterrence Type II.
What about the Second Strike Capability?
The Russians believe that under some circumstances (the Russians are ready the USA - not) their first counter-force strike can destroy roughly 100% of Minitmen, 100% of bombers on bases, Ohios in ports and few Ohios on "hard duty" in Northern Atlantic. Then they will have time to shelter their population, and their Moscow Region ABD will intercept more than 100 incoming RVs. So, the second (retaliation) US strike will cause "terrible, but acceptable" loses, and their third (counter-value) strike will totally eliminate the USA (and they hope that the USA will surrender after or even before the Russian first strike instead of committing murder-suicide). It's not that they are going to attack the USA just for lulz, but in the tension situation, when the stakes are high and the USA are not ready - then they can prefer to attack first.

Actually it means, that even if Russia nuke Warsaw, Paris and Berlin - the USA won't commit suicide and attack Russian cities with nukes.

 

[Silver Cat]

He is old school Russia, was KGB when the regime collapsed. Commie all the way, Mother Russia and all that. Wants a 'back in the day' USSR again.

Russian do not kill because of nostalgia. They are not aliens from Marvel movies. They are human beings.
They eat if they are hungry. They drink if they are thirsty. They attack if they are threatened.

 

[Silver Cat]

I heard Lindsay Graham an hour ago saying , specifically, If Putin uses a nuke inside Ukraine or uses chemicals, there will be a NATO response.

He went out of his way specifying a nuke inside Ukraine. There is a war game scenario where he pops one over the Black Sea to make a point. It made me think that was why Graham said that.

What kind of "NATO response" it will be? More sanctions? The USA won't attack Russian cities even if Russia nuke Paris and Berlin.

 

[Mac-7]

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

The most obvious use would be a tactical nuke within ukraine

and if I were biden’s puppet master I would tell him to be cool while working to completely isolate russia because Putin is getting desperate

yes to more NATO firepower in the region but not within ukraine

 

[Silver Cat]

The most obvious use would be a tactical nuke within ukraine

and if I were biden’s puppet master I would tell him to be cool while working to completely isolate russia because Putin is getting desperate

yes to more NATO firepower in the region but not within ukraine

To use nukes they must raise the status of conflict to, at least, the "regional war" level. And right now it's just a "special operation", not even a "local war".

 

[Mac-7]

To use nukes they must raise the status of conflict to, at least, the "regional war" level. And right now it's just a "special operation", not even a "local war".

I wish I could read putins mind but I cant

but it seems logical that any invader would want to use the least force necessary and not invite NATO into the conflict