Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem with that is once nukes are used, it’s difficult to determine whether they are low yield tactical nukes or full blown nukes. Plus the fog of war often causes miscalculations that could cause a full nuclear exchange.Who dares, wins. For far too long the west has imagined for the most part that any use of nukes would be large scale, and on population centers. Almost completely ignoring the potential utility of low yield tactical nukes on the battle field. Russia? Not so much. They’ve developed, and war gamed the usage of low yield nukes far more than the West. And have also considered the reaction from the West should they use them. This myopic point of view leaves the West wide open on the battle field. Defaulting the West to resort to MAD as their only response should Russia use one. Which means the West would likely do little to nothing, in response, nuclear speaking, as it pertains to Ukraine. No European nation, nor America, are going to offer up their own cities, in response to a tactical low yield battlefield strike, in Ukraine. None.
So at what point do you imagine they would be necessary and what targets would they seek to hit that Russia can't hit with conventional weapons?It hasn’t felt threatened enough to do so yet.Russia is still bulldozing through the Ukraine, and gaining ground. Low yield nukes at this point would be completely unnecessary.
In the Ukrainian theater they would likely be delivered at low altitude. Or on the ground. There wouldn’t be the overt fueling ICBMs. It would be over with before the West knew it had begun. To then start fueling our own ICBMs would initiate the MAD scenario the West fears. And would likely sit back, and evaluate before acting. That’s all the time Russia would need.The problem with that is once nukes are used, it’s difficult to determine whether they are low yield tactical nukes or full blown nukes. Plus the fog of war often causes miscalculations that could cause a full nuclear exchange.
A clandestine force of NATO operatives, packing formidable weaponry, and numbers of personnel that cannot be displaced conventionally; and also threaten the progress they have made. It would still be a near last resort. But for Russia, it is on the table.So at what point do you imagine they would be necessary and what targets would they seek to hit that Russia can't hit with conventional weapons?
The question is, does Russia have any rational basis for considering NATO to be a threat to Russia's security, and the answer, of course, is, no. NATO countries have allowed themselves to become dependent on Russian gas exports and have provided Russia with electronics and other exports that are necessary to build their SAMs, their tanks and many of their aircraft and these are not things these nations would do if they intended to attack Russia, so there is no rational basis for Russia to believe NATO is a threat.You’re uninformed. Of course Russia thinks NATO is a threat. You thinking it isn’t, is proof you’re uninformed or a dupe of the state.
You must know what the state controlled media and neocons in the west would do if such a thing occurred. Events would rapidly spiral out of control.In the Ukrainian theater they would likely be delivered at low altitude. Or on the ground. There wouldn’t be the overt fueling ICBMs. It would be over with before the West knew it had begun. To then start fueling our own ICBMs would initiate the MAD scenario the West fears. And would likely sit back, and evaluate before acting. That’s all the time Russia would need.
Oh brother are you dupe. NATO is an aggressive force who’s entire existence is based on defeating Russia.The question is, does Russia have any rational basis for considering NATO to be a threat to Russia's security, and the answer, of course, is, no. NATO countries have allowed themselves to become dependent on Russian gas exports and have provided Russia with electronics and other exports that are necessary to build their SAMs, their tanks and many of their aircraft and these are not things these nations would do if they intended to attack Russia, so there is no rational basis for Russia to believe NATO is a threat.
So you are talking about nuking small targets, but there are no small targets Russia cannot hit with conventional weapons so using nukes on these would make them only terror weapons and express a lack of confidence in Russia's conventional forces.A clandestine force of NATO operatives, packing formidable weaponry, and numbers of personnel that cannot be displaced conventionally; and also threaten the progress they have made. It would still be a near last resort. But for Russia, it is on the table.
The West pines for long drawn out wars, that are profitable to the MIC, and it’s investors. They are loathe to paint a target on their own foreheads.You must know what the state controlled media and neocons in the west would do if such a thing occurred. Events would rapidly spiral out of control.
Please remember two US presidents bombed Syria based on lies that Assad gassed his own people. The US is a warlike Empire. Many in it’s leadership want the unipolar world to continue, and Russia is seen as a threat to their desires.
You must know the US military wanted to nuke Russia in a first strike in the 50s and 60s, if not more recently.
And no such weapons have been used. Up to this point they aren’t necessary. However should Russia deem their use nessecary; there is little the West can do to prevent it. And likely not much outside of conventional means they can offer in response. In this regard Russia has NATO over a barrel.So you are talking about nuking small targets, but there are no small targets Russia cannot hit with conventional weapons so using nukes on these would make them only terror weapons and express a lack of confidence in Russia's conventional forces.
Very true.The West pines for long drawn out wars, that are profitable to the MIC, and it’s investors. They are loathe to paint a target on their own foreheads.
As you describe their use, avoiding population centers and going after small groups that Russia can already attack with conventional weapons, there is little reason for Ukraine or its allies to be concerned with the use of these nukes since they would change nothing on the ground.And no such weapons have been used. Up to this point they aren’t necessary. However should Russia deem their use nessecary; there is little the West can do to prevent it. And likely not much outside of conventional means they can offer in response. In this regard Russia has NATO over a barrel.
So far. However. Should NATOs stance change, and they put boots on the ground overtly… Russias stance is bound to change as well.As you describe their use, avoiding population centers and going after small groups that Russia can already attack with conventional weapons, there is little reason for Ukraine or its allies to be concerned with the use of these nukes since they would change nothing on the ground.
NATO and the US Empire need something really bad to happen to warrant direct confrnotation and escalation. Watch for a false flag event, as has been done since the beginning of time.So far. However. Should NATOs stance change, and they put boots on the ground overtly… Russias stance is bound to change as well.
NATO has taken no official position on the invasion but many NATO members individually have and the EU has, so NATO has no stance to change. Putin has set up NATO as a strawman in a feeble attempt to hide his true imperialist motivations for the invasion of Ukraine.So far. However. Should NATOs stance change, and they put boots on the ground overtly… Russias stance is bound to change as well.
There you go again with stupidity.NATO has taken no official position on the invasion but many NATO members individually have and the EU has, so NATO has no stance to change. Putin has set up NATO as a strawman in a feeble attempt to hide his true imperialist motivations for the invasion of Ukraine.
Actually I don't know anything and of course don't know how the things will be unfolding. Moreover, I advise to take my predictions with a grain of salt because all my projections back in January and February failed to come true.Yeah sure. You know how this war will transpire. I would never be so presumptuous. War has a funny way of causing unexpected consequences. History tells you this in spades.
This war could easily escalate and involve several other nations. This could result in Russia losing and incurring attacks on their homeland. Then, who knows what might happen. Nuclear war certainly might result.
