• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should NATO Intervene If Putin Uses Chemical Weapons in Ukraine?

Should NATO declare war against Russia if they start to use chemical weapons in Ukraine?


  • Total voters
    27
What does it all matter who did what first if the result is a nuclear response from Russia? I guess we all get to say "not our fault". That will make me feel so much better.
 
No because Russia would be declaring a no fly zone without the permission of Ukraine. That’s the key difference.
The US/ Uk put on on Iraq without the permission of Iraq,
 
Personally I do not understand what the nato countries are waiting for? So what ukraine is not a nato nation, what putin is doing is an act of war. Does the world just sit by and watch as he does as he pleases killing innocent people? NATO should have been doing the same thing we did with saddam, building up forces in nato countries until there are enough to confront putin directly in ukraine.

It's not an act of war against us and at this point, your post is very hypocritical, since we dont just declare war on other countries and warlords that invade and destroy communities, cities, rape the women, bomb, etc. See: Africa, ME. Why is Ukraine different in your mind?
 
Just my opinion on this, which of course don't mean a hell of a lot, but I don't think he would use ICBM's. If he uses anything nuclear it will be smaller scale tactical against Ukraine. However the effect would probably be the same as if that won't pull the allies in nothing will and we are pathetic cowards.

And IMO the only real target for a nuke would be Ukraine itself. Anywhere else would be another act of war.

Would Putin nuke his prize? A good part of it is already contaminated. It's a major agricultural region.
 
After some further thought, I think my opinion is that Russia began taking such measures, our response should be to compel China to firmly cut off Russia. Russia needs China but China does not need Russia. If China cut Putin off, the war would end. So, our action should be to make ongoing support for Russia extremely painful for China.
 
If Putin uses chemical weapons? Everything I have read and heard recently indicates that the US and Ukraine were plotting and scheming to create chemical and biological weapons to use against Russia! That, as I understand it, is why Russia was forced to go into Ukraine. Well, that and Nazis.
Are you being sarcastic? If so, please source.

What would we or Ukraine want from Russia to do that? Why would we/they do that?
 
And IMO the only real target for a nuke would be Ukraine itself. Anywhere else would be another act of war.

Would Putin nuke his prize? A good part of it is already contaminated. It's a major agricultural region.


ICBM's would be an eventual thing. If Nato got involved nato airbase would get hit by cruise missiles. NATO would likely respond and hit Russian territory. If NATO ground forces looked to be getting ready to invade tactical nukes could be used to take out the ground forces outside if Ukraine as Russia is not strong enough to take on NATO. The use of smaller tactical nukes would be a tipping point in which the west might decide to take out Russia with nukes trying to kill Russian leadership. That would see Russia launching its own nukes.
 
What do you think?
POS:

The intervene-boat has already sailed. Various NATO member states have been intervening through arms sales/transfers and by turning blind eyes to their own nationals volunteering to join the Ukrainian cause, despite laws that make such voluntary military service illegal. NATO is also leading the international charge to sanction and seize Russia's state and Russians' private assets in order to collapse Russia's economy. This is economic warfare and is thus more intervention in the Russo-Ukraine War.

However if the question is, "Should NATO take direct military action against Russia if it uses chemical weapons in Ukraine?", (or indeed nuclear or biological weapons) then there could be problems. What constitutes a chemical weapon? If the Russians use White-Phosphorus artillery shells or rockets on civillian targets, is that using chemical weapons? Are Russian definitions of what is a chemical weapon the same as the West's? Is tear gassing many city blocks to supress armed defenders using a chemical attack?

There is too much uncertainty about what might trigger military escalation for NATO to make a simple trip-wire statement about chemical weapons. A better idea would be to watch for the use of such weapons by Russia in Ukraine and if chemical weapon attacks begin then green-light Ukraine to respond in kind and if necessary to covertly supply Ukraine with equivalent stocks of any chemical weapons used by Russia in Ukraine.

There is no good answer to the thread's question.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.
 
After some further thought, I think my opinion is that Russia began taking such measures, our response should be to compel China to firmly cut off Russia. Russia needs China but China does not need Russia. If China cut Putin off, the war would end. So, our action should be to make ongoing support for Russia extremely painful for China.


Not likely to work now. Had it been done prior to 2017 and Trump it could have worked. Now China believes that once Russia is taken care of it would be next. It won't cut Russia off and let it fall only to be next in the crosshairs
 
ICBM's would be an eventual thing. If Nato got involved nato airbase would get hit by cruise missiles. NATO would likely respond and hit Russian territory. If NATO ground forces looked to be getting ready to invade tactical nukes could be used to take out the ground forces outside if Ukraine as Russia is not strong enough to take on NATO. The use of smaller tactical nukes would be a tipping point in which the west might decide to take out Russia with nukes trying to kill Russian leadership. That would see Russia launching its own nukes.

I was speaking to tactical nukes...why would he use ICBMs on his doorstep?
 
A good number of people favor WW3 I see
 
Yes we invaded them, illegally Don’t really understand the point?


The point is it does not matter who puts them up, it is the ability to enforce it and prevent escalation
 
Are nuclear weapons chemical weapons?
Antiwar:

No. Nuclear reactions are very different from chemical reactions and thus are a different classification of weapon. Likewise rifles, mortars and rockets are physical weapons, not chemical ones, even though these weapons use chemical propellants to power the physical attack which harms the target.

But they are all weapons which kill and thus their uses in war are all abhotent IMO. We are quibbling about how to kill people rather than figuring out how to stop the killing.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.
 
Antiwar:

No. Nuclear reactions are very different from chemical reactions and thus are a different classification of weapon. Likewise rifles, mortars and rockets are physical weapons, not chemical ones, even though these weapons use chemical propellants to power the physical attack which harms the target.

But they are all weapons which kill and thus their uses in war are all abhotent IMO. We are quibbling about how to kill people rather than figuring out how to stop the killing.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

I'm glad you're in a more peaceful mood, today, so far. :)
 
The point is it does not matter who puts them up, it is the ability to enforce it and prevent escalation

But again though Ukraine are begging us to place one. If chemical weapons were used a no fly zone at the request of Ukraine wouldn’t be outrageous.
 
But again though Ukraine are begging us to place one. If chemical weapons were used a no fly zone at the request of Ukraine wouldn’t be outrageous.


It would likely lead to a direct war between Nato and Russia and the eventual use of nuclear weapons.

That is the reason a no fly zone was not used in the first place. We have to decide if defending Ukraine is worth a nuclear war
 
What do you think?
As much as I prefer not to commit to war I can't help thinking that if we don't draw the line somewhere how will a deterrent ever be achieved. If other countries see there are no consequences to using chemical weapons why wouldn't this become common place?
 
As much as I prefer not to commit to war I can't help thinking that if we don't draw the line somewhere how will a deterrent ever be achieved. If other countries see there are no consequences to using chemical weapons why wouldn't this become common place?
I can't even imagine being responsible for these decisions. Politics aside, I will support Trudeau and other world leaders on this. In a crisis like this we must show unity and support, not use it as a political weapon. The time for that will come.....I hope.
 
But is it worth the price to make the rest of the world a battlefield and perhaps radioactive land that is worthless not to mention the death toll?

Sure we have nukes too but can we count on him to consider that a deterrent? He has said he won't hesitate to use them.
In my opinion, yes it is worth it. If we do not stand up to tyrants like putin, that is who will be running the world so the sooner we stand up to him the better in my opinion before we can't.
 
It's not an act of war against us and at this point, your post is very hypocritical, since we dont just declare war on other countries and warlords that invade and destroy communities, cities, rape the women, bomb, etc. See: Africa, ME. Why is Ukraine different in your mind?
Were you around when we went into iraq after saddam on the strength of W's lies?
 
What do you think?
Yes.

That would prove that Putzin is a threat to the entire world and should be gotten rid of by any means necessary. Even if it's something as simple as a military hit squad or drone strike on his office.
 
Were you around when we went into iraq after saddam on the strength of W's lies?

Yes and I objected and called it bullshit. Iraq was bullshit, IMO we were right in going into Afghanistan after the core of the 9/11 hijackers...and used that as an excuse to go into Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom