Putin is currently using his god-like magic powers to juggle tactical nuclear warheads in the sky above Kiev.Simple question. I just wanted to see who gets this question right.
(Clue, you can check my posts from before the invasion for the correct ansewer)
I’m leaning with this.No. Because even though he's 100 ibs of crazy in 50ibs bag, even he knows it'd be the end of him.
That comes across as a bit cocky but, no, I don't think so. they have plenty of other options that can kill a lot of innocents and brake the Ukrainian morale , which they can better control and predict the reaction to, including chemical weapons.Simple question. I just wanted to see who gets this question right.
(Clue, you can check my posts from before the invasion for the correct ansewer)
So far he's not directly attacking Western countries in spite of sanctions and robust arming of Ukrainian forces. As horrible as everything he's doing is, he's revealing a distinct recognition of the "old rules."
I'm at "concerned but not worried." After worry comes alarm, at which point I'm going to have to seriously consider how to...um...exit...a world in which there's nuclear war.
The issue here really isn't whether Western and Russian forces would engage in direct combat. So far that's not a thing and doesn't seem like it will be. The danger is that Putin has reduced the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that he could justify "only" a 7kt nuke to clear Ukrainian forces or a city, as if that's not a catastrophic red line. If he does that, things will escalate extremely quickly, and it will be tens of thousands of years before the earth's biosphere will support life as well as it does day.He won't attack a western country. But he sure as hell will do whatever he wants in Ukraine and if he feels he needs tactical nukes he will use them.
Take that to the bank.
If we they move military, well then hit the bunker because then the big ones will fly and DC and NYC will be ground zero.
He knows he can't we a conventional war so if we engage him, he has to use nukes.
So would you or I.
Simple question. I just wanted to see who gets this question right.
(Clue, you can check my posts from before the invasion for the correct ansewer)
The issue here really isn't whether Western and Russian forces would engage in direct combat. So far that's not a thing and doesn't seem like it will be. The danger is that Putin has reduced the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that he could justify "only" a 7kt nuke to clear Ukrainian forces or a city, as if that's not a catastrophic red line.
Using nuclear weapons is a different kind of red line. It signifies that the use of nukes in standard combat is now SOP. That would be our Great Filter event.A small nuke in a none Nato country should not be a red line if red line means we declare war with Russia. We cannot attack Russia no matter what he does in Ukraine. It is what it is.
He is gonna use one because he can't win his war in any other way and he will bring Armageddon before he loses.
Simple question. I just wanted to see who gets this question right.
(Clue, you can check my posts from before the invasion for the correct ansewer)
That comes across as a bit cocky but, no, I don't think so. they have plenty of other options that can kill a lot of innocents and brake the Ukrainian morale , which they can better control and predict the reaction to, including chemical weapons.
And people believed he wouldn't invade Ukraine even as it was painfully obviously that that's exactly what would happen. Obviously, however, I'm hoping you're right.Putin may be nuts, but anyone who seriously believes he will use nukes is nuts as well. There are conventional ways of killing as many people without the baggage that comes with nukes.
What do you mean the "correct response?" Unless you inside Putin's head you don't really know what he will do.Wow! I just posted this and am already shocked at the number of incorrect responses.
Folks, I said in the opening post you could check my posts from before the invasion for the correct ansewer.
According to this, tactical nuclear weapons are not as destructive to built up areas of modern construction as most assume.The issue here really isn't whether Western and Russian forces would engage in direct combat. So far that's not a thing and doesn't seem like it will be. The danger is that Putin has reduced the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that he could justify "only" a 7kt nuke to clear Ukrainian forces or a city, as if that's not a catastrophic red line. If he does that, things will escalate extremely quickly, and it will be tens of thousands of years before the earth's biosphere will support life as well as it does day.
Yes, using a nuke is morphing into standard warfare. This will be that breakthrough.Using nuclear weapons is a different kind of red line. It signifies that the use of nukes in standard combat is now SOP. That would be our Great Filter event.
Join a Fallout game reenactment group, or create one if it doesn't exist.So far he's not directly attacking Western countries in spite of sanctions and robust arming of Ukrainian forces. As horrible as everything he's doing is, he's revealing a distinct recognition of the "old rules."
I'm at "concerned but not worried." After worry comes alarm, at which point I'm going to have to seriously consider how to...um...exit...a world in which there's nuclear war.
Here's the thing to keep in mind though. Putin did not create this Russian nationalist political wave, he keeps riding and driving, there are others of similar ilk and we don't know them hardly at all. We don't unnecessarily want to throw raw meat at those piranha either. We need to pay attention to that NATO charter, and we need to make sure we pay attention to what constituties an 'act of war' and what does not. No direct military confrontations.Cannot agree more. Even when nukes were first used conventional weapons were still able to kill as many