The Guardian calls for NATO to declare war on Russia
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
your money laundering fake country is not worth global nuclear war. not one inch of it.
Stop arguing that Russia is going to fire nukes. It's not, okay? If Russia nukes us, we would nuke them back. Russians, including Putin, don't want to get nuked, therefore they won't fire nukes. This is called MAD. It worked successfully throughout the whole Cold War. There is no reason to believe that it would not still work now.
Also, "global"? Russia stands alone, my friend. Russia has no allies. There would be nothing "global" about NATO bombing some Russians in Ukraine. It would be a very limited war. Russia would not even retaliate against any NATO countries. Know why? Because if it did, then NATO would open up on targets in Russia. Russia loses that fight. It loses that fight 10 out of 10 times.
Here is what would ACTUALLY happen if NATO aircraft began launching strikes:
Russians would get obliterated in short order. The Russian SAM defenses would be easily swept aside because they are a paper tiger completely incapable of dealing with either stealth or jamming SEAD operations.
The bulk of the Russian military would flee, with or without orders. Many would desert and run for their lives. The Russians aren't willing to die to an unseen enemy that completely outclasses them for the sake of Putin's ego.
Ukraine would advance and recapture everything.
Putin would bunker up and might very well be killed in the coup or uprising that would follow his utter humiliation.
You all need to wake up and accept the reality that Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a joke compared to what the USSR used to be. It's a rump state, a shadow. It's a relatively poor country with a big but obsolete military, getting clowned on by an even poorer country that should have been an easy kill.
You've basically defined MAD out of existence. Basically, you've stated that because no party actually wants destruction, nuclear weapons will never be used, and thus the different parties can freely attack each other with conventional weapons without MAD ever being an issue. As the Cold War showed, however, that isn't how MAD works. Instead, MAD means that neither party will ever risk a direct confrontation because the consequences of even a small conflict could lead to MAD, and no one wants to take that risk.
Uhh no.
Yes, nukes cancel out and conventional weapons are still able to be used.
Yes, it is actually.
Not true at all. Look at the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy was willing to start launching air attacks on Cuba. Khrushchev backed down because he realized Castro was a lunatic who was saying he was totally happy to die to take down America. That was a unique situation and MAD STILL worked because the Russians didn't want to die, so they backed down.
The Russians acted in escalatory ways plenty of times in the Cold War, and in some cases so did the US. MAD proved itself time and time again to work because nobody was willing to launch 1st out of fear of retaliation.
MAD also prevented chemical weapons from being used in WW2.
YOUR formulation means that Russia can just keep invading everyone and nobody will ever do shit because they fear Russia's nukes and are frozen with fear. That's not only a load of shit, it would INCENTIVIZE Russia to act very aggressively with its nukes and to even use them since it could see how afraid of them everyone else was.
It was rather Che than Castro.
There were instances of chemical warfare in WWII, especially in China. (Biological too.)