honorentheos wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:46 pm
That does nothing to resolve the grim reality such an act would be the start of a war with Russia that had already gone nuclear. Forgive me, but I don't think this confidential source is sufficient to make such confident claims. In fact the presentation works against the credibility of the claim.
It seems to me, honorentheos, that you are overly concerned with the concept of NATO making any substantive retaliatory strike on Russian forces in Ukraine in the event of nuclear weapons use.
You seem to believe that any response that involves direct engagement by NATO with Russia, weak and disorganized as their military is, would result in a “nuclear war”. You seem to take this as a given. Why is that?
You use jingoistic terms such as “grin realities” and “gone nuclear”. What do you think ”going nuclear” means?
If Putin were to detonate a low-yield tactical nuke in a remote area over the black sea to show he is willing to use nuclear weapons, would that be going nuclear?
If he did so, do you believe that such an act would necessitate a nuclear exchange? Is a limited nuclear exchange the same as nuclear war? Do you not believe that the direct responses described by others below could be effectively carried out using conventional weapons?
We do not know exactly what the US means by the “catastrophic consequences” promised (not threatened) if Putin detonates a nuclear weapon. We are told that more specific descriptions of possible responses have been privately and directly conveyed to Russia. Do you believe that the American and NATO statements regarding non-specific "catastrophic consequences" would
not include the option of direct NATO or US action against Russian targets?
Two recognized arms control experts, writing for in the Washington Post, stated the following:
”William Alberque and Fabian Hoffmann in the Washington Post” wrote: Furthermore, Alberque and Hoffman continued, the defensive alliance's "leaders must state that nuclear use would risk a military response by NATO. This response would entail strikes against Russian military targets — either in a targeted fashion against units involved in the nuclear use (especially in response to the first scenario), or a wider attack against Russian forces in Ukraine and Belarus, perhaps even in Russia — crippling Russia’s supply lines, airfields, missile launch sites and command-and-control infrastructure. Such a response should spell the effective end of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. NATO would not need boots on the ground to conduct such an attack; massed conventional cruise missile strikes fired from aircraft above NATO territory and the surrounding seas could do the job."
Here is a direct response option recommended by the folks at CNN.
”CNN” wrote: NATO must direct that it will take out Russia's tactical nuclear weapons if they move out of their current locations to a position where they could threaten Ukraine and must also make clear that any deliberate attacks on nuclear power stations will exact an equal and greater response from NATO. This is the time to call Putin's bluff.
You have expressed doubt about the credibility of the response I described involving direct NATO engagement of Russian targets in Ukraine. Taking out Russian command and control capability in Ukraine as I described is a far less drastic response than is recommended by Alberque and Hoffman. It seems that you cannot imagine that the US would risk what you refer to as nuclear war by responding directly to unlawful and unwarranted Russian aggression.
”William Alberque and Fabian Hoffmann in the Washington Post” wrote:
But leaving unanswered the use of nuclear weapons as part of an unlawful attack on a neighboring state is untenable," they cautioned. "It would signal to the world that the West will allow aggressors to do whatever they want if they make nuclear threats, paving the way for further atrocities, nuclear use and, most likely, uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. No country currently facing a security dilemma and with the means to develop a nuclear arsenal would forgo doing so if the West backs down."
Fortunately for the West, there are those in the business who understand that there are ways to successfully deal with Putin short of a nuclear war.