a reply to: RadioRobert
Generally speaking I don’t think any *limited* confrontation with Russia would result in the use of nuclear weapons. Simply because there is no need
for it. Russia would hit back using conventional but extreme means, which would be more than enough to get both sides to the negotiating table
eventually. Deescalating a confrontation that way is far less risky than literally go nuts and start nuking airbases. The risk of that getting out of
hand is far too high and not warranted at all.
Putin doesn’t have to nuke Turkey to get Trump to call Erdogan and set him straight. Some air raids or cruise missile attacks will work just as well
since you are completely right on your main argument, especially the Europeans will bend over backwards to avoid war with Russia.
I just disagree with you on the likelihood of nuclear weapons use.
IMO for nuclear weapons to be used, the stakes would need to be raised considerably, i.e. general warfare between Russia and the entirety of NATO. The
only scenario in which this is remotely possible at this point is Russia successfully invading the Baltic states and NATO deciding to push them out by
a general offensive move from Poland through Kaliningrad and Belarus.
As said, I don’t think this is very likely in any case, I don’t think the European leaders would be willing to go to war with Russia if the
Baltics are already lost. They’d go the negotiating route for sure and no offensive would ever occur.
But if it did, it would resemble something like a WW3 scenario with a general mobilization of NATO nations, the deployment of a dozen armored brigades
in Eastern Europe and general warfare against Russia around the globe. With Russia eventually facing encirclement of their invading armies in the
Baltics, the loss of Kaliningrad and intensifying strategic air strikes against military infrastructure within Russia, I can see them to try to play
the nuclear card to try to stop things.
I don’t think however it would work for the reasons I described.
The use of nuclear weapons leads to an immediate, time critical need to take out the other sides capability to conduct more attacks of a similar
nature. In the scenario described above with NATO on a general war footing the decision on how to respond would rest solely with the US Commander in
And it would be a military decision, not a political one.
It would not be about ‘oh gosh, what does Putin want to tell us with nuking our advancing spearheads in Belarus, lets call Theresa and Angela do
discuss since fascinating turn of events’ but ‘Mr. President, SACEUR asks for immediate authorization of contingency operations against Russian
nuclear forces. The likelihood of further strikes is extremely high, you can decide while we evacuate your ass on board Nightwatch’.
I have a very hard time believing any US President willing to go to war with Russia over Estonia would just call it quits at that point and abandon
the better part of the US Army in the field to the mercy of the Russians.
edit on 13-3-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)