• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Biden Warns Possibility of Russian Tactical Nuke Use

Deleted account

Deleted account

Power Poster II
Joined
May 15, 2022
Biden says the threat of Russia using tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict is real.

"When I was out here about two years ago saying I worried about the Colorado river drying up, everybody looked at me like I was crazy," Biden told a group of donors in California on Monday. "They looked at me like when I said I worry about Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. It's real," Biden said.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden...-tactical-nuclear-weapons-is-real-2023-06-20/
 
Nuclear weapons are for deterrence so we have to get tough here and deter. Make it clear that the nuclear umbrella is real and any country that uses a nuclear weapon in combat will face a massive nuclear response from the United States. IMO
 
william said:
Nuclear weapons are for deterrence
Click to expand...
I am not sure I like that phrasing.

Deterrence means "Don't do what I don't want you to do." Generally, it has meant "Don't attack my country and I won't attack yours."

Lately, it is starting to mean "Surrender to me or things will get worse."
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I am not sure I like that phrasing.

Deterrence means "Don't do what I don't want you to do." Generally, it has meant "Don't attack my country and I won't attack yours."

Lately, it is starting to mean "Surrender to me or things will get worse."
Click to expand...

How about don't even think about using a nuke and get out of Ukraine.
 
I'm not saying we nuke them: no. I'm saying if it's going to happen just let it happen already. If they keep threatening it at some point it's useless and it won't happen because they are scared to do it.
 
Honestly, I'm tired of all the flexing: we need action else the threats mean nothing in the eye of the person threatening you.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I am not sure I like that phrasing.

Deterrence means "Don't do what I don't want you to do." Generally, it has meant "Don't attack my country and I won't attack yours."

Lately, it is starting to mean "Surrender to me or things will get worse."
Click to expand...

What is our policy if a nuke is used in Ukraine? Does anyone know? I think russia should know what it would be very clearly.
 
william said:
What is our policy if a nuke is used in Ukraine? Does anyone know? I think russia should know what it would be very clearly.
Click to expand...
We likely won't do shit besides bitch moan and complain, that or it's a cyber attack that's going to be hosted through a proxy country: Israel, Czech, Mid-East.
 
ZedBoy said:
Honestly, I'm tired of all the flexing: we need action else the threats mean nothing in the eye of the person threatening you.
Click to expand...

"No flex zone, no flex zone. They know better, they know better." - Rae Sremmurd

I'd rather we were not so nonchalant about nuclear escalation. It's unlikely the fallout (figurative and literal) will remain limited to Ukraine even if that is the only place they are used.
 
teekay99 said:
"No flex zone, no flex zone. They know better, they know better." - Rae Sremmurd

I'd rather we were not so nonchalant about nuclear escalation. It's unlikely the fallout (figurative and literal) will remain limited to Ukraine even if that is the only place they are used.
Click to expand...
Im not nonchalant. Im serious about withdrawing from our MOU between the Ukraine, Russia and the US. Let Russia work it out with the Ukraine. The Ukraines should have never given them up in the first place.
 
Torcher said:
Im not nonchalant. Im serious about withdrawing from our MOU between the Ukraine, Russia and the US. Let Russia work it out with the Ukraine. The Ukraines should have never given them up in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think without the west's assistance, Russia "working it out with Ukraine" would amount to Russia trouncing Ukraine and Russia being emboldened go further, for example, to start probing a takeover of a former SSR that is a member of NATO (think a Baltic country). This has happened before - the allies basically gave Hitler the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. He took the rest of the country anyways before invading Poland (this is the highly-summarized version of events). Let Putin have an inch, I suspect he takes a mile.

I think I read this here before - attempting to stop Russia in Ukraine indirectly could reduce the likelihood for a war, vs stopping Russia after they go after a NATO member and risk definite war.

Needless to say, I am curious of what the political and diplomatic purpose was behind Biden making that statement? Is he sending a message to hawkish members of NATO to cool their jets? Is he hinting at some intel he has that is not generally available yet?
 
Your correct. Im all for helping the Ukraine kill Russian invaders. I was referring to Putins Nuke threat. It wouldnt be much of one if Kiev had 300+ Warheads pointed right back.
 
teekay99 said:
I think without the west's assistance, Russia "working it out with Ukraine" would amount to Russia trouncing Ukraine and Russia being emboldened go further, for example, to start probing a takeover of a former SSR that is a member of NATO (think a Baltic country). This has happened before - the allies basically gave Hitler the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. He took the rest of the country anyways before invading Poland (this is the highly-summarized version of events). Let Putin have an inch, I suspect he takes a mile.

I think I read this here before - attempting to stop Russia in Ukraine indirectly could reduce the likelihood for a war, vs stopping Russia after they go after a NATO member and risk definite war.

Needless to say, I am curious of what the political and diplomatic purpose was behind Biden making that statement? Is he sending a message to hawkish members of NATO to cool their jets? Is he hinting at some intel he has that is not generally available yet?
Click to expand...
They take a mile to protect the inch with defense in depth. It's why they created the Warsaw Pact and put communist governments in charge in Eastern Europe
 
Torcher said:
Your correct. Im all for helping the Ukraine kill Russian invaders. I was referring to Putins Nuke threat. It wouldnt be much of one if Kiev had 300+ Warheads pointed right back.
Click to expand...

I think back in the mid 90s when Ukraine gave up its nukes, no one envisioned such a vast departure of Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence.

I see your point. If Ukraine had a nuclear deterrent, it is possible Putin would not have invaded. But with the former SSR being relatively unstable at that time (or at least the risk of instability), had Ukraine kept their nukes, worse could have happened (proliferation). They had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal before they gave 'em up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom