If the US did get involved, I wonder if Russia would hit them with a nuke. Maybe they would attack with something less powerful that would still do damage and send a strong message.
Seriously? This as a independent news forum has any influence on Vladimir Putin and Russia is such a ridiculous idea.Russia can move in peacefully any time and we stay at Defcon 5 here.
My thinking is they don't need to use nukes. The thing that worries me the most is something like China and Russia simultaneously sinking two US ships. The US responds proportionately. Then the ceasefire and kabuki theater at the UN for months until the White House finds a way to give up on Taiwan and Ukraine.If the US did get involved, I wonder if Russia would hit them with a nuke. Maybe they would attack with something less powerful that would still do damage and send a strong message.
If Russia "moves in peacefully" then you're damn skippy we'll stay at DEFCON 5, because there is no nuclear threat under those circumstances. You need to get that through your head.Russia can move in peacefully any time and we stay at Defcon 5 here.
Every NATO vs. Russia strategic scenario I've ever seen regarding NATO/Russia conflict ends badly because Russia retaliates vs. field use of battlefield nukes. Other scenarios see slow ramp ups if the conflict starts at sea but eventually ending in a nuke exchange. There are very few ways a direct NATO/Russia conflict could or would stay conventional. Most of those ways involve no direct conflict but only proxy wars, such as we have now.If the US did get involved, I wonder if Russia would hit them with a nuke. Maybe they would attack with something less powerful that would still do damage and send a strong message.
i don't trust Putin, reminds me of 1983 all over again.Every NATO vs. Russia strategic scenario I've ever seen regarding NATO/Russia conflict ends badly because Russia retaliates vs. field use of battlefield nukes. Other scenarios see slow ramp ups if the conflict starts at sea but eventually ending in a nuke exchange. There are very few ways a direct NATO/Russia conflict could or would stay conventional. Most of those ways involve no direct conflict but only proxy wars, such as we have now.
However, the most likely way any war starts, period, is by accident. Someone dodges left when they should have dodged right, boom. Escalation. Possible nuclear conflagration.
However, Putin has no desire to use nukes. The only way NATO will use field nukes (at least in theory) is to stop advancing Russian troops they have otherwise no way to stop. So even though it all sounds so very scary, it really isn't as scary as it may seem because in the end no one actually wants to use nuclear weapons in this situation. No one has anything to gain by blowing up anyone else. Russia wants Ukraine intact and NATO needs Russia as the boogie man. No one wants to blow up anyone else with nukes.
I see that you don't minimally calculate the rest of the Europe, as is to say the remaining 90% of the NATO! You speak about New York, Seattle, San Diego, but what about Rome, Paris, Madrid, etc? If a war begin, Europe will surely get involved as the main war theatre. So, the problem we are speaking about, you forget that is, first of all, an European problem, more then American. I don't know what is it the awareness level in US about a real wide-spread war, but speaking about Europe, specially about Italy, the things, compared to the '80s, are very changed: now, I'm not kidding, most of the people (except some military) doesn't even know what NATO is or exists, specially under the age of 40. Above this age, NATO is just something makes you remember the cold-war. Europe has not the slightest intention to get even minimally involved in a war againt Russia. So, I suppose, if the question is to twaddle, impose sanctions to Russia and bad-mounth about Putin, Eupope will be bravely 100% with US. But be sure: if something hard has to happen, you will be alone with Ukraine, maybe UK, against Russia. US leadership and Eupopean diplomacies know this very well. So, I think that a nuclear war is, luckily, very improbable, because you will find very very difficult to get Europe involved.I agree the US and NATO look weak, but being frank, if its a chocie between sacrificing Kiev and Ukrainian territory to the Russians or a nuke dropping on New York, Seatttle, San Diego, etc. well I'm sorry Kiev but you're on your own.
We do consider Europe in our calculations.but what about Rome, Paris, Madrid, etc?
Aside from the obvious info from this article, I feel it important to remember Biden’s stake in all of this. He may be the wild card.
“The U.S. has provided Ukraine $2 billion in security assistance since 2014, including two tranches of Javelin missiles as well as other military equipment. Biden, who pushed unsuccessfully to provide lethal aid to Kyiv during the Obama administration, also recently approved an additional $125 million worth of lethal aid to help the country defend its borders, including two armed patrol boats and counter-artillery radar.”
Can Ukraine deploy U.S.-made weapons against the Russians?
There are no geographic restrictions on the deployment of the missiles, which means Ukrainian forces can transport, distribute and use them any time.www.politico.com
And how popular is any Ukraine action going to be is massive number of bodies start coming home. Putin is already having popularity problems.You don't do this for an exercise...... www.uawire.org/russian-cities-prepare-for-mass-burials-as-kremlin-amasses-troops-on-ukrainian-borders
if they stop after taking southern and eastern Ukraine in a blitz,Putin will look strong to his people while he gives NATO the middle finger.And how popular is any Ukraine action going to be is massive number of bodies start coming home. Putin is already having popularity problems.