EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • FleetingTit@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    28 days ago

    For starters: amassing troops at the russian is a warning.

    But I think a coordinated attack by NATO could neutralize all russian air power, at least in the western part. Thus preventing Russia from waging war in Ukraine or making any attacks on NATO countries in return.

    Nuclear war is not plausible due to Mutual Assured Destruction.

    • golden_zealot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      If your destruction is already inevitable because all of NATO is invading your country, then mutually assured destruction begins to look like a good option from the losing position.

      For this reason I would argue nuclear war is plausible in the scenario.

      You may also say “well the NATO forces may be looking to arrest you and not kill you so logically your best bet is to hold off on nukes”, but people, even leaders of countries, often don’t react rationally under extreme circumstances so there is definitely a non zero risk of nuclear destruction.