President Vladimir Putin on Friday accused NATO member Poland of having territorial ambitions in the former Soviet Union, and said any aggression against Russia's neighbour and close ally Belarus would be considered an attack on Russia.
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we use similarly sized nuclear weapons on Belarus. It’s the only non-escalatory, tit-for-tat response we have.
If retaliatory nuclear weapons are on the table, why would we launch them at Belarus instead of at Moscow? Not saying we should use nukes, btw. I would think that a better response to Putin nuking Ukraine would be a more precise attack against Putin himself and senior officers involved in greenlighting a nuclear attack on Ukraine. We can’t just go eye for an eye when it comes to tens of thousands of civilians. We need to ensure no more dead innocents, not give them the same number of dead innocents. Especially because people like Putin just straight up don’t give a shit about civilians, including the ones on his side. He’s a sociopath who cares only about what benefits him personally, so nuking Belarus accomplishes nothing.
Attacking Russia mainland or Russian leadership is an instant ticket to global nuclear annihilation.
We need an option that shows we are not afraid to use nuclear weapons, but nor are we willing to escalate. A proportional response in the only option we have, unless we believe we’ve reached the end-game, in which case there can be no precision strike or small escalation; then go all in, launch everything now, all at once.
So, what options do we have that mirrors what Russia might do in Ukraine. Can’t be North Korea, they are nuclear-armed themselves and would mean pulling Japan or South Korea into the exchange.
The only ally Russia have that are semi-implicated in the war, with Russian assets that at the same time aren’t full-bloodied Russian state-troops, are Wagner in Belarus.
So, two nukes in Ukraine from Russia = two nukes on Wagner in Belarus.
Why do you think nuking Russia would be unacceptable in the hypothetical situation of Russia instigating by launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine first? Why do you think that only we are responsible for being mindful of mutually assured destruction in the event that Russia is the first to use a nuclear strike in this war?
Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Belarus? Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Wagner, a group that recently planned to march on Moscow to engage in a coup? What am I missing here?
Do you understand that a nuclear strike on Ukraine means nuclear fallout kicked up into the atmosphere? And that wind will definitely carry that fallout into NATO airspace? And that this would be recognized as an attack upon NATO which would trigger article 5?
Russia is making incredibly stupid decisions, but I don’t think even they are dumb enough to launch a nuke at Ukraine. At a time when they already appear to be villainous weaklings, this would just invite direct action to ensure complete destruction of Russia. So far in this campaign, they’ve only seen the results of a few allies donating weapons, ammunition, and training to Ukraine to use in defense; imagine all branches of militaries of the west directly involved in an offensive with the goal of showing the world what happens when you nuke our ally without cause.
If they launch a nuke in this war, it should be viewed for what it is: the frustrated whimpering of a dying nation, desperately gasping for breath while its lungs fill with blood.
I don’t think nuking Russia is unacceptable. I think the step beyond even a single nuke landing inside Russian borders will lead to doomsday annihilation for all. So if you’re going down that route, go 110% all out. There’s no point thinking we can contain Russia’s response. They will then respond by nuking a western NATO ally, or America itself. After that we’re in, feet first. So if we go down that route I’m saying we might as well start where we end up as that will maximise our chances of having some/any population surviving the exchange.
My suggestion to respond with a nuclear attack on Belarus is based on reciprocal response if Russia uses a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. They bomb an ally of ours. We bomb an ally of theirs. Same yield, same count, same distance to Russian border to bring about same consequences on Russia.
The aim in this case would be to show that we will follow Russia up the nuclear ladder but that we don’t intend to START a nuclear holocaust.
I know what your point is and I’m saying that has a lot of false assumptions attached. Russia doesn’t give a shit about Belarus, so you’re advocating for killing a bunch of innocent civilians that had little to nothing to do with the initial strike. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not nearly as afraid of Russia as you are because they’ve proven that their military might is nowhere near what they’ve been saying it is. I’m not convinced that they have the ability to destroy the world with nukes. I’m sure they have nuclear capability, but not world-ending capability. Just Russia-ending capability if they dare launch anything.
At this point they should just annex Belarus.
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we use similarly sized nuclear weapons on Belarus. It’s the only non-escalatory, tit-for-tat response we have.
If retaliatory nuclear weapons are on the table, why would we launch them at Belarus instead of at Moscow? Not saying we should use nukes, btw. I would think that a better response to Putin nuking Ukraine would be a more precise attack against Putin himself and senior officers involved in greenlighting a nuclear attack on Ukraine. We can’t just go eye for an eye when it comes to tens of thousands of civilians. We need to ensure no more dead innocents, not give them the same number of dead innocents. Especially because people like Putin just straight up don’t give a shit about civilians, including the ones on his side. He’s a sociopath who cares only about what benefits him personally, so nuking Belarus accomplishes nothing.
Attacking Russia mainland or Russian leadership is an instant ticket to global nuclear annihilation.
We need an option that shows we are not afraid to use nuclear weapons, but nor are we willing to escalate. A proportional response in the only option we have, unless we believe we’ve reached the end-game, in which case there can be no precision strike or small escalation; then go all in, launch everything now, all at once.
So, what options do we have that mirrors what Russia might do in Ukraine. Can’t be North Korea, they are nuclear-armed themselves and would mean pulling Japan or South Korea into the exchange.
The only ally Russia have that are semi-implicated in the war, with Russian assets that at the same time aren’t full-bloodied Russian state-troops, are Wagner in Belarus.
So, two nukes in Ukraine from Russia = two nukes on Wagner in Belarus.
Why do you think nuking Russia would be unacceptable in the hypothetical situation of Russia instigating by launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine first? Why do you think that only we are responsible for being mindful of mutually assured destruction in the event that Russia is the first to use a nuclear strike in this war?
Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Belarus? Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Wagner, a group that recently planned to march on Moscow to engage in a coup? What am I missing here?
Do you understand that a nuclear strike on Ukraine means nuclear fallout kicked up into the atmosphere? And that wind will definitely carry that fallout into NATO airspace? And that this would be recognized as an attack upon NATO which would trigger article 5?
Russia is making incredibly stupid decisions, but I don’t think even they are dumb enough to launch a nuke at Ukraine. At a time when they already appear to be villainous weaklings, this would just invite direct action to ensure complete destruction of Russia. So far in this campaign, they’ve only seen the results of a few allies donating weapons, ammunition, and training to Ukraine to use in defense; imagine all branches of militaries of the west directly involved in an offensive with the goal of showing the world what happens when you nuke our ally without cause.
If they launch a nuke in this war, it should be viewed for what it is: the frustrated whimpering of a dying nation, desperately gasping for breath while its lungs fill with blood.
I don’t think nuking Russia is unacceptable. I think the step beyond even a single nuke landing inside Russian borders will lead to doomsday annihilation for all. So if you’re going down that route, go 110% all out. There’s no point thinking we can contain Russia’s response. They will then respond by nuking a western NATO ally, or America itself. After that we’re in, feet first. So if we go down that route I’m saying we might as well start where we end up as that will maximise our chances of having some/any population surviving the exchange.
My suggestion to respond with a nuclear attack on Belarus is based on reciprocal response if Russia uses a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. They bomb an ally of ours. We bomb an ally of theirs. Same yield, same count, same distance to Russian border to bring about same consequences on Russia.
The aim in this case would be to show that we will follow Russia up the nuclear ladder but that we don’t intend to START a nuclear holocaust.
I know what your point is and I’m saying that has a lot of false assumptions attached. Russia doesn’t give a shit about Belarus, so you’re advocating for killing a bunch of innocent civilians that had little to nothing to do with the initial strike. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not nearly as afraid of Russia as you are because they’ve proven that their military might is nowhere near what they’ve been saying it is. I’m not convinced that they have the ability to destroy the world with nukes. I’m sure they have nuclear capability, but not world-ending capability. Just Russia-ending capability if they dare launch anything.