But before that, given the apparent weakness of Russian conventional army NATO should show no restraint and pay no attention to a single word out of Putins mouth.
Basically demand from Russian system of power to deliver war criminal mr. Vladimir Putin to Hague before talks can be resumed and Russia may have any hope of loosening economic sanctions.
It's a matter of policy that the US will launch all its nukes if even one nuke is launched by the other side. It only makes sense that the other side would do the same.
There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If someone launches a nuke, all nukes are launched.
And that's why nukes work, they take war to its logical conclusion: everyone dies.
The US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the entire world many times over. It doesn't matter where you are, you'll either die quickly or slowly, but you'll die none the less.
It's more flexible then that and this article specifically talks about that.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked.
It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.
MAD has protected the peace for 70 years. Going around saying that it’s best to take the morale high ground is a nice sound bite, but it is not reality. Your freedoms and lifestyle is paid for by the mutual unwillingness of a handful of governments to not destroy the Earth. This balance has been in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 70 years.
When you’re out at movies, playing soccer with your kids, or protesting some injustice, the only reason you’re able to do those things are because there are another group of far more serious people ready to glass the Russians and the Chinese if they try anything.
This article clearly states that Putin won't start with all the nukes, just one, on military target or just for show.
Then NATO should condemn but not reapond likewise.
Because lack of nuclear response to such limited action does not affect MAD in any way.
And nuclear response just normalizes use of nukes.
MAD is only about the fact that if country is at existential threat it will respond by launching all nukes.
But neither US nor Russia is at existential threat when they lauch just a few at proxy targets.
Don't get me wrong, it's still an atrocity, but it isn't existential threat to those countries and probably won't trigger MAD.
All leaders must know that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with the complete annihilation of their country. This is the ONLY sane policy.
Tit for tat is for bullets.
Sure. That's why I'm saying that even if Putin uses one or few nuclear warheads, NATO should restrain itself and not use any, just beat Russian army in Ukraine purely with conventional and economic means.
I live in a comparatively rural area, having moved out of Boston just over two years ago. Maybe longer-term residents have a better network here, but I'm personally pretty reliant on food from afar.
Setting aside any concerns about radiation sickness, a massive refugee crisis and literally every other short-term effect, I think it's safe to assume that there will be no fuels available to transport food, or anything else for that matter.
In the event of nuclear winter, there will be few options to grow food, at least not what we're accustomed to growing in our current climate. Wild sources of food may fail, or quickly become exhausted.
And I live in an area with fairly reliable perennial streams (for now. Let's set aside questions of how nuclear war might impact the water cycle). Imagine if you live in the desert Southwest, where your access to water is wholly dependent on electricity unless you have the excellent fortune to live near one of the few large rivers.
No, my biggest fear of nuclear war is that I might survive it.
because death is for all we know very permanent. I would rather be alive and miserable than be dead. I know i will die one day but i would rather put that off as long as possible.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?