Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tells Blinken

Re:Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tell... by pmoriarty on Monday March 07, 2022 @10:44AM (#30589097)

"who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US."

If a President as unpredictable as Trump happens to be in office, I wouldn't be so sure.

That's not to mention the drastically increased risk of accidents once even a one-sided nuclear war has begun.

Think of how close the world came to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.[1] Once nukes start flying the risk grows much higher, even if there are still (presumably rational, cautious, and non-hawkish) adults in control.

[1] - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submar...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tell... by bushbaba on Monday March 07, 2022 @10:51AM (#30589204)

One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tell... by 1986 on Monday March 07, 2022 @11:08AM (#30589456)

This was explicitly Nixon's approach, and it didn't really work at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tell... by bushbaba on Tuesday March 08, 2022 @12:10AM (#30596650)

Got a great laugh that the 3 people mentioned are Nixon, Trump, and Putin.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Latvia wants permanent U.S. troops, foreign minister tell... by dragonwriter on Monday March 07, 2022 @10:55AM (#30589254)

> One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader

One could argue anything, but I don't think there is a good argument for that position. In fact, I think it's painfully obvious that such a leader makes it less likely that efforts at avoiding conflict will be successful.

[ Parent | on HN ]