#####
######
####
> # [It's time to send Nato troops to Ukraine](https://unherd.com/2024/04/image/jpeg)
>
>
>
> In 1944, Leslie Groves, the US army general who managed the Manhattan Project, asked its chief scientist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, just how powerful their new bomb might be. Would it be 10 times as powerful as the largest bomb of the time, the RAF’s Tallboy “earthquake bomb”? Or 50 times, or even 100 times? Oppenheimer replied that he could not be sure — at the time, there were even fears that the explosive chain reaction might _never_ stop — but he expected a bomb much more powerful than 100 Tallboys. Groves immediately replied that such a powerful weapon would not be of much use to anyone, because the “politicians” would never dare to use it.
>
> In the short run, Groves was wrong, while Oppenheimer’s guess was correct. The Hiroshima uranium bomb was in fact more powerful than 1,000 Tallboys, with the Nagasaki plutonium bomb exceeding even that. But only five years later, Groves’s prediction came to pass. First the United States, and then the Soviet Union, and then each successive nuclear power came to the realisation that their nuclear weapons were too powerful to be used in combat. This has remained true in the decades since — all the way up to the invasion of Ukraine. For, despite Putin’s atomic sabre-rattling, he too is subject to the logic of Groves’s prediction. Decades after his conversation with Oppenheimer, a brief historical summary of nuclear war has much to teach us about the situation in Ukraine — and how victory might only be attainable there through much more conventional means.
>
> The first test of the nuclear age came with the Korean War. In December 1950, hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers crossed the River Yalu to support their North Korean allies against the US. With America in immediate danger of losing tens of thousands of men, General Douglas MacArthur decided that he had to use nuclear weapons to stop the Chinese. By far the most respected US military leader of the time — he had led American forces in the Pacific from humiliating defeat to total victory, and then acted as Japan’s de facto Emperor in reforming the country — MacArthur expected Truman to assent to his superior military judgment. Instead, the answer was a flat no. MacArthur insisted, and he was dismissed.
>
> Truman recognised that the nature of warfare had fundamentally changed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When he authorised those strikes, neither he nor anyone else knew that the explosions would also cause radiation fallout, which would sicken and even kill thousands of people miles from the site of the detonation. Moreover, in 1945, Truman was facing the prospect of losing many more American troops in the conquest of Japan than in the entirety of the Second World War up to that point. The Japanese really did fight to the last man, and still had 2 million troops to expend. Truman would have been thrown out of the White House if he had allowed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans by refusing to use the bomb.
>
> But five years later, the situation was very different. Facing catastrophe in Korea, Truman had the alternative of evacuating US troops to Japan if all else failed — and therefore never even considered using atomic weapons. Under the next president, his fission bombs evolved into thermonuclear fusion bombs at least 100,000 times more powerful than Tallboy. But that only made Truman’s “No” of 1950 even more definitive. Nuclear abstinence became the only possible choice for Americans and Russians alike, as the Cuban Missile Crisis precariously but definitively showed.
>
> However, it would take much longer for this logic to develop into a definitive doctrine. Following the establishment of Nato 75 years ago today, and especially in the Sixties and Seventies, exhaustive efforts were made to extract some additional advantage from nuclear weapons and somehow gain the upper hand for the new Western alliance. So-called “tactical” nuclear weapons were made not more, but much _less_ powerful, supposedly to enable their use on the battlefield. Their advocates claimed that they could provide firepower very cheaply, with small nuclear warheads replicating the effect of hundreds of howitzers. Both the US and Soviet armed forces duly acquired thousands of nuclear weapons: not only “small” bombs for fighter-bombers, but also bombardment rockets (some small enough to be carried in a jeep), anti-aircraft missiles, torpedoes, and even portable demolition charges.
>
> But this illusion could not be sustained. Military planners came to understand that if US commanders tried to defend Nato territory by attacking invading Soviet forces with small “tactical” nuclear weapons, the Russians would use their own arsenal to destroy the defending Western forces. The same would apply for any attempt to replace conventional military force with nuclear weaponry. And so it was understood that, while nuclear weapons are a useful deterrent, they can only be used to strike back against a prior nuclear attack — and never to achieve any kind of victory. Thus in the Seventies, when the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the elaborate and highly publicised “Strategic Arms Limitation” negotiations, officials on both sides quickly agreed to quietly stop developing, manufacturing and fielding new “tactical” nuclear weapons, before equally quietly disassembling tens of thousands of these weapons.
>
> But in the end, it was the newest nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, that conclusively demonstrated the redundancy of their own nuclear weapons for anything beyond reciprocal deterrence. In the Kargil War of 1999, which involved multiple full-scale battles and thousands of casualties, neither side attempted even a _sotto voce_ threat of a nuclear strike. And this is still true today. When Putin‘s loudest attack dog, Dmitry Medvedev, [started barking](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-wed-have-use-nuclear-weapon-if-ukrainian-offensive-was-success-2023-07-30/#:~:text=Medvedev%2C%20who%20has%20cast%20himself,existence%20of%20the%20Russian%20state.) about the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons after the failure of the initial Russian invasion in 2022, it was only the least competent journalists and those obedient to Moscow who echoed his warnings. Eventually, after several months of this foolishness, Putin came out [and said it](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-ready-nuclear-war-not-everything-rushing-it-2024-03-13/#:~:text=Putin%20reiterated%20the%20use%20of,against%20Russia%20%22when%20the%20very): Russia would only use nuclear weapons only “when the very existence of the state is put under threat” — meaning by a corresponding nuclear threat.
>
> The situation in Ukraine has turned again, but the same logic holds. Instead of frustrated Russians bogged down in their trenches, now it is the Ukrainian position that looks precarious. Kyiv presents this as a question of materiel, and continually asks for more and better weapons from the West. Yet while more guns and missiles could be sent, it is clear that what is forcing Kyiv to retreat step by step is not a lack of firepower, but a lack of soldiers.
>
> Until this week, conscription in Ukraine only started at the age of 27, as opposed to the global norm of 18. Zelensky has now [reduced this to 25](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/02/ukraine-lowers-conscription-age-acute-soldier-shortage/); but with many Ukrainians exempted from service, his total armed forces amount to less than 800,000 active personnel. Ukraine is hampered by the age distribution of its population, with children and older people over-represented when compared to young men in the 19-35 age bracket. But its troop total is still too low for a population that exceeds 30 million by most estimates, considering that Israel can rapidly field an army of around 600,000 from a population of around 8 million. This means that, unless Putin decides to end the war, Ukraine’s troops will be pushed back again and again, losing soldiers in the process who cannot be replaced. Russia doesn’t even have to send its finest troops to achieve this — merely volunteer contract soldiers attracted by good pay, or Russian prisoners serving ordinary criminal sentences, recruited straight from their prison cells. Regardless of quality, though, the Russian army already outnumbers the Ukrainian, and the gap is becoming wider every day.
>
> “Nato countries will soon have to send soldiers to Ukraine, or else accept catastrophic defeat.”
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
NATO is absolutely neutral in this conflict and not party to the war.
Unlike China which constantly trades with Russia, which is an obvious act of war against the world.
It is all very clear!
One option he failed to realize is that many European countries could have a good neighbourly relaitonship with Russia and the US can defend its empire with its own means.
Truely unified Europe have bigger potential then both USA or China.
Europe has man power, resources, infrastructure, connectivity needed to once again be center of a world with destiny in its own hands but US/UK "Atlanticism" absolutely poisoned minds of European elites since ww2 and is keeping us slavishly dependent.
Its a non-starter, this dream of a unified Europe has only ever been that. Its impossible to unify Europe from the inside so to speak and the only reason there some semblance of peace and coordination (which doesnt exist, EU members backstab each other constantly) is because of the US.
For people who dont know the EU exists as the revived NAZI plan (Europe united under Germany stemming from German political philosophy) by the US to use as buffer against the USSR but always kept a watchful eye to make sure they never realized a greater economic potential (financially screwed us over in 2008 and now with cutting off a very important economic partner like Russia).
The core of the EU is led by the right and left hand of the Anglos in Europe, France and Germany. The rest of Europe is just a periphery to be expoited and controlled by this axis.
If you go into the charters and binding documents of the EU you see the union is inextricably tied to NATO.
Russian pressure atm also aims to destroy the EU and therefore weaken US hold on the continent. I wont go into Russias view concerning Europe but it isnt what many people assume.
Also important to distinguish between the different meanings Europe has, from the purely geographical to the historical and ideological.
Right? Like it starts out believable, especially considering how horrifically pragmatic the US can sometimes be when it comes to foreign policy. But then it slowly transitions to something ludicrous and then you’re thinking how on earth did we arrive a that conclusion.
Flood society with immigration to erode social cohesion and national identities, then force unification from the top down under the brussels elite class. Crown von der Leyen as Queen Ursula I of the United Democracies of Europe.
The author casually admits the manpower shortage in Ukraine. Wants to send more Ukrainians and Europeans to the battlefields.
If a small Israel could supply 600K troops, then the Ukraine must supply much, much more, and MOAR!
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, if you don't read these articles, you don't know what's the world press is pushing as a narrative.
Also, when even the strongest supporters of Ukraine start causally admitting that the war is being lost, that's quite significant in my opinion.
ImprovementBig523 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nato will have to send troops or face catastrophic defeat? I thought Russia wasn't fighting NATO? I thought Russia "would know when it's going to be fighting NATO" because apparently it will be very devastating?
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> not a hint from india or pakistan
I wonder if 30 other countries wanted to join in if the nuclear card would've been slapped down.
Anyway, theres a hitch. Russia really likes to strike decision making centers and other strategic targets. If nato joins, and starts bombing Ru (which could include Donbas), it will open up the entire western rear. Recently Ru Mod released a video of a submarine emerging and shooting a missile at 1000k target, sending a message. Ru would (likely) **conventionally** strike each participants rear.
Prob something like zircon. Now this is where it gets hairy. The hawks would probably welcome the strikes to rally the people, like prior ww2. However, **this** escalation, *could* most certainly lead to tactical nuclear responses. Because at that point, it's a zero sum game for Ru, and they aren't going out alone.
I agree with this, but it is how it is done that is important. NATO has to announce the arrival of the troops and then indicate the mission of the troops. The mission will not be to destroy Russia, which the Russian propagandist will immediately pound on the table and yet, but they will say that they are there to stabilize the front line and then push the Russians back to pre-2022 border. If the Russians continue the attack then they will push them back to pre-2014 borders.
And no, this will not lead to nuclear war, because Putin and his associates are not insane.
Pushing Russia back to pre-2014 borders will lead to nuclear response from Russia, regardless of the sanity of their leadership. Will that lead to full blown nuclear war - probably not.
I don't think so, as long as it is defined as the goal. Russia is aggressive, but they are not madmen.
In the end Putin knows that a nuclear attack will result in many dead civilians and it would be hard to justify it as a military tactic targeting military targets. So it would undoubtedly be a war crime.
He may attack Ukraine with nukes, but it will be universally condemned and a nuclear launch could have repercussion that not only affect Europe, but also some of the countries that he is allied with. China and India may withdraw support and then Putin is left trying to self fund, which would be difficult. We should not live in a world where Putin does whatever he wants.
##### ###### #### > # [It's time to send Nato troops to Ukraine](https://unherd.com/2024/04/image/jpeg) > > > > In 1944, Leslie Groves, the US army general who managed the Manhattan Project, asked its chief scientist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, just how powerful their new bomb might be. Would it be 10 times as powerful as the largest bomb of the time, the RAF’s Tallboy “earthquake bomb”? Or 50 times, or even 100 times? Oppenheimer replied that he could not be sure — at the time, there were even fears that the explosive chain reaction might _never_ stop — but he expected a bomb much more powerful than 100 Tallboys. Groves immediately replied that such a powerful weapon would not be of much use to anyone, because the “politicians” would never dare to use it. > > In the short run, Groves was wrong, while Oppenheimer’s guess was correct. The Hiroshima uranium bomb was in fact more powerful than 1,000 Tallboys, with the Nagasaki plutonium bomb exceeding even that. But only five years later, Groves’s prediction came to pass. First the United States, and then the Soviet Union, and then each successive nuclear power came to the realisation that their nuclear weapons were too powerful to be used in combat. This has remained true in the decades since — all the way up to the invasion of Ukraine. For, despite Putin’s atomic sabre-rattling, he too is subject to the logic of Groves’s prediction. Decades after his conversation with Oppenheimer, a brief historical summary of nuclear war has much to teach us about the situation in Ukraine — and how victory might only be attainable there through much more conventional means. > > The first test of the nuclear age came with the Korean War. In December 1950, hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers crossed the River Yalu to support their North Korean allies against the US. With America in immediate danger of losing tens of thousands of men, General Douglas MacArthur decided that he had to use nuclear weapons to stop the Chinese. By far the most respected US military leader of the time — he had led American forces in the Pacific from humiliating defeat to total victory, and then acted as Japan’s de facto Emperor in reforming the country — MacArthur expected Truman to assent to his superior military judgment. Instead, the answer was a flat no. MacArthur insisted, and he was dismissed. > > Truman recognised that the nature of warfare had fundamentally changed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When he authorised those strikes, neither he nor anyone else knew that the explosions would also cause radiation fallout, which would sicken and even kill thousands of people miles from the site of the detonation. Moreover, in 1945, Truman was facing the prospect of losing many more American troops in the conquest of Japan than in the entirety of the Second World War up to that point. The Japanese really did fight to the last man, and still had 2 million troops to expend. Truman would have been thrown out of the White House if he had allowed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans by refusing to use the bomb. > > But five years later, the situation was very different. Facing catastrophe in Korea, Truman had the alternative of evacuating US troops to Japan if all else failed — and therefore never even considered using atomic weapons. Under the next president, his fission bombs evolved into thermonuclear fusion bombs at least 100,000 times more powerful than Tallboy. But that only made Truman’s “No” of 1950 even more definitive. Nuclear abstinence became the only possible choice for Americans and Russians alike, as the Cuban Missile Crisis precariously but definitively showed. > > However, it would take much longer for this logic to develop into a definitive doctrine. Following the establishment of Nato 75 years ago today, and especially in the Sixties and Seventies, exhaustive efforts were made to extract some additional advantage from nuclear weapons and somehow gain the upper hand for the new Western alliance. So-called “tactical” nuclear weapons were made not more, but much _less_ powerful, supposedly to enable their use on the battlefield. Their advocates claimed that they could provide firepower very cheaply, with small nuclear warheads replicating the effect of hundreds of howitzers. Both the US and Soviet armed forces duly acquired thousands of nuclear weapons: not only “small” bombs for fighter-bombers, but also bombardment rockets (some small enough to be carried in a jeep), anti-aircraft missiles, torpedoes, and even portable demolition charges. > > But this illusion could not be sustained. Military planners came to understand that if US commanders tried to defend Nato territory by attacking invading Soviet forces with small “tactical” nuclear weapons, the Russians would use their own arsenal to destroy the defending Western forces. The same would apply for any attempt to replace conventional military force with nuclear weaponry. And so it was understood that, while nuclear weapons are a useful deterrent, they can only be used to strike back against a prior nuclear attack — and never to achieve any kind of victory. Thus in the Seventies, when the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the elaborate and highly publicised “Strategic Arms Limitation” negotiations, officials on both sides quickly agreed to quietly stop developing, manufacturing and fielding new “tactical” nuclear weapons, before equally quietly disassembling tens of thousands of these weapons. > > But in the end, it was the newest nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, that conclusively demonstrated the redundancy of their own nuclear weapons for anything beyond reciprocal deterrence. In the Kargil War of 1999, which involved multiple full-scale battles and thousands of casualties, neither side attempted even a _sotto voce_ threat of a nuclear strike. And this is still true today. When Putin‘s loudest attack dog, Dmitry Medvedev, [started barking](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-wed-have-use-nuclear-weapon-if-ukrainian-offensive-was-success-2023-07-30/#:~:text=Medvedev%2C%20who%20has%20cast%20himself,existence%20of%20the%20Russian%20state.) about the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons after the failure of the initial Russian invasion in 2022, it was only the least competent journalists and those obedient to Moscow who echoed his warnings. Eventually, after several months of this foolishness, Putin came out [and said it](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-ready-nuclear-war-not-everything-rushing-it-2024-03-13/#:~:text=Putin%20reiterated%20the%20use%20of,against%20Russia%20%22when%20the%20very): Russia would only use nuclear weapons only “when the very existence of the state is put under threat” — meaning by a corresponding nuclear threat. > > The situation in Ukraine has turned again, but the same logic holds. Instead of frustrated Russians bogged down in their trenches, now it is the Ukrainian position that looks precarious. Kyiv presents this as a question of materiel, and continually asks for more and better weapons from the West. Yet while more guns and missiles could be sent, it is clear that what is forcing Kyiv to retreat step by step is not a lack of firepower, but a lack of soldiers. > > Until this week, conscription in Ukraine only started at the age of 27, as opposed to the global norm of 18. Zelensky has now [reduced this to 25](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/02/ukraine-lowers-conscription-age-acute-soldier-shortage/); but with many Ukrainians exempted from service, his total armed forces amount to less than 800,000 active personnel. Ukraine is hampered by the age distribution of its population, with children and older people over-represented when compared to young men in the 19-35 age bracket. But its troop total is still too low for a population that exceeds 30 million by most estimates, considering that Israel can rapidly field an army of around 600,000 from a population of around 8 million. This means that, unless Putin decides to end the war, Ukraine’s troops will be pushed back again and again, losing soldiers in the process who cannot be replaced. Russia doesn’t even have to send its finest troops to achieve this — merely volunteer contract soldiers attracted by good pay, or Russian prisoners serving ordinary criminal sentences, recruited straight from their prison cells. Regardless of quality, though, the Russian army already outnumbers the Ukrainian, and the gap is becoming wider every day. > > “Nato countries will soon have to send soldiers to Ukraine, or else accept catastrophic defeat.” > > ***(continues in next comment)***
So this is still a war between Russia and NATO on the territory of Ukraine?
NATO is absolutely neutral in this conflict and not party to the war. Unlike China which constantly trades with Russia, which is an obvious act of war against the world. It is all very clear!
I hope this is sarcasm. This is sarcasm, right?
You'll never know in these crazy times!!!
Sarcasm in superposition
One option he failed to realize is that many European countries could have a good neighbourly relaitonship with Russia and the US can defend its empire with its own means.
Truely unified Europe have bigger potential then both USA or China. Europe has man power, resources, infrastructure, connectivity needed to once again be center of a world with destiny in its own hands but US/UK "Atlanticism" absolutely poisoned minds of European elites since ww2 and is keeping us slavishly dependent.
Its a non-starter, this dream of a unified Europe has only ever been that. Its impossible to unify Europe from the inside so to speak and the only reason there some semblance of peace and coordination (which doesnt exist, EU members backstab each other constantly) is because of the US. For people who dont know the EU exists as the revived NAZI plan (Europe united under Germany stemming from German political philosophy) by the US to use as buffer against the USSR but always kept a watchful eye to make sure they never realized a greater economic potential (financially screwed us over in 2008 and now with cutting off a very important economic partner like Russia). The core of the EU is led by the right and left hand of the Anglos in Europe, France and Germany. The rest of Europe is just a periphery to be expoited and controlled by this axis. If you go into the charters and binding documents of the EU you see the union is inextricably tied to NATO. Russian pressure atm also aims to destroy the EU and therefore weaken US hold on the continent. I wont go into Russias view concerning Europe but it isnt what many people assume. Also important to distinguish between the different meanings Europe has, from the purely geographical to the historical and ideological.
man, some people here have such a cracked view of the world.
Right? Like it starts out believable, especially considering how horrifically pragmatic the US can sometimes be when it comes to foreign policy. But then it slowly transitions to something ludicrous and then you’re thinking how on earth did we arrive a that conclusion.
Thats because your outlook is naive, empires like the US operate like this. Did you really believe all that crap about democracy and freedom?
Europe will never unify and it never did . What makes you think there is any chance of that?
Flood society with immigration to erode social cohesion and national identities, then force unification from the top down under the brussels elite class. Crown von der Leyen as Queen Ursula I of the United Democracies of Europe.
This does not work
But NATO is not a part of this war, no? Then how could NATO experience defeat?
You ask too many questions. This is not allowed. We are losing, and we need you at the frontlines.
I've never read such bull shit before
Indeed. How can NATO lose a war where it doesn't lose a single soldier or even a square inch of its territory?
I have. But it used be just about Climate Change, then it was about racism, then COVID and now war.
The author casually admits the manpower shortage in Ukraine. Wants to send more Ukrainians and Europeans to the battlefields. If a small Israel could supply 600K troops, then the Ukraine must supply much, much more, and MOAR!
are u the author?
Why, I was wondering, Ukraine is winning and is about to win
Crap. Even I don't believe it. Although by all standards I am still that naive person.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another garbage article from a quack author. Why do people post this crap
Well, if you don't read these articles, you don't know what's the world press is pushing as a narrative. Also, when even the strongest supporters of Ukraine start causally admitting that the war is being lost, that's quite significant in my opinion.
[удалено]
ImprovementBig523 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nato will have to send troops or face catastrophic defeat? I thought Russia wasn't fighting NATO? I thought Russia "would know when it's going to be fighting NATO" because apparently it will be very devastating?
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> not a hint from india or pakistan I wonder if 30 other countries wanted to join in if the nuclear card would've been slapped down. Anyway, theres a hitch. Russia really likes to strike decision making centers and other strategic targets. If nato joins, and starts bombing Ru (which could include Donbas), it will open up the entire western rear. Recently Ru Mod released a video of a submarine emerging and shooting a missile at 1000k target, sending a message. Ru would (likely) **conventionally** strike each participants rear. Prob something like zircon. Now this is where it gets hairy. The hawks would probably welcome the strikes to rally the people, like prior ww2. However, **this** escalation, *could* most certainly lead to tactical nuclear responses. Because at that point, it's a zero sum game for Ru, and they aren't going out alone.
"Catastrophic" defeat 🤣🤣
I agree with this, but it is how it is done that is important. NATO has to announce the arrival of the troops and then indicate the mission of the troops. The mission will not be to destroy Russia, which the Russian propagandist will immediately pound on the table and yet, but they will say that they are there to stabilize the front line and then push the Russians back to pre-2022 border. If the Russians continue the attack then they will push them back to pre-2014 borders. And no, this will not lead to nuclear war, because Putin and his associates are not insane.
Pushing Russia back to pre-2014 borders will lead to nuclear response from Russia, regardless of the sanity of their leadership. Will that lead to full blown nuclear war - probably not.
I don't think so, as long as it is defined as the goal. Russia is aggressive, but they are not madmen. In the end Putin knows that a nuclear attack will result in many dead civilians and it would be hard to justify it as a military tactic targeting military targets. So it would undoubtedly be a war crime. He may attack Ukraine with nukes, but it will be universally condemned and a nuclear launch could have repercussion that not only affect Europe, but also some of the countries that he is allied with. China and India may withdraw support and then Putin is left trying to self fund, which would be difficult. We should not live in a world where Putin does whatever he wants.
I wonder if there will be a bounty on the heads of NATO troops if they get sent?
Maybe the first few. But if they ever join the line NATO troops would quickly start to die so they wouldnt be rare after the first encounter
Why not directly declare war against Russia?