Open to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
UK Trident vote today
Collapse
X
-
Salami.
If we are to believe the Cuban missile crisis was about to trigger Armageddon but for the grace of God, it is conceivable an invasion of Estonia would trigger it due to NATO obligations. The Russians would therefore be invading by calling a bluff. An escalation using conventional weapons in the first instance may counter this notion and lead to withdrawal. If you have no nukes there is no bluff and no withdrawal. Only war.
Would I nuke the moment Russia invaded? No. But I sleep well knowing others make the tough call.
I am ambivalent on the wider issue. I'd prefer to just pay the Americans to upkeep their arsenal, or go shares with the French.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Comment
-
Russia is presently tied down in Syria and they want increased cooperation, though their goal is to preserve Assad's regime. They aren't going to invade Estonia. Nuclear escalation is reckless and stupid. JFK knew, for example, we couldn't escalate during the Cuban missile crisis.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
Comment
-
Open to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny View PostOpen to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
well, i'm sure the belgians will feel very silly when russian tanks are rolling through brussels."The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Comment
-
It seems to me that, from Putin's POV, Turkey would be a far more desirable target than Estonia. He's been posturing as the Champion of Orthodoxy for some time; on a recent visit to Mt. Athos, he even sat in a chair reserved for the Byzantine emperor. Now, as to whether Turkey is, or will in the foreseeable future be, a weak enough target for Putin to mug, I don't know. I suspect not. But we're less likely to fight Russia over Turkey than over any state inhabited by white people, and the PR bonus for taking Constantinople would be roughly comparable to what an Israeli politician would get for knocking down the Dome of the Rock. He's got to be tempted, even if it's not practical.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dinner View PostHopefully not
It's a NATO member, and you're getting cold feet about using those nukes to defend them?The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
-
I would think people are less concerned about Russia invading conventionally and having no nukes to respond with, than they are of Russia having nukes that they can use with impunity as no one has any countermeasures..One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny View PostIt's a NATO member, and you're getting cold feet about using those nukes to defend them?
Russia has a nuclear force and it is an aggressive expansionist country which is currently invading one of its neighbors. You are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?
If you really want to save some money rather than building specifically new British missile submarines and missiles just build contract versions of US missile submarines and missiles as that would maintain the British deterrent yet cost less than designing a whole new sub class and missile system which would consist of just four submarines built.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
The possibility that the US might not use nukes to defend you is precisely the reason to have a nuclear deterrent of your own. Both to defend yourself if it came to that, and to make it less likely to come to that. An aggressor might suspect the US isn't going to protect you (as it could result in a much worse fate for the US and the rest of humanity), but they'd have to know that when faced with annihilation, you would use your own nukes. So instead of leaving the door open to the possibility of someone calling a bluff, there is obviously no bluff. Any aggressor who was counting on not getting nuked in return would have to conclude that they can't invade. Whereas, if they feel the US is bluffing, they could invade. And if they do invade, whether the US is bluffing or not ... it's going to really suck for you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dinner View PostI don't know why this is so difficult to understand. No one is talking about using nukes just maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Russia has a nuclear force and it is an aggressive expansionist country which is currently invading one of its neighbors. You are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?
If you really want to save some money rather than building specifically new British missile submarines and missiles just build contract versions of US missile submarines and missiles as that would maintain the British deterrent yet cost less than designing a whole new sub class and missile system which would consist of just four submarines built.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dinner View PostYou are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland
Comment
Comment