what to say of this?
The fallout from a nuclear bomb will settle over Russian territory first.
Russia has conventional bombs with more explosive force than the “small nukes” described in the article. Why get “less bang” for considerably more trouble?
I still think the “scorched Earth” strategy the Russians employed in Syria by bombing civilian areas from afar is the most likely model for Ukraine.
I think if we, or NATO, get involved a small tactical nuke (or a few) will be used, as a means of scaring us into worrying about the bigger ones coming next.
M.A.D. never took this scenario into account.
Why get “less bang” for considerably more trouble?
It’s the psychological impact of the nuke - that is where the bang is. To paraphrase the Joker, “It’s not about the bang, it’s about sending a message”.
I think if we, or NATO, get involved a small tactical nuke (or a few) will be used, as a means of scaring us into worrying about the bigger ones coming next. MAD never took this scenario into account.
IIRC, if the Soviet tank divisions poured through the Fulda Gap in central Germany in force, the US and NATO forces could not realistically stop them. The idea was to fall back toward France. We told the Soviets we would use tactical nukes to prevent them from conquering France. The US would then send reinforcements to Europe. The idea was that since both sides still had massive numbers of strategic nuclear warheads, MAD would still be effective in preventing escalation.
what to say of this?
If Mad Vlad pops a mushroom in Ukraine?
I say, tell everyone you care about how much you love them. And goodbye.
Might not be enough time, but if you want to dish on some of your less well thought of ‘acquaintances’, tell them what you think. Might NOT be worth the effort.
If Mad Vlad does the unthinkable. He proves it IS thinkable. And over.
(PS: Bye, God. Thanks for the experiment. It was really nice. For a couple hundred thousand years. If there is a ‘next’ time, can you please filter out future Vlad’s???)