4 ms·
The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or sm
by dudeinhawaii 5y ago
The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a nuclear state. I think stating "NATO reacts collectively" is kind of hand-waving the reality of engaging a nuclear super-power in any kind of military engagement. It's always been a handle-with-care situation.
And no, I don't think Putin is going to try to conquer Europe (at least I hope he's not that mad). I just wonder where the line for action is and whether it's "touching NATO soil" as you imply or something much more vague and flexible once the prospect of actual war is real.
- sgjohnson 5y agoTurkey (a NATO member) “liquidated” a couple of Russian fighter jets when they violated Turkey’s airspace during their Syrian assault.[0] So it’s not a stretch to think that once a Russian tank would cross into Poland it would be met with immediate lethal force. [0] https://news.yahoo.com/downing-russia-jet-stab-back-putin-130913449.html https://news.yahoo.com/downing-russia-jet-stab-back-putin-13...
- dudeinhawaii 5y agoThanks for this, this is a good data point for NATO action. It's a little different in that it seems more accidental than intentional though.
- arisAlexis 5y agoWasn't a NATO action. Was a split second decision by Erdoga so he can play his power games.
- riku_iki 5y ago> “liquidated” a couple of Russian fighter jets It was one jet, and it wasn't fighter jet, but assault jet, it didn't carry any AA missiles and couldn't defend himself.
- thelittleone 5y agoWas it a frogfoot?
- riku_iki 5y agoFencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
- avh02 5y agoDidn't matter, it violated airspace.
- CPLX 5y agoI mean the line for action lies in the NATO treaty. NATO is not a philosophical concept it’s literally the outgrowth of written documents with the power of law. The T stands for treaty. The line is the borders of the NATO countries. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial that if someone drove a tank into Poland offensively it would be promptly incinerated.
- jacobr1 5y agoI think the question is how does that escalate. If Putin is just taunting NATO with a few tanks crossing the border, and artillery takes out the tanks, that might be the end of it. But at want point does a broader escalation turn into a total war ... which bring in the nukes?
- chasd00 5y agoI think when one side sees it as an existential threat then the gloves come off. Russia will launch nukes before the government fell. United States would launch nukes before the government fell.
- ajuc 5y agoIt's pretty clear actually. Anything that enters NATO country - is destroyed with conventional forces. If Russia launches nukes - there's nuclear response, but at that point it's not really "escalation", just extended suicide by Russia.
- grayfaced 5y agoNATO clearly answers this, No First Use. Individual countries can deploy though. US says no first use except in response to WMDs (so bioweapons or chemical weapons). By clearly defining it, it makes it less likely to escalate to accidental MAD. We know the line, Russia knows the line. And they know the potential consequences should they choose to cross it. On the other hand Russia has recently been opening their doctrine to allow nuclear strikes in response to conventional attacks. Further they threaten nuclear responses. They're intentionally blurring the lines because they feel they can get away shenanigans in the confusion.
- Aeolun 5y agoI think the only thing you can do when faced with MAD is to completely ignore it and conduct your war as if it didn't exist. Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.
- Rd6n6 5y agoThe world would have ended by now had people followed that advice 50 years ago
- krisoft 5y agoSo you are proposing that the air force can just start pummeling the air defences around Moscov? Because that would be a viable counter step if not for MAD.
- pedrosorio 5y agoA viable counter step would be to deny Russia air superiority in Ukraine and to attack any troops crossing the border from Belarus, for example. Not to go and attack the capital of Russia.
- AlexCoventry 5y agoYes, I don't understand why Biden is being shy about this.
- fastball 5y agoYou mean besides the reason that he is borderline senile and has been a completely ineffective president in every other regard besides Ukraine?
- Aeolun 5y agoI don’t think ‘the air force’, whichever that may be, has enough assets nearby to do such a thing, nor that it would be particularly productive even if you ignored MAD. The goal here is to prevent one invasion, not start another one. But there ought to be enough fighters in Europe to swat anything flying in Ukraine out of the sky.
- nradov 5y agoYes if Russian forces invade Poland then NATO will defend it. There is no serious doubt about this. The only question is whether NATO would confine their actions to Poland, or escalate the conflict by conducting pre-emptive attacks on other Russian forces outside of Poland.
- rasz 5y agoNATO will sent prayers and weapons while quickly retreating to Germany.
- ajuc 5y ago> Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? It will or there will be no NATO. It's the whole point. Certainly Poland won't just give up not to make other NATO countries angry.