3 ms·

>If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. I think this is a sen

>If NATO or any other EU country shoots down a Russian plane -in Ukraine- Russians will retaliate -in Ukraine- with conventional weapons. I think this is a sensitive area where acting like there is any certainty is dangerous. I can't agree with your assumptions about 2nd order and 3rd order effects because there are too many known and unknown variables to consider.

squarefoot 5y ago
I think it is safe to assume nobody would like to start a nuclear war because of ensured mutual partial or total destruction; intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  >intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level. This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate. We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    That is what hurts me the most: want to be untouchable? Get nukes! Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.

squarefoot 5y ago

I think it is safe to assume nobody would like to start a nuclear war because of ensured mutual partial or total destruction; intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level.

ashwagary 5y ago
>intervention in Ukraine with conventional weapons only would send a clear message that there is no will to reach that level. This is not true. No nuclear powers should engage in direct wars, I'm not a fan of proxy wars either but they are safer than direct conflicts which can easily escalate. We have never had a world war between nuclear armed states and we should avoid the potential at all costs.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  That is what hurts me the most: want to be untouchable? Get nukes! Iraq has been invaded for a lot less; Kuwait population back then was 1/20 than current Ukraine, but Saddam never had nukes (as any other WMDs, but I digress). So what happens if say 3 years from now Russia decides to invade an EU or NATO country? Will it make any difference that the invaded country is part of the EU or NATO? They still have nukes, so what would be the western response? Will the nuclear deterrent magically disappear because of a NATO or EU stamp somewhere? That is not a trivial issue; ignoring the nuclear threat is for sure the safest way, but can create a nasty precedent in which every nation with nuclear weapons could be entitled to do what they want if they become rogue as Russia is today.