3 ms·
> That would result in an all out nuclear war. Says who? Just as you don't expect an immediate all out nuclear armageddon as a response to your attempts to "b
by foverzar 4y ago
> That would result in an all out nuclear war.
Says who?
Just as you don't expect an immediate all out nuclear armageddon as a response to your attempts to "bomb shit out of Russia", there won't be an "armageddon" response when Russia retaliates wiping a few crucial military installations from with the face of the Earth.
Nah, going all out with a civilisation-ending scenario would be the last resort, when everything is lost, and every other possible and dislikable option had been exhausted.
Up until then it will be a nice long and bloody escalation. Tactical nukes, chemical and bio-weapons provocations, assassinations, terrorist attacks, mass mobilisation and conscription -- all the fun stuff akin to what had been done to the Arab world, but on a much grander scale and incomparably higher stakes.
I'd doubt even the US would able to sit this one out. Can't imagine their shock from an actual real war, given what kind of tragedies were mere child's play things like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
- trasz 4y agoIndeed, and that's where the current strategy comes from: bleed Russia in a slow, humane way. Russia already can't escalate using conventional means, simply because they no longer have the people nor hardware required to do so. Except of course Ukrainians are paying for it with their lives, sacrificing themselves for the safety of the rest of the world.
- foverzar 4y ago> Except of course Ukrainians are paying for it with their lives, sacrificing themselves for the safety of the rest of the world. You meant that they are conscripted/mobilized and sent for slaughter for the safety of establishment's political interests?