Russia crossed the line on cluster munitions first.
And yes, if Russia are the first to use nuclear weapons, they will be used in retaliation. Thats the entire point of MAD.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
And yes, if Russia are the first to use nuclear weapons, they will be used in retaliation. Thats the entire point of MAD.
Associate
Yes and the Russians are the bad guys that's why we have the moral high ground. Even the chief Ukrainian commander talked about the morality of using them. Now it's in the open and it's fair game for all, not a dirty secret for a dirty country that invaded a country. There is a reason why lots of countries strenuously objected to their use. It has just normalised an awful weapon.
And as to your second point, we wake up to see that Russia uses a small battleground nuke to clear bakmut. You would retaliate with a nuclear weapon back and start WWIII? (Bearing in mind this is meant to be a war between Ukraine and Russia and not NATO)
Last edited:
I'm asking you to clarify how would Switzerland providing the bare minimum, i.e ammunition further escalate things?
The issue is neither the US, Russia or Ukraine signed the treaty banning the use of cluster munitions so they're not breaking any obligations. The countries that did sign the treaty (inc us) have criticised their use, but there's not a lot we can do to stop it.
Tbh, I'm an objector to their use but i can slightly rationalise their use in this instance since its the host country wanting to use them on their own soil not endangering future civilians of a foreign country.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,936
If the Russians leave then they won’t get killed by them, simple. Ukraine has had one hand tied behind its back for too long, give them whatever they want to defend their own territory. If it was our country being raped and pillaged we’d be using anything at our disposal, likely a lot worse than Ukraine is using.
Russia aren’t stupid enough to do this because they know they’d be toast too. It wouldn’t even be WW3 at that point, just everyone against Russia.
Russia aren’t stupid enough to do this because they know they’d be toast too. It wouldn’t even be WW3 at that point, just everyone against Russia.
Last edited:
Caporegime
No, we don't. We have Russia getting crushed by a vastly more powerful enemy in Ukraine and driven back to their own land.
WWIII requires many levels of stupidity beyond allied nations sending their military into Ukraine.
Associate
I fully agree with your post in terms of the treaties signed (or not), I just still think its ceding the high ground especially as I'm sure Ukraine will win anyway, and we know there will be huge deal of it made in domestic russian media. The easiest way out of this mess is for the Russian people to say **** it stop. Which will take a lot longer if they get messages that their kin are dying to cluster munitions provided by the US, fighter jets provided by the US etc.
The Russians are particularly susceptible to siege mentality it's almost in their blood.
Associate
"The Russians aren't stupid enough to do this"
Really? Haha they've proven themselves pretty stupid so far. If they get ground out then I don't see why they wouldn't consider escalating seeing as they have lost the support of most already.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,936
Longer maybe, but still fewer Ukrainian troops killed.
And yet they haven’t so far and if reports were to be believed, they could kiss their Black Sea fleet goodbye if that line was crossed.
Last edited:
Associate
So if Russia starts using chemical, biological or nuclear what is our response?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,936
Not WW3.
Associate
Russia has been fighting in their eyes a fair fight. Clearly we know that's a load of **** as they attacked a country.
When they really start losing properly (and with a population demographic that cannot sustain overwhelming loses of younger men), in the face of renewed air support, long range missiles etc I don't doubt them to cry foul and escalate.
Associate
What is it though? Does the west strike back? If so that's WWIII. Do we sanction (what more can we sanction?), do we provide even more equipment to Ukraine? (And have the Russians happy with that trade off and carry on with such weaponry?)
That's my point on the red line, Putin has talked **** about this line, that line etc. When faced with falling off a cliff (or window lol) there is a red line that he will cross.
Caporegime
No, it isn't.
We're not really talking about WWIII here anyway, we're talking about nuclear war. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over anything that happens in Ukraine. For nukes, we'd have to actually send troops, in number, into Russia itself - and that just ain't happening.
If the US launches some limited strikes against Russian assets in and around Ukraine, that does not automatically escalate into a massive war.
Even if you're right that eventually there will be a red line, it sounds like your solution to that is to let Russia win and they can have Ukraine. What kind of message does that send to other despots around the world - build some nukes then go and invade whoever you like and the international community will do nothing about it but tut and maybe put a few sanctions on you.
We're then at the point that Russia are losing the war that badly its looking an existential threat to Russia itself, Putin's last desperate effort is to try and use strategic nuclear weapons - does the network around him (down to the person turning the key) follow his instructions knowing the consequences to themselves and their country or do they turn on Putin and remove him.
I'd like to think there's enough not bat**** crazy people in the system to prevent nuclear armageddon, if not, oh well we'll just have to say "I told you the MAD principle was stupid"
Last edited:
Hasn’t Russia already started WWIII at that point? The use of a nuke to conquer another nation might be considered ok by some, but sitting on the high moral ground isn’t going to impress or shame Putin into doing the right thing.
Soldato
It would seem that you don't feel the need for the West/Nato to get involved and that is your opinion. Personally, having been in and out of Ukraine for nearly 10 years, I am somewhat emotionally involved.
I don't believe we have much choice but to help. Leaving Ukraine to RU sets a precedent - RU moves to another country, we do nothing? At what point do we do something?
The West/Nato coming together to help Ukraine has also been a useful demonstration to China that even though our politicians fight like cat and dog, we have coalesced around helping Ukraine.
I've said this before, but I have no doubt Xi Ping has made it absolutely clear that any use of nukes in Ukraine would see RU entirely on its own. I was deeply concerned by the use of nukes at the start of the year but now I don't see it happening.
As for cluster munitions, as unsavory as they are, they will help break lines for Ukraine to take the advantage and push RU back.
Whatever Ukraine needs to win, they should have it.
Last edited:
Soldato
I don't know I think mines already started, the fast car is already on the driveway and the gut is expanding (my metabolic rate nose dived in my mid 30's).Don't worry yours is in the postSpeaking from experience it hits in the early 50s. Your mortality suddenly hits you like a train. Its a very odd thing and speaking to friends of the same age they all felt it. Not saying I felt like buying fast cars but you realise you only have 15 odd years of doing things that require health, strength etc and there still seems like there are lots of things you want to do. You see your parents approaching their 80s and realise it didn't seem that long ago they were 50 and now unless they are very lucky they are pretty much ****** physically and often mentally
Anyway lets hope Ukraine can take down that rail bridge soon and the war is long over before your mid life crisis hits
Soldato
Location checks out.
- Status