The real question is: what lines are the West unwilling to cross?
If Putin nukes Stockholm, are Britain and the US willing to sacrifice New York, Washington, Los Angeles and London in order to give him a bloody nose?
If Putin nukes Stockholm, are Britain and the US willing to sacrifice New York, Washington, Los Angeles and London in order to give him a bloody nose?
It's true that American credibility has taken many hits in the past years, Vietnam, Afghanistan, a certain presidents statements about NATO. But I am not convinced the Russian leadership is willing to risk being wrong about this.
The risk is much more than a bloody nose.
The West has already deployed financial nukes. For Russia, there isn't that much left to lose anymore.
Putin may not directly target actual nuclear powers in Europe, but everyone else, including NATO members/allies, is fair game at the moment.
> For Russia, there isn't that much left to lose anymore.
Of course there is, their lives first and foremost, MAD still applies even thought we got used to it.
The only question is whether the nuclear powers of NATO would use their weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on their allies. My position is not that they would, my position is that it's not in Russia's interest to test them and that they also know this.
Actually, Russia still has a lot more to lose. The West hasn't yet deployed it's tech nukes. Imagine coordinated wipe and bricking of all iOS, Android and Windows devices in Russia, then cutting the country off from internet. Instant stone age that would make those financial sanctions look like a picnic in comparison.
Regarding the exact nuclear strategy to be used, I suspect better brains are thinking about this already, but my take is, they'll go for intimidation. Blowing up a tactical, somewhere in Ukraini, in the middle of nothing. Then they'll just ask for Zelensky to hand them an unconditional surrender ...or else.
I think that after having watched a nuclear device gone off inside your country, few will remain confident they could avoid being obliterated without warning.
I know these are harsh words, I'm just trying to state my opinion very clearly. Hope you all guys there keep kicking it.
"Somebody" just proved himself willing and able to hurl nukes at large population centers for no rational reason. Do we cower, pray and hope his psychosis won't target us next, or do we try to take him out as fast as we can?
Nuking Paris/London is irrational. The thought process behind nuking Stockholm can be defended.
How?
It would be a demonstration of what would happen to Western population centers if the West crosses any red lines drawn by Putin. He is done with 25 years of poking and prodding and has already warned Sweden and Finland about severe consequences if they join NATO.
It doesn't have to be Stockholm. Any city in the region with 50,000 inhabitants or more delivers the same message: this is my backyard and you shall not interfere.
Because nobody has seen the photos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Anyone claiming the need for such a "demonstration" is clearly irrational and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Some would say that interfering in a territorial conflict between a nuclear power and its neighbor is an irrational act by itself.