re: #134 Targetpractice

Right now we’re already straddling a line of our own, arguing that “military aid” is separate from “military support.” That shipping weapons to non-NATO countries is separate from sending in NATO troops to fight alongside or on the behalf of those same countries. We’re flying drones in Ukrainian airspace and providing real-time intelligence to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And we maintain that argument because it gives us a buffer, a paper-thin shield against getting involved in a direct war between NATO and Russia.

Here’s a big question to consider: What if the US signals openness to using nuclear weapons against Russia over Ukraine…and the rest of NATO says “FARK NO!” We’ve discussed in past days about “What US city are we prepared to sacrifice?,” but Article 5 means the US wouldn’t be alone in going toe-to-toe with the Russkies. Either we’d drag the whole of the world into a nuclear war or we’d shatter NATO over Ukraine.

Why do you assume that any confrontation between the US and Russia would automatically turn nuclear? I don’t think that that’s the modal outcome, especially if it’s not on Russian territory.