That article was a long read with lots of unsavoury possibilities, but I actually felt encouraged when I read that key quote at the end.
Although not all experts were agreed, it seemed the consensus was that if Putin fired a tactical nuke, the response from the US would be (or at least should be) measured, specific and based on maintaining the moral high ground - effectively letting the world see how Putin has burned all his bridges.
DNA was certainly the wrong term, their national psychology better reflects what I meant.
Raping and murdering folk isn’t normal, when it’s carried out on an industrial scale you’ve got to ask yourself what the “average” Russian is really like. They’ve got form here, doing the same in Berlin from 1945 onwards.
Yep. Interesting how one of the modeled response scenarios was nuking Belarus due to their alignment with Russia: the idea being that we don't upset Russia too much by doing it, but it serves as a reminder of what might happen should they push things too far.That was also my take away. Proper academics and people who have dedicated their lives to understanding how Russia and people like Putin work.
Got to admit, didn't realise a tactical nuke isn't the Armageddon I thought it was, in terms of nuclear fallout?
Fucking terrible for the people on the ground, though!
Interesting the US strategy includes going directly after the source of the attack, even if hitting the Black Sea Fleet.
That's what I thought, how would random twitter guy know a stealth bomber has 16 nukes on board? Wouldn't the yanks have this as top secret.....or would they?How do people know what payload a B2 is carrying?
What exactly do you expect the masses to do to influence it? We already oppose the invasion, wish for Russia to remove it's invading forces, are giving the Ukrainians support.This, its bizarre tbh, we look to be on the very edge of escalated conflict and yet nobody seems to care