Well there are some Russian hawks talking about a 'small' nuke, aimed - oh anywhere in the world - say, a military target in the nation that caused X damage over here. Here's the proof: missile shards with English on it, that only could have landed, due to US intelligence and manpower. QED. Putin himself has said that any attacks on 'old' Russia are a Red Line. Once one crosses the Rubicon, there are options. Remember that so far, the narrative has been that Ukraine has been fighting a civli war against it's 'own' citizens - who have categorically voted to join Russia - how dare they. Nevermind that those very same traitors were not allowed to vote in the 2014 Poroshenk election.
The general opinion is that it won't come to nukes unless attacked by them, but Russians have some of these mad hawky hardline people too - adding to the debate, so to speak. Maybe the Russians will take out the geostationary, low-orbit US satellites? That would cause a small amount of death-free damage, that could have serious consequences for trigger happy US hawks. But, to focus on the grey area of nuclear/not-nuclear attack: what happens if a nuclear power station is hit by a US missile, causing a radioactive cloud in Russian fertile heartlands? IDK. Maybe Russians take out the Pentagon with a 'small' nuke, because the hardliners have prepped the population?
:shudders:
Maybe a small nuke (totally airburst, so less radioactive material kicked up because, science, and the hypothetical NPP caused a huge dirty cloud, condemning X number of civilian lives, so a strike is theorized to be strictly a military attack, with less radioactivity than the US attack). So, on the Pentagon. Will that be the necessary wake-up call to finally put a foot down, militarily speaking? I hope not, but perhaps people need to talk about it - purely from a risk/benefit perspective.
But, I am praying for the drip-feed of DECLAS and the precedent to go after a past President, will work and we can manage, pragmatically, to avoid nukes. There is a lot of hurt in the 'checkerboard'; thanks to certain war-criminals [crumples paper to look a list]. And yes, the next US leader will need to understand the US limitations overseas, and will HAVE TO make nice with the other powers in the world, especially the ones with nukes.
Well there are some Russian hawks talking about a 'small' nuke, aimed - oh anywhere in the world - say, a military target in the nation that caused X damage over here. Here's the proof: missile shards with English on it, that only could have landed, due to US intelligence and manpower. QED. Putin himself has said that any attacks on 'old' Russia are a Red Line. Once one crosses the Rubicon, there are options. Remember that so far, the narrative has been that Ukraine has been fighting a civli war against it's 'own' citizens - who have categorically voted to join Russia - how dare they. Nevermind that those very same traitors were not allowed to vote in the 2014 Poroshenk election.
The general opinion is that it won't come to nukes unless attacked by them, but Russians have some of these mad hawky hardline people too - adding to the debate, so to speak. Maybe the russians will take out the geostationary, low-orbit US satellites? That would cause a small amount of death-free damage, that could have serious consequences for trigger happy US hawks. But, to focus on the grey area of nuclear/not-nuclear attack: what happens if a nuclear power station is hit by a US missile, causing a radioactive cloud in Russian fertile heartlands? IDK. Maybe Russians take out the Pentagon with a 'small' nuke, because the hardliners have prepped the population?
:shudders:
Maybe a small nuke (totally airburst, so less radioactive material kicked up because, science, and the hypothetical NPP caused a huge dirty cloud, condemning X number of civilian lives, so a stike is theorized to be strictly a military attack, with less radioactivity than the US attack). So, on the Pentagon. Will that be the necessary wake-up call to finally put a foot down, militarily speaking? I hope not, but perhaps people need to talk about it - purely from a risk/benefit perspective.
But, I am praying for the drip-feed of DECLAS and the precedent to go after a past President, will work and we can manage, pragmatically, to avoid nukes. there is a lot of hurt in the 'checkerboard'; thanks to certain war-criminals. And yes, the next US leader will need to understand the US limitations overseas, and will HAVE TO make nice with the other powers in the world, especially the ones with nukes.
Well there are some Russian hawks talking about a 'small' nuke, aimed - oh anywhere in the world - say, a military target in the nation that caused X damage over here. Here's the proof: a missile that only could have landed due to US intelligence and manpower. Putin himself has said that any attacks on 'old' Russia are a Red Line. Once one crosses the Rubicon, there are options. The general opinion is that it won't come to nukes unless attacked by them, but Russians have some of these mad hawky hardline people too - adding to the debate, so to speak.
So, what happens if a nuclear power station is hit by a US missile, causing a radioactive cloud in Russian hearlands? IDK. Maybe Russians take out the Pentagon with a 'small' nuke, because the hardliners have prepped the population?
:shudders: