Current Affairs Ukraine

[Kev The Rat]

You’re digging a hole here. If Russia killed ten thousands Americans, they (the Us) wouldn’t respond?

The statement was ‘respond in kind’

No I don’t think they would

 

[Rita_Poon]

Ding ding ding ding ding, there he is, 'yanks' makes 'house'. The slow steady indifference has been notching up progressively, with I'm sure, many professors backing his skype enhanced opinions of reality. Someone quote me please.

 

[Kev The Rat]

You seem to have painted yourself into a corner.

To make it clear as possible for you - if someone lets off a nuke against an ally of a nuclear armed power where there is clear agreement to assist in the event of an armed attack, there is almost certainly going to be a nuclear response. It would almost certainly be a limited response - one for one, and with clear messaging beforehand announcing that it was a limited response - but it would happen.

That would apply to the US responding to an attack on Poland, or Russia responding to an attack on Belarus.

Had enough of this textbook parroting that you seem so fond of.

Here’s some more textbook for you :

Russian nuclear doctrine states an attack on its territory warrants the use of nuclear weapons.

So think about that.

 

[PhilM]

The statement was ‘respond in kind’

No I don’t think they would

If the US fired a nuclear weapon at Belarus, killing ten thousand Russians, would Russia respond in kind?

 

[Kev The Rat]

If the US fired a nuclear weapon at Belarus, killing ten thousand Russians, would Russia respond in kind?

They wouldn’t nuke Washington let’s put it that way

 

[Rita_Poon]

If the US fired a nuclear weapon at Belarus, killing ten thousand Russians, would Russia respond in kind?

stop this textbook parroting!

 

[tsubaki]

Had enough of this textbook parroting that you seem so fond of.

Here’s some more textbook for you :

Russian nuclear doctrine states an attack on its territory warrants the use of nuclear weapons.

So think about that.

It would perhaps be useful if you actually read some textbooks, because the quote below is what Russian nuclear doctrine (of 2020) actually said. I have emboldened, enlarged and underlined the relevant part in the hope you will read it:

The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

So, once again, if Belarus was hit with a nuclear weapon by an aggressor the response from Russia would be very likely to be a nuclear one - which is what I have been trying to explain to you. The policy is a reflection of how every state understands how alliances with nuclear powers would work.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Had enough of this textbook parroting that you seem so fond of.

Here’s some more textbook for you :

Russian nuclear doctrine states an attack on its territory warrants the use of nuclear weapons.

So think about that.

Well they declared Kherson Oblast, Luhansk Oblast and Zaporizhia oblasts in Ukraine Russian sovereign territory last Autumn when Putin wrote them into Russian law. Since then little old Ukraine has attacked them along with attacks on Belgorad, Moscow and Rostov among others (actual Russian cities within existing and recognised national borders.

Haven’t seen Putin go nuclear yet - wonder why?

 

[Kev The Rat]

It would perhaps be useful if you actually read some textbooks, because the quote below is what Russian nuclear doctrine (of 2020) actually said. I have emboldened, enlarged and underlined the relevant part in the hope you will read it:



So, once again, if Belarus was hit with a nuclear weapon by an aggressor the response from Russia would be very likely to be a nuclear one - which is what I have been trying to explain to you. The policy is a reflection of how every state understands how alliances with nuclear powers would work.

There’s what written down and what happens reality.

And even there there’s no commitment to nuking anyone at all in response.

Honestly let’s just leave it at that - you believe both USA and Russia will walk into global Armageddon for the sake of satellite states whereas I don’t think these countries are controlled by idealogues any more.

 

[Rita_Poon]

reality*

 

[Kev The Rat]

Well they declared Kherson Oblast, Luhansk Oblast and Zaporizhia oblasts in Ukraine Russian sovereign territory last Autumn when Putin wrote them into Russian law. Since then little old Ukraine has attacked them along with attacks on Belgorad, Moscow and Rostov among others (actual Russian cities within existing and recognised national borders.

Haven’t seen Putin go nuclear yet - wonder why?

I don’t think they see these pin pricks as serious enough to warrant a nuclear response. And they’d be right.

But I agree the ‘idea’ of mad is probably why we have a stalemate right now.

 

[tsubaki]

There’s what written down and what happens reality.

And even there there’s no commitment to nuking anyone at all in response.

Honestly let’s just leave it at that - you believe both USA and Russia will walk into global Armageddon for the sake of satellite states whereas I don’t think these countries are controlled by idealogues any more.

Sorry but I really do not understand how you can on the one hand quote Russian nuclear doctrine and then deny that it says what it says.

Nuclear doctrine is very clear for a very good reason.

 

[Kev The Rat]

Sorry but I really do not understand how you can on the one hand quote Russian nuclear doctrine and then deny that it says what it says.

Nuclear doctrine is very clear for a very good reason.

It hasn’t declared use of nukes if an ally is attacked.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

stop this textbook parroting!

Come at me bro

 

[TommyDavo]

Thought this thread was supposed to be about Ukraine, not the mindless ramblings of pseudo political experts