• @DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24 months ago

    Right and neither side has an incentive to push the other side to launch them so before a deciding victory a stailmate will occur and after a year or two the fighting will beginning again with no real problems solved and thousands of innocent young men paying for it

    • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      That’s just wrong for the simple reason that NATO is vastly superior in any form of conventional warfare.

      NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2.
      It would be a one sided beating.

      And russia would lose and lose fast.

      But russia would still have no incentive to be the first to launch nukes, because that would change the situation from bad to total annihilation.

        • @Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.

      • @DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -9
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        All I’ve heard till now is your opinion that Russia wouldn’t launch nukes, your statements have as much weight as a fart in the wind an Russia has threatened to use nukes so idk man

          • @DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -14 months ago

            Yea I’m not convinced a lot of this is based on a history in which Russia has had very little personal loss and assumes Russia’s use of military doctrine is static and will continue to stay static also if Russia is aware that nuclear threats have low probability of effectiveness it would speak more towards it being an actual threat and not a bluff