Call me crazy, I believe Biden should call Putins bluff on nuclear weapons.

[fightforfreedom]

I believe Biden should demand an immediate ceasefire from Putin and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. If not, Biden should warn Putin he will deploy hundreds of defensive nuclear weapons to NATO countries like Poland. Countries that are real close to Russia.

Your move Putin.

[radicalleft]

1. Yeah sure...what could wrong

[getagrip_already]

2. ok, you are beyond crazy..... n/t

[BannonsLiver]

3. Okay. You're crazy.

[fightforfreedom]

13. I believe Putin would back down.

We are one mistake away from all out war in Europe. People like Putin thrive on weakness, they back down from strength. That's how I see it. There is no way Putin would want hundreds of our nuclear weapons sitting on his border.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Yeah and if you're wrong, then what?

[fightforfreedom]

25. Then what? I guess we all die. Nothing will happen, that's what.

Putin does not want nuclear war, he is bluffing. We should do the same.

[BannonsLiver]

34. Oh ok.

[BlackSkimmer]

45. Really glad you're not in charge lol. nt

[marie999]

43. The US has 100 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and 100 in the US.

Russia has 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons and some of them are in Kaliningrad.

[harumph]

48. nope

How many strategic nuclear weapons does the US have?
The United States deploys 1,389 strategic warheads on 665 strategic delivery systems, and Russia deploys 1,458 strategic nuclear warheads on 527 strategic delivery systems as of September 2021 and according to the counting rules established by the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).

[Hav]

4. Ok...it's great that Biden isn't crazy (n/t)

[Gore1FL]

5. Again, I point out the following fact and ask the following question.

Fact: Russia and Putin are bleeding badly from this invasion. Time is not on their side.

Question: Why would we want to change the dynamic or speed things up?

[Calculating]

6. I agree but wouldn't go that far

Imo we need to establish a no fly zone and tell Russia that they'll be left alone as long as they get the hell out of Ukraine.

[Haggard Celine]

16. I like that idea.

I don’t want to hear any talk about nuclear warheads. Don’t want to escalate tensions. It would be ignored, anyway. Putin’s old and in bad health. What does he have to lose?

[fightforfreedom]

24. I got one person to agree with me.

The point I am trying to make is Putin is going to keep on going, nothing is making him stop. If one mistake happens, war could break out across Europe. Then we would have to really worry about Putin using nuclear weapons. I think it's better to threaten him now with something that he would not want to happen. Something that would get his attention.

Right now Putin holds all the cards. The whole world has to wait and see what he wants to do.

[WheelWalker]

7. The NATO host nations might have something to say about that.

It's their neighborhood, after all.

[Red Pest]

8. OK, you are crazy, insane, and a fool...

Other than that, it is a profoundly stupid idea.

[Tommymac]

9. Wow. The wacko is strong today.

[sarisataka]

10. I remember when we were afraid

Trump would start a nuclear war...

[LuckyCharms]

11. Never provoke a lunatic into proving he is a lunatic.

[stopdiggin]

21. +1. words to 'live' by. -(nt)-

[BlackSkimmer]

46. Very well said. nt

[Happy Hoosier]

12. I'm not sure nuclear escalation is wise, but I do think Putin's threats are empty.

Putin has no more desire to escalate to a nuclear level than we do.

He does, however, have an interest in making us think he does.

He has nothing to lose and everything to gain more threatening us.

And after all, so far, it's working. He's controlling the engagement with nothing more than threats he almost assuredly never intends to carry out.

[fightforfreedom]

20. That's my point, it's an empty threat, call it.

A empty threat that is working. Call it!

[Happy Hoosier]

22. I'd call it, but not with nuclear threats ourselves.

IMO, we start by declaring a no-fly over western UKR to protect refugee routes and humanitarian supplies.

[themaguffin]

14. No, no, nope. I appreciate Biden choosing not to play that tit for tat game

[dumbcat]

17. Yep, you're crazy

And what the hell are "defensive nuclear weapons"?

[marie999]

44. Tactical nuclear weapons can be offensive or defensive weapons.

The US has 100 in Europe and Russia has 2,000.

[L. Coyote]

18. Crazy.

[stopdiggin]

19. so, you think maybe jabbing the tormented bear

with a stick is the best way forward here?
Okie, dokie!

Sheesh. . . ------ --- -------

[durablend]

23. What's with all these fucking keyboard commandos lately?

Apparently it's not just limited to "the other side"

[Doremus]

26. Im tempted to call his bluff too, but then I realize madmen don't think the same as we do.

A better strategy imo would be to put together a package of enticements designed to appeal to the oligarchs. Something like if you withdraw from Ukraine now we'll give you back your banking privileges, etc.

That prize, combined with the reality of even more strident penalties if they don't cooperate, may just be enough to spur the oligarchs into taking a stronger role to force Putin out.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. .....

[MineralMan]

28. Well, now. Mighty brave of you, that is.

Let's you and him fight, eh?

[Calista241]

29. Putting nuclear weapons in those countries does not get us anything strategically.

We can already launch nuclear weapons from any number of submarines in the Arctic Ocean and Barents Sea, which is closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than Poland.

All putting nuclear weapons in Poland would get us is a threat, but there's nothing to be gained otherwise. I'd rather not risk nuclear war over some 'fuck you' message to Putin.

In either case, it would take nearly 2 hours for a nuclear armed tomahawk to cover the 1000 - 1200 miles from Poland or the Arctic to Moscow. It would take our ballistic missiles, whether sub launched or from our strategic missiles sites here in the US, about 30 minutes from launch to detonation inside Russia.

Basically, everyone in the US and Russia would be dead before any tomahawks fired from Poland or the Arctic landed on target.

[nolabear]

30. Even if it didn't result in confrontation it moves the line.

We’ve moved the line of acceptable wartime behavior so far toward the dangerously irresponsible that it starts to look reasonable. It’s not. It’s the path to hell.

[Baked Potato]

31. Nope. Best not to help Putin in his propaganda war. Nt

[Swede]

32. You're crazy.

nt

[Strelnikov_]

33. Watch Threads

Then let us know if you want Biden to call Putin's bluff.

[marie999]

35. The US has 100 tactical nuclear weapons in NATO and another 100 in the US.

Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, some of which are in Kaliningrad.

[AntiFascist]

36. Tactical nukes are short-range and that is the big fear for the EU...

and non-EU Europe. That is why Europe needs to be making the decision, not the US.

[anamnua]

37. Dr Strangelove stuff NT

[CrackityJones75]

38. Yeah. Please don't run for any office. Ever.

[SoonerPride]

39. yeah, that's crazy.

No sale.

[uponit7771]

40. Putrid doesn't care how close missiles are, they could be sitting outside of the Kremlin and his ...

... position wouldn't change.

This is NOT about missiles and who is at his door step seeing if he were to win hands down UKR would put him close to NATO not further away.

Putrid wants the 2nd largest oil reserves in EU and that's Ukraine.

If UKR were to tap into reserves Russia is screwed as a nation for the long run and would have to stop acting like gangsters

[Sogo]

41. What's to believe we haven't already deployed

hundreds of defensive nuclear weapons to NATO countries, like Poland?

[marie999]

42. The US has 100 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and 100 in the US.

Russia has 2000 tactical nuclear weapons and some of them are in Kaliningrad.

[Dave says]

47. Putin would race to invade Poland first

[USALiberal]

49. Really silly post!!! Nt

[krispos42]

50. We don't need to do that

We have ICBMs and SLBMs that can reach the important parts of Russia. And we can have Stealth bombers there with gravity nukes or long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in less than a day.

I think we can do what we want to in Ukraine... as long as our aircraft and troops do not cross into Russia.

Russia will not use nukes if there is no violation of Russian airspace or territory.

I think we're gong to need to get involved soon, from the air if nothing else.