General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf NATO won't agree to a no fly zone, should the US do it alone?
42 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
1 (2%) |
|
No | |
41 (98%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
And here is why:
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)crickets
(25,896 posts)Rhiannon12866
(203,041 posts)MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell discusses the U.S. and NATO rejecting Ukraines request for a no-fly zone over that country, and explains why Russias nuclear weapons arsenal means Pres. Biden has no good options when dealing with Russian aggression. Aired on 03/04/2022.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... no high altitude bombing and even that's sketchy.
It would be better for Americans to spend our energy getting UKR forces long and short range old Russian AA that they've already trained on, more useful if its saturates and area, less expensive and no on has to train a year on it to use it (4 hours to 4 days) vs expanding the war into NATO.
Adovated for short and long range AA, it'll hurt the Russians more and be faster
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... not planes, cause he can't win against UKR regulars.
He's getting his ass kicked in UKR, no one wants to say it but its all on FOSINT.
As of yesterday Russia has LITERALLY suppled UKR with more tonnage of operational war weapons than NATO !!
I'm serious, they're leaving tanks on the road and its the supposed "bad ass" T-80 and 90 tanks too.
relayerbob
(6,510 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)relayerbob
(6,510 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)relayerbob
(6,510 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)relayerbob
(6,510 posts)lastlib
(22,982 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)relayerbob
(6,510 posts)Find as many S-300 and SA-17 (BUK) missiles and launchers as possible and get them there now.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)over the next weeks.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,094 posts)That would have the potential of rupturing the unity of NATO.
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,162 posts)Progress.
On edit: and one naive, black and white argument below from someone who is out of their depth.)
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,094 posts)and it wouldn't be 40 million killed, it would be hundreds of millions killed in the ensuing nuke exchange.
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)No easy choices I get that, but putin will not stop with just Ukraine. Once he moves beyond Ukraine NATO's hand will be forced, but Ukraine will already be destroyed
sarisataka
(18,222 posts)How many die when a couple hundred cities look like this
Do we need to rush headlong into this?
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)no-fly zone, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,094 posts)the dive under the desk nuclear drills, or as it's called, duck under the desk, place your head firmly between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)2naSalit
(86,076 posts)It was not pleasant.
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)Never forget it either. My dad was in the recon squadrons that followed those missiles all the way from Russia to Cuba, I knew about them before it was a thing.
I remember a sense of dumbfoundedness everywhere. The 60s were weird but this was a community in shock prior to an event. It was a creepy feeling. I felt that again in Wisconsin after the next town over was wiped away by a tornado in the night, same feeling.
JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)NATO, would break the most unified coalition we have seen in years
I recommend listening to Lawrence ODonnell tonight which discusses this very issue
and why it would be a reckless action
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)and then what happens, what's next? Does he just get to take all of Europe because he may use his nukes?
I don't know the answers but I know he will not stop until he is stopped
relayerbob
(6,510 posts)That is likely a bad assumption
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,094 posts)He may win the battle, and that's still questionable, but he certainly isn't going to win the war against 40 million pissed of Ukrainians who will start an insurgency that will make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park.
Sapient Donkey
(1,568 posts)further. It should be very clear at this time to him that him attacking NATO would not work out in his favor, and his only options would be to use nukes. We can only hope he isn't that insane. It seems best to not force the that situation if it can be avoided. And with a no-fly zone, how much of the carnage that we've seen would be spared? Isn't most of the destruction from artillery like MLRS or long range cruise missiles? I suppose missile systems to try to shoot down some of the cruise missiles could be useful, but that won't do much about artillery attacks.
Is there really much gain from doing that based on what we've seen so far?
relayerbob
(6,510 posts)That's when 40 million die.
After the next several waves go off, the losses are in the billions.
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)Caffè latte and gas. God forbids I sacrifice low cost shit for democracy.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)JohnSJ
(91,968 posts)Metaphorical
(1,601 posts)The perpetrator has swathed himself in dynamite and has it rigged to a deadman's switch, he has a gun to a hostage's head, and the perpetrator doesn't really care whether he dies or not.
The officer on the scene knows full well that the perp is not going to make it out alive, but he wants the hostages unharmed. A direct assault (a no-fly zone) would certainly provoke an escalation, which I'm coming to believe Putin wants.
I'm of the same belief as most everyone here. The Ukrainians are capable fighters - give them the weapons they need, the support to get civilians out of the way, and let them fight their war. Given everything else, I think they might even be able to win.
BlueWavePsych
(2,634 posts)ConflictResolution
(1 post)Then be forced to watch Threads in full over and over again until it sinks in. Especially younger DU members full of piss and vinegar for war with Russia. The boomers here promoting war propaganda should already know better.
Snip...
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,094 posts)Welcome to DU ConflictResolution.
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)NATO would be best, but us along with a few friends is also an option.
Rhiannon12866
(203,041 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017717708
MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell discusses the U.S. and NATO rejecting Ukraines request for a no-fly zone over that country, and explains why Russias nuclear weapons arsenal means Pres. Biden has no good options when dealing with Russian aggression. Aired on 03/04/2022.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Sapient Donkey
(1,568 posts)The war is going poorly for him, his economy is collapsing, the oligarchs are getting restless, and the world is mostly united against him and supporting the Ukrainian people. US or NATO involvement would only give him a propaganda win that he could use to further draw it out. Make it about big bad US/NATO attacking Russia rather than it being about Putin's conquest of Ukraine.
It sucks for the Ukrainians and it feels really cold and detached to say this is how it has to be so that Putin can lose. Either way the Ukrainians are going to suffer because Putin has chose for it to be that way.
LetMyPeopleVote
(144,005 posts)Two nuclear powers should not fight