If Putin is crazy enough to start a nuclear war over a Ukraine NATO no fly zone

[ColinC]

Don't you think he is crazy enough to start a nuclear war past Ukraine? The gamble is whether NATO interference would start a nuclear war. But that's not the only gamble. The other gamble is whether Putin isnt basing his entire decision making on NATO non interference. Because if he was, then a simple NATO presence in Ukraine would stop Russia forces from getting any further to Kyiv and save millions of lives (a similar thing happened in Georgia in 2008 with a humanitarian air force helicopter in the way).

[BigmanPigman]

1. Yes.

He is a fucked up mess and nothing he does will surprise me. He is not human, look into his eyes. Dead eyes.

[Doodley]

2. This kind of thinking is not healthy.

[ColinC]

3. If Russia can be stopped in Georgia with a single air force humanitarian helicopter, then they can

Be stopped in similar ways in Ukraine.

[MFM008]

7. heck the Irish fishing fleet

had more success stopping the Russian "navy".........

[Doodley]

9. Putin needs a way out without losing face. That is what we need to work on.

[left-of-center2012]

4. NATO is not getting involved

Period

[ColinC]

5. I am certain they will.

I am not certain they will before Ukraine falls.

[Hav]

6. I think the point is valid

and I've been thinking about that as well. There are two elements in that equation and too many only think that an action of the West could escalate it to a nuclear war which reduces Russia to only reacting.

If Putin is willing to start a nuclear war over a Nato presence in Ukraine then it's a decision he made and would have made in other circumstances (after pushback for attacking the next country, for example). Putin could instead decide to not risk a nuclear war and give up his ambitious in Ukraine. That is an option that seems forgotten because everyone knows that Putin is the aggressor. We don't seem to trust him to act rationally.

On the other side, one could argue that Putin doesn't want WW3 but running away after Nato challenges him might not be an option for him.

I think that these two views are the reason why posters here sometimes talk past each other when a more active role of Nato or the US is discussed.

[Celerity]

8. de rec nt

[NickB79]

10. There's nuclear war, and then there's NUCLEAR war

I'm certain he has contingency plans using tactical nukes on the battlefield in Ukraine if things keep going slowly. That's basically how WW2 ended, as our first and only nuclear war.

But that's not the same thing as a full-blown MAD exchange with NATO using megaton-size warheads against cities. That's a civilization-ending NUCLEAR war.

[Blues Heron]

11. WWII was not tactical nukes on the battlefield if thats what your saying

it was slaughter the civilians with city-destroying warheads. Twice - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The targets were civilians in cities. The nuclear bombs were aimed at the very center of the cities for maximum civilian destruction and carnage.

[NickB79]

13. Modern tactical nukes are much closer to Fat Man and Little Boy in yield

Around 5-15 kilotons.

Modern thermonuclear warheads are in the hundreds of kilotons, if not megatons. Their destructive power makes Hiroshima look like a firecracker.

[Sunsky]

12. Yes nt