Biden says NATO will respond 'in kind' if Russia uses chemical weapons

[bluewater]

Source: Washington Post

At his news conference in Brussels on Thursday, Biden said NATO’s response if Russia used chemical weapons in its invasion of Ukraine “would depend on the nature of the use.”

“We would respond. We would respond,” Biden said. “If [Putin] uses it, the nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use.”
...

Later, Biden did not go into detail about whether NATO would respond militarily if Putin deployed chemical weapons in Ukraine.

“It would trigger a response in kind,” Biden said. “Whether or not you’re asking whether NATO would cross … we’d make that decision at the time.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/24/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-HCEK5PRFA5BO3INO3363CK6RYE

---

“It would trigger a response in kind,” Biden said.

Does this mean the US and NATO would use chemical weapons on Russian troops, or that the US and NATO would supply chemical weapons to Ukraine?

“Whether or not you’re asking whether NATO would cross … we’d make that decision at the time.”

If the US and NATO choose not to directly confront Russia after the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, where would the red-line be?

Is there a red-line at all for what the Russians will be allowed to do inside Ukraine before the US and NATO get directly involved?

[intrepidity]

1. I think "in-kind" was poor choice of wording here

It literally means the same kind of attack (duh) and I doubt Biden meant that.

[bluewater]

3. "It literally means the same kind of attack"

Yes, that's what I thought too and hence my OP.

[ruet]

5. VERY Poor Choice of Words.

For those who don't realize that; the wailing and gnashing of teeth will commence forthwith.

[lapfog_1]

6. I think it was perfect...

we want to be vague and extremely threatening.

If Putin starts wondering if that means we would bomb Moscow... or more importantly, his generals start thinking that NATO enters the war in Ukraine... might give a few generals the idea that having Putin as the Tsar isn't such a great idea.

[getagrip_already]

7. Not in diplomatic lingo - there it means

A measured response equal in force, but not necessarily in nature.

For example, if a chemical attack killed 1000 Ukraine, nato could launch conventional weopon strikes causing at least that many deaths on Russian troops.

In kind does not mean exactly like in diplomatic terms.

[intrepidity]

9. OK thanks

Today I learned

[bluewater]

10. Didn't you just describe a "proportional response"?

That's the diplomatic term I often see used to describe that sort of measure retaliation.

Honestly, I have never heard "a response in kind" used as you just described.

Any links to that diplomatic usage would be greatly appreciated.

[getagrip_already]

13. There are two possible meanings in common use...

One, as mentioned is to respond in the same way you were treated.

The other is in the form of payment in kind, where you return something of equivalent value for an item you receive. A barter is a payment in kind.

I've always seen it used to mean payment in kind rather than an eye for an eye when countries threaten each other. But I have no references to help.

[Warpy]

17. "In kind" would almost have to be non lethal

because of all the civilians in the combat areas.

I'm seeing every man, woman, and kid over 8 armed with a can of bear spray.

They might rethink their civilian kidnapping operations.

[Martin68]

23. Perhaps it is time for Biden to stop ruling out an extreme defense against an extreme attack.

Nuclear weapons are useless if you rule out their use at the beginning. The same goes for chemical weapons. It doesn't mean you have to deploy either of those, but it does leave open a powerful military response.

[Akoto]

2. I'd say he meant deadly force. Chem weapons would be hypocritical.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. We don't have chemical weapons

We have destroyed the vast majority of our stockpile and the remaining ones are in the process of being destroyed. It was a poor choice of words I think.

[DENVERPOPS]

8. They are not making alot of progress

in destroying the mass of "wet eye" bombs located at the Pueblo Colorado Arsenal. They have been there for decades, since WW11?
A report stated that they have something north of 50,000 of these chemical bombs and they need to be destroyed/neutralized post haste because they are rusting and beginning to leak???????? They are taken out of storage, de-fused?, and neutralized one at a time. How long do you think it will take to make 50K bombs ineffective.......When they finally started years ago, the structure they built to do the disarmament of the bomb part and neutralize the gas part was damaged when one accidentally detonated and they had to rebuilt the structure.

At least that is what one article in a major Denver Newspaper reported in a small article buried in the back of the paper several years ago, and last year in an article about the matter......

I wonder how many other sites like Pueblo, across the entire nation, that we never hear about, or aren't disclosed by the Military, are still in existence out there?????

And of course, I imagine, that the coverage of these U.S. Military weapons are kept on the hush-hush, because after all, what if some reporter questions the Military and Politicians with why these were produced by the U.S. after the Geneva Convention had specifically banned them????????????????????????

[getagrip_already]

11. The ocean is littered with them.....

Look at any nautical chart offshore the east coast and you will see dumping grounds clearly labeled. All sorts of munitions were dumped there including chemical and nerve agent weapons.


It went on until about the 70s. Every once in a while a fishing boat will haul something up and they will get rushed into a decent center and the boat will be quarantined.


We may have a lot left, but it is likely items which can't be safely moved and which are difficult to destroy. They aren't there to be used.

[bluewater]

12. "why these were produced by the U.S. after the Geneva Convention had specifically banned them????"

Excellent question.

[stopdiggin]

14. here is the relevant passage

“It would trigger a response in kind,” Biden said. “Whether or not you’re asking whether NATO would cross … we’d make that decision at the time.”

in which Biden quite clearly (and with obvious intent) skirts the issue. I'll go with the one that counts.
----- -----

[ColinC]

18. Yep. He must appear to always keep every option on the table

That is the only deterrence at this point.

[LiberalFighter]

15. I would suggest 44.419N 38.205E

[bluewater]

19. Well played.

[ColinC]

16. GOOD ANSWERS

I hope he sticks to these kinds of answers to know that the US will not take anything off the table in protecting their allies.

[LudwigPastorius]

20. I take "in kind" to mean the general kind of weapon.

i.e. a weapon of indiscriminate destruction. That would not be a chemical or biological weapon, however. Those are illegal.

I would hope that Putin takes "in kind" to mean "tactical nuclear weapons".

In reality though, it might mean NATO supplying napalm and white phosphorous to use on Russian troops.

[Evolve Dammit]

21. I think he was as clear as you could be, without specifying. A warning.

[BidenRocks]

22. To hell with a "measured response"!

When the dam is broken, nothing good or measured follows!
Do NOT break the dam!