From: Jacksonville, FL, USA
it is really, really difficult to develop a plausible scenario where crossing the nuclear threshold in the face of overwhelming NATO power actually furthers any conceivable Russian national goal. But it is certainly not impossible although I suspect that the odds of doing so are vanishingly small.
I truly hope you are correct, but I have been a critic of the eastern expansion of NATO since it went beyond A unified Germany. I argued a neutral "Warsaw Pact" modeled on NATO but without the nukes was the way to build a buffer between NATO and Russia. Now having former USSR members, as full NATO members right against Russia and who can blame them for feeling encircled. Then as I pointed out, they have some good conventional systems, but overall their defense budget is strained and they can't maintain most of the conventional weaponry they would need in a NATO-Russia confrontation. Given that in a conventional conflict within months to, at most, a year the balance of forces would shift to NATO even on the ground, I can see them as the threatening the use, if not the limited use of TAC/Battlefield nukes. As as they have the majority of the tac nuke systems in existence they might see an advantage in it, while threatening the West with a strategic exchange if the West responds with higher yield weapons.
I will tell you I'm frightened for my kids, so I pray you're right and I'm off base!
< Message edited by BeirutDude -- 12/29/2019 10:40:23 PM >
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985
I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!