Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...vertelemetry=1
---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------
Perhaps not invading and occupying other countries would be a good first step to getting off the escalation ladder, by not actually bringing the escalation ladder on to the scene?
btw, remind me, which side has repeatedly threatened to escalate to delivering "instant sunshine" by changing their nuclear weapons doctrine?
|
Appreciate that would be the ideal scenario but the hypothetical as put inferred that someone had already used a nuclear weapon.
The idea of Britain being treaty bound, and actively increasing the number of countries this applies to, to ensure its own destruction without question is madness.
What if Russia used a small nuclear weapon in response to a chemical attack, dirty bomb, or similar. The official Ukrainian Government at that time, in a state of civil unrest, blames nationalist splinter groups and rogue UAF not operating under their command. Do we blast Moscow because the bit of paper says so?*
*Not saying the above is likely to happen, and yes the scenario is designed to be deliberately difficult to judge. The same could equally apply with other countries and it’s very easy to see how it ends in World War 3.