Russia must strike in such a way that the enemy understands that it must capitulate. There should not even be such a discussion. If necessary, we are obliged to use [tactical nuclear weapons]... If we need to strike, we will strike. And that is not up for discussion.
8 comments
First off, the entire point of nuclear weapons is that they’re no one’s first choice. It’s a desperate last option to take an attacker down with you.
<@KeithInc. > #263621
If Russia had to pick a bomb at random then lack of proper maintenance could be a problem. For one show nuking that is for strategic threat rather then battlefield advantage they will find one that works. Even if the Russian engineers have to tear it apart and rebuild it.
@JM1234 #263631
I agree completely. And when I consider KeithInc.'s point that Russian nuclear weapons maintenance is almost certainly nonexistent, I can easily imagine the missiles detonating in their silos.
Devastating, yes. But perhaps survivable.
The only time DefCon 2 was ordered was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and by JFK. At one time he was just minutes away from ordering DefCon 1 : and you know what that means. Fortunately we’re still here decades later because saner minds prevailed.
Certainly Khrushchev.
Oh, it can be discussed: even beyond today, until you & Putain admit that all your opinions are more than wrong.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
