(no title)
o4b
|
4 years ago
I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.
throwaway4aday|4 years ago
o4b|4 years ago
No way do the hawks win that argument.
brimble|4 years ago
I agree that NATO would be very reluctant to so much as fire an artillery shell over the Russian border, but Russia might well forfeit a great deal of personnel and equipment in such a move, anyway. Having troops & equipment abroad is a major liability if you pick a fight with a country (or coalition) that badly outclasses you.
leto_ii|4 years ago
Let's say afterwards Russia nukes Western Europe/the US. What then? That's the thing with MAD, you have to be mad to toy with the possibility.
o4b|4 years ago
What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?