Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Politics

What Happens if Russia Strikes with a Tactical Nuclear Weapon?

Tactical Nuclear Weapons
US Military B-61 nuclear weapon. Image Credit: US DOD.

Can Deterrence be Restored if Russia Uses Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine? – It was eerily quiet in Lviv, the main city in western Ukraine. At 3 am, however, night turned to day as a brilliant flash arose first over the Yavoriv Military Base, 40 miles west of Lviv and just six miles from the Polish border. Three minutes later, residents of Lviv—awakened not only by the flash but by rattling windows and a strange wind—saw another flash on their southern horizon in the direction of Stryi, just under 50 miles away.

Frustrated with his stalemate and growing losses, Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered his forces to use tactical nuclear weapons. To avoid escalation, Putin used 9K720 Iskander ballistic missiles with warheads of only five kilotons, less than half the yield of the “Little Boy” bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima and only one-quarter the yield of the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki at the close of World War II. While Putin at first denied his forces had used nuclear weapons, as evidence mounted, he justified his actions in the two airbases’ use as transit hubs for shipment of weaponry to Ukraine. Fearful of further use of nuclear weapons, both Germany and France criticized Putin but called for critical dialogue. Ukraine, they demanded, cease its fight.

This of course is just a scenario—a hypothetical—but one that is conceivable. While the White House projects uncertainty because they worry about Putin’s nuclear embrace, another problem looms: In the aftermath of any nuclear strike, how to stop the next one?

When the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan, Washington had little understanding of the horror of fallout and radiation. To the Truman administration, a nuclear bomb was just a quicker, more efficient way to achieve a city’s destruction without the need for all the aircraft (and risk) that a Dresden-style firebombing would cause. President Truman also justified the attack in the belief that ending the war quickly by shocking Imperial Japan with such magnitude of destruction would save lives by avoiding an amphibious assault on Japan.

When the world learned the truth about nuclear weapons, the stigma with their use grew immensely. During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States built nuclear arsenals capable of destroying the world several times over, but successive secretaries-general and presidents (despite some close calls) refrained from deploying nuclear weapons against each other or their proxies. When, in 1969, Soviet diplomats quietly sounded out their American counterparts about Washington’s reaction should Moscow launch a limited, preemptive nuclear strike on communist China’s nascent nuclear program, American officials forcefully shot down the idea even though, in theory, the strike might be both limited and resolve both Soviet and American concerns about Mao Zedong’s ambitions. To make an exception to the nuclear stigma was simply too dangerous.

Herein lies the problem: A stigma is strongest when the stigmatized activity has little precedent. It has been more than 75 years since the last wartime nuclear detonation. Should Russia use even a small yield tactical nuclear weapon, there is little likelihood that other powers would wait another 75 years.

Consider car bombings or beheading in Iraq, for example. When they initially occurred, they were front-page news around the globe. As they became more common, newspapers buried any mention if at all deep in the paper. The only exception would be when violence reached a new scale: Christians lined up on a beach in Libya for a mass beheading or a vehicle bombing that killed more than 100 children.

The reason why so many criticized President Barack Obama’s failure to uphold his redline after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons was that it suggested that the cost for their repeated use would be minor. With every chemical weapons attack, the shock diminished. Some analysts even rationalized that it made no difference to the victims if killed by a bomb or a chlorine cloud.

Back to nuclear weapons: If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons, expect other countries to do so within a decade. Iran already has precision missiles, enriched uranium, and it has experimented with warhead design. A Russian strike on Ukraine might be a green light for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to move on Yanbu, Tel Aviv, or the Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain. Should they do so, perhaps the new stigma would be proportionality: The international community might demand Israel or the United States respond with the same yields or below. Such constraints on yield, however, would erode slowly with each use.

Deterrence has always been more fragile than some political scientists expect. A world without effective deterrence would be a far more perilous place. My colleagues Hal Brands and Kori Schake are correct that a desperate Russia is increasingly dangerous. What is at stake now, however, is far more than Ukraine. It is time for the White House to convince Putin he cannot survive even a small-scale use of nuclear weapons rather than signal that there are shades of gray in the world’s aversion to crossing the nuclear threshold.

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, co-author, and co-editor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).

Written By

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).

18 Comments

18 Comments

  1. Matt Musson

    March 23, 2022 at 4:46 pm

    By the end of the Week – Poland and Sweden would have nuclear weapons. And, Japan and South Korea probably would as well. They could certainly go nuclear over a long weekend.

  2. Joe Tierney

    March 23, 2022 at 5:18 pm

    Russia’s formal doctrine on nuclear weapon use states that it will only employ them if Russia is existentially threatened. That policy has been repeated today, March 23, 2022. Your scenario of supposed Russian frustration with the Ukraine invasion and Mr. Putin ordering the use of nukes is fundamentally faulted. You are assuming far too much without any solid basis.

    Now, if NATO attempts something like enforcing even a limited no-fly zone in Ukraine, for any stated reason, then you have a scenario that would see Russia and NATO in a hot conflict in Ukraine. That could easily escalate to a point where NATO’s forces threaten Russia proper and attempt to degrade or even eliminate Russia’s military. You can be assured that in such a scenario Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO to ensure its own survival. You can also be assured that China would join Russia against NATO in harmony with their mutual Pact. This is why the ‘loose cannons’ in NATO need to think very carefully about what they are doing. World Wars are stumbled into by idiots who think with their pride and other ignoble emotions instead of with whatever intellect they may possess.

  3. A penny tossed to the wind

    March 23, 2022 at 6:24 pm

    In strong support of the words of Joe Tierney.

    Not to diminish what he has said by my referencing his words, the sentiment that has settled so very adamantly is that the West could send us to hell if it continues past behaviour and attitude into the current day. Which it is.

    In commenting on this site, a site covered with wall-to-wall glossy imagery of the machinery of war, a shocking spirit descends in writing – that in contributing, the mere act of it leads to the mental throwing away of human life as mere instrument of leverage in positing a view.

    That is, turning human life into the very same instrument by which Vladimir Putin has made of it and its preciousness.

    Yet it’s not only Vladimir Putin who has spiritually and intellectually done it. We all in some way have done it. It’s the descent into the whirlpool of loss-of-overall-perspective that war captures us, holds us, and down we inevitably slip.

    Why not say it again. This is a war of lessons. Lessons to be learned – and from that to change minds and change actions.

    Already now we are seeing the US leadership stepping farther and farther into the breach. Asserting its assumed position. Escalating, at this stage economically, the peril and the harm.

    We are actually at the point where one man is playing the world.

    Tell me that whatever led us, people of the world, to this point, that it is worth it, by any treckoning, for or against, past atrocity or future, one ‘side’ or another, whatever reason you selectively choose, to yet again apply more of the same. To continue into the dark, no lessons learned.

    The light that points the way are lessons. Want to switch on the light? Want to see a way forward out of this swirling state of captivity? Learn a lesson.

    Can anyone else see that Vladimir Putin, in his rational yet extreme state of mind, is having the time of his life?

    Simmering with anger, then enraged, filled with a vision to which he has committed whatever he knows of himself to all eternity, he’s expressing his anger with what we, not in that extreme state, would call pleasure and joy.

    ‘Make a statement, watch world leaders hurry and rush and bump heads and turn somersaults.’

    He’s having a ball.

    He knows, consciously or not, that those who oppose him are just as lost and captured to war and killing as he. He knows his opposition is just as plugged in. Part of his ‘pleasure’ is in witnessing his opposition throw around justifications and accusations knowing absolutely, in his mind, these attempts at claiming the higher moral ground are lies. Ethereal falsities.

    He’s playing other world leaders like puppets.

    The strings he is pulling are the strings that bind the West to its past and its cemented ideologies and attitudes.

    Want to defeat Vladimir Putin, want to de-escalate, then identify where the core war resides. The core war is in the heads of the West, of those who oppose him.

    Win that war – change attitudes and destroy cemented approaches – and the narrative changes.

    The attitude that persists is: “tit for tat”.

    Change that.

    Hasn’t the West, those who oppose him, at this instant in time, put enough in place already? Now?

    Why escalate anything? (Seriously, interrogate the reasons and desires to escalate.) Why continue with the attitude of “tit for tat”?

    In the very least, it vastly reduces the chance for a nuclear act.

    Isn’t it all now in place? Why not let what is in place have its effect?

    It’s in place, step away. Cut the strings. Let Vladimir Putin fester. Take away his reason for the next nuclear step. Take away his mental and emotional sustenance. The West takes an escalted step, that step inspires him and energizes him. Step away.

    In his festering he’ll defeat himself.

  4. Eric-ji

    March 23, 2022 at 8:35 pm

    “It is time for the White House to convince Putin he cannot survive even a small-scale use of nuclear weapons.”

    And HOW exactly to back up that ultimatum?

    IMO it cannot be done. Idle chatter-writing.

  5. J. Granger

    March 23, 2022 at 8:35 pm

    Joe Tierney, Putin first brings up nuclear weapons in late Feb. just 2 weeks after claiming he had no plans to invade Ukraine. Putin bringing nuclear readiness up was an obvious sign of weakness from a bully. In fact your whole 2nd paragraph is the hopeful bully method. Trying to create fear so we don’t do anything. It’s very clear what your objective is.

    In reality, Putin and you, know if the US decided to really get into the action, the weaknesses and faults of Russian power would be exposed very quickly.

    The US would be just fine.

  6. A penny tossed to the wind

    March 24, 2022 at 1:14 am

    Indeed Eric it is robotic thinking. A fantasy image of how America is regarded; zero grasp of Vladimir Putin. Further, ridiculous to expect Putin to respond with anything but immediate outright rejection of anything from the White House – of all places! Let alone the White House “convince” him of anything.

    Okay. Wild card. But it shouldn’t be. Try this on.

    Scenario: Putin sends into Ukraine a tactical nuclear weapon.

    Response: nothing. Nothing from the US, nothing from NATO, nothing from the West.

    Absolutely nothing. Let’s imagine Putin sitting, pacing, walking, waiting for the response he knows absolutely is coming, is prepared for. He has his statements, everything ready. He had it all prepared before he sent in the weapon. The response he has prepared is part of his attack. He can’t wait to use it.

    But nothing. Nothing comes.

    The next day: still nothing. Putin has seen the world rise in outrage, all over every Western news feed he has. Absolute world outrage, through world media, just as expected. The Western leaders couldn’t miss it. He also hoped for this world and media outrage, prepared for it, wanted it. It’s part of his need to use Western behavior to add another layer of cement to his conviction that the West does not understand him, or Russia. This outright inability to understand him and Russia gives him the incentive and pleasure in attacking.

    But from Western leadership: nothing.

    How do you think he would be, having taken the scariest step of all, the most wonderful step in his armoury to provoke extreme fear and to justify his invasion – and is alone with his act?

    Furious. And confused.

    And angry, so he sends in another one.

    From Western leadership: nothing.

    So let’s stop a moment at this point to consider how much his entire world has just changed. The entire framework of his thinking vanishes. He is in a netherworld. The world (of his Western enemy) he knew ceases to exist.

    What happens then? I would love to hear what a seasoned and open-minded general of warfare thinks would happen.

    From here on we’ll guess, as we don’t have that general’s provision of the various consequences.

    The clear guess is he’ll send in more weapons. What happens then? More extreme outrage through Western media. Flooding with it.

    What also comes is the most extreme denouncements of him as sub-human that he’s ever known. To him personally. The world’s sub-human outcast.

    What also comes with that is the packaging of it as “Russia” did it. That’s the way of the world, the way headlines and expedient TV media operate. His beloved “Russia” is now experiencing the worst sub-human illegitimacy in the eyes of the world.

    Does that hurt him? No. But it does hurt those around him. It hurts his soldiers. It tightens the knots on the noose he already knows is being prepared, by someone, somewhere, in the Russian shadows, or in his close cohort, ready for his neck.

    He’s done.

    Now, let’s see what happened by way of damage. It is intense. That’s part of why the outrage. Horrific. The unimaginable has happened. Loss of life. Loss of property, in ways never before seen.

    It hurts and frightens the West immeasurably. It’s impossible to describe how Ukrainians feel. Will it stop them, and they surrender? My call is they wouldn’t.

    At this point there are two considerations to explore: What Putin does next, and What the alternative would have been.

    The alternative first. Instead of silence, nothing, the West sets into play the escalation calibrated as they already have it prepared. The usual “tit for tat” but nuclear.

    That alternative scenario results in Putin going harder. More deaths. More unimaginable visual destruction. The West has given him the reason for doing it, just as he wanted and expected.

    So here we join the two up. What happens when the Western “nothing” response is provided, and what happens when the actual, prepared response is provided.

    It’s the same damage, and same loss of life.

    But there’s one thing missing in the same killing and destruction. What’s missing is there’s no escalation.

    The loss of life and destruction is limited to what Vladimir Putin chooses within himself to do.

    He, and he alone.

    He has been given no reason, no excuse, for sending more nuclear weapons.

    Imagine, then, the pressure he is under. Those around him know hHe has no excuses or ‘reasons’ provided by the West for him to send further missiles. They see he is alone in sending them.

    One consequence is that he continues and takes Ukraine. Imagine the sentiment within parts of his homeland, and within parts if not all of the Kremlin, for having taken Ukraine that way. The mass sentiment may well be victorious. Yet it is, still, a result that sends Russia as a country into two centuries of hatred.

    Another consequence is that he’ll be stopped. Mother Russia is not to suffer that fate, someone says (as they are saying already) and Vladimir Putin is no more.

    We can add to this scenario a response from the West that instead of the silence above, the West issues a statement, not weaponry. A statement that casts Vladimir Putin and Russia into the depths. A statement that carries no moral high ground. Nothing provocative. A statement which says “we have seen it and this is what we think of it” in to-the-point words. But no return nuclear action.

    There it is. Two different responses to the first nuclear weapon sent into Ukraine. In each response scenarios the loss of life and damage is the same. But one saves the world. One risks it.

    Make any sense?

  7. A penny tossed to the wind

    March 24, 2022 at 1:53 am

    Not well said above, sorry. I’ll try a summation.

    First action: Putin sends into Ukraine a tactical nuclear weapon. In each scenario there is worldwide public outrage and fear through massive media coverage, like never before.

    Scenario Two: The expected response. Western leaders respond in a “tit for tat” retaliation, of severe consequence to Putin and Russia. This response we can be sure is already prepared. This Western retaliation provides Putin with exactly what he wants and hoped for. It gives him the reason he needs to send in more nuclear weapons, which he does. The West responds again in an escalated tit for tat. More reasons for Putin to send in more. This scenario inspires Putin, gives him energy and validates his escalatory actions to is cohort. “Russia” is condemned but the West is actively responding and retaliating, so the condemnation of Russia becomes more vague, and can be passed off within the Kremlin as caused by the West.

    Scenario One: The Western leadership does nothing. Putin’s world is turned upside down. He has received no retaliatory response. He’s been given no reason from the West for sending another missile. He sends one. Still no response. Putin is now the sole nuclear attacker. This nuclear action is his, and his alone. He’s confused. Never before has the West responded like this. He has doubts. Whatever happens from this point he alone wears it. He has not been given inspiration or energy. The opposite. His world turns in on itself. “Russia” is condemned to two centuries of hatred and cast out. No excuses, no one to blame it on, but Vladimir Putin himself. “Russia” can no longer afford him as leader.

    Same damage and same loss of life. One response by Western leadership escalates. One doesn’t.

  8. Commentar

    March 24, 2022 at 8:57 am

    A nuke fired directly against THE CORRECT TARGET will force NATO (premier fascist force on the planet) to wake up to its senses and sue for peace.

    NATO only understands the launguage of raw power or force. An ascendant fascist entity like it absolutely doesn’t give a toot to anything else.

    In my opinion, the best or most correct target is Lviv (formerly known as Lvov).

    But before Lviv gets to see the business end of a nuke-tipped kinzhal, give a 48-hr ultimatum to people to leave to save their asses.

  9. Alex

    March 24, 2022 at 10:25 am

    We all understand that the United States really, really wants the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, so as not to be the only demon on earth who hit peaceful cities with nuclear weapons.

  10. BKMart

    March 24, 2022 at 1:00 pm

    If Russia uses a tactical nuke?
    Someone else will retaliate with a tactical nuke.
    Then Russia will react in kind.
    These tit for tat nuke exchanges will continue until the big boys start flying and the entire world fries all because some old, elite fat men cannot garner enough power to satisfy their lust for control…

  11. Don Canard

    March 24, 2022 at 1:22 pm

    the division between the old nuclear power and the mickey-mouse leagues of nondemocratic wannabes is useful. The israelis generally are democratic, although if the islamic bomb were deployed against them they might be tempted to respond in kind. An appropriate response to the mickey mouse leagues using one of their nuclear weapons might be to have the targeting plans and assets in place to turn their nuclear industrial facilities and weapons launch sites to glass, all of them, with conventional strikes. No more toys. Sue us, mouseketeers. The established players need to sit down and finally move disarmament to drain their arsenals, but letting it be known to the bush league that their first use would be their last might get them to shut up and leave the room and stop wasting everyone’s time. I’m talking about India, Pakistan, N. Korea and the like in case it needs spelling out.

  12. Illurion

    March 24, 2022 at 10:48 pm

    Dear Alex:

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not peaceful Japanese cities.

    They were valid military targets.

    Nagasaki was Japans most major Naval Base, and Hiroshima was home to a main Administration Complex for the Japanese Navy.

    And just like Russia attacking Ukraine first, Japan attacked America first.

    As for this current situation, i am still convinced that this war will end when Putin is executed by his own people before he further escalates the war.

    Today is the 24th of March, and i earlier stated that i expect Putin to be gone by the end of March.

    Lets see what the next week has to show us.

  13. Johnny

    March 25, 2022 at 1:36 am

    Illurion, an administrative complex for the navy warranted a nuclear bombing of an entire city? And the fact that they struck first, allows them to wipe out their civilians on a massive scale?

    I find both points quite absurd. Destroying that administrative complex would hardly in itself imply such severe damage to the Japanese military apparatus. And that a country’s government strikes first is not a sufficient argument for absolutely and mercilessly obliterating its civilians… unless you decide that the lives of the enemy’s civilians matter nothing to you. And accepting something like that is two steps away from fascism (still, I know America was not fascism, the publication of books like John Hersey’s Hiroshima would have been impossible under fascism… but that particular decision, to nuke Japan… was very close to fascism).

    So… that administrative complex was not the target. The target was Hiroshima, as a city… and its civilians. They could have destroyed that administrative complex, if they wanted to, without destroying the entire city. But they wanted to destroy the whole city.

    Anyway. I’m not anti-American. I think America’s influence in the world has been generally positive, and now more than ever. I believe it is the West’s only defense against communism and the most repulsive totalitarianism. But nuking Japan is definitely morally indefensible.

  14. Illurion

    March 25, 2022 at 2:43 pm

    Johnny:

    It is your moralizing that is ABSURD, and irrelevant.

    Actually, Hiroshima was NOT the primary target for the 2nd nuke in World War 2.

    The actual primary target, another Japanese Navy base, had extensive cloud-cover that morning, and so the bomber moved on to the NEXT SENIOR TARGET ON THE LIST, which turned out to be Hiroshima.

    So having a beautiful sunny sky that day, is what doomed Hiroshima.

    I don’t know how old you are, so you may not know actual history, but during World War 2, bombing entire civilian cities, and their citizens, was the NORM. It was common place.

    Hitler utterly bombed and wiped out dozens of European Cities, and in turn, the Allies returned the favor, and and leveled most German Cities to dust.

    The Japanese were no different, in fact, they were even worse that Hitler as far as bombing cities into dust is concerned.

    The Japanese killed over a million Chinese civilians during their bombing runs over Chinese cities in particular.

    Before you continue moralizing about the USA bombing Japanese Civilians, Johnny, perhaps you should do some research about what the Japanese did to Nanking, or Shanghai.

    The Japanese killed FAR MORE CIVILIANS with their TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CONVENTIONAL bombs, than the USA did with it’s TWO NUCLEAR bombs.

    SOMEONE KILLED BY A NUCLEAR BOMB IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE KILLED BY A CONVENTIONAL BOMB.

    They are still dead.

    In the closing weeks of World War 2, President Truman was faced with a choice.

    (1) Mount an armed invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Which was estimated to result in the deaths of HALF-A-MILLION AMERICAN TROOPS, and no doubt, more than a million Japanese soldiers and citizens too.

    or

    (2) Drop one Nuclear Bomb on Japan, which would kill a much smaller number of people, NONE OF WHICH WOULD BE AMERICANS, and then wait for the Japanese to surrender.

    ……………

    Obviously, the Nuclear Option WAS THE BEST PLAN, AS IT WOULD RESULT IN THE FEWEST NUMBER OF DEATHS ON BOTH SIDES, and END THE WAR SOONER.

    …………..

    So Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb.

    In the end, they used TWO BOMBS, BIG BOY, and LITTLE BOY, as each bomb was constructed differently, using different Nuclear elements, so that a comparison could be made as to which element to move forward with in the future nuclear program.

    Truman made the correct call. He saved lives.

    Instead of the war continuing for at least another year, and resulting in the death of millions more civilians and troops on both sides.

    The 2 bombs were dropped, killing approximately 100,000 in Hiroshima, and approximately 80,000 in Nagasaki, and Japan surrendered in a few weeks without further bloodshed.

    In conclusion, Truman using 2 nukes to end World War 2 SAVED LIVES that otherwise would have been lost.

    Today, 80 years later, you can moralize all you want,
    Johnny, but Truman did the right thing.

    ………….

    But that was THEN. TODAY IS NOW…

    The question for today is:

    – IS THERE A SUBSTANTIAL REASON THAT SUPPORTS PUTIN USING A NUCLEAR WEAPON TODAY ? IN UKRAINE ?

    In my opinion, the answer is NO…

    He, PUTIN, started the war by attacking Ukraine.

    Prior to the war, Ukraine had DONE NOTHING to threaten Russia, nor does Ukraine have the ability to reasonably threaten Russia in the present, or future.

    Discussing joining a group of other FREE NATIONS in an organization does not represent an attack of any kind on Russia.

    Other nations coming to Ukraine’s aid DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, REPRESENT A “POSITIVE REASON” FOR USING A NUCLEAR WEAPON UNLESS THOSE OTHER NATIONS INTEND TO USE THEIR OWN NUCLEAR WEAPONS against Russia.

    No-one, not NATO, nor the USA, has stated they will nuke Russia over the Ukraine situation.

    Putin needs to swallow his pride, and bring his troops home, and end this NOW.

    While he still can.

    But then, what do i know.

  15. Alex

    March 26, 2022 at 3:45 pm

    I don’t know what should be in the minds of people who call Hiroshima and Nagasaki not peaceful cities. Yes, the military was there – is that an excuse? In this case, Russia also has the right to bomb all of Ukraine with nuclear missiles in a few minutes. But the thing is different: the United States can do everything, but nothing to Russia. But: Russia as a great power does not care about the opinions of others. Russia liberates the cities of Ukraine with the least losses among civilians and its soldiers.
    In any case, it makes no sense to talk with a person who does not have the intelligence to read the nuclear doctrines of states. Nazism, Russophobia – this is not curable and can only be treated with a bullet in the head.

  16. Johnny

    March 26, 2022 at 8:10 pm

    Illurio, I know the history of WWII perfectly well, and I know that bombing civilian cities while targeting the civilians themselves was the norm. And none of that makes it any less morally repugnant. That something repugnant is the norm, does not imply that I should deprive myself of condemning it and denouncing it in all its horror.

    And nothing that the Japanese GOVERNMENT did, implies that I should accept that it was okay to tear to pieces men, women and children who had no connection whatsoever with that government. And I find it repugnant that you assume that you are morally entitled to do something, just because the enemy did it to you. It would be like deciding that it is OK to go and kill your neighbor’s little boy, just because the neighbor killed your little boy.

    So, I stand by what I said. To nuke Japan was FASCISM, and the USA, or the UK with Dresden, stooped to using the fascist tactics characteristic of their enemies, who followed philosophies that did not value human life at all. To justify tearing the enemy’s civilians to pieces just to achieve political ends, implies justifying by extension any genocidal and/or terrorist regime in history. I will never do so.

    And ABSURD is to justify the crimes of the past, just because they were the norm. You probably don’t know enough Logic to know what an “ad Populum fallacy” is. But you should.

  17. Illurion

    March 26, 2022 at 10:51 pm

    “War” is “War” Johnny and Alex.

    THERE IS NO “LOGIC” IN WAR.

    THERE ARE NO “MORALS” OR “ETHICS” IN WAR.

    That is “WHY” war is to be avoided.

    WAR IS A LACK OF CIVILIZATION.

    ONLY A FOOL STARTS A WAR.

    And only a fool looks back, after a war is over, and moralizes about what should have, or should not have been done.

    Only a WISE man stops a war.

    But to stop that war, that WISE man is still going to have to do something that is without logic, morals, or ethics.

    The fact that you Johnny, and Alex do not understand that is what is absurd.

    Both of you appear to back the man that started this war.

    You are both fools.

    Neither one of you appear to be very WISE.

  18. epoch

    April 10, 2022 at 10:30 am

    The amount of degenerate Putin backed lovers in this comment section that attempt to rationalize the invasion of Ukraine is incredible.. Shouldn’t surprise me though..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement