They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.
They have nukes. They don't need to be rich to do massive damage. Sure doing so would have terrible consequences, but cooler heads sometimes don't prevail. Or only prevail after much suffering and pain.
I always wonder at the people who have this idea that states are going to use nukes on a whim. The taboo against the use of nukes is very strong, so strong that I believe nuclear armed nations would rather wage conventional warfare even at great cost, and consider nukes only in the extreme situation where the very survival of the state is seriously threatened (and even then I'm doubtful nukes would be used). The only other realistic situation where nukes are used is in an accidental scenario.
That is why conventional military strength is still very much important in the world now. The Europeans are finding this out a bit late.
It's also why Putin is a great actor and bluffer. Trust me, he's the last person who would think of using nukes, despite appearances to the contrary. Now, if he were to somehow use nukes on an actual populated area, I believe the western powers would NOT use nukes in retaliation, so it seems like he would have a found a way out of MAD. But, the conventional response (likely a containment rather than an attack on Russia, e.g., a no fly zone and destruction of military assets, with the threat of nuclear retaliation backing it up) would be so strong that the Russia would be effectively neutralized. If they persist in nuking, then all bets are off, WW3 begins, and civilization could end.
Anyway, the real concern wrt nukes is that they require people in government who are at least marginally sane and care about self-preservation. The problem with countries like Russia and Pakistan is that it's one coup away from being run by people who genuinely believe that they are fighting a holy war against some kind of worldwide Satanic conspiracy. Such people are unlikely to hold power for long, but with nukes, they don't have to.
Also note his island has a full on Egyptian Temple on it, and no-one has any idea what's underground.
None of these things are disputed. Sounds pretty Satanic and International to me.
I'm not sure about that.
That's why there was no sense for Ukraine to keep nukes. They should have kept strategic bombers, though.
https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan/nytimes0...
This is why I'm comparing nuclear trade to high cholesterol. It's a long-term issue.
The "knife fight" comparison is that they just got hit. The military needs are "literally, not metaphorically, yesterday".