Nuclear Threats Are a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
Nuclear Threats Are a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength
By Daniel Greenfield

How often do you hear Xi talk about nuclear weapons? Elements in the Communist regime practice “wolf warrior” diplomacy and make hysterical threats, but Xi remains generally restrained.

Compare that to Putin who can’t stop talking about Russia’s nuclear capabilities. That’s not new. Khruschev’s fake madman act at the UN onward, Russian leaders kept talking about their nukes to cover up their overall military weakness.

In the MAD era, nukes are not an option for anyone except suicidal fanatics or those convinced that their enemies are so weak that they won’t retaliate. Or they’re a giant bluff.

How do you spot a bluff?

“To those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and for separate components and more modern than those of NATO countries, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin said in a Wednesday address.

“It’s not a bluff,” he added.


When you have to say it’s not a bluff, it’s a bluff.

Putin isn’t, despite what the media says, nuts. Under enough pressure, he might escalate to potentially using a battlefield nuke on the ground, but considering the limited tactical viability of doing any such thing, even that seems unlikely. Despite the hysteria that’s been going on now for 7 months now, there’s no nuclear war between us and Russia, nor is there going to be one.

Nor are we in a war with Russia. At least no more than Russia was in a war with us when it helped our enemies.

The only reason Putin keeps talking about nukes is because Russia’s military is weak, its economy is a mess and it’s the only card he has to play.

And he can’t actually play it.

That puts him on par with Biden who talks big but then has nothing to back it up with.

This phase of the war will play out, however it plays out, leaving little in its wake except local misery. Amid all the propaganda from both sides that has thoroughly saturated the conversation, it’s best to remember that the impact on us remains purely economic.

The economic part is due to Biden’s reliance on the same failed sanctions strategies.

The war should have been purely decided on the battlefield in Ukraine without inflicting economic misery on Americans and Europeans. By cutting off Germany, Putin has already detonated his economic ‘nuke’ sending energy prices skyrocketing. The backlash may end up reshaping German and European politics, and has at least convinced some of them to back nuclear energy again. And maybe that’s the real fallout from this war.

Wars often have unintended consequences.

And if we can secure cheap nuclear power again, that will be a big victory whatever happens on the battlefield.

https://www.raptureforums.com/polit...-threats-are-a-sign-of-weakness-not-strength/
 

NewWine2020

Well-Known Member
Nuclear Threats Are a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength
By Daniel Greenfield

How often do you hear Xi talk about nuclear weapons? Elements in the Communist regime practice “wolf warrior” diplomacy and make hysterical threats, but Xi remains generally restrained.

Compare that to Putin who can’t stop talking about Russia’s nuclear capabilities. That’s not new. Khruschev’s fake madman act at the UN onward, Russian leaders kept talking about their nukes to cover up their overall military weakness.

In the MAD era, nukes are not an option for anyone except suicidal fanatics or those convinced that their enemies are so weak that they won’t retaliate. Or they’re a giant bluff.

How do you spot a bluff?

“To those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and for separate components and more modern than those of NATO countries, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” Putin said in a Wednesday address.

“It’s not a bluff,” he added.


When you have to say it’s not a bluff, it’s a bluff.

Putin isn’t, despite what the media says, nuts. Under enough pressure, he might escalate to potentially using a battlefield nuke on the ground, but considering the limited tactical viability of doing any such thing, even that seems unlikely. Despite the hysteria that’s been going on now for 7 months now, there’s no nuclear war between us and Russia, nor is there going to be one.

Nor are we in a war with Russia. At least no more than Russia was in a war with us when it helped our enemies.

The only reason Putin keeps talking about nukes is because Russia’s military is weak, its economy is a mess and it’s the only card he has to play.

And he can’t actually play it.

That puts him on par with Biden who talks big but then has nothing to back it up with.

This phase of the war will play out, however it plays out, leaving little in its wake except local misery. Amid all the propaganda from both sides that has thoroughly saturated the conversation, it’s best to remember that the impact on us remains purely economic.

The economic part is due to Biden’s reliance on the same failed sanctions strategies.

The war should have been purely decided on the battlefield in Ukraine without inflicting economic misery on Americans and Europeans. By cutting off Germany, Putin has already detonated his economic ‘nuke’ sending energy prices skyrocketing. The backlash may end up reshaping German and European politics, and has at least convinced some of them to back nuclear energy again. And maybe that’s the real fallout from this war.

Wars often have unintended consequences.

And if we can secure cheap nuclear power again, that will be a big victory whatever happens on the battlefield.

https://www.raptureforums.com/polit...-threats-are-a-sign-of-weakness-not-strength/

Yeah, I think he should be taken seriously but held to account if he does play his hand. The only thing that kept these weapons from being used in the past was the implicit understanding by both sides that MAD (mutually assured destruction) would ensue if one party used their stockpile.

I know I bring up this book very frequently, but it’s been very relevant of late. In the text “Inside the Soviet Army” by a high ranking officer-defector named Victor Suvorov, he stated the liberal use of nuclear weapons by the Soviets was simply part of their basic strategic doctrine.

The Soviet high Command referred to it as the ”Axe Theory” meaning, unlike the western model where one gradually ramps up the severity of the military response to just exceed the level of threat by the other side, the Soviets felt it made more sense to go immediately to your most efective and devastating weapon from the get-go.

They would have nuked all the high value military and economic targets in Europe and the states and THEN proceeded with a Russian version of a combined arms blitzkrieg Into Western Europe. This also had the adavantge that they would get to use their nukes first instead of them being destroyed in place by the West.

Their strategic doctrine may or may not be diff today but Putin grew up internalizing the old School USSR ways and I think that just because westerners cannot comprehend doing something that horrible we attribute that same level of common sense to others who plainly don’t share it.
 
Top