EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    In a conventional war they would crush Russia. Remember when the United States captured Baghdad in a week? It would be like that. But the chances are high that Putin would start launching nukes, and then everyone loses.

    • Nurgus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not willing to gamble but I don’t think they’d go nuclear. The trick is to offer amnesty and support to everyone but Putin so they have a better option than death for themselves and their families. Loyalty to dictators is always about self preservation.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        They would drop tactical nukes on NATO forces.

        It’s never going to happen anyways.

        • Nurgus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They would drop tactical nukes on NATO forces.

          Yeah maybe. I was operating under the prevailing idea in this thread that NATO would steamroll through Russia. It’s not something I necessarily agree with.

          It’s never going to happen anyways.

          Well, quite. This is all just a thought experiment, no one thinks it could happen. NATO is a purely defensive alliance.