I disagree here. If you are telling me that direct confrontation won't cause escalation in a nuclear fashion, then you being wrong means it does cause nuclear escalation. And then we're talking about world impact. Unless you think it is possible to have a localized nuclear conflict in some manner (I have no idea how this would be contained and neither do you).
I do have an idea how it would be.
This is what CIA boss Burns says today:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/worl...use-nuclear-weapons-says-cia-chief/ar-AAWffgf
Burns added that the US has not seen "a lot of practical evidence" of actual deployment of nuclear weapons.
"We're obviously very concerned. I know President Biden is deeply concerned about avoiding a third world war, about avoiding a threshold in which, you know, nuclear conflict becomes possible," said Burns.
Russia possesses tactical nuclear weapons. Such nuclear weapons are less powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima during Second World War.
The escalate to de-escalate military doctrine of Russia would involve launching a first strike nuclear weapon of low yield to regain the initiative if things go badly in a conventional conflict with the West.
Last edited:
