• Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s just wrong for the simple reason that NATO is vastly superior in any form of conventional warfare.

    NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2.
    It would be a one sided beating.

    And russia would lose and lose fast.

    But russia would still have no incentive to be the first to launch nukes, because that would change the situation from bad to total annihilation.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2. It would be a one sided beating.

      Like NATO in Afghanistan.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.

    • DriftinGrifter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      All I’ve heard till now is your opinion that Russia wouldn’t launch nukes, your statements have as much weight as a fart in the wind an Russia has threatened to use nukes so idk man

        • DriftinGrifter
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yea I’m not convinced a lot of this is based on a history in which Russia has had very little personal loss and assumes Russia’s use of military doctrine is static and will continue to stay static also if Russia is aware that nuclear threats have low probability of effectiveness it would speak more towards it being an actual threat and not a bluff