Yes, nukes will not prove apocalyptic. Those who use them may well damage themselves more severely than their targets, such as a householder who tries to kill flies with a sledgehammer. He will have broken walls and still have flies.
US imperial war planners may have to consider the possibility that they have lost the war and what to do about it. A scorched-earth retreat may be their solution. Consider also the Nordstream bombing.
Based on comments from Putin if the conflict turns nuclear their target will not be Europe or Kiev, it will be east coast US. Russia knows who the enemy is and will target appropriately.
It is far from evident that the Empire is out of options, and its previous reckless escalations not only make it more reckless, but raise the stakes associated with defeat.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
I think if this were true, there would not be such a great need to hide the facts and repress the press. As it is, telling the truth (in the MSM) is career ending. Look at Seymore. If we were winning, we’d be bragging about blowing up the pipes!
I dunno, look how many years it took for the US to admit that it was behing the 1973 Chilean coup, which was "winning" in the sense that Allende was removed, or that The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was, in fact, a false flag, even though it got the CIA and Pentagon what they wanted. Then, there's the USS Liberty, which is glossed over.
I totally agree with you, but would respond that each of these “successes” lead to exposure and eventually to great investigative reporters figuring out the game-plan and telling the public. Thus the need for the great shutdown under Bush/Cheney. It’s now threadbare and getting obvious. Fewer and fewer people are buying the bullshit that helped those jackals get away with Allende and the Liberty. Though I share your rage that they did. Perhaps BRICS will someday have a tribunal in Rio for the whole US empire and it’s 5 Eyes.
When the Cluster Bombs fail to defeat Russia, then what? Nukes!
And they will fail
Yes, nukes will not prove apocalyptic. Those who use them may well damage themselves more severely than their targets, such as a householder who tries to kill flies with a sledgehammer. He will have broken walls and still have flies.
US imperial war planners may have to consider the possibility that they have lost the war and what to do about it. A scorched-earth retreat may be their solution. Consider also the Nordstream bombing.
Based on comments from Putin if the conflict turns nuclear their target will not be Europe or Kiev, it will be east coast US. Russia knows who the enemy is and will target appropriately.
It is far from evident that the Empire is out of options, and its previous reckless escalations not only make it more reckless, but raise the stakes associated with defeat.
This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
I think if this were true, there would not be such a great need to hide the facts and repress the press. As it is, telling the truth (in the MSM) is career ending. Look at Seymore. If we were winning, we’d be bragging about blowing up the pipes!
I dunno, look how many years it took for the US to admit that it was behing the 1973 Chilean coup, which was "winning" in the sense that Allende was removed, or that The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was, in fact, a false flag, even though it got the CIA and Pentagon what they wanted. Then, there's the USS Liberty, which is glossed over.
I can think of plenty more.
I totally agree with you, but would respond that each of these “successes” lead to exposure and eventually to great investigative reporters figuring out the game-plan and telling the public. Thus the need for the great shutdown under Bush/Cheney. It’s now threadbare and getting obvious. Fewer and fewer people are buying the bullshit that helped those jackals get away with Allende and the Liberty. Though I share your rage that they did. Perhaps BRICS will someday have a tribunal in Rio for the whole US empire and it’s 5 Eyes.