Trump refuses to rule out using nukes in Europe

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay everyone, take a deep breath. This is actually one of the less crazy things TRUMP has said. Quite a bit antiquated, but not necessarily crazy. Back in the Cold War days the nuclear option was always on the table as a potential response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. The idea that nukes should only be used as a response to an enemy first use of nuclear weapons is a bit Pollyannish. The alternatives to such a policy boil down to two, maintain an expensive conventional military to deter conventional attack or be prepared to be occupied if invaded. While Russia is not necessarily the enemy of the Free World, it certainly is not it's friend and there are parts of it that it wants back in the Russian Empire.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that nukes should only be used as a response to an enemy first use of nuclear weapons is a bit Pollyannish.

No, it's literally common sense.

Common sense is often neither common nor sensible. Nuclear deterrence is far from ideal, but unless Europe is willing to invest in conventional deterrence, the only other option to deterrence could end up being surrendering up something to satiate the Russian bear the next time it gets hungry, if there is a bear.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

And yet paradoxically that means they are only useful if one's potential opponents believe you will use them in certain circumstances. If we're simply not ever going to use them, then we might as well get rid of them and save the expense of building them. Abandoning nuclear deterrence means either having a credible conventional deterrence or being will to be gobbled up by the bear, if there is a bear.

Your trigger metaphor applies just as well to conventional war. Do you really think either Ukraine or Russia has gained anything from their current tussle?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

And yet paradoxically that means they are only useful if one's potential opponents believe you will use them in certain circumstances. If we're simply not ever going to use them, then we might as well get rid of them and save the expense of building them. Abandoning nuclear deterrence means either having a credible conventional deterrence or being will to be gobbled up by the bear, if there is a bear.

Your trigger metaphor applies just as well to conventional war. Do you really think either Ukraine or Russia has gained anything from their current tussle?

Well yeah, it's pretty clear Putin feels like he's gained a lot out of it. And what are you saying, that the US should threaten to nuke Russia if it doesn't back down?

Nukes are the sort of threat you can only make in advance, not after the fact, and only if it's really meant. Neither applied to Ukraine.

Putin overplayed his hand. I'm convinced he thought he could get what he wanted without a fight. Had he stuck to just Crimea, he probably would have succeeded.