1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[WaPo] Biden’s scary invocation of nuclear ‘Armageddon’

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Oct 7, 2022.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    tinman likes this.
  2. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    19,568
    Likes Received:
    14,572
    Who cares.
     
    Andre0087 and Ottomaton like this.
  3. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,205
    Likes Received:
    15,381
    Putin has been threatening to nuke Ukraine, Europe, the US, and the whole world nearly daily for months, but the REAL problem is Biden properly summarizing those threats.

    Okey dokey.

    Shoot the messenger.
     
    #3 Ottomaton, Oct 7, 2022
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2022
  4. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    22,605
    Likes Received:
    14,341
  5. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,049
    Trump would get a pass. Let the old man play.

    /This is fine gif
     
    Deckard likes this.
  6. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,796
    Likes Received:
    3,709
  7. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    it would certainly keep Trump out of the next White House :cool:
     
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-riffs-on-armageddon-11665183312?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

    Biden Riffs on Armageddon
    He needlessly raises nuclear anxiety at a cocktail party. That won’t help deterrence.
    By The Editorial Board
    Oct. 7, 2022 6:55 pm ET

    President Biden will never be a great communicator, but his latest riff at a campaign fundraiser on the threat of nuclear Armageddon won’t reassure anyone. He succeeded mainly in demonstrating his own anxiety, which isn’t the right message to send Vladimir Putin or the American people.

    Rolling along Thursday in routine remarks about the reasons donors should support Democrats—after comments on Africa and before the Supreme Court—Mr. Biden chose to dilate on the end of the world.

    “Think about it. We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. We’ve got a guy I know fairly well; his name is Vladimir Putin. I spent a fair amount of time with him. He is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical and nuclear weapons, or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming,” Mr. Biden told the Democratic worthies.

    “It’s part of Russian doctrine that they will not—they will not—if the motherland is threatened, they’ll use whatever force they need, including nuclear weapons,” he added. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

    Pass the canapes and make my next drink a double.

    It’s tempting to pass this off as one of Mr. Biden’s random soliloquies that the White House quickly walks back. Recall the three times he’s said the U.S. will defend Taiwan militarily, which his staff explained away each time. And sure enough, on Friday the White House told reporters there was no new information about Mr. Putin’s intentions that had prompted Mr. Biden’s focus on the bomb.

    Yet that’s hardly reassuring since Mr. Putin has threatened to use tactical nukes, and it isn’t clear the Russian believes in the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. U.S. vows of “consequences” didn’t stop him from making the catastrophic mistake of invading Ukraine.

    Mr. Biden didn’t help on this score when he also said at the fundraiser that “we’re trying to figure out: What—what is Putin’s off-ramp? Where—where does he get off? Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?”

    If you’re Mr. Putin, you might interpret that to mean Mr. Biden is looking for his own off-ramp, and that maybe escalating with a nuclear explosion would cause Mr. Biden and Europe to give him a ramp that includes a large chunk of Ukraine.

    Mr. Biden is right about how dangerous Mr. Putin is now that his military is losing ground in Ukraine. He has trapped himself in a place where he lacks the conventional military power to win, but he can’t afford to lose a war without risking his position at home. The war has revealed the low morale and discipline of Russian forces, and his mobilization of 300,000 more men may not stop Ukraine’s advances. He faces growing criticism in Russia for the war’s mismanagement. All of this suggests no small risk of nuclear escalation.

    But such a step would also carry grave risks for Mr. Putin. The battlefield utility of tactical nukes is limited against dispersed forces, and his own troops would be vulnerable. He’d poison with radiation land he hopes to own. He could lose the support of the allies he has left, such as China and India. President Xi Jinping doesn’t want to see the first use of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki prompt Japan to get a bomb.

    Mr. Putin might hope to demoralize Ukraine enough by nuking a city, but the opposite effect is more likely. Ukraine’s fury would cause it to press on, no doubt with more support from the U.S. and NATO.

    Which brings us back to Mr. Biden. If he really does fear a nuclear escalation, he owes more of an explanation to the American people than cocktail-party doomsday chatter. He needs to marshal support in Congress and around the world to do everything possible to deter Mr. Putin. A crucial part of deterrence in a democracy is preparing the public for the challenges it might confront. Instead his comments have needlessly frightened Americans and maybe undermined deterrence.

    Appeared in the October 8, 2022, print edition as 'Biden Riffs on Armageddon'.



     
  9. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,141
    Likes Received:
    23,431
    Lol the WSJ EB again
     
  10. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,796
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Do you not think he is concerned about Russia using a number weapon which they have threatened?
     
    Ubiquitin likes this.
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    I have no idea what he's thinking. But I'm pretty sure a promise of mutually assured destruction in response is not helpful
     
  12. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,169
    Likes Received:
    48,341
    In the piece it says “A crucial part of deterrence in a democracy is preparing the public for the challenges it might confront. Instead his comments have needlessly frightened Americans and maybe undermined deterrence.”
    The piece itself states Putin is a danger and might use nukes. Isn’t that preparing the public for a challenge it might confront by raising possibility of nuclear Armageddon? Given what the writer says “All of this suggests no small risk of nuclear escalation.” They sounds like Biden is doing the right thing to raise this possibility.
     
    dmoneybangbang likes this.
  13. AroundTheWorld

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    83,288
    Likes Received:
    62,281
    He should not have said that.
     
  14. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,472
    Biden was wrong for stating that risk which every rational person already knows exists. But he should never have said what everyone knows but might not be thinking about all the time.
     
    AleksandarN and dmoneybangbang like this.
  15. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,049
    He already gaffed Putin must go. Saying this confirms he's crazy and will use American might to accomplish peace.

    Next thing would be to call him Rocketman or some song from the 70s.

    Isn't that right, trumpets?
     
  16. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,141
    Likes Received:
    23,431
    Unlike the bad-faith arguments from the WSJ EB, here is a guy that knows a thing or two about Russia, the military, and nuclear weapons.

    What Biden said is easy to understand. Nuclear weapon is bad and can easily get out of hand. Putin needs to triple-think before he deploys a tactical nuke thinking it won't spiral out of control. He has been trying to normalize it by talking about it for months. Someone needs to remind him it's never normal. That if it gets to that, the MAD doctrine still lives on. Some of the posters here seem to think MAD is new, but it has been around since the 1950s.

    The President and the Bomb - The Atlantic
    By Tom Nichol

    Updated at 10:30 a.m. ET on October 8, 2022


    President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

    The Brightest Red Line
    The president of the United States said last night that he is concerned about nuclear war. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he remarked, seemingly off-the-cuff, at a Democratic fundraiser. The reactions were what you’d expect: Strategists and foreign-policy experts tried to unpack his statements, while right-wing pundits declared that the old man is too unsteady for the job. Many Americans are, understandably, scared.

    I have criticized Biden for intemperate remarks in the past. I gladly stipulate that I never want any president talking about nuclear war extemporaneously (and I wonder what moved the president to speak out this time). But I understand the message Biden is trying, in every possible venue, to send to Russia, and I’m glad that he’s trying to shake us—and Russian President Vladimir Putin—out of our complacency about this potentially cataclysmic issue.

    What I suspect Biden knows, and what Americans and their allies should realize, is that Putin is almost certainly talking a lot about nuclear weapons because he wants to accustom the West to the idea that he has the right to use them. From the first day of the war, Putin has woven nuclear threats into both his offensive against Ukraine and his warnings to the West. Like other Russia-watchers, I think the chances that Putin will resort to nuclear use are low. But I have been worried about it since the moment Russia’s military started collapsing on the battlefield.

    Now the Russian president is making sure to mention the use of “all means available” to defend Russian territory, and describing the nuclear bombing of Japan as a precedent—a clear implication that he is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons, smaller bombs delivered over short distances. These arms, however, are “small” only relative to the massive weapons on bombers, submarines, and intercontinental missiles; even the tiniest of them can do immense damage, especially against civilian areas.

    By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

    Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

    Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”

    I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

    Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

    At that point, Putin—if he is still in power—would either have to accept defeat, or escalate and throw the dice yet again. (And, as even Secretary Perry noted, the United States would have to “take off the gloves the second time around.”) Putin might then claim that the U.S. and NATO are presenting an existential threat to the Russian state, and go to a full nuclear alert that directly threatens all of Europe and North America.

    The United States would have to respond and go to a similarly heightened status. Putin, as the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev put it during the Cuban missile crisis, will have tied the knot of war, and each side’s actions would then run the risk of pulling it tighter. Even the slightest miscalculation could lead to an apocalyptic outcome. The only option that avoids such a disaster is agreement to Putin’s terms, an immediate Ukrainian surrender, and general Western abandonment of East-Central Europe. This is likely what Putin expects, but it would be one more mistake from a Russian dictator who has underestimated his opponents and made horrendous miscalculations at every turn.

    Putin is trying to normalize the use of nuclear weapons for imperial conquest. If he succeeds, he will not stop. The United States did not fight two world wars and the Cold War merely to bow to blackmail and accept the demands of a despot holding the entire global order of peace and security hostage with a nuclear bomb. It was Biden’s duty—as it would be for any American president—to say clearly and directly that the use of nuclear weapons runs apocalyptic risks.
     
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    it takes two to Armageddon
     
  18. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,205
    Likes Received:
    15,381
    Demonstratably false.
     
    AleksandarN and FranchiseBlade like this.
  19. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    31,384
    Likes Received:
    49,218
    No it doesn't, both the US and Russia individually have enough nukes to armageddon multiple times over. The battle of good and evil can be within a single government, or person really.

    All this inarticulate certainty from you, it's out of character.
     
  20. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,549
    Likes Received:
    121,952
    where has this been demonstrated?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now