But instead of destroying them, wouldn't Russia use any captured weapons and munitions if at all possible? I don't focus on missals or tanks or guns............I focus on the destruction. The aftermath of the barrage. They’ll use what they can. Probably, destroy what they can’t use.
The fact that it’s a little childish is not surprising - deep down, we’re primates. It’s always been this way.
What I don’t understand is - How can you “weaken” a nation that has, arguably, around the same number of nuclear warheads as the rest of the world combined? Plus, currently, apparently, the best delivery systems?
I guess to “weaken” them you’d want to pressure them, to continue beating them up badly - but without pushing them over the line - when they may decide they have no choice but use their nukes. Personally, I would not even want to weaken them - I’d like to see them have excellent conventional military capability - so they would never feel threatened enough to use nukes. But, maybe it’s just my stupid logic. Good thing no one listens to me.
Maybe I should email Gen Austin, ask him to explain what he meant. No one’s asking questions, as if it’s obvious. I think it’s puzzling. |
