Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (759567)	3/17/2022 3:02:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793706

Even if nuclear weapons were not an issue, the question wouldn't be "no fly zone or not" as much as it would be "war with Russia or not". A no fly zone would require waging war against Russia, not just shooting down their aircraft (which itself would be an act of war) but also going after their SAMs and probably their air bases. It would require a massive sustained use of force, unless Russia simply caved to its announcement which wouldn't happen. The Russians would strike back against NATO bases, try to sink NATO ships (mostly with their subs and maybe some long range bomber strikes, their surface fleet wouldn't last long but could take something with it). Large scale loss of life on both sides. Sure the Russians would lose in the end but it wouldn't even vaguely resemble something like Operation Southern Watch. More like the Korean War, except maybe bigger and at a more upscale tempo. And that's "if nuclear weapons were not an issue". In the real world the nuclear escalation risk would be massive.