,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The flaw in the Republican position is the assumption that a small nuclear exchange will not escalate, and that the ability to engage in a symmetrical response will itself be a deterrent. This makes no sense, since it ignores asymmetries of will and interest. /1
The Republican position is based on an outdated conception of nuclear strikes on a Central Front battlefield that no longer exists. The Russians know that any strike from NATO will land in Russia and will open the door to escalation. /2
NATO needs to *skip* that intermediate game-playing and demonstrate two realities: Russia will lose any conventional war, and any Russian blustering about nuclear use better be backed up by a willingness to go all-out. Inviting tactical tot-for-tat plays into their game. /3
GOP has long been captured by the nuclear establishment, which has been throwing scenarios at the wall to see what sticks. Low-yield options are dumb and aimed at producing weapons and consulting contracts, not enhanced security. /4x
