Well written as always Sir, but I personally believe the two rational outcomes are not the only ones. There's also the unexpected and that, which shall not be named ... escalation. One errant missile taking down a NATO asset, especially from the trigger happy commercial airplane shooting crowd there, would require a NATO tit for tat an…
Well written as always Sir, but I personally believe the two rational outcomes are not the only ones. There's also the unexpected and that, which shall not be named ... escalation. One errant missile taking down a NATO asset, especially from the trigger happy commercial airplane shooting crowd there, would require a NATO tit for tat and that kind of dynamic is a slippery slope landing right on those tactical nukes. That's what keeps me awake. If things spiral out of control, then that will surely be visible from 30K feet and we might finally understand the answer to the Fermi paradox. So, I hope those procedural mitigations are in place ... After all, it's not what Putin necessarily wants that happens in the fog of war.
Well written as always Sir, but I personally believe the two rational outcomes are not the only ones. There's also the unexpected and that, which shall not be named ... escalation. One errant missile taking down a NATO asset, especially from the trigger happy commercial airplane shooting crowd there, would require a NATO tit for tat and that kind of dynamic is a slippery slope landing right on those tactical nukes. That's what keeps me awake. If things spiral out of control, then that will surely be visible from 30K feet and we might finally understand the answer to the Fermi paradox. So, I hope those procedural mitigations are in place ... After all, it's not what Putin necessarily wants that happens in the fog of war.