[robroys woman]

In the case where the risk is nuclear holocaust, our own existence would have to be on the line for it to be any less than insane to consider running that risk.

---

I certainly can’t argue with that. I’m just addressing the concept of the effectiveness of MAD. The real question is this: Is a particular action REALLY risking nuclear holocaust, or is someone just saber rattling.

If we threaten to nuke Moscow, we’re risking Nuclear holocaust. If we threaten to fight against Assad, we are not, unless the leaders of Russia are genuine mad men. In which case, every time they say BOO and we don’t jump, we’re “risking” nuclear holocaust.

But I’m speaking only academically, We should not be involved in a civil war.

[thoughtomator]

And here’s where the lack of wisdom involved in the Baltic war games and the overthrow of the Ukraine government are concerned.

Russia may very well rationally conclude that their defensive situation will not improve in the future and it must retaliate against an attack on its forces in Syria.

So the scenario is NATO attacks Syria and Russia responds by sinking one or more NATO ships that fired missiles.

How does this not then escalate to a nuclear exchange?