I Wish Russia was Willing to Use Nuclear Weapons…

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
April 26, 2018

RT is printing this analysis like it is some trick, but I think it might actually be true.

At least I hope it’s true.

RT:

Russia is more willing to run the risk of nuclear war than the West and NATO must pour more money into developing new capabilities to deter Moscow’s nuclear aggression, according to Atlantic Council analysts.

In a lengthy discussion on preparing for nuclear war with Russia, analysts from the neocon think tank lobbied for the US and NATO to spend more money on low-yield nuclear weapons and other methods of deterrence in order to dissuade Russia from using a limited nuke strike in order to “de-escalate” a conflict using the scare factor.

The panel argued that Russia has adopted a policy of “escalate to de-escalate” which lowers the bar for nuclear weapons use. Under this policy, Russia would respond to a large-scale conventional military attack by employing a limited nuclear response in order to deter further aggression against itself.

Matthew Kroenig, the deputy director for strategy at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, went further by suggesting that Russia is simply “more comfortable using and threatening nuclear weapons” than the West.

Russia’s so-called “escalate to de-escalate” policy was even referred to in the latest Nuclear Posture Review from the Trump administration. But while the Atlantic Council and White House are seemingly adamant that Russia is almost looking for excuses to use nuclear weapons, others have argued that the West has actually misunderstood Russia’s policy on nuclear use.

“Escalate to de-escalate,” especially in the context of nuclear weapons, is a valid strategy.

And I am simply not capable of grasping how Russia dropping a nuke on someone could result in anything other than a positive outcome for everyone (excluding of course the ones who got bombed).

I have a hard time believing that the West has the nerve to use a nuclear weapon.

I mean I assume there are insane generals and Jews who do, but the West as a whole, the population, would lose their nerve if a major city was just wiped off the map in a matter of seconds.

I am much less than certain that I believe the “War Games” scenario of “if one city gets nuked, they all do” would actually happen if Russia just up and nuked say, Berlin.

Everyone thinks of that scene from that particular movie when they think of nuclear war, but if Putin did just push the button and nuke Berlin, it seems to me that there is a very good chance that the rest of Europe would throw their hands up in the air.

Would Trump nuke Moscow in response?

Does the US actually even have the capacity to nuke Moscow?

I have no idea.

What I do know is that it would be exciting if some stuff like that started happening, and I am at the point where I genuinely believe that this sort of catastrophe is the only possible way the world is going to be saved.

It is the only way to end consumerism.

And you know – this stuff with women and masculinity and so on – there is no clear path to solving those issues that doesn’t involve a global catastrophe.

No realistic path that isn’t some fantastical thing.

Like, if aliens landed, I guess.

Or the Hitler North Pole thing happened.

Or megafauna started emerging from the Hollow Earth.

Point being:

There is no potentially negative ultimate outcome of one or more major cities being nuked.

Prove me wrong.