Originally Posted by
Spunky Monkey
I would have thought that a US preemptive strike was already factored in.
There is no way the US is going to sit and wait for Rusk strikes before saying OK now we end this.
As soon as the US feels threatened, (or the UK for that matter) they are going to strike hard and fast in multiple locations to show that they are not pxssing about and that this stupid adventure has now come to an end.
The US could probably send a catastrophic message to Rusk sailors while still having culpable deniability...the message would still get through loud and clear.
And there was me thinking that NATO and its members were defensive: pre-emptive strikes are neither logical nor deniable. Besides that, which 3rd party would be pondering culpability after such stupidity? If push comes to shove, the West's own vision of its worth is to occupy the moral high ground.
By all means retaliate rapidly and hard, but I cannot agree with pre-emptive action. If anybody triggers Armageddon, I want to be one of the good dead folk, not the scum.