Originally Posted by
BANANASBANANAS
Not quite.
We do anything to avoid/deter use of WMD. However, once we have proof positive (intelligence based) of Russian intentions to use WMD and see physical activity to support that proof (spinning up silos etc) then I would far rather have any nuclear explosion (or at least most of them) on Russian territory rather than NATO territory.
I actually think a massive conventional strike on a Russian nuclear target might be enough to get the message across. But the message needs to be strong and early imho.
To quote Harold Ramis from Ghostbusters I.... "that would be incredibly dangerous..."
They can intercept in flight, so putting AAA, SAM, and any ABM capability into the region is defensive. Once the Russians have fired, then one way or other, a response is required.
Collectively, we cannot say that we are defensive if we commence an attack on legitimately Russian soil. Russians in Ukraine are invaders. Different beast.