I think you've done what I've done, understood what was being said to imply a nuclear response; hence why I repeatedly mentioned "NATO isn't going to start a nuclear war" and "Stoltenberg has no say in Nuke use" and had questioned whether it was the chemical weapons "trigger a equivalent response" (which seemed to imply chemical weapons use?!).
He actually meant conventional "ground forces". It only became apparent when reading the two links - I was sat going "yep, still nothing to do with nukes whatsoever". Then it dawned on me.
The two links also state some countries who happen to be NATO members may get involved not NATO as an entire entity itself; NATO is defence pact. Some or all of NATO may stick their oar in in the sense of protecting civilians if Nukes were used, but it's entirely possible Poland would go further in order to help. Whether *that* would result in all out war is anyones guess. No point even thinking about it.
But there's zero point talking about nuclear weapons; it leads threads entirely down the "and my thoughts are..." when thoughts are based on absolutely nothing but Joe Unknown on internet "thinking". There's no precedent to back up any ideas. There's no point in virtual guesswork of causalities. It's a dead end explorable only for war fantasists. Said several times the day-to-day "discussion" is just a means to throw uninformed opinions around. But isn't that the point of a forum discussion
) Seems like he isn't useful anymore ...
