In a fiat economy the government spends money into existence, and a taxes it out of existence. Every single $ the government spends, and does not tax back is a $ of wealth in the private sector- every single one
So to make the math easy
Gov gives factory A - $1000 to build something
Then the government taxes back $500
The government balance sheet is -1000 + 500 =-500 or a deficit
But the private balance sheet is + 1000 - 500= +500 or a surplus
Every $ of the deficit = a $ of private surplus every single one
Now as long as there are excess labor and materials in the market, and the government is not competing for those real factors of production with the private sector- driving up prices. It can spend indefinitely to that point
This spending stimulates economic growth and decreases unemployment.
The notion that ANY country is going to use a nuclear weapon small or otherwise on another country is preposterous and would absolutely be an act of desperation from a leader who knew they had no way out, were destined to fall, and were stabbing from the grave like Kahn in Star Trek. I would be willing to bet just about any wager of any amount of money that Putin will not use them. I can’t believe anyone would think he would actually use them unless he was about to lose all power and control and was destined to die anyway. Even then he would be just as likely to use it on his own people if they were the ones pushing him to that point.
It’s the kind of thing I would have thought Saddam might have done, though he never had such weapons to begin with, otherwise we never would have invaded, which is ironic given that was our rational for invading; or perhaps North Korea if it actually came to a shooting war but he knows better and enjoys too much being the supreme master of an entire country.
If Putin seriously used one nuclear weapon in any act of aggression the response would be swift and terrible from the Free World. Even if we stuck to conventional weapons NATO would level any and all installations having anything to do with Russian leadership, economy, or industry.
Nuclear weapons serve much better as a threat than an actual weapon. Once used there is no going back and once used it makes any and all actions of your adversaries justified on the global stage. It’s why India and Pakistan both have them but will never use them. Israel has them but won’t admit it and probably would only use them as a last ditch effort if they really were being driven to the sea.
If Putin used nuclear weapons he truly is a madman and his days remaining on this earth would be very short indeed.
I literally pray that you are correct on both points but these two arguments contradict each other. What use is a threat if the citizens of enemy countries are willing to bet their life savings, business & home that your threat is a bluff? Tragically, in every war some collateral damage is acceptable. It was true when we bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki. It was true when Sadam Hussain used chemical weapons on the Kurds & it was true when we helped kill 300k in the second Iraq War looking for WMD that never existed. The world hates collateral damage when it happens but gets over it pretty quickly. If Trump/Putin can’t wrap the war up before next summer I fear Putin will nuke a town near the Ukraine Russia boarder to put some teeth into the threat the world used to fear so much. Putin knows Stalin, Po Pot, Leoplold II, Pinochet etc all died of old age. If we see Russian troops unexpectedly withdrawing from a medium sized contested, populated area without cause expect a nuke imo.
If Putin uses a tactical nuke then NATO will respond in kind. It can’t not respond. The rule now is you don’t use nukes without Mutually Assured Destruction.
If Putin use a nuke and we don’t retaliate the rule then becomes Putin can use nukes, but no one else can. If the Russians can, they will. That makes Russia the world’s superpower overnight, and MAD loses credibility. Which guarantees all-out nuclear war down the line.
Moreover, if anyone can use tactical nukes then Israel can nuke Iran whenever it wants. Pakistan could nuke Kurdistan. China could nuke Taiwan. The precedent has been set. Let the tactical nukes fly.
So, if Russia uses a nuke then NATO must retaliate in kind. Simple power-politics. A equally-sized tactical nuke targeted at an equally sized concentration of Russian troops. If 10,000 Ukrainians were nuked then we must nuke 10,000 Russians soldiers. It would be a U.S. cruise missile sold to Ukraine, operated by Americans, launched from Ukrainian soil.
That then re-sets the precedent to MAD: whatever you do to us, we do to you. So, neither side gains an advantage by use of nukes. Which is the core of the MAD strategy that has protected us from nuclear war for 73 years.
“What use is a threat if the citizens of enemy countries are willing to bet their life savings, business & home that your threat is a bluff?”
This is the Cold War in a nutshell. The entire thing for close to 40 years was mostly just various degrees of saber rattling. Basically a bluff. If either side had flinched and pulled the trigger the other side would have unleashed hell, but neither side was going to be the one who crossed that line.
Due to the destructive nature and global stigma, nuclear weapons are of little more use than as a threat, as a deterrent. If anyone actually uses them they instantly will become a global pariah and have few if any allies. The use of these weapons in WWII was one thing only because they were brand new. At the time only one country had them and they were still in the development stage and still being understood by both scientists and the public. Notice here we are nearly 80 years later and they have never again been used as part of warfare. No sane nation would choose to cross that line. Only madmen or terrorists bent on mutual assured destruction would go down that road and even then their followers would probably think twice and put a stop to it.
Recall the old Sting song: “I hope the Russians love their children too”
that’s better than giving money to Ukraine. Spend the money here and give away the product.
a lot of what we’re giving Ukraine is old surplus that would otherwise be destroyed. The military is extremely wasteful, at least this stuff is going somewhere other than a demo pit.
First of all let me say I’m going to stop talking about this because it scares the bejezus out of me & I don’t want it to seem in any fashion or form that I support Russia or want Putin to use nuclear weapons. I think I might be more scared of nuclear war more than the older generation because I lived less in the Cold War era & didn’t grow calloused to it as a teenager. The wall came down before I was a teenager & an alternate ending of Spies Like Us hung heavy with me growing up.
If Putin uses a small nuke on a town in Ukraine I don’t think France’s Macron would advocate for giving nukes to Ukraine or esclating by nuking Russia directly. UK’s PM Keir Starmer will be harsh towards Russia but won’t nuke Russia or arm Ukraine with one either. I think Turkeys Erdogan seems very sympathetic to Putin IMO. Trump hates war & won’t nuke Russia or give one away to kill 10,000 Russian imo. I know this forum has Polish, Dutch, Finnish & Norwegians contributors & I won’t speak for their countries or presidents/PM’s. Hopefully they’ll chime in & give their opinions of what they think their leaders would do & populace would tolerate? Maybe they’d be in favor of dropping a second nuclear bomb <500 miles from their borders to retaliate on behalf of Ukraine but thats hard for me to imagine? If we keep bombing the interior of Russia they will respond & if it’s nuclear, all we can do is go to the negotiating table because no one will blow up the planet for a non-NATO member imo.
Once Russia use a nuke it becomes the world’s superpower. All other nations’ militaries instantly become inferior, because Russia would have set a precedent: Russia alone can use nukes.
In what world will Americans quietly acquiesce to having a completely impotent army? The only military that will count is the one unafraid to use nukes. And once Putin uses a nuke he will threaten to use it again and again. Europe will take orders from Putin, because only Putin can use nukes.
Once Russia has set the precedent for the battlefield use of tactical nukes China will declare an ultimatum to Taiwan: surrender or we will nuke your military bases. And then to the Philippines they will say, Give us those islands or we set off a tactical nuke.
America becomes a has-been power. No one will listen to us. We will be seen to be afraid, and weak.
As for North Korea: it will loudly proclaim its first successful war in Europe, having conquered a European country. If Ukraine loses the war then North Korea can rightly say it is a conqueror. And it too can use a tactical nuke , because it is an ally of the most powerful country in the world.
All that would be the result of not retaliating against Putin if he uses a nuke. Therefore we must retaliate. Which is why he hasn’t used one yet. But he may use one now because he knows the next administration will roll on its back for Putin and sell its allies down the river, and then blame the blame America’s loss of predominance on someone else.
It’s less accurate now. Most of what we’re sending now is newer surplus. We keep the stuff fresh off the production lines for ourselves (in most cases).
It was old surplus. The majority of what we have sent was old surplus that needed to be replaced anyway. What we’re sending now isn’t usually old anymore, but in most cases they aren’t getting new manufacture items.
