Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Another example of a misrepresentation of what I said. Deliberate I'm sure but perhaps to you a nuke is a nuke and the yield of a tactical nuclear weapon is lost on you. Not facetious at all. Do you really think the Russians would be invading eastern Ukraine if they were facing - albeit low yield - tactical nukes?
Possibly not, but if the US threw the NPT out the window I'm sure others would take the opportunity to do a bit of proliferating for themselves. If we can send a few low-yield tactical nukes to the Ukraine, the Russians can send a few to Iran... and why wouldn't they? Imagine the price of oil - and the Russian revenues - if one got used? They might very well do it, or something equally stupid, just to show that they aren't going to be bluffed and any move we make will be matched in kind. That kind of escalation doesn't go anywhere useful.

Handing over nuclear weapons wouldn't stop the proxy war in any event... that's why the cold war was fought by proxies. A nuke of any size is a last resort weapon, as long as you keep even the slightest shred of implausible deniability it won't be used. I'd guess that if the Ukraine had a tactical nuke the Russians would be doing exactly what they are doing now, secure in the knowledge that the Ukrainians wouldn't use it unless their very existence was threatened.

Since we all know it won't happen it's a fairly pointless suggestion anyway.