Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Is a risk free no-fly zone over Ukraine possible?" video.

@dannychen1281 Any resolution authorising the use of force would have to go through the full council procedures, where Russia would veto it.
1
@Drew Peacock And when he does attack NATO airfields? War between two nuclear powers, good idea!
1
@Drew Peacock The difference is that if he attacks a NATO country then we have no alternative but to fight. He would have made the initial move and would face the judgement of whatever history the human race may have. It IS the concept of MAD (or rather the knowledge of what a nuclear war means) that prevents us from initiating that conflict.
1
@Drew Peacock Yes, there is a guarantee. If Russia attacks a NATO member then it is war, end of. The potential outcome of such a war is terrifying, which is why NATO will not be the one to start it. British and French nukes are irrelevant; they would only ever be used independently if the home nations themselves were attacked independently.
1
@Drew Peacock "That's the theory, an attack on one NATO member is supposed to be treated as attack on all NATO members. But will Article 5 actually be triggered?" That is the fact. NATO will go out of its way to avoid starting a war, but it will fight if attacked. There is a good argument that NATO should not have expanded, but that is now history. As for the British and French nukes, they are independent nuclear deterrents and not committed to NATO. They are the last ditch defence/reprisal for a nuclear attack upon their respective countries. They would be used if an all out exchange occurred (because in such a situation the UK and France would be targeted), but they would not be used independently unless a specific attack upon that nations homeland occurred.
1