Should NATO enforce a no fly zone over Kyiv?

[ColinC]

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	3 (38%)
	No
	5 (63%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Hoyt]

1. Gonna trust Biden's Admin who sees the big picture better than me.

[msongs]

2. so u want US jets to shoot down Russian jets. really? nt

[ColinC]

4. Wouldn't be even close to the first time NATO has shot down Russian jets

And waiting around for bullies with an inferiority complex to decide to stop invading sovereign countries has had a really bad track record as far as history is concerned.

[Celerity]

17. unbelievable some of the 'armchair general' cray cray coming out of the woodwork for days

'cruise missile' Moscow and/or every Putin 'home' (or 'palace')

send in teams of assassins to kill Putin

limited (lol) nuclear strikes

send in NATO ground, air, sea troops to directly fight the Russians

seize all Russian property (not just oligarch owned, literally ALL) worldwide (or in the US, have seen both proposed)

round up and deport (back to Russia) all pregnant Russian women (wtf), regardless of dual citizen status or who is the father

use drones to attack the Russians because then we (NATO, US?) are not technically using soldiers (they forgot the operators I guess), so not actually 'fighting'

block ALL (including commercial) flights to AND from Russia, from and to ALL global countries (which would, of course, entail passenger jets being shot down, now THERE'S a winner!, smdh)

other assorted illegal and/or act of war claptrap, much of it sounding like a bad Tom Clancy novel

[BootinUp]

3. It would be considered an act of war, so no.

[Wingus Dingus]

5. Good lord, no. No direct confrontation.

Unless you want disaster.

[ColinC]

6. Disaster is unavoidable at this point.

Largest land invasion in Europe since world war two by a bully with an inferiority complex has a pretty clear lesson as far as history is concerned.

[Wingus Dingus]

8. It's a limited war, confined to one country.

It's a disaster for Ukraine. Disaster on a much larger scale would be the US plus other NATO countries vs. Russia plus China jumping in to help. Why would we bring that about voluntarily?

[ColinC]

11. It isn't though.

This is the second country Russia has invaded in the last decade. They have made clear they want to go further and re establish the USSR territories. The only thing that will happen if Russia takes Ukraine is put them in a more strategic and favorable position to attack NATO. Ignoring Russia in Ukraine is like ignoring Hitler in Poland. We really do have a good idea from history what ignoring an insane bully with an inferiority complex, will do.

[Wingus Dingus]

14. There is a bright line, and that's an attack on a NATO country.

That's world war three. All parties know this. That's why NATO membership is carefully considered.

[ColinC]

16. That's a dangerous line to wait for imho

Finland and Sweden could be next. They -and many other countries nearby are not in NATO. If they are attacked, do we still wait out of fear of nuclear war?

[Justice matters.]

18. We have troops in NATO countries right now just in case the madman attacks one

or more.

ARTICLE 5 is a commitment.

P.S.: Nuclear subs not far from the beaches too...

[ColinC]

19. At this rate I'm open to "attack" being very loosely defined.

A stray bullet or a piece of mortar shell landing over the border is good enough for a response in my opinion.

[Justice matters.]

21. The madman will not do that.

They know it could be nuclear winter season for them too.

[ColinC]

23. Unfortunately I don't think the madman has anything to lose anymore

I very strongly believe he is sick, with perhaps years if not months or days left on his life. He wants to re establish the USSR and all of the Russian Empire colonies before he passes. He will start with all non NATO countries -invading as many as possible, and establish his footing in a strategic position before going all out against NATO.

Hopefully he just dies tomorrow.

[Justice matters.]

24. Let's doubt it. He's not winning in Ukraine.

Street guerrilla for years until he quits or gets ousted internally.

[RockRaven]

7. "No fly zones" are more or less acts of war. So, no.

Forget any "police action" or "security" bullshit Americans got used to in the 90s Iraq or more recently the British/French thing in Lybia. That was a euphemism. Always was. Always will be.

Enforcing a "no fly zone" means shooting down planes. Because they won't stop coming into the air space unless you do. You're asking whether the US Air Force should start shooting down Russian planes over Ukraine. That is, and will be reacted to, as an act of war. So you are asking should the US and Russia should engage in war. No. They should not.

That way lies nuclear winter, famine, billions of deaths, and even human extinction.

[ColinC]

9. I sure hope I'm wrong, but I don't think your last sentence is avoidable

...at this point.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

10. No, we should use a small yield tactical nuke or two to target Putin, his family and end this

Cut off the head of the snake, as they would say

[ColinC]

12. Kinda agree

But a no fly zone is actually far more prudent.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

13. We may as well launch a full first strike against them

Because the end results will be the same. Full nuclear exchange.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

15. I could go for conventional cruise missiles if we get him out in the open

I don't want to hurt Russian citizens, just take him out, they and the world would thank us

[Justice matters.]

20. Russian "silent" nuclear subs not far from our beaches too...

Forget ANY "Fisrt Strike" because that's the last one on ALL sides: Think MAD for real instead.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

22. That would still result in war

You don't get to assassinate the leader of a nuclear power and just get away with it. It doesn't matter how much of dick he is, the Russian military and Russian government is not just going to let that happen. There is no way they will let the precedent stand that the West can kill Russian leadership with no consequence whenever it feels like it. If Putin get taken out it needs to be from within, not from the outside. Also, how are the Russians going to know its a conventional warhead? Nuclear tipped cruise missiles have been in existence since the 1960's. I'm definitely not a radar expert, but I can't see a way that radar could determine what type of warhead the missile carried considering the missile itself looks exactly the same regardless of its payload. And I wouldn't expect the Russians to just wait and see, particularly if it were heading towards Putin and other Russian leadership. Decapitation strikes can be seen as immediately preceding a first strike.