People often use the
language of poker to describe life.
President George W. Bush used “You play the hand you’re dealt.” to describe
his feelings about the economic crash he inherited shortly after taking
office. Kenny Rogers recorded a hugely successful
song called, The Gambler, that popularized phrases like: “Know when to
hold ‘em, and know when to fold ‘em.” “Every hand’s a winner, and every hand’s
a loser.”
One of the most commonly used poker terms is
to “bluff.” A bluff is a deceptive
tactic used when a poker player acts and bets like they have a winning hand
when the cards they are holding cannot win.
The competing players try to guess whether one or more of the others in
the game are bluffing. They are in a bit
of a double bind, since they must decide whether to “fold” and forfeit the
money they have in the “pot,” or to risk more money to “call.”
I don’t play poker, for a lot of reasons. I am too much of a tightwad to throw away
money gambling. I can’t bluff
successfully, and I always reveal a “tell” when I try. When I win, other players tend to resent being
beaten by a novice. It’s a good way to lose
friends. There are too many ways to
cheat at cards, and I despise cheating.
Finally, Mama hated gambling, and she never passed up an opportunity to
show me the folly of it.
Some people think Vladimir Putin is bluffing
when he threatens to use nuclear weapons in his war with Ukraine; or against countries
that are members of NATO. In an
interview with Alicia Acuna on Fox News, Former NATO Secretary General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen said he felt Russian President Putin’s bluff should be called. The same sentiments were expressed by Adam
Kinzinger in an interview on CNN with Christiane Amanpour. Mr. Kinzinger is a senior political correspondent
with CNN, a former Congressman, and a Lt. Col. In the Air National Guard.
Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Kinzinger have the
background and experience needed to warrant giving their opinions serious
consideration. We must ask, therefore,
with respect, what level of certainty they (and many others) give to their
opinion that Mr. Putin is bluffing. Is
it 70 percent, or 80 percent? Are we
able to say with 95 percent certainty that the Russian Federation will not use at
least tactical (low yield, battlefield level) nukes?
Remember, a lot of people thought Putin was
bluffing when he threatened to invade Ukraine.
When he amassed an army along the Ukrainian border, they still said he
was bluffing, and that he wouldn’t dare do it.
Well, he did it.
Do you know if Putin is bluffing? I don’t?
The question is, how much are we willing to risk to find out. Throughout Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden has been
hypercautious and fearful of antagonizing Russia. He is not willing to risk war with Russia,
and Vladimir Putin knows it. It has
encouraged Mr. Putin to continue the conflict, even in the face of terrible
losses of men and material. The shot
callers in Russia know that they can win a war of attrition with Ukraine, and
they think that NATO and the United States will not have the character to
continue their support.
Well, what if Ukraine invades Crimea? The Russians annexed Crimea following a plebiscite
(legitimate or not), and they regard Crimea as part of Russia. Or, what if Ukraine slips a hundred drones
under Russian radar and bombs Moscow?
Vladimir Putin has vowed to use nuclear weapons if the existence of the Russian
state is jeopardized. What will it take
to make him believe that the Russian homeland must be defended with nuclear
weapons?
If Russia uses nuclear weapons against
Ukraine, and possibly other countries, this thing could get out of hand. A nuclear exchange between NATO countries,
including the United States, and Russia would be a disaster for all concerned,
and it could easily escalate into WWIII.
Nuclear war involving most of the world’s nuclear powers could result in what
would be, for all intents and purposes, an extinction level event.
Nuclear explosions have results. There is a fireball of intense heat, a
powerful concussion, and there is radiation.
Given the power of today’s nuclear devices, these effects destroy
everything for miles.
The heat and updraft from a large nuclear
device carry dirt, ash, and debris high into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds blow it away from ground
zero, resulting in radioactive fallout for hundreds of miles. Radiation levels around the world may be increased by a nuclear explosion. Some of the debris
contaminates upper levels of the atmosphere, which are relatively stable. Therefore, it tends to dissipate slowly. Debris from multiple explosions would block
the rays from the sun, creating a “nuclear winter.”
A full-scale nuclear holocaust could kill much
of the life on Earth: plant, animal, aquatic, and human. That is what we risk, potentially, if we decide
to call Putin’s bluff.
Bullies bluff. Vladimir Putin is a bully. Our parents taught us, “If you stand up to a bully, he or she will
leave you alone.” What most of us know,
but didn’t say to our parents, is that a bully is often the toughest kid in
school. If you stand up to him, you are
liable to get your butt kicked.
So, should we stand up to Putin’s bluff? Of course, but let’s do it with a clear
understanding of the risks. We shouldn’t
do it out of some hairy-chested, macho bravado.
We should do it because – if we don’t Putin’s appetite for conquest will
only get worse. With a clear
understanding of the risks, we should call Putin’s bluff because we must.
