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.
