"We should imagine the unimaginable."
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the unthinkable became thinkable — an unprovoked land war in Europe causing tragic suffering inside hospitals, churches and elsewhere. President Vladimir Putin of Russia, as an agent of cruelty and architect of destruction, seems bent on continuing to make the unthinkable thinkable, with his remarks about the potential use of nuclear weapons. He appears to want to keep Ukrainians and the West off kilter and worried about what he might do with his arsenal. William Burns, the director of the C.I.A., has warned that Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon but has also emphasized that there is no "practical evidence" that such a strike is imminent. |
Should talk of nuclear weapons be regarded chiefly as saber-rattling, or is it smarter to think of it as a warning made in plain sight? When it comes to assessing possible Opinion pieces about this nuclear threat, we approach each one judiciously, seeking to share perspectives that will be useful to readers rather than ones that are speculative or would flood them with fear. |
When Senator Mitt Romney proposed writing a guest essay about the potential nuclear threat from Russia, several Opinion editors and I discussed whether the piece was alarmist or whether the evidence in public view warranted his deep concern about a possible nuclear strike and the need for the United States and allies to develop options now. We concluded that his argument was well reasoned, sober and fact-driven and that Romney — a Republican leader and a former presidential nominee whose foresight on Russia is well known — was a compelling voice to hear from. His intent was not to terrify readers but to raise public awareness about the potential threat. He identified points of agreement between himself and the Biden administration, despite their political differences, and made the case for the need for an array of options in response to a nuclear strike. |
"There are some who would argue for a nuclear response. But there is a wide range of options, and they need not be mutually exclusive," he wrote in his guest essay this week. "For example, NATO could engage in Ukraine, potentially obliterating Russia's struggling military. Further, we could confront China and every other nation with a choice much like that George W. Bush gave the world after Sept. 11: You are either with us, or you are with Russia — you cannot be with both." |
We have commissioned dozens of guest essays from experts, journalists, Ukrainians, Russians and others about the war from different angles, and we regularly publish pieces by columnists and editorial board writers that explore ideas and arguments related to the invasion. Romney zeroed in on a critical angle and did so without overreaching into hyperbole or a partisan harangue. |
Neither Romney nor any of us know what Putin is going to do in Ukraine, or what he will do with his nuclear stockpile. I pray he does nothing with it. But it's clear now that being prepared for the unimaginable is vital. |
Here's what we're focusing on today: |
Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. |
Contact us if you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment