Should we provide nuclear weapons to Ukraine?

Yes, under one condition...

What do we fear most with regard to the war in Ukraine? That Putin will start throwing nukes on Ukraine. But when, exactly, is the risk greatest that he'll do that?

Not as long as Putin thinks he can win this war. It simply doesn’t make sense to throw nukes on territory one is about to occupy. Putin will only start throwing nukes on Ukraine when he is losing the war in Ukraine itself, if only to punish the Ukrainians for their resistance.

This also answers the question why we're neither supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win this war, nor allowing Ukraine to use our weaponry to hit targets deep inside Russia. This is why we're actively maintaining a stalemate.

And so the name of the game is - taking the nuclear threat off the table. But how can we do that? Let me posit a few statements, and I invite anyone to find fault in my thinking:

1. The risk of nuclear warfare is greatest if one party has nukes while the other has none.

2. The only way known to mankind to prevent a party from using nukes is by countering a nuclear threat with a nuclear threat - the so called doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.

3. In order to stop Putin from throwing nukes under any circumstance, Ukraine must, therefore, acquire a nuclear counter threat.

Logic decrees that we must enable Ukraine to hit back with nukes after it has been hit with nukes. We must therefore instill on Putin that if and after he throws nukes on Ukraine, we'll supply nukes to Ukraine to hit back.

Putin knows we won't start throwing nukes after he uses them on Ukraine. He also knows the Ukrainians will hit back with nukes. We'd basically be saying to Putin: if you throw nukes on Ukraine, you can say bye bye to Moscow too.

Just to be sure, I'm not saying we should supply nuclear weapons now. I'm saying we should supply them after Putin uses them.

Now, some of you might say: “Are you crazy? Supplying Ukraine with nukes, are you crazy? That’ll surely lead to WW3!”

To those people I say: why? Do you think Putin will say: "Hey, I wasn't planning on using nukes on Ukraine, but now that there will be a counter threat after I use them, I'll surely start dropping them."

To those people I say: do you think it is more likely Putin will throw nukes on Ukraine with or without a Ukrainian counter threat? Do you think Putin would even have dared invade if Ukraine hadn’t parted with its nukes after the 1992 independence agreement? Do you think we live in a more dangerous world when there is or isn’t a Ukrainian nuclear counter threat?

Nobody in their right mind likes the logic of MAD, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that it doesn't work. There's a reason why the nuclear powers of this world haven't directly gone to war with each other for over 70 years.

Putin will suspect we’re bluffing (let Putin guess if we are bluffing for a change), but he can’t be sure, just as we think he’s bluffing but can’t be sure.

I truly can’t see a downside to this threat. At worst it doesn’t have an impact. At best Putin will think twice about throwing nukes on Ukraine, even if he’s convinced the chance we’ll deliver on our threat is only 1%.

This threat will take Putin's nuclear threat off the table once and for all, even if he is losing the war. This threat wil prevent Putin from throwing a nuke first, better still, from throwing a nuke under any circumstance.

This threat will also, finally, allow us to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win this war, as well as free Ukraine to use our weapons however they see fit…