Missing The Issue: President Biden’s Use Of The Word “Armageddon” Was Wrong. Worse Was Where He Said It- That’s The Story. Also Important To Know Everything He Said Rather Than Only Reported Headlines

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “Definition of Armageddon 1a: the site or time of a final and conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil b: the battle taking place at Armageddon 2: a usually vast decisive conflict or confrontation”  Also, the title of a 1998 motion picture.  

Absent political and self-serving hyperbole, the decision by the government of the Russian Federation for the armed forces of the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022 to invade and to invade further into the internationally-recognized boundaries of Ukraine has not metastasized eight months later to or near a landscape where use of nuclear weapons is imminent, or likely. 

Overreaching and extravagant commentary accompanied by graphics serves as fuel for those opposing decisions by the government of the Russian Federation- additional, and immediately deliverable support for Ukraine is essential.  However, successes by the armed forces of Ukraine, the continuing delivery of weapons to Ukraine, the expanding of sanctions upon the Russian Federation public sector and private sector, and now discussion about additional, and immediately deliverable support for Ukraine are precisely what is bandied about by government officials and commentators as a reason the government of the Russian Federation may consider use of nuclear weapons within the territory of Ukraine.  A conundrum- “a confusing and difficult problem or question.”    

Perhaps, President Biden is viewing too much television while relaxing at his homes in Delaware- thus far for nearing one third of the days since his inauguration…  Too much attention determining whether he is the character Harry S. Stamper or A.J. Frost. 

At a townhouse owned by Mr. and Mrs. James Murdoch, son of publisher Rupert Murdoch, for a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fundraising gathering, Joseph Biden, President of the United States, shared to a small audience who were sipping beverages and sampling canapes comments that he should have not delivered or if delivered should have been shared during remarks to the nation, during a press conference, or issued in a statement from The White House.   

With the statements, there exposed meaningful distance between the message of the President and messaging from officials at The White House, United States Department of State, and United States Department of Defense.  Additionally, the message was neither coordinated in advance with the thirty members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nor with leadership of the twenty-seven members of the European Union (EU), some of whom subsequently expressed concern as a multi-lateral goal had been to lessen discussion of the use of nuclear weapons. 

The word that President Biden said is important.  However, more important is to grasp fully the complete context of what the President said and then craft an opinion about what was said by the President of the United States.  Here is a transcript:  

“And we have some real difficult decisions to make, relative to what's going on in Ukraine, and we're going to continue to support them.  But first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of the nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they've been going.  That's -- that’s a different deal.  That’s a different deal.  And, you know, we're trying to figure out: What -- what is Putin’s off-ramp?  Where -- where does he get off?  Where does he find a way out?  Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?” 

“So I guess what I'm saying is that we have to keep the Senate because two years of -- of chaos is going to create a lot of changes around the world as well.  I've spent the bulk of my time -- not a joke; and I don't think any of you would think it's an exaggeration -- I've spent a couple hundred hours so far just trying to hold NATO together so we're all in the same spot.  Everybody is united in Europe, relative to what we do in Ukraine and relative to Russia.  We find ourselves in positions that we've been able to get significant support from the Quad -- from Australia, India, and Japan -- relative to China and the South China Sea….” 

“Let me put it this way.  Think about it: We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We've got a guy I know fairly well; his name is Vladimir Putin.  I spent a fair amount of time with him.  He is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical and nuclear weapons, or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.  It’s part of Russian doctrine that they will not -- they will not -- if the motherland is threatened, they'll use whatever force they need, including nuclear weapons.  I don't think there's any such thing as an ability to easily lose a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.  So there's a lot at stake -- a lot at stake.  And we -- I guess I'll conclude by saying this.  I knew -- I spent most of my career dealing with criminal justice issues in the Supreme Court and foreign policy.  I was chairman of those committees as a senator for 360 years.  (Laughter.)  36 years.  I was Vice President for eight years, where the President asked me to be Vice President because he wanted me to deal with a lot of foreign policy pieces.” 

An important note…. Neither the United States nor its fellow twenty-nine members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will respond to use of a nuclear weapon by the armed forces of the Russian Federation with a similar grade tactical, low-yield, nuclear device or a nuclear device similar in destructive force or above that used by the United States in 1945 upon the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.   

The goal of the United States and NATO will be to de-escalate rather than match kiloton-for-kiloton whatever is deposited by the armed forces of the Russian Federation upon the territory of Ukraine.   

The response would be using conventional weapons, substantial in power to inflict damage, but not nuclear.   

The unknown, but able to be modeled based upon historical patterns, when considering the use of a nuclear weapon is what direction(s) the wind blow.  The wind determines the level of concentration and area of impact.  The nuclear power accident in 1986 at the Chernobyl Power Plant in Ukraine was impactful in Ukraine, but also throughout agricultural lands in neighboring Byelorussia (now Belarus) and into counties located in Western Europe and in Northern Europe.  An unanticipated change in wind direction subsequent to the use of a nuclear device in Ukraine could deliver radiation to areas of the Russian Federation- an unpreferred consequence for the government of the Russian Federation.