NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 04 2022 17:31 Dav1oN wrote: Don't fall into that bluff, using nukes in Ukraine when your official line is "liberating people of Ukraine" is a madness, there will be consequences. Nuking US or EU also is out of the table, kids of the rich people in power from Russia are living there permanently with their US/EU passports, killing own kids for the sake of the mad kings wet dream is very unlikely.
But even IF that happens and Ukraine gets nuked - it means no more red lines for our governent/military. As far as I see 4 nuclear plants in Russia can be targeted by UA army with current capabilities and w/o west involvement.
Nuclear bluff is the only strategy left for kremlin as they already tried everytilhing and it won't work. Trying to target civilian critical infrastructure with ballistic missiles to inflict as much damage to the cities population while losing in the battlefield and conscripting more peasants is a sign of weakness
The nuke being proposed is a small tactical nuke that will be dropped on a nucleus of UA forces. The point I was trying to make is that if Russian forces get routed, that might be Putin's next move: he cannot lose the war, as it will end him. Using a nuke might also end him, but losing the war will definitely end him. So UA making huge advances as the Russian army collapses is dangerous, because the speed of the advance is exactly what causes the Kremlin to hit the panic button.
However, the UA forces moving slowly forward is also awful as it means the war dragging out for a long time, with thousands of people stuck in a miserable trench war with both sides getting shelled by artillery.
So if we accept that Putin *might* hit the panic button and nuke the UA army, then UA has no decent options to bring this war to an end: they either push as hard as they can and run the risk of Putin's panic button dropping a tactical nuke on their forces. Or they advance slowly and the meatgrinder happens.
The diplomatic option seems to be the only way out, but Russia doesn't seem inclined to accept that either... leaving the UA army stuck between a rock and a hard place as they either go into the meat grinder or do well and get nuked.
And yes, I realize that a small tactical nuke will still require a response by NATO, and probably by China and India as well, that will further isolate Russia, destroy Russian infrastructure and who knows what else. But that doesn't really help the few tens of thousands Ukrainian troops that died when the nuke fell.
A nuke is not literally killing tens of thousands of troops. And dropping one will end the war sooner rather than later, I think, since it will not be unanswered. It cannot be unanswered. How that answer looks like is anyone's guess. That said, I honestly don't see it happening. This is neither the first nor the only war a nuclear power has lost, or is in the process of losing. It's a bluff, like all the other times. Losing your head over it is completely pointless and basing your entire strategy around nuclear blackmail is just as pointless. Nuclear blackmail simply doesn't work, nor has it ever worked. They will not use it to "defend" annexed territories, just as they have not used it when targets in Belgorod or Crimea were destroyed. They have not been used when Ukrainian troops took a stroll across the border either. Honestly this nuclear fearmongering is really distracting and it's been going on pretty much since the start of the invasion. Sowing confusion and fear, and disrupting the unity and will of the west to continue has been its entire purpose.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
They have them but they’ve wasted almost all their precision missiles on hospitals. If they use one of those with an unguided missile there’s always the risk that they hit a military target.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
Except US military and diplomatic circles has been hinting, since the beginning of this conflict, that the response to the tactical nuke will, most likely be, a massive conventional attack inflicting much more damage than said nuke. Like in this interview by Petraeus: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
On October 04 2022 22:53 Nezgar wrote: A nuke is not literally killing tens of thousands of troops. And dropping one will end the war sooner rather than later, I think, since it will not be unanswered. It cannot be unanswered. How that answer looks like is anyone's guess. That said, I honestly don't see it happening. This is neither the first nor the only war a nuclear power has lost, or is in the process of losing. It's a bluff, like all the other times. Losing your head over it is completely pointless and basing your entire strategy around nuclear blackmail is just as pointless. Nuclear blackmail simply doesn't work, nor has it ever worked. They will not use it to "defend" annexed territories, just as they have not used it when targets in Belgorod or Crimea were destroyed. They have not been used when Ukrainian troops took a stroll across the border either. Honestly this nuclear fearmongering is really distracting and it's been going on pretty much since the start of the invasion. Sowing confusion and fear, and disrupting the unity and will of the west to continue has been its entire purpose.
"Distracting" is an interesting choice of words. There are lots of things what people write about as if they are very important but, on the scale of human civilization, ultimately are distractions. Mass-shootings, mass-stabbings, terror attacks, ISIS, run-away AIs turning the world into paper clips, ... Large swaths of the population seem to believe that global warming, an eminently solvable societal and engineering problem, represents some kind of existential threat. Nuclear war is one of the few known ways human civilization actually (possibly) ends. It is not a distraction. 200 people dead on a beach in Nice is a distraction. 8000.000.000 dead people is not a distraction.
I am not trying to sow division - I am trying to point out that the stakes are really really high. Ideally US officials and politicians would make it clear to Russia (as they did in the beginnings of this conflict) that they are not starting a war over this, no matter what. If they can convince India, China, and most of Africa to agree to complete isolation of Russia if nukes are used against Ukraine that would be great. Spend capital there instead. But a kinetic 'response' would be madness.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
Closing it and praying seems way better than shooting your kids preemptively. It is estimated that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan (~100 nukes each) would lead to ~1 billion additional deaths from starvation worldwide due to global temperature drops. 6000 nukes on Russia would presumably be worse, even ignoring retaliation. Ukraine is worth recessions, 20% inflation, freezing ones butt of due to lack of heating. But not nuclear war.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
The problem with those is that you need a big ass bomber to fly in and currently they do not control the skies over Ukraine.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
Except US military and diplomatic circles has been hinting, since the beginning of this conflict, that the response to the tactical nuke will, most likely be, a massive conventional attack inflicting much more damage than said nuke. Like in this interview by Petraeus: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
Let’s say they do that and, as part of it, they start sinking Russian nuclear submarines. You’re Putin, you see your second strike capability being eroded, you see NATO forces routing your army, what is your only option?
On October 04 2022 22:53 Nezgar wrote: A nuke is not literally killing tens of thousands of troops. And dropping one will end the war sooner rather than later, I think, since it will not be unanswered. It cannot be unanswered. How that answer looks like is anyone's guess. That said, I honestly don't see it happening. This is neither the first nor the only war a nuclear power has lost, or is in the process of losing. It's a bluff, like all the other times. Losing your head over it is completely pointless and basing your entire strategy around nuclear blackmail is just as pointless. Nuclear blackmail simply doesn't work, nor has it ever worked. They will not use it to "defend" annexed territories, just as they have not used it when targets in Belgorod or Crimea were destroyed. They have not been used when Ukrainian troops took a stroll across the border either. Honestly this nuclear fearmongering is really distracting and it's been going on pretty much since the start of the invasion. Sowing confusion and fear, and disrupting the unity and will of the west to continue has been its entire purpose.
"Distracting" is an interesting choice of words. There are lots of things what people write about as if they are very important but, on the scale of human civilization, ultimately are distractions. Mass-shootings, mass-stabbings, terror attacks, ISIS, run-away AIs turning the world into paper clips, ... Large swaths of the population seem to believe that global warming, an eminently solvable societal and engineering problem, represents some kind of existential threat. Nuclear war is one of the few known ways human civilization actually (possibly) ends. It is not a distraction. 200 people dead on a beach in Nice is a distraction. 8000.000.000 dead people is not a distraction.
I am not trying to sow division - I am trying to point out that the stakes are really really high. Ideally US officials and politicians would make it clear to Russia (as they did in the beginnings of this conflict) that they are not starting a war over this, no matter what. If they can convince India, China, and most of Africa to agree to complete isolation of Russia if nukes are used against Ukraine that would be great. Spend capital there instead. But a kinetic 'response' would be madness.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
Closing it and praying seems way better than shooting your kids preemptively. It is estimated that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan (~100 nukes each) would lead to ~1 billion additional deaths from starvation worldwide due to global temperature drops. 6000 nukes on Russia would presumably be worse, even ignoring retaliation. Ukraine is worth recessions, 20% inflation, freezing ones butt of due to lack of heating. But not nuclear war.
Ukraine is not worth nuclear war which is why he won’t use a nuke. Because using nukes causes nuclear war.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
Russia has "conventional" bombs that are theoretically higher in yield than the smallest tactical nukes in their arsenal. Not a bunker buster, but this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs Footage of the test made international headlines and it was already used in Syria, according to the Russian armed forces.
Some people think it's a hoax and the device is not air droppable or only by cargo plane.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
Russia has "conventional" bombs that are theoretically higher in yield than the smallest tactical nukes in their arsenal. Not a bunker buster, but this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs Footage of the test made international headlines and it was already used in Syria, according to the Russian armed forces.
Unguided gravity bomb that needs to be dropped from a cargo plane, doesn't seem very useful in this war setting.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
Russia has "conventional" bombs that are theoretically higher in yield than the smallest tactical nukes in their arsenal. Not a bunker buster, but this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs Footage of the test made international headlines and it was already used in Syria, according to the Russian armed forces.
Unguided gravity bomb that needs to be dropped from a cargo plane, doesn't seem very useful in this war setting.
Just saying, there are conventinal weapons (aerosol/vacuum bombs) that are more destructive than the smallest tactical nukes. The propaganda bomb was a bad example. But i think there is an "inbetween". A one kiloton nuclear warhead, the smallest one, would have a fireball radius of about 50 metres, with severe damage to about 400 metres. There's a 1500kg thermobaric Russian bomb, with a 100m fireball, that kills everything in 500m. You can drop those from a jet and it doesn't have to be one.
Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.
In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.
It seems a lot like catch 22 situation. Either Ukraine starts getting significant gains and gets nuked. And whatever consequences happen then, even for a small tactical nuke. Or Ukraine stalls in their advances and god knows how many thousands of troops get sent into the meat grinder. The author and the interviewee seem confident Ukraine will eventually win, but if Putin is willing to throw nuclear weapons around, it all kinda goes to shit.
There is no high upside. There is no 'maybe the world will let me get away with nukes and I can still save this'. The first use of nuclear weapons of any kind since their only deployment WILL be answered heavily. Any nuclear deployment, no matter how small, is a bullet to your own head and the US has repeatedly and frequently assured Russia of exactly that fact.
That's insane. I refuse to believe that the US would go to full-scale war with Russia over Russia nuking a third party. In this case there is no 'Russia would get hurt more than the US'. Realistically both countries (and the rest of Europe) would just cease to exist. If US officials are telling the Russians that they are willing to end the world over Ukraine they have to be bluffing. Even IF Russians nuclear forces are in similar disarray to the rest of their army and only 1 in 10 warheads launch, and even IF American missile defenses are so good (laughable given their test record) that 1 in 10 hit their target - the largest surviving metropolis in the US would be ~Indianapolis. The US could successfully play that kind of brinkmanship with the Soviet Union, presumably because the Soviet leaders had personally seen their country absolutely devastated by Germans and they were terrified of war in a way that the Americans were not. That's not the case for Putin or any of the people in his circle.
Nobody said anything about full-scale war, and the hypothesis was that Russia would use tactical nukes in Ukraine, not level all of Europe.
There are still plenty of ways outside of a full invasion NATO can use to scare Russia from using Nuclear weapons, which I mentioned above.
I’m saying full scale war. If the premise is that Putin has used nukes to save himself from a conventional defeat then there is zero point in NATO inflicting conventional damage in response to a nuke. That’s just begging for a second nuke from the guy who launched a nuke last week. Once the nuclear Pandora’s box is open you have to act like escalation to nuclear exchange is possible and once it is possible you must attempt a first strike. If Putin launches a single nuke the only rational course of action for NATO is a full strategic launch of everything they have at every known Russian nuclear asset. It is no longer possible to avoid a nuclear exchange at that point, it is only possible to limit it through hitting first.
Putin knows this. You can’t open the nuclear Pandora’s box a little bit, sneak out a small nuke, then close it behind you.
Except US military and diplomatic circles has been hinting, since the beginning of this conflict, that the response to the tactical nuke will, most likely be, a massive conventional attack inflicting much more damage than said nuke. Like in this interview by Petraeus: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
Let’s say they do that and, as part of it, they start sinking Russian nuclear submarines. You’re Putin, you see your second strike capability being eroded, you see NATO forces routing your army, what is your only option?
They wouldn't attack nuclear capabilities, just targets in and around Ukraine. Making sure Russia didn't gain anything by using nuke in tactical sense while not limiting Russian strategic ability to first/second strike.
On October 04 2022 22:00 Acrofales wrote: The diplomatic option seems to be the only way out, but Russia doesn't seem inclined to accept that either... leaving the UA army stuck between a rock and a hard place as they either go into the meat grinder or do well and get nuked.
The massively more favourable option is to assume nuclear threat #547362 is the same as the previous 547361 bluffs and simply roll Russia as fast as they reliably can and let Putin worry about where the knife in his back will come from.
Definitely agree the right way to go is just mow down Russia. If nothing else, it would be inhumane to decide more Ukrainians should die for the sake of slowing down to go easy on Russia. Can't imagine Zelenskyy doing that.
A demonstration that useing nukes of even low yield for tactical reasons being, a bad idea, needs to be made if they're used. Losing their navy and the Kerch bridge.
You can't allow using nukes to become normalized. If Russia decides to escalate afterwords that is their decision, but a demonstration must me made.
On October 04 2022 23:00 Velr wrote: Does Russia actually not have the big ass conventional Bombs that Trump used to destroy a Mountain in Afghanistan?
I don't see that much of a diffrence to a "small" tactical nuke tbh but that would be an "inbetween"?
Russia has "conventional" bombs that are theoretically higher in yield than the smallest tactical nukes in their arsenal. Not a bunker buster, but this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs Footage of the test made international headlines and it was already used in Syria, according to the Russian armed forces.
Some people think it's a hoax and the device is not air droppable or only by cargo plane.
I have been wondering out this. I see on wiki it says 44 tons of TNT for the FOAB.
Hiroshima was 15kilotons of TNT. Ive heard that the tactical nukes are in the 1,3,5 etc kiloton range. That seems orders of magnitudes more powerful than FOAB. Am I misinterpretting the tons of TNT vs blast radius, effectivity, etc?
EPT
