EPTOnce they have them, they get to think at what point the pain of war is too much and average citizen can also start thinking if it is worth being a bit too much of an asshole.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 670
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4659 Posts
Once they have them, they get to think at what point the pain of war is too much and average citizen can also start thinking if it is worth being a bit too much of an asshole. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44449 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On March 28 2024 05:42 0x64 wrote: How would the scenario of transferring secretly nuclear warheads to Ukraine play out hypothetically? Once they have them, they get to think at what point the pain of war is too much and average citizen can also start thinking if it is worth being a bit too much of an asshole. As much as I would like Ukraine to win, even if they secretly received and then used a nuke(let's say they got 10, and used 1 for whatever reason), Russia could retaliate and wipe every Ukrainian city with more than 100k inhabitants off the face of the earth, and still have hundreds of warheads left over for whoever supplied them. It's not a deterrent if it isn't transferred to them and then revealed, and once they have it, none of the math changes aside from potentially antagonizing Putin unless they use it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12086 Posts
On March 28 2024 18:03 Amui wrote: As much as I would like Ukraine to win, even if they secretly received and then used a nuke(let's say they got 10, and used 1 for whatever reason), Russia could retaliate and wipe every Ukrainian city with more than 100k inhabitants off the face of the earth, and still have hundreds of warheads left over for whoever supplied them. It's not a deterrent if it isn't transferred to them and then revealed, and once they have it, none of the math changes aside from potentially antagonizing Putin unless they use it. Agreed. Nuclear weapons don't help in this situation, because their job is to prevent a conflict by being too scary. The conflict has already started, Ukraine suddenly having nuclear weapons doesn't do anything unless they use them, which would be monumentarily stupid because Russia has a lot more nuclear weapons. Lots of conventional weapons, though. Those help, because they are weapons Ukraine can just use to fight back. We should give them all we can even vaguely spare. | ||
|
socialpanel56
2 Posts
| ||
|
socialpanel56
2 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17872 Posts
On March 28 2024 18:03 Amui wrote: As much as I would like Ukraine to win, even if they secretly received and then used a nuke(let's say they got 10, and used 1 for whatever reason), Russia could retaliate and wipe every Ukrainian city with more than 100k inhabitants off the face of the earth, and still have hundreds of warheads left over for whoever supplied them. Don't forget radioactive clouds blowing all over Europe if conditions are right. Nukes are definitely out of the question. Can wait a few more years before we end the world. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5913 Posts
Russian propaganda continuing with its genocidal rhetoric. At this point, it's pretty much a daily occurrence. Wonder what zeo has to say about it. Probably something about Azov being neo-Nazis. ;-) | ||
|
Branch.AUT
Austria853 Posts
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way). The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly. Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate. Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman. | ||
|
Branch.AUT
Austria853 Posts
On March 28 2024 21:42 Manit0u wrote: Don't forget radioactive clouds blowing all over Europe if conditions are right. Nukes are definitely out of the question. Can wait a few more years before we end the world. Nuclear explosions from fission boms are really very short. The chain reaction is not sustained long enough for the creation of long lived radio isotopes. While the immediate vicinity to the blast will be affected by high doses of radiation, there is really no larger fallout, like a reactor meltdown could cause. So nuclear explosions suck. Because of the shockwave and heat effects mostly. There is very little radioactive fallout, and none of it travels far. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5913 Posts
On March 29 2024 06:39 Branch.AUT wrote: The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly. Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate. Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman. What is the point you're trying to make? Ukraine losing would be disastrous not only for the Ukrainians but the whole world. It would embolden imperialist dictators like Putin and Xi, pushing us closer to WW3. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44449 Posts
On March 29 2024 06:39 Branch.AUT wrote: The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly. Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate. Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman. The conflict ends when Putin recognizes that doubling down on aggression cannot lead to victory. If we send 100 anti tank missiles then he escalates by sending another 200 tanks. If we send 100,000 anti tank missiles then he deescalates. The only path to deescalation is making Russian escalation so obviously futile that they choose to deescalate. Anything short of overwhelming force just feeds Putin’s sunk cost fallacy, if he just fires a few more missiles at hospitals maybe this time he’ll win. The US should donate the Abrams parking lot (4,000 mothballed tanks) in full. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
Shoving Russians into the slaughter until the West is sick of it has been Putin's out for 18 months now and I hate to say it's more likely then ever before that it will work. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
On March 29 2024 06:39 Branch.AUT wrote: The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly. Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate. Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman. I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal. I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12086 Posts
On March 29 2024 07:14 Sent. wrote: I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal. I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat. Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now. This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster. The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while. The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4659 Posts
On March 29 2024 07:36 Simberto wrote: Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now. This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster. The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while. The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose. He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do. | ||
| ||
