What would you give to Ukraine

[DirtyProp]

To repel Russia and terminate the conflict? And why?
No nukes allowed.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Ask the Ukrainians, they know what they need and should have had it when they had the initiative

[DirtyProp]

I fully agree, and I share your frustration.
My question was to start a discussion on what weapons and systems would be best for such conflict and why.

[Fitter2]

As much anti aircraft and missile systems as they need. As much artillery ammunition as they can use. Long range (500km +) missiles.

[Thrust Augmentation]

An assassin in the Kremlin.
or
Their Tu-22M's, Tu-160's & nukes back so that this didn't start in the 1st place.

[DogTailRed2]

Everything they need.

[BANANASBANANAS]

Whatever they ask for, immediately!

[NutLoose]

And more.allow them to use Western supplied weapons against Russia, long range missiles,

and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out.

.

[henra]

As much anti aircraft and missile systems as they need. As much artillery ammunition as they can use. Long range (500km +) missiles.
Begs the question: Down to which level are you ready to deplete your own stocks? How many days of remaining Ammo? 0? 1? 3? One week (If you currently have that much at all - most European Countries likely don't)? Air Defence: How many missiles do you want to remain able to intercept in your own Country? 1? 10? more? In how many of your cities?
It is easy to give away if you have. Looking at the state of affairs in basically all European Countries there is a serious balance to be taken. And yes I truly condemn those politicos who perpetrated that. And yes, I would love to give to Ukraine whatever it takes. I'm afraid we are simply not in a position to do so without critically sacrificing our own ability to defend ourselves afterwards should Ukraine still run out of soldiers (which still is a possibility -after all many, many fled the Country and they are now down to 1/4 of Russia's Population (from a little bit less than 1/3rd), in the relevant demography part potentially even worse).

[Jerry Atrick]

A-10s. Lots of them.

[BEagle]

Putin. In chains....

[Pali]

Time to turn the tide.

https://twitter.com/Jamie04381095/status/1758860805888446471

[Tartiflette Fan]

This makes no sense. How - after two years of war - when one asuumes close and real counts of munitions have been made,, can so much ammo have beemn " misplaced " ? It is also far too much ( I guess ) o hav been stored in one depot, so how can distributed stocks have been "forgotten " ?

[DogTailRed2]

If the West decides to supply Ukraine with everything it needs, taking one country as an example the UK, how would it do so?
I would imagine the UK doesn't have a vast munitions stockpile. Most likely it is geared up to a small, limited war of a few months, perhaps a year and then it's resupply capability is also very limited. Just enougth.
Ukraine requires millions of rounds, tens of thousands of shells. Tanks, aircraft, drones, radios, helmets you name it.
The only way I can see the UK supplying all that is to go on a war footing and turn industry over to war production.
As no country has done that exactly how will the West supply Ukraine with `every thing it needs`? Russia IS on a war footing and IS ramping up production.
Unless the West does something quickly Russia will win by sheer weight of numbers.

[ORAC]

This makes no sense. How - after two years of war - when one asuumes close and real counts of munitions have been made,, can so much ammo have beemn " misplaced " ? It is also far too much ( I guess ) o hav been stored in one depot, so how can distributed stocks have been "forgotten " ?


Previously discussed - they’ve located supplies outside Europe which can be purchased and, since the EU can’t the target of 1M rounds this year, for some of the funds to be released to buy them.

At the moment the French, amongst the other EU manufacturers, are saying no, they keep the funds and just deliver late.

​​​​​​​In the meantime the Ukrainians at the front are dying for lack of shells….

[Coochycool]

Shell stocks and production are one thing. But whatever happened to those darned F-16s? Or A-10s for that matter. Honestly, what are the Red forces going to do about it? Threaten nuking their own neighbourhood for the hundredth time? Just get on with it.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Perhaps a combined SAS/Seal Team 6 group at various locations in Russia briefed to elminate Putin, Lavrov, etc simultaneously ?

NEO

[DogTailRed2]

Perhaps a combined SAS/Seal Team 6 group at various locations in Russia briefed to elminate Putin, Lavrov, etc simultaneously ?

NEO
It's too high risk. You can't commit special forces when they have very little chance of success.

[NutLoose]

One of the problems is although the EU is struggling to supply artillery shells, they are also selling them to other countries that they have contracts and deadlines with, which they cannot renage on, so part of their output is unfortunately for other armies.

[NutLoose]

This makes no sense. How - after two years of war - when one asuumes close and real counts of munitions have been made,, can so much ammo have beemn " misplaced " ? It is also far too much ( I guess ) o hav been stored in one depot, so how can distributed stocks have been "forgotten " ?

I would imagine they are being sourced on the open market and can be delivered via the Czech’s

[NutLoose]

Perhaps a combined SAS/Seal Team 6 group at various locations in Russia briefed to elminate Putin, Lavrov, etc simultaneously ?

NEO

which ones? And then as shown with Putin talking with his AI figure, those in Russia can carry on using AI.

[albatross]

Perhaps they should start a “Go fund me” or “Adopt an Artillery Round” program. You could have an appropriate message stencilled on “your” round.

Time to turn the tide.

https://twitter.com/Jamie04381095/status/1758860805888446471

[Expatrick]

I think the problem here is defining what can realistically be achieved - as the ambition of expelling Russia forcibly from Ukraine (by action on the battlefield) simply isn't going to happen, unfortunately. Russia has too much resource and more importantly, too much support - from powers who will not allow Russia to suffer a complete defeat and who are quietly enjoying the West's discomfiture. Obviously the (Ukrainian's) battle must continue and be supported but how and to what (achievable) end?

[Sue Vêtements]

Begs the question: Down to which level are you ready to deplete your own stocks?

A vaild point - unless you consider that we (Western Europe) is already fighting Russia but Ukraine is doing all the heavy lifting for us



but to answer the original question; I'd consider delivering those politicians who stand in the way of supplying aid, not because they are against it, but because they consider it ok to hold it hostage for their own projects that their base will find favourable.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Sadly I think there is too much battlefield asymmetry for Ukraine to succeed in a traditional maneuver warfare. There was a brief window a year and a bit ago where a major influx of Western equipment "might" have tipped the balance while Russian forces were still disorganized and not dug in, but that ship has sailed. The only vulnerability is Putin's standing with the general public, particularly in Moscow. The war for all practical purposes does not exist for the average Russian, but that would quickly change if they like most Ukrainians, they are running to the bomb shelters every day. If Ukraine were supplied with a large array of long range precision weapons and told most of the don't fire on Russia restrictions were lifted I think Putin could be driven to the negotiating table pretty quickly due to popular unrest when the war becomes real to the average Russian. However to do that the West would have to call Putin's nuclear bluff, and I just don't see any Western leader willing to do that.

Sadly I think Ukraine has past the point of no return. They don't have the population to defend such a long front line and the massive troop size advantage of the Russians make a game changing break through increasingly less likely even if the Ukrainians were massively rearmed. Putin is right, time is on his side victory is what ever he decides it is. The bigger question is what is his end game ? Will control of existing territory in Ukraine satisfy him or just embolden him in pursuing other territorial conquests like the Baltic nations ?

[Geriaviator]

Of course he (or his successor) won't stop. They want to get back all the former occupied countries and their wealth eg Ukraine's gas and minerals. I still hark back to the downed MI-8 helo with NACH BERLIN painted in foot-high white letters along the boom.

[WB627]

Do what the Danes have just done, give them all out artillery. It wont be of much use to us if we don't stop Putin now.

[Less Hair]

Just a credit card and some topped off account?

[inbalance]

To repel Russia and terminate the conflict? And why?
No nukes allowed.
Why are there no nukes allowed?

Give them strategic and tactical nukes. About 30 should do it for a start.
Or as many as they voluntarily gave to Russia some years ago.
Russia broke their promise and we should help Ukraine to get back to the status quo.

[Donkey497]

A10's AH64's, Cobra's & derivatives.

I'd also give them free reign at AMARC

I kind of think we should all be very rapidly looking towards an A-10 "Mark 2" with improved survivability and much better self defence capabilities and a fleet order of several hundred units. The other lesson that is coming across clear and loud is that for all the technology that is available to the modern armed forces, you need to be able to replace kit quicker than it seems to be made. Fine in peacetime, but sod all use in a conflict. Also having enough usable reservists so that you can "rotate & replace" onto the battlefield should be ringing loud alarm bells for the MoD, given the historic numbers just for BAOR was 80,000 regulars, in comparison to today's entire army consisting of just under 76,000 plus just over 4,000 Gurkha full timers and around 25,000 reservists.

Should the UK need to pursue diplomacy by more muscular means, at present, I feel we may have an issue. I think we'd need much more units of much simpler & robust equipment [too much complex technology is all too easily jammed & disrupted.] and considerably increased numbers of non electronically jammable, non-internet enabled biological units [i.e. pairs of boots on the ground].

Without wishing to pander to the more rabid anti-immigration factions of the Brexit brigade, I feel that adopting some of the policies of the Roman Empire/Army might provide an instant solution. Serve in the infantry with good conduct for 25 years you get citizenship & full entitlement to social benefits on retirement. Food Board & clothing free while you serve, but I don't think the Roman views on decimation for cowardice would be entirely compatible with current human rights legislation..

[Tartiflette Fan]

One of the problems is although the EU is struggling to supply artillery shells, they are also selling them to other countries that they have contracts and deadlines with, which they cannot renage on, so part of their output is unfortunately for other armies.

Can you give back-up for that ? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the EU can sell such basic, cheap munitions outside the the EU when competing with countries like Pakistan.


and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out..

NOPE. Completekly mad to hsnd over our fate to another nation in such a desperate situation. Suggest you consult a professional.

[rattman]

A10's AH64's, Cobra's & derivatives.



Buy Apache / Cobra that japan is retiring
24 Kuwaiti F-18

everyones stockpile of 155mm artillery shells

[Davef68]

'Suicide' drones. Lots of them. Not the hi-tech, high price, low numbers Western approach to UAS (Reaper, Global hawK)

[rattman]

'Suicide' drones. Lots of them. Not the hi-tech, high price, low numbers Western approach to UAS (Reaper, Global hawK)


Russia found a crashed british Banshee target drone

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1759496190805025146

[Davef68]

Russia found a crashed british Banshee target drone

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1759496190805025146

Seems to be a few types that were in development

https://www.twz.com/clandestine-u-k-program-developed-3d-printed-suicide-drone-for-ukraine

[Sue Vêtements]

Russia found a crashed british Banshee target drone

What's the next step in this new style of warfare? A drone that looks like it's crashed, but is actually a booby trap?

[NutLoose]

Can you give back-up for that ? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the EU can sell such basic, cheap munitions outside the the EU when competing with countries like Pakistan.




NOPE. Completekly mad to hsnd over our fate to another nation in such a desperate situation. Suggest you consult a professional.

I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.

Re Artillery shells.

Borrell also said the bloc had provided more than 300,000 artillery shells and missiles under the first track of the scheme, which involved EU member states delivering from their own stockpiles.

Borrell suggested that an immediate issue was the export commitments of EU defence manufacturers outside the bloc. “About 40% of the production is being exported to third countries, so it is not a lack of production capacities,” he said.

“It is that they send their products to another market. So maybe what we have to do is to try to shift this production to the priority one, which is the Ukrainians,” he said.

Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry commissioner, said arms companies were making progress in increasing production and that the target of boosting European production of 155 millimetre shells to 1 million a year into the future was possible.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/14/ukraine-artillery-shells-eu-target-germany-boris-pistorius

[Expatrick]

I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.

I imagine the idea of dirty bomb(s) may have crossed a few minds.

[Tartiflette Fan]

I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.


They may have the know-how, but not the wherewithal. It is difficult to make weapons-grade uranium requiring very large numbers of expensive centrifuges produced by very few companies with export licensing restrictions.


As far as the protection promise went, I was surprised to read that that was only a memorandum and not a treaty and its value is actually limited. The only concrete and measurable terms are that Ukraine promises never to use or acquire nuclear weapons, and UK, US, Russia promise never to use force ( inc nuclear weapons ) on Ukraine. Those states also gave a commitment to support Ukraine if it was subject to aggresssion and you could certainly argue that the US and UK have done that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#:~:text=The%20Declar ation%20of%20State%20Sovereignty,non%2Dnuclear%2Dweapon%20st ate.

[Dan Gerous]

All our politicians sent to the front for a week, then see if the survivors get the "aid" to flow a bit quicker.

[SammySu]

Tomahawk and a means to launch them.

[Lonewolf_50]

Those of you advocating for tactical nukes, or nukes at all, need to have your heads examined.
Their utility as a deterrent became null and void in about 2014.

[B Fraser]

Not so, the platform has a conventional payload too (TASM or TLAM-C).

[Lonewolf_50]

BF, I didn't say Tomahawks, I said Nukes. Read back up the page a bit. I am very familiar with the Tomahawk, thank you very much.

I was referring in part to this exchange

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/657640-what-would-you-give-ukraine.html#post11600237

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/657640-what-would-you-give-ukraine.html#post11600195

And to this comment by NutLoose
Originally Posted by NutLoose
and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out..
Inappropriate adjectives removed.
Remember the first P in PPRuNe, please.
T28B

[B Fraser]

I presumed Nutty was talking about deterrence. Conventional Tomahawks would be a welcome game changer.

[NutLoose]

In one, I believe if Ukraine had never given up their massive nuclear capabilities, or indeed a reduced capability that Russia would never have even considered to come calling. The same might be said if they regained some of that capability.

[Lonewolf_50]

In one, I believe if Ukraine had never given up their massive nuclear capabilities
That milk was spilled 30 years ago. (The year is 2024. Do keep up).
It was seen at the time as a great success in supporting the NPT and in the whole world backing away from the nuclear precipice we'd been hanging on during the 45+ years of the Cold War. Parallel to that, both the US and Russia reduced their nuclear arms, and reduced their armaments in general.
A couple of my close colleagues served terms in the Pentagon in the 90's during the great disarmament. They traveled to Russia as a part of that cooperative effort in the observer / documenter role. (Trust but verify and all that).

Why you choose to fail to understand the context of that deal is beyond me. You were alive then, just as I was.

What should we have given Ukraine? More intel sharing, and sooner.
Just read a bit in FP about the "declassify and share" thing (https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/19/russia-ukraine-us-intelligence-diplomacy-invasion-anniversary/)which happened about .. two days before the Russians rolled their tanks.
The Russians started mobilizing in October (heck, a bit sooner than that).
From that article (likely beyond a paywall)
By Brett M. Holmgren (https://foreignpolicy.com/author/brett-m-holmgren/), the U.S. assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research

I will never forget Feb. 22, 2022. That evening, I joined U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a secure room in the State Department for a meeting of cabinet-level and other senior members of the National Security Council (NSC). The customary intelligence briefing at the top of the meeting contained a stark warning: Russia was poised to commence its anticipated full-scale invasion of Ukraine.In the preceding months, the United States had been strategically downgrading and declassifying intelligence to warn Ukraine—and the world—about Russia’s plans. That night at the State Department, NSC leadership concluded that we needed to share our new urgent threat information with Ukraine immediately.

It just so happened that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was in the building following earlier meetings with Blinken. Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines asked me and Haines’s deputy for analysis, Morgan Muir, to leave the NSC meeting and work with intelligence agencies to clear language that could be shared with Ukraine. After receiving clearances, we located Kuleba on the seventh floor of the State Department and relayed the news. With a look of despair on his face, Kuleba called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to prepare their nation for war.

In the end, exposing Russia’s plans in advance did not avert war. But U.S. intelligence disclosures enabled Ukraine to defend itself, mobilized allies and partners to support Kyiv, undermined Russian disinformation in the eyes of the public, and restored the credibility of U.S. intelligence—and of the United States—in the eyes of the world. If the Iraq War highlighted the risks of intelligence diplomacy, Russia’s war in Ukraine showcased its opportunities.
Why our leadership chose to hold back on intel sharing until that close to the operation starting boggles my mind.
A few weeks earlier would have allowed for better prep in Ukraine.

FWIW, one of the Baltic states (Estonia?) apparently shared some key intel around the start of the war that helped Ukraine foil the air assault into and around Kiev during the early days of the conflict. Can't find the article at the moment.

[Davef68]

Why our leadership chose to hold back on intel sharing until that close to the operation starting boggles my mind.
A few weeks earlier would have allowed for better prep in Ukraine.

I don't think they did - your quote says:

The customary intelligence briefing at the top of the meeting contained a stark warning: Russia was poised to commence its anticipated full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In the preceding months, the United States had been strategically downgrading and declassifying intelligence to warn Ukraine

It was just the latest intelligence about the imminent they needed to share that date (and the obvious sanitising of it to avoid revealing sources). The UK started piling NLAW missiles into Ukraine from the 17th January, and other Allies sent materiel over the next month before hostilities started

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks Dave, my first read through didn't quite register that. (Had not had my coffee yet).

[NutLoose]

Those of you advocating for tactical nukes, or nukes at all, need to have your heads examined.
Their utility as a deterrent became null and void in about 2014.

Not so, Ukraine not having a nuclear capability in effect brought it down to a ground based war, Russia never used the deterrent in Ukraine, possibly because of the chances of collateral damage and fallout outside the country, which could have triggered a response from the west.
Yes they have used it to bluster other countries thinking about arming Ukraine, but that was just so much hot air.
However going to war against a fellow nuclear armed country may well trigger the threat of retaliation if the war is going badly. Hence they are still a viable deterrent.

No one I have seen on here has advocated their use.
Do you seriously think if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons that Russia would have dared set foot over the borders into the Crimea and the Donbass?

[Lonewolf_50]

Do you seriously think if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons that Russia would have dared set foot over the borders into the Crimea and the Donbass? Thanks for agreeing with me.
Your proposal to give them nukes after the fact is what I took issue with.
These are your words, Nutty.
and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out. Since you can't time travel, you have proposed giving them nukes now, which I (and others) called you out for with good reason: it's nonsense.
The deterrent effect was not there, and had not been for 20 years, when Vlad made his move into Crimea.
For the sake of posterity, your entire post:
hAnd more.allow them to use Western supplied weapons against Russia, long range missiles,

and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out. . Right. you claim not to advocate for their use. By your own words betrayed.

[NutLoose]

Where do I say use,? I said give them the capability, just as The US, U.K. China, or indeed Russia etc have the capability, just because they have the capability to destroy those area, none of those would use them unless used against them first.

You simply do not know if giving Ukraine back the capability of nuclear weapons would have an effect on Russias ambitions

And Western supplied Weapons against Russia are the none nuclear weaponry they have, HIMARS, Storm / Scalp etc. hence the "And".


originally Posted by NutLoose
I was not suggesting they use them, but the threat that they would may be enough to deter his ambitions, we gave them promises to get rid of their Nukes on the grounds that we would protect them...... How is that going by the way? There are mutterings in Ukraine that they should develop their own, and given they were one of the biggest nuclear powers once they will probably have the know how to do it.

If you are going to quote me, please have the common courtesy to quote me in full on the subject instead of cherry picking to suit your narrative.

I said at the start of all of this the UN should have moved peacekeepers into the front lines when Russia was building up their invasion forces.

The one thing the UN needs to do is remove the "every country agrees before action is taken", simply have a large majority vote. The Russian veto has screwed the UN up.

..

[Lonewolf_50]

I said at the start of all of this the UN should have moved peacekeepers into the front lines when Russia was building up their invasion forces. Another fundamental error on your part. The UNSC was never going to be able put together a peacekeeping force that you mention since Russia is on the Security council with a veto. You may not like that fact, but that's how it is. You may as well wish for a flying horse and a pet dragon.

[NutLoose]

Another fundamental error on your part. The UNSC was never going to be able put together a peacekeeping force that you mention since Russia is on the Security council with a veto. You may not like that fact, but that's how it is. You may as well wish for a flying horse and a pet dragon.

I do not why i even bother replying to this verbiage

AGAIN: will you please stop quoting me in parts and not in context to make your own narrative up, I know the Russian had a veto that stopped it, the paragraph following said so

The one thing the UN needs to do is remove the "every country agrees before action is taken", simply have a large majority vote. The Russian veto has screwed the UN up.

[Lonewolf_50]

The one thing the UN needs to do is remove the "every country agrees before action is taken", simply have a large majority vote. The Russian veto has screwed the UN up.
Not gonna happen, and no it doesn't need to do that. You may as well wish for a pet dragon. The US recently stopped the Gaza ceasefire proposal which Included No Provision For Hostage Return As A Condition of the Ceasefire. In other words, they stopped a railroad. (Which was part of why UK abstained, although it was interesting to see the abstention). Look past the end of your nose.
List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions)
In order to get the Major Powers to agree to participate, that concession was made because it had to be.

As an aside, fdr has made some interesting posts (in a different thread) on how one can propose to remove Russia from the UNSC permanent member position (since it took the USSR's place). That has a slightly better of ever happening, maybe, in some distant future although with China's current position that isn't going to happen any time soon.

[melmothtw]

Artillery shells, artillery shells, and artillery shells.

[Video Mixdown]

The means to shoot down the strategic bombers that are firing ATG missiles. Putin can replace a lot of stuff, but not them.

[Winemaker]

If the West decides to supply Ukraine with everything it needs, taking one country as an example the UK, how would it do so?
I would imagine the UK doesn't have a vast munitions stockpile. Most likely it is geared up to a small, limited war of a few months, perhaps a year and then it's resupply capability is also very limited. Just enougth.
Ukraine requires millions of rounds, tens of thousands of shells. Tanks, aircraft, drones, radios, helmets you name it.
The only way I can see the UK supplying all that is to go on a war footing and turn industry over to war production.
As no country has done that exactly how will the West supply Ukraine with `every thing it needs`? Russia IS on a war footing and IS ramping up production.
Unless the West does something quickly Russia will win by sheer weight of numbers.

When you look at military capacity as some percentage of GDP the Russians will quickly lose;

[Dead on Time]

Nutty, LW and others:

From Wikipedia:Nuclear weapons testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing) is the act of experimentally and deliberately firing one or more nuclear devices in a controlled manner pursuant to a military, scientific or technological goal. This has been done on test sites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_test_sites) on land or waters owned, controlled or leased from the owners by one of the eight nuclear nations: the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), the Soviet Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_Kingdom_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) and North Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), or has been done on or over ocean sites far from territorial waters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters). There have been 2,121 tests done since the first in July 1945, involving 2,476 nuclear devices. As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission) and 328 Mt from bombs using fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion)

Can't help but think, leftover from the dismantling of Ukraine's nuclear arsenal, if Ukraine had found, or might find in some obscure warehouse some left over pits and explosive lenses and detonators and the other hardware needed to rebuild some functioning devices and a means of delivery to the krimlin, that putler & co would be most unlikely to prosecute their special military operation in the first instance or continue their Russia Federation's murderous rampage into Ukraine and the potential threat into Eastern Europe.

Deterrence works...to a fashion...but better but most unlikely that all nations and nutters and loony's renounce nuclear weapons and warfare and special military operations.

However, in the absence of such renunciation, I am reminded of an expression: walk quietly and carry a big stick and in the special case of putler a really big stick as that seems to be all that putler respects.

Some 520 atmospheric nuclear detonations and 545 megatons yield has not been worldwide catastrophic so a few hypothetical megatons if unleashed in putler's way is hardly going to be a major environmental disaster. LW...stay calm...take your meds...it's all hypothetical.

DoT

[NutLoose]

Exactly what I was getting across, especially as all of Russia's blowhards are Moscow based. Unlike the Wests where most are in the USA.

[Sue Vêtements]

At this point I suppose you might as well give them the remaining Tridents

[DogTailRed2]

When you look at military capacity as some percentage of GDP the Russians will quickly lose;
It isn't loosing, it seems to be gaining ground. GDP is one thing, lethargy another.

[Silver Pegasus]

Shell stocks and production are one thing. But whatever happened to those darned F-16s? Or A-10s for that matter. Honestly, what are the Red forces going to do about it? Threaten nuking their own neighbourhood for the hundredth time? Just get on with it.

The F16’s, they are accelerated training Ukrainians currently, both on sims and in the air on how to operate them. Ukraine already has some SU25‘s that are similar in capacity to the A10’s they may get (ie stripped down) but not really able to use them, same as the A10 would suffer big losses.