Is Ukraine about to have a war?
I would have thought that a US preemptive strike was already factored in.
There is no way the US is going to sit and wait for Rusk strikes before saying OK now we end this.
As soon as the US feels threatened, (or the UK for that matter) they are going to strike hard and fast in multiple locations to show that they are not pxssing about and that this stupid adventure has now come to an end.
The US could probably send a catastrophic message to Rusk sailors while still having culpable deniability...the message would still get through loud and clear.
There is no way the US is going to sit and wait for Rusk strikes before saying OK now we end this.
As soon as the US feels threatened, (or the UK for that matter) they are going to strike hard and fast in multiple locations to show that they are not pxssing about and that this stupid adventure has now come to an end.
The US could probably send a catastrophic message to Rusk sailors while still having culpable deniability...the message would still get through loud and clear.
So, we've gone from calling out Putin's insanity for even hinting at using nuclear weapons, to slapping each other on the back for suggesting a preemptive strike?
M. A. D. Indeed! 🙄😠
M. A. D. Indeed! 🙄😠
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to create a transcript, but unfortunately what the translator is saying is quite hard to understand, at least for me, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. I replaced a fragment I didn't understand with question marks:
Now, what the [???] to do to prevent and deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. But, what's important, and I have to underline that, once again, in my expectance to the international community: preventive strikes, preventive actions, so that Russia would knew what would happen to them, and not in return, I mean waiting for the nuclear strikes first, and then to say what's going to happen to them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes
on
57 Posts
We do anything to avoid/deter use of WMD. However, once we have proof positive (intelligence based) of Russian intentions to use WMD and see physical activity to support that proof (spinning up silos etc) then I would far rather have any nuclear explosion (or at least most of them) on Russian territory rather than NATO territory.
I actually think a massive conventional strike on a Russian nuclear target might be enough to get the message across. But the message needs to be strong and early imho.
If, there is an immediate threat to those one is committed to protect, under the laws of self defence one is legally authorised to use the minimum force available to achieve that aim. If the minimum force available is a fleet of cruise missiles, then hitting the attacking threat before that threat is realised, is within the laws of self-defence. The green card we were issued with was an attempt to quantify the laws of self-defence, but has led to confusion as to when pre-emptive action in self-defence is allowed. If there is a genuinely held belief on the intelligence available at the time, that attacking the confirmed preparation of a nuclear launch by the enemy is the only way to prevent that attack, then that is well within the .definition of pre-emptive self-defence, provided the force used is proportionate and not excessive. EG ."Why, submarine commander, did you launch 25 cruise missiles at that launch site?"" "Because Admiral, I did not have 26 missiles in my magazine" is not a good defence!.
Not quite.
We do anything to avoid/deter use of WMD. However, once we have proof positive (intelligence based) of Russian intentions to use WMD and see physical activity to support that proof (spinning up silos etc) then I would far rather have any nuclear explosion (or at least most of them) on Russian territory rather than NATO territory.
I actually think a massive conventional strike on a Russian nuclear target might be enough to get the message across. But the message needs to be strong and early imho.
We do anything to avoid/deter use of WMD. However, once we have proof positive (intelligence based) of Russian intentions to use WMD and see physical activity to support that proof (spinning up silos etc) then I would far rather have any nuclear explosion (or at least most of them) on Russian territory rather than NATO territory.
I actually think a massive conventional strike on a Russian nuclear target might be enough to get the message across. But the message needs to be strong and early imho.
They can intercept in flight, so putting AAA, SAM, and any ABM capability into the region is defensive. Once the Russians have fired, then one way or other, a response is required.
Collectively, we cannot say that we are defensive if we commence an attack on legitimately Russian soil. Russians in Ukraine are invaders. Different beast.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 116 Likes
on
57 Posts
To quote Harold Ramis from Ghostbusters I.... "that would be incredibly dangerous..."
They can intercept in flight, so putting AAA, SAM, and any ABM capability into the region is defensive. Once the Russians have fired, then one way or other, a response is required.
Collectively, we cannot say that we are defensive if we commence an attack on legitimately Russian soil. Russians in Ukraine are invaders. Different beast.
They can intercept in flight, so putting AAA, SAM, and any ABM capability into the region is defensive. Once the Russians have fired, then one way or other, a response is required.
Collectively, we cannot say that we are defensive if we commence an attack on legitimately Russian soil. Russians in Ukraine are invaders. Different beast.
If we are being defensive by shooting down an inbound nuclear weapon in flight, what is the difference to taking it out as soon as it pops its nose above ground (or sea) level? What is the difference to taking it out while it is half way up the launch tube?
So, the question to be asked is 'when does a defensive response become a pre emptive strike?' If we have proof positive that the Russians are about to start pressing big red buttons, is that not, in itself, the first action in a pre emptive strike by Russia and are we not therefore exercising our defensive philosophy by 'dealing with' (responding to) a known and imminent Russian pre emptive strike while the WMD are is still in Russian territory? Why do we have to wait until thousands of innocents have been slaughtered in the west before we can start defending those that are still alive?
Yes, exactly. If there is a genuinely held belief that an attack is imminent, and the only way to prevent that attack is to strike with the first weapons available, it is permitted under the law of self defence. I had this argument with Army lawyers in Basra, when the mortar teams were assembling and I had a Tornado in the over-head. The Basra-based Army lawyer delayed the attack until the mortars were fired, resulting deaths at Basra, and by the time the Tornado re-positioned, the mortar teams had disappeared.to strike another day. The lawyer had to explain his decision to the AOC in Al Udeid and went away properly educated.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
When Putin says he is not bluffing, then he usually is, except when he isn’t. Thus he can threaten to use X, and make movements to use X, and watch to see how such intel is leaking to the West, but it might also get the West to set off a pre-emotive strike, at which point they will have successfully swapped moral high ground, and Putin can declare with perfectly dry feet that he never truly intended to push said red knob.
Yes, exactly. If there is a genuinely held belief that an attack is imminent, and the only way to prevent that attack is to strike with the first weapons available, it is permitted under the law of self defence. I had this argument with Army lawyers in Basra, when the mortar teams were assembling and I had a Tornado in the over-head. The Basra-based Army lawyer delayed the attack until the mortars were fired, resulting deaths at Basra, and by the time the Tornado re-positioned, the mortar teams had disappeared.to strike another day. The lawyer had to explain his decision to the AOC in Al Udeid and went away properly educated.
warning of response, attempt to intercept, and only conduct a massive retaliation on a release that was confirmed by interception or by detonation.
Ukrainian losses: Best case, 0 worst case, 10,000
Russian losses: All cases: 100,000+
World best case: 0 worst case, 7,000,000,000.
Shoot first: best case: 7,000,000,000.
Not good for property prices for next 10 millenia, but it cures CoViD, Hibbert Curve, Taiwan issue... Trump's legal peril... Etc.
I would think that putting missile defence into theatre is now absolutely necessary, and warning Vlad that a shoot down that clicks a Geiger Counter will end up with a lots of holes in the east of Ukraine with varying amounts of DNA to be collected by the Russian force NOK.
Pre-emptive with local is going to be a serious risk.
It would not seem unreasonable.to remind Putin that a nuclear release on Ukraine will be considered by the world to be an act of genocide by Russia, and that the annexation is not recognised as Russia, only the December 8, 1991 Russian borders are considered to be Russian sovereign territory, IAW with the agreement they were party to. Any Russian soldiers, equipment or materiel within Ukraine is free fire for everyone else in the world.
That is a reasonable non escalatory status.
In the meantime, Putin is coming close to a catastrophe in Russia itself that is going to need his troops to be returned to do guard duty, otherwise Russia will be that territory near Moscow and St Petersburg, except, much of St Petersburg would prefer to be Finnish. (better vodka?)
Last edited by fdr; 7th Oct 2022 at 02:16.
When Putin says he is not bluffing, then he usually is, except when he isn’t. Thus he can threaten to use X, and make movements to use X, and watch to see how such intel is leaking to the West, but it might also get the West to set off a pre-emotive strike, at which point they will have successfully swapped moral high ground, and Putin can declare with perfectly dry feet that he never truly intended to push said red knob.
A pre-emptive strike is quite a different animal with nukes to a conventional in theatre overwhelming response to evidence that a nuke was in play, shot down or not. Even a dud... At that point, a US and NATO and UN saturation of all Russian assets and teams in the Donbas would hardly be considered an escalation it is a (hopefully certain) response.
I'm getting less concerned with that scenario, there is no win for Putin, there is a certainty of the loss of all.of his military in the field, and that means the galactic Empire of Chim Putin collapses with a high level of certainty. That direction lies assured disaster from Mrs Putin's little son Vlad. All by his own hand..Shakespeare would be impressed. McBeth, Stalin, Attila, Pol Pot and Hitler get replaced at the top.of the naughty list.
After Cambodia's disaster, the handling of the genocidal Pol Pot permitted a semblance of return to normalcy, Putin in Sochi under palace.guard is not the worst outcome.
Shakespeare would be impressed. McBeth, Stalin, Attila, Pol Pot and Hitler get replaced at the top.of the naughty list.
I have interpreted Putin's nuke threat as being a threat against NATO should they attack Russia, or Russians (which has been the case since the start of the Cold War, so nothing new).
In other words, a simple warning to NATO: keep your forces out of the Ukraine war.
At no point have I interpreted a threat of nuclear attack against Ukraine itself.
In other words, a simple warning to NATO: keep your forces out of the Ukraine war.
At no point have I interpreted a threat of nuclear attack against Ukraine itself.
Apparently its an indian T-90 and is an old picture
Last edited by rattman; 7th Oct 2022 at 08:45.
Apart from middle page articles on drone warfare and iron ore shipments there was nothing in todays Times on war progress or the dangers of nuclear escalation!
Are they ( we ) burying our heads in the sand?
Are they ( we ) burying our heads in the sand?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Kherson supplies:
When all pontoon ferries are working (it's hard task to track them all), 🇷🇺 gets about 1/3 of their needed supplies.
🇷🇺 captured near Kherson have lost 10-15kg, have blank eyes, they absolutely don't trust command, can't establish communications for 3 days.
Those were contract solders from elite 🇷🇺 units.
When all pontoon ferries are working (it's hard task to track them all), 🇷🇺 gets about 1/3 of their needed supplies.
🇷🇺 captured near Kherson have lost 10-15kg, have blank eyes, they absolutely don't trust command, can't establish communications for 3 days.
Those were contract solders from elite 🇷🇺 units.