Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Administrator
. If he was 'retired' by a Moderator then he wouldn't be able to log in to delete the thread.
You may, if you like, click on the OPs name and see when the last post from them was.
You'll want to click on the "find more posts by" choice.
The following users liked this post:
Why does Putin continue with his nuclear war threats? Because he's not scared enough of the west that's why. On the whole, western governments have been extremely weak in dealing with him. Time to openly play his game and tell him that if he wants nuclear war, then live or die we'll give him it and so what will he achieve?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
On what do you base that assumption?
I truly hope you are correct but I believe you are not. To say they ‘won’t dare’ is to remove any possibility that no matter what, they won’t use them. What if Russia really starts to lose - if the tanks make a huge difference and then we send jets, and the writing is on the wall. Are you really saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would bring about their use? If so, based on what?
I truly hope you are correct but I believe you are not. To say they ‘won’t dare’ is to remove any possibility that no matter what, they won’t use them. What if Russia really starts to lose - if the tanks make a huge difference and then we send jets, and the writing is on the wall. Are you really saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would bring about their use? If so, based on what?
Why does Putin continue with his nuclear war threats? Because he's not scared enough of the west that's why. On the whole, western governments have been extremely weak in dealing with him. Time to openly play his game and tell him that if he wants nuclear war, then live or die we'll give him it and so what will he achieve?
On what do you base that assumption?
I truly hope you are correct but I believe you are not. To say they ‘won’t dare’ is to remove any possibility that no matter what, they won’t use them. What if Russia really starts to lose - if the tanks make a huge difference and then we send jets, and the writing is on the wall. Are you really saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would bring about their use? If so, based on what?
I truly hope you are correct but I believe you are not. To say they ‘won’t dare’ is to remove any possibility that no matter what, they won’t use them. What if Russia really starts to lose - if the tanks make a huge difference and then we send jets, and the writing is on the wall. Are you really saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever that would bring about their use? If so, based on what?
There is no point turning the very country you are invading into a nuclear wasteland. If Russia were to use them it would be against Germany, Poland or one of the other Baltic States. It has been made very clear, should Putin use them at all then there is no scenario in which Putin himself survives.
The following users liked this post:
Because provided Ukraine does not invade Russia proper which is a condition of western support, there is no advantage to Russia by using them, it doesn't change anything.
There is no point turning the very country you are invading into a nuclear wasteland. If Russia were to use them it would be against Germany, Poland or one of the other Baltic States. It has been made very clear, should Putin use them at all then there is no scenario in which Putin himself survives.
There is no point turning the very country you are invading into a nuclear wasteland. If Russia were to use them it would be against Germany, Poland or one of the other Baltic States. It has been made very clear, should Putin use them at all then there is no scenario in which Putin himself survives.
There are two things being thrown to the wayside in these arguments; Putin's mindset, and the fact that 'tactical nukes' aren't the same as 'strategic nukes'. A person can read article after article written by well meaning journalist types who are opposed to the use of 'nukes' tactical or otherwise, but I guarantee you that Putin does not get his information from those kinds of sources. We can be sure he gets his information from advocates of tactical nukes, and such people exist on our side as well as their side (otherwise we wouldn't have them).
Tactical nukes, don't turn landscapes into wastelands; they create virtually no fallout and leave behind very little radiation, long or short term; after about four days there would be no limitation on infantry troops passing through ground zero of an airburst of a 10kt or so tactical nuke. An armored column could pass through ground zero as soon as the ground cools if need be. The crews and any infantry carried by such a column would receive an unhealthy dose of radiation, but not a disabling dose. How much do you think that would bother a Russian commander?
Well meaning journalists claim that tactical nukes would be militarially ineffective - but they're dead wrong. They often postulate that a nuke wouldn't have any discernible affect on a hundred mile front, which is a silly argument. Tactical nukes would (will?) be very effective in blunting the forward units of an armored column advance. They could be very effective in opening a hole in the flank of an enemy advance, potentially cutting off and leaving the lead units surrounded. They could be very effective in "breaking down the door" for an offensive. Russian military doctrine is centered around the use of tactical nukes.
So let's get back to Putin - and the other hard core militants in the Russian hierarchy who are running this war. They have no intention of seeing their nation humbled by Ukraine and have no intention of bowing to the power of NATO. When push comes to shove they know how to deal with the weaklings of the west, it's already a part of their military doctrine, Escalate to De-Escalate. https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuc...ence-strategy/
Yes the west can launch a devastating air war, but remember the air war in the first Iraq war? That campaign with its 100,000 sorties and 88,500 tons of bombs over five weeks achieved less than a 10% reduction in the Iraq ground forces. The Ruskies know that. The west will not respond in kind, there would be no purpose in the west using tactical nukes against a Russian army that is already stalled (and it would be stalled under western air attack). So where do things go from there?
Faced with continued Russian intransigence and general mobilization, the west would be faced with two choices: launch a first strike nuclear war or negotiate.
And Putin would be in the drivers seat at the negotiating table.
IMO That's how Putin sees it.
BTW
If anybody wants some real information about tactical nukes, look here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...uclear-weapons
Last edited by Sfojimbo; 5th Feb 2023 at 02:18.
Thank you for the reasoned reply. However, I wish to put a different point of view…
Let us assume, as you say, that Ukraine does not invade Russia- indeed I feel this is likely a safe assumption.
Let us then assume that Western tanks, and all other support, start to make a decisive impact and it becomes clear that Russia may lose. This is by no means a certainty but definitely possible.
Russia may find itself in the position where it is facing defeat , and Ukraine is winning due to Western support. Russia then decides it must stop the support for Ukraine and assert it’s dominance. Let’s consider one scenario that could feasibly happen…
Russia want to send a massive message to the West to stay out of the conflict. They know that launching an ICBM will be seen and responded to in kind, so they don’t. Instead, they load a nuke onto a truck, or train, of ship etc. and transport to a major city outside Ukraine, such as London. Then, without a word, they detonate it.
There is pandemonium and confusion for a while, There is no immediate counterattack as nobody knows what just happened. However, Putin then says’ It was us, we did it. However, we have similar devices positioned in Paris, Munich, Madrid etc etc. If you walk away and let us have ‘x’, then no more harm. Just walk away.’
London is in ruins, but he makes it clear that if he gets Ukraine then nowhere else will be hit. Does he have nukes positioned in the other cities…who knows. Would you call his bluff at this point?
I am playing schoolboy tactics, but there are multiple scenarios in which he might use the bomb, and it would change everything.
Forget what you know, and look at what you feel.
Let us assume, as you say, that Ukraine does not invade Russia- indeed I feel this is likely a safe assumption.
Let us then assume that Western tanks, and all other support, start to make a decisive impact and it becomes clear that Russia may lose. This is by no means a certainty but definitely possible.
Russia may find itself in the position where it is facing defeat , and Ukraine is winning due to Western support. Russia then decides it must stop the support for Ukraine and assert it’s dominance. Let’s consider one scenario that could feasibly happen…
Russia want to send a massive message to the West to stay out of the conflict. They know that launching an ICBM will be seen and responded to in kind, so they don’t. Instead, they load a nuke onto a truck, or train, of ship etc. and transport to a major city outside Ukraine, such as London. Then, without a word, they detonate it.
There is pandemonium and confusion for a while, There is no immediate counterattack as nobody knows what just happened. However, Putin then says’ It was us, we did it. However, we have similar devices positioned in Paris, Munich, Madrid etc etc. If you walk away and let us have ‘x’, then no more harm. Just walk away.’
London is in ruins, but he makes it clear that if he gets Ukraine then nowhere else will be hit. Does he have nukes positioned in the other cities…who knows. Would you call his bluff at this point?
I am playing schoolboy tactics, but there are multiple scenarios in which he might use the bomb, and it would change everything.
Forget what you know, and look at what you feel.
Your argument also assumes there is no risk to Europe if they stay out of it. We know that it not so, Poland and Germany along with the other former soviet states will also be reclaimed eventually using the same argument. Where do you draw your line, how much law and international agreements do you allow the Russians to just tear up whenever they like. Germany relied entirely on those agreements with Russia for it's Oil and Gas, tearing up that agreement has completely destroyed the German manufacturing model, a big price to pay for freedom and democracy all ready.
No Sir, freedom and democracy must be defended wherever it is in the world. I will say this though, you are Europe, don't be relying on the US and it's allies in the western hemisphere for your freedom. Europe is oceans away and serves no benefit to us at all. If you are not willing to defend it then roll over and become Russian and all that comes with it, just don't expect us to, not going to happen, the same applies to China.
Sure but even if he doesn't admit it, it makes no difference. Your scenario and reasoning is exactly the same as what happened in Ukraine in the first place, except that your scenario is escalated to include the rest of Europe. Such an escalation is nuclear world war. Your argument assumes Russia is militarily capable and competent to do it. I would argue the evidence says it is not.
Your argument also assumes there is no risk to Europe if they stay out of it. We know that it not so, Poland and Germany along with the other former soviet states will also be reclaimed eventually using the same argument. Where do you draw your line, how much law and international agreements do you allow the Russians to just tear up whenever they like. Germany relied entirely on those agreements with Russia for it's Oil and Gas, tearing up that agreement has completely destroyed the German manufacturing model, a big price to pay for freedom and democracy all ready.
No Sir, freedom and democracy must be defended wherever it is in the world. I will say this though, you are Europe, don't be relying on the US and it's allies in the western hemisphere for your freedom. Europe is oceans away and serves no benefit to us at all. If you are not willing to defend it then roll over and become Russian and all that comes with it, just don't expect us to, not going to happen, the same applies to China.
Your argument also assumes there is no risk to Europe if they stay out of it. We know that it not so, Poland and Germany along with the other former soviet states will also be reclaimed eventually using the same argument. Where do you draw your line, how much law and international agreements do you allow the Russians to just tear up whenever they like. Germany relied entirely on those agreements with Russia for it's Oil and Gas, tearing up that agreement has completely destroyed the German manufacturing model, a big price to pay for freedom and democracy all ready.
No Sir, freedom and democracy must be defended wherever it is in the world. I will say this though, you are Europe, don't be relying on the US and it's allies in the western hemisphere for your freedom. Europe is oceans away and serves no benefit to us at all. If you are not willing to defend it then roll over and become Russian and all that comes with it, just don't expect us to, not going to happen, the same applies to China.
They would never nuke a western city.
If the Z-team continues tossing NBC's, then there's the rest of the strategic arsenal.
Also that would mean most probably that China gets upset: who would trust a neighbour sending nukes cross the border? It would pretty much quarantee total isolation from the rest of the world.
If V.V.Putin is stupid enough to send a loud and radiating message to a NATO country it would without a doubt mean article 5 activation and at that point it would be game over, maybe for mankind but in any case for Putin and his regime.. NATO joining the war is meaning opening an entirely new front to which Russia has no equipment nor troops to put against. The barracks from Murmansk all the way down to Kaliningrad has been exhausted of troops already. To emphasize the situation we can take the elite spearhead of Russian army that Russia (and Soviet Union) has planned to use as elite counterforce repelling NATO attack, the 1st Guards Tank Army. It was destroyed north of Kyiv a year ago by Ukrainian forces.
But sending a covert ship up Thames turning London into glass and not claiming the quilt? I am sorry but that's a bit too much Hollywood for me. It would not be a subtle reminder nor could it be denied and it would inevitably lead to all of NATO joining the war with the result as above.
Putin may be mad and all that, but I bet that even he is not that stupid to use NBC's. Not over Ukraine. And even in Russia there is a chain of command and events to follow for the nukes tobe launched and the hope is that sanity prevails in there. But the message has been sent to Moscow that at minimum they'll find out why the U.S. is ranked the most powerful army in the world if they use WMD's.
The following users liked this post:
Trouble is, from what we've seen of many of his advisers and Generals Putinoften looks like the sanest and most peacable one of the lot.
But sending a covert ship up Thames turning London into glass and not claiming the quilt?
IG
If you compare him to lunatics like Kadyrov and Prigozhin (and Medwedew -but in his case these statements sound quite non-convincing) and some of the media weirdoes I agree. That said, Gerassimov and Shoigu have never openly expressed similar strange musings. They do appear at least modestly level- headed.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Well some good news amongst all you Nuclear doomsayers… Western Companies are starting to ramp up production…meanwhile in the U.K. 
But this new assessment doesn't seem reasonable at all. If Russia takes out a major Western city, by whatever means, the notion that the free world at that point meakly surrenders seems ... far fetched. In fact the whole plot does. I'm guessing this is your own personal speculation, rather than further insight from the inner sanctum of defence leadership?
I would hope our highest levels of defence leadership are committed to responding swiftly and authoritatively to any such attack and have communicated this clearly and unequivocally via diplomatic channels to Russia.
I know nothing, but that's what I feel.
The following 4 users liked this post by fineline:
BDIM, in other posts you've said you work at a high level in defence, have privileged insight, and that NATO and allies are drawing this out in order to deplete Russia's war capacity. That seems entirely reasonable - whether true or not.
But this new assessment doesn't seem reasonable at all. If Russia takes out a major Western city, by whatever means, the notion that the free world at that point meakly surrenders seems ... far fetched. In fact the whole plot does. I'm guessing this is your own personal speculation, rather than further insight from the inner sanctum of defence leadership?
I would hope our highest levels of defence leadership are committed to responding swiftly and authoritatively to any such attack and have communicated this clearly and unequivocally via diplomatic channels to Russia.
I know nothing, but that's what I feel.
But this new assessment doesn't seem reasonable at all. If Russia takes out a major Western city, by whatever means, the notion that the free world at that point meakly surrenders seems ... far fetched. In fact the whole plot does. I'm guessing this is your own personal speculation, rather than further insight from the inner sanctum of defence leadership?
I would hope our highest levels of defence leadership are committed to responding swiftly and authoritatively to any such attack and have communicated this clearly and unequivocally via diplomatic channels to Russia.
I know nothing, but that's what I feel.
A simple observation if I may: Mr BDIM is attempting to qualify himself with high level 'insider' privileged information. If this is indeed the case, then he needs to consider he may well have breached the official secrets act for potentially disseminating classified information on a public forum.
Having said that, V.V. P's nuclear scaremongering imho is intended to sow fear and uncertainty. a) to bolster his own legitimacy as the only choice of leader to deliver victory against the collective West intent on destroying Russia as a Superpower. b) to put pressure on and fracture Western government support by invoking cold-war nuclear war rhetoric and promote the rise of CND type movements. c) to raise the stakes for the Kyiv government and people's of Ukraine that only total annihilation awaits if they persist on their current path.
It's about forcing Zelensky to the negotiating table at a time where Russia can realistically force Ukraine relinquishment of Crimea and the four annexed Oblasts to be sold as a Russian victory.
This is nothing more than a game of poker and who will fold first.
It goes further: giving in to nuclear blackmail opens the flood gates for every imperial expansionist wannabe dictator with a grudge to get their own way. Pushing the nuclear can down the road will make the task of containing non-proliferation exponentially harder with the very real chance of a pre-emptive strike somewhere.
A coward only threatens when he feels secure. V.V. P knows he cannot use NBC even in a demonstration because that would indeed lead to nuclear armaggedon.
The tragedy is tens of millions of Russians believe and worship him.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
It looks like Russia is attempting to draw N Korea and China into WW3, I some how doubt China would be so stupid, and they may have sway over N Korea.
Last edited by NutLoose; 5th Feb 2023 at 13:54.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
But sending a covert ship up Thames turning London into glass and not claiming the quilt? I am sorry but that's a bit too much Hollywood for me. It would not be a subtle reminder nor could it be denied and it would inevitably lead to all of NATO joining the war with the result as above
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
This guy needs to play the lottery tonight.