What would you give to Ukraine
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.
Their utility as a deterrent became null and void in about 2014.
Tabs please !
Not so, the platform has a conventional payload too (TASM or TLAM-C).
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
What would you give to Ukraine
What would you give to Ukraine
And to this comment by NutLoose
Inappropriate adjectives removed.
Remember the first P in PPRuNe, please.
T28B
I was referring in part to this exchange
What would you give to Ukraine
What would you give to Ukraine
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..
and I would give them the nuclear capability to destroy Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi and only then might they withdraw and stay out..
Remember the first P in PPRuNe, please.
T28B
Last edited by T28B; 20th Feb 2024 at 17:09. Reason: reported
Tabs please !
I presumed Nutty was talking about deterrence. Conventional Tomahawks would be a welcome game changer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.
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 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, 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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 21st Feb 2024 at 12:59.
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
Thanks Dave, my first read through didn't quite register that. (Had not had my coffee yet).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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?
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.
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:
h Right. you claim not to advocate for their use. By your own words betrayed.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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".
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.
..
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.
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 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.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 22nd Feb 2024 at 12:22.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.
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.
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.
List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions - Wikipedia
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 22nd Feb 2024 at 17:13.
The following users liked this post:
The means to shoot down the strategic bombers that are firing ATG missiles. Putin can replace a lot of stuff, but not them.
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.
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.
nukes or not
Nutty, LW and others:
From Wikipedia: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 on land or waters owned, controlled or leased from the owners by one of the eight nuclear nations: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, or has been done on or over ocean sites far from 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 (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using 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
From Wikipedia: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 on land or waters owned, controlled or leased from the owners by one of the eight nuclear nations: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, or has been done on or over ocean sites far from 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 (Mt): 217 Mt from pure fission and 328 Mt from bombs using 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
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.