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 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?

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?

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.

The lawyer killed Britions. I was on 903 and saw fellow comrades die. If it is a threat to life.

Looks like they lost a mastiff

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.

Not exactly an APC suitable for the type of combat

The maths:
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?)

Yup. And with that high ground gone, so goes much direct support for Ukraine. Russia will have no problem filling quotas if someone drops a nuke on Russian soil.

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.

Yep. It's amazing how wrong this has all gone for Putin. Every step of escalation he has taken has gone wrong, possibly leading to the collapse of Russia as the Soviet regions realize that Russian military might is actually a Potemkin village. Let's hope he doesn't take that last step.

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.

Ukrainians have clarified that they were referring to sanctions not nuclear strikes.

T-90 tank has been spotted in the US on the back on a lowboy being hauled in public



Apparently its an indian T-90 and is an old picture :(

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?

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.

To be "certain" that a TNW is about to be used is not possible until one is in flight ..... any officer in the chain could refuse to launch. It has happened before.

History is littered with apparently rational decisions based on poor int. For example:

The continuation of Passchendaele
The location of Arnhem dro[p
Gulf War II.

Pre-emptive might just be legal [as if that mattered afterwards] if a country party to the war were to be involved. Pre-emptive by that party, not some interested outsider like NATO.
I acknowledge that the Ukr war has become a proxy war but NATO or "the West" is not party.
In my opinion the correct way to go is massive conventional aid to Ukraine after a TNW, and limited to the annexed territories. That way Ukr gets its land back, badly dented, its decimated [i.e. losing 1 in 10] population back, and Russia retreats into its self-created stone age for a generation.
Further escalation would be by Russia, and would invite Armageddon of course.

This is not a Hollywood epic.

Lead story…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...iden-cdmmll35c

Putin risking ‘Armageddon’ with nuclear threat, says Biden

Threat greater than any time since Cuban missile crisis, says president

should have gone to Specsavers

I don't think it was the best of plans to go public with this line - it only reinforces Putin's message and will only encourage him to further up the ante.

Much better to have kept to the lower key line they've been using up till now, along the lines of "we don't think he will but are fully prepared if he does".

Sort of related, but Ukraine's "I Want to Live" programme aimed at encouraging Russian troops to surrender could be a masterstroke. I guess the Russians are told to state that they were captured and didn't surrender when they phone their relatives to give them the news.

Since Feb. 24, Ukraine's Armed Forces have captured at least 440 Russian MBT and 650 other armored vehicles, which make up "over half of Ukraine's currently fielded tank fleet," the U.K. Defense Ministry reported on Oct. 7.