Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

I wonder what the response of the non-too-loyal military commanders would be to an order to conduct a nuclear strike.  Clearly, obeying such an order would increase the chances of their children and wives being dead within a year many, many fold. Disobedience would not even be necessary.  Just not following the proper security protocols when relaying the order might negate the threat as NATO airstrikes take out that 44th Guards Rocket Artillery regiment that you just sent the launch orders to might do the trick, or the "I hope Western Intelligence doesn't intercept any of the 40 phone calls you are going to be making to family members detailing the time and place from which we will launch our attack" speech to the generals' staffs.

I'm just having a hard time imagining the Russian generals all agreeing to kill their children because Putin wants them to.

[grumbler]

I saw it proposed that the non-nuclear retaliation strike in case Putin goes nuclear includes decapitation strikes designed to kill Putin.

If the US could - with some confidence of success and with some level of speed, kill Putin in response to him going nuclear that may do the trick.

If the US does have some Rods From the Gods ^tm in orbit, this might be a good time to prepare them for de-orbit.

[The Minsky Moment]

Do you need sophisticated equipment to pull this off? IIRC the Baltic is quite shallow. It might be a non-state actor.

I believe it's a depth of about 70-80 m in the area.

So it's Elon then.

 

[DGuller]

I wonder what the response of the non-too-loyal military commanders would be to an order to conduct a nuclear strike.  Clearly, obeying such an order would increase the chances of their children and wives being dead within a year many, many fold. Disobedience would not even be necessary.  Just not following the proper security protocols when relaying the order might negate the threat as NATO airstrikes take out that 44th Guards Rocket Artillery regiment that you just sent the launch orders to might do the trick, or the "I hope Western Intelligence doesn't intercept any of the 40 phone calls you are going to be making to family members detailing the time and place from which we will launch our attack" speech to the generals' staffs.

I'm just having a hard time imagining the Russian generals all agreeing to kill their children because Putin wants them to.

At the very least I hope that all this serious talk about Russia using nuclear weapons will at least make those decision-makers sleep on this situation.  I think there is a greater chance of disobedience if they all get to stew on the idea for days, and maybe discuss things with each other, as opposed to figuring out their loyalty on the spot.

I do fear though that our belief in the rationality of the nuclear officers is just a coping mechanism.  I think groups of people can be collectively more irrational than any one individual, and Russia at the moment strikes me as a death cult.  It wasn't logical for Paraguay to follow their leader to the point where half of their population perished, and yet they kept following him until the leader got himself killed.

[mongers]

I saw it proposed that the non-nuclear retaliation strike in case Putin goes nuclear includes decapitation strikes designed to kill Putin.

If the US could - with some confidence of success and with some level of speed, kill Putin in response to him going nuclear that may do the trick.

How wil the Russian military know those missiles, be they cruise, ballistic or other are armed with conventional warheads and not nuclear, perhaps part of a first strike?

[OttoVonBismarck]

There was a lot of analysis done on Missileers during the Cold War, there was, AFAIK an expectation some % would fail to launch for various reasons. I assume that is reality, too. It's also reality that both us and Russia have enough launch sites that nothing like that will save us from a deliberate launch order.

[Jacob]

So it's Elon then.

I never considered it, but now that you've said it it's blindingly obvious! Maybe it's part of that whole "briefly boat" mode of the cybertruck.

[grumbler]

How wil the Russian military know those missiles, be they cruise, ballistic or other are armed with conventional warheads and not nuclear, perhaps part of a first strike?

Because they know that the Western powers no longer have nuclear cruise missiles.  All the Tomahawks, et al, are conventionally armed.  The West has good enough conventional weapons that they have retired almost all the tactical nukes.  There are still a handful of air-droppable nukes, but they don't pose a threat to the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces due to lack of aircraft range.

Edit:  The ALCM is a strategic weapon, but still a cruise missile, so there are still a handful of nuclear cruise missiles.

[Tonitrus]

I kinda have a personal theory on Putin's drive to annex the territories in eastern Ukraine (which were likely always his war aim), and it kinda ties back to the rumors on his health, etc.  It is perhaps akin to Cortes burning his ships...it ties Russia's colors to the mast and will force any successor (or revolutionary) to commit to those goals...at risk of making their own leadership position untenable.

[viper37]

Maybe ecoterrorists.

seems a bit too much for them, underwater operation and all.

Yeah and why would an Ecoterrorist create an ecological disaster that will contribute a significant amount of methane to our already Disastrous levels of greenhouse gases.

they regularly blow up pipelines that create ecological disasters.  And animal rights activists regularly cruelly slaughter animals to prove their point about animal suffering.  Contradictions isn't really an alibi...  Means, however... 

Blowing up an underwater pipeline requires some kind of expertise, it's not as easy as blowing up a regular pipeline.

Also, I have learnt that these particular pipelines were already shutdown by Russia and were used as reserves by Germany for their winter supply.

[DGuller]

I kinda have a personal theory on Putin's drive to annex the territories in eastern Ukraine (which were likely always his war aim), and it kinda ties back to the rumors on his health, etc.  It is perhaps akin to Cortes burning his ships...it ties Russia's colors to the mast and will force any successor (or revolutionary) to commit to those goals...at risk of making their own leadership position untenable.

Alternatively, it makes losing Crimea easier.  All these referendums put five oblasts on the same standing, and some of them aren't even close to being fully occupied.

[viper37]

The first option seems less risky combined with Russia being made a pariah state (which seems likely to actually happen if nuclear weapons are used). I mean nuclear proliferation is extremely serious. But I don't think many countries are in a position to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal as extensive as Russia, and proliferation could be prevented if there is international commitment.

The fear of proliferation is that it makes devastating nuclear war more likely, and embracing NATO entering into an already nuclear war with Russia seems about the most likely course of events to result in a devastating nuclear war.

I think that being given free reign to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for becoming a "pariah" is something Putin would gladly welcome.

And really - how much of a pariah would Russia be?  It's a nuclear power, and now it gets to use them to bully any non-aligned country it wants to.

This is why 200 or so days ago i was saying that we need to find a face saving way out of this for Putin. If the question is: should we let Russia terrorize and kill Ukraine with 40 million inhabitants, or should we enter nuclear war with Russia and put global civilization with ~8 billion people in serious jeopardy, the obvious answer is the former.

We did let him save face by invading part of Ukraine and annexing Crimea.  How did that help lower the risk of nuclear war?

[viper37]

The only way for Putin to save face after 50k+ dead russians is a Russian victory.

A Russian victory does more to risk global nuclear war in the long run then a NATO non-nuclear military response to a Russian tactical nuke.

I don't see how that logically computes.

If you postulate that:
-Putin needs a victory to save face,
-Putin is desperate enough to go nuclear against Ukraine to achieve that victory,

I just don't see much of a path to enter the war to such an extent to deny him victory and avoid a global nuclear war.

"Winning" in Ukraine is a complete fool's mission, as I think there is general consensus regarding. If he gets some nuclear irradiated territory with people that hate him, and is truly internationally isolated: not like today where he gets to sell shit to non european customers but truly isolated...who wants that as an example to follow?

The only way out is to threaten nuclear retaliation.  That way, his generals will oust him if he tries to fire nukes.

[grumbler]

(snip)...it ties nails Russia's colors to the mast ...

FTFY.  Colors "nailed to the mast" cannot be hailed down.  All colors are tied to the mast.

[grumbler]

they regularly blow up pipelines that create ecological disasters.  And animal rights activists regularly cruelly slaughter animals to prove their point about animal suffering.  Contradictions isn't really an alibi...  Means, however...