Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

Yeah, they nuke Warsaw, NATO nukes St. Petersburg or Novosibirsk (or both) and says "don't pull that shit". Will Putin retaliate or escalate, knowing that NATO is willing to pull the trigger?

Or, the Russians nuke Warsaw and NATO vaporizes the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Strike Armies and the Baltic, Black Sea, and Northern Fleets, leaving Russia with the palace guard and a coupla troops of Boy Scouts, is Russia going to throw away the one thing that will keep the Chinese out of Moscow, or back down?

[The Brain]

Or, two BDSM-curious lipstick lesbians move in across the street from me.

[Berkut]

Why couldn't NATO respond to non-strategic use of nuclear weapons with non-strategic weapons of their own?  Why is only Russia allowed, in this scenario, to use weapons other than in an overwhelming MAD response?

Yeah, they nuke Warsaw, NATO nukes St. Petersburg or Novosibirsk (or both) and says "don't pull that shit". Will Putin retaliate or escalate, knowing that NATO is willing to pull the trigger?

I don't think that would be the NATO nuclear response - at least, I certainly hope it would not.

I think the response to any first use of nuclear weapons by Russia would and should be a massive counter-force strike at Russian nuclear assets. I suspect that Russia cannot actually effectively survive such a scenario with their counter-strike capability intact.

Which is why I think they don't do something like this in the first place. The force capabilities as they exist simply do not work for them.

[grumbler]

I don't think that would be the NATO nuclear response - at least, I certainly hope it would not.

I think the response to any first use of nuclear weapons by Russia would and should be a massive counter-force strike at Russian nuclear assets. I suspect that Russia cannot actually effectively survive such a scenario with their counter-strike capability intact.

Which is why I think they don't do something like this in the first place. The force capabilities as they exist simply do not work for them.

No, I don't think you go counterforce with your NATO nukes, because then you force Putin into a "use them or lose them" scenario, and that's exactly the last thing you want to do.

I think NATO should (and would target) non-strategic-nuclear forces like naval bases, army concentrations, major airfields, and the like, with both precision conventional and tactical nuclear forces.  That still allows Putin to back down, creates an enormous pressure from his military leadership to do so, avoids war crimes of the type Putin has just engaged in, and doesn't promote escalation.  Going straight counterforce creates an existential threat to Russia, while annihilating their conventional military does not.

[Berkut]

The problem though is that Russia cannot tell which you are doing when you start - the missiles are flying, and they have minutes to decide how to try to respond.

I suspect that the reality is that a US counter-force strike in this case would actually work - but either it does or it does not, and no matter what the weapons are aimed at, Russia would have to assume that they are aimed at their strategic assets, right? They are put in a "try to use or or lose it" from their perspective anyway.

So if we launch a significant strike aimed at their non-nuclear assets, they are very likely to push the "shoot it all back in the hopes we can get it off before it is lost" button anyway, which results in...the West being massively damaged because we did NOT target their nuclear assets.

And since they lack the capability to effectively hit US nuclear forces, the only choice they have are political targets, population centers, etc.

I like your idea, but I don't think it works really.

[DGuller]

It may or may not be relevant.  I don't see US launching an unprovoked nuclear strike.  I see Russia doing that if it perceives that it can get away with it, it's a nation always run by psychopaths.  That requires more stringent training of the military to make sure they're ready to engage in nuclear genocide when ordered, and part of that training is not mutinying.

I see that you have already veered from reasonable discussion to the "nation always run by psychopaths" path, so I will stop engaging in this discussion.  Something for you to think about, though:  if Russia has always been run by psychopaths (which includes inability to distinguish danger and inability to restrain urges for instant gratification), do you not think it would have used nukes many times by now?  The fact that the Russians have not used nukes so far should be evidence that your assessment of their leaders as psychotic is an emotional rather than an intellectual one.

Please refrain from responding in a patronizing tone.  You're not in position to act that way.  You're just another poster here, and not a very good one at that.

Now, as to what I said.  Psychopathy is not very clearly defined even from a clinical perspective, so some reading of context is required (which I realize has never been your strong suit in communication).  When I say that Russian leaders are psychopathic, I mean that they're extremely cynical and always looking out for their own advantage, without any scruples or empathy (luckily for us, that's true both internally and externally, so often times these qualities are aimed at other Russians).  Maybe I shouldn't have used a technical term in a possibly incorrect way, but maybe you shouldn't be such a tool and just read what was intended to be conveyed.  I will now likewise cease engaging with you.

[Eddie Teach]

  You're just another poster here, and not a very good one at that.

What are the criteria on which we're judged as being good posters or not?

[DGuller]

  You're just another poster here, and not a very good one at that.

What are the criteria on which we're judged as being good posters or not?

Judgmental. 

[Jacob]

I see that you have already veered from reasonable discussion to the "nation always run by psychopaths" path, so I will stop engaging in this discussion.  Something for you to think about, though:  if Russia has always been run by psychopaths (which includes inability to distinguish danger and inability to restrain urges for instant gratification), do you not think it would have used nukes many times by now?  The fact that the Russians have not used nukes so far should be evidence that your assessment of their leaders as psychotic is an emotional rather than an intellectual one.

I think Putin is quite content to cultivate an image of being an irrational psychopath in this context. If we, "the weak and disorganized West", thinks he is such a crazy guy we are more likely to back down. At least that's how I think Putin reasons.

[Jacob]

I don't think that would be the NATO nuclear response - at least, I certainly hope it would not.

I think the response to any first use of nuclear weapons by Russia would and should be a massive counter-force strike at Russian nuclear assets. I suspect that Russia cannot actually effectively survive such a scenario with their counter-strike capability intact.

Which is why I think they don't do something like this in the first place. The force capabilities as they exist simply do not work for them.

Yeah, good point.

[DGuller]

I sure hope someone thought through that scenario.  This isn't something where winging it is going to work well.

[Jacob]

I sure hope someone thought through that scenario.  This isn't something where winging it is going to work well.

I expect some of the military planners of the NATO countries with nuclear weapons go through this sort of stuff, yeah.

I doubt they'll ask me or Berkut - or even grumbler - whether and how to pull the trigger. All I know is that if Putin nukes Warsaw or some such I'm on board with a nuclear "fuck you right back at ya'" at Putin. And I expect that that's what'll happen as well.

[grumbler]

The problem though is that Russia cannot tell which you are doing when you start - the missiles are flying, and they have minutes to decide how to try to respond.

I suspect that the reality is that a US counter-force strike in this case would actually work - but either it does or it does not, and no matter what the weapons are aimed at, Russia would have to assume that they are aimed at their strategic assets, right? They are put in a "try to use or or lose it" from their perspective anyway.

So if we launch a significant strike aimed at their non-nuclear assets, they are very likely to push the "shoot it all back in the hopes we can get it off before it is lost" button anyway, which results in...the West being massively damaged because we did NOT target their nuclear assets.

And since they lack the capability to effectively hit US nuclear forces, the only choice they have are political targets, population centers, etc.

I like your idea, but I don't think it works really.

The Russians can certainly tell a tactical nuclear scenrio from a strategic nuclear scenario, because int he latter the birds start to fly some silos and SSBNs, while in the former nuclear weapons are delivered by aircraft.

Once the birds start to fly, it is over.  Except for an SSBN reserve, the other side will empty their lands, figuring that anything that doesn't get fired will die in the silo.

If Putin kicks this all off with an ICBM strike, even on Warsaw, he triggers a massive exchange.  At that point, you are correct that the best NATO strategy is counter-force and absorb the casualties.  Russia would be utterly crushed by such an exchange, though, and so i doubt that that is Putin's scenario.

[grumbler]

  You're just another poster here, and not a very good one at that.

What are the criteria on which we're judged as being good posters or not?

If we agree with DG's hysterical characterization of all of Russia's leaders as psychopaths (but not really, that is not what he means), we are good.  If not (in other words, if we are right since not even he believes the bullshit he posts), we are not very good.  I am proud to be in his book as "not very good."  He is in my book as "not very intellectually honest."  His post, which argued that i was essentially an ass for taking him at his word, and arguing instead that, while he didn't mean what he actually said, I should have responded to what he meant to say rather than what he actually said, is typical DG intellectual dishonesty.

[Tamas]

Btw, does anyone know what to do in order to open a bank account in another EU country bank, while not being a resident in that country? Perhaps opening a bank account in a branch (not a subsidiary) of a foreign bank would do the trick? 

PM is arriving.