Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Jacob]

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.

Not sure if that was strategic or tactical countermeasures?

[Berkut]

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.

I think the amateurs (and of course that includes me) don't realize the basic asynchronous reality in capability that exists right now. The US nuclear capability is first strike immune, since it is primarily based on submarine launched weapons that of course cannot really be hit with a first strike. Additionally, it is thought that Soviet weapons lack the precision necessary to even reliably take out silo based weapons.

However, the reverse is not true - Soviet nuclear forces are in fact vulnerable to first strike. Their subs lack the operational capability to stay at sea consistently, and hence are vulnerable in their bases (this would be lessened in a period of heightened tension of course, and if we imagine a Russian instigated nuclear exchange, presumably they would prepare for this, but it is likely that even at that they would simply not be capable of sortieing their entire fleet). Additionally, US counter sub assets are thought to be considerably more capable of taking out Russian nuclear subs if ordered to do so, although speculation around that is of course, largely that - speculation.

US nuclear capability is thought to be at least theoretically capable of taking out a significant portion of Russian nuclear capability. Our warheads are accurate enough to reliably ensure a significant degradation (say 90% or more) of Russian capability.

Of course, even a 90% destruction results in tens of millions of dead Americans and Europeans. It is by no means a clean solution. But it is a solution that means that the thinking is that NATO could in fact "win" a potential nuclear exchange if we start a counter-force strike first.

And all that means it is really unlikely that Russia engages in a series of events that would result in NATO being in a position where they would need to respond to a limited Russian attack. Because the rational response at that point is to try to take out the Russian capability to continue the escalation, or do nothing at all.

I don't buy into the idea that the plan would be two "ratchet" up the response in a tit-for-tat escalation. That would neuter our technical and operational advantage.

[grumbler]

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.

I agree.  I don't think Western interests are served by a massive thermonuclear counter-force strike in response to a tactical strike on, say, Warsaw, though.  Russia has the capacity to detect the launch of such an attack, and would surely launch before the strike went home.

Russia's war-making capabilities can be crippled with nuclear attacks far short of massive thermonuclear attack.

[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.

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.

Can we deliver a significant tactical nuclear strike of that kind strictly with aircraft?

My own ignorance is getting in the way now - I am actually not really aware how capable we are of delivering, say, a couple dozen tactical weapons strictly via aircraft at targets within Russian airspace.

[Berkut]

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.

I agree.  I don't think Western interests are served by a massive thermonuclear counter-force strike in response to a tactical strike on, say, Warsaw, though.  Russia has the capacity to detect the launch of such an attack, and would surely launch before the strike went home.

My understanding (and this may very well be simply wrong) is that there is some serious questions about Russian capability to detect and respond to such an attack before the weapons are landing.

[Barrister]

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.

Ethically I dislike the notion of casually killing a million or so muscovites as simply a "tit-for-tat" response.

Either a Russian military strike on a European city triggers war, and we respond with full force, or we chose to react in some other fashion.

[Tamas]

Not too long ago I was trying out a boardgame about global nuclear war in 1983.

Now of course this depends on how accurate the game was, but, playing around with the different options on gradually getting to full exchange or trying to keep it local and such, I was thinking:

I think going limited with a nuclear strike is utterly pointless and counterproductive. If you employ nukes in a limited fashion, there is a higher than zero chance for the enemy going full retaliatory against your ass, or at least going with full power against your remaining nuclear arsenal.

So if you are using tac nukes on enemy units, or eliminate one of their cities with a single ICBM, your next step is waiting and hoping the enemy will be too afraid to escalate, after you have given him the perfect excuse to glass you out of existence with one fell swoop.

[DGuller]

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.

Grumbler, I've said it plenty of time before.  Just because I choose not to grumbler-proof my posts for the sake of brevity does not mean that I'm going back on my words when you then proceed to intentionally misinterpret them.  Any piece of communication can be misinterpreted if one tries hard enough.  This is why you're not that good of a poster:  sooner or later, your lack of desire to communicate in good faith will turn make any discussion acrimonious.  It happened countless times, with many posters other than myself, and it will keep happening again.

And speaking of dishonest, where does replying by proxy after promising to end the discussion rank?

[Tamas]

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.

I agree.  I don't think Western interests are served by a massive thermonuclear counter-force strike in response to a tactical strike on, say, Warsaw, though.  Russia has the capacity to detect the launch of such an attack, and would surely launch before the strike went home.

Russia's war-making capabilities can be crippled with nuclear attacks far short of massive thermonuclear attack.

Yes. But. If you are clearly targeting the nuclear and war capabilities of the Russians without going for cities and such, there is only one reasonable reaction from them: launch EVERYTHING while they can.

[Jacob]

Ethically I dislike the notion of casually killing a million or so muscovites as simply a "tit-for-tat" response.

Either a Russian military strike on a European city triggers war, and we respond with full force, or we chose to react in some other fashion.

Yeah, I think grumbler and Berkut's point that the target should be Russia's military capability makes a lot more sense than nuking cities. I hadn't thought that one through.

[Berkut]

Ethically I dislike the notion of casually killing a million or so muscovites as simply a "tit-for-tat" response.

Either a Russian military strike on a European city triggers war, and we respond with full force, or we chose to react in some other fashion.

Yeah, I think grumbler and Berkut's point that the target should be Russia's military capability makes a lot more sense than nuking cities. I hadn't thought that one through.

Targetting cities only makes sense in the strict MAD scenario - where the enemy has already launched, and hence there is no point in firing your nukes at their empty silos.

It is why I think any scenario where a US President is contemplating HOW to strike back with  nuclear weapons at a target that has not yet launched the bulk of their strategic assets is almost certainly going to go full counter-asset strike. It is the only time it can possibly work, and the only chance you have of "winning" the nuclear war.

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

[Jacob]

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

Were the guy making the decision I'd combine the two - try to take out all significant military assets, nuclear and conventional.

But to take it back to the starting point... it seems an awfully bold move by Putin to (hypothetically) nuke Warsaw - a NATO country - and blithely assume that NATO would lack the balls to strike back altogether. It almost makes more sense for him to go all out first, though I don't see that playing out too well for him either.

... I'm getting some serious nostalgia for the 80s here, for some reason, and I don't mean the pop-culture part.

[Berkut]

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

Were the guy making the decision I'd combine the two - try to take out all significant military assets, nuclear and conventional.

Well, I don't really know about that, but I suspect that whatever folder contains the "First strike (Counter-Asset)" scenario probably includes a sub-section of "non-strategic military assets we might as well blow away while we are at it" section as well.

[The Brain]

Accordion factories and mime schools.

[Razgovory]

I don't agree with grumblers idea that you make nuclear attacks on their non-nuclear assets. There is just too high of a chance that they respond with the MAD scenario, and it is likely that you only get one chance to try the counter-force strike.

Were the guy making the decision I'd combine the two - try to take out all significant military assets, nuclear and conventional.

But to take it back to the starting point... it seems an awfully bold move by Putin to (hypothetically) nuke Warsaw - a NATO country - and blithely assume that NATO would lack the balls to strike back altogether. It almost makes more sense for him to go all out first, though I don't see that playing out too well for him either.

... I'm getting some serious nostalgia for the 80s here, for some reason, and I don't mean the pop-culture part.

Even if it worked and he broke NATO, it would put Russia in to North Korea like isolation.