News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

Started by mongers, August 06, 2014, 03:12:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

alfred russel

Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2022, 02:12:28 PMI'm 99% sure that if Russia uses a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine the West will reply with a significant non-nuclear response.  I don't know exactly what - declare that no-fly zone, destroy the Sevastopol naval base, something like that.

Terrible idea. IF NATO ends up in a shooting war with Russia, the approach that makes the most sense is a full on nuclear first strike.

I quit posting in this thread because I think we are playing with matches and pretending their isn't a risk of fire, and no one wants to be reminded otherwise. For russian leadership, failure in Ukraine is an existential threat and I don't think you can be surprised if they behave that way. There is a reason we didn't respond to soviet tanks rolling into Budapest, Prague or Warsaw during the cold war.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Jacob

Seems like the NATO nuclear powers should come out ahead and let Russia know that if they nuke Ukraine, it'll be a total nuclear response from NATO.

Maladict

Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2022, 03:10:36 PMSeems like the NATO nuclear powers should come out ahead and let Russia know that if they nuke Ukraine, it'll be a total nuclear response from NATO.

Would it though, if it was a relatively small strike? I just can't see it happening.

Besides, on what basis is a NATO strike justified?

Iormlund

Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2022, 02:12:28 PMPutin is a rational actor though.

Never backing down and waiting for the west to crack has always worked for him.  It's perfectly rational.

I'm 99% sure that if Russia uses a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine the West will reply with a significant non-nuclear response.  I don't know exactly what - declare that no-fly zone, destroy the Sevastopol naval base, something like that.

It was rational up to the end of February. By then it was clear Russia could not decapitate Ukraine and present a fait accompli to the world. The rational path then was to throw his generals and the FSB under the bus.


The US has a lot of non-nuclear options indeed. It can start by "losing" a bunch of cruise missiles that somehow end up blowing shit up in Krasnodar, Rostov, Belgorod, Kerch ... making further operations in Ukraine essentially impossible.
And the USN can simply shut anyone off global naval trade. And then there's stealth shit.


If we reach the point where nukes start flying though, the NPT is as good as dead.
I can't see China being happy in that scenario, by the way. All their regional rivals can probably get the bomb relatively quickly.

Iormlund

Quote from: alfred russel on September 24, 2022, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2022, 02:12:28 PMI'm 99% sure that if Russia uses a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine the West will reply with a significant non-nuclear response.  I don't know exactly what - declare that no-fly zone, destroy the Sevastopol naval base, something like that.

Terrible idea. IF NATO ends up in a shooting war with Russia, the approach that makes the most sense is a full on nuclear first strike.

I quit posting in this thread because I think we are playing with matches and pretending their isn't a risk of fire, and no one wants to be reminded otherwise. For russian leadership, failure in Ukraine is an existential threat and I don't think you can be surprised if they behave that way. There is a reason we didn't respond to soviet tanks rolling into Budapest, Prague or Warsaw during the cold war.



They have already failed in Ukraine. There's no coming back from their failures.

Plus, if NATO doesn't respond in some kind to a nuclear strike everyone and their mother is going to get nukes.

Threviel


Josquius

Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2022, 02:47:29 PM
Quote from: Maladict on September 24, 2022, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2022, 02:13:34 PM
Quote from: Maladict on September 24, 2022, 02:09:36 PMI'm thinking the taboo on the use of tactical nukes is going to be broken. MAD never really applied to tactical nukes anyway. Once the first one is dropped and there's no real response, we're in for some interesting times.

There's little real benefit to a tactical nuke though.

Ukraine doesn't have and isn't using massed formations of troops.

the only "use" of a tactical nuke is as a terror weapon.

If Russia drops a tactical nuke on the first Ukrainian soldiers to set foot in Crimea, because it's Russian territory, that will change things. Even though the military benefit might be negligible.

What I could find more plausible is a smaller Ukrainian city getting nuked as a "warning" once Ukrainians are clearly gaining ground in one of the occupied territories.

Kherson once liberated seems likely. In a fit of sour grapes.
██████
██████
██████

alfred russel

Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2022, 03:10:36 PMSeems like the NATO nuclear powers should come out ahead and let Russia know that if they nuke Ukraine, it'll be a total nuclear response from NATO.

I think that is madness.

If we were going to extend the NATO nuclear umbrella over Ukraine, the time to do it was before Russia invaded. I don't think that it is stretch to say that Russia invaded in part because of the risk that it would be extended over Ukraine and they wanted to preclude that risk. Waiting until Russian leadership possibly sees no option other than nuclear to extend it--what sense does that make?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

alfred russel

If we have decided that any nuclear weapons use in Ukraine means we respond with nuclear weapons against Russia, while it is madness to have not communicated that before the war, the best decision is not to communicate it now.

Obviously russian leadership knows that nuclear weapons use in Ukraine is massively risky and it will be a pariah state in the best case scenario. But if it has decided that is the only way out, and if it understands NATO will respond with a nuclear strike, Russia could easily strike first against us. Better for us to keep our cards close to our chests and if they launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, we strike first.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

PJL

IMO, there is no such thing as a tactical nuke. All nuclear weapons are strategic regardless of their strength. If Russia uses even one tactical nuke in Ukraine, then the correct response is to launch all of ours to wipe Russia off the map. But more importantly, we should make sure Putin knows this beforehand so that it doesn't happen in the first place.

PJL

#10601
Quote from: alfred russel on September 24, 2022, 04:00:33 PMIf we have decided that any nuclear weapons use in Ukraine means we respond with nuclear weapons against Russia, while it is madness to have not communicated that before the war, the best decision is not to communicate it now.

Obviously russian leadership knows that nuclear weapons use in Ukraine is massively risky and it will be a pariah state in the best case scenario. But if it has decided that is the only way out, and if it understands NATO will respond with a nuclear strike, Russia could easily strike first against us. Better for us to keep our cards close to our chests and if they launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, we strike first.

On the contrary, we should be doing the opposite, we should absolutely tell Putin what the response should be if he launches a tactical nuke. Because it will actually make things safer by letting him know what the outcome is going to be beforehand. It is the uncertainty that is the bigger factor in increaseing the danger, not the nuclear missles on their own.

PDH

According to one report I read this morning, the US has been telling Putin just what will happen if they use a nuke.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

Crazy_Ivan80

Quote from: Threviel on September 24, 2022, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 24, 2022, 01:32:01 PMnew Perun dropped
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNLTE75B0Os&ab_channel=Perun

Seems like it could be an interesting 10 minute read, but I just don't have an hour to spare.  :cry:

usually you can get by by just reading the powerpoint slides if you don't have the time. That'll give you most of what's in the vid.

alfred russel

Quote from: PJL on September 24, 2022, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 24, 2022, 04:00:33 PMIf we have decided that any nuclear weapons use in Ukraine means we respond with nuclear weapons against Russia, while it is madness to have not communicated that before the war, the best decision is not to communicate it now.

Obviously russian leadership knows that nuclear weapons use in Ukraine is massively risky and it will be a pariah state in the best case scenario. But if it has decided that is the only way out, and if it understands NATO will respond with a nuclear strike, Russia could easily strike first against us. Better for us to keep our cards close to our chests and if they launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, we strike first.

On the contrary, we should be doing the opposite, we should absolutely tell Putin what the response should be if he launches a tactical nuke. Because it will actually make things safer by letting him know what the outcome is going to be beforehand. It is the uncertainty that is the bigger factor in increaseing the danger, not the nuclear missles on their own.

You are giving up a chance of a first strike on the hope Putin backs down on using a nuke in the face of an explicit threat.

As someone sitting very close to a military base almost certain to be targeted, I'd prefer not to experience all out nuclear war, and don't think a country of ~40 million people is worth escalating to that level in a world of 8 billion. But if we are going to do so, i'll prefer to take my chances with a first strike succeeding rather than Putin being intimidated into folding his hand.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014