Ukraine

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

I can’t be sure and neither can anyone else be, that’s why it’s such a very good bluff.

That is true.

 

Speaking personally, and pardon if it appears timid, but I really think one can't be too careful when an unknown but possible outcome of an action is the reduction of human civilisation to the Middle Ages (at best).

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

That is true.

 

Speaking personally, and pardon if it appears timid, but I really think one can't be too careful when an unknown but possible outcome of an action is the reduction of human civilisation to the Middle Ages (at best).

I’m not sure that being timid or careful actually lessens the likelihood of Putin carrying out his threats.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

I’m not sure that being timid or careful actually lessens the likelihood of Putin carrying out his threats.

Hmmm...I would suggest that a more aggressive response that then could lead to his position being threatened by external events wouldn't do much to lessen the likelihood either. If he's cornered, he may just decide to go out in a 100 million Kelvin blaze of glory.

 

There were reams of paper written about this stuff and how it relates to game theory at the height of the Cold War because it was much more of an issue then - and I don't think it's a coincidence that the two publicly known times that the world came closest to nuclear war - 1962 and 1983 - were when the the two opposing powers were intent on being belligerent in tone and attitude towards each other (Khrushchev in 1962, Reagan in 1983).

[Fox1norfolk]

On 24/04/2022 at 07:43, Zear0 said:

I'd be extremely surprised if they weren't present given their previous operational history. 

I would be surprised.that Russia’s top secret aerospace defence laboratory near Moscow was destroyed by fire with the loss of 17 lives was caused by old electrical wiring

[Countryfox]

On 24/04/2022 at 13:15, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...I would suggest that a more aggressive response that then could lead to his position being threatened by external events wouldn't do much to lessen the likelihood either. If he's cornered, he may just decide to go out in a 100 million Kelvin blaze of glory.

 

There were reams of paper written about this stuff and how it relates to game theory at the height of the Cold War because it was much more of an issue then - and I don't think it's a coincidence that the two publicly known times that the world came closest to nuclear war - 1962 and 1983 - were when the the two opposing powers were intent on being belligerent in tone and attitude towards each other (Khrushchev in 1962, Reagan in 1983).

 

I doubt he can just flick a switch on his desk and it would all kick off ...   there must be a'group' that has to do it together and they would all have to be happy to take that catastrophic course of action.  He can easily bluff but maybe it would be a lot harder to actually follow through with it ...  

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

I doubt he can just flick a switch on his desk and it would all kick off ...   there must be a'group' that has to do it together and they would all have to be happy to take that catastrophic course of action.  He can easily bluff but maybe it would be a lot harder to actually follow through with it ...  

From what is known, the Russian launch authority system is rather similar to the US one. Named "Cheget", the President of Russia has a "Cheget" briefcase nearby at all times for the purposes of executing a strike at short notice. From what I can tell it's not really known whether or not the Russian President has sole launch authority in the same way that the US President does, but given their close mimicry of the US system in other areas and their viewing of the President as an executive figurehead I don't see why they wouldn't do it the same way.

 

Believe me, having one person in control of that firepower and if/when it is used sounds as stupid to me as it does to you. It's a holdover from the old days where a decision might have to be made so fast that there wasn't time for a city hall debate on it. Perhaps that should change across all nations that have such weapons.

[Claridge]

On 24/04/2022 at 13:15, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...I would suggest that a more aggressive response that then could lead to his position being threatened by external events wouldn't do much to lessen the likelihood either. If he's cornered, he may just decide to go out in a 100 million Kelvin blaze of glory.

 

There were reams of paper written about this stuff and how it relates to game theory at the height of the Cold War because it was much more of an issue then - and I don't think it's a coincidence that the two publicly known times that the world came closest to nuclear war - 1962 and 1983 - were when the the two opposing powers were intent on being belligerent in tone and attitude towards each other (Khrushchev in 1962, Reagan in 1983).

Do you think it’s a coincidence, that after both years, real progress was made at lessening the threat. We need to get far tougher with Russia over Ukaraine, if he wins then other innocent countries will be attacked. Any artillery targeting civilians should be attacked if possible. These poor people are back in the Middle Ages, whilst we(west) talk the talk and do next to nothing.

[yorkie1999]

This man knew

 

[MPH]

9 hours ago, Fox1norfolk said:

I would be surprised.that Russia’s top secret aerospace defence laboratory near Moscow was destroyed by fire with the loss of 17 lives was caused by old electrical wiring

 
 

I dunno… have you seen the state of some of the equipment Russia have been throwing into the war? You’ll find more robust stuff at the pound shop..

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Claridge said:

Do you think it’s a coincidence, that after both years, real progress was made at lessening the threat. We need to get far tougher with Russia over Ukaraine, if he wins then other innocent countries will be attacked. Any artillery targeting civilians should be attacked if possible. These poor people are back in the Middle Ages, whilst we(west) talk the talk and do next to nothing.

...so the (implicit) suggestion here is that we need to push the world to the edge of nuclear holocaust through rattling the sabre in order to lower the threat in future?

 

With respect, that sounds remarkably illogical and needlessly gambling with the end of civilisation. To have done that a few times in the past is bad enough - to think of doing it again with what seems to be no justification seems worse.

 

What the "West" is doing now, viz. supplying arms and keeping Ukraine in the fight while taking every possible measure to avoid escalation by not facing Russia directly, is the right thing to do. The idea of protecting all those other innocent countries and poor people, as well as practically everyone else here, will mean nothing if most of them then disappear in a flash of pika.

 

As an aside, I would suggest everyone who is OK with pushing things more watch the movie Threads and consider what it might really mean. Yes, I'm afraid of nuclear escalation, even if the chances are low - and every sane person on this green Earth should be, given what it truly entails.

Edited 26 April 2022 by leicsmac

[fox_favourite]

So, this looks like the situation is worsening. How is this going to be sorted without it getting into a rabbit hole that we can’t control, which it looks like it’s heading that way. ☹️

[weller54]

Lavrov threatening World War 3 and nuclear weapons again I see!!

These cvnts need sorting out! 

NATO need to show some balls.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Lavrov threatening World War 3 and nuclear weapons again I see!!

These cvnts need sorting out! 

NATO need to show some balls.

How, exactly, is this accomplished?

[Trumpet]

The fact that they’re making such threats suggests they are being somewhat “sorted out”. They’re not happy with Ukraine being armed by the west so they’ll continue to make threats of escalation. 

[Mike Oxlong]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

How, exactly, is this accomplished?

At the very least by carrying on what we are doing and by not bending over every time Putin waggles his atomic weener

[yorkie1999]

18 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

The fact that they’re making such threats suggests they are being somewhat “sorted out”. They’re not happy with Ukraine being armed by the west so they’ll continue to make threats of escalation. 

If the west really wanted to get inside the russkies heads they should be supplying cans of spray paint and stencils with "made in china" in chinese so the Ukrainians can spray it on the side if their missiles before launching them.

[weller54]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

How, exactly, is this accomplished?

At the moment they can do anything they like in Ukraine..rape, murder, war crimes, genocide you name it!!

NATO are sitting on their hands and watching it all unfold.

How long can the World turn its back on these poor people?  Supplying defensive weapons isn't the answer.

NATO should drive out the Russian Army in Ukraine. Yes it's an all out War but it's probably what's going to happen eventually anyway.  

Putin knows only strength and right now NATO is showing weakness.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

At the very least by carrying on what we are doing and by not bending over every time Putin waggles his atomic weener

I wasn't aware there was any disagreement on the above, rather disagreement on jingoistic armchair escalation rhetoric.

 

27 minutes ago, weller54 said:

At the moment they can do anything they like in Ukraine..rape, murder, war crimes, genocide you name it!!

NATO are sitting on their hands and watching it all unfold.

How long can the World turn its back on these poor people?  Supplying defensive weapons isn't the answer.

NATO should drive out the Russian Army in Ukraine. Yes it's an all out War but it's probably what's going to happen eventually anyway.  

Putin knows only strength and right now NATO is showing weakness.

Personally, I'd rather not accept the destruction of human civilisation in nuclear hellfire as a fait accompli... but that's me. Not really a nihilist.

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

The fact that they’re making such threats suggests they are being somewhat “sorted out”. They’re not happy with Ukraine being armed by the west so they’ll continue to make threats of escalation. 

There's something in this - all the more reason to keep things as they are and not amp up the problem.

[Mike Oxlong]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wasn't aware there was any disagreement on the above, rather disagreement on jingoistic armchair escalation rhetoric.

 

Personally, I'd rather not accept the destruction of human civilisation in nuclear hellfire as a fait accompli... but that's me. Not really a nihilist.

I think it’s a given that any rational human being doesn’t want that destruction but how far do you go to avoid the threat of it ? 

 

If Putin says he is going to unleash his nuclear arsenal unless the Russian sphere of control returns to how it was in the Soviet era then what

 

I guess it’s not just how you die that is important but also how you live

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I think it’s a given that any rational human being doesn’t want that destruction but how far do you go to avoid the threat of it ? 

 

If Putin says he is going to unleash his nuclear arsenal unless the Russian sphere of control returns to how it was in the Soviet era then what

 

I guess it’s not just how you die that is important but also how you live

I would think so too, but the problem with nuclear holocaust is the "shit, didn't mean it guv" and the "deliberate" kind look rather similar to each other. The former, as a result of things spiralling to a place that people don't really want to go to but go because of fear, rather obviously worries me.

 

Personally, I think I would treat Putins words as a bluff if he said the above given the performance of his forces so far, but if it wasn't and a Nato country was attacked, then of course it would have to be defended and I guess things would go from there. Perhaps there might be a way such a thing wouldn't escalate to disaster, but I don't see it outside of the most fortunate chance.

 

WRT the last sentence, if it were purely about the individual here I'd agree more, but this is about practically every human on the planet. I've made this point WRT other global crises too and I'll repeat it here - when it comes to the survival of human civilisation itself, death is by definition the worst possible outcome. It follows that avoiding that is a matter of "by practically any means necessary".

Edited 26 April 2022 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Also, on the above.. I'm looking for a *realistic example based scenario*, any at all, of how this whole situation could be resolved by further use of military force by NATO *without* it escalating to something terrible.

 

One that has a sufficiently small chance of doing so and doesn't rely on unknowable chance, anyway.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Russia are a laughing stock, banging on about WW3 when they can't even get out of the Donbas. In a conventional war between Russia and NATO there would be Western tanks in the Kremlin within a week and Putin the dwarf knows it. 

Edited 26 April 2022 by Sol thewall Bamba

[yorkie1999]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wasn't aware there was any disagreement on the above, rather disagreement on jingoistic armchair escalation rhetoric.

 

Personally, I'd rather not accept the destruction of human civilisation in nuclear hellfire as a fait accompli... but that's me. Not really a nihilist.

It's not just you!

[Blarmy]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Also, on the above.. I'm looking for a *realistic example based scenario*, any at all, of how this whole situation could be resolved by further use of military force by NATO *without* it escalating to something terrible.

 

One that has a sufficiently small chance of doing so and doesn't rely on unknowable chance, anyway.

NATO carrying out conventional war against Russia is not a guarantee of Nuclear war. Yes it’s a risk, and that’s the problem - but there’s also the possibility that giving Russia a conventional bloody nose stops the whole thing.
 

We just don’t know - the best result may have come from putting NATO forces on the Russian/Ukrainian border back in January. I guess you would have been against that as in your mind that would have guaranteed the end of civilisation. It wouldn’t - it may have given Putin pause for thought and it could be that he is currently seeing just how much destruction, death and rape he can get away with.

 

As you’ve said - if Russia attacks a NATO country we’re in it anyway. Have you considered the possibility that this scenario could have been avoided if NATO had been more aggressive sooner?

 

Have you ever had to face anyone down, and show you’re not scared of them, to avoid being punched?