Ukraine

[fox_favourite]

Problem is, this situation is so unpredictable as it’s new territory for us all. No one wants to see a nuclear war or even see a conventional war that involves the entire world. If nato get involved, then no doubt North Korea would, China, Belarus etc…it would get messy very quickly and the unpredictable nature of it would increase ten fold, leading to, humanity in tatters.

 

I’m a simple creature and don’t really understand the point in all this. I don’t see why anyone would want to destroy another country, to threaten nuclear attack on people. One person deciding that the whole world needs to suffer so they don’t look weak. One person, one human deciding the fate of 7-8bn. One. 

Edited 3 October 2022 by fox_favourite

[MPH]

It makes no sense though… not only will it not get him what he wants, why would he destroy the very land he claims belongs to Russia anyway? There’s something precise about most missiles.. want to take out a train station? Aim for it.. army barracks? Aim for it.. send in any kind of Nukes small or large then you’ll also take out every Russian speaking Putin ‘patriot’ living in the area that Russian propaganda will tell you is is plentiful.. plus it will render any land you hope to take useless for quite some time…

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

It makes no sense though… not only will it not get him what he wants, why would he destroy the very land he claims belongs to Russia anyway? There’s something precise about most missiles.. want to take out a train station? Aim for it.. army barracks? Aim for it.. send in any kind of Nukes small or large then you’ll also take out every Russian speaking Putin ‘patriot’ living in the area that Russian propaganda will tell you is is plentiful.. plus it will render any land you hope to take useless for quite some time…

This is all true, with the addendum that it not only destroys Russia, but most other places too as escalation would be inevitable.

 

However, as per above, if NATO kick his arse and he knows he isn't going to get what he wants anyway...

[MPH]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is all true, with the addendum that it not only destroys Russia, but most other places too as escalation would be inevitable.

 

However, as per above, if NATO kick his arse and he knows he isn't going to get what he wants anyway...

 

I think there’s 3 people needed to be in unison for the button to be pressed in Russia.. I maybe be wrong on that.. Putin is of course one of them… 

 

my point being that all 3 will need to agree to  the subsequent total annihilation of Russia  following a preemptive nuclear strike being an acceptable part of  their last stand..

[leicsmac]

Just now, MPH said:

 

I think there’s 3 people needed to be in unison for the button to be pressed in Russia.. I maybe be wrong on that.. Putin is of course one of them… 

 

my point being that all 3 will need to agree to  the subsequent total annihilation of Russia  following a preemptive nuclear strike being an acceptable part of  their last stand..

Hmmm....there's precious little information on what is called the Cheget - the Russian equivalent of the US nuclear "football" and whoever has the authority to use it. As you say, the President, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff all have one, but we really don't know whether or not all 3 need to agree for a launch to be authenticated or whether they're just one of many redundancies in the case of a decapitation strike.

 

Russian doctrine does explicitly allow for use of such weapons "when the survival of the state is threatened", but how those people would define that and whether all of them would act on it and whether or not all of them need to act on it for a launch to happen is still uncertain.

 

I would really hope that you're right in that basic humanity would prevail and they would back away from the brink and not take everyone with them, but here's hoping we don't even get close to a situation where that decision has to be considered in the first place.

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

The worry comes when it is decided that not losing is an acceptable alternative for winning, when it becomes about ‘saving face’

Edited 3 October 2022 by Dahnsouff

[whoareyaaa]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

The worry comes when it is decided that not losing is an acceptable alternative for winning, when it becomes about ‘saving face’

I think that's already happening with the fake elections and such

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

I think that's already happening with the fake elections and such

I hope that is his endgame

[Lionator]

12 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Problem is, this situation is so unpredictable as it’s new territory for us all. No one wants to see a nuclear war or even see a conventional war that involves the entire world. If nato get involved, then no doubt North Korea would, China, Belarus etc…it would get messy very quickly and the unpredictable nature of it would increase ten fold, leading to, humanity in tatters.

 

I’m a simple creature and don’t really understand the point in all this. I don’t see why anyone would want to destroy another country, to threaten nuclear attack on people. One person deciding that the whole world needs to suffer so they don’t look weak. One person, one human deciding the fate of 7-8bn. One. 

I don’t know if it makes you feel any better/worse, but there’s absolutely zero chance that China joins Russia in a global war, in a worst case they completely sit out, in a more realistic case, they support the implementation of regime change in Russia. Going to war with NATO has absolutely zero benefit for China, or for that matter Russia. 

[Dames]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I don’t know if it makes you feel any better/worse, but there’s absolutely zero chance that China joins Russia in a global war, in a worst case they completely sit out, in a more realistic case, they support the implementation of regime change in Russia. Going to war with NATO has absolutely zero benefit for China, or for that matter Russia. 

The problem with countries like Russia and China is that corruption is absolutely rife, especially in the military. 

 

Russia have been found out massively over the past 6 months and the same would happen to China. You can have more land and people but if you don't have the equipment you won't get very far. 

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, Dames said:

The problem with countries like Russia and China is that corruption is absolutely rife, especially in the military. 

 

Russia have been found out massively over the past 6 months and the same would happen to China. You can have more land and people but if you don't have the equipment you won't get very far. 

From what is known, the Chinese take their tech/equipment rather more seriously than the Russians and they are better outfitted. Not so far along the tech tree as the Americans, but certainly enough to merit a careful look.

Edited 3 October 2022 by leicsmac

[Dames]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

From what is known, the Chinese take their tech/equipment rather more seriously than the Russians and they are better outfitted. Not so far along the tech tree and the Americans, but certainly enough to merit a careful look.

On the face of it they have some very good weaponry and have made a lot of advancements but just like the Russians when you dig deeper there will be a lot of corruption and a lot of basic equipment on the black markets. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Dames said:

On the face of it they have some very good weaponry and have made a lot of advancements but just like the Russians when you dig deeper there will be a lot of corruption and a lot of basic equipment on the black markets. 

It's likely.

 

Well, here's hoping the situation will never arise where this has to be considered very seriously.

[MPH]

7 hours ago, Dames said:

On the face of it they have some very good weaponry and have made a lot of advancements but just like the Russians when you dig deeper there will be a lot of corruption and a lot of basic equipment on the black markets. 

 

it’s very likely that the Chinese could produce all the chips and electronics/ technology needed themselves in the event of any sanctions resulting from military action..

 

Also, the Chinese economy is an absolute powerhouse in comparison to the Russian and they have their fingers in so many pies that it would be hard to pin them down to any one  line of sanctions.. 

[SpacedX]

This huge freight train moving specialist military equipment that the world media has seized upon is indeed associated with a nuclear-arms wielding division of Russia’s Defence Ministry and the division responsible for maintenance and provision of weapons to the Strategic Rocket Forces. While such a deployment could indicate an ominous nuclear intent, there are many other reasons for such a movement, in addition to simply routine training operations. it's not immediately clear where or when it was taken. Intelligence suggests, northeast of Moscow and that it was heading south.

 

I've read a multitude of unconfirmed reports suggesting that the movement of these vehicles could be linked to a forthcoming demonstration of some kind of Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons in or around Ukraine. The Russian government may conduct either routine or snap nuclear readiness exercises, which often involve the live-firing of strategic weapon systems without nuclear warheads, which would serve as a strategic signal to Ukraine and the West. Such annual large-scale nuclear readiness drills typically take place around this time of year and its possible that these could be conducted close to the border of Ukraine as a shot across the bow.

 

I did however also see reports this morning that Russia's massive special missions submarine Belgorod, which has tactical nuclear capability has recently put to sea. 

[Captain...]

Is Putin crazy enough to use nukes? I really don't know, it depends on their end game. So far they have been largely targeting military and infrastructure under the pretence of a liberating force. Any use of a nuke or other large indiscriminate bombs would not be seen as the actions of a "liberating" force. 

 

However with Russia now claiming the Donbas region as theirs they can flip the narrative and say that any incursions into that region is an invasion by Ukraine and as such they have the right to defend themselves. If they no longer have any interest in capturing Kiev would they consider destroying it "in retaliation to a Ukraine invasion"? If so would they use nukes? They have enough firepower to completely wipe out Kiev or any other target without using nukes and risking the wrath of the West. It is the one card they have left up their sleeve, the threat of nukes, but if you never use them is the threat real? I genuinely wouldn't put it past Putin to drop a single nuke, then deny it, just to see how the West would react. Would one bomb be enough to get NATO involved and start a nuclear world war? Would the West risk destroying the world for the sake of 1 nuke? It's a chilling thought. How would you want our government to react after unverified reports that Russia had used a nuke?

Edited 4 October 2022 by Captain...

[ian__marshall]

10 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Is Putin crazy enough to use nukes? I really don't know, it depends on their end game. So far they have been largely targeting military and infrastructure under the pretence of a liberating force. Any use of a nuke or other large indiscriminate bombs would not be seen as the actions of a "liberating" force. 

 

However with Russia now claiming the Donbas region as theirs they can flip the narrative and say that any incursions into that region is an invasion by Ukraine and as such they have the right to defend themselves. If they no longer have any interest in capturing Kiev would they consider destroying it "in retaliation to a Ukraine invasion"? If so would they use nukes? They have enough firepower to completely wipe out Kiev or any other target without using nukes and risking the wrath of the West. It is the one card they have left up their sleeve, the threat of nukes, but if you never use them is the threat real? I genuinely wouldn't put it past Putin to drop a single nuke, then deny it, just to see how the West would react. Would one bomb be enough to get NATO involved and start a nuclear world war? Would the West risk destroying the world for the sake of 1 nuke? It's a chilling thought. How would you want our government to react after unverified reports that Russia had used a nuke?

I'm not sure the highlighted bit is correct. According to US intelligence they're running low on munitions and struggling to back fill. There was a report over the weekend that said the recent attacks on civilian convoys were conducted using anti-aircraft missiles. According to the intelligence they were surprised for two reasons, 1) it suggests they are running low on conventional precision missiles as the missiles deployed don't have anywhere near the same accuracy, and 2) Not only are anti-aircraft missiles extremely expensive but they're a vital resource in air defence so deploying them against land targets potentially leaves them exposed to attack as Russia will only have a finite number. 

 

 

To answer your final question I would hope that Nato takes a short pause before deciding their next action. Whilst reports may be unverifiable to the media, Nato military systems will know exactly what has happened in real time. For me it then becomes a PR exercise. Let the media catch up and highlight the atrocities, whilst continuing to feed Ukraine with the conventional weapons to increase the intensity of the counter offensive. They'll be no escaping/covering up a nuclear attack, there's just too much evidence.

 

At that point those countries who have abstained will turn against Russia (minus the rogue states who arent really bothered about their international reputation). Xi Jinping has already declared publicly that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to happen, whilst India I'm sure would condemn such actions. Any response would then be a collective East/West unified approach and Putin really will be up against it as he'll have burnt his bridges. Whether that's a dangerous scenario or not who knows, however I suspect if that were to happen he'll face bigger threats internally/domestically than any the rest of the world pose. 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, ian__marshall said:

I'm not sure the highlighted bit is correct. According to US intelligence they're running low on munitions and struggling to back fill. There was a report over the weekend that said the recent attacks on civilian convoys were conducted using anti-aircraft missiles. According to the intelligence they were surprised for two reasons, 1) it suggests they are running low on conventional precision missiles as the missiles deployed don't have anywhere near the same accuracy, and 2) Not only are anti-aircraft missiles extremely expensive but they're a vital resource in air defence so deploying them against land targets potentially leaves them exposed to attack as Russia will only have a finite number. 

 

 

To answer your final question I would hope that Nato takes a short pause before deciding their next action. Whilst reports may be unverifiable to the media, Nato military systems will know exactly what has happened in real time. For me it then becomes a PR exercise. Let the media catch up and highlight the atrocities, whilst continuing to feed Ukraine with the conventional weapons to increase the intensity of the counter offensive. They'll be no escaping/covering up a nuclear attack, there's just too much evidence.

 

At that point those countries who have abstained will turn against Russia (minus the rogue states who arent really bothered about their international reputation). Xi Jinping has already declared publicly that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to happen, whilst India I'm sure would condemn such actions. Any response would then be a collective East/West unified approach and Putin really will be up against it as he'll have burnt his bridges. Whether that's a dangerous scenario or not who knows, however I suspect if that were to happen he'll face bigger threats internally/domestically than any the rest of the world pose. 

The are reported to have very large thermobaric bombs, but good point on them running low on conventional weapons. I would still think they have the capability to flatten a city, if that was their aim, without resorting to nukes.

[fox_up_north]

I wasn't aware Xinping had publicly condemned use of nuclear weapons. As much as I dislike China and their approach, I also don't think they have any interest in a war. Why would it suit them, when they have control of everyone's finances? 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Captain... said:

Is Putin crazy enough to use nukes? I really don't know, it depends on their end game. So far they have been largely targeting military and infrastructure under the pretence of a liberating force. Any use of a nuke or other large indiscriminate bombs would not be seen as the actions of a "liberating" force. 

 

However with Russia now claiming the Donbas region as theirs they can flip the narrative and say that any incursions into that region is an invasion by Ukraine and as such they have the right to defend themselves. If they no longer have any interest in capturing Kiev would they consider destroying it "in retaliation to a Ukraine invasion"? If so would they use nukes? They have enough firepower to completely wipe out Kiev or any other target without using nukes and risking the wrath of the West. It is the one card they have left up their sleeve, the threat of nukes, but if you never use them is the threat real? I genuinely wouldn't put it past Putin to drop a single nuke, then deny it, just to see how the West would react. Would one bomb be enough to get NATO involved and start a nuclear world war? Would the West risk destroying the world for the sake of 1 nuke? It's a chilling thought. How would you want our government to react after unverified reports that Russia had used a nuke?

These are difficult questions.

 

Personally my own opinion (based on what I've read) is that there is pretty much no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war involving the three major powers (US, Russia, China) directly. One nuke being used directly against another of those powers or against those they are treaty-bound to defend would almost certainly result in catastrophic escalation.

 

However, that's just an opinion on my part, rather than fact. Here's hoping, for the sake of civilisation itself, the theory never has to be tested.

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

These are difficult questions.

 

Personally my own opinion (based on what I've read) is that there is pretty much no such thing as a "limited" nuclear war involving the three major powers (US, Russia, China) directly. One nuke being used directly against another of those powers or against those they are treaty-bound to defend would almost certainly result in catastrophic escalation.

 

However, that's just an opinion on my part, rather than fact. Here's hoping, for the sake of civilisation itself, the theory never has to be tested.

Are any nuclear weapon states treaty bound to defend Ukraine? Especially if Russia frames Ukraine as the aggressors attacking Russian land, i.e. the illegally annexed Donbas region.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Are any nuclear weapon states treaty bound to defend Ukraine? Especially if Russia frames Ukraine as the aggressors attacking Russian land, i.e. the illegally annexed Donbas region.

Not that I'm aware of right now - which is likely one of the many reasons why Zelensky is pushing for that NATO membership ASAP.

 

I guess that does leave the NATO powers with the possibility of just not responding in kind immediately should Russia actually take that awful step, but I would hazard a guess that the global conventional response would be so withering anyway that the "survival of the state is threatened" in Russia - justification for them using nuclear weapons against any aggressor.

 

It would be an incredibly chancy, incredibly dangerous situation for the world whatever way.

[Lionator]

34 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Are any nuclear weapon states treaty bound to defend Ukraine? Especially if Russia frames Ukraine as the aggressors attacking Russian land, i.e. the illegally annexed Donbas region.

Weirdly enough I’ve read that China have a defence protocol with Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

I wasn't aware Xinping had publicly condemned use of nuclear weapons. As much as I dislike China and their approach, I also don't think they have any interest in a war. Why would it suit them, when they have control of everyone's finances? 

I’m pretty sure Xi Jinping has told Putin it’s an absolute non starter. 

[Countryfox]

Re the above few posts ..  if Ukraine got NATO membership now we would be in the ridiculous situation where Russia and NATO were both claiming the same land ..  Donbas etc ..  so there’s no way that will happen before this conflict is either resolved or is in a stalemate position.  
 

With regard to what Putin might do, imo, it is highly unlikely he will use a nuclear device .. and even more unlikely he will target a civilian city like Kiev ..  he knows that would be an end game for him ..  and that’s basically all he’s bothered about. More likely he would use something else (but equally as nasty) on an area where there is a large military build up ..  thermobaric (as someone has said) chemical or even biological at a push ..    I still think he will call up more troops and resume in earnest next spring ..   as long as he doesn’t lose much more territory ..  

[WigstonWanderer]

18 hours ago, Countryfox said:

Re the above few posts ..  if Ukraine got NATO membership now we would be in the ridiculous situation where Russia and NATO were both claiming the same land ..  Donbas etc ..  so there’s no way that will happen before this conflict is either resolved or is in a stalemate position.  
 

With regard to what Putin might do, imo, it is highly unlikely he will use a nuclear device .. and even more unlikely he will target a civilian city like Kiev ..  he knows that would be an end game for him ..  and that’s basically all he’s bothered about. More likely he would use something else (but equally as nasty) on an area where there is a large military build up ..  thermobaric (as someone has said) chemical or even biological at a push ..    I still think he will call up more troops and resume in earnest next spring ..   as long as he doesn’t lose much more territory ..  

NATO rules prevent countries joining until they have resolved territorial disputes.