The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread

[Euclid]

Video on Russia’s possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine:

 

US Intelligence Report Says Russia’s Doctrine Of ‘Escalate To De-Escalate’ Could Involve Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine

 

https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-involve-using-tactical-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine/

 

Quote from the link:

 

“Strategic And Tactical Nukes

 

According to experts, the risk in Ukraine is not the use of giant “strategic” nuclear weapons, but “tactical” nuclear weapons with smaller warheads that will cause localized devastation.”

[SD70Dude]

I'm starting to wonder if the Russians are even remembering to follow their own doctrine.

[Leo_Ames]

The only tactical nuclear weapons that I ever thought made sense were Genie rockets for attacking Soviet bomber formations over the Canadian wilderness and nuclear ASROC depth charges for attacking their SSBN's in the event of war.

But the growth in precision weapons made both obsolete. A modern military doesn't need tactical nuclear weapons to hit targets. If Russia decides to use them, it's not out of some alleged need but to unnerve the population of Ukraine and western governments.

Hopefully this idiot's advisors and such have enough sense to talk him out of such.

[tree68]

CMStPnP

So highly doubtful Putin or the Russian Armed forces would use Tactical Nukes unless they are extremely stupid and just no longer care about the war's outcome. 

Alas, it is just such an attack that I would fear - sort of an "If I can't have it, neither can than they" approach.

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

 

 

Backshop

You keep missing the obvious thing that everyone keeps telling you.  There is no such thing as a "little" nuke.  A nuke is a nuke. He's not going to be able to "get away with" a bunch of "little" nuclear explosions, and he knows it.

 

 

 

 

Yes of course all nuclear weapons are nuclear so it is fair to say, “A nuke is a nuke.”  That has nothing to do with the distinction I am making between strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons.  Those two categories are not the same. 

 

My point was to suggest that since Russia has about 2000 smaller tactical nukes, they might be inclined to use them in Ukraine in order to be precise enough in their intended demolition to confine the damage within the borders of Ukraine.  Not every war challenge situation can benefit from the use of tactical nukes.  But the situation in Ukraine might be ideal for the use of tactical nukes, especially considering that Russia appears to be unable to do the job with conventional warfare. 

 

If Putin were to use these tactical nukes, I don’t think he would do so because he wants to “get away with it.”  He would use them for making smaller footprints that he could better control if say he wants to preserve certain infrastructure.  I don’t think Putin has any worry about getting away with it.  What could prevent him from getting away with it? 

 

Here is a good reference to the point I am making.

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0223.shtml

 

 

Having used simulated tactical nukes myself, they are not a precision strike weapon as stated previously they take out far more than you would expect, including friendly forces.   So that is issue #1 incorrect with your theory.

Second, Putins air launched missiles are proving to be far less than accurate by the U.S. Army's assessment including failures in mid-air.     Would you risk a tactical nuke falling into Ukraines hands at this moment if you were on the Russian side?    I doubt it.

Third, 2000 is not a big number and not enough to sustain a campaign.

Fourth, I would rank an retired or active Army General that served in combat arms as four times more credible than a policy wonk.    Not sure why you keep posting comments from policy wonks, most of them have no clue and are just making a living from sounding knowledgeable but giving out lots of bad advice.

Last and most important item.   Use of any Nukes will reduce the effectiveness of your conventional Army by at least 30% if not much more because your entire Armed Forces in the combat theater now has to go to a Nuclear Protective Posture and expect retaliation....anywhere in Theater.   So if you think the Russian Army is stalled now, after use of Nukes they will probably be very close to worthless.    It means Infantry has to dress up in extremely hot and mobile limiting full protective suits, it means all armored vehicles have to drive and manuever with all hatches closed.........have you personally tried that before?    To give you an idea, put cardboard over all the windows of your car but leave 3-4 narrow slits in the front that are forward facing only.   Try driving a car like that cross country where you have terrain where you can roll the car or drive off a small cliff.  

So highly doubtful Putin or the Russian Armed forces would use Tactical Nukes unless they are extremely stupid and just no longer care about the war's outcome.  I can see the use of Strategic Nukes to take out some critical port cities or civilian cities in NATO's rear area but not much more than that.

[Backshop]

You keep  talking about "Russian doctrine". I don't care about it. Once you use nukes, everything changes.  That shows that you're willing to use them.  It isn't just the immediate damage they do, it's the fallout carried by the winds.  

I know you enjoy being an iconoclast on every subject in this forum, but you're well out of your league on this issue.

[Euclid]

Backshop

You keep missing the obvious thing that everyone keeps telling you.  There is no such thing as a "little" nuke.  A nuke is a nuke. He's not going to be able to "get away with" a bunch of "little" nuclear explosions, and he knows it.

 

Yes of course all nuclear weapons are nuclear so it is fair to say, “A nuke is a nuke.”  That has nothing to do with the distinction I am making between strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons.  Those two categories are not the same. 

 

My point was to suggest that since Russia has about 2000 smaller tactical nukes, they might be inclined to use them in Ukraine in order to be precise enough in their intended demolition to confine the damage within the borders of Ukraine.  Not every war challenge situation can benefit from the use of tactical nukes.  But the situation in Ukraine might be ideal for the use of tactical nukes, especially considering that Russia appears to be unable to do the job with conventional warfare. 

 

If Putin were to use these tactical nukes, I don’t think he would do so because he wants to “get away with it.”  He would use them for making smaller footprints that he could better control if say he wants to preserve certain infrastructure.  I don’t think Putin has any worry about getting away with it.  What could prevent him from getting away with it? 

 

Here is a good reference to the point I am making.

 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0223.shtml

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

But I must conclude that he is extremely driven by a cause he deeply believes in. 

Which is now echoed by the patriarchal head of the Russian Orthodox Church.    Confirming my long held belief that specific church is a stooge of the Russian Government.    However, it raises an interesting question, does this mean the head of the Russian Orthodox Church is crazy too?  OR just towing the line in Moscow as he has done for several centuries?     Imagine living in Russia and hearing on the news how righteous the war is and then attending church and hearing the same thing.....it's very sad.

This is why I stated earlier we should respond to a country's actions not a specific leader and here is another example why.   That specific leader can point a finger at another stooge of the government and state they said it was OK.    So it's really not our problem what the opinion is of Putin or even the head of the Russian Orthodox Church both are issues for Russia to fix.    It is the actions of the country we should be responding to.

[CMStPnP]

Flintlock76

I don't KNOW if Ukraine has chemical weapons

You can make fairly effective Chemical Weapons in your garage using store bought household cleaner.   So the presumption should be everyone has the knowledge.   The question is on delivery system and how reliable it is.

[Backshop]

You keep missing the obvious thing that everyone keeps telling you.  There is no such thing as a "little" nuke.  A nuke is a nuke. He's not going to be able to "get away with" a bunch of "little" nuclear explosions, and he knows it.

[Euclid]

I have no idea what Putin’s state of mental health is.  But I must conclude that he is extremely driven by a cause he deeply believes in.  There is no need to guess in order to reach that conclusion.  His radical move into Ukraine proves it.  He intends to conquer Ukraine and eliminate every person there who disagrees with his goal.  He obviously wants the land and presumably the infrastructure as well.   But if he has to destroy the infrastructure to kill all the resisting people, he will do that and be satisfied with just the land.  But that is a big task, and he needs a bigger demolition machine. 

 

That is what I see as a possible motivation for him to use nukes as a first strike.  I don’t see a motivation for him to launch a nuclear first strike on NATO.  And a Putin nuclear first strike on Ukraine would be with a small scale, tactical nuke.  If he is satisfied with the result, he will launch more until the necessary demolition is complete.   With the small scale nukes, he will have better control over the demolition process and be able to prevent it from spilling over the borders and into other countries. 

 

The big unknown is how NATO would respond to this escalation to the use of nuclear demolition to drive people out of Ukraine.  Such a radical act would call for a radical response.  What would that response be?  More sanctions?  More lines in the sand? 

 

The obvious meaningful response would be for NATO to attack Russia in order stop the nuclear annihilation of Ukraine.  This might be a cause large enough to trigger a decision for activating Article 5.   How would Putin react to that?  I think he would realize that he cannot defeat NATO with conventional warfare.  At that point, both sides will be on the brink of a full scale use-it-or-lose-it nuclear exchange.   In such an exchange each party will be faced the question of stopping to end the exchange, hoping the opposing party will follow with the same cessation, or risk losing another big city if the opposing country does not stop.  Both sides have to quit, but neither one will be able to. 

 

I think this is the full scope of the problem we face.  If it ever had a solution, we passed that point some time ago. 

[Flintlock76]

CMStPnP

Possibly they might use Chemical Weapons but if they did it would not be over a large area, it would be small and localized as was done in all Chemical Weapons attacks they militarily advised on in the past (Syria, etc).

One of the problems (for lack of a better term) with chemical weapons is they invite a response in kind if the other side has them as well.  I don't KNOW if Ukraine has chemical weapons, I haven't heard that they do but I also haven't heard that they don't.  At any rate they're easy to make if you've got a chemical industry on hand to do so. During WW1 the British and French were caught by surprise by the German use of chlorine gas in 1915 but it didn't take them long to catch up and eventually surpass the German use of chemical weapons. 

By the way, I like your comparing Putin and the gang to La Cosa Nostra!  Very sharp!

By the way, I don't think Putin's crazy.  It strikes me he's more like the failed dictators of the past who got too big for their britches and never learned to quit while they were ahead. (There have been successful dictators who knew "When to say when" and died in their beds.) I imagine he's deep in the bowels of the Kremlin as we speak trying to figure a way out of this mess he's gotten himself into with the minimum loss of face. 

[Flintlock76]

Euclid

 

 

Flintlock76

If Vlad the Impaler pops a nuke, tactical or otherwise, it's over for him. 

 

 

 

 

Why would it be over for him?  What exactly would be done about it?

It seems to me that he might be inclined to use nukes to boost his goals in Ukraine.  I don't know what would stop him.  

 

Respectfully, re-read my post.  I thought I made myself clear as far as "over" is concerned.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

So now you have changed your opinion and gone beyond my observation, also made by others who have observed Putin's decline. Before you dismissed the idea that Putin was unstable (a sociopathic personality disorder to be precise, which does not normally meet the legal criteria for Insanity). He appears to be decompensating.  Let's just hope his inner circle with restrain his using nukes or chemical warheads.

Actually, no I haven't.   I never thought he was crazy and still do not now.   I was addressing those that do in that little passage because it has always been irrelevant the sanity of a leader.   A country is held accountable for a leaders actions not the other way around and it has never been the other way around.

The whole tangental discussion of if he is crazy or not crazy is a side issue that should never impact our actions.    It is the problem of Russia if their leader is crazy because nobody can fix that but Russia.

[charlie hebdo]

CMStPnP

So I am fairly confident that insane, mad, or crazy.   Mr. Putin views the Nuclear option as suicide.

So now you have changed your opinion and gone beyond my observation, also made by others who have observed Putin's decline. Before you dismissed the idea that Putin was unstable (a sociopathic personality disorder to be precise, which does not normally meet the legal criteria for Insanity). He appears to be decompensating.  Let's just hope his inner circle with restrain his using nukes or chemical warheads.

 

[ORNHOO]

tree68

a few square miles along the Ohio border...

where they roll up the sidewalks precisely at ten:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bqFEJCtULI

 

 

[Euclid]

Flintlock76

If Vlad the Impaler pops a nuke, tactical or otherwise, it's over for him. 

 

Why would it be over for him?  What exactly would be done about it?

It seems to me that he might be inclined to use nukes to boost his goals in Ukraine.  I don't know what would stop him.  

[CMStPnP]

Flintlock76

If Vlad the Impaler pops a nuke, tactical or otherwise, it's over for him.  By that I mean all he'll do is get Russia permanent pariah nation status, at least as long as he's in power.  That's assuming anyone in the Russian power structure or military would even carry out the order.  If they're hurting from sanctions now that'll be nothing compared to what will happen after the use of an atomic weapon.   He wants pieces of Ukraine, but none of those pieces are worth the use of any NBC weapons, that's what we called Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons in the military. There's things you just don't do, no matter how frustrated you are. 

Agree, when dealing with the Russians you have to think like La Costra Nostra or like how Organized crime operates in this country.   Putin and his ilk are operating almost carbon copy to that model.   So fear and intimidation are #1 BUT there are limits to how far they will actually go.   They were prepared to live and operate at a lower level in order to obtain Ukraine but they didn't think for a moment it would be this bad.   They are well aware that usage of Nukes would cement their paraiah status for a century or longer.    Possibly they might use Chemical Weapons but if they did it would not be over a large area, it would be small and localized as was done in all Chemical Weapons attacks they militarily advised on in the past (Syria, etc).   They knew full well the design of the Nuclear Power station they attacked because they built it and it is a replica of what exists in Russia and I find it telling that they only targeted adminstration buildings and not any of the reactor or waste storage buildings (indicating they were being careful to an extent).    This is not hard to do with Artillery or Mortars when the buildings were as far apart as they were on that site......so my view that was another bluff designed to intimidate....and sad it actually had an impact.

Putin is already a war criminal but he knows that nobody will cross the border to get him unless he really crosses the line.   Using nukes would lift that last restriction and he would be dead or captured either by the nuclear response or by the conventional Army rolling through Moscow in a few weeks afterwards.    So I am fairly confident that insane, mad, or crazy.   Mr. Putin views the Nuclear option as suicide.   He and members of his government are really stupid to discuss it publicly and so casually as they have because all the countries racing towards Nuclear weapons are watching and listening and Moscow giving them the OK for using them to threaten so boldly will come back to bite Russia.

[SD70Dude]

CMStPnP

 However, in my view it sounds like they are getting ready to pull out and calling a loss a success.

In other news, Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.  

[Flintlock76]

Euclid

Good video explaining the rationale and strategies behind Russia’s possible use of tactical or battlefield nukes on Ukraine.  We hear of how Russia is bogging down on the war and coming to a standstill. 

If Vlad the Impaler pops a nuke, tactical or otherwise, it's over for him.  By that I mean all he'll do is get Russia permanent pariah nation status, at least as long as he's in power.  That's assuming anyone in the Russian power structure or military would even carry out the order.  If they're hurting from sanctions now that'll be nothing compared to what will happen after the use of an atomic weapon.  

He wants pieces of Ukraine, but none of those pieces are worth the use of any NBC weapons, that's what we called Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons in the military. There's things you just don't do, no matter how frustrated you are. 

[CMStPnP]

The Russian government made a vague statement today that almost all of their military objectives have been achieved in Ukraine and that militarily they will now concentrate on the dombass province.    Nobody knows exactly what their objectives were since they were never made public.    So nobody really knows what that statement means.     However, in my view it sounds like they are getting ready to pull out and calling a loss a success.

[Flintlock76]

Backshop

Since PMs are screwed up--Flintlock-since you're a fan of Mark Felton and The Chietain, are you aware of Drachinifel?  He does WW1&2 era naval stuff.

 

Yes, but I'm not that much of a fan.  His videos, while interesting, strike me as a little overdone.  I wish they were a little more fast-paced.  Mark Felton's just about perfect, tells the story quickly and well and like the old show biz adage says "Always leave 'em wanting more!" 

Yeah, I don't know what the hell is going on with the PM feature.  The "Events" part of the website hasn't worked for almost a year either, which is a shame, it was one of the best parts of the site!  

I could  put my e-mail address in the "User Profile" section but I'm reluctant to do that, probably my on-and-off again paranoia kicking in.  

[Euclid]

Good video explaining the rationale and strategies behind Russia’s possible use of tactical or battlefield nukes on Ukraine.  We hear of how Russia is bogging down on the war and coming to a standstill. 

 

However, this mode of Russia’s failure is precisely what fits their planned strategy for escalating to the use of tactical nukes.  Part of their strategy is to use only one.  And their smallest is just 1/15^th of the power of the Hiroshima bombs.  Moreover, Russia can achieve their potential strategy by not directly targeting a city.  It may not kill anyone.  Therefore, in such a case, the purpose would only be to send a message.  But of course even without any death, the use of any nuke will roil the world.  The spread of fallout will be a monumental concern.       

 

Video:

 

'Russia May Use Tactical Nuclear Weapons On Ukraine' I Will Putin Be First To Use Nukes Since WW II?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPyUiVzpzs0

 

So Russia’s use of tactical nukes depends on their perception of a threat rising to a point where they would consider it to be “existential,” to use their official language.  NATO too is watching a rising threat to their member countries.  If that threat rises to the point of any war spilling into a NATO country, it would be considered to be high enough threat to trigger Article 5, which would compel all NATO countries, including the U.S., to go to war with Russia. 

 

But threat being felt by NATO does not need any attack on a NATO country.  Obviously, they are feeling more threatened every day that this war goes on.  They feel threatened just by what Russia is doing to Ukraine because it suggests that Russia may do the same to a NATO country.  In my opinion, this threat which may ultimately trigger a war response from NATO, and then have a similar effect to trigger Russia to respond, is by definition, a hair trigger.  Not only is it a sensitive trigger, but also, triggering either side will instantly trigger the other.   

 

If this trigger is pulled, there is likely to be an explosive escalation of both sides.  The potential of this escalation leads upward through the realm of conventional warfare, and continues right into the realm of nuclear war.  With all the interia the escalation has, it will be very hard to stop at the edge of the cliff that marks the start of the nuclear phase. 

[Backshop]

Since PMs are screwed up--Flintlock-since you're a fan of Mark Felton and The Chietain, are you aware of Drachinifel?  He does WW1&2 era naval stuff.

[tree68]

Backshop

The UP is the best part of Michigan, but you already know that...

That I do.  Even if I'm not a Youper....

[Flintlock76]

As the song says, "Everything Old Is New Again."

The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939.  Some interesting parallels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxbDwsJo38

 

 

[Backshop]

tree68

Michigan got the entire Upper Peninsula as a consolation for losing a few square miles along the Ohio border...

It's been argued that the UP should have gone to Wisconsin...

 

Dem's fightin' words! The UP is the best part of Michigan, but you already know that...

[tree68]

Michigan got the entire Upper Peninsula as a consolation for losing a few square miles along the Ohio border...

It's been argued that the UP should have gone to Wisconsin...

[rixflix]

And then there's sentiment in Maryland's panhandle for joining West Virginia. Makes sense. Put all your economic basket cases in one basket. However they're all very scenic.

Rick

SD70Dude

 

 

Convicted One

SD70Dude

despite their differences with each other and the nation as a whole there is very little separatist action. 

You do realize there is frequent "bluster" within California itself about splitting into two separate states?

Not to say that it will ever happen.  But the discussion never seems to completely go away, either.

 

 

 

In recent years there's also been a fair amount of 'talk' from the usual right-wing sources about Alberta separating from Canada.  It's equally unlikely to happen and just as stupid, but it won't go away. 

Call me back when a mainstream political party with a fair number of seats incorportates separatism into their platform, or if the separatist movement turns violent.

 

[BaltACD]

If this were viewed in simple human terms - Vlad is boy with a bad temper who is too immature to deal with rejection and Ukraine is the girl that is rejecting all his advances.  Typical domestic violence.

Vlad's thoughts are - If I can't have her, I will destroy her.  Ukraine has more resilience and courage than Vlad's military.