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.
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.
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.
EuclidGood 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 However, in my view it sounds like they are getting ready to pull out and calling a loss a success.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Flintlock76If 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.
Flintlock76If 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.
tree68a few square miles along the Ohio border...
where they roll up the sidewalks precisely at ten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bqFEJCtULI
CMStPnPSo 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.
charlie hebdoSo 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.
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.
Flintlock76 If Vlad the Impaler pops a nuke, tactical or otherwise, it's over for him.
Respectfully, re-read my post. I thought I made myself clear as far as "over" is concerned.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
CMStPnPSo 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.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
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.
I'm starting to wonder if the Russians are even remembering to follow their own doctrine.
There has been decades long debate about whether limited use of tactical nukes would escalate to use of strategic nukes. The concern is that the adversary may not make the distinction between tactical and strategic, and consider the first use as justification for launching an all-out strategic nuclear strike.
My understanding of the NATO war plan with repsect to tactical nukes was that it was an effective way of stopping massed tank attacks without generating dangerous levels of global fallout. The so-called "neutron bomb" was in reality a very low yeild hydrogen - where the fallout from one detonation would be 5% (or less) of the fallout from a 10kT tactical nuke.
Erik_MagThe so-called "neutron bomb" was in reality a very low yeild hydrogen - where the fallout from one detonation would be 5% (or less) of the fallout from a 10kT tactical nuke.
We do not have any neutron bombs the last was dismantled in 2011.
As for Nuclear strategy we do not deploy Tactitcal Nukes on a scale where widespread use would ever happen and current strategy is only to use them in response to escalation and not as part of any grand strategy for a military campaign.....there is just not enough of them anymore we used to have tens of thousands of them. They have been reduced to less than 500. Russia is thought to only have 2000(they reduced as well because they came to the same conclusion as the United States did about their existance being unrealistic). So niether side can really use the tactical nuke much more than for a brief demo.
You are correct though that was NATO strategy for tactical nukes prior to the 1980's but someone decided to yank them out of the inventory. Something about any U.S. Army Private being able to request one in a call for fire exercise while firing Artillery.....made the folks in the Pentagon nervous about their numbers and widespread deployment. The other item is after the firing of the first tactical nuke, not only is the nuclear genie out of the bottle for escalation but it forces both conventional armies into a Nuclear protective posture which really slows things down on the conventional army side of the equation and makes your conventional army less effective.
SD70Dude I'm starting to wonder if the Russians are even remembering to follow their own doctrine.
If NATO gets involved anything is possible. Otherwise Putin probably will not go that far for Ukraine.
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.”
Is history repeating itself?
Here in the U.K. we are being reminded that in March 1939, Russia invaded Finland (to protect the 'Russian people' living there).
September 1st 1939 Russia invaded into Polish territory to 'protect themselves from Germany'.
27th March 1854 Britain declared war on Russia over Crimea.
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Flintlock76By the way, I like your comparing Putin and the gang to La Cosa Nostra! Very sharp!
Yes, it was that way in Soviet times as well. He told the Oligarchs allegedly they could stay in business as long as he gets a cut in their annual take AND they stay out of commenting negatively on how he runs the country. Sounds like a GodFather to me.
You know after the invasion of Afghanistan the Afghan trade minister committed suicide because the Russian trade agreement was so one sided it made Afghanistan into a vassal state of Russia (reported at the time by USIA publication: "Problems of Communism"). All their trade and military agreements operate that way to an extent and it is my suspicion that China learned that same technique from Russia. It's also the reason when Putin said Russian Commonwealth of Nations...........everyone ran in the other direction that could. It was kind of funny to hear Cuba publicly warn Venezuela to stay away from the Russian buy military equipment on credit plan.....heh, I got a chuckle when that happened about 7-8 years ago.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.