Trains.com

The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread Locked

32865 views
802 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 7, 2022 11:35 AM

Backshop
Putin is blowing smoke.  Every time he escalates, he blames others.  Poland is a full member of NATO.  Russia doesn't dare attack them.

I would not predict what Putin might do.  But say he attacked those planes that were headed for Ukraine while they were still in Poland; what would we do?  What would NATO do? 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Monday, March 7, 2022 10:27 AM

Euclid

Developing news is that Poland will give Ukraine some used fighter jets in a deal where the U.S. replaces those jets with new ones for Poland.  However, this is said to be a delicate move because Poland is not sure how far they can go down this road without Putin considering the plan to be an act of war against Russia.  Coincidentally yesterday, Putin said that the sanctions alone are akin to an act of war against Russia.  

 

Putin is blowing smoke.  Every time he escalates, he blames others.  Poland is a full member of NATO.  Russia doesn't dare attack them.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 7, 2022 10:21 AM

Developing news is that Poland will give Ukraine some used fighter jets in a deal where the U.S. replaces those jets with new ones for Poland.  However, this is said to be a delicate move because Poland is not sure how far they can go down this road without Putin considering the plan to be an act of war against Russia.  Coincidentally yesterday, Putin said that the sanctions alone are akin to an act of war against Russia.  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, March 7, 2022 8:21 AM

Gee, I wonder what affect the inability to smell and taste would have on a soldier in the field...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Monday, March 7, 2022 4:32 AM

Not to mention such an attack on German forces and civilians would've invited reprisals on Allied prisoners, which I bet was also on their mind. 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:06 PM

SD70Dude
Iraq used large amounts of poison gas against Iranian forces during the 1980s, which the U.S. conveniently ignored while supporting Saddam.   Churchill wanted to use Anthrax on the Germans but was overruled, in part because of the retaliation concerns.   The Americans were preparing to use chemical weapons in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, but as we all know a different type of weapon of mass destruction ended the war first.

1)  Right you are, I'd forgotten.  But it fits the pattern, Iran couldn't retaliate in kind. And the Iran-Iraq War had degenerated to a stalemate, no war of movement here.  It didn't do Saddam any good anyway. And of course the US was favorable to Saddam, he hadn't done anything to us.  Remember what Iran did?  I do. 

2)  Right on Churchill.  He was furious over the V2 attacks that the British had no way of stopping or retaliating to in kind so he wanted to hit them back hard with something. A biological attack with anthrax seemed a good way to do it.  The British high command talked him out of it, the RAF didn't have the aircraft needed to deliver the anthrax in the quantities that would have been needed, Allied forces in Western Europe were advancing at a rate that would have put the V2 launch sites out of range within a reasonable amount of time, and at any rate Germany was losing the war as it was, that was only a matter of time.  In addition to that  Allied forces would have had to occupy a poisoned country, not a good idea no matter what country it was.  

3) Chemical weapons were on the table for an invasion of Japan, but as a last resort weapon only since the Japanese did have the ability to retaliate in kind, or for the US to respond if they popped poison gas on us first. Bear in mind chemical weapons also included defoliants to kill Japanese crops.  Starving them obviously wasn't needed in the end.

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Sunday, March 6, 2022 7:48 PM

After seeing some of the footage on YouTube of what the Ukraine citizens are doing to the Russian invaders I'm more scared of them afterwards.  One farmer in the middle of the night literally stole a freaking S400 missile launcher and then was seen dragging the freaking radar with it the next day down the road.  Several other people have been seen stealing T90 tanks. 

 

Hell I'm no military expert but if this is the quality of Russian military where tanks and high end air defensive systems can be stolen by civilians then if the Russians are dumb enough to attack NATO heaven help them.  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, March 6, 2022 3:56 PM

It occurs to me that there are two types who seek to acquire that which is not theirs.

The first is simply someone who wants what someone else has.  I like your hat, so I take it.  It's easy to oppose someone like that, and odds are if someone sees it happen, they'll try to retrieve it and return it to it's rightful owner.

It's even possible that the culprit will agree.

The second is someone who feels they are entitled to what someone else has.  You got Junior a hat, and his sibling thinks you should have gotten it for them instead.  Tantrums ensue.

Putin appears to fall in the second category.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Sunday, March 6, 2022 3:56 PM

Flintlock76
Backshop

We had tactical "backpack" nukes decaded ago.  What you don't seem to realize is that once you explode one nuke, all bets are off.  They aren't going to be able to excuse it as "it was just a little one". 

Just like chemical weapons.  It was the fact that everyone had them during WW2 that played a part in their never being used.  No-one wanted to be the first to get the ball rolling with those particular weapons and risk a "tit-for-tat" result.

That and the facts that most senior officers on both sides had personal experience with chemical weapons in WW1 and had no desire to repeat it and also chemical weapons weren't really practical in a war of movement, which WW2 mostly was. 

The only time I know of that chemical weapons were used after WW1 was against those who had no means to retaliate in kind.  Italy used them against the Ethiopians and the Japanese against the Chinese in the 1930s. 

Iraq used large amounts of poison gas against Iranian forces during the 1980s, which the U.S. conveniently ignored while supporting Saddam.  

Churchill wanted to use Anthrax on the Germans but was overruled, in part because of the retaliation concerns.  

The Americans were preparing to use chemical weapons in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, but as we all know a different type of weapon of mass destruction ended the war first.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Sunday, March 6, 2022 3:51 PM

Flintlock76
NorthBrit
One thing I have learned.   Do not trust  reporters.

As I said earlier, news reports are just the "first draft" of history.

This is the first time I've seen Fox News, CBC and Al Jazeera all reporting the same basic storyline.  Namely that Ukraine was no threat, Putin is the aggressor, and no one can understand what he's thinking.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, March 6, 2022 2:28 PM

NorthBrit
...

One thing I have learned.   Do not trust  reporters.

...

The other thing I have learned -

Don't trust the announcements of Russian leaders

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, March 6, 2022 2:23 PM

NorthBrit
One thing I have learned.   Do not trust  reporters.

As I said earlier, news reports are just the "first draft" of history.

  • Member since
    October 2020
  • 3,604 posts
Posted by NorthBrit on Sunday, March 6, 2022 12:47 PM

Personally I do not worry about any nuke attack.   Russia could have done that a long time ago.

Look at the map of Ukraine.  What do Russia want by invading the country?

They want a home for their Black Sea fleet.

They want Odessa and Berdyansk for their surface fleet  and   the reopening and enlarging of Bakaklava  submarine base.

Russia also wants the  “Lenin Kuznitsa” plant in Kyiv.

 

One thing I have learned.   Do not trust  reporters.

One famous reporter here said during the Falklands War,  "I counted them all out and counted them all back.  They all returned safely."

He couldn't count because we lost an aircraft.

I could mention other reports of misinformation.

 

David

To the world you are someone.    To someone you are the world

I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Sunday, March 6, 2022 12:10 PM

Euclid

If Putin leveled Ukraine and killed everyone in the country, who would retaliate?  The damage has been done, so what good would it do to retaliate? 

You need to look at a map of Europe.  Ukraine is not a small country.  It is the size of Arizona and New Mexico combined.  It also has 43 million people with another 70+ million just across the border in Romania, Poland and Slovakia. Radiation knows no borders. Besides, anyone who believes anything that Putin says is a fool.  Three weeks ago, he said he wasn't going to invade Ukraine.  Who's going to believe the "I'm only using a couple of small nukes" promise?  If he needs to use nukes to conquer Ukraine, that just shows how impotent he is.  Not only does he look bad in our eyes, but the Chinese wouldn't like it either.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, March 6, 2022 11:28 AM

greyhounds
There is no further need to worry about WWIII starting. WWIII has started.

No No No. It isn't and you and the rest of us better hope not.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:40 AM

Euclid
If Putin leveled Ukraine and killed everyone in the country, who would retaliate?  The damage has been done, so what good would it do to retaliate?

We can go 'round and 'round with this but if Putin turns Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland (even tactical nukes can have that effect) what good would the territory do him then?  The end result would be turning Russia into a permanent pariah nation, at least as long as he and his government were in power. 

Obviously I can't say this with any certainty, but I'd guess if he tried to use any kind of nuclear weapon he'd be removed from office by saner heads.  Just because he's surrounded by "yes-men" doesn't mean those "yes-men" are madmen.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:28 AM

Backshop

There's really no such thing as "small" nukes.  Once you use one, you're open for retaliation in-kind. If Putin has to use nukes on Ukraine, he's already lost.

 

If Putin leveled Ukraine and killed everyone in the country, who would retaliate?  The damage has been done, so what good would it do to retaliate?  Whoever did retaliate would be likely to get hit in return.  Why would they accept that probability just to retailiate against Russia?

The biggest reason for retaliation is the belief that more is coming, and if you strike back hard, you may prevent more from coming.  But a small scale, tactical nuke sends the message that it intends to be confined.  With an attack on Ukraine, it would be over and done before anyone could prepare to deter it.   

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:26 AM

Backshop

We had tactical "backpack" nukes decaded ago.  What you don't seem to realize is that once you explode one nuke, all bets are off.  They aren't going to be able to excuse it as "it was just a little one". 

 

Just like chemical weapons.  It was the fact that everyone had them during WW2 that played a part in their never being used.  No-one wanted to be the first to get the ball rolling with those particular weapons and risk a "tit-for-tat" result.

That and the facts that most senior officers on both sides had personal experience with chemical weapons in WW1 and had no desire to repeat it and also chemical weapons weren't really practical in a war of movement, which WW2 mostly was. 

The only time I know of that chemical weapons were used after WW1 was against those who had no means to retaliate in kind.  Italy used them against the Ethiopians and the Japanese against the Chinese in the 1930s. 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Sunday, March 6, 2022 9:35 AM

We had tactical "backpack" nukes decaded ago.  What you don't seem to realize is that once you explode one nuke, all bets are off.  They aren't going to be able to excuse it as "it was just a little one". 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, March 6, 2022 8:12 AM
Russia not only has far more tactical nukes than we do, but they also have a whole new tactical plan for how to use them.  Instead of the total standoff principle of Mutually Assured Destruction of the big nukes that cannot be actually used for a sane outcome; Russia sees the mini-nukes as being actually used for practical advantages in battlefield combat.  There is always a race for "bigger is better," but there is wisdom in downsizing in many cases.  
 
The big nukes are intended to scare away their use.  As such, it seems that the social reaction to their presence is mostly denial.  With that comes the comfort of a belief that they never can be used.  And it also follows that if there were no nukes, there would be no reason for proliferation.  But once there was one, there became the need for proliferation, so that everybody had at least one to deter any one of the others.  But when it comes to deterrence, there is no way to know when enough is enough.  So from that comes the idea that everyone having them is the way to assure that none are ever used.  So the world is suspended in the standoff known as Mutually Assured Destruction. 
 
The Russians have sought to break out of that paradigm by developing the mini-nukes that have a practical purpose rather than just being an ornament of doomsday annihilation, as is the case with the big nukes. 
 
When I describe Russia’s practical intent as being advanced thinking, I am not welcoming it.  If anything, it opens up the prospect of more spontaneous, quicker, and more frequent wars with deadlier outcomes.  Indeed, it is this new tactical nuke philosophy that is being expressed by Putin in his many references threatening the use of nukes against anyone interfering with his Ukraine objective.   He makes these threats to the smallest of provocations such as placings sanctions on him or speaking of him with harsh language. 
 
This denial that that comes from the protection of standoff created by the big nukes allows society to set aside the threat of conventional war going nuclear. This incentivizes conventional war by seeming to limit its consequences of thoroughly escalating.  This comforts the superior side in a conventional war because they are most likely to win as long as it does not go nuclear.  I see this in the shortsighted demands for a no-fly zone as though it were an easy expedient to limit the immediate effects of a small war.
 
It is shortsighted because with a conventional war, yes there will be a winner, but with a nuclear war, everyone loses. 
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Sunday, March 6, 2022 7:21 AM

There's really no such thing as "small" nukes.  Once you use one, you're open for retaliation in-kind. If Putin has to use nukes on Ukraine, he's already lost.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, March 5, 2022 11:40 PM
charlie hebdo
UIC gauge is 1435mm. Ukraine and Russia are 1520, a whopping difference of 85 mm or 3.346 inches.
 
Well, that’s enough, kinda, sorta. It’s impossible to operate the same equipment on the two gauges. Unless the trucks are changed, or something like that. And it’s also impossible to operate an efficient three rail dual gauge system, as is done in Brazil, because 3.346 inches doesn’t provide enough space between the rails to do that.
 
user="CSSHEGEWISCH”] Everybody knows that Russia chose 5' gauge as a defensive measure, but it also stymied offensive operations at the beginning of the First World War.
 
I’ve heard an alternative explanation. When a Russian civil engineer was sent to study the railways being built in Europe, he measured the distance between the outside of the rails instead of the distance between the inside of the rails. They wound up with a five foot gauge.
 
3.346 inches didn’t provide much of a defense. When the Germans invaded in WWII, they could move one rail inward by that much as fast as their army could advance. When things started going the other way the Russians could likewise move one rail outward as fast as their army could advance.
 
There is no further need to worry about WWIII starting. WWIII has started.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, March 5, 2022 10:51 PM

CMStPnP

 

 
Euclid
Are you factoring in the possiblity of such a conventional war going nuclear?

 

Depends on the part of the Nuclear War.   After the last missile has detonated 62% of the Russian population of 141 million is dead which is significantly more than the United States.    Don't have projections for deaths due to fallout / nuclear winter.   However temps for Nuclear Winter are projected to be in the range of -104 F for the latitude Chicago is at and will remain so for the better part of a year.    Our weather system in the Northern Hemisphere does not really mix a lot with the Southern Hemisphere so the Southern Hemisphere will have some after effects but will be considered a lot better off than the Northern Hemisphere as long as no nukes are detonated in Australia or the Southern Hemisphere.

All life ending on Earth is a myth though.   High probability the nuclear war is survivable in the Southern Hemisphere at least.   Also, who knows if the projections for the North are correct or accurate to that draconian level.

 

Your predicted numbers are reminiscent of Alfred Kahn (Dr. Strangelove) and just as ridiculous. Nuclear war is unthinkable. Period!

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 211 posts
Posted by JayBee on Saturday, March 5, 2022 10:03 PM

Euclid
Here is a good video with lots of detail explaining Russia’s rationale for tactical nukes.  Generally they can be used for a wide array of practical purposes whereas the full size nukes cannot.  They have developed them for a very flexible use with lots of specialized options.  
 
RUSSIA HAS A MASSIVE STOCKPILE OF ‘TACTICAL’ NUCLEAR WEAPONS || 2022
 
 

The US has not abandoned Tactical Nukes. The reason why Germany is buying the F-35 Fighter Bomber is for potential Tactical Nuke delivery.

US B61 Taactical Nuclear Bomb

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, March 5, 2022 9:42 PM
Here is a good video with lots of detail explaining Russia’s rationale for tactical nukes.  Generally they can be used for a wide array of practical purposes whereas the full size nukes cannot.  They have developed them for a very flexible use with lots of specialized options.  
 
RUSSIA HAS A MASSIVE STOCKPILE OF ‘TACTICAL’ NUCLEAR WEAPONS || 2022
 
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, March 5, 2022 9:12 PM

Euclid
Interesting article on Russia’s new class of small battlefield nukes and how they would use them to wage a small nuclear war that we will not be able to respond to.  They say this is what Putin is referring to in his recent nuclear threats against his adversaries. 

Tactical nukes are as likely to harm those using them as they are to harm those they are being used against.  Of course, through history, Russia doesn't care about casualties of their own people anyway.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, March 5, 2022 8:58 PM

Euclid
Interesting article on Russia’s new class of small battlefield nukes and how they would use them to wage a small nuclear war that we will not be able to respond to.  They say this is what Putin is referring to in his recent nuclear threats against his adversaries.
 


I think once upon a time the United States had over 10,000 tactical nukes and decided unilaterally they would probably never use them.   Then attempted to get Russia involved in a treaty banning their use.....not sure what happened to the treaty.
 
The United States abandoned Tactical Nukes because their use would be strictly as a terror weapon with not much military value and probably a great hinderence to military operations (like Chemical Weapons).    Fine if the Russians want to use them because the prevailing winds in Europe are West to East so guess who gets the fallout?    Further their use, slows everything to a crawl and greatly complicates manueverability.    Their use is like a hari-kari move.    No idea why Russia wasted money on them but maybe the very small quantities they have is also indicative of the fact they also believe their use would be counter productive.   You've seen how the Russian Army moves now when they are able to have their hatches open, imagine how much slower they would be with hatches closed using the extreme tunnel vision of view ports......I think it would be a disaster for them militarily.   So I view their threat to use them as a bluff or if they did use them their use would be very limited.
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, March 5, 2022 7:51 PM
Interesting article on Russia’s new class of small battlefield nukes and how they would use them to wage a small nuclear war that we will not be able to respond to.  They say this is what Putin is referring to in his recent nuclear threats against his adversaries.
 
 
  • Member since
    March 2022
  • 4 posts
Posted by jimm44 on Saturday, March 5, 2022 6:24 PM

This has gone far enough....Russia is now purposely killing civilians and civilian targets. I am too old to take part but if I were younger I would. Is the world just going to sit by and watch a country and it's people eradicated from the earth?

 

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, March 5, 2022 5:45 PM

Backshop
 
CMStPnP 
BaltACD

How much of the Russian military is involved in invading Ukraine? 

He has pulled in units from the far East.   How much is anyones guess but last estimate I saw was approx 70% of their land forces, they stripped away significant amount of units from their far Eastern bases.    They still are concerned with China invading.....regardless of their alliance.    So I have my doubts they will pull more from the East.   Despite the Dog and Pony show alliance with China.   Russia and China hate each other and that alliance only goes as far as each nations self interest to support each other.    There is no real bond of friendship between the countries.    Somewhat like a marriage based on business reasons vs love. 

Until now, Russia always considered themselves equal to China.  This war has proved that they are by far the junior partner.  China may be buying gas, oil and other natural resources from Russia, but I'm sure they're dictating the prices. The (lack of) might of the Russian armed forces has also been exposed.  Their designers come up with some good concepts, but they have extreme trouble getting it into series production.  It doesn't matter if it's the Armata MBT, Pak 50 fighter or anything else.  They haven't built any navy ship bigger than a frigate in several years because their large gas turbine supplier was in Ukraine and we all know what happened in 2014.

One has to wonder how much corruption among the oligarchs involved in the Russian defense industry have robbed their products of real world efficiency.  With the oligarchs being Putin cronies I expect they featured the defects in their products would not be discovered as they featured Putin would not be dumb enough to start at hot war.

If 70% of all Russian forces are involved in Ukraine - their showing to date makes them look like Sadam Hussain's military - paper tiger.

The inernal fallout within the borders of Russia will be interesting going forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy