Trains.com

The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread Locked

32863 views
802 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:09 AM
Is the Doctrine of Deterrence Obsolete?
 
The seemingly irrational Ukraine invasion is causing people to question Putin’s physical and mental state.  But could it be that acting irrational when he is not irrational is part of Putin’s strategy along with his frequent threats to use nuclear weapons? 
 
It would be a strategy that converts the entire world’s nuclear deterrence into deterrence that is working only for Putin.  Clearly, it is working because it is providing him with enough nuclear deterrence to prevent NATO from acting on a moral basis to stop Putin’s rampage of war crimes.  That is confirmed every time we say we don’t want to start WWIII. 
 
In other words, Putin seems to be deterring both conventional war and nuclear response against Russia by acting dangerous and unpredictable, a man who cannot be trusted to conform with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 575 posts
Posted by alphas on Thursday, April 7, 2022 2:00 AM

54light15

I did the whole "duck and cover" thing back in school. In junior high (1966 to 1969) we had to stand in the hallways and cover our faces and the backs of our necks and not lean on the walls because if the building shook (supposedly built to withstand nukes, yeah right) it would hurt. We only had to do that once because I think the school administrators realised how ridiculous that all was. The early 60s was kind of a scary time and I guess recently coming out of the McCarthy era made it more so. 

At least during the Cuban crisis, Nikita had the sense to stand down. 

 

Nikita stood down because at that time the US & allies had the superior advantage along with the distance from Russia to Cuba on its side.  But he got the US missles out of Turkey and the US agreed to stop trying to overthrow Castro as part of the deal. 

The 1950's when I had most of my schooling was a very nervous time, especially when Russia got the H Bomb.   [I can still recall quite well hearing the news that Stalin had died over the local radio just like what happened when JFK was shot.]    Fortunately, Stalin didn't live that long into the 50's and Berra of the KGB who was expected to follow him was executed--both of which made just about everyone happy.    I believe Putin is actually the first who came up the KGB ranks to actually run Russia which probably accounts for much of what he is now doing.  

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:40 AM

Article about Posner's trains carrrying refugees Poland border to Hamburg.

For Ukrainian refugees traveling from Poland to Germany, Henry Posner III ’77’s train awaits | Princeton Alumni

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:38 PM

I did the whole "duck and cover" thing back in school. In junior high (1966 to 1969) we had to stand in the hallways and cover our faces and the backs of our necks and not lean on the walls because if the building shook (supposedly built to withstand nukes, yeah right) it would hurt. We only had to do that once because I think the school administrators realised how ridiculous that all was. The early 60s was kind of a scary time and I guess recently coming out of the McCarthy era made it more so. 

At least during the Cuban crisis, Nikita had the sense to stand down. 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:47 PM

charlie hebdo

Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do.

If you're speaking to me, nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm definitely concerned with what happens in the real world.  What I'm not concerned with is person who constantly comes up with hypothetical situations where the answer could change on a day-to-day basis.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:43 PM

charlie hebdo
 
JayBee

I am old enough to remember in elementary school having "air raid" drills where we got under our desks and covered our heads. I can also remember the early morning when the Strategic Air Command dispersed its B-52 bombers to make them a more difficult target during the Cuban Missile Crisis. My home was right under the landing flight path for the Duluth, MN airport. I was awakened by the windows rattling and a picture fell of the wall, my dog jumped onto my bed. I quickly got myself and my dog under the bed and hugged him to me. The planes were landing about one minute apart and each one rattled the house. My dad quickly got dressed and ran outside and saw what was happening, he came in about the time the last plane landed and told me what was happening, and got me out from under the bed. Scary stuff for a seven year old kid. 

Scary enough for me at 15 in 1962.

Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do.

I have read that a cancer specialist has made over 30 trips to Moscow to treat Putin for a as yet unspecified cancer.

Could Vlad, seeing his mortality rapidly approaching, want to go out 'with a bang'?

I also understand whatever Vlad wants to do - there is nothing I personally can do about it one way or the other.  I don't have a school desk to hide under as I kiss my ass good bye.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:34 PM

JayBee

I am old enough to remember in elementary school having "air raid" drills where we got under our desks and covered our heads. I can also remember the early morning when the Strategic Air Command dispersed its B-52 bombers to make them a more difficult target during the Cuban Missile Crisis. My home was right under the landing flight path for the Duluth, MN airport. I was awakened by the windows rattling and a picture fell of the wall, my dog jumped onto my bed. I quickly got myself and my dog under the bed and hugged him to me. The planes were landing about one minute apart and each one rattled the house. My dad quickly got dressed and ran outside and saw what was happening, he came in about the time the last plane landed and told me what was happening, and got me out from under the bed. Scary stuff for a seven year old kid.

 

Scary enough for me at 15 in 1962.

Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do.

 

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 211 posts
Posted by JayBee on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:24 PM

I am old enough to remember in elementary school having "air raid" drills where we got under our desks and covered our heads. I can also remember the early morning when the Strategic Air Command dispersed its B-52 bombers to make them a more difficult target during the Cuban Missile Crisis. My home was right under the landing flight path for the Duluth, MN airport. I was awakened by the windows rattling and a picture fell of the wall, my dog jumped onto my bed. I quickly got myself and my dog under the bed and hugged him to me. The planes were landing about one minute apart and each one rattled the house. My dad quickly got dressed and ran outside and saw what was happening, he came in about the time the last plane landed and told me what was happening, and got me out from under the bed. Scary stuff for a seven year old kid.

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 6:37 PM

Euclid

 

 
Backshop
We've known for 70 years that we were the main target of Russian/Soviet nukes.  Somebody reminding us occasionally doesn't really change things.

 

What changes things is the heightened sense of confrontation we are in with Russia at this point in time, along with the seemingly irrational behavior of Putin as we crush his country with crippling sanctions, and he repeatedly threatens to use nukes against NATO/U.S.  There has never been anything like it in the past other than the momentary, and relatively tiny Cuban missile confrontation. 

 

Wrong.  We had years of the Cold War where we worried about the Warsaw Pact coming through the Fulda Gap.  It was taken for granted that nuclear weapons would be used. Against airfields, Channel ports, troop concentrations, Reforger depots, etc. I know this is a big event in your life, and nothing is 100%, but us elders have seen it all before.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 4:46 PM

Backshop
We've known for 70 years that we were the main target of Russian/Soviet nukes.  Somebody reminding us occasionally doesn't really change things.

What changes things is the heightened sense of confrontation we are in with Russia at this point in time, along with the seemingly irrational behavior of Putin as we crush his country with crippling sanctions, and he repeatedly threatens to use nukes against NATO/U.S.  There has never been anything like it in the past other than the momentary, and relatively tiny Cuban missile confrontation. 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:41 PM

Euclid
How can you predict the scenario of nukes would never happen, and yet claim there are way too many variable to predict who would do what? Add Quote to your

All this was answered in a previous question.    Do you intend to go through each NATO member country and ask "What if ________(fill in blank here with a new country) had nukes?"       Your repeating the same questions over and over but changing the roles slightly.    If you want a new answer ask a new question.    Otherwise, I feel like a broken record here.........repeating the same answer over and over again.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:43 AM

Backshop
First, ours are more accurate and two, it's like the difference between jumping off a 50 floor building or a 100 story one.  Both have enough power to kill you.

Not to mention MAD (mutually assured destruction).

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
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:24 AM

My points are...

1. He is taking this conversation to a higher level than a forum not specifically focused on the matter can discuss it.

2. Poland or the Baltic states will never have their own nukes.  They may be on their soil but they would be controlled by the US. This just keeps them handier than having to ship them from somewhere else.  It also sends a signal to Russia.

3. When you keep bringing up hypotheticals, there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions.

4. Everyone here knows that Euclid likes arguing just for the sake of arguing.

5. The US isn't under its "greatest threat ever".  That was probably December 11th, 1941.  Germany had just declared war on us and already controlled almost all of mainland Europe and was pushing the Russians back.  Japan had just sunk or damaged our battle fleet and was running rampant in the Far East.  There was a real chance that we could've lost WW2 at that time.  We've known for 70 years that we were the main target of Russian/Soviet nukes.  Somebody reminding us occasionally doesn't really change things.  As far as Russia having more than us, it's immaterial.  First, ours are more accurate and two, it's like the difference between jumping off a 50 floor building or a 100 story one.  Both have enough power to kill you.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:52 AM

Backshop

 

 
Euclid
    
How can you predict the scenario of nukes would never happen, and yet claim there are way too many variable to predict who would do what?

 

 

While we all have our views, we are amateurs at this.  I can tell from responses that there are a handful here who take an interest in military affairs and history.  You keep bringing up hypotheticals, which means people answer with their best estimate.  Then you continually debunk them or ask more questions without regard of what they answered.  Maybe you should go and find yourself a dedicated military history forum.  Sorry I can't steer you to one, because the one that I used to frequent was shut down about two years ago by the publisher who ran it.

 

 

I think Euclid was simply questioning the responses given by CMStPnP.  No one, not even experts know what might happen if tactical nuclear weapons were introduced into this conflict. Nor can anyone make a prediction with much certitude if US forces in Poland or the Baltic states (which I believe are a more likely target for Russian aggression than Poland) were known to have nukes.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:14 AM
Backshop,
 
Can you give me a specific example? I don’t recall debunking anyone’s response to my questions.  I am not sure what your point is by quoting what I said above.  I am only interested in this topic because I feel it places this country in what I believe to be the biggest danger it has ever faced. 
 
So I ask questions that are sometimes structured as, “What would happen if this happened?”  Usually this questioning is following a premise introduced by news reporting.  The “if this” part of my question is indeed hypothetical, but that does not disqualify the question as being unanswerable. 
 
I would venture to say that war fighting strategy looks for every hypothetical probability that it can find.  It is similar to the work of police detectives or accident investigators.  You isolate a hypothetical cause and then work through it to see if it holds up or can be ruled out.  You search for what works by trying and ruling out what does not work. 
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 8:19 AM

Euclid
    
How can you predict the scenario of nukes would never happen, and yet claim there are way too many variable to predict who would do what?

While we all have our views, we are amateurs at this.  I can tell from responses that there are a handful here who take an interest in military affairs and history.  You keep bringing up hypotheticals, which means people answer with their best estimate.  Then you continually debunk them or ask more questions without regard of what they answered.  Maybe you should go and find yourself a dedicated military history forum.  Sorry I can't steer you to one, because the one that I used to frequent was shut down about two years ago by the publisher who ran it.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:35 AM

CMStPnP

 

 
Euclid
I don’t think what happened then is at all applicable to the circumstances today.  Answer me this:  Say Poland had nukes intended to deter an invasion and Russia started an invasion of Poland with conventional weapons just like they did in Ukraine.  What exactly would Poland do?  I am looking for a detailed likely scenario. 

 

First the scenario would never happen with Poland being a member of NATO... 

...Russia is not going to cross the border.

The scenario of nukes would never happen and there are way too many variables to predict who would do what even if it did happen.    I think Poland would use nukes if it felt it faced a repeat of it's treatment in WWII.   No question about that.   

 

How can you predict the scenario of nukes would never happen, and yet claim there are way too many variable to predict who would do what?
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 10:35 PM

Interesting and seems like recent on the street interviews with citizens in Russia about what they think.   Unusually candid, given the recent laws passed there which some refer to in the interviews.    Also interesting not many mention NATO but seemingly blame their government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9PgRHmnBGE

 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 10:32 PM

Since tactical nukes have never been used, nobody really knows what would happen if they were employed. This is my opinion based on facts, unless one believes in mind reading.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 10:32 PM

Euclid
I don’t think what happened then is at all applicable to the circumstances today.  Answer me this:  Say Poland had nukes intended to deter an invasion and Russia started an invasion of Poland with conventional weapons just like they did in Ukraine.  What exactly would Poland do?  I am looking for a detailed likely scenario. 

First the scenario would never happen with Poland being a member of NATO as well as now Poland advancing orders for M1 tanks.   Russia understands tanks and Armored warfare clearly and once Poland has it's armored divisions stood up with modern equipment along with the NATO contribution.   Russia is not going to cross the border.

The scenario of nukes would never happen and there are way too many variables to predict who would do what even if it did happen.    I think Poland would use nukes if it felt it faced a repeat of it's treatment in WWII.   No question about that.   Right now Poland is looking at Russia as roughly equal to a Nazi regime.....so their current feelings are understandable.

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 211 posts
Posted by JayBee on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:05 PM

Another excellent video interview with Justin Bronk of the RUSI on Ward Carroll's channel covering the air war over Ukraine and other parts of the war.

 

Justin Bronk Interview

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 211 posts
Posted by JayBee on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:59 PM

Euclid

Well that was my first reaction exactly.  Why would Poland want or need nukes to stop Putin when they and NATO will be more than capable of stopping Putin with NATO convential warfare?

 

I was told (6th post from top of page) that the reason Poland needed nukes was just for deterrance.  The presense of nukes would deter Russia from attacking, and that would prevent a conventional war that would happen without the nukes deterring Russia.  I was not conviced that would be the outcome.  

 
You are assuming that Poland only wants nuclear weapons to deter Russia from attacking, that of course is true. But if that fails they also want them to prevent Russia from using theirs to prevent their troops from being destroyed. Or if you don't understand that, if you nuke our troops we will nuke your troops. A step of escalation without going to a full nuclear exchange.
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:57 PM

I think Red Cross and other agencies are moving in to document these war crimes. And more needs to happen than just give our thoughts and prayers to the victims' families.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:38 PM

Common sense is enough for most of the world (Edit: Since I said this without any intention of being snide, I want to stress I'm not saying that to suggest anything about you, personally).

If Ukraine was responsible as they pulled back in the wake of Russia's advance, Moscow would've blown the lid off of it as they moved in just as Germany did the mass murder of thousands of Polish POW's by Soviet forces during Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. Was a propaganda win for Germany when those mass graves were discovered and they even got the Red Cross involved to document it.

Instead, the evidence of these crimes are being discovered by advancing Ukrainian forces as Russia retreats and often also by western journalists that are alongside them documenting what's going on. Not to mention spy satellites discovering evidence of mass graves cropping up on Ukraine soil in Russian controlled areas, etc.

While there's no way to prosecute Putin and such, the evidence is pretty clear cut on which side is responsible for the vast bulk of the horrors that have been going on.

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:33 PM

charlie hebdo

Putin and the Russian military animals are clearly guilty of committing war crimes against civilians on a massive level. What, if anything, will the West do about it to prevent it happening again in Ukraine or punish?

 

I don't know the answer.  But Russia is denying that they did it.  Is there any  way to show the world that Russia is responsible?  I doubt it will be possible to prosecute Russia, but it would be nice to make it clear to the world who is to blame.  It is possible for third parties to have a motive.  You would think there would be hundreds of eye witnesses, or even camera coverage, but maybe not. As I understand, there were about 400 civilians executed last weekend.  

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:27 PM

I don't know what it is that you're looking for, Euclid. Russia's neighbors are scared and want to boost their security out of the fear they'll be next.

If Poland thinks one such avenue to help prevent any bloodshed is to enter into a nuclear sharing agreement with the USA that sees the Air Force station some B61's at a Polish Air Force base that would be delivered by F-16's or their future F-35's in the event that Russia invades, what exactly is the point of overthinking it?

It's clear cut what the hope is, there's no guarantees with any of these steps, nobody knows what's going on inside Putin's head, etc. They're simply trying to protect themselves to hopefully prevent war and are looking at all the options on the table that might boost their security and keep them from going through what the poor people of Ukraine are experiencing.

And if the bigwigs in Washington DC agree that it enhances European security, presumably it will happen in time (It won't be quick since for starters they don't have the tools to deliver them and probably wouldn't until their newly built F-35's start arriving down the road with the necessary modifications installed on the production line to do the job). 

That's really all there is to it, lol...

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:22 PM

JayBee

 

 
Euclid
I don’t think what happened then is at all applicable to the circumstances today.  Answer me this:  Say Poland had nukes intended to deter an invasion and Russia started an invasion of Poland with conventional weapons just like they did in Ukraine.  What exactly would Poland do?  I am looking for a detailed likely scenario. 
 

 

 
 
Ok let's assume that Russia has taken  Ukraine by the end of the year, and let's assume they have devastated Ukraine's cities, driven much of the population as refugees into NATO countries and kidnapped much of the rest. It will be two or more years before the Russian Army is in any shape to move further west. By that time Poland is planning to have over one million people who have as much training as the new Russian conscripts have, in their reserves. Above all that they will have their regular army and other NATO forces. Russia will not be able to do much more than barely set foot on Polish soil before being crushed in a conventional fight.
 

Well that was my first reaction exactly.  Why would Poland want or need nukes to stop Putin when they and NATO will be more than capable of stopping Putin with NATO convential warfare?

I was told (6th post from top of page) that the reason Poland needed nukes was just for deterrance.  The presense of nukes would deter Russia from attacking, and that would prevent a conventional war that would happen without the nukes deterring Russia.  I was not conviced that would be the outcome.  

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:16 PM

Putin and the Russian military animals are clearly guilty of committing war crimes against civilians on a massive level. What, if anything, will the West do about it to prevent it happening again in Ukraine or punish?

  • Member since
    November 2021
  • 211 posts
Posted by JayBee on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 6:56 PM

Euclid
I don’t think what happened then is at all applicable to the circumstances today.  Answer me this:  Say Poland had nukes intended to deter an invasion and Russia started an invasion of Poland with conventional weapons just like they did in Ukraine.  What exactly would Poland do?  I am looking for a detailed likely scenario. 

 
 
Ok let's assume that Russia has taken  Ukraine by the end of the year, and let's assume they have devastated Ukraine's cities, driven much of the population as refugees into NATO countries and kidnapped much of the rest. It will be two or more years before the Russian Army is in any shape to move further west. By that time Poland is planning to have over one million people who have as much training as the new Russian conscripts have, in their reserves. Above all that they will have their regular army and other NATO forces. Russia will not be able to do much more than barely set foot on Polish soil before being crushed in a conventional fight.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, April 5, 2022 6:50 PM

Euclid
Say Poland had nukes intended to deter an invasion and Russia started an invasion of Poland with conventional weapons just like they did in Ukraine.  What exactly would Poland do?  I am looking for a detailed likely scenario.

The only use of the nuclear option would be in a kind of 'blitzkrieg' scenario involving large masses of fast-moving armor, closely accompanied by the necessary support and under at least de facto air superiority including missiles.  The nuclear weapons are intended to interdict the crews in the vehicles, not blow them all up or make them glow.  

One of the difficulties is the issue of fallout drifting across national boundaries -- something I expect the Putin machine to promptly consider reason for "retaliation" in kind.  ER weapons in particular are a difficulty because (for example) they generate substantial monatomic carbon-14 -- radioactive, easily biologically-assimilated carbon -- in the volume in which the neutrons are active.  This will likely get into the food chain and make living in the area downwind untenable for crops for much of the active lifetime of the carbon isotope... it's low-energy betas, but the carbon is assimilated in metabolism.  I think you rapidly understand why this is considered a last-ditch alternative, only when excessive force of that particular type is applied.

I would expect considerable use of PGM, including various kinds of 'pop-up' guerilla-style weapons with penetrating, shaped-charge, or depleted-uranium heads, for any invasion less than overwhelming in concentration.  I am not sure why we concentrated on <4kt settings on our theater 'dial-a-bombs' in the last few years: they don't interdict equipment or troops particularly well, and if they're intended to produce casualties of attrition, it's no different from the contraindicated use of chemical weapons as forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

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