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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO_SwtYQIAA
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
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.
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!
charlie hebdoUIC gauge is 1435mm. Ukraine and Russia are 1520, a whopping difference of 85 mm or 3.346 inches.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
EuclidIf 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.
greyhoundsThere 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.
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?
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?
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
NorthBritOne thing I have learned. Do not trust reporters.
As I said earlier, news reports are just the "first draft" of history.
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!
Flintlock76 NorthBrit One thing I have learned. Do not trust reporters. As I said earlier, news reports are just the "first draft" of history.
NorthBrit One thing I have learned. Do not trust reporters.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
SD70DudeIraq 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.
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.
Gee, I wonder what affect the inability to smell and taste would have on a soldier in the field...
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.
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.
BackshopPutin 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?
Euclid 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?
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.
EuclidI 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?
What would we do if Putin was supplying war planes to a suddenly antagonistic or even suspiciously reticent Mexico?
Or, what DID we do when Khrushchev was supplying missiles to Cuba?
Convicted OneWhat would we do if Putin was supplying war planes to a suddenly antagonistic or even suspiciously reticent Mexico? Or, what DID we do when Khrushchev was supplying missiles to Cuba?
If they were using them to break up drug and organized crime cartels probably nothing.
Russian missiles in Cuba? In the end we worked a deal. "YOU take the missiles out of Cuba, and WE'LL take the Pershing missiles out of Turkey."
Everybody was happy.
Backshop Euclid 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.
Euclid 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.
EuclidSo that suggests that we would certainly not escalate over just the loss of some aircraft.
See: Lusitania.
Euclid 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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.