The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread

[CMStPnP]

BaltACD

Syrians could also turn on him.  You get what you pay for, obviously, the Russian forces are inadequate for what they are being paid - is he going to pay for 200K Syrians and if he does - who is left in Syria. Add

I had to laugh when I read Putin was recruiting fighters from Syria because they suck so badly as warriors.   Isreal steam rolls right over or past them every time and the U.S. Army does not have a high regard for them either.    Look at the unimportant role they were given under General Schwartzkopf during Operation Desert Storm.    Not as bad as guarding the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Truck but......close.   We should ask DaveKeeper what Isreal thinks of the Syrian Army today, probably far less respect today then in the 1980's.....is my guess.

[Backshop]

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 

BaltACD

Heard a comment on TV, without verifaction, that the Russians have experienced 11K dead and 280 helicopters destroyed to date.

If those are factual numbers - it doesn't speak highly of the Russian military.

 

 

 

 

The Russian armed forces have long been known for taking higher casualties than they really had to take.  This habit goes back to the old regime prior to 1917.

 

The difference is that now that it's just Russia and not the Russian Empire or USSR, is that they have a lot less "cannon fodder" to waste.  They only have 145 million people which, while it's a lot, isn't what it used to be.  They also have an aging population and if you kill off a bunch of the younger generation, it just ages faster and there's less people reproducing.

[CMStPnP]

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". 

It's 5 kilotons and not exactly backpack if you ever saw one.   Just a little bit smaller than a 55 gal drum but yes the expectation was that you could strap the monstrosity on your back.    The intent was for Special Forces to use them to blow bridges in the rear of Soviet Forces in front of their supply chain but behind their fighting units.   They were last mentioned in the 1980's and I do not think they are even part of doctrine now.   Also have my doubts the package was even tested and so I do not have a high confidence they even would have detonated.

[CMStPnP]

JayBee

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

Germany is not allowed to handle, deliver nor possess Nuclear Weapons.   So that would be a real neat trick for a German to fly an F-35 and deliver one.   Germany is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons are gone.    I don't know about airplane bombs but I doubt anything over 250kt is tactical so I doubt the author's classification of the bomb referenced.    I tried repeatedly to order a tactical nuke artillery round on a fire mission in 1985.   My requests were all declined.   

Finally they did release to me as a joke at the end of the practice exercise but the results were a pretty big mess and it caused mass confusion.   So I came to realize why they are not used anymore......though the fire mission simulators have them and the spectacular visual effects (which is all I really wanted to detonate one via computer to see the impact and watch the light show, the rest of the Infantryman on the indoor range said  w-t-h  was that?   Or what happened to the villages?......it was somewhat humorous but mass battlefield confusion because the use of the nuke also wiped out most of the Target Reference Points used for Artillery and fields of fire and it was just mass confusion after that).

[Backshop]

Germany can deliver US nukes according to the Brookings Institution.  

Nuclear weapons debate in Germany touches a raw NATO nerve (brookings.edu)

 

[Euclid]

It looks like the U.S. is trying to catch up with Russia in the use of downsized tactical nukes. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/29/800938203/u-s-has-deployed-new-small-nukes-on-submarine-according-to-group

 

From the link, my emphasis added in bold:

 

“The warheads were produced by the Department of Energy over the past year. An Energy Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR in November that they had been transferred to the U.S. Navy.

 

The weapon is known as the W76-2, and it appears superficially identical to the much more powerful W76-1 nuclear weapons carried by the same submarines. But unlike those thermonuclear whoppers, the W76-2 has a relatively "small" yield of perhaps, 5 kilotons — or about one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb, according to Kristensen. It was developed in response to the Nuclear Posture Review, which outlined the need for smaller nukes.

 

Much of that need centers around Russia, which the administration says is preparing to use small nukes in a conflict. The idea is that Russia would use relatively low-yield nuclear weapon to get a superior adversary such as the U.S. or NATO to back down in a conflict, according to Katarzyna Zysk, who studies Russian military doctrine at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in Oslo.

 

Zysk says that Russia has made a number of vague statements about nuclear use recently, while deploying several systems that are capable of carrying smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons. Deploying a weapon such as the W76-2 undermines any Russian strategy of using small nukes in a conflict, she says, because it gives the U.S. a way to respond without rolling out the big ones. "That's the simple logic," she says.

 

But critics warn that the strategy carries huge risks. For one thing, there is no way for a potential adversary to tell the difference between the launch of a ballistic missile tipped with a low-yield warhead and one carrying a "large" warhead. The Russians, monitoring U.S. launches, could easily confuse the two.

 

Perhaps the greater risk, Kristensen warns, is that a tit-for-tat exchange of small nuclear weapons could lead to a larger nuclear war. "Once you start popping nukes, the bets are off," he says.”

[SD70Dude]

The U.S. just banned Russian oil imports.

[Flintlock76]

CMStPnP

Tactical Nuclear Weapons are gone. 

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

At any rate, tactical nukes were intended as a last resort IF there was a Soviet thrust into Western Europe, that is, the Soviets punching through the Fulda Gap "With more tanks than God has!" and conventional forces being unable to stop them.  And maybe not even then, considering what it might have led to.

The scenario never developed though, thank goodness. 

[Flintlock76]

SD70Dude

The U.S. just banned Russian oil imports.

 

Now if only Coca-Cola would shut down their Russian operations.  I'm holding off buying more "Southern Holy Water" as it's called until they do the right thing.

[tree68]

SD70Dude

The U.S. just banned Russian oil imports.

Now if we could just get domestic production up where it should be...

[BaltACD]

tree68

 

SD70Dude

The U.S. just banned Russian oil imports. 

Now if we could just get domestic production up where it should be...

US producers feature they make more selling in the Export markets.

[Euclid]

Why the Pentagon Says It Needs Low-Yield Nukes

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30123767/low-yield-nuke/

[SD70Dude]

tree68

SD70Dude

The U.S. just banned Russian oil imports.

Now if we could just get domestic production up where it should be...

If only you were right next door to another NATO country with massive oil and gas reserves........

[kgbw49]

Oh, Can-a-da, we stand on guard - for - theeeee!

(And thankfully enough rail capacity to get it to the US since the proposed new pipelines are being regulated and Executive-Ordered to death. To paraphase "The Cars", let the crude trains roll.)

[Flintlock76]

Euclid

Why the Pentagon Says It Needs Low-Yield Nukes

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30123767/low-yield-nuke/

 

What they really need is more recruits, but they're not forthcoming at this time.  In fact, the dirty little secret for the past 20 years is the military's been recruiting as many women as they've been doing because they can't get enough men.

Mind you, I'm NOT in favor of a re-institution of the draft. 

[Leo_Ames]

Since it's perhaps of some interest with the discussion about Germany and nuclear bombs (Which isn't widely known in the US, I imagine), it's precisely the ability to drop B61 nuclear bombs that is behind the Luftwaffe's decision to buy F-18 Super Hornets to replace their current delivery platform, the Tornado IDS.

They figure it will be easier, faster, and cheaper to get those equipped and certified for the job than it would be to adapt the Eurofighter Typhoon for it. So they're buying several dozen Super Hornets (And some Growlers for ECM) as a replacement.

We have B61's stored under US control in several European countries, intended for delivery by the host nation's air force (With US consent) in the horrible event that it's decided to use them one day.

Same way the Royal Canadian Air Force had access to nuclear tipped Genies during the Cold War for attacking Soviet nuclear bomber formations over the Canadian wilderness, despite Canada never being recognized as a nuclear state.

[CMStPnP]

Flintlock76

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

They are gone from the Army's aresenal completely, they were a security risk all around, expensive to maintain and protect, little to no battlefield use and actually caused more issues than they resolved.   Sen Sam Nunn was one of the big guns that pushed for their elimination and I totally agree with him on why they were yanked.    Perhaps the other services have them but I believe that they cannot be stored in Europe or Korea per United States agreements.   So if the other services have them their use and storage is limited.

Just because Russia has a weapon does not mean we should necessarily match it.  Russia as we have recently seen has no real care about impacts to human life, weapons utility, or actual weapon effectiveness.    So Russia has a lot of useless weapons that they build only to scare people with.    Who cares if they detonate a low yield Nuke, We still have the non-nuclear MOAB and Daisey Cutter.

[JayBee]

Leo_Ames

Since it's perhaps of some interest with the discussion about Germany and nuclear bombs (Which isn't widely known in the US, I imagine), it's precisely the ability to drop B61 nuclear bombs that is behind the Luftwaffe's decision to buy F-18 Super Hornets to replace their current delivery platform, the Tornado IDS.

They figure it will be easier, faster, and cheaper to get those equipped and certified for the job than it would be to adapt the Eurofighter Typhoon for it. So they're buying several dozen Super Hornets (And some Growlers for ECM) as a replacement.

We have B61's stored under US control in several European countries, intended for delivery by the host nation's air force (With US consent) in the horrible event that it's decided to use them one day.

Same way the Royal Canadian Air Force had access to nuclear tipped Genies during the Cold War for attacking Soviet nuclear bomber formations over the Canadian wilderness, despite Canada never being recognized as a nuclear state.

 

Leo, that was the plan that Germany had two weeks ago. This is a new week and Germany has changed their mind again. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine Germany is no longer against armed UAVs, they are going to buy Eurofighters for the Electronic Warfare role, and F-35s for the strike role. Of course all of these could change at any time again. 

[Leo_Ames]

I've heard that the F-35 was again in play, given recent events. 

But as of now, Germany's procurement plans don't seem to have officially been altered. The F-35 lost out two or three years ago and the winners were the Super Hornet for the nuclear strike role to replace the Tornado fleet, the EF-18 Growler for the electronic warfare mission, and Mark IV Eurofighters to replace their 20 or so year old Mark I's.

I imagine most defense plans like this are now in a state of flux. Europe isn't as secure as it looked a short while ago. It would not shock me to learn that the stealth features of the premium priced F-35 are causing a rethinking for countries that a few months earlier valued lower cost options.

I suspect proven and cheaper planes will still be a part of Germany's plans, just to a lesser degree. There's no electronic warfare variant of the F-35 for instance and likely little reason to create one. The myriad of sensors and weapons necessary for the job would destroy the stealthiness of it, leaving a plane far more expensive to procure and maintain while lacking some of the platform's significant advantages.

And while the Eurofighter would be a capable platform for the job, Germany would have to fund the large bill for R&D and years of testing and tweaking, leaving a plane far more expensive than off the shelf Growlers. Edit: Looks like Britain was already moving in this direction, making it a much more viable route than I first pictured.

[JayBee]

NorthBrit

Here is a  sobering thought  and a possible 'domino effect'.

Russia attacked Ukraine 'to protect the Russian people living there'.

In Armenia there are around 12,000 Ethnic Russian people

In Azerbaijan  around  120,000

In Belarus   around      785,000

In Estonia   around      323,000

In  Georgia  around      27,000

In Kazakhstan  around  3, 620,000

In Kyrgystan    around  365,000

In Latvia     around     488,000

In Lithuania   around      140,000

In Moldova     around    112,000

In  Tajikistan   around   35,000

In Turkmenistan  around   300,000.

In Ukraine   around     8,335,000

In Uzbekistan   around   750,000

In Moldova (a declared neutral country)  there are already an unknown number of Russian soldiers in Transnistria (part of Moldova).

Belarus have already stated  (on their television network) they intend to attack  Moldova.

David

 

One thing to remember is that several of those Central Asian countries are already beholden to Putin just as Belarus is, to keep their current leader in power. 

 

While many older Russian citizens of these countries have fond memories of Soviet times. The younger people do not have such memories. A significant majority of the ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine live in the breakaway provinces of Luhansk and Donbas. Add to that Crimea, and you find that 80% of the ethnic Russians citizens of Ukraine there. Most of the remaining ethnic Russians particularly the younger ones do not want to be a part of Russia. Many of these are willing to fight against Russia.

 

The situation is the same in the Baltic States, people of Russian descent who favor Russia tend to be over 50. The younger people will fight against Russia or flee. Particularly in the Baltic States the younger generations have seen their standard of living improve versus the average Russian. Even in Russia itself the younger people who can leave are doing so.

[blue streak 1]

It might be that the US says to  all power producers to manufacture as much electricity from coal as possible.  Do not allow any coal plant retirements either. That will slightly help the oil prices.

Another is for the goveernment crack down on Amtrak and require Amtrak to operate 24/7 with every  piece of rolling stock that is safe to operate.  If there is major passenger amenities inop sell those cars as a temporary lower fare class 2.

Coach  fares for 2 are now almost lower than gasoline for a car that gets 20 MPG.

[JayBee]

Flintlock76

Now if only Coca-Cola would shut down their Russian operations.  I'm holding off buying more "Southern Holy Water" as it's called until they do the right thing.

 

Your wish has been granted, Coca Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds, have ceased operating in Russia.

 

 

[Flintlock76]

JayBee

 

 

Flintlock76

Now if only Coca-Cola would shut down their Russian operations.  I'm holding off buying more "Southern Holy Water" as it's called until they do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

Your wish has been granted, Coca Cola, Pepsi, and McDonalds, have ceased operating in Russia.

 

 

 

So I see, which is good, since I don't want to run out of "Southern Holy Water!"

In the meantime, an analysis for everyone.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/russias-potemkin-army

Field Marshal Grigory Potemkin must be spinning in his grave.  

[CMStPnP]

Backshop

Germany can deliver US nukes according to the Brookings Institution.  

Nuclear weapons debate in Germany touches a raw NATO nerve (brookings.edu)

 

Good for them, here is the treaty verbage:

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/

Here is the acceptance of it by Germany:

https://treaties.unoda.org/a/npt/germany/RAT/washington

Let me know when you find the section on "sharing of Nuclear weapons" between the United States and Germany because the verbage is pretty tight in the first link.

Also, 2O or less bombs is nothing but symbolic.   Someone probably set that up to scare the Russians, the Germans have to violate the NPT treaty if they strap the bombs on their planes.    The United States has to violate the NPT treaty as well in relinquishing control of the Nukes to Germany.

[JayBee]

CMStPnP

Good for them, here is the treaty verbage:

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/

Here is the acceptance of it by Germany:

https://treaties.unoda.org/a/npt/germany/RAT/washington

Let me know when you find the section on "sharing of Nuclear weapons" between the United States and Germany because the verbage is pretty tight in the first link.

Also, 2O or less bombs is nothing but symbolic.   Someone probably set that up to scare the Russians, the Germans have to violate the NPT treaty if they strap the bombs on their planes.    The United States has to violate the NPT treaty as well in relinquishing control of the Nukes to Germany.

 

If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon on anybody, small or large, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be ignored by most countries.

[Backshop]

JayBee

If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon on anybody, small or large, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be ignored by most countries.

 

My thought as well.

[Leo_Ames]

The Russians blew up the AN-225. Longest and heaviest plane ever flown and the biggest plane that's flown multiple times (The Spruce Goose has a larger wingspan and height, but only flew once).

While minor compared to the human toll, it still makes for a sad sight.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Most of the Russian people alive today do not even remember being apart of the Soviet Union.  They prefer being free Putin's latest law he rammed thru is not going to make him anymore popular in Russia.  Why any citizen of Russia that calls the invasion of the Urkaine a War or Invasion rather than a Liberation of them is thrown in a prison camp for 15 years without trial for crimes against the State.  Think about that 15 years for saying the wrong word in public without even getting the benefit of a trial.  What is next for them oh yeah they adopt the Chinese model of justice just send the estate the bill for the bullet that was used to kill your loved one.  Sooner or later someone in Russia is going to say enough is enough and just start demanding Putin's removal.  That is what the military did in 1991 when they refused to back the hardliners that tried to overthrow Gorbechev in that coup.  It may happen again and if it does it will not be pretty.

[BaltACD]

Speculation on 'the end game'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MgZQOkP1yM

[Euclid]

Here is the opposite point of view:

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