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
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:21 AM

CMStPnP
German war memorials all accept the German people were responsible and did not do enough to expunge the Hitler regime (yes they mention the various coup attempts but state it was far too little).   

Can you show an example of this?  

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:17 AM

kgbw49
00 BGM-71 TOW 2B anti-tank missiles mounted on a variety of Hummers, and other wheeled vehicles

Is TOW2B same as ITAS TOW?   They keep changing the name.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:12 AM

daveklepper

Chicago Milwaukee Saint Pal and Pacific

Not often that I am impelled to defend Euclid but:

Yes, there were war-crimes trials, and leaders who commited crimes received great punishment, death or long prison terms.

The average German suffered as the result of war's devistation, but was not specifically punished.  Isn't there a logical reason for this difference?

Does the average Russian know that Russia has bombed schools and hospitals? 

 
OK, your talking about the Nuremburg Trials.    I am talking about responsibility / accountability for the government in power.  German war memorials all accept the German people were responsible and did not do enough to expunge the Hitler regime (yes they mention the various coup attempts but state it was far too little) also mention not enough was done to stop his rise to power.    At least that is my reading of their English verbage.   Further post war, our Army made sure the Germans knew what went on and marched a good many of them through concentration camps.   Others were forced to help clear rubble from the cities.   German people were responsible for Hitler.    Likewise Russia is responsible for Putin.   This did not start with the war in Ukraine and neither did the brutality.   Plenty of warning signs leading up to this point that ordinary Russians did not really care to ask questions about or challenge en masse.
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:58 AM

It's exactly as I stated before, same diplomat.    The diplomat was clarifying for people that connected dots that were not in the original statement:

https://www.axios.com/ukraine-russia-war-nuclear-weapons-fff70393-586f-4fe6-8e59-8bae85c9c47a.html?utm_medium=partner&utm_source=verizon&utm_content=edit&utm_campaign=subs-partner-vmg

 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:08 AM

kgbw49
The conventional wisdom projection was that Ukraine would fall in a few days. Russia would quickly take over and then it would be business as usual in Ukraine but with the Russians in charge.

This was what Russian intelligence might have thought. It at least what Putin thought. He apparently believed that Russian troops would be welcomed with flowers as liberators.

Moderator
  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Waukesha, WI
  • 1,764 posts
Posted by Steven Otte on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:55 AM

A reminder: Keep domestic politics out of this thread. And for those who say "I don't know what you're talking about, I don't see any violations," that's because I deleted them. 

--
Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editor
sotte@kalmbach.com

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:11 AM

It would have taken the US to recognize that Russia was not bluffing about invading Ukraine, and a strategic resolute decision to arm up Ukraine as the Russians built up.

In a previous post way back at the start of the conflict I mentioned the agricultural output if Ukraine. Much like the Plains States are the breadbasket of the US, so is Ukraine the breadbasket of Europe. For example, about 1/6 of the world's corn and wheat comes from Ukraine.

None of that, or at best very little, is going to be planted and harvested this year. There will be food shortages in 2023 as a result.

This war is a rolling disaster for the people of Ukraine and also in a delayed reaction, for people around the globe because of the impending food shortage.

The conventional wisdom projection was that Ukraine would fall in a few days. Russia would quickly take over and then it would be business as usual in Ukraine but with the Russians in charge.

Like so many projections of the US Govenment, it was wrong. The Russians were not capable of executing a Thunder Run like the US Army in Kuwait or Iraq, and the Ukraine people are clearly made of very tough stuff, probably due to defending their imperfect democracy, but still a democracy, compared to the government of Saddam.

So the Russians have reverted to their usual grinding war of attrition as has been their history. Siege, bombardment, and conscript as many expendable infantry as needed while turning cities and towns to rubble, artillery shell by artillery shell.

And while that happens, 1/6 of the world's wheat and corn will not be planted this year and the bountiful crop lands of Ukraine will lay fallow.

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:03 AM

Chicago Milwaukee Saint Pal and Pacific

Not often that I am impelled to defend Euclid but:

Yes, there were war-crimes trials, and leaders who commited crimes received great punishment, death or long prison terms.

The average German suffered as the result of war's devistation, but was not specifically punished.  Isn't there a logical reason for this difference?

Does the average Russian know that Russia has bombed schools and hospitals? 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:11 AM

kgbw49

How different this war would have been if Ukraine had had the following defensive weapons in its arsenal before the conflict started:

100 land-based Harpoons on mobile launching platforms

200 M109A7 Paladin Artillery System units

50 surveilance drones capable of identifying the source of incoming artillery fire for targeting counter battery fire

1,000 BGM-71 TOW 2B anti-tank missiles mounted on a variety of Hummers, and other wheeled vehicles

While it is a bit wishful thinking, these defensive armaments plus a steady supply of Javelins and Stingers would have made for an even more prickly porcupine.

 

What was the reason for not providing those weapons to Urkraine?  The invasion was said to a certainty.  What would the cost of those items have been and how quickly could they have been gotten there?

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, March 28, 2022 11:41 PM

How different this war would have been if Ukraine had had the following defensive weapons in its arsenal before the conflict started:

100 land-based Harpoons on mobile launching platforms

200 M109A7 Paladin Artillery System units

50 surveilance drones capable of identifying the source of incoming artillery fire for targeting counter battery fire

1,000 BGM-71 TOW 2B anti-tank missiles mounted on a variety of Hummers, and other wheeled vehicles

While it is a bit wishful thinking, these defensive armaments plus a steady supply of Javelins and Stingers would have made for an even more prickly porcupine.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, March 28, 2022 11:26 PM

CMStPnP

 

 
charlie hebdo
In the case of a dictator of a major (nuclear) power, his or her personality and mental stability is very much a strategic factor. 

 

Which is a statement that contradicts itself.    "The man is crazy so lets see if we can appease him to modify his behavior".     Wait a minute you just said he was crazy.   You will never reach the goal this way and it will be like forever chasing a carrot on a stick.   Additionally psychoanalysis of a leader of a country your at war with is also another form of analysis paralysis.   Your forever creating hypothetical rabbit holes and land mines impeding your decision making on what to do.

 

Oh my!  I never said Putin was crazy. It's not a term we use professionally. I actually said he is a  sociopath who is possibly decompensating.  If you don't comprehend the importance of understanding the mindset of an enemy, then that's about all one could expect from you.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 28, 2022 2:37 PM

.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, March 28, 2022 1:33 PM

Euclid
It is a matter of knowing your enemy.  It is not a distraction to make this effort to know your enemy.  It is an essential ingredient to the winning formula.
 
 
 

This may be more essential with battling Putin than with most other adversaries.  The basic point is to know what your enemy is likely to do next.  It is a critical requirement for any competition.  Dismissing it as just determining whether an opponent is crazy or not is nonsense. 

Did I say any of the above?   No I don't believe I did.   I stated you should hold the country accountable for the actions taken not the leader.   Putin himself hasn't fired a shot in Ukraine.   Did we hold Hitler accountable and excuse everyone else?   Again,.... moving on.  

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, March 28, 2022 1:21 PM

Euclid
I don't think I am misinterpreting the statementes of the Russian government regarding what it would take to trigger them into a nuclear response.  For one thing, I am not convinced that they speak for Putin.  And the statements do refer to provocation.  I see no definition as to what they believe constitutes sufficent provocation.

I think if you ever did research prior to your posts you would see it was laid out by Mr. Putin himself quite clearly much before the Ukraine war.   He also used the term extensial threat.  Ukraine is not now and was not before a threat to Russia militarily.....period and does not figure into the statement.    You took what the diplomat stated and  connected dots he did not connect so that it would fit your argument.   Where did he mention Ukraine as a threat in his statement for example?    As for the rest of your post.    I am not the only poster here refuting your statements several others have tried.

I am moving on as the others have done.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, March 28, 2022 1:14 PM
It is a matter of knowing your enemy.  It is not a distraction to make this effort to know your enemy.  It is an essential ingredient to the winning formula.
 
 
 

This may be more essential with battling Putin than with most other adversaries.  The basic point is to know what your enemy is likely to do next.  It is a critical requirement for any competition.  Dismissing it as just determining whether an opponent is crazy or not is nonsense. 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, March 28, 2022 12:52 PM

CMStPnP

 

 
charlie hebdo
In the case of a dictator of a major (nuclear) power, his or her personality and mental stability is very much a strategic factor. 

 

Which is a statement that contradicts itself.    "The man is crazy so lets see if we can appease him to modify his behavior".     Wait a minute you just said he was crazy.   You will never reach the goal this way and it will be like forever chasing a carrot on a stick.   Additionally psychoanalysis of a leader of a country your at war with is also another form of analysis paralysis.   Your forever creating hypothetical rabbit holes and land mines impeding your decision making on what to do.

 

Which country are we at war with?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, March 28, 2022 12:43 PM

charlie hebdo
In the case of a dictator of a major (nuclear) power, his or her personality and mental stability is very much a strategic factor. 

Which is a statement that contradicts itself.    "The man is crazy so lets see if we can appease him to modify his behavior".     Wait a minute you just said he was crazy.   You will never reach the goal this way and it will be like forever chasing a carrot on a stick.   Additionally psychoanalysis of a leader of a country your at war with is also another form of analysis paralysis.   Your forever creating hypothetical rabbit holes and land mines impeding your decision making on what to do.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, March 27, 2022 9:37 PM

Obviously so.  Thanks, Euclid.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, March 27, 2022 8:25 PM

CMStPnP
I stand by my previous statements.   Your misinterpreting the statements made by the Russian government and even if they wanted to use Tactical Nukes there are just not enough numerically for use in a campaign beyond a warning shot.   Which they would not waste on Ukraine given the other weapons in their aresenal.  Ukraine is not enough of a threat to them by itself and they would never reach the level of desparation fighting Ukraine unless the Ukrainain Army was able to push out of its borders into Russia and approach Moscow.   Which will never happen without NATO entering the war.

I don’t know what will or will not happen.  I am only considering what is possible, and its likelihood.  I state my reasoning. 
 
I don't think I am misinterpreting the statementes of the Russian government regarding what it would take to trigger them into a nuclear response.  For one thing, I am not convinced that they speak for Putin.  And the statements do refer to provocation.  I see no definition as to what they believe constitutes sufficent provocation.  
 
But, I am puzzled by your claim that 2000 tactical nukes would not begin be enough destroy Ukraine.  The largest yield of each of these tactical nukes is said to be around 6-7 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bombs.  And you think 2000 of these would not be enough?  They are only small compared to the strategic nuclear weapons.  It is true that the tactical nukes can be dialed down to a very small explosive yield if desired.  But at full power, I think that 2000 would be at least 10 times more than what would ever be needed. 
 
In any case, I think there is hardly any chance of this happening as the war stands at this time.  I am mostly concerned with how it might stand as things move forward and both sides become more desperate.  Maybe they can settle this tomorrow, and the world can at least be done with it.   
 
Here is an article in the Scientific American that details tactical nukes and different viewpoints and rationale for using them.  They confirm what I have said about a motive to use them when they say this:
 
“However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine casts a harsh light on its downsides. Most obvious is that Putin is using nuclear deterrence not to protect Russia but rather to have his way in Ukraine. Russia’s nuclear weapons deter the West from intervening with conventional military forces to defend Ukraine.”
 
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, March 27, 2022 7:53 PM

CMStPnP
The whole tangental discussion of if he is crazy or not crazy is a side issue that should never impact our actions.   

In the case of a dictator of a major (nuclear) power, his or her personality and mental stability is very much a strategic factor. 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, March 27, 2022 6:11 PM

Euclid

 

 
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
 
 
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.”
 

 

 

From the article:
 
 
Russia retains the right to use nuclear weapons if the country is “provoked” by NATO, Moscow’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN told Sky News on March 24.
 
“If Russia is provoked by NATO, if Russia is attacked by NATO, why not, we are a nuclear power”, said Dmitry Polyanskiy when asked if President Putin was right to hold the prospect of nuclear war over the rest of the world.
 
The senior Russian Diplomat made these remarks after Kremlin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with CNN that Putin would use nuclear weapons if there is an existential threat to Russia.
 
“It’s not the right thing to threaten Russia and to try to interfere. So when you’re dealing with a nuclear power, of course, you have to calculate all the possible outcomes of your behaviour,” Polyanskiy further said.
 
*************************************************
 
“If Russia is provoked by NATO,  if Russia is attacked by NATO,  if there is an existential threat to Russia."
 
Three independent triggers.  No requirement for all three to occur in order to trigger.  Any one will trigger.
 
A lot depends on what Putin is able to do on his individual command.  He has already said that the sanctions are an act of war against Russia.  He also said that he will target weapon shipments into Ukraine from NATO countries.  We have said that the Polish jets were too provocative and risked starting WWIII.  Provocative?  What does that mean in the official definitions of doctrines of war?  I would conclude the provocation can easily cross borders.
 
Do you think these issues of NATO helping Ukraine and sanctioning Russia “provoke” Putin?  In Putin’s mind, is there really a hard line between being defeated in Ukraine with the help of NATO from outside of Ukraine; and having NATO actually enter Ukraine and help? 
 
Provocation and threat are largely in the mind of the one they are supposedly happening to.  They have no universal standard of measure.  
  

I stand by my previous statements.   Your misinterpreting the statements made by the Russian government and even if they wanted to use Tactical Nukes there are just not enough numerically for use in a campaign beyond a warning shot.   Which they would not waste on Ukraine given the other weapons in their aresenal.  Ukraine is not enough of a threat to them by itself and they would never reach the level of desparation fighting Ukraine unless the Ukrainain Army was able to push out of its borders into Russia and approach Moscow.   Which will never happen without NATO entering the war.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, March 27, 2022 1:44 PM

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
 
 
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.”
 

From the article:
 
 
Russia retains the right to use nuclear weapons if the country is “provoked” by NATO, Moscow’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN told Sky News on March 24.
 
“If Russia is provoked by NATO, if Russia is attacked by NATO, why not, we are a nuclear power”, said Dmitry Polyanskiy when asked if President Putin was right to hold the prospect of nuclear war over the rest of the world.
 
The senior Russian Diplomat made these remarks after Kremlin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with CNN that Putin would use nuclear weapons if there is an existential threat to Russia.
 
“It’s not the right thing to threaten Russia and to try to interfere. So when you’re dealing with a nuclear power, of course, you have to calculate all the possible outcomes of your behaviour,” Polyanskiy further said.
 
*************************************************
 
“If Russia is provoked by NATO,  if Russia is attacked by NATO,  if there is an existential threat to Russia."
 
Three independent triggers.  No requirement for all three to occur in order to trigger.  Any one will trigger.
 
A lot depends on what Putin is able to do on his individual command.  He has already said that the sanctions are an act of war against Russia.  He also said that he will target weapon shipments into Ukraine from NATO countries.  We have said that the Polish jets were too provocative and risked starting WWIII.  Provocative?  What does that mean in the official definitions of doctrines of war?  I would conclude the provocation can easily cross borders.
 
Do you think these issues of NATO helping Ukraine and sanctioning Russia “provoke” Putin?  In Putin’s mind, is there really a hard line between being defeated in Ukraine with the help of NATO from outside of Ukraine; and having NATO actually enter Ukraine and help? 
 
Provocation and threat are largely in the mind of the one they are supposedly happening to.  They have no universal standard of measure.  
 
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, March 27, 2022 12:58 PM

Then there's the Chernobyl tank assault.

Nope, not the one you're thinking of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2nhRaBjQo

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:56 AM

Flintlock76
By 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.

  • Member since
    October 2020
  • 3,604 posts
Posted by NorthBrit on Sunday, March 27, 2022 7:10 AM

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

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, March 27, 2022 1:28 AM

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
 
 
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.”
 

It really should say "according to policy wonks...."    The spokesman in Moscow was quite clear about their potential use.   NATO would need to enter the war and NATO would need to be kicking the butt of the Russian Army so badly that Moscow was threatened.    That is what an "extenstial threat" means to the Russians it does not mean that someone is "frustrated" over resistance from an indigenous army of a neighboring country.    Russia has conventional weapons like we do that mimic the explosive power  of a tactical nuke that Russia has not even used yet.
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, March 27, 2022 1:17 AM

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.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, March 27, 2022 1:11 AM

Erik_Mag
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.

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.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 1,686 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, March 26, 2022 10:12 PM

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.

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