Russia-Ukraine War

[Falcrack]

Russia has talked in the past about an "escalate to deescalate" strategy. Basically, if they are in a conventional war, and it is going badly for them, they would use perhaps a single tactical nuke. Not necessarily against civilians. They make a demand that unless the other side backs off militarily, they will use more nukes. The other side (NATO) realizes that if they use nukes in response, it could spiral into all out nuclear war.

What prevents NATO from adopting this same first use policy of escalate to deescalate? It is because they are not insane. They realize that this extremely risky strategy could very well mean that the other side does not back down, and uses nukes in return. Perhaps not against cities at first, but once nukes start flying back and forth to hit columns of troops and military bases, where does it end?

Now NATO is not directly intervening for now because they are afraid that if they do, Russia will choose out of desperation to use this particular strategy. But what happens if, simply by arming Ukrainians like we are doing, Russia starts losing significantly, and realizes that they will not win this war by conventional means? Putin might decide to throw nukes around, to destroy Ukrainian forces, even without NATO forces in the fight.

The long and the short of it is, that Putin feels that he can win any fight he gets himself into by threatening to use nukes. Not just threatening, but actually using if push comes to shove and he is desperate enough for victory. Any conventional fight he gets into and starts losing, he can threaten nukes, and turn a loss into a victory. And NATO won't do a damn thing and will back down, because they are full of fear and lack courage. They love their lives more than they love the liberty of their fellow human beings. Yes they sign on to financial sanctions, but that really only affects their pocketbooks. Is there any nation now that has the courage to lay down their lives in order to protect the freedoms of others?

Zelensky is showing the world what true courage looks like. He could have fled Kyiv, knowing that it would be encircled and he would be captured or killed. But he chose to stay and fight even though he knew his chances of survival are slim. He is willing to lay down his life for the sake of the people of his country. Are we so comfortable in modern democracy that we are unwilling to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to ensure that our children can enjoy freedom?

Many say that if we fight, then Putin uses nukes, and the world will end. But how long can we keep giving in to this nuclear blackmail? How many freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in order to prevent the possibility that Putin will go nuclear? He keeps waving this nuclear card in front of the world in order to scare everyone into ultimately giving in to his demands. I think at some point, someone needs to call his bluff, credibly remind him that if he uses nukes, he can expect nukes in return, and have the courage to stand and fight.

[Vertigo 7]

There's nothing to base that assumption on because there's only one country that has ever deployed nuclear weapons - the US in WW2. In fact, I strongly suspect the moment Russia launches the first nuke, even if targeted at Ukraine, that NATO's response will be an exasperated "we tried" and bomb Russia back into the stone age.

[Warenwolf]

Russia has talked in the past about an "escalate to deescalate" strategy. Basically, if they are in a conventional war, and it is going badly for them, they would use perhaps a single tactical nuke. Not necessarily against civilians. They make a demand that unless the other side backs off militarily, they will use more nukes. The other side (NATO) realizes that if they use nukes in response, it could spiral into all out nuclear war.

"First Strike" policy is default policy in USA and from 1993 in Russia too (up to that point it was "launch on detection"). In other words, no differences on strategic level.

And when it comes to limited (tactical) use of nuclear weapons there is also no difference between the two countries :

From "Nuclear Operations", JP 3-72

"Employment of nuclear weapons can radically alter or accelerate the course of a campaign. A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more favorable terms."

source: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf

[Falcrack]

Russia has talked in the past about an "escalate to deescalate" strategy. Basically, if they are in a conventional war, and it is going badly for them, they would use perhaps a single tactical nuke. Not necessarily against civilians. They make a demand that unless the other side backs off militarily, they will use more nukes. The other side (NATO) realizes that if they use nukes in response, it could spiral into all out nuclear war.

"First Strike" policy is default policy in USA and from 1993 in Russia too (up to that point it was "launch on detection"). In other words, no differences on strategic level.

And when it comes to limited (tactical) use of nuclear weapons there is also no difference between the two countries :

From "Nuclear Operations", JP 3-72

"Employment of nuclear weapons can radically alter or accelerate the course of a campaign. A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more favorable terms."

source: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf

If I were president of the USA (and obviously I am not), I would in no uncertain terms declare unequivocally that the US would have a no first strike policy for nuclear weapons. Thankfully I am not Harry Truman who made the decision to use nukes to end WWII, but it was different then in that it was the end of a 5 year long war, cities had already been firebombed at an equivalent level of nukes, and nobody else had nukes to threaten to use them in response.

But now, nukes should never be considered as a first use weapon, even if we are badly losing a conventional conflict.

[Vertigo 7]

"First Strike" policy is default policy in USA and from 1993 in Russia too (up to that point it was "launch on detection"). In other words, no differences on strategic level.

And when it comes to limited (tactical) use of nuclear weapons there is also no difference between the two countries :

From "Nuclear Operations", JP 3-72

"Employment of nuclear weapons can radically alter or accelerate the course of a campaign. A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more favorable terms."

source: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf

I think you misread that. Firstly that's on page V-3, JP 3-72 is the doc name. And that section details scenarios where nuclear weapons have already been deployed, or post-NUDET (nuclear detonation). US and NATO's nuclear doctrine has been strictly retaliation for many years. Or rather, deterrence by way of retaliation.

[Warenwolf]

I think you misread that. Firstly that's on page V-3, JP 3-72 is the doc name. And that section details scenarios where nuclear weapons have already been deployed, or post-NUDET (nuclear detonation). US and NATO's nuclear doctrine has been strictly retaliation for many years. Or rather, deterrence by way of retaliation.

I did not include page because search option was possible, not because I don't understand formatting.

As to the rest of your claims, USA documentation regarding nuclear policy is rather ambiguous. With ambiguous statements when dealing with nuclear weapons, you read worst case scenario meaning into them.

Of course you read into it whatever you want, but I note that no public document ever excludes US and allies as response or limits itself hostile nuclear strike as parameter.

As an example, you can scroll down on this document and next last section, read ACA reading of that document:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/negsec

For further reading: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IN10553.pdf


As to only strictly retaliation option - sorry but I have no idea how you arrived at that:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-07 ... -first-use

Soviet on the other hand had public no first strike policy - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/worl ... -arms.html

But with degradation of their nuclear potential, Yeltsin gave up "no first strike policy".

So I see no reason to change my opinion as of today.

[burger1]

Peace talks round 2 Thursday morning. Hopefully they aren't as dumb as the last one.

[Chips]

With regards to what could happen and people saying nukes etc -- they may be easy to target and shoot down? I dunno... for context -- the UK has no static anti ballistic missile defence afaik, https://www.navylookout.com/a-gap-in-th ... to-the-uk/ and the construction of a new radar system for early warning was pushed back by 3 years to save £200 million last year. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/plan-to ... s-to-2029/

There's 1 radar in the UK only for ballistic missiles, it forms part of the US early warning system. I believe our anti ballistic defence is based on the Type T45 destroyers, and aircraft mounted meteor. Many of the T45 are currently in a large refit due to engines that are, for want of a better word, more prone to breaking down than operating. https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... us-report/

Since subs could launch a few miles from the coast, and Russia does have hypersonic cruise missiles, the defence bubble nations have is weak. It has to factor into the "could we go to war" -- it doesn't need to be about nukes.

Additionally, while Russia seem to be doing crap considering the size and alleged modernity of their forces, many NATO countries may not be in such a great state either. The US may have forces that are both numerous and well equipped, but many other NATO countries are not (UK is no exception, Germany is apparently in a shocking state forces wise), and Russia has not really gone into full on missile mode yet has it.

I'd love to see NATO step up and defend Ukraine, but is the potential fallout of doing so far exceeding the loss of life in Ukraine? And if escalating, where does it then end? With "bombing back to the stone age?". With regards to Ukraine, there's (potentially) and end point -- either they surrender or Russia takes so many losses Putin decides to give up. But if we escalate into an all out war... would he ever quit? Would those big / fast cruise missiles start launching indiscriminately into countries around Europe?

No easy answers at all and I imagine the short term emotional vision of seeing the destruction and death on Ukraine significantly turns our heads to wanting intervention. But perhaps we're not ready, perhaps the potential devastation of escalating into a world war, far outweighs the outcome of Ukraine... no matter how upsetting.

Seriously hope we give everything we can to help them, and possibly train their volunteers over the border (e.g. Romania, Poland) for a few weeks before sending them back with some basic training -- to at least give them a chance to operate effectively, and utilise weaponry sent to aid (anti tank/anti air missiles).

[mr.WHO]

Boots on the ground and direct NATO involvement was never an option, no matter what.

Indirect support (intel, radar warning, satelite data), sending suppies, volunteers and eventually prepare for guerrila warfare is the only option.
It's going to be a war of attrition untill one side break.
I don't see any viable peace agreement as both side are now commited - Russia will not want to give back captured territiory and Ukraine won't be accepting the current state (e.g. access to sea is a matter of life or death, without it, Ukraine will be a rump state like Belarus).

[greypanther]

Just cuz Putin has nukes, that doesn't mean he'll be effective at their deployment. There's a reason why there are SAM batteries lining the border to Russia and elsewhere and he knows this. Those missiles he keeps whining about that are pointed at Russia? That's what he's talking about only they're not really pointed at Russia insomuch as they're poised to knock his ICBMs out of the sky.

ICBMs sound super scary but they have one big flaw in that they're big and slow, which makes them super easy to target and destroy. And, really, there's another flaw in that they're super expensive to produce and difficult to replace. If he had a guarantee that he could succeed with a salvo, the nutter would have taken the shot all ready.

As it stands, the retaliation would be massive and overwhelming and would instead end up with Russia being wiped off the map. Their AA defenses are far less effective than NATOs and we can guarantee strikes. I know MAD was a thing back in the 60-70's (I think) but our defensive technology has come a long way since then. The "mutual" doesn't really apply any longer.

A risky strategy, especially as the SAM batteries have never been tested on such a scale and even on a smaller scale with non nuke armed missiles they have not been 100%. Perhaps I am wrong here? Unless of course the USA has some new ones up their sleeve?

The further problem is that we don't just have to worry about land based missiles, but submarine ones. This get worse as it has been plain that the Russians have been trying to track the British Trident submarines for ages, with some alleged success, perhaps as they are rapidly becoming obsolete. The Russian submarines ( recently upgraded, ) are also far better, so it is reliably said, than those of Nato, quieter, deeper diving. ( Just don't apply for a job near their nuclear reactors! ) Just looking recently on the maritime tracker site, the UK has had minesweepers deployed off Faslane, ( Trident base, ) going back and forth, quite openly. Not hard to work out why this new deployment. Shame that the UK got rid of Nimrod, which would have been very, very useful about now. The UK has seriously depleted its anti submarine capability. We have no idea if Trident is compromised, if so, no retaliation.

I imagine they have been trying the same with those of the USA. Who knows what we don't know?

One thing we do know, is the fact that Putin has been quite open about his intention to develop first strike weapons. I mean what else are hypersonic missiles for? Especially when launched from an ultra quite, small, coastal capable submarine. They made it clear it was to counter any possible SAM capability. People laughed as the submarines were openly diesel electric, that it would basically be a suicide mission, but then look at Putin's rhetoric. How many could have been built since then? Any countermeasures developed? Of course we cannot be sure how effective the hypersonic tech is yet.

He does need countering, but the strategy that is suggested is extremely risky. Shame amtct is not still around as his input, as an ex Lt.Colonel in a army of a Warsaw Pact country, would be interesting, I suspect. Whatever else, just watch defence spending sky rocket everywhere...

[burger1]

Don't know if this is true: Valve has disabled all major means of payment on the platform for users from Russia. Now Russians can only pay for something with an internal wallet or PayPal

MasterCard and Visa already stopped services apparently and so have some other companies.

Just an fyi countries don't need to leave their country to destroy the world. Other than the obvious biological weapons theres other means.

[greypanther]

With regards to what could happen and people saying nukes etc -- they may be easy to target and shoot down? I dunno... for context -- the UK has no static anti ballistic missile defence afaik, https://www.navylookout.com/a-gap-in-th ... to-the-uk/ and the construction of a new radar system for early warning was pushed back by 3 years to save £200 million last year. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/plan-to ... s-to-2029/

There's 1 radar in the UK only for ballistic missiles, it forms part of the US early warning system. I believe our anti ballistic defence is based on the Type T45 destroyers, and aircraft mounted meteor. Many of the T45 are currently in a large refit due to engines that are, for want of a better word, more prone to breaking down than operating. https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... us-report/

Since subs could launch a few miles from the coast, and Russia does have hypersonic cruise missiles, the defence bubble nations have is weak. It has to factor into the "could we go to war" -- it doesn't need to be about nukes.

Additionally, while Russia seem to be doing crap considering the size and alleged modernity of their forces, many NATO countries may not be in such a great state either. The US may have forces that are both numerous and well equipped, but many other NATO countries are not (UK is no exception, Germany is apparently in a shocking state forces wise), and Russia has not really gone into full on missile mode yet has it.

Quite right. I don't think the UK has any ( effective, ) anti ballistic capability at all and most of the early warning is gone to save money. The only effective military force in the Europe, ( I hate to say this... ) Is France. Britain is second best, but far degraded compared to what it was. We don't even have enough engineers for our navy and had to borrow some to get the new super duper carriers to sea! I think from the USA, if I remember correctly. True about the Type 45 too, we still rely on much older nearly obsolete ships, which have also been recently upgraded into a much more multi role, role. Therefore, again, a degraded anti sub capability. You are also right about the German forces: Almost useless.

[mr.WHO]

There are some very mixed message of confirming and denying of EU giving ex-soviet planes to Ukraine.

I think it's due to the fact that journalist misconstrude what is to be done and what not.

Some hyper-optimist claimed that Ukraine could send pilots and launch from EU airports, but this would be dangerously close to saying that NATO is in direct involvement (funny that nobody say that Belarus is doing exactly the same).
This has been rejected by EU countries.

However, I think that the deal to give planes is still on the table, but planes must be stripped out of NATO sensitive equipment, pack on trains/trucks and send to Ukraine.
Therefore, seeing ex-EU planes anytime soon is unlikely.

[Warenwolf]

With regards to what could happen and people saying nukes etc -- they may be easy to target and shoot down?

No. It depends on including, but not limited to, the flight path, how early you detect it (and how good your sensors are!), whether it has managed to deploy MIRV, number of decoys and avoidance path (of the missile).
But the fact is that there is simply a case of sending enough missiles and no matter how good you ABM is, you will be overwhelmed if enough missiles are sent your way.

On other hands - Russian nuclear force is mix of decent and garbage. That includes hyper sonic missiles which are overhyped. There I said it .

Graypanther mentiones their submarines - they are overhyped too. Yasen is good sub but how many active do they got? Exactly... Borei is decent sub too but again - the active number is way too low.

[greypanther]

On other hands - Russian nuclear force is mix of decent and garbage. That includes hyper sonic missiles which are overhyped. There I said it .

Graypanther mentiones their submarines - they are overhyped too. Yasen is good sub but how many active do they got? Exactly... Borei is decent sub too but again - the active number is way too low.

Brave, but hopefully true. I am impressed though, even a little disturbed, to know you have an accurate assessment of their numbers. Just who are you?

[Warenwolf]

A man who like David Mitchell : https://youtu.be/VgX6JFoV0TM?t=11

[Vertigo 7]

That's what I'm saying. And ya know, naval fleets operated by the UK and EU are also very SAM capable as well.

Don't get me wrong, nuclear war would be bad no matter what but it wouldn't be as world ending as one may think. Not to mention, if there's a whiff that we're in subs launching nukes time, the US's sub hunters will be all over the Pacific and Atlantic chasing down Russia's toy boats.

[JSDD]

Don't get me wrong, nuclear war would be bad no matter what but it wouldn't be as world ending as one may think. Not to mention, if there's a whiff that we're in subs launching nukes time, the US's sub hunters will be all over the Pacific and Atlantic chasing down Russia's toy boats.

have you ever heared about ...
* the fact that today most people live in cities
* the fact that a nuke can cause a very devastating fall-out, leading to bad harvest, causing "nuclear" famines across the world

=> not everybody can live kind of self-sufficient, produce their own food, so most people depend on agrar culture in the country side

one nuke (well-placed) alone cant destroy the whole world, thats clear ...
but its long-term effects can wipe a very lange number of people off the map

... by the way, your "US's subs hunters" are a very easy target for any (1) guided missile, especially if you cant influence the trajectory of it
... and with nukes you can sink these ships from a "safe" distance
... the point of all this is: russia alone kill mankind, because they dont have just 1 nuke in their arsenal ^^ russia has several thousands.

and (like it or not) no country in the world can do anything about it

The blast wave circled the globe three times, with the first one taking 36 hours and 27 minutes.

[Vertigo 7]

Don't get me wrong, nuclear war would be bad no matter what but it wouldn't be as world ending as one may think. Not to mention, if there's a whiff that we're in subs launching nukes time, the US's sub hunters will be all over the Pacific and Atlantic chasing down Russia's toy boats.

have you ever heared about ...
* the fact that today most people live in cities
* the fact that a nuke can cause a very devastating fall-out, leading to bad harvest, causing "nuclear" famines across the world

=> not everybody can live kind of self-sufficient, produce their own food, so most people depend on agrar culture in the country side

one nuke (well-placed) alone cant destroy the whole world, thats clear ...
but its long-term effects can wipe a very lange number of people off the map

... by the way, your "US's subs hunters" are a very easy target for any (1) guided missile, especially if you cant influence the trajectory of it
... and with nukes you can sink these ships from a "safe" distance
... the point of all this is: russia alone kill mankind, because they dont have just 1 nuke in their arsenal ^^ russia has several thousands.

and (like it or not) no country in the world can do anything about it

The blast wave circled the globe three times, with the first one taking 36 hours and 27 minutes.

Oh I'm sure if a nuke hit a city, it'd be devastating. It has to get there first.

lol I'd love to see a guided missile hit a submerged attack sub.

If anything, you should have taken away from the last few days that your beloved Russia's military capabilities have been massively exaggerated.

[Cpt.Jericho]

A nuclear missile shot down doesn't disappear like in your favourite Sci-Fi game. It's wreckage will crash after an interception and becomes a dirty A-bomb then. So save us that nonsense that a missile defense system can save the world from a nuclear holocaust.