Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Gabriel]

Oooooooof shits getting personal:

Take that Putin!

[Forogil]

With what we have seen they equip their soldiers, 30% seems waaaaay to generous.

Well, 30% launch ready may be possible - launching missiles is similar to launching things to space and Russia manages that fairly regularly.

Whether they actually would hit and explode with close to the intended strength is another matter - the explosive part is complicated because of the need for specialized timing of high explosives and maintaining hydrogen isotopes. But, in the unlikely event that it is tested, the rest of the world will likely counter-launch before we know that.

[zEmini]

Russia has over 6k nukes that require billions of dollars in yearly maintenance. Considering their plundered/corrupt military and brain drain, I wouldn't be surprised if only a handful (if any) were still being cleaned and repaired. Not a risk one should take obviously, but im confident that 99% of their arsenal is rotting in some bunker.

I wonder if Russia will consider testing one of their old nukes on their own soil. If it goes off then we should be worried.

[Slant]

As I said, most people don't know the difference. Most tactical nukes are under the 500km range, which put Moscow out of range for most of them. Nuff said.

It is not a simple problem to answer. Who would fire it ? From where ? How should we respond ? Etc... I know we have a lot of armchair generals here, but get serious a little.

You need to get serious. Tactical nukes as in local, immediate effect NUCLEAR weapons is a fantasy. All nukes are strategic. It's not just wiping out the local brigade, it's deterring further opposition.

But okay, let's get serious: NATO must respond to any use of nukes. Even dirty bombs should be met with a nuclear strike as a response. MAD must not be compromised, cos if you don't take it seriously and don't immediately, decisively strike back... all you've got left is a criminal oligarch with access to nukes and a taste for imperialism.

This is one of the few points in life where the choice is binary.

- - - Updated - - -

Using the North Atlantic term to define NATO's geographical limitations is quite inane given I don't know, that most of the members (Germany included) do not really border the North Atlantic. Georgia is actually considered one of the transcontinental countries as the Caucasus is widely considered the transcontinental barrier between Asia and Europe in the region (alongside the Urals, Ural river and the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles) and both Georgia and Azerbaijan extent at places on both sides of the range. Armenia is indeed solidly in Asia which is why I only included it provisionally there. NATO has officially recognized Georgia as an aspiring member.

And this entire mess SHOULD have ended back in 2008 when Russia did to Georgia EXACTLY what they would later do to Ukraine in 2014 and we all ignored it. So I don't know, maybe we should not be ignoring Georgia either.

I consider Georgia a very debatable candidate. And NATO was always understood to include EUROPE, because EUROPE owns one half of the Atlantic Ocean.

Be that as it may, we get to pick and choose the partners. I have my views, you have yours. And I'm not seeing the point of countries like Armenia or Azerbaidjan in NATO. They need to sort out their bullshit first. One Turkey/Greece is enough already, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no.

On paper, the amount of money russia spends on their nuclear arsenal is in the same ballpark as the UK and France. That's something like 100-300 deployed warheads. Knowing russia, 10-90% of that money was funneled into crocodil and prostitutes, so the number of nukes they would be able to launch is a fraction of the number that the Doomsayers like to parrot.

I would agree with this. Looking at the current state of their military in Ukraine, I doubt this isn't a systemic problem and also affects their nuclear arsenal. The Ukraine war is really the only "important" thing for the Russian military going on right now, everything else being the same meaningless "guarding against NATO" bullshit that doesn't require good equipment since NATO won't attack. I would be very surprised if they could launch more than a few dozen nukes. A third of which would most likely hit Russian soil, because.. fuck it, aiming ain't their thing. *looks at those SAMs*

Right now I would call every single bluff that Putin throws out.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is why Putin will never use nukes, because not only will everyone die, but he and his country dies too, there is no winner when you let one of those off the leash, all other justifications and comparisons are irrelevant.

Wargames should be mandatory watching in every school on this planet.

[Iphie]

I consider Georgia a very debatable candidate. And NATO was always understood to include EUROPE, because EUROPE owns one half of the Atlantic Ocean.

With respect, Slant, I know it's the NORTH Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but when you say it like that you kinda dismiss South America and Africa. Let's not forget that the West Coast of Africa also borders the North Atlantic by definition (as well as the south Atlantic in the south of course). At best Europe owns one third of the north Atlantic.

[Specialka]

You need to get serious. Tactical nukes as in local, immediate effect NUCLEAR weapons is a fantasy. All nukes are strategic. It's not just wiping out the local brigade, it's deterring further opposition.

But okay, let's get serious: NATO must respond to any use of nukes. Even dirty bombs should be met with a nuclear strike as a response. MAD must not be compromised, cos if you don't take it seriously and don't immediately, decisively strike back... all you've got left is a criminal oligarch with access to nukes and a taste for imperialism.

This is one of the few points in life where the choice is binary.

- - - Updated - - -


I consider Georgia a very debatable candidate. And NATO was always understood to include EUROPE, because EUROPE owns one half of the Atlantic Ocean.

Be that as it may, we get to pick and choose the partners. I have my views, you have yours. And I'm not seeing the point of countries like Armenia or Azerbaidjan in NATO. They need to sort out their bullshit first. One Turkey/Greece is enough already, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -



I would agree with this. Looking at the current state of their military in Ukraine, I doubt this isn't a systemic problem and also affects their nuclear arsenal. The Ukraine war is really the only "important" thing for the Russian military going on right now, everything else being the same meaningless "guarding against NATO" bullshit that doesn't require good equipment since NATO won't attack. I would be very surprised if they could launch more than a few dozen nukes. A third of which would most likely hit Russian soil, because.. fuck it, aiming ain't their thing. *looks at those SAMs*

Right now I would call every single bluff that Putin throws out.

- - - Updated - - -



Wargames should be mandatory watching in every school on this planet.

Nope, educate yourself about tactical or strategic nukes first.

[zealo]

Nope, educate yourself about tactical or strategic nukes first.

None of that really matters to the position of responding it puts NATO in, a nuke is a nuke even if Russia labels it a tactical one.

You've just decided that everyone else is wrong, and that you stubbornly know better, despite all evidence to the contrary with what you're writing.

[Slant]

With respect, Slant, I know it's the NORTH Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but when you say it like that you kinda dismiss South America and Africa. Let's not forget that the West Coast of Africa also borders the North Atlantic by definition (as well as the south Atlantic in the south of course). At best Europe owns one third of the north Atlantic.

Yes, I do dismiss South America and Africa, because the Soviet Union isn't threatening to attack Africa. Why do you think NATO exists?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, educate yourself about tactical or strategic nukes first.

Nope. I'm not going to discuss silly semantics with you. MAD doesn't make a difference. Never has, never will.

[Jastall]

Nope, educate yourself about tactical or strategic nukes first.

The distinction doesn't matter as much as you think it does. If a nuclear payload is powerful enough to be worst the bother of sending it, its launch, or the mere actual threat of its launch besides Russia waving its dick around, might cause a very, very strong reaction from NATO- and Putin is extremely unlikely to gamble his and his country's continued existence on NATO thinking he technically gets to use that nukes but THOSE nukes are off-limits, yo.

[Specialka]

The distinction doesn't matter as much as you think it does. If a nuclear payload is powerful enough to be worst the bother of sending it, its launch, or the mere actual threat of its launch besides Russia waving its dick around, might cause a very, very strong reaction from NATO- and Putin is extremely unlikely to gamble his and his country's continued existence on NATO thinking he technically gets to use that nukes but THOSE nukes are off-limits, yo.

It matters more than you think. Why NATO should intervene if a tactical nuke was used on Ukrainian soil ? That would give way to Russia propaganda as NATO is not supposed to "attack", only defend his members.

Currently we have boasting on both side, but we can't really say that Putin would not launch one if Ukrainian were pushing in Crimea for instance.

[D Luniz]

Dawww, Belarus thinks if they appease Putin then they're still sovereign

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...96427409559558

[Specialka]

None of that really matters to the position of responding it puts NATO in, a nuke is a nuke even if Russia labels it a tactical one.

You've just decided that everyone else is wrong, and that you stubbornly know better, despite all evidence to the contrary with what you're writing.

https://theconversation.com/what-are...ukraine-191167

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nuclear_weapon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

I know better I guess.

[Edge-]

Dawww, Belarus thinks if they appease Putin then they're still sovereign

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/s...96427409559558

[quote]Are shortages to blame for that horrible sweater?

[zealo]

https://theconversation.com/what-are...ukraine-191167

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nuclear_weapon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

I know better I guess.

I do so love it when people don't bother reading what they are linking to.

Yet, any use of tactical nuclear weapons would invoke defensive nuclear strategies. In fact, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis notably stated in 2018: “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon use any time is a strategic game changer.”

[Jastall]

It matters more than you think. Why NATO should intervene if a tactical nuke was used on Ukrainian soil ? That would give way to Russia propaganda as NATO is not supposed to "attack", only defend his members.

Currently we have boasting on both side, but we can't really say that Putin would not launch one if Ukrainian were pushing in Crimea for instance.

Because nukes are a no-no and everyone knows it. Russia can call them tactical all day long, if the payload is enough to have any sort of effect, it will be too much and it will garner a very strong reaction, not to mention the fact that the USA will likely know about the launch before it even happens. Russia absolutely does not benefit from such drastic escalation in any realistic scenario.

Plus, riddle me this, what would Russia gain by using a nuke low enough in power that NATO would, hypothetically, only grumble? Ukraine aren't bunching up their soldiers all in one place and any city center worth hitting is likely out of range now. Killing a couple hundred, or even thousand, grunts with a nuke, yay, they're still losing, Ukrainian morale is highly unlikely to be broken and now everyone on the planet is mighty pissed at them. Now what, use more? Bigger ones? What's the point here? What's the goal apart from spitefully killing dudes as if this was the last minute of a doomed Command and Conquer match?

And iff Putin is just nuking shit just out of spite, I promise you, NATO will be way, way past caring about the propaganda gains of a country that will soon be a glassed crater.

[Edge-]

Speaking of nukes and shit - and I realize there's likely be little to no strategic use for this in Ukraine - but whatever happened to those nuclear powered cruise missiles Russia was showing off a few years back? Can they even afford to continue that R&D program with all the conscripts they're pulling plus the general lack of money and shit?

[Corvus]

Can anyone who can read russian give some confirmation of this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisO_wi...KHuSgvKdrHQ0Tg

On top of that, the sellers are absolutely gouging the mobilised with insane mark-ups on gear.

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/stat...SiKBP7yBcK0Raw

[Slant]

It matters more than you think. Why NATO should intervene if a tactical nuke was used on Ukrainian soil ? That would give way to Russia propaganda as NATO is not supposed to "attack", only defend his members.

Currently we have boasting on both side, but we can't really say that Putin would not launch one if Ukrainian were pushing in Crimea for instance.

Because that would equate a normalisation of nuclear weapons. Nukes are rightly considered doomsday weaponry. Even chemical weapons do not reach that status. Once you accept that there's a difference between strategic and tactical nukes (which exists on an OPERATIONAL level, but not on a dogmatical level), you are downgrading nukes to "mere WMD" and not doomsday weapons anymore.

It wouldn't be NATO that intervenes. It would be the USA. MAD is not a NATO doctine, it's a US doctrine. And in this game of doomsday, NATO is only a bystander. It was understood that if Russia and the US come to blows with nuclear weapons, nobody else really mattered.

Read up on MAD, it seems in your haste to correct everyone on "strategic vs. tactical" and belittling us as armchair generals, you have overlooked to actually know what you're talking about.

There is no boasting. There's a dumb guy playing with fire, and another side that already has scripted their response and will action it accordingly, without boasting. I have no doubt that there will be a strong response.

But let's play the scenario out for you, best case scenario I've read today:

1. Russia uses nuke on Ukraine forces, US/Britain respond with surgical strikes of conventional weapons deep in Russia, while China and India condemn Russian actions (it is believed that nukes is a red line even the Chinese are not willing to tolerate). Russia then has to logically assume it's being attacked and since tactical nukes didn't have the desired effect, what the hell do you think is their next step of escalation? And where do you think it's going from there?

This is MAD. Once you start escalating into nukes, no matter what you do, it's going to end up in total destruction. This is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been the only nukes droped in anger in the entire history of atomic weapons. And you should respect the devastating consequences a bit more if you actually want to be serious and not just dick around while talking out of your ass.

[Kallisto]

Speaking of nukes and shit - and I realize there's likely be little to no strategic use for this in Ukraine - but whatever happened to those nuclear powered cruise missiles Russia was showing off a few years back? Can they even afford to continue that R&D program with all the conscripts they're pulling plus the general lack of money and shit?

It seems that over the years Putin has really not cared about most parts of the armed forces. But he has taken special focus on the Russian nuclear capability. It's possible that if there's one place where corruption is not likely to happen it's the one thing he loves the most, which is Russia's nuclear deterrent.

[Sorshen]

Elon once again being a fucking clown and appeasing invaders:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000