1. #25041
    Herald of the Titans enigma77's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    It also means they have surpassed the total number of dead the US had in Vietnam over 20 years in just 7 months.
    It's really rather impressive in a way.

  2. #25042
    The Lightbringer Iphie's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Which means they've incurred more than quadrupled the US' casualties in Afghanistan accrued over 20 years (~20,000) in less than a year.

    Is this still part of their "holding back" plan?
    They're still ahead of the casualty rate of the Winter War : about 160000 dead in three months.

  3. #25043
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    It also means they have surpassed the total number of dead the US had in Vietnam over 20 years in just 7 months.
    ROOSSIA NUMBER ONE! Glorious motherland once again beats capitalist pig Amerca! xaxaxaxaxax

  4. #25044
    Another russian missile misfired at launch, this one hitting an apartment block in Belgorod.

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status...iMx_PaZKu_Ld2g

  5. #25045
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Another russian missile misfired at launch, this one hitting an apartment block in Belgorod.

    https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status...iMx_PaZKu_Ld2g
    Life of a russian propaganda-shitter is too fucking easy. Don't even need to fake terror attacks when their own Ukraine-intended missiles hits their own fuckin' civilians

    Ez, just try to kill ukrainians, hit your own shit, blame Ukraine. Easiest turnips ever.

  6. #25046
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    T-62s require more people to operate (4 instead of 3), have no parts supply chain, and have a much weaker gun, which might be extremely relevant if the US starts handing Abrams to Ukraine, which seems increasingly likely.
    In the short term, a shipment of M1's would just complicate logistics for Ukraine.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Myanmar is the same I believe.

    Serbia voting yes was a surprise. They were never going to vote no due to Kosovo but I expected them to abstain.
    Serbia is trying to get into the EU.

  7. #25047
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    In the short term, a shipment of M1's would just complicate logistics for Ukraine.
    As an "armchair general" I agree. Ukraine has been successful using quick mobile tactics. And with the winter coming fast in that region tanks will need more logistical support that would offset Ukrainian mobility. In essence, I believe they'd have the same problems as their Russian counterparts.

  8. #25048
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    Edit: to be sure, I'm glad that the first response wouldn't be nukes, but I'm just a bit sceptical about announcing that.
    Issue is that if you're ambiguous on this matter, then you're going to have to do some explaining if Putin actually follows through and nukes Ukraine.

    Disregarding the obvious terrible implication, Putin would basically call the bluff of the West (or France in this instance) that they're not willing to use nukes on Russia if they nuke Ukraine.

    Let's not stoop to Russia's level and use nukes as a political weapon.

  9. #25049
    China would reign in Russia on nooks. They don't want that taboo broken.

    Kherson is looking bad for Russia, fucked if they hold it, brutal urban fighting which they will lose but they can't flee because it would hurt Putins feelings politically. Rock meets hardplace.

  10. #25050
    The Lightbringer Iphie's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Issue is that if you're ambiguous on this matter, then you're going to have to do some explaining if Putin actually follows through and nukes Ukraine.

    Disregarding the obvious terrible implication, Putin would basically call the bluff of the West (or France in this instance) that they're not willing to use nukes on Russia if they nuke Ukraine.

    Let's not stoop to Russia's level and use nukes as a political weapon.
    I understand what you are saying, I'm just, well confused I guess. I thought that part of deterrence was the implied "you nuke, we nuke", stance. Not the "you nuke, we won't".

  11. #25051
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    I understand what you are saying, I'm just, well confused I guess. I thought that part of deterrence was the implied "you nuke, we nuke", stance. Not the "you nuke, we won't".
    Deterrence however also says that you only use nukes when you are being nuked - and Ukraine is still not part of the EU or Nato.

    Regrettable as it is, Ukraine getting nuked is survivalable for the West, but the West nuking Russia means we're taking a gamble where we either intercept every single nuke or hope that Russia's Arsenal is defunct and if the West loses, it's also game over for them.

    As long as Ukraine is not part of Nato, MAD (or Deterrence) doesn't apply.

  12. #25052
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    I understand what you are saying, I'm just, well confused I guess. I thought that part of deterrence was the implied "you nuke, we nuke", stance. Not the "you nuke, we won't".
    Ukraine is not France. Deterrence is for when you are nuked.

    That does not mean that France would not strategically strike Russia if nukes were used.

  13. #25053
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    I understand what you are saying, I'm just, well confused I guess. I thought that part of deterrence was the implied "you nuke, we nuke", stance. Not the "you nuke, we won't".
    The 'problem' with responding by nuking Russia is that it has a high chance of making Russia reply to our nukes with more nukes and the end of the world.
    Ofcourse that is the inherent thing about MAD, it leads to the end of the world.

    Which is why there has been talk about a non-nuclear response to prevent everyone on planet earth from dying. Like a large convential weapon strike on Russian military targets, most commonly mentioned being killing all Russian forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  14. #25054
    The Lightbringer Iphie's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Suomi/Nederland
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    The 'problem' with responding by nuking Russia is that it has a high chance of making Russia reply to our nukes with more nukes and the end of the world.
    Ofcourse that is the inherent thing about MAD, it leads to the end of the world.

    Which is why there has been talk about a non-nuclear response to prevent everyone on planet earth from dying. Like a large convential weapon strike on Russian military targets, most commonly mentioned being killing all Russian forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.
    I know this, obviously, but I'm not really convinced that the result wouldn't be the same anyway: a nuclear exchange, because I don't think russia will sit back and say, "Ok, fine you destroyed my army and fleet but I kinda had that coming after throwing nukes.", but who knows.

  15. #25055
    I think it's dumb to say "we won't retaliate with nukes"... I mean, sure, don't... but wtf, don't say it? Just play the "we will nuke you card" like Putin does, even if you don't use them in the end.

    That statement just weakens your position for basically no reason.

    If Putin uses a nuke and the world doesn't react I'm not sure where we are going anyway. We are basically doomed if "bad guys" can use nukes and the "good guys" do nothing.
    And IF we do something (military force in any way whatsoever) - they will nuke even more.
    And if we don't, we aren't safe from the looming threat of being bombed into oblivion if we don't concede to whatever Putin/or any other Dictator with nukes wants.

    There was nothing to gain by saying "we won't retaliate with nukes". Nothing.
    If the first nuke is launched by an agressor, it doesn't matter if it was directed at you or someone else. The only response and option would be to *destroy* the country that did it, either by disabling all their nukes and conquering it. Or if that's not possible, nuking it and hope for the best.

    I don't want that, I don't think it will happen, but I DO think it's how it must play out when it happens. There is nothing we can do. We can only hope that people are reasonable enough to see this as well.
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2022-10-13 at 02:12 PM.

  16. #25056
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    I know this, obviously, but I'm not really convinced that the result wouldn't be the same anyway: a nuclear exchange, because I don't think russia will sit back and say, "Ok, fine you destroyed my army and fleet but I kinda had that coming after throwing nukes.", but who knows.
    The simple fact is that if Putin wants to end the world, and the people around him allow it, then there is nothing anyone else can do about it.
    So I don't worry about it, if it happens it was always going to happen.

    Not responding and normalizing the use of nukes is not an acceptable alternative and would inevitably lead to the same outcome anyway.

    ps.
    Just so we're clear I agree making the statement by Macron was idiotic. Even if you internally decided not to respond with nukes if the worst were to happen doesn't mean you should ever publicly state that.
    The entire concept of MAD relies on both sides convincing the other they are willing to end the world, even if your not sure you could do it. By admitting to not standing 100% behind it you dramatically increase the chance of the very thing happening.
    Last edited by Gorsameth; 2022-10-13 at 02:09 PM.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  17. #25057
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    The 'problem' with responding by nuking Russia is that it has a high chance of making Russia reply to our nukes with more nukes and the end of the world.
    Ofcourse that is the inherent thing about MAD, it leads to the end of the world.

    Which is why there has been talk about a non-nuclear response to prevent everyone on planet earth from dying. Like a large convential weapon strike on Russian military targets, most commonly mentioned being killing all Russian forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.
    Stop.

    Like I've said before, if the West decides to nuke russia, it won't be just a couple of nukes, but a full blown strike aimed to disarm russia of nukes.

  18. #25058
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Stop.

    Like I've said before, if the West decides to nuke russia, it won't be just a couple of nukes, but a full blown strike aimed to disarm russia of nukes.
    Same result, just a 100% guaranteed counter launch instead of 95%.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  19. #25059
    Quote Originally Posted by Iphie View Post
    I know this, obviously, but I'm not really convinced that the result wouldn't be the same anyway: a nuclear exchange, because I don't think russia will sit back and say, "Ok, fine you destroyed my army and fleet but I kinda had that coming after throwing nukes.", but who knows.
    The thing is that then MAD fully kicks in.

    I think it's a lot harder to press that button, realizing nukes will then drop on your land as well, rather than pressing it out pure retaliation when you know that the nukes are coming in X minutes.

    You might now say "well, then why would be easier to use nukes on Ukraine for Russia if the West threatens to use them?", because it's not part of the West's doctrine to use nukes on any country that is nusing a nuke first, but only on countries that nukes the West.
    If the West threatens to use nukes, we basically flip the script and the West finds itself in a position where they suddenly have to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus set off the chain reaction.
    At the end of the day, Ukraine getting nuked does not mean the west has to drop a nuke, that only applies once Nato territory comes under a nuclear attack.

    Under the current approach, it will be Russia who has to be the first nation to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus setting off the chain reaction that we usually call Nuclear Armageddon.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    If Putin uses a nuke and the world doesn't react I'm not sure where we are going anyway. We are basically doomed if "bad guys" can use nukes and the "good guys" do nothing.
    And IF we do something (military force in any way whatsoever) - they will nuke even more.
    And if we don't, we aren't safe from the looming threat of being bombed into oblivion if we don't concede to whatever Putin/or any other Dictator with nukes wants.
    The difference is that the West can cripple Russia with conventional force, whereas Russia cannot.
    If Russia chooses to use nukes, then that's basically the admission that they have nothing left to lose, whereas the West still has something to lose.

    I know some people are going to hate this, but pure self interest dictates that risking nukes on Ukraine is preferable than straight going to risk Russian nukes on Europe / US.
    Last edited by Kralljin; 2022-10-13 at 02:47 PM.

  20. #25060
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    The thing is that then MAD fully kicks in.

    I think it's a lot harder to press that button, realizing nukes will then drop on your land as well, rather than pressing it out pure retaliation when you know that the nukes are coming in X minutes.

    You might now say "well, then why would be easier to use nukes on Ukraine for Russia if the West threatens to use them?", because it's not part of the West's doctrine to use nukes on any country that is nusing a nuke first, but only on countries that nukes the West.
    If the West threatens to use nukes, we basically flip the script and the West finds itself in a position where they suddenly have to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus set off the chain reaction.
    At the end of the day, Ukraine getting nuked does not mean the west has to drop a nuke, that only applies once Nato territory comes under a nuclear attack.

    Under the current approach, it will be Russia who has to be the first nation to drop a nuke on another nuclear power and thus setting off the chain reaction that we usually call Nuclear Armageddon.

    The difference is that the West can cripple Russia with conventional force, whereas Russia cannot.
    If Russia chooses to use nukes, then that's basically the admission that they have nothing left to lose, whereas the West still has something to lose.

    I know some people are going to hate this, but pure self interest dictates that risking nukes on Ukraine is preferable than straight going to risk Russian nukes on Europe / US.
    The West will simply eradicate russian forces with conventional arms if russia decides to nuke Ukraine.

    And there is snowball's chance in hell that russia actually dares to nuke NATO country, because it would guarantee the formation of What-Used-To-Be-Moscow Exclusion Zone.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Same result, just a 100% guaranteed counter launch instead of 95%.
    No.

    If NATO does a pre-emptive strike at russia, that's it. The biggest negative would be having to live with having slaughtered tens of millions of russians.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •