Russian invasion of Ukraine

[alach]

what is this thread about again?

Nukes, obviously.

Anyways, for those unaware there was a big Nato meeting this past week regarding Ukraine, as well as preparing to Trump-proof the alliance if worst comes to worst.
Heres some headlights,

Russia’s war on Ukraine forces Europe to weaponise its economic might

Ukraine experts say Kyiv’s refusal to buckle under Moscow’s war represents a transformative moment for the continent.
Whatever the exact territorial outcome of the war in Ukraine, the political outcome is already clear – Russia has lost its gambit to create a vassal state and buffer zone in Eastern Europe, because Ukraine’s Westward course is now irreversible.

That was one of the key messages of an international symposium of diplomats and academics who gathered at Cambridge University under the auspices of the Centre for Geopolitics on Thursday, April 4. The focus was the Maidan Revolution of 2013, which overthrew Ukraine’s Moscow-friendly president Viktor Yanukovych and set the country on a path towards Europe, but it also dwelled on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022.

NATO weighs a plan to provide long-term military help to Ukraine as Russian troops assert control

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO is debating a plan to provide more predictable military support to Ukraine in coming years as better armed Russian troops assert control on the battlefield, the organization’s top civilian official said Wednesday.

“We strongly believe that support to Ukraine should be less dependent on short-term, voluntary offers and more dependent on long-term NATO commitments,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said before chairing a meeting of the alliance’s foreign ministers in Brussels.

Earlier on Wednesday, Ukraine lowered the military conscription age from 27 to 25 to help replenish its depleted ranks after more than two years of war. A shortage of infantry combined with a severe ammunition shortfall has helped hand Russian troops the initiative.

“The reason why we do this is the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine. It is serious,” Stoltenberg told reporters. “We see how Russia is pushing, and we see how they try to win this war by just waiting us out.”

The plan is to have NATO coordinate the work of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — a forum of around 50 countries that has regularly gathered during the war to drum up weapons and ammunition for Ukraine — rather than the U.S. European Command.

Nato ministers agree to plan for greater alliance role in coordinating Ukraine aid, Stoltenberg says
“Today, allies have agreed to move forward with planning for a greater Nato role in coordinating security assistance and training. The details will take shape in the weeks to come,” Jens Stoltenberg, the Nato secretary-general, said after today’s talks at Nato headquarters in Brussels.

And finally, I found this troubling, via the dailymail;

US F-16 jets due to arrive in Ukraine 'are no longer relevant', Kyiv military official says: 'Every weapon has its right time. We needed them in 2023, they're not right for 2024. We need shells and rockets'
American-made F-16 fighter jets set to arrive in Ukraine this summer are 'no longer relevant' to the war, a senior Ukrainian military official has stated, adding that 'shells and rockets' are what's needed in 2024.

The Ukrainian Air Force is expected to take a delivery of the supersonic multirole fighter aircrafts in July, as pilots have been trained and the war-torn country's airfields prepared.

Before their arrival, the F-16's were thought to be the war-winning weapon that could tilt the balance in the war with Russia in Ukraine's favour.
'Often, we just don't get the weapons systems at the time we need them – they come when they're no longer relevant,' the high-ranking officer told Politico.

'Every weapon has its own right time. F-16s were needed in 2023; they won't be right for 2024.'

[Deus Mortis]

snip

I am not sure if that general is just trying to give Russia a false impression to lure them into something or what, but the f16 will be useful as a weapons platform, even in 2024. Them getting the f16 allows for countries to send different types of weapons over there.

[Corvus]

Estonia has announced they have found another million rounds of artillery ammo, both 155mm and 152mm. Combined with the early Czech initiative plus what is being built, Ukraine should get 2-2.5 million rounds this year, which will allow them to match russia's rate of fire.

It the GOP stops being obstructionist and starts sending amo again, Ukraine could exceed russia in ammo supply.

[Kaleredar]

It the GOP stops being obstructionist and starts sending amo again, Ukraine could exceed russia in ammo supply.

But Corvus, that might make the democrats look good! They can't risk that happening. How else are they going to pass more tax cuts and deregulations to help out the ultrawealthy?

[Iphie]

Estonia has announced they have found another million rounds of artillery ammo, both 155mm and 152mm. Combined with the early Czech initiative plus what is being built, Ukraine should get 2-2.5 million rounds this year, which will allow them to match russia's rate of fire.

It the GOP stops being obstructionist and starts sending amo again, Ukraine could exceed russia in ammo supply.

That's already been reported in this very thread three days ago or so...

[Corvus]

I must have missed it in the latest round of debates about nothing related to the war.

[alach]

I am not sure if that general is just trying to give Russia a false impression to lure them into something or what, but the f16 will be useful as a weapons platform, even in 2024. Them getting the f16 allows for countries to send different types of weapons over there.

I think it was a bit of "We had a chance to end this, but you all were too slow, again." As well.

[Jessicka]

Let's go with that scenario then, 50 for US and 50 for China. (this leaves over 99% of countries without a single hit btw) But first you'll need to explain both countries nuclear weapons doctrine, and show me that the weapons are indeed intended for extermination of maximum amount of people, rather than military targets. Because the latter tactic, and the one I think is more likely, leaves far less destruction than the earlier scenario of 100 deleted cities one.

Either scenario doesn't seem quite like the civilization ending one, not even close.

I’m talking from a study that focussed on realistic target distribution, you’re, making shit up and denying established science of an atomic winter that’s been around for almost as long as atomic weapons. Because “you don’t think that’s right”.

[Azadina]

I’m talking from a study that focussed on realistic target distribution, you’re, making shit up and denying established science of an atomic winter that’s been around for almost as long as atomic weapons. Because “you don’t think that’s right”.

What study is that again? The Carl Sagan one? The complete bunk one? You're free to keep believing old and obsolete study based on wild and incorrect assumptions if you wish. Just do me a favour and don't wave that pseudoscience myth around like it's a fact.

[Iphie]

What study is that again? The Carl Sagan one? The complete bunk one? You're free to keep believing old and obsolete study based on wild and incorrect assumptions if you wish. Just do me a favour and don't wave that pseudoscience myth around like it's a fact.

Not sure if it's complete bunk, but I do know that is considered highly flawed and not really representing the most likely outcome, yes. Nuclear winter is unlikely but the aftermath will still not be funny.

[Jessicka]

What study is that again? The Carl Sagan one? The complete bunk one? You're free to keep believing old and obsolete study based on wild and incorrect assumptions if you wish. Just do me a favour and don't wave that pseudoscience myth around like it's a fact.

https://www.mtu.edu/news/2018/06/mor...ing-point.html

[Gabriel]

https://www.mtu.edu/news/2018/06/mor...ing-point.html

Nuclear disarmament is the most retarded security policy there is, and any paper suggesting it should be dismissed as the work of someone with an agenda.

Sure, lets lower the number of deployed nukes low enough so that using them in a war is safe.

Like... ??????

[Poopymonster]

Nuclear disarmament is the most retarded security policy there is, and any paper suggesting it should be dismissed as the work of someone with an agenda.

Sure, lets lower the number of deployed nukes low enough so that using them in a war is safe.

Like... ??????

Personally I'm getting big Technopolis vibes here.

[Jessicka]

Nuclear disarmament is the most retarded security policy there is, and any paper suggesting it should be dismissed as the work of someone with an agenda.

Sure, lets lower the number of deployed nukes low enough so that using them in a war is safe.

Like... ??????

Well if you can find me anything else in western civil or defence spending where a government will blow the money for ten thousand of a thing where one hundred will do, I'm listening.

The point of the paper really, is that 100 is functionally enough for MAD. Not to make nuclear war safe.

[Gabriel]

Well if you can find me anything else in western civil or defence spending where a government will blow the money for ten thousand of a thing where one hundred will do, I'm listening.

The point of the paper really, is that 100 is functionally enough for MAD. Not to make nuclear war safe.

That's exactly what the article was about. What deterrence is there in a number of nuclear weapons that is "safe" for the nation deploying them to use? Why would a country not use their nukes if they know using them doesn't lead to mutually assured destruction?

The point of nuclear weapons is to be an existential threat. A number of nukes limited to a level where the use of said nukes doesn't cause "unacceptable levels of environmental blowback on the nuclear power’s own country if they were used" is not existential threat.

[Makabreska]

The point of nuclear weapons is to be an existential threat. A number of nukes limited to a level where the use of said nukes doesn't cause "unacceptable levels of environmental blowback on the nuclear power’s own country if they were used" is not existential threat.

Dunno. A possibility of even only 1-2 nukes hitting your country major population centres is not a risk I see many leaders would take.

[Gabriel]

Dunno. A possibility of even only 1-2 nukes hitting your country major population centres is not a risk I see many leaders would take.

Are you kidding me? Please say sike right now.

[alach]

You all are gonna get this thread locked with yet another page about nukes.
Why not start a new thread about it.

[Wilian]

Estonia has announced they have found another million rounds of artillery ammo, both 155mm and 152mm. Combined with the early Czech initiative plus what is being built, Ukraine should get 2-2.5 million rounds this year, which will allow them to match russia's rate of fire.

It the GOP stops being obstructionist and starts sending amo again, Ukraine could exceed russia in ammo supply.

While I remain generally hopeful, only portion of the Chezch initiative is funded thus far and from the moment they announced funding for that portion, it will have taken many months to deliver. The first batch of 300k was funded like month, two ago and the supposed delivery is sometime in the summer. Finding them now doesn't mean they will get there in time because as it stands, logistics seem to be shit. Right now we are playing catch-up and Ukraine is paying heavy price over deliveries that should've been there last year.

[Jessicka]

That's exactly what the article was about. What deterrence is there in a number of nuclear weapons that is "safe" for the nation deploying them to use? Why would a country not use their nukes if they know using them doesn't lead to mutually assured destruction?

The point of nuclear weapons is to be an existential threat. A number of nukes limited to a level where the use of said nukes doesn't cause "unacceptable levels of environmental blowback on the nuclear power’s own country if they were used" is not existential threat.

It doesn't cause blowback, but it still absolutely fucking annihilates your target.

Are you kidding me? Please say sike right now.

Most countries barely have 3-4 major population centres to get nuked.

- - - Updated - - -

You all are gonna get this thread locked with yet another page about nukes.
Why not start a new thread about it.

Right, enough of this subject, people have a weird underappreciation for why we don't use them.