Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

I find that last bit either fake or a misunderstanding of French nuclear doctrine. They don't have (anymore) land based ballistic missiles, but they have a fleet of subs with nuclear missiles and they do have strategic weapons. Its the fourth largest in the world, too. Not as big as the US or Russia's stockpiles (though how many of Russia's actually work is an open question), but enough to ruin someone's day if it came to a nuclear exchange

Its more likely that the article seized on some platitude about not wanting nuclear war (because of course they dont)


For that matter everyone's losing their heads over Macron's statement, and I dont get why, given that several guys in NATO/EU have already said that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the response will be enormous, but not nuclear.

[Starver]

There'll be more than enough conventionally-warheaded precision[1] missiles being tilted in the direction of strategic targets of retaliation within Russia (or its various fleets/wings currently on the move outside of the territory, at any given time), being a lot safer (nominally) to base all over the place than the rather higher security required to host a nuke.  The question being whether a cruise-missile/whatever 'only' with an explosive warhead could be mistaken for one with one with a nuclear one and thus make the response-to-the-response a full-blown war.

Greater minds than mine are probably juggling this kind of issue, right now, though. How twitchy the trigger-finger is will play a part in it, but that the level of (conventional) readiness is surely already hightened.


[1] Theoretically. With a significant mass of them being launched, we could find ourselves with a few Chinese Embassy/Civilian Infrastructure hits deliberately but mistakenly, and who knows how much damage from the debris of any interceptions (if the air-shield isn't total bunkum) or in-flight failures of some other kind. If there's ever a need (or an opportunity) to pick apart exactly what happened after such an attack, I'm sure there'll be various less than optimal situations directly arising from the choices made.

[EuchreJack]

For that matter everyone's losing their heads over Macron's statement, and I dont get why, given that several guys in NATO/EU have already said that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the response will be enormous, but not nuclear.

HA.

But aren't we already at the peak of what we can do without nuclear war?
Thus, is this NOT an admission that Putin can nuke Ukraine without consequences?

Like, is Putin going to let the West overthrow him with conventional arms without pulling out his nukes?

The West has clearly sold out the Ukraine. Putin has been told he CAN nuke Ukraine, so he WILL nuke Ukraine. And the West won't do shit.
They're fucking telling him that!
(my apologies for getting so Emotional in the News thread, but I think people are missing this point. And if I'm wrong, for the love of God TELL ME!!)

[Vector]

I see it as a power move: even if you use nuclear weapons, we will blast you back to the stone age without them.

[Lord Shonus]

You're (EucherJack, not Vector) wrong

1. The claims that the response will be "enormous, but not nuclear" are not official statements from the decision makers. They're deliberate leaks from people who are high up but not the folks making the final decisions. An official statement would come from the White House or 10 Dowling Street directly - those are the places that control most of the NATO nuclear arsenal. Official policy statement is deliberately vague.

2. NATO is far, far short of the limits of non-nuclear warfare. Possible responses range from "every major Russian military base near the Ukrainian border explodes" to "all-out conventional alpha strike that cripples the command, control, and military of the entire country". The potential "proportionate response" range is immense even without nukes.

[EuchreJack]

You're (EucherJack, not Vector) wrong

1. The claims that the response will be "enormous, but not nuclear" are not official statements from the decision makers. They're deliberate leaks from people who are high up but not the folks making the final decisions. An official statement would come from the White House or 10 Dowling Street directly - those are the places that control most of the NATO nuclear arsenal. Official policy statement is deliberately vague.

2. NATO is far, far short of the limits of non-nuclear warfare. Possible responses range from "every major Russian military base near the Ukrainian border explodes" to "all-out conventional alpha strike that cripples the command, control, and military of the entire country". The potential "proportionate response" range is immense even without nukes.

I appreciate #1. It points out that the statements might be from officials who have no authority trying to exert authority quite improperly. They should probably be fired, for what it's worth.

I don't buy #2. Putin isn't just going to sit there and let Russia get invaded or attacked. That leads directly to Nuclear response. Just ask him, he'll tell you.
There may be wiggle room, but I think we're close to the celling.  More importantly, I think Putin thinks we're close to the celling, and it's his twitchy trigger finger that matters.

[King Zultan]

At this point nukes are ether gonna get used or not, and there's not much you can do to stop it, just gotta hope you and your people don't get hit with it.

[Lord Shonus]

I don't buy #2. Putin isn't just going to sit there and let Russia get invaded or attacked. That leads directly to Nuclear response. Just ask him, he'll tell you.
There may be wiggle room, but I think we're close to the celling.  More importantly, I think Putin thinks we're close to the celling, and it's his twitchy trigger finger that matters.

"If I do A, they'll do B and that will force me to do C. I don't want to do C so I won't do A" is a fundamental part of the balance of terror. A single nuclear strike in Ukraine wouldn't necessarily justify a nuclear response, but it would absolutely justify a devastating conventional response, and a devastating conventional response would probably cross thresholds that Russia's insisted would invite a nuclear response. As long as "massive conventional response" is on the table, it is a major deterrent in the chain of escalation.

[EuchreJack]

I don't buy #2. Putin isn't just going to sit there and let Russia get invaded or attacked. That leads directly to Nuclear response. Just ask him, he'll tell you.
There may be wiggle room, but I think we're close to the celling.  More importantly, I think Putin thinks we're close to the celling, and it's his twitchy trigger finger that matters.

"If I do A, they'll do B and that will force me to do C. I don't want to do C so I won't do A" is a fundamental part of the balance of terror. A single nuclear strike in Ukraine wouldn't necessarily justify a nuclear response, but it would absolutely justify a devastating conventional response, and a devastating conventional response would probably cross thresholds that Russia's insisted would invite a nuclear response. As long as "massive conventional response" is on the table, it is a major deterrent in the chain of escalation.

I think you give Putin too much credit here.  Nobody actually uses Logic to make decisions...

[anewaname]

If Russia decides to use a nuke, no one can stop Russia from using a nuke. So the politicians say "we will respond..."

If citizens think Putin's nuke will start nuclear war, many will go feral. So the politicians also say "... without nukes.

[Duuvian]

EJ, one way to think about it is that NATO is being vague is to prevent such reactions as the thought process leading to a belief nuclear responses are the only thing they could do at a given point. This would result in division and hamper all options, not specifically the nuclear ones, if it is presumed to be the only option.

In addition such a presumption on the public's part would support organizations that do not appear Putinist on their face but who nonetheless are nurtured to become that way over time through manipulation. A good example is the Socialist group out of New York that I've mentioned previously. Another is rising on the right:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/15/us/politics/new-generation-of-combat-vets-eyeing-house-strike-from-the-right.html

These groups have valid complaints about corruption in procurement and valid complaints about strategy. However, like most people, they have proven susceptible to being unable to distinguish between involvements in conflicts for good reason, and conflicts driven by profiteering. Whether they are correct that long-term profits for arms manufacturing is a factor in strategic decisions (I believe they may be correct as our politics is a cesspool of money) this application to both just and unjust reasons for war makes these groups extremely susceptible to foreign manipulation by internet means of covert support and infrastructure, which then is coaxed to television media once the corporate culture becomes rattled by it. There does not need to be significant covert personal links between even the leadership of such groups and covert operators though those are likely to be pursued if the organization is successful in following the path laid out and begins to obtain political power. The vast majority of supporters would remain unaware.

Claims that a nuclear exchange is the only option buoys their support, and actually opens the window further to usage of the controversial tactic, due to such stoked fears of escalation driving decision making to be dangerously cautious. This is exactly what happened in Syria with chemical weapons.

Finally, in order to provide a turn around in the situation on the ground using tactical nuclear weapons as a part of the strategy, a number of tactical nukes would have to be used by the Russian armed forces. Projections for the success of Russian troops that follow up such an attack are not good due to lack of protective equipment from radiation (and NATO weaponry, mostly all of which is not being used currently).

Source:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/addressing-new-era-deterrence-and-warfare-visualizing-information-domain-part-ii
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/special-report-assessing-putin%E2%80%99s-implicit-nuclear-threats-after-annexation

[Strongpoint]

For that matter everyone's losing their heads over Macron's statement, and I dont get why, given that several guys in NATO/EU have already said that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the response will be enormous, but not nuclear.

HA.

But aren't we already at the peak of what we can do without nuclear war?
Thus, is this NOT an admission that Putin can nuke Ukraine without consequences?

Like, is Putin going to let the West overthrow him with conventional arms without pulling out his nukes?

The West has clearly sold out the Ukraine. Putin has been told he CAN nuke Ukraine, so he WILL nuke Ukraine. And the West won't do shit.
They're fucking telling him that!
(my apologies for getting so Emotional in the News thread, but I think people are missing this point. And if I'm wrong, for the love of God TELL ME!!)

NATO has no need of using nukes to bring Russia into the stone age. Especially when a huge chunk of the Russian army is already severely damaged. Of course, a massive conventional strike on Russia may result in Russian nuclear response but then the usual rules apply.

NATO is so ahead in conventional weapons that it has no need to start with nukes. Cruise missile strikes and a few squadrons of F22 and F35 will destroy a huge majority of Russian air-defense on day 1. Then fleets of older stuff like F16 will destroy everything military-related and Russia will have a choice of

1) surrendering immediately
2) launching nukes and getting nuked in response
3) Pretend that nothing happened
4) Start a conventional war with NATO and wait few weeks (at most -  months) before NATO's land invasion and try to pull a guerilla war (lol) with the remains of the army.

For me, it is enough to hear "IF Russia will use nukes against Ukraine it means NATO will strike with all its conventional might."

[Lord Shonus]

NATO has no need of using nukes to bring Russia into the stone age. Especially when a huge chunk of the Russian army is already severely damaged. Of course, a massive conventional strike on Russia may result in Russian nuclear response but then the usual rules apply.

NATO is so ahead in conventional weapons that it has no need to start with nukes. Cruise missile strikes and a few squadrons of F22 and F35 will destroy a huge majority of Russian air-defense on day 1. Then fleets of older stuff like F16 will destroy everything military-related and Russia will have a choice of

Frankly, this probably underestimates things a lot. The smallest of the US's three airforces could probably do as much by themselves. The full conventional might of NATO being thrown at Russia would probably make Desert Storm look like a tea party. Particularly since it is starting to look very much like 1991 Iraq had a much more capable military than 2022 Russia.

[Sirus]

I would caution against overconfidence in NATO's military power - a similar overconfidence in Russian military power is partly to blame for the Ukraine invasion after all - but on the other hand I don't really doubt that the larger and wealthier NATO could prevail against a Russia which is getting little or no aid from the international community.

[Strongpoint]

I would caution against overconfidence in NATO's military power - a similar overconfidence in Russian military power is partly to blame for the Ukraine invasion after all - but on the other hand I don't really doubt that the larger and wealthier NATO could prevail against a Russia which is getting little or no aid from the international community.

https://youtu.be/zxRgfBXn6Mg

I see no reason to believe that modern USA will do worse