Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[igor_kavinski]

If he felt the way he describes he should have quit his job and moved on to something else.

Being mentally impaired due to his situation, he wasn't in a position to decide what was best for him or anyone else. His doctor or immediate supervisor should have been more vigilant and should have declared him unfit for that particular duty. Anyway, blaming this one guy and shutting the case is ignoring the potential hazard of emotionally volatile people in sensitive jobs. I hope they take appropriate measures and make the necessary reforms to avoid repeating history. Most importantly, drugs should not be prescribed to people working under pressure to make them perform better. Find a suitable candidate who can handle the job.

 

[Jaskalas]

So why even have conventional forces then?

Your question appears to miss the point.
I say Russia is a threat to more than just Ukraine.
Opponents say no, most other nations there have NATO. Russia wouldn't risk it.

To which I reply... risk what? Not nuclear war. That we will all choose to engage in conventional war is entirely my point. The illusion of the nuclear shield is gone, WAR is back on the menu.

I posit that nuclear nations WILL NOT commit to MAD for someone else's sake. Russia is poised to call our bluff and attack NATO countries. Not this year, maybe not next year either. But it will be something we slide into from here UNLESS Ukraine can hold. I also posit that Crimea is the key to a secure Ukraine, thereby avoiding future conflict with Russia. But if Russia keeps the land bridge, and its forward base... Kyiv is at real risk of falling unless Ukraine can secure the Black Sea and its southern flank.

We cannot afford to let Ukraine's offensive power falter until the goal of Ukraine's security is achieved.

 

[Racan]

Ukraine poised to sue Poland, Hungary & Slovakia over grain.

Not a smart move, Ukraine will lose some popular support in Poland over this.

 

[fskimospy]

Your question appears to miss the point.
I say Russia is a threat to more than just Ukraine.
Opponents say no, most other nations there have NATO. Russia wouldn't risk it.

To which I reply... risk what? Not nuclear war. That we will all choose to engage in conventional war is entirely my point. The illusion of the nuclear shield is gone, WAR is back on the menu.

I posit that nuclear nations WILL NOT commit to MAD for someone else's sake. Russia is poised to call our bluff and attack NATO countries. Not this year, maybe not next year either. But it will be something we slide into from here UNLESS Ukraine can hold. I also posit that Crimea is the key to a secure Ukraine, thereby avoiding future conflict with Russia. But if Russia keeps the land bridge, and its forward base... Kyiv is at real risk of falling unless Ukraine can secure the Black Sea and its southern flank.

We cannot afford to let Ukraine's offensive power falter until the goal of Ukraine's security is achieved.

US policy is not and, importantly, never has been a nuclear strike in response to any attack on a NATO member.

So what you’re saying is a problem here has been the same NATO policy from day one and every single NATO member knows it. Why is this interesting or notable?

Also, this would be a very bad and unenforceable policy anyway. Why start nuclear Armageddon when we could just annihilate the Russian army the old fashioned way?

 

[pmv]

US policy is not and, importantly, never has been a nuclear strike in response to any attack on a NATO member.

So what you’re saying is a problem here has been the same NATO policy from day one and every single NATO member knows it. Why is this interesting or notable?

Also, this would be a very bad and unenforceable policy anyway. Why start nuclear Armageddon when we could just annihilate the Russian army the old fashioned way?

Not sure about that "never has been". I thought NATO's policy was always to keep the option of a massive 'first strike' in the event of a conventional Warsaw Pact attack?

That was, of course, because the USSR had such a massive advantage in conventional forces, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that policy had changed, subsequent to the collapse of that country and the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, given what is now very apparent about the dismal state of Russian conventional forces, I would assume it's at this point completely irrelevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure about that "never has been". I thought NATO's policy was always to keep the option of a massive 'first strike' in the event of a conventional Warsaw Pact attack?

That was, of course, because the USSR had such a massive advantage in conventional forces, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that policy had changed, subsequent to the collapse of that country and the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, given what is now very apparent about the dismal state of Russian conventional forces, I would assume it's at this point completely irrelevant.

Yes, the US has always kept that as an OPTION but it was never our position that any Russian conventional attack would certainly be met by a nuclear response.

Regardless yes, given current realities we would certainly not do that now as we could just destroy their army with relative ease.

 

[cytg111]

US policy is not and, importantly, never has been a nuclear strike in response to any attack on a NATO member.

So what you’re saying is a problem here has been the same NATO policy from day one and every single NATO member knows it. Why is this interesting or notable?

Also, this would be a very bad and unenforceable policy anyway. Why start nuclear Armageddon when we could just annihilate the Russian army the old fashioned way?

This adds a nice extra dimension.
What do you do if they push the button and it fizzles?

 

[Leeea]

This adds a nice extra dimension.
What do you do if they push the button and it fizzles?

I have been asking that same question for a while now.


If it fizzled the first time, you know they are going to hit the button again.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

They push.

West pushes.

Theirs fail.

West's don't.


A strange game.

 

[JTsyo]

Not sure about that "never has been". I thought NATO's policy was always to keep the option of a massive 'first strike' in the event of a conventional Warsaw Pact attack?

That was, of course, because the USSR had such a massive advantage in conventional forces, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that policy had changed, subsequent to the collapse of that country and the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, given what is now very apparent about the dismal state of Russian conventional forces, I would assume it's at this point completely irrelevant.

That strike would have been on the forces that were attacking, not a MAD strike on population centers. So think tactical nukes on troop formations and airfields near the border.
Game-theorywise MAD is only good for deterrence. Actually ending the world is worse than learning to speak Russian.

 

[K1052]

Russian 2S1 takes a nice little jaunt though the Ukrainian countryside.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704108316660543615

 

[dainthomas]

Not a smart move, Ukraine will lose some popular support in Poland over this.

I don't know, I think Poland hates Russia more than it hates agricultural imports from Ukraine.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Russia is losing a lot more T-90M tanks these days…

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1703789408304918990

 

[Ajay]

I have been asking that same question for a while now.


If it fizzled the first time, you know they are going to hit the button again.

They hit the button multiple times as they begin to panic. They'd probably more frightened that and unsuccessful nuclear strike would embolden NATO to retaliate than a successful one would.

 

[fskimospy]

They hit the button multiple times as they begin to panic. They'd probably more frightened that and unsuccessful nuclear strike would embolden NATO to retaliate than a successful one would.

And probably correctly so - if I saw someone just unsuccessfully try to nuke me my thoughts would be:
1) they've made the decision to start a nuclear war
2) our best chance for survival is to strike now while their weapons aren't working

 

[Ajay]

And probably correctly so - if I saw someone just unsuccessfully try to nuke me my thoughts would be:
1) they've made the decision to start a nuclear war
2) our best chance for survival is to strike now while their weapons aren't working

Exactly. Sure would be hard to resist acting on that logical conclusion. Especially since it's a near certainty that some percentage of the other side's nukes work and generally have a much higher yield than NATO's.

 

[cytg111]

They push.

West pushes.

Theirs fail.

West's don't.


A strange game.

Yea but you got intel coming in

"SORRY SORRY, MECHANICAL FAILURE, MECHANICAL FAILURE, DONT LAUNCH DONT LAUNCH"

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Flight time is what ... 15 minutes or so? They launch, but fail in flight. Do you wait?

Do we even know between button push and launch? Do we know if they fail before launch?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Flight time is what ... 15 minutes or so? They launch, but fail in flight. Do you wait?

Do we even know between button push and launch? Do we know if they fail before launch?

- Little known factoid: Russia has actually attempted to carry out half a dozen nuclear strikes in Ukraine already. Just so happened they all failed and are currently decorating some Ukranian farmer's mantle.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea but you got intel coming in

"SORRY SORRY, MECHANICAL FAILURE, MECHANICAL FAILURE, DONT LAUNCH DONT LAUNCH"

Probably would depend on the scale of the launch. If it's one missile I think we would wait because...well... plenty of time/capacity for payback if it's real. If it was a large strike I think we would not wait.

 

[Ajay]

Do we even know between button push and launch? Do we know if they fail before launch?

There could be a system offline. That should be reported to a country's nuclear command. Not sure how, for instance in the US, the three branches coordinate all the information. I'm sure it's online, for the most part, somewhere.

Certainly, the operators of each system (underground bunker, land mobile, air launched, surface sea launched and submarine launched) certainly know whether or not a launch is successful. Or, if they lose communication mid flight, or have a warhead arming failure. The norm would be hitting targets BVR, so detecting a successful strike would rely on nearby surveillance aircraft, satellites and seismographic data. I have no idea how quickly that data gets back to the CIC, like the president in the US.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Rephrasing ....


Putty says launch and sends the command through the tree.

Igor at the silo does his thing but nothing happens.

Does the US or NATO know?

 

[cytg111]

Probably would depend on the scale of the launch. If it's one missile I think we would wait because...well... plenty of time/capacity for payback if it's real. If it was a large strike I think we would not wait.

Yea if its MAD then might as well wait until u sure they’re launching all? On the other hand if Russia is gonna radiate everywhere else, we gonna need a new place to live… we might not wanna fuck over our future homes after we wipe out all russians conventionally.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Anything to this?

Exclusive: Ukraine's special services 'likely' behind strikes on Wagner-backed forces in Sudan, a Ukrainian military source says​

CNN|1 hour ago
Ukrainian special services were likely behind a series of drone strikes and a ground operation directed against a Wagner-backed militia near Sudan's capital, a CNN investigation has found, raising ...


.

 

[RnR_au]

Anything to this?

Could be true... more likely French Special Forces, but the Ukrainians are ok with getting credits for any operation against Wagner/Russian forces regardless where they are.