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

Page 705 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,496
8,765
136
Ugh, that's fucking terrible. Those poor guys.

Can this be where a furious general empties a pistol into Putin's head?
I figure nobody can get near Putin with a gun. He may have something like US's Secret Service attachment to protect him, don't know. But a general? I assume they are unarmed.

Putin's grasp of reality is not very focused. A situation could be orchestrated in which he's put in a position where he's taken into detention. How the Kremlin spins that is up to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,686
1,962
136
I think we would have to attack in kind with nuclear weapons. Basically if the Russians are willing to use them against Ukraine (a country they invaded) they are willing to use them against anyone. Can't feel safe with a country around willing to do that. I think you basically see the entire Western world topple the Russian regime overnight and given the conscription response so far it probably would be accepted by the people there as deserving.

How do you topple a nuclear armed state with ICBM's without subjecting western cities to a dose of instant sunshine? Even if the majority of those ICBM's do not work. The consequences would be devastating for those near targets hit by a 500kt yield nuke.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,496
8,765
136
You know what's best for me, eh? You're not my ex wife ... or are you? I wasn't aware pearls could become diamonds. I kindly encourage you to file a complaint with management to censor me, or as aforementioned put me on ignore, or all of the above!
Silly boy, duck for cover, it's for your own good. You're in over your head here, get a clue.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,820
955
126
How do you topple a nuclear armed state with ICBM's without subjecting western cities to a dose of instant sunshine? Even if the majority of those ICBM's do not work. The consequences would be devastating for those near targets hit by a 500kt yield nuke.
Probbaly by working with the Russian military and ensuring Ptin doesn't destory the whole world.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,244
37,654
136
I think the Russian use of nuclear weapons would cause the US to respond. I don't think we would attack Russia proper but I think we would strike Russian forces in Ukraine.

Mostly this. Russian assets (airbases, SAM sites, transport links, depots, etc) in the border oblasts though would probably get a healthy dose of large guided missiles. Black Sea fleet would be sitting on the bottom in a day. Kerch Bridge a goner.

The Russian army inside Ukraine would be mercilessly taken apart by NATO strikes.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,496
8,765
136
Mostly this. Russian assets (airbases, SAM sites, transport links, depots, etc) in the border oblasts though would probably get a healthy dose of large guided missiles. Black Sea fleet would be sitting on the bottom in a day. Kerch Bridge a goner.

The Russian army inside Ukraine would be mercilessly taken apart by NATO strikes.
Yes, and we would not engage in nuclear brinksmanship. Not necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feralkid and Leeea

Zor Prime

Golden Member
Nov 7, 1999
1,023
588
136
Silly boy, duck for cover, it's for your own good. You're in over your head here, get a clue.
You tell someone to get off an Internet thread as if you were at best 12 years old and call me a boy. Riiight. You've been doing this very thing lately to a variety of people, it's a pattern.

I'll wait for you to explain what it is I said or did that you disagree with or found wrong to get the bullying Internet tough guy to come out in you or how about you just privmsg / DM me and let me know there and we can talk about it and get this shit off the thread since you cannot apparently fathom the prospect of putting my words that apparently trigger you on ignore.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,880
136
It is not necessary to kill millions quickly. Killing them slowly would be more effective, a steady drip every day of several thousand dead regime personnel. Just keep hitting them over and over until it breaks.

---------------

A nuclear response instantly makes conventional weapons pointless.

If nukes are going to be used, conventional weapons become irrelevant.


Use up the conventional stuff while it is still relevant and can yield a less insane outcome.

---------------

Lastly, it is not a surety that Russia will be able to nuke Ukraine on its first attempt. NATO missile defense* can hit targets over Moscow with its SM-3** interceptors. If NATO gets lucky, they might be able to intercept a nuke before it hits Ukraine.

A conventional measured response is ideal to such a scenario.


*Aegis Ashore as deployed to Poland and Romania. Aegis as deployed to a whole bunch of NATO warships. There are a large number of interceptors floating around out there.
** SM-3's have a publish speed of Mach 13 and a published range of 1,200 km. This is a system designed to stop missiles in the boost, post-boost, midcourse, and terminal phases.
Not to mention large scale conventional could quickly decrease Russia's nuclear capabilities. Like sinking their subs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
6,017
1,322
136
I don't think a lot of speculation is required. Trump would have absolutely sold Ukraine out for nothing, just to impress Putin.
Who to say that he hasn't already sold Ukraine out to Putin? We don't know what was found at Mar-a-Lago and what's still missing. You have to wonder whether the US government knew what documents were stolen and use the information to focus their intelligence gathering that they ultimately use to help Ukraine.

Use the useful idiot as your own useful idiot and then get him indicted. Two birds, one stone.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
Not yet. Now they only take people with military service experience. But I will be in the next wave of mobilization, as I was trained in the military department at the institute. There is time to get a job at a military enterprise. My knowledge and skills will be more useful there than at the front.

The only appropriate response to a comment like this

 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
I think we would have to attack in kind with nuclear weapons. Basically if the Russians are willing to use them against Ukraine (a country they invaded) they are willing to use them against anyone. Can't feel safe with a country around willing to do that. I think you basically see the entire Western world topple the Russian regime overnight and given the conscription response so far it probably would be accepted by the people there as deserving.

And if they use them once, what's the barrier to using them again? I don't see how a slow, conventional response can be effective.

We start picking off a bunch of targets all over Rus, they can just lob another one. Or a massive volley before we respond in kind.

IDK, all those frightening 80s movies coming back to relevance again...
 

Lezunto

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2020
1,070
968
106
I do not advocate a full scale nuclear exchange. I asked a question. Some of the responses were akin to fantasies of armchair generals.

The U.S. cannot possibly interdict the Russian Navy while at the same time remaining ready to battle the Chinese Navy. How is this going to be done? It took all of one sailor to start a fire that destroyed the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard.

Does the U.S. have the wherewithal to invade and retake Crimea? Why would the U.S. want to? Does the U.S. Air Force have the weapons and capability to seriously degrade Russia's command structure?

What countries and supposed allies are going to lend a hand in all of this? I don't believe NATO nations want to risk the destruction of their countries and peoples, unless they are directly attacked.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,477
9,378
136
The U.S. cannot possibly interdict the Russian Navy while at the same time remaining ready to battle the Chinese Navy. How is this going to be done? It took all of one sailor to start a fire that destroyed the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard.

The US would have absolutely no problems taking on the Russian and Chinese navy simultaneously. The disparity between the US navy and the rest of the World is crazy!
Does the U.S. have the wherewithal to invade and retake Crimea? Why would the U.S. want to? Does the U.S. Air Force have the weapons and capability to seriously degrade Russia's command structure?
Seriously? If the US got boots on the ground in Crimea it would be over in less than a week.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
I think we would have to attack in kind with nuclear weapons. Basically if the Russians are willing to use them against Ukraine (a country they invaded) they are willing to use them against anyone. Can't feel safe with a country around willing to do that. I think you basically see the entire Western world topple the Russian regime overnight and given the conscription response so far it probably would be accepted by the people there as deserving.
That is the sticky point.

If we let them nuke one city off the planet without consequence, then they will nuke them all off one at a time. Nuclear terrorism is just to easy.


Better off rolling the dice and go down fighting then dying piecemeal in terror.



In a full on exchange, we will intercept many of their missiles. Some of us will live to see tomorrow. A straight up horror show, but not the end of all things.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,132
14,508
146
I think the Russian use of nuclear weapons would cause the US to respond. I don't think we would attack Russia proper but I think we would strike Russian forces in Ukraine.
I agree. Although depending on how Russia uses a nuke could result in an accidental nuclear response from the US if the attack is misinterpreted.

I’m thinking a scenario where Russia decides to use a ballistic launcher from well inside it’s borders because they don’t want to risk moving tactical warheads that use shorter range delivery systems close to the border. There would be a small chance the US could minterpret that attack as an attack on NATO and respond accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zor Prime

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
I agree. Although depending on how Russia uses a nuke could result in an accidental nuclear response from the US if the attack is misinterpreted.

I’m thinking a scenario where Russia decides to use a ballistic launcher from well inside it’s borders because they don’t want to risk moving tactical warheads that use shorter range delivery systems close to the border. There would be a small chance the US could minterpret that attack as an attack on NATO and respond accordingly.
That type of attack is the type of attack NATO missile defense has the best chance of intercepting prior to it hitting Ukraine. Nobody knows where that missile is coming down, the time window on an intercept is not particularly long. If you were the missile defense officer, would you even hesitate? Better to ask forgiveness then lose a city.


If NATO was able to knock down Russia's first nuke it would likely make everyone take a step back and reconsider things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zor Prime

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
The US would have absolutely no problems taking on the Russian and Chinese navy simultaneously. The disparity between the US navy and the rest of the World is crazy!

Seriously? If the US got boots on the ground in Crimea it would be over in less than a week.
Yes if anything this war has shown the US military has no peer and it's not even close. The 'second best army in the world' is getting absolutely bodied by a far weaker country utilizing only a fraction of our combat capabilities.