As I’ve said before, all this talk of standing up to Putin doesn’t seem to acknowledge the enormity of the consequences. Even if the chance of those consequences is extremely low it’s not a chance anyone can rationally take
You seem to be ignoring the consequences of not standing up to him, it's a big part of the reason why we're in this current mess. If he's allowed to get away with invading other countries that are posing no military threat to Russia why would he stop after Ukraine, why would he stop at re-uniting the former Soviet Union? If all he needs to do is a bit of nuclear sabre-rattling and NATO/the West turns a blind eye then it just emboldens him.
No one in their right mind wants a nuclear war but it's Putin that's dragging the world closer to one, not the West for refusing to capitulate to his demands.
What frightens me is that any move to munitions using fissile materials will tip the balance irrespective of their yield and subsequent destruction of humans and infrastructures.
A 0.1 kiloton tactical nuclear bomb deployed to obliterate a column of Ukrainian troops and tanks would trigger WW3 even if was far less powerful than the hundreds of munitions used prior.
Or is there another definition / value associated with starting a nuclear war?
Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange. It would instantly put most of the world against Russia, and as explained above, Putin is aware of the military response from Nato (i.e. non nuclear, but serious response, like sinking what remains of the black sea fleet, or some other show of serious capability). This scenario has been planned for, and I would think a non-nuclear response would make him look even more of a pariah to the world, and completely isolate him (including with China), whilst his forces are seriously hit in what would look like a measured response.
It’s not a logical process to say ‘defy putin – get nuclear war’
No but we know he is nowhwere near as rational as NATO leaders are. Assuming he won't launch nukes because he has too much to lose or because we wouldn't do that isn't a safe assumption. He's already on record as saying a world without (presumably a Putin-lead) Russia is not a world worth having. All the hawks on here proposing stronger action seem to assume he's a rational actor who will do what's in his best interests. I don't see any evidence of that and reckon he's far more dangerous and volatile than many of us assume.
Is there any point at which it would be acceptable to stand up to him?
I guess if he attacked a NATO country. The problem with this entire f****-up situation is that Ukraine isn't one.
Use of a tactical nuke by Russia I very much doubt would precipitate a nuclear exchange.
Jeez we're through the looking glass now. If Putin launches any type of nuke against Ukraine it's game over. The west will respond, he'll launch another, and it won't end before the missiles are flying. Naive and wishful thinking like this is what will be the end of us.
I don't think he is irrational or unhinged, he is cold and utterly ruthless. It's not an assumption about nukes, it is explicitly how the deterrent works. He can't just use a first strike against the west because that would end Russia - it's a cold logic he understands. I'd argue that his current behaviour and sabre rattling is proof of his understanding of the logic; he is doing what he can in the envelope of opportunity he currently has, but the ones you fear are closed to him. His current conduct can also be seen as an expression of the limited options at his disposal. He's not Putin the all powerful to be feared when he has bought 10,000 north korean soldiers to die in defence of the bit of Russia they can't remove Ukranian forces from.
Russia's existence isn't being threatened, nor will it be by trying to stop him in Ukraine.
@dazh - i think the naivety is entirely your own i'm afraid. If your critical reasoning is broken and you're not open to other reasoned dialogue, then expect to be challenged on your beliefs on this subject, and your reasoning (or lack) behind them.
have only just picked up on the fact India are buying massive quantities of Russian oil, refining it into diesel, and selling it to the EU.
They are not buying as much Russian oil as Saudi Arabia currently is.
And just as a reminder what a friend and ally to the West the brutal Saudi dictatorship is:
<i>.</i>
Orban’s latest round of shithousery is to invite Netanyahu to visit in defiance of ICC.
Considering what Israel is doing I feel like this should be a surprise for Orban. But it isnt.
What's his rationale? Is he genuinely wanting Hungary to be a safe destination country for Netanyahu?
If your critical reasoning is broken
You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn't be as bad as we all fear. I don't think it's my critical reasoning that's broken. 😉
What’s his rationale?
Well Victor Orban and Benjamin Netanyahu have quite a lot in common. Both are authoritarian far-right racists who hate Muslims and who have been very chummy with Putin for a while.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Viktor_Orban
@dazh Maybe it's just your comprehension then: I was explaining with lots of valid reasoning and examples of how nuclear doctrine works, the reasons why it wasn't necessarily going to lead to the catastrophe you assume. It's the basis of your assumption that I've tried to reasonably contest. Make of it what you have...
You just suggested Putin launching a tactical nuke wouldn’t be as bad as we all fear. I don’t think it’s my critical reasoning that’s broken. ?
Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?
The hypersonic part refers to speed, not trajectory. A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory (so basically following gravity, not manoeverable once the rocket engine runs out of fuel). They are hypersonic (exceeding Mach 5), but not manoeuverable beyond minor course corrections.
Yeah, but... not in the context of weapons (e.g. missiles). By that strict definition of speed, a German V2 (1944-1952) was technically hypersonic, however...
What differentiates today’s emerging class of hypersonic capabilities is the use of aerodynamic lift to allow reentry vehicles to maneuver under guided flight within the atmosphere. While ballistic missiles follow a parabolic trajectory to their target, hypersonic missiles can reenter the atmosphere much quicker. After being launched from rocket boosters, these “boost-glide” vehicles reenter the atmosphere and are guided to their target with the ability to undertake evasive maneuvers to overcome defenses. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-hypersonic-weapons/
By that definition, neither Kinzhal* nor R26 Rubezh/Oreshnik are considered weapons-grade hypersonic. They are quick though 🙂
*and I learnt that just now too
Are you suggesting that if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine that the US or UK would counter strike Russian territory with nuclear weapons?
I took Daz meaning that it would create an escalation in which a nuclear exchange was possible.
The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.
If that did occur I believe that NATO countries in Western Europe are likely to be targeted, which would be a step closer to a nuclear exchange.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
I suppose the question for Dazh is, which of Putins red lines should the west/ not have crossed in the past? Every time he comes on here saying don’t risk it, nuclear Armageddon etc
So which red lines then? Was it supplying Javelins? Or Leopards or F16s or attacking Crimea? Or any of the other 20 or so times Russia has threaten nuclear war if you do this or that.
perhaps the initial German aid response of 5000 helmets was the correct one, maybe throw in some socks too, that’s not too risky 😉
And yeah, I’ll stand by my comment - I’m not quaking in my boots - firing a missile without a warhead isn’t much off a threat, after all The Russian nuclear arsenal is already priced in to NATO policy. Firing a dud missile changes nothing.
The Rubble now at 103/$ !
#sanctions not working ;))
I’m not sure Putin can back down now, I think its gone too far
I agree. The west faffed and missed several opportunities to impose meaningful sanctions; Crimea, Donbas, shooting down of flight MH17, etc.
Russia paused at each stage, nothing happened so they resumed.
After the three-day SMO was shown to be highly unlikely and under more extensive sanctions, Russia should have declared Ukraine free of Nazis and turned back.
The war has now caused so many, too public problems that it can't be abandoned by Russia for no benefit.
There's an article here from March that I won't try to paraphrase. Five perspectives on Russia's nuclear diplomacy are outlined by Stephen J. Cimbala and Lawrence J. Korb https://thebulletin.org/2024/03/putins-nuclear-warnings-heightened-risk-or-revolving-door/
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Certainly looks plausible. Must be terrifying if you know these things are headed your way.
(No carnage shown, just the flight of 2 missiles over a farmers field.)
Feel like this is only going to go one way now really. Nothing like some grim Friday evening news.
blokeuptheroadFull Member
Indeedy!
The Ruble has been in steady decline for a while now, mostly due to global sanctions, I guess, but it's really tanked recently in the last day or so...
I wonder what the driver for that is, Ukraine not having to fight with both hands tied behind their backs maybe/ or some other geo-political influence?
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
I thought Storm shadows were quite surgical instruments though, assuming they don't malfunction, they carry quite a small payload and don't cause a huge amount of colatteral damage.. assuming they are aimed at military/infrastructure?
The ten year chart is very interesting.. you can see the ruble tank 'big style' at the start of the war, it became technically worthless, and then boost massivley due to what I guess was some kind of quantative easing/false inflation by the russian government, and now it' just totally FUBAR.
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Broken link, this works https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1859950903295656158
stcolinFree Member
Feel like this is only going to go one way now really. Nothing like some grim Friday evening news.
A year from now there'll likely be something totally different to worry about.
Likely China invading/ blockading Taiwan due to Trump letting Putin off the hook in Ukraine! Lol
Joking aside, there'll be a high price to pay further down the road if Putin is allowed to win the war with Ukraine. It's a weakness, given his growing age, hell want to press home sooner rather than later. Perhaps Oban will invite a Russian force under Hungary to keep put down a protest. So many possibilities.
I sleep far better knowing Ukraine is now using ATACMS/ Storm Shadows. The tragedy is, they should have been using them *years* ago. As much damage needs to be done before Trump comes to power as possible. Trump will be sewing the sets of a far bigger war in the years to come...
bikesandboots
Full Member
Storm Shadows flying over Russia?
Broken link, this works https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1859950903295656158/blockquote >
Thanks. Now I know how to make the link work at least, even if I can't embed the bloody things. LolCheers again.
Thanks. Now I know how to make the link work at least, even if I can’t embed the bloody things. Lol
Cheers again.
People shouldn't be using twitter anyway given who owns it.. all the cool kids are on Mastadon these days.
Thing about that Storm Shadow over a field and a flock of sheep, is how relatable it is. Looks just like places I go for a ride. It's just different to the middle east where it's just dusty soil, rock, and sand.
Thing about that Storm Shadow over a field and a flock of sheep, is how relatable it is. Looks just like places I go for a ride. It’s just different to the middle east where it’s just dusty soil, rock, and sand.
Yes, it's quite sobering...I felt the same thing too but didn't quite manifest the thought into words until I read what you wrote... It must be a strange feeling seeing something like that for real... a bit like (but conversley) when an Ambulance flies past at 'not messing about' speed.. you know it's going 'somewhere' and you know there's a big problem where it's going... It really does make you think.
And the speed they were going at... it's one thing to film it from the side, but if you were the target, you'd never see or hear it coming... sobering stuff indeed.
The Russian central bank has been buying the Rubble to support it, perhaps they can’t afford it any more ?
Meanwhile, in the real world ...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/23/russia-ukraine-war-live-latest-news-updates
Russia’s defence ministry said that its forces had captured the settlement of Novodmytrivka in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, their latest gain in what defence minister Andrei Belousov described as an accelerated advance.
Ukraine has lost over 40% of the territory in Russia’s Kursk region that it rapidly seized in a surprise incursion in August as Russian forces have mounted waves of counter-assaults, a senior Ukrainian military source told Reuters
Meanwhile, in the real world …
Russia has trumpeted the capture of a village that used to house 200 people, that they've been assaulting for a week or more and murdered two more PoWs https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/20/7485504/
In that week Russia has probably lost 10.5k troops KIA. That's the tragedy of the real world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd5myvyrjzo
Jean-Noël Barrot said that Ukraine could fire French long-range missiles into Russia "in the logics of self defence", but would not confirm if French weapons had already been used.
And Russia is suffering the heaviest casualties of the war so far, similar to the bloodbath around Bahkmut in 2023.
Putins in a hurry and his troops are paying the price.
Ukraines best hope of victory remains inflicting so many casualties that the Russian home front collapses and falling back to minimise thier own losses is a requisite for keeping the grim mathematics on their side.
Ukraines best hope of victory remains inflicting so many casualties that the Russian home front collapses and falling back to minimise thier own losses is a requisite for keeping the grim mathematics on their side.
By the time Ukraine got their "victory" there will only be a few young men around.
Then when the Ukrainians look back, they will realise that they have been taken for a ride
So they should have just rolled over and let Putin's goons butcher their men (Remember Bucha) rape their women and ship thier children off to Siberia?
Whilst there are many questions and discussions to have, I think we can be fairly confident asserting that it was Ukraine's decision to resist and at the end of this there will still be an independent Ukrainian state, which there wouldn't have been if they hadn't.
Edit
I took Daz meaning that it would create an escalation in which a nuclear exchange was possible.
Of course that's what I meant. It's amusing that the very people on this thread who think Putin is a ruthless murderer and gangster (I have no argument with that) also think he's sensible and rational enough to not escalate a nuclear exchange. Yes, NATO may well sink his navy and destroy his air force if he uses a tactical nuke, but why does anyone think he would stop there and say 'ok lads, lets call it a draw'. Of course he wouldn't, he'd respond with more nukes against Western bases and probably Ukrainian cities. Anyone who thinks Putin using a nuke in Ukraine wouldn't escalate into a wider nuclear war is living in fantasyland.
I’m with Daz, I don’t think Putin - or for that matter Kim Jong - is rational or compassionate enough not to push the button on the basis of the rest of the world continuing on without him. Very much “If I can’t have it, why should they…”.
I don't think Putin sits in a room alone with a big red button.
I've never thought Putin was mad or unhinged. Whilst he is undeniably ruthless and ambitious, I do think he is intelligent, cunning and (from an extreme Russian nationalist viewpoint) rational.
He sees himself as Peter the Great incarnate, the ultimate Russian patriot and patriarch. He feels humiliated by what he sees as the loss of Russia's rightful place in the world since the fall of the Soviet empire. In a very distorted way, I'm sure he 'loves' his country.
Starting an exchange which he knows will result in the destruction of it, is not in his game plan IMV. Regular sabre rattling to advance his imperial aims very much is.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world Putin has made a huge mess politically and was not stopped years ago. He is definitely emboldened by the lack of resistance by the EU block, The UK especially has been shown to be week by its lack of attention or willfully being ignorant of his covert influence within the UK political system and we are playing catch up rapidly London wasn't called the Russian washing machine for nothing.
It genuinely would not surprise me if he has been funding both fundamentals and the ultra far right in this country.
Austria and Germany are political banana skins waiting to happen and he will almost certainly have a hand in that. Then Iran and north Korea added to the mix who have thought that China would be second fiddle in influence over north Korea right now the Chinese didn't that's for sure. (The west needs to have a very frank conversation with itself over how the Internet and social media has been hijacked by state sponsors spreading misinformation.)
He is a menace and needs to be removed by his own people not only for Russians but the rest of the globe I'm not sure they have the apatite for it as those surrounding Putin don't look too moderate.
This is what happens when despots are left unchecked.
A shit sandwich for Ukraine and it's people.
Starting an exchange which he knows will result in the destruction of it, is not in his game plan IMV. Regular sabre rattling to advance his imperial aims very much is.
Don't disagree. My whole point above was about what would happen if he did use a nuke in Ukraine. Some on here seem to think it wouldn't escalate and presumably we don't need to put as much effort into preventing it. I think we need to do everything possible to prevent it, and if that means not crossing some red lines which might hinder Ukraine's defence then so be it. It's an extremely delicate balancing act that some posters here would like to abandon by going all in and attacking Russia directly.
The likely escalation we will see, well, it's not truly an escalation as it's been going on for years it's just we didn't really see it for what it was, is an even more concerted effort to instigate cyber attacks on the UK and our allies.
Given the far, far harsher price being paid by Ukraine, if the UK were to back down in any way, we are doing Ukraine no favours nor ourselves.
Backing Ukraine is the right thing to do but it's not all altruistic, Russia has been at war with us for many years, it's just not a conventionally conducted one.
Every single time Putin has been allowed to have what he wanted, it didn't stop him, it emboldened him. I find it astonishing that when we look at the news and the problems we now face that anyone can still think that appeasement (call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing) has worked with Putin. It hasn't and it never will.
Can anyone make a reasonable case for placating Putin based on his "foreign policy"? Can someone with a better memory even remind me how many countries have been invaded by Putin and had lands seized to "protect Russian speakers" and the like?
Those that have let Putin nibble away at countries and not backed a far harsher response have got us to where we are now. They've done us and "peace" absolutely no favours at all.
and if that means not crossing some red lines which might hinder Poland/Czech/Austria/France defence then so be it.
At what point do you think it's acceptable to stand up to Putin? Or would you rather just roll over and ask for a belly rub before wandering off to queue for bread and potatoes?
chewkw
Then when the Ukrainians look back, they will realise that they have been taken for a ride
Saddens me to read that, chew. Ukraine have begged for help to fight for their own country. No-ones taken them for a ride. The betrayal is not what you allude to, it's expecting them to fight one of the largest militaries in the world with one arm tied behind their back. That's the betrayal.
Have we already forgotten seeing women with their children coming together in parks to prepare Molotov cocktails? It was goddamned humbling to watch and it deeply saddens me to hear some people are so willing to sell them out for some illusionary threat avoidance.
They’ve done us and “peace” absolutely no favours at all.
Theres no good options available, but appeasement will lead us to Russian tanks rolling into a, possibly NATO Baltic, SMO to protect Russian speakers at some point. Or spilling over into NATO from a Moldova SMO.
I'd love to think theres a way to achieve a long standing, respectful peace, but Russias leadership would need a radical shift of ambitions first. (Plenty of other governments with proper ***** foreign policies, but this thread is about Ukraine and Russias invasion, so no what about needed)
Heard on news that "drones" have been seen over a couple of US bases in UK. And Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now. Media hyperbole or actual threat?
Ruble is 0.015 to $1 AUD at the mo.
I don't think he'll nuke anyone. But I am hugely surprised he's not been taken out yet by a drone or some other long-range effort.
aphex_2k
Free Member
Heard on news that “drones” have been seen over a couple of US bases in UK. And Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now. Media hyperbole or actual threat?
One of Putin's well known tactics has been to pay criminals or sympathisers a few hundred dollars/euros to get them to set a warehouse on fire etc. If these drone incursions are real, they are very much of the bought on Amazon variety and the "threat", such as it is, it to sow fear and division in the population of allied states. It's absolutely classic Putin, hybrid warfare shenanigans.
China actively encourages (by sctively I mean, it makes zero attempts to stop it and it absolutely could if it wished) it's citizens to fly drones over Taiwan's military bases for the same reasons.
Anyone who thinks Putin using a nuke in Ukraine wouldn’t escalate into a wider nuclear war is living in fantasyland.
There are two points here:
There's no reason for him to use nuclear weapons of any sort
If there isn't a reason, there won't be an escalation into nuclear war
Let's take a step back and look at why there isn't a reason for him to use nuclear weapons of any sort.
Russia has been struggling to take more than 20% of Ukraine since 2014. Russia unceremoniously retreated from an attempt on the other 80% following the August 2022 Kherson counter-offensive and the Sept 2022 Kharkiv offensive. Why didn't he use them then?
Russia is making more progress now than it has for some time; it didn't use nuclear weapons when retreating, so why now that it's on the offensive?
Nothing that the west has done has been serious enough on a strategic game-changing level to promote nuclear war. Storm Shadow/SCALP/ATACMS have been used to attack Russian targets for between 12 months (ATACMS) and 18 months (Storm Shadow/SCALP) and nuclear weapons haven't been used.
Arguably, because Russia has been making the first escalations, eventually they will escalate to nuclear weapons and I won't be able to convince you otherwise. The problem with that argument is that you are only thinking of Russia and President Putin, which is the media POV amplified by sources such as Kim Jong Un, Alexander Lukashenko and Viktor Orban.
Of countries more closely allied with Russia, China is openly against nuclear weapon use and is observing international sanctions while Iran has stepped back from wider conflict with Israel; don't discount their influence and that of others.
Finally, "Ukraine and the states in the region not bought and paid for by Putin such as Hungary and Slovakia, are supporting Ukraine in its campaign for ranged attacks. If they are not worried, maybe those further away can stop losing their heads." https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-108-ukrainian-ranged
Putin saying allies of Ukraine are just as much targets now.
Putin's target audience is mostly the Russian public, he's posturing as a tough guy for a domestic audience. He's been issuing threats like that for years but has not carried out any direct attacks, including against Sweden and Finland who both joined NATO despite Putin saying that he would not tolerate NATO countries on Russia's border.
Germany's Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius: is quite switched on about Putin.
“He proved in this war that he (Putin) never needed a provocation to escalate. Rather, he escalated when he thought an escalation was the right thing to do for tactical reasons.”
Worth watching the full excerpt
https://bsky.app/profile/jacy1892.bsky.social/post/3lbmzoivdyk2g
There is no scenario where using Nukes gives Putin a tactical advantage
Putin’s target audience is mostly the Russian public, he’s posturing as a tough guy for a domestic audience. He’s been issuing threats like that for years but has not carried out any direct attacks
This has been the American line too. How many times have you heard them use the phrase "No option is off the table"
Just as they say, 'Sabre rattling'
How many times have you heard them use the phrase “No option is off the table”
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Can you give some examples?
There is no scenario where using Nukes gives Putin a tactical advantage
Maybe not right now but there are scenarios which move Putin closer to thinking he has nothing left to lose. The reality is that if the risk of Putin using nuclear arms is to be kept to a minimum (and it must be kept to a minimum), then he needs to be able to save face and get something out of the current situation. It's all very well shouting 'nothing but all out defeat will do' but the reality will be very different. As has always been the case since the start of the cold war, prevention is the only cure to the nuclear problem.
Worse case scenario question.
If the worse does happen, and the northern part of the planet is turned into radioactive rubble, and those who survive the blasts inevitably succumb to sickness or starvation.
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
China is the worlds largest food/agricultural products importer and has a long and painful history with food security and when that goes wrong. I know they, quite sensibly have ambitions to reduce their reliance on food imports but that will take a long time to achieve.
Long read here https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-food-security-key-challenges-and-emerging-policy-responses
The UK would be double ******
Went down a rabbit hole of yt shorts Joe Rogan taking about Ukraine.
Wow. But not in a good way.
His is the most listened to podcast.
The guy's a ****.
e-machine
Free Member
Worse case scenario question.If the worse does happen, and the northern part of the planet is turned into radioactive rubble, and those who survive the blasts inevitably succumb to sickness or starvation.
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
Hypothetically speaking here. I'm not stock piling beans, this isn't a man that looks ready to die of covid or radiation poisoning.
Anyway...
If the whole theory of nukes triggering a nuclear winter turns out to be true, I doubt there will be any country in a position to be a world power. Of anything.
I suspect though, if we wanted to think in the terms of which regions/ countries might be least effected, it could well be the least "sophisticated" societies that fair the best.
They don't need Google as they are still used to hunter gathering or living directly off the land via simple, non intensive horticulture.
The rest of us are way, way too reliant on technology to survive imo. Once the tinned food run out its basically a pretty fast decline to The Road and beyond.
All the above said, I still think that pastural societies are still buggered, turn the sun off, via a nuclear winter and not much survives, however good it is at living off the land
Not even touched on tainted drinking water, the death of the oceans and all the other things we can't even imagine as a nuclear war has never happened.
That said, X will be gone. It's not all bad.
x/space Karen be in his teslabunka planning the next phase which ends with him eating his own feet.
It's widely reported today that Andrey Rudenko, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (not the boxer from Ukraine), has warned South Korea not to send weapons to Ukraine "and will respond in any way deemed necessary" (exact translations vary) and any such exports will destroy relations between the two countries.
SKorea is technically at war with NKorea and has a strong arms industry; they've been considering supply more strongly since NKorean troops began training in Russia last month, "Officials agreed to take phased countermeasures, linking the level of their responses to progress in Russian-North Korean military cooperation, according to the statement." https://www.itv.com/news/2024-10-23/south-korea-warns-it-could-send-weapons-to-ukraine
Would China or even the more Southern countries have enough reserves to survive to then become the dominant world power?
In the event of full scale nuke, Northern hemisphere will have severe dark radioactive winter while Southern hemisphere will have gloomy days with something (little) to eat.
Dominant world power? Everyone (the whole world) will be starving and dominating the world is the last thing on their minds.
Putin isn’t going to launch a nuke because of a fear of MAD.
So which of Putins previous red lines should not have been crossed? Any, all, none?
The current situation is tense especially if NATO (I mean Biden's administration) still thinks they have the upper hand even after Russia showcased their hazel nuts flower (Oreshnik).
Red line? Why not NATO send their Tomahawk to test it out after Stormshadow? I wonder if the Iron Dome can catch any of the Mach 10 Hazel Nuts flower as they rain down from the sky with their kinetic force.
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
I want some of what you’re smoking Chewy, do you ever read over your posts before hitting send or is it just a stream of (un)conscious thought?
Yes but away from Gardener's World the Russian actions may well prompt South Korea to send a couple more shells to Ukraine.
I want some of what you’re smoking Chewy, do you ever read over your posts before hitting send or is it just a stream of (un)conscious thought?
Russia has given all the warning but somehow many in the west still think it is a good idea to escalate already hopeless situation.
Yes but away from Gardener’s World the Russian actions may well prompt South Korea to send a couple more shells to Ukraine.
South Korea's action is simply futile.
Chew...
Sometimes your posts (on the Ukrainian thread) sadden me a little, sometimes they confuse the sod out of me then:
I wonder how aircraft carriers will react if they are faced with mach 10 hazel nuts flower shower.
And I remember that, all things considered, I'm glad you are on the forum! 🙂
Edit: Nobody saw that right, right! I swear to God, predictive will get me punched one day! 😀
If, and it's a big if, Putin is ever going to use a nuclear weapon my guess is that it will be when he's on his deathbed, when he personally has nothing to lose.
Probably just in Ukraine (if I can't have it no one will) but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK is a target. We are very much at the top of the list of countries which annoy him and might be the one he chooses to make an example of.
It's sufficiently unlikely, and there's nothing I can do about it anyway, so I'm not going to worry.
As an aside, how worried is Putin about MAD? If he decides to flatten Ukraine, the UK, or everyone else will we retaliate? We've seen, even before Ukraine, that he has no problem attacking civilians (Allepo for instance) so we have to assume that he would use his on big cities. The west are generally more concerned with not killing civilians, does that make the threat/deterrent effect less? Ours would probably be launched at their silos, launch sites, naval bases etc rather than Moscow and St Petersburg, whereas he's just as likely to go for London as he is for Faslane. Anyway, is our detterant less because of this?
Sorry, not "bit quoting" you in what can be the very STW way of nitpicking your post apart in a bid to somehow say my opinion must be right! Lol I'm just doing it to give my own thoughts on what are perfectly valid points and anyway.. what do I know at the end of the day? 🙂
andrewh
Free Member
If, and it’s a big if, Putin is ever going to use a nuclear weapon my guess is that it will be when he’s on his deathbed, when he personally has nothing to lose.
True but when he's at that point, there will already be the other big players he has suppressed for decades lining up their own succession bids. They won't want to reign over an irradiated desert. I suspect when the other players smell his weakness and get wind of a possible, "nuke the world" scenario, Putin's control of the levers of power will erode incredibly quickly. Now, possible successors may well not be better than Putin but they are likely younger, wealthy and have families and will get to rule their own country. Having all that means nothing of you are dead. They also likely think Putin is mad to risk what he has to try and establish a new Soviet empire. The are likely just as nasty but far more pragmatic and likely have no love for the old Empire. Sod the risks of building a new one, Russia is huge and for many despots it'll be plenty large enough.
Probably just in Ukraine (if I can’t have it no one will) but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the UK is a target. We are very much at the top of the list of countries which annoy him and might be the one he chooses to make an example of.
We've been a target for years, assassinations, literal use of a WMD on our soil, numerous hacks on government and civil institutions etc. We just chose to bury our heads and not to see it for what it was, a new way of waging war. If he he turned it into a conventional war he knows full well there is NATO and he is buggered. His use of waves of meat charging enemy positions won't work against a modern military with a far better air force. If he went nuclear, ignoring the rest of the world and what they would do, the captain's of our nuclear deterrent subs will have sealed orders from the PM to open and I don't see them being, "it's ok guys, live and let live." I used to be pretty sceptical of us having nukes, in an ideal world I still would be, but now? Having seen what happened to Ukraine after giving up it's nuclear arsenal? Sod that.
As an aside, how worried is Putin about MAD? If he decides to flatten Ukraine, the UK, or everyone else will we retaliate?
He *is* flattening Ukraine, when you see the towns he has liberated/conquered his standard way of achieving that is to absolutely obliterate everything that's there, every building and every man, woman and child that hasn't cleared out first. If you look at the before and after pics of the places Russia has gained control of, it's appalling. Ptetty much medieval. He doesnt need nukes to do what he's doing, it's far, far less risky for him to carry on doing it with conventional arms.
Anyway, just my thoughts on it all. 🙂