Results 7,101 to 7,125 of 16431
Thread: Ukraine
-
04-30-2022, 02:10 PM #7101
That or they lose control of one through theft or corruption.
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
04-30-2022, 02:57 PM #7102?
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Verdi NV
- Posts
- 10,457
All I’m seeing today is that Russian army is still blowing up towns and villages from a distance. Ukrainian army is giving back better than it gets. And the big guns are coming online. There’s gonna be more destruction and gore than was seen in WWII. The talking heads are saying the Nuke talk is desperation from Russia who are not going to win or even tie.
I’m looking forward to hearing about Russian army being mangled and driven back to Russia by 10’s of thousands of precision guided 155 shells.
The way I understand it those howitzers can hit within 10 yards. And there are smart rounds that can be guided into a target 10 or 15 miles away?
Nasty
I’m thinking Ukraine ends up cleaning out Crimea as the finishing touch.
All those big cities and people completely destroyedOwn your fail. ~Jer~
-
04-30-2022, 03:00 PM #7103?
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Verdi NV
- Posts
- 10,457
-
04-30-2022, 03:04 PM #7104
That seems to be the basic summary of the past week or two.
ETA:
Thread:
https://twitter.com/phillipspobrien/...2_vzaedvYOBWMA
-
04-30-2022, 03:30 PM #7105
It's been over 80 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's been over 30 years since the Cold War ended. Old doctrines of nuclear deterrence based on mind games, like MAD, will eventually collapse. Arguably it already has and the only doctrine currently in effect are international norms against using nuclear weapons.
The war crimes of Bucha show how much Putin gives a damn about international norms. So in terms of deterrence I think we're mostly relying on China and India, etc. enforcing norms of turning Russia into a pariah state if it used tactical battlefield nukes because without those import/export markets Russia is doomed.
-
04-30-2022, 04:23 PM #7106I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
04-30-2022, 05:41 PM #7107
-
04-30-2022, 05:43 PM #7108
-
04-30-2022, 06:48 PM #7109
-
04-30-2022, 09:57 PM #7110
Fick mich, du miserabler hurensohn
Fick mich, du miserabler hurensohn
Streck ihn aus
Streck aus deinen heifien gelockten.
Streck ihn aus
Streck aus deinen' heinen gelockten
Streck ihn aus
Streck aus deinen heiften gelockten schwanz
Ah-ee-ahee-ahhhhh!
Mach es sehr schnell
Rein und raus
Magisches Schwein
Mach es sehr schnell
Rein und raus
Magisches Schwein
Bis es spritzt, spritzt, spritzt Feuer!
Bis es spritzt, spritzt, spritzt Feuer!
Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
-
04-30-2022, 10:05 PM #7111
US nukes don't exist to prevent all parties from ever using any nukes in any circumstances, nor to prevent all major powers from attack weaker powers ever. That is just not what deterrence is, nor was it ever such a thing! It is a completely unreasonable expectation.
US nukes will NEVER deter an attack on a third party UNLESS the guarantee of their use is placed over that third party before hand. This is the entire concept of extended deterrence. Extended deterrence is what protects NATO.
Nuclear deterrence is not dead, not at all. It is working just fine: Russia has not attacked NATO.
Ukraine wasn't NATO. Sweden and Finland are about to be NATO and are under the US nuclear umbrella. That is why Ukraine his full of Orcs. Finland and Sweden aren't, despite their defying Russia.
This whole situation is not a demonstration of the need for nuclear weapon proliferation by small states. It is a demonstration of the need to be in a committed alliance with a major nuclear power (eg NATO).
Proliferation motivation is for countries that are under conceivable threat and cannot join such an alliance. Some argues that the US invasion of Iraq was a motivator for proliferation. But you need a huge budget. Your tiny ass little country cannot just make 3 nukes and feel secure in a deterrent capability. The idea that a third party would give Ukraine nukes during a conflict is absolutely insane as that is the ultimate proliferation that the US has stood opposed to, like evil regimes like Iran or NK giving a bomb to a hostile country or terrorist group.
Deterrence requires that you prove to the world you are both capable of striking and willing to strike. You have to prove you have working nukes, the ability to deliver them, the will to deliver them without interception, the ability to know you are being attacked and who is attacking, to either launch on warning or have a survivable force that cannot be destroyed easily by a first strike nor the command and control decapitated, and sufficient striking power to deter. That is complex and expensive.
If you fail at any of those points, it is destabilizing. You invite an attack from your foe to neutralize the threat before you can close the credibility gap.
The is why the NNPT exists and why there is a huge motivation for major nuclear powers to extend their deterrence umbrella over allies.
Example: North Korea doesn't have a credible nuclear deterrent. They could be easily disarmed in a first strike. They have other deterrents such as the ability to reduce Seoul to rubble with 1940s artillery and gas shells. The fear is that they would strike first with nukes or give them to a third party.Originally Posted by blurred
-
04-30-2022, 10:21 PM #7112
^ Word.
What's truly mind-blowing are the mouth breathers and Trump rim-lickers who still oppose NATO. Did we get over charged for the past few decades relative to the other treaty members? Yes. Does it appear to be worth it? Absolutely."All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring."
-
04-30-2022, 11:25 PM #7113
-
04-30-2022, 11:30 PM #7114
Correct, deterrence is not the main reason why nukes are not used in combat. International norms making the use of nuclear weapons taboo is what has so far prevented their use after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
International norms evolved over time. The U.S. still considered tactical nukes an acceptable option up until the 60s. Eisenhower said, “In any combat where these things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else”
In 1962 the commander of Soviet submarine B-59, Captain Savitsky, gave the order to launch nuclear weapons but was overruled by the sub's political officer who held the same rank. It was only after the Cuban missile crisis that nuclear weapons became tactically unusable or “no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon.”
So instead of using nuclear weapons against a potential communist Chinese invasion flotilla in the Gulf of Taiwan, a belief set in that nuclear weapons are simply different. It also established a bright line with the idea once nuclear weapons are introduced they cannot be contained. The Soviets also came to adopt this nuclear inhibition. The Soviets never seriously considered using nukes in Afghanistan.
Note how none of these things speak of deterrence. They are perceptual and symbolic in nature. They even apply against a non-possessor. MAD on the other hand is all-or-nothing. In the space between all-or-nothing and taboo there exists an opening for undermining nuclear norms.
All it takes is one nuclear-armed madman to prove the limitations of deterrence and norms. If somebody like Putin makes so many threats that what was once unthinkable becomes thinkable then norms unravel and you end up with doctrines like “Escalate to de-escalate.”
-
05-01-2022, 01:10 AM #7115
On a more serious note and nuclear deterence: some intellectuals here signed a Letter that heavy Arms are a step to World war 3, but the comments and the majority opinion of people who actually are experts in the field are that the exact Opposite is true because stopping Putin here and now prevents future Eskalation where one side ( in this case there is only one side with a warmongering nutjob, but it was more a general take on nuclear doctrine) has to show strength.
It's a war of the mind and we're armed to the teeth.
-
05-01-2022, 07:25 AM #7116
Ukraine
Curious, could Putin even launch a nuke without it being signed off by several other people to actually make it happen? My guess is no. Which would reduce the likelihood of a single mad man going off.
I ski 135 degree chutes switch to the road.
-
05-01-2022, 07:26 AM #7117
That's not quite right as these are two very different situations.
Nuclear deterrence is why nuclear powers and their allies have not nuked each other nor engaged in large scale war since 1945. This is the nuclear peace dividend.
International norms are one of several factors as to why nuclear powers have not nuked non-nuclear powers who are not part of nuclear alliances.
International norms evolved over time. The U.S. still considered tactical nukes an acceptable option up until the 60s. Eisenhower said, “In any combat where these things can be used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else”
Tactical Employment of Nukes
Both US and Soviet doctrine included tactical employments of nuclear weapons right through the end of the Cold War. That never ended. Soviet Battle plans tended to favor immediate employment of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons to support an advance into Western Europe on Day 1 of an all out assault. NATO doctrine tended to reserve nuclear weapons for when NATO started to get pushed back too far a few days later. Both sides were pretty aware of the plan. The expected near immediate escalation of general war to tactical nukes and the inherent existential threat that follows with the expectation of strategic nuclear exchanges is why nuclear deterrence prevented the Cold War from going hot.
To use Eisenhower's verbiage, a nuclear attack "strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes" is almost entirely a preposterous statement in the 1960s and it is almost as preposterous today. Perhaps that applies to employment against a naval target at sea, or if the US has or does develop a ground penetrating very small yield warhead that keeps fallout within a tiny area, which is of course why there was such concerns about the development of such a weapon: it would be meant to be used rather than to deter use.
Note how none of these things speak of deterrence. They are perceptual and symbolic in nature. They even apply against a non-possessor. MAD on the other hand is all-or-nothing. In the space between all-or-nothing and taboo there exists an opening for undermining nuclear norms.
All it takes is one nuclear-armed madman to prove the limitations of deterrence and norms. If somebody like Putin makes so many threats that what was once unthinkable becomes thinkable then norms unravel and you end up with doctrines like “Escalate to de-escalate.”
On the Madman
Deterrence is reliant on rationale actors and the removal of irrational ones. A true madman is not subject to deterrence. This again is a huge reason to oppose nuclear proliferation at nearly all costs. The rationale is that more and smaller nuclear actors increases the chance of a madman both coming to power and having a system insufficient to take the madman down before he/she can initiate a nuclear exchange.
Note that Brinksmanship and Madman Theory are strategies where you create the perception that your side is willing to do crazy things if pushed. It was used during the Cold War and Putin is doing so now, but it is not predicated on creating a real or perceived perception that actors are actually insane, unstable, capricious, and irrational at all points. There was worry that Trump could have met the definition of an irrational actor in the similar way we worry about the Ayatollahs being disinhibited by their theology from initiating their own demise. There were structures to remove an irrational President, but we are even less confident that exists in say Iran.
-
I reiterate my point that nuclear deterrence, extended deterrence, and NATO are functioning well to prevent large wars and nuclear exchanges between major powers and alliances.Last edited by Summit; 05-01-2022 at 08:04 AM.
Originally Posted by blurred
-
05-01-2022, 09:25 AM #7118
Civilians being evacuated from Azovstal steel plant:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...er-2022-05-01/
-
05-01-2022, 09:29 AM #7119
Schiff and Pelosi meeting with Zenlensky in Kiev today:
https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/statu...isDLnrsEddGNqw
-
05-01-2022, 10:03 AM #7120
Of course deterrence and norms are different, that's the main point. And a madman is just one of several possibilities. The big underlying issue is the idea that what was once unthinkable becomes thinkable. You yourself write "US nukes don't exist to prevent all parties from ever using any nukes in any circumstances" which is both correct and also a problem. Too many people think deterrence is a solved problem even though it's not.
I think your confusion is that because something has worked in the past means it will continue to work in the future. My comments are based on Thomas Schelling's writing, the person most responsible for MAD and the world's current nuclear strategy. His position is that in the long wrong MAD is an unstable solution for the reasons previously explained.
Just think about how casually Putin and Russian state media are discussing the use of nuclear weapons. Unthinkable is now thinkable in Russia. Or how Russia is currently launching thousands of cyber attacks against the West yet no one sees them as actual acts of war. That's a good thing at present. It's also an escalation. Russia is attacking NATO. We are de facto at war with Russia right now even though nobody is saying it.
The world is also developing better defenses. Israel has a new “Iron Beam” laser capable of taking out drones and soon missiles. If you can defend against a first strike then the deterrence equation changes.
The point being Cold War doctrines of deterrence are situated in a past political and social context. We need to think harder, need to reinvent, a workable nuclear deterrence for this era.
-
05-01-2022, 10:28 AM #7121
If we do succeed in completely cutting Russia off from the entire western world economically and socially and they still don't exit Ukraine, what else is there besides more military aid from NATO (boots on the ground)?
Also, does it make sense now for ALL of non Russia Europe to join NATO? It's becoming clear that this is the cost of NOT belonging to NATO. Putin will try to take all he thinks he can without risking full on WWIII. And, he's posturing like he is even willing to risk that..Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
05-01-2022, 10:36 AM #7122
If Russia were cut off from the entire world economically that would mean the world has undergone a democratic resurgence and Russian anti-democratic forces have lost. That's why we must be prepared to advance our interests and ideals. It would also be dangerous. Political instability in a country filled with nuclear weapons is a harrowing spectacle. A chaotic Russia launching nukes is no longer unthinkable. By the same token, it would make a democratic Russia possible.
-
05-01-2022, 12:53 PM #7123
-
05-01-2022, 01:15 PM #7124__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
"We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats
"I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso
Cisco and his wife are fragile idiots who breed morons.
-
05-01-2022, 01:29 PM #7125
Those numbers are what Russia has already spent. The Kremlin has to continue spending that amount to prosecute its war. Whereas US spending also includes money earmarked for the future. Either way the Russian bear has stepped into a trap. For the first time in two decades Russia's fascist army has been stopped cold. There's no way it can win a war of attrition against the West unless the West takes a step back like it did with past Russian aggression.
Bookmarks