- Reaction score
- 24,136
- Points
- 1,090
The War in Ukraine
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
Skysix
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,010
Fits with their actual goal of the total elimination of Ukraine. Terrorise/scare off the population, deport/torture/murder or mobilize those that remain, flatten the cities so uninhabitable and indefensible, steal everything useful and at the same time reduce the criminal, discontented and minority populations at home. Oh, and remain in power and steal from your own population as much as posssible.
Skysix
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,010
Why was this not done 2 years ago... Oh yeah "escalation management". And look how well that turned out (for the military industrial complex and reconstruction industries)
US to Redirect All Patriot Air Defense Orders to Ukraine
united24media.com
Skysix
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,010
This is so inaccurate in so many ways
It's really sad to see people who have served fall for easy propaganda.
Skysix
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,010
Russia has already stated, as a core part of its "Russkiy Mir" philosophy, that any territory ever held by Russia and any territory occupied by Russian speaking peoples IS Russia and liable to be retaken, using all means necessary (hybrid as well as declared kinetic operations).
Glad I don't live in Alaska so I don't have to worry what will happen when they make a move in that direction. But then again, to prevent any red lines from being crossed and under the threat of nuclear weapon useage, maybe Kodiak and the Catherine Archipelago are not REALLY worth fighting for.... We can always find somewhere else to film Deadliest Catch.
- Reaction score
- 18,663
- Points
- 1,260
Russia doesn't have 6k warheads.
Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association
- According to the September 2022 New START declaration, Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on 540 strategic delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers). Due to Russia’s suspension of the New START Treaty in February 2022, it did not fulfill its treaty obligations to provide updated data. However, both Russia and the United States have committed to adhering by treaty limits until 2026.
- The U.S. intelligence community assesses that, as of December 2022, Russia also maintains an arsenal of 1000-2000 non-strategic nuclear warheads not limited by the New START Treaty.
- The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates that Russia's military stockpile consists of approximately 4,380 nuclear warheads, with 1,200 additional retired warheads awaiting dismantlement, as of March 2024.
Best OS analysis has 1,549 strategic warheads, I tend to veer towards 750-1150 number, as many are N/S due to lack of maintenance, beyond their decommissioned warheads. The Tactical Nuclear Warhead readiness is likely much lower than the Strategic - so my assumption would be IVO of 500-100 of those.
Russia can rattle their saber as much as they want - but they know its really rusty - and it isn't a credible threat, as they wouldn't be able to get everyone, while the American arsenal will go boom on them, as well as the French (and maybe 50% of the UK missiles
)Best OS analysis has 1,549 strategic warheads, I tend to veer towards 750-1150 number, as many are N/S due to lack of maintenance, beyond their decommissioned warheads. The Tactical Nuclear Warhead readiness is likely much lower than the Strategic - so my assumption would be IVO of 500-100 of those.
Russia can rattle their saber as much as they want - but they know its really rusty - and it isn't a credible threat, as they wouldn't be able to get everyone, while the American arsenal will go boom on them, as well as the French (and maybe 50% of the UK missiles
I wouldn't sell their strategic arsenal short. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the bulk of their warheads are serviceable and that the delivery systems work, but even if they only had 750 warheads, that's more than enough to kill more than 100 million people. Possibly many more, if they went for a straight countervalue strike. It's enough to rule out any possibility of anyone deliberately pushing towards a strategic exchange.
That said, the Russians have included the threat tactical nuclear weapon use in their doctrine for many years. As they see it, a limited use of low-yield weapons on the battlefield would utterly shock the west, which it undoubtedly would, and there are good reasons to doubt that anyone in the west would be willing to move up the escalation ladder and start threatening the Russian homeland with nukes when their own hasn't been touched. In the Cold War, this was known as the extended deterrence problem - how realistic is it to assume that the US would risk Chicago to save Brussels from the Red Army?
By this line of thinking, the Russians might calculate that they could use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine without the US, UK or France responding with nuclear weapons of their own.
The fact that they haven't done this says something about the Russian estimate of the cost-benefit relationship for nuclear use in Ukraine. They probably don't see this as sufficiently decisive to offset the risks of breaking the nuclear taboo. Even if their opponents don't start throwing their own nukes at Russia, they would absolutely would respond strongly with a variety of diplomatic and military tools.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,621
- Points
- 1,160
Vancouver and Markham to China?
They had the freedom of action to do this when they weren't dependent on China and Iran and North Korea. If they break the nuclear taboo, it's not just them in the hot seat. The Axis of Evil is going to crystalize pretty quickly in Western minds and Halls of Power. Western governments will go into complete lockdown against China too unless the Chinese shut Russia down. This is what deters Russia from attempting say a demonstration over the Black Sea. At the end of the day, Xi is not going to risk substantial economic harm or his plans getting derailed because of a country with an economy smaller than Italy.
Skysix
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,010
Vancouver might have to be split 3 ways between CHN IND PK
TacticalTea
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,460
- Points
- 1,160
It's anyone's guess whether it unites with China before or after Taiwan.
- Reaction score
- 18,663
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed - I am not suggesting that the arsenal isn't deadly - just that it isn't as big as they want everyone to think, and it's a define lose for them - while some other countries mostly likely would get devastated it wouldn't be the end of them. Especially given that the 40 year old Patriot system (albeit it's been upgraded) has done a pretty stellar job taking out their 'hypersonic missiles' - and the BMD systems are even more advanced - it probably isn't a gamble that Russia would want to take - for if they opt for that route - and we in America knock out the majority of their missiles - they don't have any option to stop ours.
WRT Cold War potentially going hot, the fact that there where few hundred thousand American soldiers, airmen etc in Europe, meant any use of Tac Nukes against the West was going to kill Americans - and thus demand a return in kind (one reason the Europeans liked to have Americans at the front and in major areas).
I wouldn't want to take that bet either way -- but it probably would get some sort of retaliatory strike - even if not Nuclear. Frankly I would prefer if everyone just kept their hand off the nuclear saber and didn't even rattle it. Nuclear release is a slippery slope - and it really is a game that no one wins.
Agreed - while Putin may claim that the annex territories are Russian, I highly doubt he would be willing to risk the worldwide 'attention' it would bring, @ytz brings up the points quite well as to what it would mean for his supporters - and you can pretty much guarantee that Iran and NK know they would bear the brunt of some pressures exerted - whatever those may be.
I think it's mostly Xi driving this bus. And he was already annoyed at the scale of the Russian invasion when it kicked off. If there's a nuke the Chinese aren't expecting they'll either cut the Russians off or they'll be asking the Siloviki to replace Putin.
Russia's big nuclear fear has always been a US first strike. Their nuclear forces have never been as survivable as the American deterrent (relatively few SLBMs, much less robust C3 arrangements, etc) and a major counterforce attack by the US would have a chance at getting a very high percentage of their nuclear forces on the ground. But even 20-30 surviving warheads would make the attack a disaster for the US (as in tens of millions dead). The Russian opposition to US BMD developments over the last 20 years has been about the loss of their retaliatory capability, ie the fear that those 20-30 warheads might be unable to reach their targets. BMD would be completely overwhelmed by a major attack of hundreds of missiles, but they might be able to stop the surviving ones after a US first strike.
I remember reading a declassified conversation between President Eisenhower and some of his advisors discussing the results of a wargame involving a nuclear strike on the US. The Soviets were wiped out in the wargame, but the US suffered something like 50 million fatalities. Eisenhower made the comment that after something like that, the United States as anyone understood it would no longer exist, and it would be under martial law for a generation.
That was the theory, but it had its doubters. Any realistic NATO defensive plan during the Cold War involved massive use of tactical nuclear weapons to blunt the expected Warsaw Pact offensive, and this was certainly going to draw a Soviet response (assuming the Soviets didn't use them first). A real possibility for a nuclear WW3 involved a massive series of exchanges that were entirely confined to Europe, with the Soviets and US leaving each other's homelands largely untouched. Neither of the superpowers had a rational reason to shoot first at the other, knowing that their own cities were on the line, but they would be much more inclined to turn Germany or Poland into glass. This is one of the reasons France developed its own nuclear deterrent.
It would be virtually guaranteed.
I don't think the Chinese would ever green light a Russian nuclear adventure. They make a big deal out of non-first use for their own strategic reasons. The Chinese also understand that the consequences would be unpredictable, but severe, and that they could easily be dragged in to a very bad situation.
Aren't a lot of those Russians there because Stalin enforced an infiltration policy that moved ethic Russians into the lands he took over. When folks move into a new country it is expected that they will conform to the new country's rules and practices. It is not expected that the new country will change to suit them. That is the biggest problem here in Canada now and in Europe for that matter. It is called national pride.
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,217
- Points
- 1,260
Russification is official colonial policy of the Russian and Soviet Empires. It appears to be official policy of the Russian Empire 2.0 as well.
en.m.wikipedia.org
