History in the Making: Russian Invasion

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

In reply to matthewmcl :

To be frank, I would rather they had a whole bunch of unmaintained ancient nukes than have none and the ability to make fresh, new ones.

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

Has that 40-km convoy been blown to hell yet? Because what if the plan is "park valuable assets along side of road because they'll think we broke down and won't realize that parking them here supports our later attack"? Hiding in plain sight and all that.

I dont know, but that HAS to be something other than what it is... because a 40-mile convoy has to be the absolute DUMBEST logistical move/tactical nightmare I've ever heard of...  How that thing ever moved in the first place is completely beyond me.

And also add in... how did a Russian commander get the idea that it's a good idea to move these many units in the winter? "General Mud" has historically been one of Russia's most loyal and dangerous protectors, and this time he's on the other side.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Kind of on/off topic, but I got into the "odd timepieces from all over" hobby in the past few months, with more than a couple coming from both Russia and the Ukraine. It might seem silly, but holding an item in my hands that was just there a month or so ago really stirs up emotions... especially because the sellers spent time making it clear just how proud they are of their countries creations. Always great care taken with packaging and wonderful handwritten notes included. I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time a fellow American has put that kind of care into something as simple and borderline meaningless as an eBay transaction.

Speaking of. Not sure if you've noticed this—eBay seems to have blocked shipping from both the Ukraine and Russia at the moment. Could be based on difficulties of transferring money but maybe... just maybe... eBay is trying to be reasonable seeing as the two countries have substantially bigger fish to fry. This new era of corporate social responsibility is so wild, never thought it would spread to wartime. 
 

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Just remove them for a long enough period of time as to normalize the country. It stands a better chance of being normal if they are gone for the rebuilding.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to matthewmcl :

To be frank, I would rather they had a whole bunch of unmaintained ancient nukes than have none and the ability to make fresh, new ones.

They are anything but unmaintained and ancient.

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-02/nuclear-notebook-how-many-nuclear-weapons-does-russia-have-in-2022/

tuna55 said:

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Just remove them for a long enough period of time as to normalize the country. It stands a better chance of being normal if they are gone for the rebuilding.

A defeated and denuclearized Russia would be ripe for exploitation/domination by China unless Europe and the US are willing to commit to defending it while they rebuild.  At least with nukes, that's a tripwire Xi probably won't be willing to trigger.

MadScientistMatt said:

And also add in... how did a Russian commander get the idea that it's a good idea to move these many units in the winter? "General Mud" has historically been one of Russia's most loyal and dangerous protectors, and this time he's on the other side.

The 40km long convoy seems dumb to me, but I think they picked this time of year because the ground is still frozen.  If they had waited, the ground will begin to thaw out in a few weeks and then they would have had to deal with real mud.

tuna55 said:

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Just remove them for a long enough period of time as to normalize the country. It stands a better chance of being normal if they are gone for the rebuilding.

I don't see any situation where that happens to be honest.

I think the real question is what is their nuclear policy. Their stated policy is only to us in case of attack but there seem to be some who think they might use them in a more "limited" capacity to try to force people to discuss. 

93EXCivic said:

tuna55 said:

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Just remove them for a long enough period of time as to normalize the country. It stands a better chance of being normal if they are gone for the rebuilding.

I don't see any situation where that happens to be honest.

I think the real question is what is their nuclear policy. Their stated policy is only to us in case of attack but there seem to be some who think they might use them in a more "limited" capacity to try to force people to discuss. 

From TheBulletin link:

The Nuclear Posture Review claimed that “Russian strategy and doctrine emphasize the potential coercive and military uses of nuclear weapons. It mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to ‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia” (US Defense Department 2018, 8). Specifically, the document claimed, “Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” This so-called “escalate to de-escalate” doctrine “follows from Moscow’s mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow” (US Defense Department 2018, 30).

This thread has moved quickly, and the discussion of historical analogies was a few pages back, but there were a few things I wanted to mention and this is the first chance I've had to sit down and write something coherent.

While there are certain aspects of the events of the late 1930s that appear similar to what's happening now, it's critical to recognize the limitations of those comparisons. So while the sanctions regime being imposed on Russia in response to its actions bears a fair bit of similarity to the sanctions imposed on Japan as the result of its involvement in China, the comparison ends there. Both Japan and Germany were nations in very different circumstances than modern-day Russia. The two Axis powers were rising whereas Russia is declining. Both Axis powers were desperately concerned with achieving defensible autarky as a direct consequence of the events of the First World War (Japan having seen what German unrestricted submarine warfare did to Britain, with which it had had close ties and shared strategic circumstances as island nations, and Germany having directly experienced the combination of Allied naval blockade and an inability to supply its industry with raw materials, and indeed to feed its population), while Russia has a vast wealth of natural resources. I could go on. In short, there are countless differences between these situations that undermine any effort to use history as a predictive tool by itself. This then circles back to the discussion we had earlier about the value of theoretical models, which we do not need to revisit on my account, but suffice it to say that models are validated (or invalidated) by historical examples, since it's the only method available.

stuart in mn said:

MadScientistMatt said:

And also add in... how did a Russian commander get the idea that it's a good idea to move these many units in the winter? "General Mud" has historically been one of Russia's most loyal and dangerous protectors, and this time he's on the other side.

The 40km long convoy seems dumb to me, but I think they picked this time of year because the ground is still frozen.  If they had waited, the ground will begin to thaw out in a few weeks and then they would have had to deal with real mud.

They wanted to invade 1/18 when the ground was still frozen but waited until after the Beijing Olympics at the behest of Xi, well into Rasputista season. Everything there is stuck in mud.

On nuclear strategy, first use of any weapon, tactical or otherwise, would be crossing the Rubicon. If Russia did that, I suspect even China would bail, leaving it truly isolated. Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" approach has certainly been applied with conventional conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere. Ironically, however, it may be that the unexpectedly strong Western response to the invasion of Ukraine may have some Russian leaders rethinking the validity of "escalate to de-escalate". Whether Putin is one of those is unclear, but whether he can get his command structure to carry out a launch order would be an unknown variable. It's also worth recognizing that Russian nuclear planning is not exactly open source, so there may be misunderstandings in the approach laid out in the NPR.

Schelling and others did a lot of work on limited nuclear war, but later discussions tend to assume that any use would rapidly evolve into an all-out exchange. At that point we get into counter-force and counter-value targeting strategies, survivable second strike capability, and other more technical issues. We're not there yet - not even close in my estimation, given that there's been no observed increase in Russian nuclear force readiness posture - so let's save that discussion for another time.

If I were Putin (or anyone in a line of decision makers) and considering firing a nuke, I'd be looking at all the equipment currently stuck in the mud due to procurement mistakes, engineering mistakes, and maintenance mistakes, and I'd be wondering how I was sure the nukes and ICBMs weren't subject to the same issues. 

Only thing worse than a successful nuke launch is a failed nuke launch.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

This might have the info you seek:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45861

In reply to eastsideTim :

I think its a Tom Clancy novel (Bear and Dragon?) that has the Chinese calling Russia the "Northern Resource Area" as they planned their invasion.  I see no reason the think that isn't based on fact.

One nuke goes off and the odds of more going off goes up exponentially. The Russians may be unwise, but they aren't stupid. The joke that Russia is a dirty gas station with nukes isn't entirely inaccurate, and there's no way in hell that they're going to give them up. 

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Get Christopher Reeves to throw them into the sun, while making sure to remove any mutated baby fetuses in the warheads.

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

Good article here as well.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-03-04/what-if-russia-loses

My question is: How easily can the west disable the nuclear capabilities of a defeated and demoralized Russia? Without ICBM and nuclear capability, Russia is no longer a threat to anyone, and that fact may just enable them to rebuild in a modern way which would benefit Russians as well.

How do you, long term, destroy the nuclear capability of a culture that was able to develop it on their own? Even if all they ever did was produce it, you still cannot disable the effects of having knowledge. Russia will always be a nuclear power, just the same as we will always be.

Ukraine itself is a good example, of course. After the breakup of the USSR Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world (behind the US and Russia). They gave all that up for "security guarantees," and we see where that got them. It's fair to assume that if Ukraine currently had just a few nukes, there would be exactly zero Russian forces inside their borders (or in Crimea, for that matter). People think Iran and North Korea want nukes so they can blow up America or the west. Nope. They want them because it's the only way to ensure that a country with a powerful conventional military (US, China, Russia, etc.) will NEVER invade them. Perfectly logical, really, assuming the leader isn't suicidal (which the leaders of NK and Iran most definitely are not). 

Putin probably would never consider using nukes 2 weeks ago, when he expected his conventional forces to roll right into Ukraine. But the massive embarrasment of his current failure is scary in that it may make him change the calculus. 

Well now, Iran MIGHT want to plop one on Israel...

I hear the nukes Ukraine had were all controlled by Russia, so they would need to go through them to control them anyway.

aircooled said:

Well now, Iran MIGHT want to plop one on Israel...

I hear the nukes Ukraine had were all controlled by Russia, so they would need their permission to control them anyway.

From what I've read it would have been possible to re-orient control over the ICBMs to Ukraine eventually, but the main issue was that US and NATO would have heavily sanctioned the country, and the ICBMs couldn't target Moscow or other neighbors anyhow (for local deterrent), as they were all long-range missiles for shooting at the US and China. Basically, it wasn't worth it in a practical sense to keep them. That said, presumably the fissile material could have eventually been repurposed into more regional missiles or tactical weapons as a deterrent. I remember reading in school (I was an international affair major in the mid-90s) about the discussion in the early 90s about whether giving up the nukes would leave Ukraine open to Russian aggression, and the western consensus that Russia was no longer an aggressor and there was no  need. Whoops. Hindsight is 20-20. The Budapest Memorandum has been repeatedly breached by Russia, so it's essentialy invalidated now. If Ukraine prevails in this war, it would be interesting to see if they decide to re-start building a small nuclear arsenal, since they are unlikely to accede to NATO and have no allies to help defend them directly, otherwise, and the stated "security guarantees" were not upheld by the parties of the deal. 

that said, it's been years (er....decades!) since I studied nuclear theory, so I may have some of those details wrong. 

I debated whether or not to share this here as it is only tangentially related, but I've been thinking about it a lot this week. I have some weird things in my collections but one of the most hauntingly beautiful and depressing artifacts I own is this:

It is a genuine soviet liquidators medal. These were awarded to the "Bio-robots" (young soviet conscripts, mostly Ukrainian) who fought the fires and shoveled graphite on the roof of the chernobyl reactor. The image in the centre shows three radioactive particles literally being deflected by young soviet blood.

It was not particularly expensive, nor hard to find owing largely to the fact that they awarded a lot of these, and most of the recipients are dead.

This past week Russian forces shelled another Ukrainian nuclear plant, causing fires and risking an similar disaster. Despite the high cost of human lives, the russians learned nothing.

Like I said, I'm not sure if this post belongs here and I'll remove it if it is innapropriate, but  I'e been thinking about this little haunted trinket for most of this week, so I wanted to share.

AClockworkGarage said:

I debated whether or not to share this here as it is only tangentially related, but I've been thinking about it a lot this week. I have some weird things in my collections but one of the most hauntingly beautiful and depressing artifacts I own is this:

It is a genuine soviet liquidators medal. These were awarded to the "Bio-robots" (young soviet conscripts, mostly Ukrainian) who fought the fires and shoveled graphite on the roof of the chernobyl reactor. The image in the centre shows three radioactive particles literally being deflected by young soviet blood.

It was not particularly expensive, nor hard to find owing largely to the fact that they awarded a lot of these, and most of the recipients are dead.

This past week Russian forces shelled another Ukrainian nuclear plant, causing fires and risking an similar disaster. Despite the high cost of human lives, the russians learned nothing.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure if this post belongs here and I'll remove it if it is innapropriate, but  I'e been thinking about this little haunted trinket for most of this week, so I wanted to share.

Thanks for sharing, that's a really interesting piece of history and you're right. They haven't learned.

In reply to AClockworkGarage :

My dad was a nuclear criticality safety specialist, he died from cancer at 47 that was deemed related to his job. Nothing scares me more than disrespect of radiation. NOTHING. 

It's been on my mind too.

Is this the official start of the new age warfare?

One side starts by physically attacking in the traditional style and the other side attacks the monetary infrastructure and computer systems.

I know that monetary infrastructure and computer systems have been attacked on a limited basis before.

The scale this time is hard to comprehend.  Much as the physical damage in Ukraine is hard to comprehend.