History in the Making: Russian Invasion

tuna55 said:

I hear that, and yet I think that as I said earlier, a laser operated SDI broadly given to every country would create a more peaceful life, not less.

It is easier to protect a ballistic missile from laser energy than to protect a satellite. It is just measure and countermeasure, again. You have your laser satellites destroy their laser satellites first, and now you are back to first strike capability. I do like the idea that all of the nations that are interested in crushing anyone who starts a war can say, "We will let anyone obliterate you and we will stop all of your retaliation," but if we can get the whole world to act together that way, we can get the whole world to work together towards less violent solutions. None of this even gets into economic considerations and what you did not buy for the world since you bought this instead.  It just seems (to me) like a different form of expensive arms race (developing and providing the tech would still be a race, even if we were all racing on the same team) and it still can't get us away from MAD, it just adds another battlefield location.

The lead negotiator for Ukraine believes peace talks are legit but that they could take months. https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraines-lead-negotiator-talks-russia-months/story?id=83626948

matthewmcl said:

tuna55 said:

I hear that, and yet I think that as I said earlier, a laser operated SDI broadly given to every country would create a more peaceful life, not less.

It is easier to protect a ballistic missile from laser energy than to protect a satellite. It is just measure and countermeasure, again. You have your laser satellites destroy their laser satellites first, and now you are back to first strike capability. I do like the idea that all of the nations that are interested in crushing anyone who starts a war can say, "We will let anyone obliterate you and we will stop all of your retaliation," but if we can get the whole world to act together that way, we can get the whole world to work together towards less violent solutions. None of this even gets into economic considerations and what you did not buy for the world since you bought this instead.  It just seems (to me) like a different form of expensive arms race (developing and providing the tech would still be a race, even if we were all racing on the same team) and it still can't get us away from MAD, it just adds another battlefield location.

Interesting. Honestly I was thinking the systems would be land based, and that is why. Assume massive nuclear ICBM arsenals are here to stay, because once you have the ability to make a thing, you can't unlearn that ability, even if you could destroy them all. If I created a small land based laser system which could take tens of thousands of shots during the eight minute flight from hemisphere to hemisphere, and these systems were no bigger than a container, and you just parked them all over each state/country on the roof of the biggest buildings around, would it matter? I think it would, as long as they were actually distributed. I mean you have to give these things away to everyone freely. If everyone has them, the ICBM becomes obsolete. You could never take them out all at once. It's the anti-MAD.

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

stroker said:

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

One thing that I see stated a lot is if Russia uses nukes, the US has to be the country to respond.

 

Why not France? They are closer and have the capability plus can be ornery as hell

Mebbe it's me, but the LAST thing I want is a "tit-for-tat" nuking by anybody in response to Vlad touching one off.  (If he fires a half dozen, that's something different...) I think we have to give the Russian people a chance to change course.  If they endorse Vlad's strategy or the Russians launch a second nuke/volley then it's game on...  :( 

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Using nukes is stupid in any situation, I'm just kinda stunned at how much the media really wants USA heavily involved here

Media generating clicks...

93EXCivic said:

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Using nukes is stupid in any situation, I'm just kinda stunned at how much the media really wants USA heavily involved here

Media generating clicks...

I think this is one of those situations showing how people get their news from different sources.  As a general rule, I'm not seeing the sources I read from pushing to escalate this into a direct US/NATO intervention.

trigun7469 said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Putin believes that NATO is a threat to Russia. He miscalculated that the war is turning out to be similar to the Afghan war, but I think he calculated correctly going to war with Ukraine effectively prevents them to ever join NATO, which I imagine is a win for Russia. The loss of lives and the carpetbagging that will ensue after this very unfortunate. 

I know that part, but what I don't see is how invading Ukraine would help fix that.  They had already made enough moves to the west that you know they want to part with mother russia- so the fight will be intense.   And the rest of the world would probably back them if they can show any signs of resistance.  All of which was warned.

"Preventing NATO" is relative, and the side effects are so much worse than working hard WITH Ukraine to make them feel better about the neighbors.  And I think the real reason Ukraine wants the west is economic- there are more opportunities to trade with Europe than there is with Russia- since vlad had done a pretty poor job with the economy.

I wonder if someone was testing that "what will a Javelin do to a ship" question?

Ukrainian Navy reports Alligator-class(project 1171 Tapir) landing ship BDK-69 Orsk was destroyed in Berdyansk port

Also of interest:

Sailors from Snake Island returning to Ukraine. They were exchanged for Russian POWs(10 to 10) - Iryna Vereshchuk

eastsideTim said:

93EXCivic said:

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Using nukes is stupid in any situation, I'm just kinda stunned at how much the media really wants USA heavily involved here

Media generating clicks...

I think this is one of those situations showing how people get their news from different sources.  As a general rule, I'm not seeing the sources I read from pushing to escalate this into a direct US/NATO intervention.

I'm not necessarily saying it's everywhere, it's just more prevalent than I'd think. Basically it seems like everyone assumes that the US will deal with Russia in the end. It's more prevalent with people talking.

Mostly I just click on stuff here and whatever pops up on Google

So by the time this is wrung out I predict that Russia will be either a subdivision of China or "East EU" with its assets essentially worthless and the leadership drawn and quartered one group or the other will swoop in and promise the people their individual freedom if they accept the new powers. 

On a side note Zelensky is asking that Abramovich not be sanctioned to help with communication with Putin. I see this not working well as Putin will assume the guy who loves Great Britain is a trader and will have his blood bottled and sitting on his desk as a warning to all that betray him.

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

Why not France? They are closer and have the capability plus can be ornery as hell

AIUI, the vast majority of the French warheads are strategic weapons mounted on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.  SLBMs usually aren't all that accurate (this may be less true for the modern US missiles), their role is really as a "city busting", second strike strategic deterrent.  Cities are big, so if you put a big-enough warhead on your missile then the accuracy is less important.  It stops the other guy from attacking you because it's very difficult for him to guarantee that he sinks all of the your submarines in his initial attack, and if there are any left then you can destroy his country.

If the Russians use a nuke in Ukraine it would probably be a smaller "tactical" weapon, and replying to that with an SLBM is the kind of huge escalation that leads to the end of the world.

One aspect of the China / Russia situation that I don't think has been hit on here:  It is suspected China is using this situation as a way to "buy in cheap" with Russia.  So, the longer this goes on, and the weaker financially Russia gets (as long as it doesn't collapse) the better for China.  I believe they already have a rather sweet deal to buy gas and oil from Russia.

There is also the aspect of currency.  China would surely prefer to trade in the Yuan, and make that a standard.  The use of the dollar and wester financial structures as a weapon against Russia certainly strengthens this. 

aircooled said:

I wonder if someone was testing that "what will a Javelin do to a ship" question?

 

Ukrainian Navy reports Alligator-class(project 1171 Tapir) landing ship BDK-69 Orsk was destroyed in Berdyansk port

Also of interest:

Sailors from Snake Island returning to Ukraine. They were exchanged for Russian POWs(10 to 10) - Iryna Vereshchuk

I wish Ukraine could come up with some missile that could take out the new bridge Russia built to the Crimea.  

In reply to aircooled :

Russia is going to become China's bitch.  

What I am seeing is a strategy that played out well just recently. Keep doing and escalating the previously horrendous until it becomes the new norm. Use your base of believers to anchor and amplify the message and then let the media blare the atrocity until the world develops a thick skin and stops caring. Rinse and repeat.

putin has reduced the entire city of Mariupol to pretty much rubble. By next month he will note that the world has moved on, and then he is free to execute his next greater atrocity, maybe level Kiev? At some point  putin self-justifies and does the same with a nuke, the world will be inured to the whole thing by that point and give him breathing space because that is what civilized humans do; back away from crazy as long as possible.  With Mariupol, putin has shown that rebuilding Russia from rubble is acceptable.  It is also pretty clear that no sanction possible will personally affect putin but the same sanctions will allow him to declare self righteously that his followers are being treated unfairly. 

aircooled said:

One aspect of the China / Russia situation that I don't think has been hit on here:  It is suspected China is using this situation as a way to "buy in cheap" with Russia.  So, the longer this goes on, and the weaker financially Russia gets (as long as it doesn't collapse) the better for China.  I believe they already have a rather sweet deal to buy gas and oil from Russia.

There is also the aspect of currency.  China would surely prefer to trade in the Yuan, and make that a standard.  The use of the dollar and wester financial structures as a weapon against Russia certainly strengthens this. 

I did mention many pages back something to the effect of, "China turns Russia into a gas station".  But a lot's been said since then. 

NOHOME said:

What I am seeing is a strategy that played out well just recently. Keep doing and escalating the previously horrendous until it becomes the new norm. Use your base of believers to anchor and amplify the message and then let the media blare the atrocity until the world develops a thick skin and stops caring. Rinse and repeat.

putin has reduced the entire city of Mariupol to pretty much rubble. By next month he will note that the world has moved on, and then he is free to execute his next greater atrocity, maybe level Kiev? At some point  putin self-justifies and does the same with a nuke, the world will be inured to the whole thing by that point and give him breathing space because that is what civilized humans do; back away from crazy as long as possible.  With Mariupol, putin has shown that rebuilding Russia from rubble is acceptable.  It is also pretty clear that no sanction possible will personally affect putin but the same sanctions will allow him to declare self righteously that his followers are being treated unfairly. 

 

 

Or some other calamity comes along.  Look how quickly everyone stopped talking about Covid once Ukraine was on fire. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

On a side note Zelensky is asking that Abramovich not be sanctioned to help with communication with Putin. I see this not working well as Putin will assume the guy who loves Great Britain is a trader and will have his blood bottled and sitting on his desk as a warning to all that betray him.

Or... perhaps that's exactly what Zelensky wants to accomplish.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Anyone think NK testing a new ICBM yesterday is just a coincidence?

stroker said:

y'know, it just occurred to me that this situation is precisely what the Green Berets in Europe were training for since the early 60's.  The only significant difference would be the need to speak Russian instead of German.   Somehow I don't think the US Army Special Forces are wanting for Russian-speaking troops.   I have to believe the other NATO members also have special forces units dedicated to training and conducting guerrilla warfare.   I'd bet a six pack of beer there are a sizeable contigent of NATO troops currently on the ground in Ukraine...

Looks like I might have been not too far off, but grossly underestimating when they arrived...

Apparently we've made the statement that if Putin uses chemical or biological weapons we will respond "in-kind".  I was under the impression that the US policy was that nuclear, bio, and chemical we're grouped together and since we don't (officially?) do bio or chem warfare, any N/B/C attack would be responded to with what we do traffic in: Nuclear.

I'm not exactly sure what the rationale is in saying that we won't put boots on the ground or enforce a no-fly zone because it would put us in a shooting war with Russia, but that if they use chemical weapons on Ukraine, suddenly it's game-on.  I mean, chemical weapons are bad.  Really bad.  But is it really worse to gas a town versus the indiscriminate shelling that's been ravishing the civilian population?  Worse enough that now we're willing to engage Russia directly?  If I'm Putin, what am I thinking about that?

wae said:

Apparently we've made the statement that if Putin uses chemical or biological weapons we will respond "in-kind".  I was under the impression that the US policy was that nuclear, bio, and chemical we're grouped together and since we don't (officially?) do bio or chem warfare, any N/B/C attack would be responded to with what we do traffic in: Nuclear.

I'm not exactly sure what the rationale is in saying that we won't put boots on the ground or enforce a no-fly zone because it would put us in a shooting war with Russia, but that if they use chemical weapons on Ukraine, suddenly it's game-on.  I mean, chemical weapons are bad.  Really bad.  But is it really worse to gas a town versus the indiscriminate shelling that's been ravishing the civilian population?  Worse enough that now we're willing to engage Russia directly?  If I'm Putin, what am I thinking about that?

I think two parts: There's no way "in kind" really meant that. We're not going to use chemical weapons in a hospital in Moscow. I think he just meant we were ready to retaliate. Also I think ANY words are just words and are basically ignored but Putt Putt.

In reply to tuna55 :

He said in question right before, "We would respond if he uses it, and the nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use." Which doesn't point to using weapons of mass destruction against Russia

In reply to 93EXCivic :

And to a follow up question, he said it "would trigger a response in-kind".  That's the part that gives me pause.

I am guessing "in-kind" really means proportional.  I really don't see the West dropping a nuke on Russia for a nerve gas attack.

My guess would be more along the lines of a rather large cruise missile attack on Russian positions in Ukraine.  Perhaps some direct airstrikes (many of the cruise missiles would likely be standoff attacks from, for example, B52's), but I don't think that is a line the West will, even then, wants to cross.

Maybe attacks on their ships?  But I think that is less likely as it adds another dynamic (sea warfare, they do have a lot of pretty capable subs) and a better chance of failure (their ships have cruise missile defenses)

Does Putin think the West will do that? I think he would be far less sure we would at this point then he did only few months ago.

Should we tell him that is what we will do?  I sort of think we should, especially if there is any intelligence that he is actually preparing to do it.

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Anyone think NK testing a new ICBM yesterday is just a coincidence?

I think kim jong whatever wants to play, and show off, but no one wants him. He's like the last kid picked at dodgeball, and Russia's waaaaay down on guys.