[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Insel affe]

Perhaps I’m naive, but genuinely I can never see NATO nations using nuclear weapons on Russian people or Russian sovereign territory.

Thank God.

They would very quickly escalate to the end for us all. Mad, elderly Putin might like the idea.

I’m concerned that Putin may use a dirty bomb, which might be chemical or biological, on eg Kviv, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki. Planted by an agent, then he’ll deny it, of course.

If he is quick, the funeral would be a good chance for maximum global affect, with dignitaries from all around the world in attendance.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Perhaps I’m naive, but genuinely I can never see NATO nations using nuclear weapons on Russian people or Russian sovereign territory.

Thank God.

They would very quickly escalate to the end for us all. Mad, elderly Putin might like the idea.

I’m concerned that Putin may use a dirty bomb, which might be chemical or biological, on eg Kviv, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki. Planted by an agent, then he’ll deny it, of course.

NATO wouldn’t strike first, but they would retaliate in kind, they’d have to.

 

[A1X]

Putin sitting in the dry of the Kremlin, sending his countrymen to their deaths in an illegal waging of war and invasion. I bet he doesn’t give a **** on a human level. Just chess pieces.

What a fool. He’s driven ever neutral Finland and Sweden to join NATO. He miscalculated that Germany and Italy would reluctantly lay down and have their tummies tickled due to their reliance on his gas. He miscalculated in not believing the West would freeze Russian assets and block exports.

He essentially gambled he could win the war in a week and before the west had got themselves together to do anything about it, then he might have to swallow some low level sanctions for a bit, there’d be a Barney about it vs gas / oil exports and come this winter it’d be largely over. Ever since that strategy failed he’s unable to win.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Perhaps I’m naive, but genuinely I can never see NATO nations using nuclear weapons on Russian people or Russian sovereign territory.

Thank God.

They would very quickly escalate to the end for us all. Mad, elderly Putin might like the idea.

I’m concerned that Putin may use a dirty bomb, which might be chemical or biological, on eg Kviv, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki. Planted by an agent, then he’ll deny it, of course.

Dirty bomb more likely, but not a chance on a NATO country. Even the TV nutter hardliners are no longer talking about this as a possibility.

Kiev would be the most probable target. But even then, do they still have either people willing and able to take this type of weaponry behind Ukrainian lines and deploy it or the missile or drone technology to accurately deliver sophisticated weapons that far behind their lines? Maybe not any more. More likely they would have to drop it from a plane and there goes any deniability and it might get shot down.

 

[SeagullinExile]

On a positive note. I see that the iconic 1st Guards Tank Army has apparently been decimated over the last month or so. Historically they are charged with the defense of Moscow! Another huge blow to Russia’s armed forces if true.

 

[Weststander]

Dirty bomb more likely, but not a chance on a NATO country. Even the TV nutter hardliners are no longer talking about this as a possibility.

Kiev would be the most probable target. But even then, do they still have either people willing and able to take this type of weaponry behind Ukrainian lines and deploy it or the missile or drone technology to accurately deliver sophisticated weapons that far behind their lines? Maybe not any more. More likely they would have to drop it from a plane and there goes any deniability and it might get shot down.

The stuff that killed the innocents in Salisbury could easily be placed in a Kyiv or Berlin shopping mall, in larger quantities.

We're talking about an evil man, with 100 years of WMD research in their locker.

 

[Triggaaar]

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. All the time you don't use them, they are a deterrent to a foreign enemy to use them on you. Once you've used them, the opposite is true. The nuclear option is no longer on the table. It is no longer a deterrent. Indeed, it has worked in reverse. You are now a target.

I don't think it works quite like that. What you're suggesting would be true if you only had one nuclear weapon, and you fired it. Suddenly you're no longer a threat to use the weapon, it's already gone. However, if Russia were to use a tactical nuke on an area of Ukraine, and threaten to use strategic nukes if anyone interferes, then they would still be using those strategic nukes as a deterrent The nuclear option would still be very much on the table.

 

[Eric the meek]

I don't think it works quite like that. What you're suggesting would be true if you only had one nuclear weapon, and you fired it. Suddenly you're no longer a threat to use the weapon, it's already gone. However, if Russia were to use a tactical nuke on an area of Ukraine, and threaten to use strategic nukes if anyone interferes, then they would still be using those strategic nukes as a deterrent The nuclear option would still be very much on the table.

I wasn't thinking of tactical nukes, just strategic ones. Once you use them, the opposition know you are prepared to use them. You lose the tactical advantage. You leave your enemy with no choice. The scenario of only having one nuclear weapon doesn't apply either to Russia, the US, the UK, or I believe any other nuclear power. If Russia made a pre-emptive strike on a member of Nato, then it would very much be a target, as would its nuclear subs, assuming we had located them.

I really wouldn't like to say what the west would do - or should do - if Russia did deploy a tactical nuke on Ukraine, and then threaten the use of strategic nukes. We are entering the realm of hypotheticals, in which none of us can say with any certainty what might happen. However, the west is used to Russian sabre-rattling....

 

[Triggaaar]

I wasn't thinking of tactical nukes, just strategic ones.

It's more likely they'd use a tactical nuke against Ukraine.

Once you use them, the opposition know you are prepared to use them. You lose the tactical advantage. You leave your enemy with no choice.

That doesn't make sense. If Russia fires a nuclear weapon at Ukraine, then sure, we'll know Russia are using them - but they don't lose any tactical advantage, they just put the world on high alert.

The scenario of only having one nuclear weapon doesn't apply either to Russia, the US, the UK, or I believe any other nuclear power. If Russia made a pre-emptive strike on a member of Nato, then it would very much be a target

But no one is suggesting they'd use a nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive strike against a member of NATO - the suggestion is about them using one against Ukraine.

 

[The Fifth Column]

Judging by the terrible state of the Russian military and added to the myth that they are a high tech military power I wouldn't be surprised if most of their nuclear missiles failed to launch, failed after launch or didn't detonate. Not a theory I'd like to test however!

Also any tactical nuke on Ukraine would be met with a devastating tactical nuking of the entire Russian military by the West

 

[Hugo Rune]

Not the ‘world leading’ support for the Ukraine Boris Johnson led many to believe. It’s pretty much all the USA as I’d always thought (thank god Trump was not in power as the spend would be almost zero against his enablers).

Whilst I’m proud of our support, the only potential or actual PM of recent times who would have done less is Corbyn. An embarrassing stat for the French and Mediterranean EU countries but at least Germany and Poland have put their hands in their pockets. WW2 experience of the Russians is obviously still powerful.

 

[Eric the meek]

It's more likely they'd use a tactical nuke against Ukraine.
That doesn't make sense. If Russia fires a nuclear weapon at Ukraine, then sure, we'll know Russia are using them - but they don't lose any tactical advantage, they just put the world on high alert.

But no one is suggesting they'd use a nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive strike against a member of NATO - the suggestion is about them using one against Ukraine.

I'm not at all sure anyone should be trying to second guess what is going on in Putin's head. What you, I or anyone else may consider likely, he may not, and vice-versa.

According to German Chancellor Scholz, Putin doesn't see the Ukraine war as a mistake.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62907923

 

[Triggaaar]

Also any tactical nuke on Ukraine would be met with a devastating tactical nuking of the entire Russian military by the West

I would think that's extremely unlikely.

I would think a tactical nuke against Ukraine would lead to a rapid escalation of demands from the West, and pressure on China to do likewise, to bring the conflict to an end. But the West would not fire nuclear weapons at Russia, that would simply lead to WW3

 

[Triggaaar]

Not the ‘world leading’ support for the Ukraine Boris Johnson led many to believe.

According to that, we've given more than double any other country, bar the US. That's pretty impressive. And no one suggested we were giving as much as the US. We do have a tiny military compared to the them.

France not even on the list? That just shows how brave the Ukrainians are - they rejected the offer for white flags.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Not the ‘world leading’ support for the Ukraine Boris Johnson led many to believe. It’s pretty much all the USA as I’d always thought (thank god Trump was not in power as the spend would be almost zero against his enablers).

Whilst I’m proud of our support, the only potential or actual PM of recent times who would have done less is Corbyn. An embarrassing stat for the French and Mediterranean EU countries but at least Germany and Poland have put their hands in their pockets. WW2 experience of the Russians is obviously still powerful.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to spin this as a criticism of Johnson.

The obvious flaw in your criticism is the size of the US economy and it's
military compared to everyone else.

Also the French have deliberately not released details of their aid, has your source taken that into account?

 

[Hugo Rune]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to spin this as a criticism of Johnson.

The obvious flaw in your criticism is the size of the US economy and it's
military compared to everyone else.

Also the French have deliberately not released details of their aid, has your source taken that into account?

I think you are going to have to read my post again.

To be explicit - our support for the Ukraine is NOT world leading as regurgitated by Johnson and his cronies many times.

I’ve never said it should be. The world leading support for the Ukraine has come from the USA since the beginning. In particular, the long range weapons they gave them a few months ago really helped turn the war.

We have done very well in our support, most British PMs would have done the same, maybe warmongers Thatcher and Blair a lot more. But, we are not leading the world. That was my point.

 

[Baldseagull]

Not the ‘world leading’ support for the Ukraine Boris Johnson led many to believe. It’s pretty much all the USA as I’d always thought (thank god Trump was not in power as the spend would be almost zero against his enablers).

Whilst I’m proud of our support, the only potential or actual PM of recent times who would have done less is Corbyn. An embarrassing stat for the French and Mediterranean EU countries but at least Germany and Poland have put their hands in their pockets. WW2 experience of the Russians is obviously still powerful.

Proportionately, the US economy is about 9 times the size of ours, but they have only contributed 4 times the value.
Polands economy is 1/4 the size of ours, but they have contributed 1/3 the value we have, Poland wins.

 

[Hugo Rune]

According to that, we've given more than double any other country, bar the US. That's pretty impressive. And no one suggested we were giving as much as the US. We do have a tiny military compared to the them.

France not even on the list? That just shows how brave the Ukrainians are - they rejected the offer for white flags.

Carry on the argument with yourself. If your are not going to contradict my point that we’re ‘not’ world leading, why did you reply? Johnson suggested time after time we are leading the world in support for the Ukraine against Russia. We never have done.

 

[GT49er]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to spin this as a criticism of Johnson.

The obvious flaw in your criticism is the size of the US economy and it's
military compared to everyone else.

Also the French have deliberately not released details of their aid, has your source taken that into account?

It's point scoring, innit, with a soupcon of virtue signalling.

 

[Lethargic]

Unlikely to use tactical nukes on Ukraine, even the weather is against them as most of the radiation will return to Russia.

Sent from my CPH2173 using Tapatalk