Russian invasion of Ukraine

[renton]

6 minutes ago, Detournement said:

There's a guy I follow on Twitter who is convinced that nuclear armed nations all have low radiation nuclear weapons in their arsenals. We might find out soon.

The guy has documents showing that the US were working on this in the 70s but the main focus is the 43m deep crater from the Beirut explosion which is far bigger than it should be going by the official account. 

 

Do you mean low radiation or just low yield?

[Todd_is_God]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

There's a guy I follow on Twitter who is convinced that nuclear armed nations all have low radiation nuclear weapons in their arsenals. We might find out soon.

The guy has documents showing that the US were working on this in the 70s but the main focus is the 43m deep crater from the Beirut explosion which is far bigger than it should be going by the official account. 

Low radiation or low yield?

[welshbairn]

Russia deploys neutron bombs for anti ballistic missile defence, but I'm sure they could be adapted for ground attack, without the need for all that expensive rebuilding work after flattening a city using conventional weapons.

[scottsdad]

21 minutes ago, Detournement said:

There's a guy I follow on Twitter who is convinced that...

 

[Detournement]

12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Low radiation or low yield?

Low radiation.

 

[jagfox]

 

 

[Detournement]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I don't know how much maintenance nuclear missiles require but, given the seeming neglect of much of their conventional hardware, I wonder how many of their 6000 nukes would actually take off, hit their targets and explode. Given the unlikelihood of them ever being used it's quite feasible resources were deployed elsewhere. I'm not suggesting we should ever test this though...

They have launched thousands of successful strikes since February. 

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

They have launched thousands of successful strikes since February. 

 

Not ICBMs

[ICTChris]

End of a thread by Kofman about the mobilsation, which basically says that it depends on what they actually do that makes the big difference.

 

 

[ICTChris]

 

Twitter Space discussion about this happening now.

[Bairnardo]

End of a thread by Kofman about the mobilsation, which basically says that it depends on what they actually do that makes the big difference.
 
 

That sort of thing makes it sound to me like the Russians looking to stop the rapid progress of the Ukranians, so that talks have to proceed from a point where there is still an occupation to speak of.

All that would await Vlad if he didn't do this was a rapid and humiliating defeat.

Laced with a heavy bit of hopium tbh, but I think there's a flavour of dig in, halt the retreat, then go to the table. Secure no NATO for Ukraine and a lifting of sanctions. Call it a victory.

[jagfox]

Going Nuclear On thinking the unthinkable (with postscript)

piece on possible use of nuclear weapons in/due to Ukrainian-Russo War

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

True, but they haven't put a boot on the ground inside Russia.

Odds on they have with some of the sabotage that has been carried out on Russia's rail network close to the border. They are also known to have attacked Belgorod using helicopters:

 

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

That sort of thing makes it sound to me like the Russians looking to stop the rapid progress of the Ukranians, so that talks have to proceed from a point where there is still an occupation to speak of.

All that would await Vlad if he didn't do this was a rapid and humiliating defeat.

Laced with a heavy bit of hopium tbh, but I think there's a flavour of dig in, halt the retreat, then go to the table. Secure no NATO for Ukraine and a lifting of sanctions. Call it a victory.

Was thinking much the same but it depends what both parties are prepared to accept.

If his aim is to hold on to most of the Donbass, annex it and and call a victory, Ukraine might accept a stalemate and cease fire without acknowledging the territorial loss. It's the land bridge between the Donbass and Crimea that complicates it, I don't think either Ukraine nor Putin would be prepared to give it up.

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Was thinking much the same but it depends what both parties are prepared to accept.

If his aim is to hold on to most of the Donbass, annex it and and call a victory, Ukraine might accept a stalemate and cease fire without acknowledging the territorial loss. It's the land bridge between the Donbass and Crimea that complicates it, I don't think either Ukraine nor Putin would be prepared to give it up.

No doubt talks wouldn't be easy, but once Putin voluntarily entering into them, one would assume we're finally getting somewhere. 

Theres no way to weaken NATO resolve without deploying nukes.

If he does that, Russia are either literally (strategic nuclear war) or figuratively (a worldwide pariah) finished. 

So he is faced with a war he can't really win except in the sense of redefining what a win is, which happens round the deal table you would think. 

[ICTChris]

I think you are both overestimating the likelihood of a ceasefire.  I don't think there will be a ceasefire unless one side makes a massive breakthrough and/or either Putin or Zelensky's government collapses.

I think the most likely way for the war to end in the near term would be for further losses for Russia, who then decide to withdraw, either to pre-February borders or completely.  I don't think either of those is likely.

[Bairnardo]

I think you are both overestimating the likelihood of a ceasefire.  I don't think there will be a ceasefire unless one side makes a massive breakthrough and/or either Putin or Zelensky's government collapses.
I think the most likely way for the war to end in the near term would be for further losses for Russia, who then decide to withdraw, either to pre-February borders or completely.  I don't think either of those is likely.

Probably. Just not sure what gains there are for Vlad with this mobilisation. I could see that it might help stop the rot and produce another grinding stalemate, but that stalemate will be further East than the last one, with a worse equipped Russian Army than the last one, facing a better equipped, bigger Ukranian Army.

Even if throwing more men in plugs gaps now, it surely increases losses since there are quite simply going to be a mot more Russians to wipe out with NATO toys.

And you would imagine that both in terms of making sure this doesn't precipitate Russian gains, and also as an opportunity to further weaken Russias forces and Vlads position, NATO resolve is going to be more double down than back down.

[williemillersmoustache]

Seems far more lively that they'd use chemical weapons than nuclear.  Use of non persistent agents were part of Soviet doctrine and unlike the west they don't or haven't classed them in the same way as nuclear.  

The use of them in Syria with no meaningful Western response has enhanced this view. 

Seems like using a persistent agent to deny ground in a scorched earth maneuver to fix lines over the winter might be a likely shitebag move which would boil the west's pish, but perhaps force them to consider negotiating from where the lines were at the time. 

[ICTChris]

Banter

 

 

[Detournement]

^^^ British media raging at Putin saying he will consider using nukes ^^^^