advertisement


Ukraine V

If you are correct in this scenario, and Putin pursues the use of high-yield thermobaric (non-nuclear) missiles,

Not sure what you're referring to there. The largest thermobaric weapon Russia has is FOAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs) and that has the explosive equivalent of 44 Tonnes of TNT (or 0.04 kT) and that has to be dropped out of the back of a large aircraft (it weighs 7.1 Tonnes and is 7m long).

As for NATO / NATO member using a nuclear response to a conventional attack on a non NATO member state. I doubt it very much.
 
Ukraine will push on regardless. You simply can’t run a world where a nuclear power says I will take what I wish or I’ll destroy everything including myself and all my mates families. He is bluffing

I hope you are right, I really do, because it puts the West in a bind should Putin use a nasty weapon on Ukraine: to not respond will give Putin the green light to take whatever he wants; responding in kind risks escalation to Armageddon.
 
Good Evening All,

Almost regardless of the circumstances Putin has to be resisted - there really isn't any other viable solution I can see.

Regards

Richard
 
1. Not sure what you're referring to there. The largest thermobaric weapon Russia has is FOAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs) and that has the explosive equivalent of 44 Tonnes of TNT (or 0.04 kT) and that has to be dropped out of the back of a large aircraft (it weighs 7.1 Tonnes and is 7m long).

2. As for NATO / NATO member using a nuclear response to a conventional attack on a non NATO member state. I doubt it very much.

1. Yes, my bad. I'm assuming Putin still has the facility to 'drop' the FOAB, and several would be necessary to inflict maximum damage, rather than go the nuclear route. As such. . .

2. I should have worded this better, but I wasn't suggesting NATO would resort to nukes in response; be very surprised if they did. But I understand that ICBM's can deliver conventional weapons, although, according wiki - have not been deployed in ICBM's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Submarine-launched_ICBMs

John
 
I hope you are right, I really do, because it puts the West in a bind should Putin use a nasty weapon on Ukraine: to not respond will give Putin the green light to take whatever he wants; responding in kind risks escalation to Armageddon.
It’s been flagged that NATO will respond mightily but conventionally. In other words, you can either destroy the world or be absolutely humiliated. It’s not a great choice. Also, it’s not a choice Putin ( or Trump) can make on their own. It’s has other players that have their own families.
 
Putin has raised the stakes considerably.

It puts the pressure back on Zelinsky - does he stick and be content with the recent gains or continue with the advance in the knowledge that his decision could lead to a Russian strike on a major urban centre.
After 30. September front line will find itself inside of Russia as only one from four will be annexed teritories at the moment are in Russia control fully. So there is nothing to decide and nothing than can be changed. This is again just another formal excuse for Russia to do what they planned to do. Can anybody remember similar war situation when one day you defend your home and next day your are occupant in your own home. I do not think that Putin is that stupid, just another stupid excuse.
 
I should have worded this better, but I wasn't suggesting NATO would resort to nukes in response; be very surprised if they did. But I understand that ICBM's can deliver conventional weapons, although, according wiki - have not been deployed in ICBM's.

They aren't used to deliver conventional payloads for one good reason, the 'target' for the weapon will not wait until it hits to find out whether the ICBM is or isn't a nuclear weapon; it runs the risk they will assume it's nuclear and will respond accordingly.
 
May be Russia will drop the bomb and use the same excuse the US did in 1945, that it will in fact be 'saving lives' (as opposed to 'a land invasion' bla bla bla). The utterly sick scenario that we're all going to melt in a nuclear fire was forewarned again and again, 20, 30 years ago. 'Don't push Nato too close to Russian borders', of course the arrogant ****s didn't listen. 'A fateful error' - G Kennan - "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected . . . to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking." NATO Expansion Would Be an Epic 'Fateful Error' - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
That article was written in 1997. You may think it was prescient, but reading it now just shows how much the world has changed in 25 years. For instance, the bits about "the chimera of a resurgent Russia bent upon imposing its hegemony in Eastern Europe" and "the improbable emergence of a Russian conventional threat at a distant date" haven't aged very well. Some chimera. Likewise, concerns about the expansion of NATO weakening the alliance, or the main security risk to the US being loose Russian nukes seem almost quaint now.
 
@Seeker_UK

So, to follow this particular train of thought, if Putin utilises hypersonic missiles to strike Kyiv, the assumption will be that they are carrying nuclear warheads? (They can carry either.) And so the response from the US and NATO will be nuclear, no?

But if the payload is conventional, then NATO is guilty of initiating a nuclear first strike.

Isn't this the warning Biden has been sending to Putin?

John
 
I suppose ‘sorry we destroyed the planet in error’ would look a bit lame but who’s going to complain?
 
So, to follow this particular train of thought (courtesy of TheDecameron), if Putin utilises hypersonic missiles to strike Kyiv, the assumption will be that they are carrying nuclear warheads? (They can carry either.)

No. I was suggesting that the use of ICBMs to deliver conventional payloads (in this case as a response) is a very dangerous action against a nuclear state.

If Russia was to use a hypersonic missile against a Ukrainian target (I am assuming that's what we're discssing here), then the first the world would know about whether it was conventional or otherwise would be the moment it struck.

And so the response from the US and NATO will be nuclear, no?

If it was a conventional strike, then as I stated previously, as it wasn't against a NATO member state, very unlikely.

If it was a nuclear strike, that becomes less clear because ambiguity is a key part of deterrence.

But if the payload is conventional, then NATO is guilty of initiating a nuclear first strike.

Which is why I think it's doubtful that NATO / US would decide on a course of action until it had happened.
 
"Relentless eastward expansion" is just Russian propaganda, not a serious or in any way accurate analysis of recent history. Countries want to join NATO because the fascist Russian state is a real existential threat to them, not because NATO wants to expand east.

Edit: the Russian sock puppet post I was replying to seems to have been vapourised, I'm glad to see
 
1. Yes, my bad. I'm assuming Putin still has the facility to 'drop' the FOAB, and several would be necessary to inflict maximum damage, rather than go the nuclear route. As such. . .

2. I should have worded this better, but I wasn't suggesting NATO would resort to nukes in response; be very surprised if they did. But I understand that ICBM's can deliver conventional weapons, although, according wiki - have not been deployed in ICBM's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Submarine-launched_ICBMs

John
Russia doesn't fly aircraft in Ukrainian-controlled airspace - too high a risk of being shot down.

And with arrival of 6-8 NASAMS batteries (my babies) Ukrainian skies will be effectively closed.

You can't drop something on a target that you can't fly over.
 
Ukraine is not going to give up under a nuclear threat: its existential for them. The west can’t be blackmailed. Diplomacy won’t work. Russia will just have to be put back in its box. With as little loss of face but it has breached the norms. Even China accepts that.
 
I hope you are right, I really do, because it puts the West in a bind should Putin use a nasty weapon on Ukraine: to not respond will give Putin the green light to take whatever he wants; responding in kind risks escalation to Armageddon.
Generally, someone who says, "I am not bluffing" is indeed bluffing. Putin must know how this would go down in the countries on which he''s relying, such as India and China, who are already starting to edge away nervously. He has already trashed Russia's reputation as a reliable business partner; is he so bananas that he is going to trash the rest?
 
Russia doesn't fly aircraft in Ukrainian-controlled airspace - too high a risk of being shot down.

And with arrival of 6-8 NASAMS batteries ( my babies) Ukrainian skies will be effectively closed.

You can't drop something on a target that you can't fly over.

@DimitryZ

Good to know.

I realise you may not be at liberty to answer this question, but if you can, are you suggesting Ukrainian skies will be closed comprehensively, or only in certain regions?

John
 
Ukraine is not going to give up under a nuclear threat: its existential for them. The west can’t be blackmailed. Diplomacy won’t work. Russia will just have to be put back in its box. With as little loss of face but it has breached the norms. Even China accepts that.

I think the Russian federation has to be broken up. It's the last significant imperialist construction in Europe and the fairy stories it needs to tell itself to maintain its identity make it unlikely that it can ever be a democracy.
 


advertisement


Back
Top