It is likely that these launchers would need to travel hundreds of miles to get into a position where they could attack Ukraine, as they only have a range of up to 500 kilometers (310 miles). But from a mechanical perspective it’s unlikely, in my opinion, that they would get that far.
I believe Putin’s tactical nuclear weapons are unusable. Even if their vehicles do work, the minute they turn their engines on to move they will be picked up by US and NATO intelligence.
I hope the private discussions the Biden and Putin administrations have apparently been having are along the lines of, ‘you move your tactical nukes and NATO will take them out with long range precision guided missiles’.
The most likely nuclear scenario is, I believe, an attack by Russia on a nuclear power station in Ukraine. This could have a similar effect to a tactical nuclear explosion but would be easier to deny for the Russians, who accuse Ukraine of deliberately bombing their own power stations.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/28/opinions/how-close-putin-nuclear-war-de-bretton-gordon/index.html
For a country that freely gave away it's nuclear deterrent, it has already hinted that it would do this. If Ukraine wouldn't be in NATO, this would be the totally logical policy. Hence it's far better for Ukraine to join NATO after this war as developing a nuclear weapon is still quite costly in this World.However this war ends, Ukraine will end up with a large incentive to develop nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching strategic targets in Russia in order to avoid future attacks. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That's what Russia wants the West to think, at least.I think Putin wants to stop where he is and just defend the (soon to be) annexed territories. If they're part of Russia, attempts to take them back are supposed to be an attack on Russia. — frank
As I said earlier, if Putin opts to use tactical nukes, he is playing Russian roulette, and not only in figuratively.Given the inner turmoil in Russia, people fleeing and protesting and so on, the timer is on for Putin, much more than at any stage during this war.
We can hope this doesn't cause him to break and go for broke, or he could be thrown out by the military. Too many variables in the equation. — Manuel
I think this is a little too much bragging from Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. Is NATO going to attack them when the launchers move out of their garrisons? Hell no! Hence you are talking about a truck-size target that can be stored in any storage facility, garage, cowshed or where ever. It can be anywhere. The idea that NATO could pick up all the tactical nukes is simply ludicrous. In fact, just how elusive the HIMARS launchers have been tells how difficult this really is.I believe Putin’s tactical nuclear weapons are unusable. Even if their vehicles do work, the minute they turn their engines on to move they will be picked up by US and NATO intelligence.
The idea that NATO could pick up all the tactical nukes is simply ludicrous. In fact, just how elusive the HIMARS launchers have been tells how difficult this really is.
I think this goes a bit to the propaganda side.... — ssu
I’m not following. How could lobbing a few tactical nukes in the current war - now framed as a legitimate defence of mother Russian territory - make any difference to the strategic arsenal of subs, missiles and cruise missiles? — apokrisis
The reason I related its use to the logic of MAD is that once one introduces nukes into the battlespace, it doesn't make sense to send just a few. — Paine
So going nuclear in a delimited tactical fashion wouldn’t be to win in Ukraine and then declare hostilities over. — apokrisis
I mean, it's a dumb question. What is the answer supposed to be: "well, after we've come under nuclear attack, I might start having second thoughts about the doctrine of retaliation?"Or maybe "hmmm, I suppose I be paralyzed by fear and unable to act?" All you can really say about strategic deterrence is "yes, no doubt should exist, we will retaliate." Hell, you'd say that even if you're arsenal didn't actually work. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I see you like Vexler. I agree with his argument that the whole 'NATO as a threat narrative' is a scam. It boils down to complaining that they won't let Putin be an asshole without consequences. — Paine
Of an original estimated 30,000 Russian troops that once faced the Baltic countries and southern Finland, as many as 80 percent of them have been diverted to Ukraine, according to three senior European defense officials in the region, leaving Russia with only a skeleton crew in what was once its densest concentration of military force facing NATO territory.
Now, defense officials across the Nordic-Baltic region are questioning how, and when, Russia could ever reconstitute its military forces along NATO’s northeastern flank, particularly as Finland and Sweden stand poised to join NATO.
“The redeployment of ground forces has been necessary because there is a desperate shortage of trained soldiers,” wrote Harri Ohra-aho, an intelligence advisor to the Finnish defense ministry and the former uniformed chief of defense intelligence, in an email. “It has nothing to do with the NATO threat (which hasn’t existed except in the rhetoric of the Russian leadership).”
I don't know what Putin's ambitions are. But if he thought using tactical nukes would give him Ukraine, I think he would use them. — Paine
Suddenly, clearing Ukrainian air space would not look so provocative. — Paine
↪boethius This also reads like fiction.
I really think people here have a tendency to extrapolate all sorts of stories from a minimum of facts. — Benkei
Did you forgot the USSR and the German very very Democratic Republic? — Olivier5
Let's not make things more complicated than they are. This war could be over tomorrow and everything back to normal if the regime had the good sense of offing Mr. Putin. One bullet would be enough. — Olivier5
This was basically totally normal during the Cold War.The US is giving (not selling) arms to Ukraine, providing training and managing strategy and tactics "indirectly" via "advice", and providing the intelligence required for planning and targeting. These are obvious acts of war along with the sanctions. — boethius
However, I am at least putting undisputed facts about the past together, rather than telling a story — boethius
Russian language and culture suppression made Putin do it!!! Gentlemen! Here are the facts, not stories,... :snicker:1. War has been going on since 2014 with Russian language and culture suppression, that, at minimum, is likely to attract the Kremlins attention as a problem to deal with. — boethius
So according to you Russia's commitment to modernizing it's armed forces is proven by a single test firing of an experimental missile? The massive footage of Russia scraping the bottom of the barrel with 50 year-old tanks sent to Ukraine, with the mobilization troops in conditions that show total unpreparedness for them doesn't refute this modernization, because they test whatever exotic missile they have? Incredible pro-Russian propaganda. :rofl:Russia heavily invests in modernising its armed forces since 2014 as well as preparing for sanctions. That the Russian economy and currency survive essentially maximum sanctions is I think good evidence they adequately prepared for the latter, and that one of the first things they do is launch a hypersonic missile is good indication of the former; the war launched, by definition, after accomplishing these pre-conditions. — boethius
Whow. I really haven't heard such blazing over the top apologism from anyone in this thread for Putin.7. Lastly, we know Putin is a sophisticated enough in his thinking and planning to navigate the halls of power for several decades without any major self-inflicted harms to himself or Russia, and certainly doing better than his predecessor which is the only objective comparison standard. Certainly anyone can lose their grip on reality at any moment, but there is no indication that's true of Putin so far. — boethius
This was basically totally normal during Cold War. — ssu
Russian language and culture suppression ... is likely to attract the Kremlins attention — boethius
Russian language and culture suppression made Putin do it!!! — ssu
Russian language and culture suppression made Putin do it!!! Gentlemen! Here are the facts, not stories,... :snicker: — ssu
So according to you Russia's commitment to modernizing it's armed forces is proven by a single test firing of an experimental missile? The massive footage of Russia scraping the bottom of the barrel with 50 year-old tanks sent to Ukraine, with the mobilization troops in conditions that show total unpreparedness for them doesn't refute this modernization, because they test whatever exotic missile they have? Incredible pro-Russian propaganda. :rofl: — ssu
Whow. I really haven't heard such blazing over the top apologism from anyone in this thread for Putin. — ssu
Making mountains from soundbites is a cancer in modern politics. There is a sea of solid, legitimate reasons to dislike Liz Trusts without resorting to that. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Context matters. This is like Tucker Carlson's latest shitty attempt to prove the US attacked the Nord Stream pipeline by playing a soundbite from a response specifically about Nord Stream 2, which never even opened, and was already canceled after the invasion began. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The context here is a hypothetical where the PM of a country with what is essentially a "no first strike" doctrine gets dragged down to a bunker and given the "Letters of Last Resort," which are specifically to be used in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK or a decapitation strike that kills the PM and other senior leadership in an expected attempt to disrupt C&C before a nuclear strike. — Count Timothy von Icarus
On a side note, I find the concept fairly interesting. There are supposedly five letters with the options:
-retaliate with a nuclear strike;
-do not retaliate with nuclear weapons;
-the crew should use their own judgement;
-place the submarine under an allies control, often the US in a NATO context
-if all hope is lost, find Harry Potter — Count Timothy von Icarus
Don't undersell their commitment to historical restorations, they're now using T-62s and T-64s, they're using 60-70 year old tank designs. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons. They already hold enough territory to claim victory and there is very little chance of Ukraine mounting the types of offensives that would allow them to retake it, especially after the mobilization. — Tzeentch
All of this nuclear fear-mongering is based on the assumption that Russia is losing and Putin is desperate. I don't think this is the case at all. Considering the amount of troops they have had deployed it's plausible that their initial war goals have already been reached. — Tzeentch
Actually, they did thought about far earlier to get Crimea. Just after the Soviet Union collapsed, the debate started like this:And the point of this fact is simply to establish the obvious that the Kremlin has obviously been thinking about conflict in Ukraine since 2014, if not before. — boethius
See here(LA Times, 22nd May, 1992) Running the risk of provoking Ukraine to new heights of fury, Russia’s Parliament on Thursday ruled invalid the 1954 transfer of the balmy Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine.
In a move sure to bring relations between the two superpowers of the Commonwealth of Independent States even closer to the boiling point, the Russian Parliament declared that Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev’s “gift” of the Crimea to Ukraine 38 years ago “lacked legal force.” It called for negotiations on the future of the choice hunk of land.
Although Russian lawmakers stressed repeatedly that they were making no territorial claims on the Crimea, Ukrainian diplomats perceived the resolution as the harbinger of major political--and possibly military--battles.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.