Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[San Lumen]

If NATO gets involved it very likely would.

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.
It seems half the people here based their knowledge of nuclear doctrine on GI Joe Retaliation.

From a cost benefit analysis it makes more sense to use nukes on someone who does NOT have them.
Because the cost for you is less. If Russia is not willing to use them against Ukraine they are even less likely to use them against NATO!

You can see this in history. When the US had overwhelming nuclear superiority we relied heavily on nukes, and as the Soviets increased their nuclear arsenal we actually switched to more CONVENTIONAL weapons.

Because they could be used against the Soviets without starting a nuclear war.

Nukes would only likely to be used as an absolute last resort.
Short of NATO putting Moscow in a similar situation to Kharkiv Russia is not likely to use nuclear weapons.

I posted this multiple times but people still go with the ludicrous “hur durr NATO and Russia will fire nukes without logic or question the second they come into direct conventional conflict”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
This is actually a good illustration, the huge cost of using nukes on a nuclear power makes them very difficult to use if you do get into a conventional conflict.

That was a great way of putting it via comedy. Ive heard of that show Yes Minister before but never watched it.

[El Lazaro]

Nuclear armed country supplying troops to country being invaded by other nuclear armed country, literally never been heard of

I'm talking about NATO putting boots on the ground.

That’s crazy but NATO has deployed troops opposite to Russia in Afghanistan and Turkey-Syria in an official capacity, not to mention that there’s not a remarkable difference between that and unilateral action taken on the part of NATO nuclear powers in numerous wars fought against Russians forces since the invention of the atomic bomb. I’m not buying that one more of these will immediately cross an unspecified line in the sand and cause a sudden nuclear apocalypse.

[Adamede]

If NATO gets involved it very likely would.

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.
It seems half the people here based their knowledge of nuclear doctrine on GI Joe Retaliation.

From a cost benefit analysis it makes more sense to use nukes on someone who does NOT have them.
Because the cost for you is less. If Russia is not willing to use them against Ukraine they are even less likely to use them against NATO!

You can see this in history. When the US had overwhelming nuclear superiority we relied heavily on nukes, and as the Soviets increased their nuclear arsenal we actually switched to more CONVENTIONAL weapons.

Because they could be used against the Soviets without starting a nuclear war.

Nukes would only likely to be used as an absolute last resort.
Short of NATO putting Moscow in a similar situation to Kharkiv Russia is not likely to use nuclear weapons.

I posted this multiple times but people still go with the ludicrous “hur durr NATO and Russia will fire nukes without logic or question the second they come into direct conventional conflict”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
This is actually a good illustration, the huge cost of using nukes on a nuclear power makes them very difficult to use if you do get into a conventional conflict.

If that was true NATO would've already have gotten involved and India and China wouldn't duke it out with literal fucking sticks and stones in the Himalayas.

[Picairn]

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.
It seems half the people here based their knowledge of nuclear doctrine on GI Joe Retaliation.

Until NATO columns start marching into St. Petersburg and Moscow and Putin opens the silos as a last resort.

[Adamede]

I'm talking about NATO putting boots on the ground.

That’s crazy but NATO has deployed troops opposite to Russia in Afghanistan and Turkey-Syria in an official capacity, not to mention that there’s not a remarkable difference between that and unilateral action taken on the part of NATO nuclear powers in numerous wars fought against Russians forces since the invention of the atomic bomb. I’m not buying that one more of these will immediately cross an unspecified line in the sand and cause a sudden nuclear apocalypse.

This is nowhere near any of those conflicts in the middle east or central Asia. Putin made the threats he did for a reason.

[Adamede]

I'm talking about NATO putting boots on the ground.

I very much doubt that will happen.

Cool , not what I'm talking about.

[Jerzylvania]

Submitted for your approval straight from 1984... how many of you remember this one?
Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Two Tribes

When two tribes go to war
A point is all that you can score
(Score them all, score them all)
When two tribes go to war
A point is all that you can score
(Working for the black gas)...

We got two tribes
We got the bomb
We got the bomb, yeah
Yeah...

[San Lumen]

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.
It seems half the people here based their knowledge of nuclear doctrine on GI Joe Retaliation.

Until NATO columns start marching into St. Petersburg and Moscow and Putin opens the silos as a last resort.

which isn't going to happen.

[Adamede]

I disagree with your opinion, so I’ll nuke you because that’s how things work.

No one wants the end of the world. Putin doesn't want Moscow vaporized.

And NATO doesnt want NYC or London or Paris vaporized so they're not going to intervene.

[Rio Cana]

Still think Poland and Romania should ask Ukraine to give them permission to establish a type of safe zone inside parts of Western Ukraine under there control. I do not think even the Russians would go into those zones since it would not be to there advantage. Moldova should also be included.

Russia would see that as "aggression" by NATO and launch the nukes.

I do not really think they would do anything, as long as, the NATO members stay behind some kind of natural barrier which would separate them from the Russians like the Dniester river.

Map - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nistru.png

And all territory of the Oblast of Lviv south of the bug river (that top right blue line on the following map) should be included. That bottom blue line is the Dniester river. Bug river flows from Poland and forms part of the border with Ukraine.
Map - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... il_map.png

[Novus America]

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.

The danger here is not that someone would intentionally do a nuclear first strike, it's that tensions can get so high that one communication error can make someone think that the other side deployed a nuke, and launch nukes themselves in response.

While that cannot be ruled out entirely it is still not very likely. That is a low probability, not the certainty people here claim.

The risk of a limited conventional conflict between two nuclear powers is not zero, but it is still very low. India and Pakistan in the Kargil War or the Soviets and PRC in the 60s 1969 border conflict are examples of nuclear powers directly fighting each other without coming even close to launch nukes.

Because you really have very little to gain vs what you stand to lose by using nukes against another nuclear power, even in a conventional conflict with them.

[Hispida]

The danger here is not that someone would intentionally do a nuclear first strike, it's that tensions can get so high that one communication error can make someone think that the other side deployed a nuke, and launch nukes themselves in response.

While that cannot be ruled out entirely it is still not very likely. That is a low probability, not the certainty people here claim.

The risk of a limited conventional conflict between two nuclear powers is not zero, but it is still very low. India and Pakistan in the Kargil War or the Soviets and PRC in the 60s 1969 border conflict are examples of nuclear powers directly fighting each other without coming even close to launch nukes.

Because you really have very little to gain vs what you stand to lose by using nukes against another nuclear power, even in a conventional conflict with them.

nuclear close calls happened 13 (public!) times during the cold war.

[Adamede]

Russia would see that as "aggression" by NATO and launch the nukes.

I do not really think they would do anything, as long as, the NATO members stay behind some kind of natural barrier which would separate them from the Russians like the Dniester river.

Map - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nistru.png

And all territory of the Oblast of Lviv south of the bug river (that top right blue line on the following map) should be included. That bottom blue line is the Dniester river. Bug river flows from Poland and forms part of the border with Ukraine.
Map - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... il_map.png

The Russians want NATO behind the Carpathians.

[El Lazaro]

That’s crazy but NATO has deployed troops opposite to Russia in Afghanistan and Turkey-Syria in an official capacity, not to mention that there’s not a remarkable difference between that and unilateral action taken on the part of NATO nuclear powers in numerous wars fought against Russians forces since the invention of the atomic bomb. I’m not buying that one more of these will immediately cross an unspecified line in the sand and cause a sudden nuclear apocalypse.

This is nowhere near any of those conflicts in the middle east or central Asia. Putin made the threats he did for a reason.

I hope you don’t mean geographically, so I’ll assume you’re saying this time is different. Why is it different? Because Putin will make empty threats to protect his damaged ego?

[San Lumen]

This is nowhere near any of those conflicts in the middle east or central Asia. Putin made the threats he did for a reason.

I hope you don’t mean geographically, so I’ll assume you’re saying this time is different. Why is it different? Because Putin will make empty threats to protect his damaged ego?

Trump made empty threats too.

[Novus America]

No. Actually two nuclear powers are LESS likely to use nukes. Because the other can use them back.
It seems half the people here based their knowledge of nuclear doctrine on GI Joe Retaliation.

From a cost benefit analysis it makes more sense to use nukes on someone who does NOT have them.
Because the cost for you is less. If Russia is not willing to use them against Ukraine they are even less likely to use them against NATO!

You can see this in history. When the US had overwhelming nuclear superiority we relied heavily on nukes, and as the Soviets increased their nuclear arsenal we actually switched to more CONVENTIONAL weapons.

Because they could be used against the Soviets without starting a nuclear war.

Nukes would only likely to be used as an absolute last resort.
Short of NATO putting Moscow in a similar situation to Kharkiv Russia is not likely to use nuclear weapons.

I posted this multiple times but people still go with the ludicrous “hur durr NATO and Russia will fire nukes without logic or question the second they come into direct conventional conflict”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
This is actually a good illustration, the huge cost of using nukes on a nuclear power makes them very difficult to use if you do get into a conventional conflict.

If that was true NATO would've already have gotten involved and India and China wouldn't duke it out with literal fucking sticks and stones in the Himalayas.

Nukes are not the main reason reason. NATO does not want a conventional war because it lacks the political will.
India and the PRC is economic. A full shooting war would not likely cause a nuclear war, but would cause an economic crisis of massive proportions.

Also again see Kargil War and the 1969 PRC vs Soviet border battles.

[Picairn]

which isn't going to happen.

Anyone who advocates for NATO to go to war with Russia must accept that as a possibility.

[El Lazaro]

While that cannot be ruled out entirely it is still not very likely. That is a low probability, not the certainty people here claim.

The risk of a limited conventional conflict between two nuclear powers is not zero, but it is still very low. India and Pakistan in the Kargil War or the Soviets and PRC in the 60s 1969 border conflict are examples of nuclear powers directly fighting each other without coming even close to launch nukes.

Because you really have very little to gain vs what you stand to lose by using nukes against another nuclear power, even in a conventional conflict with them.

nuclear close calls happened 13 times in the cold war.

Just because there were close calls doesn’t mean they were caused by a similar situation, it’s mostly accidents and incorrect information that led government to believe they were under nuclear attack.

[Grenartia]

Can you share it when the website has it?

I fully intend to.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live ... crd1290833

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

There’s one point that was brought up elsewhere on the internet that I haven’t really seen here.

Modern long range artillery and anti-aircraft systems often have ranges measured in the hundreds of kilometres. If NATO puts troops and aircraft in Ukraine and expects them to stay alive, that could very easily mean having to do counterbattery strikes against Russian assets in Russia.

Nobody wants to roll that dice with a nuclear power.

[Hispida]

nuclear close calls happened 13 times in the cold war.

Just because there were close calls doesn’t mean they were caused by a similar situation, it’s mostly accidents and incorrect information that led government to believe they were under nuclear attack.

which is still a close call. a close call's a close call, no matter what causes it.

[Novus America]

While that cannot be ruled out entirely it is still not very likely. That is a low probability, not the certainty people here claim.

The risk of a limited conventional conflict between two nuclear powers is not zero, but it is still very low. India and Pakistan in the Kargil War or the Soviets and PRC in the 60s 1969 border conflict are examples of nuclear powers directly fighting each other without coming even close to launch nukes.

Because you really have very little to gain vs what you stand to lose by using nukes against another nuclear power, even in a conventional conflict with them.

nuclear close calls happened 13 times in the cold war.

Those were grossly exaggerated as to how “close”.
And did not happen during a conventional conflict.

For example Able Archer was a situation the Soviets though might be the start of a nuclear war but it of course involved a NATO simulating a very realist NUCLEAR attack for training.
Not a conventional fight becoming nuclear. Which has of course never happened.

[Umeria]

nuclear close calls happened 13 times in the cold war.

Just because there were close calls doesn’t mean they were caused by a similar situation, it’s mostly accidents and incorrect information that led government to believe they were under nuclear attack.

Accidents and incorrect information can happen again, and the more things escalate the higher chance there is of that leading to WWIII.

[San Lumen]

nuclear close calls happened 13 times in the cold war.

Those were grossly exaggerated as to how “close”.
And did not happen during a conventional conflict.

For example Able Archer was a situation the Soviets though might be the start of a nuclear war but it of course involved a NATO simulating a very realist NUCLEAR attack for training.
Not a conventional fight becoming nuclear. Which has of course never happened.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we have have ever come.

[Holy Tedalonia]

If I was a Russian citizen protesting the war and found out that the west intends to starve me. I'd say the west ought to fuck off. And change my stance to side with Putin

And then you can die for it Holy Tedalonia, because all the Putin worship in the world won't save you from starvation.

No I'd starve because the west seems think that regardless of my opinion on the war I deserve to starve because "Russia is bad". That what it comes down to for many Russians.

But what's far more likely going to happen is the Zealots who support Putin will respond with more West hatred and the people who don't like Putin will blame him for it.

Nope, because Putin isn't the one who decided it was a good idea to starve people. Other sanctions yes, were expected. But starving people?

And you miss the fact that Sanctions tend to make the populace angry at both groups, yes they will get mad at the West for this but yes they will also get mad at Putin for this because the West didn't just magically wake up one morning and decide to screw over Russia and no amount of Russian propaganda will change that fact, they know this happened because Putin wanted Ukraine, and even if the Russian people wanted Ukraine, they know it's still going to suck for them and they're going to wonder why didn't Putin do a better job of tricking the evil West?

Yeah, but it's considered an actively hostile action that goes beyond simply hurting someone economically to starve a group of people. These hurt everyone in Russia innocent or not, starving a country doesn't leave out exceptions