Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[Adamede]

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.

NATO lacks the will because they don't want to risk the nuclear threat. Might have a point with India and China, so long as fighting would be in the Himalayas.

[El Lazaro]

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.

NATO involvement is risky because it’s an escalation and unlikely because many of its members don’t want a war. Right now, Russia would have consequences if it invaded a NATO member. If NATO strikes first, there’s no deterrent for spillover. Any NATO action must take into consideration possible risk towards non-nuclear NATO states near Russia. Also, war would be very expensive and it is generally not good, so most member states don’t want to shoulder the cost if they can avoid it.

[San Lumen]

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

I don't want the Russian people to suffer but companies are voluntarily also choosing to not do business in Russia. They have that right.

[New haven america]

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

Stop with the nuclear weapon talk. No one is going to be launching nukes.

Oh no, Russia would definitely try.

But it wouldn't work, due to terrible upkeep and Europe's nuclear defense system.

[New haven 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.

Why?

India's not a part of NATO.

[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.

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

Sure that would probably cross the nuclear threshold but that would NOT be the result of a NATO Russia conventional conflict.

A conventional conflict between the two would almost certainly be limited to the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, perhaps Poland.

Even if NATO fought Russia it is almost certain the fighting would be in the border areas.
NATO columns could not reach Moscow even if they wanted too.

[Kowani]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls for Putin’s assassination

[New haven 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.

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

I've told you before, if those 2 cities remain relatively intact there's no reason to use them.

That goes against Russia's centuries long military doctrine. (And would actually be more like to lead to the destruction of Moscow and St. Petersburg, due to retaliation)

[Picairn]

Oh no, Russia would definitely try.

But it wouldn't work, due to terrible upkeep and Europe's nuclear defense system.

There is no way to defend against ICBMs. I've discussed it with you over this.

[San Lumen]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls for Putin’s assassination

He says want I wanted to say however there is a problem with that. Its illegal via an executive order signed by Bush Sr. Plus there are other issues too.

I also don't think its the right course of action.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Of course it’s the American chauvinist that wants to burn Eastern Europe in open war. Wipe out a few competitors in the export markets and sell more weapons to boot, what’s not to like?

[Adamede]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls for Putin’s assassination

Probably not the best idea to say that out loud but I can't say I disagree.

[New haven america]

Oh no, Russia would definitely try.

But it wouldn't work, due to terrible upkeep and Europe's nuclear defense system.

There is no way to defend against ICBMs. I've discussed it with you over this.

A. There is, the US and Europe have been working on it since the 50's
B. No you haven't

[Umeria]

If I see a mushroom cloud in the distance I'll rest assured that it was highly unlikely to happen.

[El Lazaro]

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.

If you only fight wars that are good for civilians, then you can only surrender. Necessary measures to prevent Russian warmongering pale in comparison to atrocities being committed against Ukraine, what Russia will do the Ukrainian people if they win, and what wars will result if Putin is allowed to win without consequences. War is bad, but pretending defense is never needed is gravely naive.

[Picairn]

I've told you before, if those 2 cities remain relatively intact there's no reason to use them.

That goes against Russia's centuries long military doctrine. (And would actually be more like to lead to the destruction of Moscow and St. Petersburg, due to retaliation)

I also asked you the same question that I'll ask you now: If NATO captures those two cities after the battles, do you really think Putin would flee to the Urals and hide?

[San Lumen]

If I see a mushroom cloud in the distance I'll rest assured that it was highly unlikely to happen.

Stop. This is not going to happen.

[Novus America]

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.

NATO lacks the will because they don't want to risk the nuclear threat. Might have a point with India and China, so long as fighting would be in the Himalayas.

No, that is not the main reason why. Although nuclear weapons use would be EXTREMELY unlikely there would still very possibly many deaths and almost 100% certainty billions in expenses.

Nuclear powers have fought limited wars without going nuclear. Which is perfectly logical. A nuclear power has little to gain and far more to lose from pushing a conventional war against another nuclear power to a nuclear level.

[Picairn]

A. There is, the US and Europe have been working on it since the 50's
B. No you haven't

I did, you're lying through your teeth. Ground-based Missile Defense only has 44 interceptors and are unreliable, requiring 4 interceptors to 97% successfully intercept an ICBM.

[Umeria]

If I see a mushroom cloud in the distance I'll rest assured that it was highly unlikely to happen.

Stop. This is not going to happen.

Every post that says this increases the likelihood that it will.

[New haven america]

I've told you before, if those 2 cities remain relatively intact there's no reason to use them.

That goes against Russia's centuries long military doctrine. (And would actually be more like to lead to the destruction of Moscow and St. Petersburg, due to retaliation)

I also asked you the same question that I'll ask you now: If NATO captures those two cities after the battles, do you really think Putin would flee to the Urals and hide?

He's currently sitting in a bunker in the Urals right now, so...

[Malaiya Union]

How effective are anti-tank weapons? Ukraine currently has been supplied by 14.800 fresh anti-tank weapons like the Javelins... so far. Russia has 13.000 tanks and 20.000 armored fighting vehicles.

You know, given the state of Russian logistics, somehow I become a bit more optimistic about Ukraine's prospects. If the Ukrainians are able to, say, wipe out more than half of the invading tanks and vehicles with far cheaper man-held weapons, we might be seeing the definite end to the era of tanks.

Apparently they're quite effective. There are US estimates that out of 300 javelin missiles fired by the Ukrainians as of 2 March, 280 of them took out one armored vehicle each. That's quite an amazing kill rate. Combined with strikes against Russia's decrepit logistics the Ukrainians may very well inflict a mind-boggling amount of military casualty.

[Adamede]

If I see a mushroom cloud in the distance I'll rest assured that it was highly unlikely to happen.

Stop. This is not going to happen.

So long as war doesn't break out between any nuclear power.

[Picairn]

He's currently sitting in a bunker in the Urals right now, so...

So what? Putin isn't going to take a NATO punch all the way to the Urals.

[San Lumen]

Stop. This is not going to happen.

Every post that says this increases the likelihood that it will.

Yeah Putin is seeing this and every time he sees this it increases his desire to end the world.