Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

The thing about executive orders is that the current executive can revoke them with the stroke of a pen...

[New haven america]

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

1. I did, you're lying through your teeth. 2. Ground-based Missile Defense only has 44 interceptors and are unreliable, requiring 4 interceptors to 97% successfully intercept an ICBM.

1. Source?
2. It's actually called The Nuclear Shield, and it's not just ground based, it's also naval and air based, has been tested multiple time, and has been successful in almost every one.

Do you really think the US would just spend 70 years twiddling its thumbs and going "Boy, nukes, whataya do 'bout those?"

[Grenartia]

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.

Missile defense is a very tricky game, as its very existence undermines MAD, which is the only paradigm that has prevented war.

Game theory indicates that if you know your enemy is about to successfully develop and then deploy a truly viable missile defense system, you MUST pre-emptively strike to prevent them from gaining the edge and attacking you while remaining invulnerable to counterattack themselves.

[Novus 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.

That is wrong. Both the US and Russians have anti ICBM systems.

Now neither would stop all missiles if both shot everything they had, but they would shoot down several.
But that only happens if you not only have a nuclear war, but one that goes to the highest level (it is very likely a nuclear war would actually involve both sides only using a small portion of their nuclear forces).

A more limited conventional war is HIGHLY unlikely to get to that level.

[El Lazaro]

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

When I don’t see a mushroom cloud, I’ll rest assured that the obviously correct view was obviously correct and people were just fear-mongering instead of finding responsible ways to handle their concerns, choosing to spread unfounded terror to others who are worried enough already. Can you all cut the doomsday predictions out?

[New haven america]

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

That is wrong. Both the US and Russians have anti ICBM systems.

Now neither would stop all missiles if both shot everything they had, but they would shoot down several.
But that only happens if you not only have a nuclear war, but one that goes to the highest level (it is very likely a nuclear war would actually involve both sides only using a small portion of their nuclear forces).

Also if you believe Putin's claims that they have 1600-6000 functional missiles.

When in reality I don't think they even break into the triple digits.

[New haven america]

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.

He took a Ukrainian punch all the way to the Urals.

[Novus America]

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.

Which means it would still be able to shoot down 10 or more. There are still defenses against ICBMS even if they can still be overwhelmed by enough ICBMS. And that is only for the mid course, we have other systems that can hit ICBMS in the boost and terminal phased.

And the issue is of course we have too few GMDs, we should have 600 instead of 44…

[Grenartia]

1. I did, you're lying through your teeth. 2. Ground-based Missile Defense only has 44 interceptors and are unreliable, requiring 4 interceptors to 97% successfully intercept an ICBM.

1. Source?
2. It's actually called The Nuclear Shield, and it's not just ground based, it's also naval and air based, has been tested multiple time, and has been successful in almost every one.

Do you really think the US would just spend 70 years twiddling its thumbs and going "Boy, nukes, whataya do 'bout those?"

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.

Missile defense is a very tricky game, as its very existence undermines MAD, which is the only paradigm that has prevented war.

Game theory indicates that if you know your enemy is about to successfully develop and then deploy a truly viable missile defense system, you MUST pre-emptively strike to prevent them from gaining the edge and attacking you while remaining invulnerable to counterattack themselves.

To add on to this, the US has developed a missile defense program, but not nearly on the scale necessary to defend against full-out attack from Russia or even China, for the exact reasons I just outlined: doing so would invite a pre-emptive strike from one or both of them. Its really only intended to have the edge over Iran and North Korea. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty allows for only limited missile defense programs in the US and Russia. Russia chose to concentrate most of its ABMs around Moscow. The US chose to use its allotment to defend its missile bases.

[Picairn]

1. Source?
2. It's actually called The Nuclear Shield, and it's not just ground based, it's also naval and air based, has been tested multiple time, and has been successful in almost every one.

Do you really think the US would just spend 70 years twiddling its thumbs and going "Boy, nukes, whataya do 'bout those?"

1. Page 49. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=516058&hilit=GMD&start=1200
2. Europe uses the same missile interceptors from the US GMD. The AEGIS defense system on sea are for short and medium range missiles, not ICBMs. Both Patriot and THAAD can not intercept an ICBM either.

He took a Ukrainian punch all the way to the Urals.

Anyone who believes Ukraine is winning is living in a different world.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

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

When I don’t see a mushroom cloud, I’ll rest assured that the obviously correct view was obviously correct and people were just fear-mongering instead of finding responsible ways to handle their concerns, choosing to spread unfounded terror to others who are worried enough already. Can you all cut the doomsday predictions out?

If putting NATO troops on the ground would increase the odds of a strategic nuclear exchange by so much as a single percentage point, putting troops on the ground would be decidedly the wrong thing to do.

[Gallia-]

Considering Azov is about typical for a Territorial Defense Battalion, has managed to stonewall the "fearsome" and "elite" Kadyrovtsy, and has support of a substantial minority of Ukrainians...

Yeah, actually. He'll probably rule a rump state from Lviv or Kyiv and Azov will get Mariupol as a Nazi country to own, along with all the other Nazi battalions like Dnipro-1, Aidar, and S14. This suits the oligarchs in charge of Ukraine very well. A weak and feeble central government consumed by civil war means that no anti-corruption mandates can ever work, and Ukraine will remain a little piggy bank to abscond wealth out of.

Lol.

I’ll leave you to your fantasies about a Ukrainian Reich if you want, I just wanted to say that they’re silly

And yet it's a problem Zelenskyy will have to solve if he beats Russia.

A Ukrainian Reich would be much like Puntland in Somalia, an unrecognized state that is semi-autonomous and self-governing, simply because the central government is too weak.

The territorial defense battalions were a terrible idea from the start but they exist because Ukraine is too corrupt to fix its problems.

This will only be exacerbated in the future.

[El Lazaro]

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.

Missile defense is a very tricky game, as its very existence undermines MAD, which is the only paradigm that has prevented war.

Game theory indicates that if you know your enemy is about to successfully develop and then deploy a truly viable missile defense system, you MUST pre-emptively strike to prevent them from gaining the edge and attacking you while remaining invulnerable to counterattack themselves.

That’s true, but humans have a weird tendency where technology for killing people advances faster than technology that stops people from dying. I think there will never been a defense system that prevents it from being too costly and I hope there will be one that makes it no costlier than it has to be.

[Arlenton]

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.

The thing about executive orders is that the current executive can revoke them with the stroke of a pen...

Isn't that for courts to decide? Like with DACA? Or am I mistaken?

[San Lumen]

The thing about executive orders is that the current executive can revoke them with the stroke of a pen...

Isn't that for courts to decide? Like with DACA? Or am I mistaken?

Nope the President can rescind an executive order at any time.

[Umeria]

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.

No, what's increasing is public approval for reckless actions. Neither side desires to end the world, but both sides will launch nukes if the other side does. And the more aggressive you are, the more likely it is that a communication error makes the other side think you're launching a nuke.

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

When I don’t see a mushroom cloud, I’ll rest assured that the obviously correct view was obviously correct and people were just fear-mongering instead of finding responsible ways to handle their concerns, choosing to spread unfounded terror to others who are worried enough already. Can you all cut the doomsday predictions out?

What will prevent a nuclear war is the US, NATO, and Russia knowing that a nuclear war is possible. You are simultaneously predicting that cooler heads will prevail and attacking those cooler heads for not being aggressive enough.

[Novus America]

1. Source?
2. It's actually called The Nuclear Shield, and it's not just ground based, it's also naval and air based, has been tested multiple time, and has been successful in almost every one.

Do you really think the US would just spend 70 years twiddling its thumbs and going "Boy, nukes, whataya do 'bout those?"

1. Page 49. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=516058&hilit=GMD&start=1200
2. Europe uses the same missile interceptors from the US GMD. The AEGIS defense system on sea are for short and medium range missiles, not ICBMs. Both Patriot and THAAD can not intercept an ICBM either.

Europe does not use GMD. Yes GMD has a 56% effectiveness if one is shot against a single ICBM, and 97% if 4 are launched against 1 ICBM, Which yes means ENOUGH ICBMS could overwhelm it. But that is different than NO DEFENSE.

1 million cruise missile overcome any current deployed defense but it would be silly to say there is no defense against cruise missiles.

SM-3 CAN be used against ICBMS, particularly in the boost an terminal phases as well.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R ... rcontinen/

Now sure, the US could not stop every Russian ICBM. But Russia launching everything they got in a conventional war is highly unlikely to the point of absurd.

[San Lumen]

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

No, what's increasing is public approval for reckless actions. Neither side desires to end the world, but both sides will launch nukes if the other side does. And the more aggressive you are, the more likely it is that a communication error makes the other side think you're launching a nuke.

When I don’t see a mushroom cloud, I’ll rest assured that the obviously correct view was obviously correct and people were just fear-mongering instead of finding responsible ways to handle their concerns, choosing to spread unfounded terror to others who are worried enough already. Can you all cut the doomsday predictions out?

What will prevent a nuclear war is the US, NATO, and Russia knowing that a nuclear war is possible. You are simultaneously predicting that cooler heads will prevail and attacking those cooler heads for not being aggressive enough.

Stop with the doomsday talk. Its beyond tiresome at this point.

[Umeria]

No, what's increasing is public approval for reckless actions. Neither side desires to end the world, but both sides will launch nukes if the other side does. And the more aggressive you are, the more likely it is that a communication error makes the other side think you're launching a nuke.

What will prevent a nuclear war is the US, NATO, and Russia knowing that a nuclear war is possible. You are simultaneously predicting that cooler heads will prevail and attacking those cooler heads for not being aggressive enough.

Stop with the doomsday talk. Its beyond tiresome at this point.

I will stop when the danger has passed.

[El Lazaro]

When I don’t see a mushroom cloud, I’ll rest assured that the obviously correct view was obviously correct and people were just fear-mongering instead of finding responsible ways to handle their concerns, choosing to spread unfounded terror to others who are worried enough already. Can you all cut the doomsday predictions out?

If putting NATO troops on the ground would increase the odds of a strategic nuclear exchange by so much as a single percentage point, putting troops on the ground would be decidedly the wrong thing to do.

You also have a 1% chance of dying if you don’t avoid cars at all costs, I can play the worrywart game too. NATO military policy should be based on confining this war, considering the very real risk of more invasions, and not catastrophizing to the point where they can’t act in a reasonable manner. If you could decrease the chance of nuclear war by 99% by surrendering the world to Russia, would you also do it?

[Bombadil]

No, what's increasing is public approval for reckless actions. Neither side desires to end the world, but both sides will launch nukes if the other side does. And the more aggressive you are, the more likely it is that a communication error makes the other side think you're launching a nuke.


What will prevent a nuclear war is the US, NATO, and Russia knowing that a nuclear war is possible. You are simultaneously predicting that cooler heads will prevail and attacking those cooler heads for not being aggressive enough.

Stop with the doomsday talk. Its beyond tiresome at this point.

Unless you're inside Putin's head you don't know what he's thinking, given what he's already done, and given he's been quite clear about using them if he thinks it's necessary, it's not off the table.

It is, however, a moot discussion because, again, we don't know what's running through his head.

[El Lazaro]

Stop with the doomsday talk. Its beyond tiresome at this point.

I will stop when the danger has passed.

The danger is near the constant level that it always is at. You should set a more reasonable bar or prepare to go hoarse.

[Novus America]

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.

Missile defense is a very tricky game, as its very existence undermines MAD, which is the only paradigm that has prevented war.

Game theory indicates that if you know your enemy is about to successfully develop and then deploy a truly viable missile defense system, you MUST pre-emptively strike to prevent them from gaining the edge and attacking you while remaining invulnerable to counterattack themselves.

You might want to retire that crushed velvet suit with the bell bottoms…

MAD which was NEVER an official US nuclear doctrine was really a 70s thing. It was not a thing in the 40s, 50s or most of the 60s, and was also rejected by the 80s.
MAD at best stopped war in the 70s only.

So it was not the only thing.

The main purpose of missile defense against an all out strategic nuclear saturation attack is to screw up the other sides cost benefit analysis on nuclear weapons.
If you are not sure how well your nuclear weapons are going to work, you are less likely to use them.

But it also is very effective in discouraging more limited nuclear attacks.

Which are more likely than the launch everything you have kind anyways.

[San Lumen]

Stop with the doomsday talk. Its beyond tiresome at this point.

Unless you're inside Putin's head you don't know what he's thinking, given what he's already done, and given he's been quite clear about using them if he thinks it's necessary, it's not off the table.

It is, however, a moot discussion because, again, we don't know what's running through his head.

Putin is not going to launch nuclear weapons. He doesn;t want Moscow vaporized. He is pure evil but he's not suicidal.

[Novus America]

I will stop when the danger has passed.

The danger is near the constant level that it always is at. You should set a more reasonable bar or prepare to go hoarse.

Exactly. The threat is never zero, but it actually does not that dramatically increase in a conventional war vs peacetime.

And we cannot let it cripple us completely.