Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[Bombadil]

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.

I can certainly see him launching one on the Ukraine if he feels he's losing.. he's gone all in on this one and can't afford to fail. If he fails it's likely his own life at stake so everything will be on the table.

It's just not worth talking about right now because so much is up in the air.

[Novus America]

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?

Exactly. It makes zero sense to take the approach any increase in the risk is unacceptable or we would just disband our military entirely. We constantly take actions that might slightly increase the risk, but we still take them.

Because otherwise we could not do anything at all.

A conventional war does not actually increase the risk much. Not enough to stop all conventional wars.

[New haven 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.

1. lol, you only went over 1 aspect of defense and said "It's impossible!"

So no, you didn't, you went over 1 small facet.
2. Everything you said in this point is false.

[Holy Nacimerian Empire]

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

I can certainly see him launching one on the Ukraine if he feels he's losing.. he's gone all in on this one and can't afford to fail. If he fails it's likely his own life at stake so everything will be on the table.

It's just not worth talking about right now because so much is up in the air.

why would he nuke the land he plans on occupying?

[El Lazaro]

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.

It’s not just Putin’s head, there’s an entire chain of command that the order will go through and the crew of each submarine, missile launch site, and bomber will have to make their own choice. If a lunatic chooses to go ahead with an express violation of Russian nuclear doctrine, then everyone will have to decide whether their own suicide is worth it.

[New haven 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?"

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.

Again, do you really believe Russia has 6000 nukes ready to go?

[New haven america]

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.

It’s not just Putin’s head, there’s an entire chain of command that the order will go through and the crew of each submarine, missile launch site, and bomber will have to make their own choice. If a lunatic chooses to go ahead with an express violation of Russian nuclear doctrine, then everyone will have to decide whether their own suicide is worth it.

Actually, Russian soldiers are trained to never act on their own in a nuclear scenario.

Refusing to launch (Or even hesitating) during drills and tests is considered tantamount to treason and immediate expulsion from the military.

[El Lazaro]

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?

Would you mind specifying who you’re talking about?

[Grenartia]

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.

That actually leads to an interesting tangent. Missile defense is (at least for the foreseeable future) something of a pipedream and economically infeasible. Lets take Reagan's Star Wars. One of its most ambitious programs was Project Excalibur, where x-ray lasers (powered themselves by nuclear bombs, and thus, were one-use only) would take out multiple Soviet missiles at once. The actual process of converting the energy of the bombs into x-ray lasers is still not really developed, but presuming some mystical black box that could do so, the fundamental issue is that the number of nukes it could take out was less than the number of nukes it would cost, meaning that the Soviets would have a simple counter to it: simply launch more nukes. The other major program "Smart Rocks", and its follow up "Brilliant Pebbles" (both based on kinetic kill vehicles) suffered from the same issue.

The only strategic success of the SDI program was that it forced the already economically strained Soviets to also start a similar program, to maintain parity, and thus, contributed to the collapse of the USSR.

[Grenartia]

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.

As is your stubborn and baseless denialism of it.

[Bombadil]

I can certainly see him launching one on the Ukraine if he feels he's losing.. he's gone all in on this one and can't afford to fail. If he fails it's likely his own life at stake so everything will be on the table.

It's just not worth talking about right now because so much is up in the air.

why would he nuke the land he plans on occupying?

If it transpires that he can't occupy it then damage it outright. He believes it's a drug-addled Nazi state that is a threat to Russia.

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.

It’s not just Putin’s head, there’s an entire chain of command that the order will go through and the crew of each submarine, missile launch site, and bomber will have to make their own choice. If a lunatic chooses to go ahead with an express violation of Russian nuclear doctrine, then everyone will have to decide whether their own suicide is worth it.

I'm not talking an arsenal, I'm talking one strategic hit. And if that's the case I don't if, or how, NATO will respond because I don't think they will respond with nuclear.

[Adamede]

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

I can certainly see him launching one on the Ukraine if he feels he's losing.. he's gone all in on this one and can't afford to fail. If he fails it's likely his own life at stake so everything will be on the table.

It's just not worth talking about right now because so much is up in the air.

I dunno I feel like that would be the quickest way to find himself forced into an early "retirement". He may be a dictator but he can't just order a nuclear bombing because he feels like it.

[Holy Nacimerian Empire]

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

As is your stubborn and baseless denialism of it.

No more so the fact you guys dont know the process of actually sending a nuke to unconstruct a city works

[Dtn]

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.

1. lol, you only went over 1 aspect of defense and said "It's impossible!"

So no, you didn't, you went over 1 small facet.
2. Everything you said in this point is false.

He's absolutely correct with the caveat that AEGIS and SM-3 have a limited ability against ICBMs provided they received tracking data from systems probably primarily oriented against North Korea.

[Picairn]

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

This is pure semantic argument to refute an unassailable fact that US and NATO has no defense against Russian ICBMs in a full scale nuclear war. The SM-3 test was one single test, and is not a guarantee against Russian ICBMs given that it had its own failures such as the failure to intercept an MRBM in 2017. Not to mention that it was designed and tested for defense against lesser nuclear states like North Korea, and generally for short and medium range ballistic missiles than ICBMs.

[El Lazaro]

It’s not just Putin’s head, there’s an entire chain of command that the order will go through and the crew of each submarine, missile launch site, and bomber will have to make their own choice. If a lunatic chooses to go ahead with an express violation of Russian nuclear doctrine, then everyone will have to decide whether their own suicide is worth it.

Actually, Russian soldiers are trained to never act on their own in a nuclear scenario.

Refusing to launch during drills and tests is considered tantamount to treason and immediate expulsion from the military.

They can basically ruin their own lives or disobey an order. It’s likely death of hundreds of millions of people and the worsening of billions of lives, where you will be the second if you are lucky, or likely harsh consequences for yourself. Starting a nuclear war unprovoked is a pretty simple decision unless you’re a sociopath and enjoy the feel of blood on your hands.

[Grenartia]

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.

It was certainly a thing by at least 62, otherwise, the Cuban Missile Crisis would be called the Cuban War instead, and we'd be living in a post-apocalypse.

All missile defense does is ensure that any nuclear exchange that happens is all-out, instead of limited. Furthermore, what doctrine prevented nuclear war in any decade other than 'the 70s', perchance? The fear of a guaranteed counterstrike that would overwhelm and destroy the attacker is literally the ONLY thing that has prevented nuclear war.

[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?"

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.

True we do not have enough to stop a full out Russian attack completely. But again such a full out attack resulting from a conventional war is very low.

And it is not actually for that reason. It is more we are cheap. Maybe if we could instantly deploy as guaranteed 100% effective against every attack one, maybe Russia would try to hit it first, but such a system does not exist and never will.
A system that partially reduces their confidence in their ability to strike increases deterrence against such a strike.

A missile defense does not need to be 100% effective to have value.
If the other side would launch 100 missiles, each killing 1 million people, and you can only shoot down 10 it still would save 10 million lives and still reduces their likelihood of launching a limited attack.

Thus pushing the nuclear threshold higher.

[Picairn]

1. lol, you only went over 1 aspect of defense and said "It's impossible!"

So no, you didn't, you went over 1 small facet.
2. Everything you said in this point is false.

1. Because GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) is the only missile defense system explicitly designed to counter ICBMs. Patriot, THAAD, and AEGIS are mainly designed and tested against short and medium range ballistic missiles, not ICBMs.
2. LOL "You're wrong" 5th grade retort. Why don't you come back later with facts next time?

[Holy Nacimerian Empire]

Russia isnt a complete pariah it seems. African nations still are willing to be friends with russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/worl ... frica.html

[New haven america]

1. lol, you only went over 1 aspect of defense and said "It's impossible!"

So no, you didn't, you went over 1 small facet.
2. Everything you said in this point is false.

1. Because GMD is the only missile defense system explicitly designed to counter ICBMs. Patriot, THAAD, and AEGIS are mainly designed and tested against short and medium range ballistic missiles, not ICBMs.
2. LOL "You're wrong" 5th grade retort. Why don't you come back later with facts next time?

2. Don't have to, someone else already went over it.

Read the thread.

[Pasong Tirad]

As is your stubborn and baseless denialism of it.

No more so the fact you guys dont know the process of actually sending a nuke to unconstruct a city works

Just because Grenartia is pushing back against Lumen's flat-out denialism of the possibility of a nuclear launch doesn't mean she believes the process is as simple as pushing a big red button.

[Grenartia]

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.

Again, do you really believe Russia has 6000 nukes ready to go?

I don't recall saying one way or another that it did, but it would not shock me if it had at least 1500 ready to go. 400 is the minimum generally accepted to be necessary to ensure MAD. 6000 sounds admittedly high, but when you account for MIRVs, it becomes more believable. Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles basically allows one missile to carry between 6-10 warheads (you can swap out a nuke for a penetration aid, which is basically a dummy warhead that serves to counter an ABM system) and have each of them go to a different target. Given your "6000 nukes" figure, that's anywhere between 600 and 1000 individual missiles, which sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Grenartia]

As is your stubborn and baseless denialism of it.

No more so the fact you guys dont know the process of actually sending a nuke to unconstruct a city works

lolwat

[El Lazaro]

Russia isnt a complete pariah it seems. African nations still are willing to be friends with russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/worl ... frica.html

Eritrea is one of the least useful allies you could possibly have, the only thing you’ll get is worse relations with Ethiopia