Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[Holy Nacimerian Empire]

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.

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

[Dhorvas]

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.

Yes, taking risks is a part of life but people when discussing the topic of risk taking very often don't seem to realize thats only part of it. You take risks when the reward may outweigh the risk. If the risk is assumed to very much outweigh the reward, then taking that risk would, objectively, make one a fool. Risk taking isnt done in a vacuum. People generalize on this way too much.

In this situation, the increased risk of a nuclear confrontation from direct nato action is weighed against keeping ukraine from being annexed/puppeted by russia. Most nations do not see the latter as outweighing the former. Now many argue "but theyll just keep doing it and take the baltics" etc, but the objective reality is russia invading a nato/eu state is a very different line than ukraine. The same is true of the taiwan scenario people keep bringing up. They are not the same situations. We can debate putin's sense of reason or rationality at this point but it is still a very different line to cross and therefore not the same argument.

If he did invade nato/the eu, the the risk vs reward assessment changes and is reevaluated. The actions from the west are at least unexpected but show movement in the right direction to taking a stronger stance in the long run, but none were ever going to consider actually putting all of nato into war over ukraine, a non-ally. The rewards are not high enough vs the perceived risks yet.

[Picairn]

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

Read the thread.

Someone? Who? Thanks for admitting that you have no argument left on your own.

[El Lazaro]

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.

There exists a constant nonzero possibility of nuclear war and mentioning it here is not much more relevant than mentioning it anywhere. Of all the potential causes of nuclear war, a mistake is the most likely one.

[Pasong Tirad]

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.

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Folks who believe that the possibility of a nuclear launch isn't zero don't have time to type out thousand-word essays explaining in detail every single facet of their beliefs while also acknowledging every single tiny hiccup you could find in their argument, including the mistaken idea that people think a nuclear launch is a simple act.

[Novus America]

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.

No. Actually in 62 there was no MAD. Had nuclear war broken out in 62 the Soviets would be destroyed and the US would not be.

Which is why actually it was considered. But the cost was decided to be not worth it.

Although we could have destroyed the Soviet Union with nukes, we still decided the cost was not worth it.
Even though we would survive. We still probably would have suffered a few million casualties.
Not enough to destroy us, but certainly enough to make us decide it was not worth it.

If you have 100 million people. And your enemy does to. You can kill 99 million of their people an they can only kill 1 million of yours, it is not MAD, but still sufficient reason not to go full nuclear.

Note that in 1945 to 1948 there was no nuclear war despite the Soviets having zero nukes. Because even though we would kill more than we would lose, there still would be massive costs.

And once the Soviets had only a few nukes vs our much larger forces it was massive retaliation, not MAD that was the doctrine. Which then evolved into what would be called “flexible response”. MAD unofficially was sort of a thing in the 70s, but by the 80s it was back to a more flexible response. Conventional forces being able to deter conventional attacks.

If nukes were the only thing stopping a war than why would we not have ONLY had nukes?

If your logic was correct, we would not need conventional forces at all.

[New Zoigai]

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

I mean...Russia has been nicer to African nations historically than the west. So not hard to see why

[El Lazaro]

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.

Yes, taking risks is a part of life but people when discussing the topic of risk taking very often don't seem to realize thats only part of it. You take risks when the reward may outweigh the risk. If the risk is assumed to very much outweigh the reward, then taking that risk would, objectively, make one a fool. Risk taking isnt done in a vacuum. People generalize on this way too much.

In this situation, the increased risk of a nuclear confrontation from direct nato action is weighed against keeping ukraine from being annexed/puppeted by russia. Most nations do not see the latter as outweighing the former. Now many argue "but theyll just keep doing it and take the baltics" etc, but the objective reality is russia invading a nato/eu state is a very different line than ukraine. The same is true of the taiwan scenario people keep bringing up. They are not the same situations. We can debate putin's sense of reason or rationality at this point but it is still a very different line to cross and therefore not the same argument.

If he did invade nato/the eu, the the risk vs reward assessment changes and is reevaluated. The actions from the west are at least unexpected but show movement in the right direction to taking a stronger stance in the long run, but none were ever going to consider actually putting all of nato into war over ukraine, a non-ally. The rewards are not high enough vs the perceived risks yet.

I would not argue that a NATO military invention is warranted yet because there doesn’t exist a certainty that Ukraine will fall. My opinion is just that NATO should consider the possibility of deploying forces by comparing actual risks rather than only talking about absurdities.

[Dtn]

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.

New START numbers are publically available. These are verified by on-site US inspection so they're probably more accurate than anything this thread could come up with.

Needless to say your estimate is much closer than "about 20."

[New Zoigai]

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Folks who believe that the possibility of a nuclear launch isn't zero don't have time to type out thousand-word essays explaining in detail every single facet of their beliefs while also acknowledging every single tiny hiccup you could find in their argument, including the mistaken idea that people think a nuclear launch is a simple act.

But throwing around crazy claims without any logical evdience does get annoying, especially ones of doomsday

[Novus America]

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.

Yes, taking risks is a part of life but people when discussing the topic of risk taking very often don't seem to realize thats only part of it. You take risks when the reward may outweigh the risk. If the risk is assumed to very much outweigh the reward, then taking that risk would, objectively, make one a fool. Risk taking isnt done in a vacuum. People generalize on this way too much.

In this situation, the increased risk of a nuclear confrontation from direct nato action is weighed against keeping ukraine from being annexed/puppeted by russia. Most nations do not see the latter as outweighing the former. Now many argue "but theyll just keep doing it and take the baltics" etc, but the objective reality is russia invading a nato/eu state is a very different line than ukraine. The same is true of the taiwan scenario people keep bringing up. They are not the same situations. We can debate putin's sense of reason or rationality at this point but it is still a very different line to cross and therefore not the same argument.

If he did invade nato/the eu, the the risk vs reward assessment changes and is reevaluated. The actions from the west are at least unexpected but show movement in the right direction to taking a stronger stance in the long run, but none were ever going to consider actually putting all of nato into war over ukraine, a non-ally. The rewards are not high enough vs the perceived risks yet.

The increased risk will be taken into account but is not the only or main reason.
If no nukes were used, (the most likely scenario by far) there still would be costs we are not yet willing to undertake.
The costs of a conventional war against Russia is more a deterrent than any small increase in likelihood of nuclear war.

Hence why our deterrence against Russia is predominantly conventional nowadays.

Why we use Javelins instead of Davy Crocketts.

[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.

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.

"Conventional war won't lead to nuclear war" and other jokes chickenhawks tell you.

Also, America? Cheap? On advanced military technology spending? Go on, pull the other one.

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.

Basic game theory indicates this is false. Tell me, have you ever played tic-tac-toe (I promise, this question is on topic)?

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.

Only if you're operating under the delusion that a nuclear war *can* be won. The fact is, missile defense as currently able to be developed, has a fundamental economics problem. Every system that is reliable enough to be effective is also expendable, and costs more to the side deploying it than the number of nukes the other side needs to overwhelm it.

Saving 10 million lives is cool and all, but the loss of 90 million people is still inherently crippling to the war effort, and prior to the terminal phase, you cannot ensure protection of any specific city, meaning that you cannot ensure the capital (and thus, the government) will survive. This is why all serious Continuity of Government plans for nuclear war involve separating as many members of the government (and the presidential line of succession in particular) from each other as possible, as rapidly as possible.

Thus pushing the nuclear threshold higher.

That does not follow from anything you've said thus far.

[Holy Nacimerian Empire]

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Folks who believe that the possibility of a nuclear launch isn't zero don't have time to type out thousand-word essays explaining in detail every single facet of their beliefs while also acknowledging every single tiny hiccup you could find in their argument, including the mistaken idea that people think a nuclear launch is a simple act.

We dont need a essay we need something that makes real sense from a political,Geopolitical and Realistic standpoint, Putin does not want to kill himself and Billions of others over the lands that once made up the Crimean Khanate

[El Lazaro]

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.

"Conventional war won't lead to nuclear war" and other jokes chickenhawks tell you.

There’s literally no reason to make everything go up in flames unless you’re certain your country will fall to an invasion and there consequences are dire enough that there will be no added cost of killing everyone else too.

[New Zoigai]

"Conventional war won't lead to nuclear war" and other jokes chickenhawks tell you.

There’s literally no reason to make everything go up in flames unless you’re certain your country will fall to an invasion and there consequences are dire enough that will be no added cost of killing everyone else too.

The only consequence for losing to ukraine is Putin becoming a laughing stock and the Russian econmy being out of shape for no reason at all

[The Alma Mater]

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.

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

[New haven america]

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

Read the thread.

Someone? Who? Thanks for admitting that you have no argument left on your own.

Check the past 2 pages, and I do have an argument of my own. (Though it's quite ironic hearing this from someone who's been doom posting on the regular)

I just luckily don't have to put in the effort.

[Grenartia]

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.

In fact, the process is broadly similar in both the US and Russia: Early warning systems detects an incoming attack. The head of state is notified, and is given a briefcase (that is generally always held by a bodyguard within reasonable distance) outlining various strategies, as well as the communications equipment necessary to communicate the orders. A decision is made (options range from doing nothing to full on strike), communicated, and disseminated through the nation's nuclear forces. At each missile launch point, at least two officers staff the launch control center 24/7, and upon receipt and confirmation of a valid launch order, the target parameters are input in the missile's guidance system, and two keys must be turned simultaneously. These keys (at least in the US) are positioned far enough apart that no single individual can turn both at once). After the keys are turned, the missile is launched. By this point, there are only a scant few minutes left before the attacker's warheads impact their targets.

That's the military side of things. Civil Defense is generally fuzzier, at least in the US, due to a sort of nihilistic lack of government civil defense measures. Public shelters are relatively few and far between, and where they do exist, are often outdated and probably underprovisioned. There's some thinking that indicates POTUS might not even activate the EAS until the final minutes before impact, so as to minimize clogging up the highways, and avoid panic whilst civil authorities are preparing.

[New haven america]

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

That's not how that works.

Nuclear bombs are set off by the collision of nuclear material, that can't happen in a reactor. Reactors melt down, and while the explosion is much smaller, the spread is far bigger. (Which is why Sweden was able to detect Chernobyl's meltdown days before the USSR official announced that there was an issue)

[Picairn]

Check the past 2 pages, and I do have an argument of my own. (Though it's quite ironic hearing this from someone who's been doom posting on the regular)

I just luckily don't have to put in the effort.

The only other person making arguments against ICBMs is Novus America, and I have already replied to him about the effectiveness of SM-3. Even he admitted that the US and Europe have no way to defend themselves in a full scale ICBM attack.

And no I have not been doomposting, I'm pushing back on the ridiculous "Russia has 20 nukes" and other jokes you have been peddling throughout the thread.

[The Alma Mater]

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

That's not how that works.

Nuclear bombs are set off by the collision of nuclear material, that can't happen in a reactor. Reactors melt down, and while the explosion is much smaller, the spread is far bigger. (Which is why Sweden was able to detect Chernobyl's meltdown days before the USSR official announced that there was an issue)

I am perfectly aware of how it works. I was just describing what Russia is doing as we type.

[Bombadil]

There is no logical way to belive in a nucelar launch otherwise

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

They've stopped shelling and firefighters are on the scene, most people think it's quite safe given it's a modern facility with plenty of back ups.. still, to shell a nuclear reactor in the first place is fucking insane.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Check the past 2 pages, and I do have an argument of my own. (Though it's quite ironic hearing this from someone who's been doom posting on the regular)

I just luckily don't have to put in the effort.

The only other person making arguments against ICBMs is Novus America, and I have already replied to him about the effectiveness of SM-3. Even he admitted that the US and Europe have no way to defend themselves in a full scale ICBM attack.

And no I have not been doomposting, I'm pushing back on the ridiculous "Russia has 20 nukes" and other jokes you have been peddling throughout the thread.

20 nukes in russia sounds like a 16 cowboys on ram ranch joke.

[The H Corporation]

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

They've stopped shelling and firefighters are on the scene, most people think it's quite safe given it's a modern facility with plenty of back ups.. still, to shell a nuclear reactor in the first place is fucking insane.

Any news related to the conflict are already insane, this was just added to the pile

[Dtn]

Then again, you could attack a huge nuclear powerplant, set it on fire, block the firefighters from getting there and wait until it goes boom.

Nuclear strike without a nuke.

So.. anyone have an update on said fire ?

They've stopped shelling and firefighters are on the scene, most people think it's quite safe given it's a modern facility with plenty of back ups.. still, to shell a nuclear reactor in the first place is fucking insane.

Yeah, most countries would just bomb it and hope for the best.

TBH the Red Cross's old draft rules about nuclear plants in combat should be codified but good luck with that.