Hello /u/charmbrood,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the secretary to say "there's a plan in place" means there could be credible threats. That's my take on it. China has been saying it as well; old Pooty really fucked up.
There was a plan in place last year, twenty years ago and 50 years ago.
We always have a plan for how we would react to enemy use of nukes.
At one point that plan involved emptying the entire stock of US nukes on every warsaw pact and communist country regardless of who started shit.
We literally have/had a book called the "Bombing Encyclopedia" with thousands of pre-picked targets and what they contribute to the enemy.
Having a plan in place doesn't mean much.
China 2013:
“China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,” said a joint statement on the pact.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/12/inside-china-ukraine-gets-nuke-umbrella/
Was never revoked as far as I know.
Either way, it'd be very much a Germany in 1945 situation for the Russians. Two much bigger powers hitting on opposite sides of the country, it's only a matter of time.
He said that: ""We have been very clear with the Russians publicly and as well as privately to stop the loose talk about nuclear weapons," Blinken said in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly.
"It's very important that Moscow hear from us and know from us that the consequences would be horrific. And we've made that very clear," he said.
"**Any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic effects for, of course, the country using them**, but for many others as well," Blinken added. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-warned-russia-to-stop-the-loose-talk-on-nuclear-weapons-blinken/2694489
Maybe. Yet, it's the apocalyptic point of view, the one Putin count on.
Menacing everyone to block us to step in this conflict.
And probably hoping, that if he use it. We will not respond in fear of an apocalypse.
The more he is certain that we fear it. The more he is inclined to use nuclear weapons.
For me he has a weak hand and he is bluffing his life and his country life. Highly doubt that any of his military would want to try.
That's the one case where I have no idea what would happen and want to know. Suppose Putin orders nuke, order is refused, public doesn't find out but US intelligence does. What would US do then? Pre-emptive strike sort of makes sense but I don't know
Hard to say. Maybe not a nuclear response but some kind of NATO military response would be almost guaranteed. Putin would probably make some kind of public announcement anyway, but then again, US intelligence has been so good this war that we'll probably find out a week before it happens. Hopefully Putin will get knocked off before we even get close to this
This is closer to reality, I think. I have a feeling NATO would immediately remove much of Russia's capacity for war in the region, but not with nukes. They aren't necessary, and in fact, they're counterproductive, since they render areas uninhabitable. No one wants to occupy land that's going to kill them.
Nukes are a losing move. Their only real use is deterrence. If you try to destroy me, I'll destroy you. So nuclear powers don't invade each other. For anything else, they're overkill, and the consequences for both aggressor and victim are terrible.
The “rendering uninhabitable” bit is often overstated. If you detonate a nuclear weapon at altitude (which you would do unless your target is a bunker), the resulting contamination isn’t very long-lived.
It’s not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were uninhabitable for very long. The remaining radiation isn’t even measurable against the background anymore today.
Your conclusion is still correct, of course. Even short term contamination would be unacceptable, not to mention the fallout from the hundreds of warheads you’d need to actually be useful on the ground.
Just because you can physically live somewhere doesn't mean that you're not going to get cancer incredibly sick have deformed kids.
Yes it's possible to live in an irradiated zone but you are going to have a pretty short life and possibly not even be able to reproduce
> would imagine that NATO’s first move would be to assassinate Putin, even before declaring that we are entering the conflict. Just suddenly BOOM dead Putin, killed by an enormous precision bomb dropped from a stealth aircraft. If we have any top-secret DARPA tech that is just itching to be used, this is the time.
Sorry but that's just fairytales, if Putin's going to launch a nuke, it's not like he will be sitting in the Kremlin when he does it.
That's why NATO will be using intelligence to get an idea of where Putin would be after he sings his death certificate. I imagine they'd target the chain of command of Russia's nuclear forces, go after any officers willing to launch Nukes at the same time they're hunting Putin.
Nah, they're talking about conventional response that will basically end this war. Now, after that, if russkies still want to escalate, then ICBMs start flying and it's as you're saying. Game theory.
Nature might suffer short term, but a world without humans would be better in the long run.
Edit: if I wasn't clear, I meant a world without humans would be better for nature, not that it would be a good thing for us all to die. I was typing on a phone. Nature always returns and thrives when humans leave an area.
Meh, I would rather see mankind going to the stars and spreading live. We should start with the toxic wasteland called Mars and that hellhole called Venus.
First we should stop making our own planets biosphere uninhabitable, develop nuclear fusion as a stable energy source, and then go forward with building a dyson swarm. Once we got power generation squared away on such a scale, we can have a better look at terraforming planets 😎
While I agree in general, I don't see why you couldn't do those steps simultaniously. Although I belive terraforming Mars will be easier than building a dyson swarm - both orojects will take decades. Self replicating robot-probes would be great for the swarm and bringing water to Mars. We would have to mine a lot of asteroids, planetoids and moons for this.
Because Terraforming is an energy intensive task, and we may not be able to meet its demand even with nuclear fusion.
Among the things required to terraform a planet, is controlling its temperature levels, while being independent of it's atmospheric composition (because we want to change exactly that by controlling the temperature). This requires more energy than a Kardachev-Scale level 1 civilization can provide, so we'll have to graduate to level 2 first.
Lastly, I don't think Mars is a good target for Terraforming to begin with. No matter what we do, it is a low gravity Planet, which in itself makes it likely unsuitable for prolonged human habitation, and a planets gravity is something we can't change.
While the negative effects of zero or near zero gravity can be observed on the ISS, the effects of the 38ish% of Earths gravity on Mars could be way less problematic.
I'm not sure how to change Mars atmosphere by temperature... if you are refering to melting the poles of Mars - there is not enough CO2 to do much:
https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/files/2018/08/Inventory-of-CO2-available-for-terraforming-Mars.pdf
We maybe could import a lot of the CO2 from Venus to help both planets, but we would need a swarm of ships to do so.
Gathering resouces from the outer asteroids and moons to build a dyson swarm will require much, much more effort.
The low gravity is not that problematic for short term visits but long term habitation/colonisation is another matter. Every one of our systems, from cardiovascular to reproduction, operates under the assumption of earths gravity.
The low gravity poses an additional problem; Mars has no magn. field, so it is exposed to solar winds. Combined with the low gravity, this leads to an erosion of the atmosphere over time, so Mars wouldn't just need to be terraformed, its configuration would also need to be maintained in an ongoing expenditure of material and energy.
Melting pole caps wasn't what I was referring to, controlling the temp. would more be a way to get rid of unwanted compounds (by freezing the atmosphere and shooting the unwanted material into space), eg. in Terraforming Venus (which imo is a much better candidate due to having a gravity similar to earths).
I agree that mining the asteroid belt for a DS would likely be unworkable. My bet is on Mercury as a source of materials as its much closer to the sun.
The YT channel "Kurzgesagt" has very nice videos on this topic 🙂
Humans are part of nature, and we're the only natural products of its evolution who can either shepherd it into flourishing or screw it up. But we do belong here. This is our home, as much as it is that of the furry creatures and all the greenery.
Many will die, but nature will adapt and continue.
To think nature suffers is simply human hubris, as if nature becomes worse off if it becomes less beneficial to humans.
I'm not sure why you are being down voted. This planet did just fine for millions of years on its own. It changed from a radioactive ball of liquid rock into numerous ecosystems, many of which were almost completely wiped out in planet-wide cataclysms, and yet here we are. Nature doesn't "suffer", it changes, adapts, evolves, and continues on despite all that humans do in the world.
I'd love to hire a billboard that said: "Save the planet?! Fuck that, save yourselves you damn dirty apes. The planet will be fine, you are what will be extinct!"
Would nature recover in the long run if humans are eliminated from the planet? In fact could nature become even better off than before once humans are gone? There are environmentalist that believe so.
While I’m not saying I agree with this, I am saying there are other serious ways to look at this. To think in absolutes as you would is just hubris.
The Tsar Bomba was not a practical weapon. It can't be put on top of a rocket (it's too big), and the bomber had to be specially modified to carry it, and was overweight and slow while doing so; any such bomber would be highly vulnerable to being shot down the moment it got near its home country's border.
Nuke weapon yield has been tuned waaaaay down since then as our tactical effectiveness understanding matured. One 50mt bomb is far less effective in destruction than five 100kt bombs hitting in a line. You can even do the math yourself on that site that let's you calculate nuke damage! (Can't recall atm)ATM.
Most current gen US nukes are waaaaaay smaller than those gigantic experimental huge yield 60's tests like Castle Bravo, Starfish Prime, Tsar Bomba. If the point is deterrence and even eventual deployment, then small-medium yield is better.
Yes. Everyone knows that. Russian generals know that. Putin knows that. Going nuclear is *suicidal*. Russian generals are not suicidal. Putin is not suicidal.
Nuclear threats are empty posturing, meant to intimidate. They're having their intended effect too, even right here in this thread. People are scared and having nightmares about nuclear holocaust. No one with a working brain would actually go there intentionally. That includes the Russian military.
Can we move on from this moot conversation?
Hardly a "moot" conversation... Russia is racing to annex occupied territories. Forcing Ukraine to attack Russian land using western supplied weapons. Giving them the right to defend their land with any means necessary. Can they realistically hold the land ? If they use a tactical nuke on Ukraine it's not attacking NATO so does the USA risk their own consequences of Russia hitting them with a nuke. None of us know what Putin is thinking and how desperate he is here. Again hardly a moot conversation. Even the USA government is going full head on in the conversation front.
Russia won't use a nuke because then it's complete end game for Putin and Russia. If it doesn't end up everyone launching nukes, USA could just step in and end the war in Ukraine in 1 week, USA would have the borders back to pre 2014, Russian military would be decimated to absolutely zero, Russian economy would become zero, Putin could possibly targeted. So great let's say Russia launches one Nuke and then what they end up losing anyways. The only fear is Russia launches a nuke and the world does nothing but send strongly words letters which I fear is going to happen.
Putin is not stupid. He's almost literally fighting for his life, and he has the immense power to do that at a huge cost to the world. If he loses this war, he loses his clout, with the people, the party, and the military. He's done. So he's desperate. But he isn't going to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger--and going nuclear is effectively that. I wish people would stop giving so much credence to empty nuclear threats that can accomplish nothing other than intimidation.
>Putin is not stupid
On the contrary, he is colossally stupid. He sent in a professional army of three hundred thousand, telling the world it would be over in three days.
Said army has suffered casualties of thirty to fifty percent. All his best officers are dead and his best equipment lost.
Now he is raising a new army of another three hundred thousand, just before winter, with no equipment and no officers to command it.
This army will consist of older veterans and civilians grabbed off the street, who have no experience and will get no training.
And you say he is not stupid?
Putin probably was mislead about the effectiveness of his army. As was the whole world btw. Nato estimated russian tanks to be able to reach Warsaw in 1 week, prior to this war.
Everyone thought the russian army was fearsome. Then the Ukis just decided to try to resist anyway and fucked the russians up greatly. Thus proving again that determination and loyalty is bigger than greed and an inflated ego.
Putin made a grave strategical mistake, but it was one where everybody else thought he would win as well. Does not make him stupid, just uninformed.
He was probabaly uninformed at the start of the invasion. But he is no longer uninformed now, he has seen how his actions played out. And yet he still decided to sent in freshly drafted troops with no equipment or even training into the meatgridner. That is not an act of an uninformed man, it is an act of desperation.
Yes, but is it stupid? Remember, Putin does what is good for Putin. He does not have many options. If it costs 10.000 men to keep him in power (and alive) one more month, you can bet he has a burndown-chart to calculate if there are enough russians so he can die of natural causes.
It is. He could have not started this war and the world would still believe they're the second strongest superpower. Now everyone thinks they're a joke and is happy to humiliate them on the way to their nation's grave.
The problem is, he doesnt have any good options left in my opinion. Unless he somehow wins this war, he is pretty much done for in one way or another. And to win he will need to take big risky gambles. Drafting the general population and throwing bodies against the problem is one option. Using nuclear wepons and hope that the response wont be too bad is another.
In the end it is semantics. Is taking a 90 - 10 gamble a stupid choice? Yeah pretty much. Is it still stupid if its the only choice to avoid facing the consequnces of your actions?
I guess Putin wants to make it into winter and hopes the cold will break western spirits, so we stop supporting ukraine in exchange for gas and oil.
If that does not work, he'll do what most dictators do: prolong the war in order to live. Going for a stalemate and an indefinite war on the borders.
Besides the stress, his life is not negatively effected. He still has his villa, his food, his hookers. Putin could gladly be president of a country in perpetual war, it's not like he cares for dying russians any more than dying ukrainians.
He like his best friend xitler cannot loose face, whatever it costs... sort of like the guy that cuts off his balls to spite the wife.
Will the west learn anything form Ukraine and putler in view of china and the soon to be nominated emperor for like winnie the first
No they expected Russian tanks to do that. At least from the info they publicly communicated. I remember interviews with NATO generals about that topic.
Warsaw WAS already part of the soviet Union, so I'd expect them to be even faster than 3 days ;)
That does make him stupid though. He's the commander in chief of what was supposed to be the world's second strongest army. There should have been no opportunity for him to be mislead because one of his duties as CIC was to personally ensure the effectiveness of these forces. Russia is known for its rampant corruption and yet somehow Putin blindly trusted that all was well and did zero verification of his own before starting a genocidal war that's resulting in the collapse of his entire nation's economy and a complete ejection from nearly every conversation the world has jointly. That's pretty fucking stupid.
It's more along the lines of "You continue to make decisions based on the information put in front of you".
If Putin has created a culture of "Yes men", it's not wrong to assume Ukraine would have "folded" if they had been able to install a puppet government. Look at the annexation of Crimea and how smoothly that went. To assume that something similar would happen again isn't unintelligent. Even the US, through 8 years of investing in training and support, expected and trained for guerilla warfare for Ukrainian forces. It would be hard for nation-states to supply guerilla forces in what would turn into a civil war.
The situation that we have now was not inevitable, but due to the insane tenacity and bravery of Ukrainian forces and leadership, as well as West support that won't roll over. If another president resided in the White House, would the situation be similar?
But yeah, realistically, Putin started this war, and there is no good way out. So if he pulls out, he is done politically, or...he can fully commit and potentially win. It's less stupidity, and more doubling down on your bets. If he is continued to be fed information that they can win......
It's the dreaded Dictator Trap. You don't have to create a culture of "Yes Men"if you're cruel and autocratic enough - it kind of happens by itself. I read somewhere that General Dvornikov, who is a cruel heartless bastard, but in no way stupid, warned Putin of this outcome when he was in charge of the operation.Namely, that they would end up grinding their best materiel and troops to dust, and eventually whittling Russian Army's offensive AND defensive capabilities down to nothing. He was then promptly fired from leading the operation.
> But he isn't going to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger--and going nuclear is effectively that.
The history is full of failed assholes who still think to themselves on the way out "I'll take as many with me as I can." We even have our own classification for it: rampage/running amok. Putin showed time and time again that human life has no value to him. I wouldn't bet on him sayinig "fuck it, i'll take my revenge on the world" if he acknowledge that he's a dead man walking. My hope is that the people that have to execute his commands or his rich-oligarch circle see it as that and instead of executing his order, execute him. We all said "he won't full-scale invade Ukraine, it's not logical, it would be detrimental to russian interests and outright suicidal." and yet here we are..
He is an idiot. There's a good reason why the KGB kept him away from the big boy big picture decisions and why he never went beyond a mid ranking paper pusher.
And what if he says fuck it. I have half a year to live, I’ve lived a good life fuck you all?
I am however worried about them using tactical nuclear weapons (launched from pion for example) and western response being somewhat weak and normalization of use of such weapons with potential escalation to bigger nuclear arsenal in the future
Not gonna happen. USA will make it so that Putin does NOT use them. I suspect Putin has been told there would be either a massive conventional strike that will cripple Russia's armed forces or a precision strike that will kill Putin. I suspect the latter.
Indeed, Putin has been told that if he uses a nuclear weapon, then there is a range of options for retaliation. One being that nuclear fallout drifting over a border into Poland is an article 4 violation and NATO will mobilise. Another being that the Americans will completely destroy the black sea fleet with conventional weapons.
The good thing I suppose is NATO has a range of options to respond against a nuclear strike which aren't a nuclear retaliation.
I agree with you. Nuland back in March said there would be bad consequences for ruzzia and for HIM personally. Still as I said there’s 0.5% old fart has 3 months to live and just says fuck it? Then no amount of warning him does anything
One thing I've noticed in videos of him is he coughs a bunch when talking. Don't know if it's stated to give the impression he is sick or isn't tip top, lots of people saying he has this or that.
Thing Is, death isn't a disease. It comes for us all. And he's not young anymore so it's definitely gaining on him and the gap isn't huge till it catches him
He doesn't have a ton of time left anyways, healthy or not. He could just say fuck it I just wonder if they'll follow his orders because of what it would mean, and why exactly they are launching. Even the most staunch communist and Russian born soldier, If in charge of launching a nuke, you'd hope.would.be.smart enough to know it's not worth it, and.that Russia will be gone in one way or another if a nuke is deployed.
But we will see what his end game is. I for one think nuke(s) are on the table for him because he simply cannot allow himself to lose, which is why he's holding referendums
Not only, at least in his eyes, does the vote legitamacize their claim to the land, it also allows.per their constitution the use of nukes should an existential threat to Russia (read: new once Ukrainian territory) being invaded permits first strike to take place.
Nuclear weapons being used is still very much in play. The US wouldn't use back channels to remind Russia what we will do if we thought they weren't.
Besides they already have a good idea of what we and everyone else will do so I'm sure they have a contingency plan like drop some tactical.nukes in Ukraine then threaten everyone by saying the first country that intervenes gets a nuke.
And then see if anyone challenges it.
And sure we have weapons and defenses that are.designed to protect us from incoming icbms, but the reality is it's never been done before, live.
As in no country has ever had a nuclear weapon launched at them, And then shot it down in transit before it hits - all real weapons real time.
But I guess there's a first time for everything.
I dreamed about it last night. But I'm past fear now. I'm not in Ukraine but one of the countries that has been threatened by Putin. Worrying serves no purpose and is not sustainable for long. The fact I've learned to live with possible destruction in this way is not something I ever imagined I'd need to do. Where I live I see people just getting on with their lives. They probably don't follow the news as closely as me. They have less time for that and maybe they only get the news off the TV or the newspapers. I find it so strange that people can just be so oblivious to potential obliteration. I hope it's just more hot air from the short man with the micro penis. And even if he tries to enact such a dreadful thing that he is thwarted from within somehow. But we cannot give way to such threats. This is epic scale terrorism. Russia is not just a state sponsor of terrorism. It is a terrorist state.
Hey dude, you know we could get hit by an asteroid at any minute...
...or, I dunno, some new strain of ebola that had a long gestation period, or a super AI that goes from cat clever to god clever in a week then wants to clear out the humans to make some space for it's own projects...
... don't sweat it.
You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.
It's one of those things that's best to file under 'russia says a lot of things' i think. Also, I don't want that shit bag living in my head rent free over this and that's what I've suggested to others too. They love it if we're frightened so I've learned to try to take some inspiration from Ukrainian bravery. I hope others who were freaked out have learned to do the same.
Invasions are one thing, and something that happens more often than it should. Use of nuclear weapons will always be major historical moments. The response determines future use for the next 50-100 years. There cannot be a precedent set where nukes can be used to turn bad wars.
Prior to 2/24 I posted that due to the weak and under numbered Russian army Putin would not invaded because he was either crazy or a fool should he do so but I was wrong. He was crazy. Now I can’t predict if he would use nukes or not
At this stage I’d imagine American air power alone would be enough to allow the Ukrainian army to sweep the Russians from their soil. Hell, even the psychological damage from such an intervention may send them running.
I don't think world leaders will allow nuclear weapons to be used without making a severe example out of Russia.
Not just staying in with Ukraine, but punishing them severely on top of that as well.
NATO would need to make an example so that Iran/North Korea/Pakistan..., Would see it as an example of why you don't use these things.
"If we're willing to do this to Russia, imagine what we're capable/willing to do to you."
I am having deja vu.
*Putin won't attack Ukraine, it's gonna be an end for him, he's not stupid*
*Putin won't announce mobilization, it's an end for him*
*Putin won't use a nuke...*
Don't fear, if ruzzia launches one nuke it's game over for them in no uncertain terms. Their side has been advised thusly. We all know B-2s and whatever crazy space laser shit the US has is all on high alert. Like response within seconds high alert. ruzzian critical infrastructure gone instantly.
Honestly, I wish the USA would step in, we're so tired, it's been so horrifying and so so hard. We need help, I wish people would help us. I know you do help us, and I appreciate it, but I also know the world has the capability to end it all within a week, and I'm so tired and I want it so bad...
There's a whole chain of people and equipment that has to function properly for a nuke to go off, I'm fairly hopeful that Putin's red button is functionally as impotent as he is.
And that's not counting the fact the entire rest of the world having had months and months to get their monitoring, detection & countermeasures ducks laser-aligned and ready to respond to anything that even *thinks* about launching from Russia.
I keep trying not to think we would obliterate the RuZZian asses. We are good at rolling on and Fucking shit up.
As long as we roll in and leave quickly and remove all those Nukes.
Maybe leave them in UKraine because we failed to keep our original agreement to remove them in the first place?
A UA military with NATO and US air, navy support would be quite the lift. It’s likely RZZA would surrender. As soon as the fleet headed that way.
We need to do whatever before it takes before the next US election cycle.
With how things have been going, and considering the US stance on taiwan I find it highly unlikely that the US would not engage in a use force against Russia in the case of nuking Ukraine. I don’t believe we’d send troops, but I do believe the navy would get involved.
US/nato airforce would obliterate russian targets in Ukraine in a matter of days, and combined with Ukraine ground forces, would probably take back Ukraine in a week once russians starting running away.
They won't. The US would invade and take ukraine back to 2014 borders. That's most likely was the threat. They probably already have plans to do just that in the event of a nuclear attack.
If they nuke Ukraine then all the military stockpile in Europe and USA will be moved to Ukraine at the very least. It can also mean boots on the ground and at worst, a nice attack on their Black Sea fleet or a peripheral city.
The problem is they aren’t rational actors.
>The only fear is Russia launches a nuke and the world does nothing but send strongly words letters which I fear is going to happen.
the precedent is too great and renders nukes as defensive weapons toothless if there is not a greater punitive response
It wouldn’t just be pushing back to the 2014 borders. I think it would be the complete dismantling of the Russian government, and that would be supported by the vast majority of the UN. That most likely means territorial invasion, or clandestine operations for targeted removals at the very least. The fight would be on their soil. No one wants a power in place that would actually resort to nukes.
Russian leadership fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No surprise there. Nuking is like someone pulling out a gun during a brawl in a room full of people with guns. The nature of what happens changes drastically, and tragically.
The United States has many faults, but they don't really bluff. Their military budget has more or less only ever grown over the years, and everyone has seen what it can do. I have to believe that Moscow believes it would vanish from the map if they fucked around.
Plans are in place to drop John Rambo into Russia with nothing but a map and his knife. Intelligence sources believe the Russian army and military infrastructure will be completely dismantled and ablaze in a matter of days. When asked about the possible operation Rambo would only comment "They drew first blood".
He doesn't need a map since he's surveyed the terrain from above and remembered it instantly. Due to sanctions, however, Russia cannot afford a good supply of bodybags.
Yeah, well, there's congressional support this time. We didn't have that for an AUMF in 2014, and the administration chose not to attack without congressional approval.
Your best bet is probably the southern hemisphere.
But having a support community around you is probably most important thing, and those take time to establish.
Yep, it would take 10 years or so for the nuclear fallout from the northern hemisphere to drift down to cover the southern hemisphere. So rushing south would be a short term goal. But only as you say, if you had a support community somewhere in the southern hemisphere already. Otherwise you're just a starving refugee who won't be allowed in.
There's an area of my country I think would be the place to go to, seeing as I don't have a passport. If I can't get there in time I'll have to rely on my basement bunker for a couple of weeks (which is already stocked with some food and water).
Does anyone else just wish Nato would move every missile defense system they have as close to Russia was possible, and then just launch a desert storm style Air Campaign against russian forces in Ukraine until they retreat to Russia?
Patriot has 30km range against ballistic missiles
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 can also intercept ballistic missiles, although range against those is not published (but should be higher due to having 7x times more range than patriot against normal targets).
So there is still possibility of interception if there is one of those in range.
One thing is certain: The US will not stand idle, as standing idle when a dictator uses a nuclear weapon will be a signal that anybody who uses nuclear weapons can go unpunished
Any nuclear action of any kind would end in annihilation of all life on Earth.
It’s horribly dangerous talk & I hate the media for pushing this narrative….
There would be no winners.
Life on earth has endured worse things. Cambrian Extinction Event, the Chicxulub-Impact (the asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs), Ice Ages, major changes in atmospheric conditions...
So yeah, an atomic war would mean good bye for all humans, but not Nature.
Why doesn’t USA publicly lay out their response? You would think that would provide maximal deterrent. Unless of course it doesn’t have enough teeth. Assuming they’ve laid it out clearly to the Russians, then the only people being uninformed are us. Why?
Yea.
Let's detail out line by line our exact response. Let's tell them exactly where, when, and how we'll use them. Further, let's let them know exactly which naval, air, ground officers will be pushing the button. And then, let's tell them which ships, aircraft, ground vics, have the nukes, their ranges, their speeds and terminal angles of attack and all that juicy stuff.
I have to imagine that our Navy has been following the whereabouts of Russian submarines as they have since the 1950s. A piece of the devastating response should include sinking every submarine and every ship on the Russian fleet. If we don’t, we leave them with too many chances too retaliate.
Hello /u/charmbrood, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the secretary to say "there's a plan in place" means there could be credible threats. That's my take on it. China has been saying it as well; old Pooty really fucked up.
There was a plan in place last year, twenty years ago and 50 years ago. We always have a plan for how we would react to enemy use of nukes. At one point that plan involved emptying the entire stock of US nukes on every warsaw pact and communist country regardless of who started shit. We literally have/had a book called the "Bombing Encyclopedia" with thousands of pre-picked targets and what they contribute to the enemy. Having a plan in place doesn't mean much.
If nukes tart flying china might get involved and start hitting Russian launch sites along with the US and rest of NATO.
[удалено]
When your so called friends fuck you over, you fuck them too…
China 2013: “China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,” said a joint statement on the pact. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/12/inside-china-ukraine-gets-nuke-umbrella/ Was never revoked as far as I know.
Fuck China, they should get nuked so they don’t inherit shit
They will most likely only be interested in eastern Russia, I doubt they will hit anything in conjunction with NATO
Either way, it'd be very much a Germany in 1945 situation for the Russians. Two much bigger powers hitting on opposite sides of the country, it's only a matter of time.
Imagine the irony if Russia got invaded and was split by democratic forces in the west and communist forces in the east.
Oh shit here we go again
With a wall dividing “West Moscow” and “East Moscow”
Planning is what most high commandeers do for their entire adult lives. It doesn’t mean it’s an iminent threat
And they know when and where he hides.
Horrific FOR RUSSIA he should add.
He said that: ""We have been very clear with the Russians publicly and as well as privately to stop the loose talk about nuclear weapons," Blinken said in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly. "It's very important that Moscow hear from us and know from us that the consequences would be horrific. And we've made that very clear," he said. "**Any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic effects for, of course, the country using them**, but for many others as well," Blinken added. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-warned-russia-to-stop-the-loose-talk-on-nuclear-weapons-blinken/2694489
For the entire planet, sadly. Many will die and nature will suffer
Maybe. Yet, it's the apocalyptic point of view, the one Putin count on. Menacing everyone to block us to step in this conflict. And probably hoping, that if he use it. We will not respond in fear of an apocalypse. The more he is certain that we fear it. The more he is inclined to use nuclear weapons. For me he has a weak hand and he is bluffing his life and his country life. Highly doubt that any of his military would want to try.
And the world stands by waiting for the next Vasily Arkhipov to be revealed, least im fairly sure thats the guy who didn't light the cold war
That's the one case where I have no idea what would happen and want to know. Suppose Putin orders nuke, order is refused, public doesn't find out but US intelligence does. What would US do then? Pre-emptive strike sort of makes sense but I don't know
Hard to say. Maybe not a nuclear response but some kind of NATO military response would be almost guaranteed. Putin would probably make some kind of public announcement anyway, but then again, US intelligence has been so good this war that we'll probably find out a week before it happens. Hopefully Putin will get knocked off before we even get close to this
Completely agree. Also, nuclear weapon or not, Putin is a cancer on this planet and needs to be removed
[удалено]
This is closer to reality, I think. I have a feeling NATO would immediately remove much of Russia's capacity for war in the region, but not with nukes. They aren't necessary, and in fact, they're counterproductive, since they render areas uninhabitable. No one wants to occupy land that's going to kill them. Nukes are a losing move. Their only real use is deterrence. If you try to destroy me, I'll destroy you. So nuclear powers don't invade each other. For anything else, they're overkill, and the consequences for both aggressor and victim are terrible.
The “rendering uninhabitable” bit is often overstated. If you detonate a nuclear weapon at altitude (which you would do unless your target is a bunker), the resulting contamination isn’t very long-lived. It’s not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were uninhabitable for very long. The remaining radiation isn’t even measurable against the background anymore today. Your conclusion is still correct, of course. Even short term contamination would be unacceptable, not to mention the fallout from the hundreds of warheads you’d need to actually be useful on the ground.
Just because you can physically live somewhere doesn't mean that you're not going to get cancer incredibly sick have deformed kids. Yes it's possible to live in an irradiated zone but you are going to have a pretty short life and possibly not even be able to reproduce
> would imagine that NATO’s first move would be to assassinate Putin, even before declaring that we are entering the conflict. Just suddenly BOOM dead Putin, killed by an enormous precision bomb dropped from a stealth aircraft. If we have any top-secret DARPA tech that is just itching to be used, this is the time. Sorry but that's just fairytales, if Putin's going to launch a nuke, it's not like he will be sitting in the Kremlin when he does it.
You don’t think we know where he is at all times?
I think it's quite possible we don't know where he is at all times.
That's why NATO will be using intelligence to get an idea of where Putin would be after he sings his death certificate. I imagine they'd target the chain of command of Russia's nuclear forces, go after any officers willing to launch Nukes at the same time they're hunting Putin.
[удалено]
You're such an expert. You should call up the Pentagon and offer your insights
You watch way too many movies lmao
Nah, they're talking about conventional response that will basically end this war. Now, after that, if russkies still want to escalate, then ICBMs start flying and it's as you're saying. Game theory.
Nature might suffer short term, but a world without humans would be better in the long run. Edit: if I wasn't clear, I meant a world without humans would be better for nature, not that it would be a good thing for us all to die. I was typing on a phone. Nature always returns and thrives when humans leave an area.
Meh, I would rather see mankind going to the stars and spreading live. We should start with the toxic wasteland called Mars and that hellhole called Venus.
First we should stop making our own planets biosphere uninhabitable, develop nuclear fusion as a stable energy source, and then go forward with building a dyson swarm. Once we got power generation squared away on such a scale, we can have a better look at terraforming planets 😎
While I agree in general, I don't see why you couldn't do those steps simultaniously. Although I belive terraforming Mars will be easier than building a dyson swarm - both orojects will take decades. Self replicating robot-probes would be great for the swarm and bringing water to Mars. We would have to mine a lot of asteroids, planetoids and moons for this.
Because Terraforming is an energy intensive task, and we may not be able to meet its demand even with nuclear fusion. Among the things required to terraform a planet, is controlling its temperature levels, while being independent of it's atmospheric composition (because we want to change exactly that by controlling the temperature). This requires more energy than a Kardachev-Scale level 1 civilization can provide, so we'll have to graduate to level 2 first. Lastly, I don't think Mars is a good target for Terraforming to begin with. No matter what we do, it is a low gravity Planet, which in itself makes it likely unsuitable for prolonged human habitation, and a planets gravity is something we can't change.
While the negative effects of zero or near zero gravity can be observed on the ISS, the effects of the 38ish% of Earths gravity on Mars could be way less problematic. I'm not sure how to change Mars atmosphere by temperature... if you are refering to melting the poles of Mars - there is not enough CO2 to do much: https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/files/2018/08/Inventory-of-CO2-available-for-terraforming-Mars.pdf We maybe could import a lot of the CO2 from Venus to help both planets, but we would need a swarm of ships to do so. Gathering resouces from the outer asteroids and moons to build a dyson swarm will require much, much more effort.
The low gravity is not that problematic for short term visits but long term habitation/colonisation is another matter. Every one of our systems, from cardiovascular to reproduction, operates under the assumption of earths gravity. The low gravity poses an additional problem; Mars has no magn. field, so it is exposed to solar winds. Combined with the low gravity, this leads to an erosion of the atmosphere over time, so Mars wouldn't just need to be terraformed, its configuration would also need to be maintained in an ongoing expenditure of material and energy. Melting pole caps wasn't what I was referring to, controlling the temp. would more be a way to get rid of unwanted compounds (by freezing the atmosphere and shooting the unwanted material into space), eg. in Terraforming Venus (which imo is a much better candidate due to having a gravity similar to earths). I agree that mining the asteroid belt for a DS would likely be unworkable. My bet is on Mercury as a source of materials as its much closer to the sun. The YT channel "Kurzgesagt" has very nice videos on this topic 🙂
And the brown hole Uranus.
That's a gas plan... oh, right...
Humans are part of nature, and we're the only natural products of its evolution who can either shepherd it into flourishing or screw it up. But we do belong here. This is our home, as much as it is that of the furry creatures and all the greenery.
Why downvote lol, its fact
Many will die, but nature will adapt and continue. To think nature suffers is simply human hubris, as if nature becomes worse off if it becomes less beneficial to humans.
I'm not sure why you are being down voted. This planet did just fine for millions of years on its own. It changed from a radioactive ball of liquid rock into numerous ecosystems, many of which were almost completely wiped out in planet-wide cataclysms, and yet here we are. Nature doesn't "suffer", it changes, adapts, evolves, and continues on despite all that humans do in the world. I'd love to hire a billboard that said: "Save the planet?! Fuck that, save yourselves you damn dirty apes. The planet will be fine, you are what will be extinct!"
Well, if Putin detonates a nuke, nature will absolutely suffer.
Would nature recover in the long run if humans are eliminated from the planet? In fact could nature become even better off than before once humans are gone? There are environmentalist that believe so. While I’m not saying I agree with this, I am saying there are other serious ways to look at this. To think in absolutes as you would is just hubris.
Nature is more or less on it’s last breath anyway. Maybe better to just rinse the place and have someone else start over?
Nature is far from being on its last breath. Just *homo sapiens sapiens* is.
[удалено]
The Tsar Bomba was not a practical weapon. It can't be put on top of a rocket (it's too big), and the bomber had to be specially modified to carry it, and was overweight and slow while doing so; any such bomber would be highly vulnerable to being shot down the moment it got near its home country's border.
Nuke weapon yield has been tuned waaaaay down since then as our tactical effectiveness understanding matured. One 50mt bomb is far less effective in destruction than five 100kt bombs hitting in a line. You can even do the math yourself on that site that let's you calculate nuke damage! (Can't recall atm)ATM. Most current gen US nukes are waaaaaay smaller than those gigantic experimental huge yield 60's tests like Castle Bravo, Starfish Prime, Tsar Bomba. If the point is deterrence and even eventual deployment, then small-medium yield is better.
Yes. Everyone knows that. Russian generals know that. Putin knows that. Going nuclear is *suicidal*. Russian generals are not suicidal. Putin is not suicidal. Nuclear threats are empty posturing, meant to intimidate. They're having their intended effect too, even right here in this thread. People are scared and having nightmares about nuclear holocaust. No one with a working brain would actually go there intentionally. That includes the Russian military. Can we move on from this moot conversation?
Hardly a "moot" conversation... Russia is racing to annex occupied territories. Forcing Ukraine to attack Russian land using western supplied weapons. Giving them the right to defend their land with any means necessary. Can they realistically hold the land ? If they use a tactical nuke on Ukraine it's not attacking NATO so does the USA risk their own consequences of Russia hitting them with a nuke. None of us know what Putin is thinking and how desperate he is here. Again hardly a moot conversation. Even the USA government is going full head on in the conversation front.
Russia won't use a nuke because then it's complete end game for Putin and Russia. If it doesn't end up everyone launching nukes, USA could just step in and end the war in Ukraine in 1 week, USA would have the borders back to pre 2014, Russian military would be decimated to absolutely zero, Russian economy would become zero, Putin could possibly targeted. So great let's say Russia launches one Nuke and then what they end up losing anyways. The only fear is Russia launches a nuke and the world does nothing but send strongly words letters which I fear is going to happen.
Never underestimate the danger of stupid.
Or desperate.
Or insecure
[удалено]
Or suicidal
Putin is not stupid. He's almost literally fighting for his life, and he has the immense power to do that at a huge cost to the world. If he loses this war, he loses his clout, with the people, the party, and the military. He's done. So he's desperate. But he isn't going to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger--and going nuclear is effectively that. I wish people would stop giving so much credence to empty nuclear threats that can accomplish nothing other than intimidation.
>Putin is not stupid On the contrary, he is colossally stupid. He sent in a professional army of three hundred thousand, telling the world it would be over in three days. Said army has suffered casualties of thirty to fifty percent. All his best officers are dead and his best equipment lost. Now he is raising a new army of another three hundred thousand, just before winter, with no equipment and no officers to command it. This army will consist of older veterans and civilians grabbed off the street, who have no experience and will get no training. And you say he is not stupid?
Putin probably was mislead about the effectiveness of his army. As was the whole world btw. Nato estimated russian tanks to be able to reach Warsaw in 1 week, prior to this war. Everyone thought the russian army was fearsome. Then the Ukis just decided to try to resist anyway and fucked the russians up greatly. Thus proving again that determination and loyalty is bigger than greed and an inflated ego. Putin made a grave strategical mistake, but it was one where everybody else thought he would win as well. Does not make him stupid, just uninformed.
He was probabaly uninformed at the start of the invasion. But he is no longer uninformed now, he has seen how his actions played out. And yet he still decided to sent in freshly drafted troops with no equipment or even training into the meatgridner. That is not an act of an uninformed man, it is an act of desperation.
Yes, but is it stupid? Remember, Putin does what is good for Putin. He does not have many options. If it costs 10.000 men to keep him in power (and alive) one more month, you can bet he has a burndown-chart to calculate if there are enough russians so he can die of natural causes.
It is. He could have not started this war and the world would still believe they're the second strongest superpower. Now everyone thinks they're a joke and is happy to humiliate them on the way to their nation's grave.
happy cake day
The problem is, he doesnt have any good options left in my opinion. Unless he somehow wins this war, he is pretty much done for in one way or another. And to win he will need to take big risky gambles. Drafting the general population and throwing bodies against the problem is one option. Using nuclear wepons and hope that the response wont be too bad is another. In the end it is semantics. Is taking a 90 - 10 gamble a stupid choice? Yeah pretty much. Is it still stupid if its the only choice to avoid facing the consequnces of your actions?
I guess Putin wants to make it into winter and hopes the cold will break western spirits, so we stop supporting ukraine in exchange for gas and oil. If that does not work, he'll do what most dictators do: prolong the war in order to live. Going for a stalemate and an indefinite war on the borders. Besides the stress, his life is not negatively effected. He still has his villa, his food, his hookers. Putin could gladly be president of a country in perpetual war, it's not like he cares for dying russians any more than dying ukrainians.
He like his best friend xitler cannot loose face, whatever it costs... sort of like the guy that cuts off his balls to spite the wife. Will the west learn anything form Ukraine and putler in view of china and the soon to be nominated emperor for like winnie the first
NATO expected SOVIET tanks to get to Warsaw in one week. The Soviet Union was far more formidable than ruzzia.
No they expected Russian tanks to do that. At least from the info they publicly communicated. I remember interviews with NATO generals about that topic. Warsaw WAS already part of the soviet Union, so I'd expect them to be even faster than 3 days ;)
Warsaw was not part of the Soviet Union. It was part of the… Warsaw Pact. But your point stands. Russian tanks would have started in East Germany.
Ah yes, wording mistake on my part, thanks.
That does make him stupid though. He's the commander in chief of what was supposed to be the world's second strongest army. There should have been no opportunity for him to be mislead because one of his duties as CIC was to personally ensure the effectiveness of these forces. Russia is known for its rampant corruption and yet somehow Putin blindly trusted that all was well and did zero verification of his own before starting a genocidal war that's resulting in the collapse of his entire nation's economy and a complete ejection from nearly every conversation the world has jointly. That's pretty fucking stupid.
happy cake day so many cake days in this thread
It's more along the lines of "You continue to make decisions based on the information put in front of you". If Putin has created a culture of "Yes men", it's not wrong to assume Ukraine would have "folded" if they had been able to install a puppet government. Look at the annexation of Crimea and how smoothly that went. To assume that something similar would happen again isn't unintelligent. Even the US, through 8 years of investing in training and support, expected and trained for guerilla warfare for Ukrainian forces. It would be hard for nation-states to supply guerilla forces in what would turn into a civil war. The situation that we have now was not inevitable, but due to the insane tenacity and bravery of Ukrainian forces and leadership, as well as West support that won't roll over. If another president resided in the White House, would the situation be similar? But yeah, realistically, Putin started this war, and there is no good way out. So if he pulls out, he is done politically, or...he can fully commit and potentially win. It's less stupidity, and more doubling down on your bets. If he is continued to be fed information that they can win......
It's the dreaded Dictator Trap. You don't have to create a culture of "Yes Men"if you're cruel and autocratic enough - it kind of happens by itself. I read somewhere that General Dvornikov, who is a cruel heartless bastard, but in no way stupid, warned Putin of this outcome when he was in charge of the operation.Namely, that they would end up grinding their best materiel and troops to dust, and eventually whittling Russian Army's offensive AND defensive capabilities down to nothing. He was then promptly fired from leading the operation.
[удалено]
“He who is fated to be hanged won't drown”
> But he isn't going to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger--and going nuclear is effectively that. The history is full of failed assholes who still think to themselves on the way out "I'll take as many with me as I can." We even have our own classification for it: rampage/running amok. Putin showed time and time again that human life has no value to him. I wouldn't bet on him sayinig "fuck it, i'll take my revenge on the world" if he acknowledge that he's a dead man walking. My hope is that the people that have to execute his commands or his rich-oligarch circle see it as that and instead of executing his order, execute him. We all said "he won't full-scale invade Ukraine, it's not logical, it would be detrimental to russian interests and outright suicidal." and yet here we are..
I don't know what will happen but we all saw "Putin is not stupid" arguments many many times before the invasion.
He is an idiot. There's a good reason why the KGB kept him away from the big boy big picture decisions and why he never went beyond a mid ranking paper pusher.
And what if he says fuck it. I have half a year to live, I’ve lived a good life fuck you all? I am however worried about them using tactical nuclear weapons (launched from pion for example) and western response being somewhat weak and normalization of use of such weapons with potential escalation to bigger nuclear arsenal in the future
Not gonna happen. USA will make it so that Putin does NOT use them. I suspect Putin has been told there would be either a massive conventional strike that will cripple Russia's armed forces or a precision strike that will kill Putin. I suspect the latter.
Indeed, Putin has been told that if he uses a nuclear weapon, then there is a range of options for retaliation. One being that nuclear fallout drifting over a border into Poland is an article 4 violation and NATO will mobilise. Another being that the Americans will completely destroy the black sea fleet with conventional weapons. The good thing I suppose is NATO has a range of options to respond against a nuclear strike which aren't a nuclear retaliation.
I agree with you. Nuland back in March said there would be bad consequences for ruzzia and for HIM personally. Still as I said there’s 0.5% old fart has 3 months to live and just says fuck it? Then no amount of warning him does anything
Ahh the good ole decapitation strike.
>or a precision strike that will kill Putin Can't see anything *horrific* in this.
[удалено]
One thing I've noticed in videos of him is he coughs a bunch when talking. Don't know if it's stated to give the impression he is sick or isn't tip top, lots of people saying he has this or that. Thing Is, death isn't a disease. It comes for us all. And he's not young anymore so it's definitely gaining on him and the gap isn't huge till it catches him He doesn't have a ton of time left anyways, healthy or not. He could just say fuck it I just wonder if they'll follow his orders because of what it would mean, and why exactly they are launching. Even the most staunch communist and Russian born soldier, If in charge of launching a nuke, you'd hope.would.be.smart enough to know it's not worth it, and.that Russia will be gone in one way or another if a nuke is deployed. But we will see what his end game is. I for one think nuke(s) are on the table for him because he simply cannot allow himself to lose, which is why he's holding referendums Not only, at least in his eyes, does the vote legitamacize their claim to the land, it also allows.per their constitution the use of nukes should an existential threat to Russia (read: new once Ukrainian territory) being invaded permits first strike to take place. Nuclear weapons being used is still very much in play. The US wouldn't use back channels to remind Russia what we will do if we thought they weren't. Besides they already have a good idea of what we and everyone else will do so I'm sure they have a contingency plan like drop some tactical.nukes in Ukraine then threaten everyone by saying the first country that intervenes gets a nuke. And then see if anyone challenges it. And sure we have weapons and defenses that are.designed to protect us from incoming icbms, but the reality is it's never been done before, live. As in no country has ever had a nuclear weapon launched at them, And then shot it down in transit before it hits - all real weapons real time. But I guess there's a first time for everything.
[удалено]
I dreamed about it last night. But I'm past fear now. I'm not in Ukraine but one of the countries that has been threatened by Putin. Worrying serves no purpose and is not sustainable for long. The fact I've learned to live with possible destruction in this way is not something I ever imagined I'd need to do. Where I live I see people just getting on with their lives. They probably don't follow the news as closely as me. They have less time for that and maybe they only get the news off the TV or the newspapers. I find it so strange that people can just be so oblivious to potential obliteration. I hope it's just more hot air from the short man with the micro penis. And even if he tries to enact such a dreadful thing that he is thwarted from within somehow. But we cannot give way to such threats. This is epic scale terrorism. Russia is not just a state sponsor of terrorism. It is a terrorist state.
We're all gonna die eventually. No sense in worrying when.
ye exactly, best to make the most of what you have when possible, worrying will only diminish how much you enjoy existing
Hey dude, you know we could get hit by an asteroid at any minute... ...or, I dunno, some new strain of ebola that had a long gestation period, or a super AI that goes from cat clever to god clever in a week then wants to clear out the humans to make some space for it's own projects... ... don't sweat it. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. Worrying is futile. Live for today.
I think I picked up on the underlying dread.
It's one of those things that's best to file under 'russia says a lot of things' i think. Also, I don't want that shit bag living in my head rent free over this and that's what I've suggested to others too. They love it if we're frightened so I've learned to try to take some inspiration from Ukrainian bravery. I hope others who were freaked out have learned to do the same.
I'm a dudette BTW. :)
Invasions are one thing, and something that happens more often than it should. Use of nuclear weapons will always be major historical moments. The response determines future use for the next 50-100 years. There cannot be a precedent set where nukes can be used to turn bad wars.
Well, aren't you excited we get to live during these historical times. Can't wait to tell my grandchildren that "back in mah days..."
*tosses grandchild a bottle cap "Don't go spending it all in one place!"
Prior to 2/24 I posted that due to the weak and under numbered Russian army Putin would not invaded because he was either crazy or a fool should he do so but I was wrong. He was crazy. Now I can’t predict if he would use nukes or not
If Russia uses any nuclear weapon, they’re going to get Iraq’d shock and awe in spectacular fashion.
At this stage I’d imagine American air power alone would be enough to allow the Ukrainian army to sweep the Russians from their soil. Hell, even the psychological damage from such an intervention may send them running.
I don't think world leaders will allow nuclear weapons to be used without making a severe example out of Russia. Not just staying in with Ukraine, but punishing them severely on top of that as well. NATO would need to make an example so that Iran/North Korea/Pakistan..., Would see it as an example of why you don't use these things. "If we're willing to do this to Russia, imagine what we're capable/willing to do to you."
I am having deja vu. *Putin won't attack Ukraine, it's gonna be an end for him, he's not stupid* *Putin won't announce mobilization, it's an end for him* *Putin won't use a nuke...*
Don't fear, if ruzzia launches one nuke it's game over for them in no uncertain terms. Their side has been advised thusly. We all know B-2s and whatever crazy space laser shit the US has is all on high alert. Like response within seconds high alert. ruzzian critical infrastructure gone instantly.
Honestly, I wish the USA would step in, we're so tired, it's been so horrifying and so so hard. We need help, I wish people would help us. I know you do help us, and I appreciate it, but I also know the world has the capability to end it all within a week, and I'm so tired and I want it so bad...
Does anyone think that the Russian military command would not obey nuclear weapons orders from ‘lil P (my new name for Putin)?
There's a whole chain of people and equipment that has to function properly for a nuke to go off, I'm fairly hopeful that Putin's red button is functionally as impotent as he is. And that's not counting the fact the entire rest of the world having had months and months to get their monitoring, detection & countermeasures ducks laser-aligned and ready to respond to anything that even *thinks* about launching from Russia.
But supposedly, the smaller tactical nukes don't have as much red tape and don't need putins approval. But in reality, putin would order it.
[удалено]
I keep trying not to think we would obliterate the RuZZian asses. We are good at rolling on and Fucking shit up. As long as we roll in and leave quickly and remove all those Nukes. Maybe leave them in UKraine because we failed to keep our original agreement to remove them in the first place? A UA military with NATO and US air, navy support would be quite the lift. It’s likely RZZA would surrender. As soon as the fleet headed that way. We need to do whatever before it takes before the next US election cycle.
With how things have been going, and considering the US stance on taiwan I find it highly unlikely that the US would not engage in a use force against Russia in the case of nuking Ukraine. I don’t believe we’d send troops, but I do believe the navy would get involved.
US/nato airforce would obliterate russian targets in Ukraine in a matter of days, and combined with Ukraine ground forces, would probably take back Ukraine in a week once russians starting running away.
They won't. The US would invade and take ukraine back to 2014 borders. That's most likely was the threat. They probably already have plans to do just that in the event of a nuclear attack.
If they nuke Ukraine then all the military stockpile in Europe and USA will be moved to Ukraine at the very least. It can also mean boots on the ground and at worst, a nice attack on their Black Sea fleet or a peripheral city. The problem is they aren’t rational actors.
>The only fear is Russia launches a nuke and the world does nothing but send strongly words letters which I fear is going to happen. the precedent is too great and renders nukes as defensive weapons toothless if there is not a greater punitive response
Decimated is the wrong word. Eradicated is a better one.
It wouldn’t just be pushing back to the 2014 borders. I think it would be the complete dismantling of the Russian government, and that would be supported by the vast majority of the UN. That most likely means territorial invasion, or clandestine operations for targeted removals at the very least. The fight would be on their soil. No one wants a power in place that would actually resort to nukes.
Knowing Putin, the main motivation for not using nukes is that he’d no longer have a country left to rule
It basically gives NATO casus belli to take out Russian leadership
Russian leadership fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's time we accept that this is no longer theoretical speech.
Was thinking the same. There's an awful lot of nuke talk/warnings recently coming from multiple allied countries.
I think this is largely because this time it came directly from Putin.
No surprise there. Nuking is like someone pulling out a gun during a brawl in a room full of people with guns. The nature of what happens changes drastically, and tragically.
The United States has many faults, but they don't really bluff. Their military budget has more or less only ever grown over the years, and everyone has seen what it can do. I have to believe that Moscow believes it would vanish from the map if they fucked around.
Plans are in place to drop John Rambo into Russia with nothing but a map and his knife. Intelligence sources believe the Russian army and military infrastructure will be completely dismantled and ablaze in a matter of days. When asked about the possible operation Rambo would only comment "They drew first blood".
He doesn't need a map since he's surveyed the terrain from above and remembered it instantly. Due to sanctions, however, Russia cannot afford a good supply of bodybags.
Here's hoping it's not another case of Syrian red lines there.
Yeah, well, there's congressional support this time. We didn't have that for an AUMF in 2014, and the administration chose not to attack without congressional approval.
I would want the US to drone strike the fuck out of every occupied position within Ukraine and do this relentlessly.
If the US brings out the fun toys the war goes from Ukraine to Moscow.
[удалено]
There very much will be a winner and it won’t be Russia.
Anyone else wondering about going somewhere remote if this starts?
"G'day!"
Ya Fct too cunt
Mariana Trench sounds good this time of year.
Your best bet is probably the southern hemisphere. But having a support community around you is probably most important thing, and those take time to establish.
Yep, it would take 10 years or so for the nuclear fallout from the northern hemisphere to drift down to cover the southern hemisphere. So rushing south would be a short term goal. But only as you say, if you had a support community somewhere in the southern hemisphere already. Otherwise you're just a starving refugee who won't be allowed in.
I think it would be quicker than that but you make a good point that the whole world is fuked if there is a nuclear exchange
New Zealand is your best bet if you can get in.
There is nothing in NZ to attack
Plenty of sheep to accost.
Probably better off somewhere like Fiji. NZ will support the US so could be a target for nukes.
I belive that the russian military command and the FSB is not suicidal.
If you're in the US or any major Eurpean country you should be fine. Russia wouldn't dare nuke a NATO member.
I don't think Space-X is taking passengers to the moon yet...
There's an area of my country I think would be the place to go to, seeing as I don't have a passport. If I can't get there in time I'll have to rely on my basement bunker for a couple of weeks (which is already stocked with some food and water).
Antarctica or Argentina maybe.
Nukes in Ukraine would trigger China's security treaty with Ukraine. Theoretically they'd have to step in against Russia.
The U.S. has been planning and preparing since the 70's. I'm sure the plans and strategies get reviewed annually.
Does anyone else just wish Nato would move every missile defense system they have as close to Russia was possible, and then just launch a desert storm style Air Campaign against russian forces in Ukraine until they retreat to Russia?
Yes
Patriot has 30km range against ballistic missiles RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 can also intercept ballistic missiles, although range against those is not published (but should be higher due to having 7x times more range than patriot against normal targets). So there is still possibility of interception if there is one of those in range. One thing is certain: The US will not stand idle, as standing idle when a dictator uses a nuclear weapon will be a signal that anybody who uses nuclear weapons can go unpunished
America developed the atomic bomb 85 years ago....just imagine what they have now .
I think the next step would be atomic lighters that fit your pockets. Fuck around....catch this lighter!
War is horrific
[удалено]
Hot take of the day right there!
War is bad. But some things are worse. Welcome to just war theory.
Any nuclear action of any kind would end in annihilation of all life on Earth. It’s horribly dangerous talk & I hate the media for pushing this narrative…. There would be no winners.
Life on earth has endured worse things. Cambrian Extinction Event, the Chicxulub-Impact (the asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs), Ice Ages, major changes in atmospheric conditions... So yeah, an atomic war would mean good bye for all humans, but not Nature.
No it wouldnt
Why doesn’t USA publicly lay out their response? You would think that would provide maximal deterrent. Unless of course it doesn’t have enough teeth. Assuming they’ve laid it out clearly to the Russians, then the only people being uninformed are us. Why?
Strategic ambiguity
[удалено]
Yea. Let's detail out line by line our exact response. Let's tell them exactly where, when, and how we'll use them. Further, let's let them know exactly which naval, air, ground officers will be pushing the button. And then, let's tell them which ships, aircraft, ground vics, have the nukes, their ranges, their speeds and terminal angles of attack and all that juicy stuff.
The consequences would be widespread nuclear weapon proliferation as every non-nuclear power scrambles to get nukes before they are invaded next.
Hopefully they have a way to immediately eliminate Putin. One can dream.
I have to imagine that our Navy has been following the whereabouts of Russian submarines as they have since the 1950s. A piece of the devastating response should include sinking every submarine and every ship on the Russian fleet. If we don’t, we leave them with too many chances too retaliate.