Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[disgruntledemployee]

We play our role.  We send assistance, enact trade and financial pain, isolate, and gather allies to do the same.  We send the message that America will do anything for freedom and we will help, but we probably won't do that.  Then tell the rest of russia, the pain stops when Putin is gone, like, "Sorry, we'd love to work with you and do trade and all, but we can't work with a country that invades and is led by a bully."

[goingkinetic]

For hypothetical argument, what if he went into Finland? He has invaded two of his neighbors already. What if his replacement uses his same playbook? Wait it out? Discuss.

[hockeydork]

16 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Who's nuclear forces will strike Moscow in your scenario?

Think that answer through...

If he uses nukes I would say the gloves are off, wouldn't you?

[brickhistory]

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

If he uses nukes I would say the gloves are off, wouldn't you?

I've written, repeatedly in this thread, that A) I will not be surprised if Putin has his ass handed to him, he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine.  If third country parties use armed force against Russian forces, that prediction is doubled, but the mushroom cloud will be inside Ukraine.

B) What nuclear nation would trade any of their cities for one in Ukraine should Putin take that action?  If any outside nuclear nation retaliates against Moscow kinetically, especially nuclear, then the very large arsenal there will be used. 

Are you advocating trading Chicago for Kyiv?

Are you advocating for the post-explosion effects that will result from such an exchange?

Do not mistake my sentiments.  If Putin pulls a small nuclear trigger, he's toast literally.  His own folks will off him to try and contain this mess from WWIII with multiple nukes going off around the world.

The best scenario, if this goes that far, is that Putin gives the order to light up one in Ukraine and the nuclear forces refuse the order.

I don't see many scenarios where Putin comes out of this alive.  The trick is to limit the number of other people that run advance for his trip to hell.

[goingkinetic]

Do you believe in the nuclear umbrella? I realize Ukraine isn’t in it.

[bfargin]

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent. 

 

goingkinetic is dropping some strong acid with the "war crimes" talk.

[hockeydork]

15 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I've written, repeatedly in this thread, that A) I will not be surprised if Putin has his ass handed to him, he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine.  If third country parties use armed force against Russian forces, that prediction is doubled, but the mushroom cloud will be inside Ukraine.

B) What nuclear nation would trade any of their cities for one in Ukraine should Putin take that action?  If any outside nuclear nation retaliates against Moscow kinetically, especially nuclear, then the very large arsenal there will be used. 

Are you advocating trading Chicago for Kyiv?

Are you advocating for the post-explosion effects that will result from such an exchange?

Do not mistake my sentiments.  If Putin pulls a small nuclear trigger, he's toast literally.  His own folks will off him to try and contain this mess from WWIII with multiple nukes going off around the world.

The best scenario, if this goes that far, is that Putin gives the order to light up one in Ukraine and the nuclear forces refuse the order.

I don't see many scenarios where Putin comes out of this alive.  The trick is to limit the number of other people that run advance for his trip to hell.

I think you misread my post. I meant if he preemptively nuked say NYC because he was in tantrum mode over losing in Ukraine/sanctions/the West's help. If he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, my policy would be a clear eye for an eye. You use one in Ukraine, expect one to be used against you in Ukraine. He would be breaking such a precedent that at that point, I think it would be justified to assassinate him, if he wasn't offed internally first. Let us hope Denzel is holding the button (couldn't refuse the Crimson Tide reference..). 

 

 

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, bfargin said:

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent. 

 

goingkinetic is dropping some strong acid with the "war crimes" talk.

Depends if he starts losing. He'll def be willing to carpet bomb it to save his ego. If he starts that, expect longer range SAMs to start rolling into Ukraine, it won't only by Russian helo pilots dodging stingers at that point.  I have a feeling getting NASAMs or some other longer range system to the Ukrainians is already in the works behind the scenes. 

 

 

[waveshaper]

Pentagon Press Briefing (about an hour ago): Some caution being exercised on this crazy Nuke stuff.

'Such provocative rhetoric and possible changes to nuclear posture involving the most consequential weapons in our respective arsenals is unacceptable. The United States has not taken any similar steps. And so in an effort to demonstrate that we have no intention in engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued, the secretary of defense has directed that our Minuteman-III intercontinental ballistic missile test launch scheduled for this week to be postponed. 

Now, we did not take this decision lightly, but instead, to demonstrate that we are a responsible nuclear power. This is not a step backwards in our readiness, nor does it imply that we will necessarily cancel other routine activities to ensure a credible nuclear capability. We remain confident in our strategic posture, as we've said before, and our ability to defend the homeland and our allies and partners remains fully intact and ready. We recognize at this moment of tension how critical it is that both the United States and Russia bear in mind the risk of miscalculation, and take steps to reduce those risks.'

 Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing > U.S. Department of Defense > Transcript

[brickhistory]

9 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

I think you misread my post. I meant if he preemptively nuked say NYC because he was in tantrum mode over losing in Ukraine/sanctions/the West's help. If he uses a tactical nuke inside Ukraine, my policy would be a clear eye for an eye. You use one in Ukraine, expect one to be used against you in Ukraine. He would be breaking such a precedent that at that point, I think it would be justified to assassinate him, if he wasn't offed internally first. Let us hope Denzel is holding the button (couldn't refuse the Crimson Tide reference..). 

 

 

Roger...

And I found it easier to engage with you rather than the AS200 facts master.  I only have a foil to battle the Claymore broadsword of buzzwords so I declined the battle...

 

[xaarman]

I can’t see any country not try to develop or attain nuclear weapons. It seems that is the only deterrent from being attacked by another nuclear power. 
 

 

[goingkinetic]

17 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Roger...

And I found it easier to engage with you rather than the AS200 facts master.  I only have a foil to battle the Claymore broadsword of buzzwords so I declined the battle...

 

If you’re unwilling to trade chicago for kiev than I assume you wouldn’t trade Madrid for Chicago. If that is the case my next question is about the nuclear umbrella? If the answer is no I would argue that is isolationist. Its ok, stay in your intellectually superior ivory tower. I’m merely trying to debate viewpoints and not troll. You can call me AS200 buzzword master if you want.

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

If you’re unwilling to trade chicago for kiev than I assume you wouldn’t trade Madrid for Chicago. If that is the case my next question is about the nuclear umbrella? If the answer is no I would argue that is isolationist. Its ok, stay in your intellectually superior ivory tower. I’m merely trying to debate viewpoints and not troll. You can call me AS200 buzzword master if you want.

The difference is Ukraine is where the battle is now, it is currently a battlefield, Madrid and Chicago are not. If he nukes Madrid, all the birds will start flying man. We'll all be dead. 

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, hockeydork said:

The difference is Ukraine is where the battle is now, it is currently a battlefield, Madrid and Chicago are not. If he nukes Madrid, all the birds will start flying man. We'll all be dead. 

My fundamental question is where is the line. It’s ok to say NATO in which case your argument is valid. However, If I was a neighbor to Russia or China I’d be trying to buy every Rafale that France would sell me since American assurances to Georgia and Ukraine didn’t work out so well.

[brickhistory]

Having been to both Madrid and Chicago, I'd exchange them in a heartbeat.

Shipping might be cost prohibitive, however...

[hockeydork]

11 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

My fundamental question is where is the line. It’s ok to say NATO in which case your argument is valid. However, If I was a neighbor to Russia or China I’d be trying to buy every Rafale that France would sell me since American assurances to Georgia and Ukraine didn’t work out so well.

100 percent, any country that doesn't wanna be Putin or Xis bitch had better hit the weight room.

You also need to understand that just because the US is not intervening with bodies, doesn't mean that we are not in the process of now crushing Russia long term. Anybody who previously was anti-renewable domestic energy, sure as shit is probably scratching their head and reevaluating their side of that debate. Expect an acceleration off of fossil fuels, expect nobody to want to get involved with Russia, expect the Russian state to become an old rabid dog: you don't want to get near it, but its to slow and weak to hurt you. Than once these cold war soviet relics die out, maybe they'll undergo a revolution. I've always wanted to visit Moscow, maybe towards the end of my life things will have changed. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by hockeydork

[Smokin]

59 minutes ago, bfargin said:

There is no way Putin drops nukes (tactical or otherwise) in Ukraine!

 

So far the Russian troops seem to be diligently trying to minimize deaths. Putin is in the wrong to invade, but he fully outlined his reasoning and intent.

I really hope you're right, but I think the last 24 hours have shown that Putin is switching strategies and is no longer trying to minimize civilian deaths.  He's shelling major cities with absolutely zero military value other than avoiding urban combat.  But, even with that as an excuse, that's a poor one as history has shown that shelled cities are just as defend-able as intact ones.  That does not mean that nukes are a logical next step, but the war going poorly for him does not mean the war will continue to go relatively well for Ukrainian citizens.  On the contrary, the worse the war goes for Putin, the worse it is going to get.  This is an ego driven war and a totalitarian leader with an ego in a losing war is a dangerous thing.

[Mighty]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Who's nuclear forces will strike Moscow in your scenario?

Think that answer through...

Plot twist:

Pyongyang nukes Moscow off the map to demonstrate their capabilities and deeply rooted care for human rights. They open their borders, reunify as a United Korea where Kim is elected as the new country’s first President, and become a staunch ally of the west…all from a plan developed by now President-elect Rodman. China becomes a champion for workers rights and joins NATO, Hillary runs for President and loses again, and the sun sets on a peaceful Earth. Scene. 

[FLEA]

Well that died.....

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/28/ukrainian-pilots-arrive-in-poland-to-pick-up-donated-fighter-jets-00012560

[bfargin]

28 minutes ago, Smokin said:

I really hope you're right, but I think the last 24 hours have shown that Putin is switching strategies and is no longer trying to minimize civilian deaths.  He's shelling major cities with absolutely zero military value other than avoiding urban combat.  But, even with that as an excuse, that's a poor one as history has shown that shelled cities are just as defend-able as intact ones.  That does not mean that nukes are a logical next step, but the war going poorly for him does not mean the war will continue to go relatively well for Ukrainian citizens.  On the contrary, the worse the war goes for Putin, the worse it is going to get.  This is an ego driven war and a totalitarian leader with an ego in a losing war is a dangerous thing.

no doubt Putin got a hold of one of Hunter's crack pipes, but there is still no fargin way he goes nuclear!

[hockeydork]

15 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Well that died.....

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/28/ukrainian-pilots-arrive-in-poland-to-pick-up-donated-fighter-jets-00012560

I was questioning the effectiveness of that decision. The Russians are going to win that war of attrition no matter what. Better to spend the money on MANPADS, even if it takes 3 shots to hit something. 

[Stoker]

2 hours ago, viper154 said:

Russia has lots of armor in storage to replace its losses. 

I wonder. The wheeled vehicles they're using for the actual invasion have their tires falling apart for lack of care and maintenance. How likely are vehicles in storage for the past 30 years likely to be anywhere near ready to roll into combat? And even if you get a far-outdated T-72 running, how effective will the second wave of unmotivated conscripts be, knowing they have even less chance the first wave (since the mothballed stuff certainly doesn't have any modern electronics or reactive armor)?

[DVT]

1 hour ago, hockeydork said:

100 percent, any country that doesn't wanna be Putin or Xis bitch had better hit the weight room.

You also need to understand that just because the US is not intervening with bodies, doesn't mean that we are not in the process of now crushing Russia long term. Anybody who previously was anti-renewable domestic energy, sure as shit is probably scratching their head and reevaluating their side of that debate. Expect an acceleration off of fossil fuels, expect nobody to want to get involved with Russia, expect the Russian state to become an old rabid dog: you don't want to get near it, but its to slow and weak to hurt you. Than once these cold war soviet relics die out, maybe they'll undergo a revolution. I've always wanted to visit Moscow, maybe towards the end of my life things will have changed. 

I'm surely scratching my head that people focusing on non-workable, affordable, or truly capable, renewable fuel sources somehow believe this strengthens their cause.  The current administration CAUSED the dependency on outside nations for fuel.  To now show that as your, "see, see, this is what we are trying to show you!" is a joke.

We have the ability to be energy independent and an exporter.  We actually were that way until the current clown show took office.  We have oil, natural gas, coal and plenty of it.  We just are not using any of it and smacking those that produce it.  Let's get the actual "adults" back in the room and get the domestic fuel sources going again.

In other news, the Valkyries out of Lakenheath didn't take long to put the term, "Have Gun, Will Travel" to use.  Forward deployed with almost all their toys.

Edited March 3, 2022 by DVT

[hockeydork]

21 minutes ago, DVT said:

I'm surely scratching my head that people focusing on non-workable, affordable, or truly capable, renewable fuel sources somehow believe this strengthens their cause.  The current administration CAUSED the dependency on outside nations for fuel.  To now show that as your, "see, see, this is what we are trying to show you!" is a joke.

We have the ability to be energy independent and an exporter.  We actually were that way until the current clown show took office.  We have oil, natural gas, coal and plenty of it.  We just are not using any of it and smacking those that produce it.

As a good friend of mine used to say, "don't p#ss on my head and tell me it is raining". 

We have fossil fuels that clearly need to be not squandered, for situations EXACTLY like this, so we can use it as leverage during times of crises instead of sending an 18 year old to get shredded on the Russian border. And I'll have to tell my buddies who took jobs at GE making turbines that they're all so stupid and are just wasting their time, just  a bunch of morons doing wicked CFD and stuff.  

And man, having the Indian point reactor  (example) operating right now so we could shift more of our natural gas to Europe would be a real shame. I'm really glad THATS closed. 

Take your political hat off, this isn't about politics. There is a fixed amount fossil energy underground in the US, yes I agree with you now is the time to leverage it to bail Europe out, but there less and less every day, it is not the future. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by hockeydork

[bfargin]

23 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

.......

Take your political hat off, this isn't about politics. There is a fixed amount fossil energy underground in the US, yes I agree with you now is the time to leverage it to bail Europe out, but there less and less every day, it is not the future. 

 

You're shitting us right? Our energy policy is totally about politics. it shouldn't be but, in the US everything is politics now. We still have decades and decades of energy in the ground under the US.

 

The newest Nuclear technology is the cleanest and most green energy source we have available right now, but sadly it's out of fashion.