Ukraine

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
30,199
5,176
Couple of reasons Russia won't nuke:
1. how many of them will actually work?
2. The country is extremely vulnerable - most of the wealth and population are concentrated in a small area. Take out Moscow and St Petersburg and they are done. Think DC and NYC except the wealth and population are spread across the continent. Europe is much the same.

Don't take an Einstein to see how that would play out.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
48,102
11,734
Eastern NC
Couple of reasons Russia won't nuke:
1. how many of them will actually work?
2. The country is extremely vulnerable - most of the wealth and population are concentrated in a small area. Take out Moscow and St Petersburg and they are done. Think DC and NYC except the wealth and population are spread across the continent. Europe is much the same.

Don't take an Einstein to see how that would play out.

NATO would not need to use nukes to dismantle Russia as a modern country. I bet there are enough cruise missiles already deployed to do the job. Saturation strike against military bases, primary strikes against military units and specific infrastructure like rail hubs and power stations, secondary strikes against remaining infrastructure, tertiary strikes against gov't buildings... it would be appealing to use a couple of nukes for the symbolism but it would be a very costly and dirty, any rational military planner would say NO.

Take out the infrastructure, and the people will begin starving in short order. Take out the gov't buildings, and there are no more of Putin's secret police keeping him (or anybody) in power.

Russia would cease to exist except as a place where a country used to be. Somalia on the steppes.

It would solve the Russian hacker/troll problem too.
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
13,682
3,788
PNW
Am confident this conflict will not ever go nucelar.

Am also confident that with the truly massive amount of weaponry getting line up in UKR, that RU is in for a very rough road ahead.

I keep harkening back to what Austin said at the outset, about the intention to first weaken RU forces. There is surely a calculated plan for all this. And yes, Crimea will be a focus because if Putin loses that then there's not much reason to try keep the land bridge.
 

The_Alchemist

Super Anarchist
3,208
1,762
USA
Depends on what they think about it, which may not be what we think they should think about it.

As a thought experiment, imagine the US had fallen apart and in the process Texas became its own nation. In the process of attempting to aggressively re-build the US "empire", Russia (imagine the Soviets had won the Cold War here) armed the Texans with all kinds of high tech stuff to defend itself....and the Texans were about to massacre a large US force.

If a US POTUS were to say at that time: "Back the fuck off Russia, or I will use tactical nukes!", would it be wise for the Russians to assume with utter confidence that he's bluffing and'or US generals would surely not obey him?

As Michael Koffman put it a couple week ago: "Look deep into the beady eyes of General Gerasimov for a few moments and see if you can see anything in them that leads you to believe he's too principled to obey that order."
This is not a good analogy or thought experiment. Not very many Americans would be willing to destroy the world in order to bring Texas in line. Texas has some oil and thinks it is the center of the universe, but it would never survive on its own.

As for the generals, they all knew Trump was nuts and would never had followed his commands to nuke anyone. The chief of staff took on the role of babysitting him. Many of the US generals are very astute students of warfare and they know it is only a method of last resort. It is the chicken hawks that brag/threat about going to war.
 

Rennmaus

Super Anarchist
10,690
2,287
So what's Hungary's Viktor Orban up to. Is he looking for a Belarus-type puppet show with his mate, Putin?

I read that piece today too.
Orban is cut from the same Mafia cloth as Putin, Trump, Berlusconi. Very dangerous.
There should be a simple answer by the EU: If you don't play by our rules you will not get our funds. That easy.
 

Mark_K

Super Anarchist
This is not a good analogy or thought experiment. Not very many Americans would be willing to destroy the world in order to bring Texas in line. Texas has some oil and thinks it is the center of the universe, but it would never survive on its own.

As for the generals, they all knew Trump was nuts and would never had followed his commands to nuke anyone. The chief of staff took on the role of babysitting him. Many of the US generals are very astute students of warfare and they know it is only a method of last resort. It is the chicken hawks that brag/threat about going to war.
Read it again. You missed a lot.
 
Top