03-07-2024, 02:10 PM
|
#13341
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
The only time Nukes were ever used in a battle scenario was to induce the surrender of a foreign combatant, though. I suppose that's sort of a "deterrent to continue war" but it wasn't defensive at all.
MAD might make that less pertinent in these times, but I don't think it's valid to say they're only useful as a deterrent. There's a whole category of low-yield nukes envisioned for tactical no defensive purposes, too. They're non-practical in todays world because of international law and image... but not useless for these purposes.
|
Thats fair, although that whole scenario doesn't happen without US first having the traditional military power necessary to occupy Japan.
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-07-2024, 03:04 PM
|
#13343
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I think the threat of nuclear war is real. It won't be a volley of massive strikes between two countries like the common scenario portrayed though. it will be a more gradual escalation when some country starts to use low-yield tactical nukes to take out military staging areas and other targets. The line is constantly getting pushed and there has already been talk in both the West and Russia about tactical nukes not being a red line that triggers full scale intercontinental nuclear war.
|
In wargames and strategic analysis, this is typically how two powers start climbing the nuclear ladder. One side suffers a serious loss or setback in conventional battle, and deploys a small tactical nuke to cover a retreat or take out enemy staging areas. Then the opponent is confronted with the decision whether to respond in kind or (as the power that used the nuke hopes) back the #### off. If the response is escalation, then you’re climbing the nuclear ladder. And the higher up that ladder the opponents climb, the greater the risk of escalation to full nuclear exchange.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-08-2024, 11:39 AM
|
#13345
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Quote:
|
South Korea, Canada, Sweden urged citizens to urgently leave #Russia because of possible terrorist attacks
|
What about the ones that went to Glorious Russia for farming because the gays scared them away? Can we tell them to stay?
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2024, 01:17 PM
|
#13346
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
|
When the US first reported that an invasion of Ukraine was imminent imminent imminent and even had lots of details on when and how, it was not taken very seriously, even by Ukraine. It was clearly obvious that they had major intelligence deep within the Kremlin.
If the US is coming out to expect extremist terrorist attacks in Moscow, it's because Putin is likely orchestrating a terrorist attack ala Chechnya for an escalation of hostilities against Ukraine. Will this be a precursor to justify full mandatory conscription including Moscow and St. Petersburg? Or will it be to eliminate any remaining opposing factions and blame it on radical Navalny supporters ahead of the election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_R...tment_bombings
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 11:33 AM
|
#13350
|
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
In wargames and strategic analysis, this is typically how two powers start climbing the nuclear ladder. One side suffers a serious loss or setback in conventional battle, and deploys a small tactical nuke to cover a retreat or take out enemy staging areas. Then the opponent is confronted with the decision whether to respond in kind or (as the power that used the nuke hopes) back the #### off. If the response is escalation, then you’re climbing the nuclear ladder. And the higher up that ladder the opponents climb, the greater the risk of escalation to full nuclear exchange.
|
Personally I think nuclear war is inevitable, judging by the actions of all major powers involved.
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 11:39 AM
|
#13351
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Man losing AWACS is a big deal for air superiority. Especially if Ukraine is about to have some jets enter the game.
I was lucky enough to get a tour of a NATO base in Germany where they maintained an AWACS and got to tour the plane too. Very cool piece of equipment. I can't imagine there are a lot of them and that losing even a couple would be a pretty hard blow.
__________________
|
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 12:13 PM
|
#13352
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Man losing AWACS is a big deal for air superiority. Especially if Ukraine is about to have some jets enter the game.
I was lucky enough to get a tour of a NATO base in Germany where they maintained an AWACS and got to tour the plane too. Very cool piece of equipment. I can't imagine there are a lot of them and that losing even a couple would be a pretty hard blow.
|
It also speaks to the degradation of Russian abilities that they can't protect them
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 12:29 PM
|
#13353
|
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Man losing AWACS is a big deal for air superiority. Especially if Ukraine is about to have some jets enter the game.
I was lucky enough to get a tour of a NATO base in Germany where they maintained an AWACS and got to tour the plane too. Very cool piece of equipment. I can't imagine there are a lot of them and that losing even a couple would be a pretty hard blow.
|
According to this article from February, Ukraine's head of Defence Intelligence says Russia only had 6 A-50s left (I guess now 5) and that 6 was the minimum number to keep around the clock AWACS operation.
So if true, Russia will now have a significant gap in AWACS coverage.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/25/7443616/
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 12:32 PM
|
#13354
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
According to this article from February, Ukraine's head of Defence Intelligence says Russia only had 6 A-50s left (I guess now 5) and that 6 was the minimum number to keep around the clock AWACS operation.
So if true, Russia will now have a significant gap in AWACS coverage.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/25/7443616/ |
It also makes sense that Ukraine would target the AWACS ahead of deploying jets. Until now they wouldn't have mattered that much.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2024, 01:55 PM
|
#13355
|
|
Franchise Player
|
the target of the attack was the Beriev A-50 airborne early warning and control platform. He added that the aircraft was successfully struck and destroyed during the operation.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1766561016173699527
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
03-10-2024, 10:59 AM
|
#13358
|
|
Franchise Player
|
May not be a popular take in here, but I agree with the former PM of France's comments here about the irresponsible comments from Macron a number of weeks ago when he suggested that France will send their troops on the ground into Ukraine. It was quickly countered by Germany and other countries saying they disagreed and will not send troops on the ground, but it still made Macron look amateur, making hubris claims without thinking, and isolated them on the world stage.
The war needs to end now. The only people benefitting from it are the players involved in the war machine of the west, while Ukrainians suffer and have their country destroyed. Like always, it's war hawks in the west who sit in their homes far away and cheer for the fighting to continue until "all Russians are dead" knowing full well that brave Ukrainians continue to die.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1766689428121297314
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2024, 11:31 AM
|
#13359
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Or the russians could just turn around and go home.
Then the war machine of the west won't have to benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
|
BloodFetish,
Cheese,
CrunchBite,
Cycling76er,
FLAMESRULE,
greyshep,
IGGYRULES,
Itse,
Johnny Makarov,
mivdo,
Plett25,
Redliner,
Sainters7,
Samonadreau,
Sultan,
Underdog
|
|
03-10-2024, 12:16 PM
|
#13360
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
May not be a popular take in here, but I agree with the former PM of France's comments here about the irresponsible comments from Macron a number of weeks ago when he suggested that France will send their troops on the ground into Ukraine. It was quickly countered by Germany and other countries saying they disagreed and will not send troops on the ground, but it still made Macron look amateur, making hubris claims without thinking, and isolated them on the world stage.
The war needs to end now. The only people benefitting from it are the players involved in the war machine of the west, while Ukrainians suffer and have their country destroyed. Like always, it's war hawks in the west who sit in their homes far away and cheer for the fighting to continue until "all Russians are dead" knowing full well that brave Ukrainians continue to die.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1766689428121297314 |
so, first off, there ARE other countries willing to put boots on the ground regardless of what the FORMER French PM said. All of the Baltic countries, Poland, etc are willing. I also agree with Macron, it is time to quit worrying about fear of escalation, Russia can be beat if the west gets off their ass and either provides the weapons or boots, or both. The alternative is a Europe frozen in fear while RW bootlickers typical to Hungary and Belarus continue their takeover in the west.
Second, and once again, what is your war ending premise? Waive the white flag like the Pope suggested? Is that what you would expect of Canada under the same duress?
I think the east benefits from this war as well, by taking over countries the west is to scared to protect.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 AM.
|
|
