But no one actually believes that's what would happen. If Russia drops a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian troops, the US isn't going to nuke Moscow in response. The risk is more step-by-step escalation:
Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons -> NATO conducts air strikes on Russian troops in Ukraine and sinks the Black Sea fleet -> Russia uses more small nuclear weapons in Ukraine in response -> NATO starts conducting strikes on more Russian military targets -> and so on.
It's also important to remember the stakes for each country. The US doesn't really care all that much about Ukraine and Russia knows it. So Russia likely thinks that by pushing the envelope and making the risks unpalatable for the west, they can get NATO to back off.
So is the answer to never back down in the face of nuclear bluster? I don't know, I guess it depends how real the threat of nuclear war is. But I don't buy the Domino Theory 2.0 people are talking about. The Western allies handed over control over Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union after WWII, but NATO was never under serious threat. And if somehow Russia gets most of what they want out of this war, that doesn't mean they're dumb enough to attack NATO.
I agree with this post. In a way, it would almost be better to just have large strategic nukes and not have any low-yield tactical nukes. Adding a smaller scale to the spectrum of destruction just blurs the line and makes it easier to cross over time.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Is the argument being made that Ukraine should surrender the annexed territories in order to save the world from nuclear holocaust?
Seems like a bit of stretch.
No, more that the goals and possible outcomes need to be somewhat realistic given the context. When you're dealing with a nuclear power, there are always lines where the risk/benefit of crossing them just doesn't make sense. So I do think some of Ukraine's maximalist goals are non-starters, even if they could theoretically make them happen militarily. For instance, I'll be absolutely shocked if Crimea doesn't remain in Russia after the war.
Ukraine's efforts are primarily being bankrolled by NATO. So where their interests and NATO's interests diverge, the latter's are likely going to take precedence. So when people are saying that the US needs to help deescalate, they're saying that if the risks of nuclear war are credible, then the US should step in and dial things back, even if it's counter to Ukraine's interests. And they're already doing that to some extent. The US refuses to supply longer-range guided missiles because they could potentially be used to attack Russia-proper. And so far they've refused to provide tanks or jets, even though they could offer tremendous help to Ukraine's efforts.
In other words, if tacitly hampering Ukraine's ability to win the war (by strictly limiting types of US weapons support) in order to protect against a theoretical threat of escalation has been a reasonable position this whole time, then why would doing the same thing in the face of a credible threat of escalation to nuclear weapons (if such a threat exists) be appeasement?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
None of Ukraine's maximalist goals are a threat to Russia except for economically. We want to pretend Putin's whole tirade about NATO expansion matters when really it's the Eastern Ukrainian gas fields supplying Europe cloaked in BS geopolitical strategy.
Nothing but total withdrawal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
The US and NATO has expressively stated that any use of nuclear weapons, including tactical small nukes will results in extremely serious consequences
People need to read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis to understand just how seriously close we were to nuclear Armageddon back in 1962, much closer to anything we are today. We were one officer decision away from total nuclear war where none of us would be here to talk about just a crisis. The US was prepared to go the full way if it had to and had an army ready for an invasion. Rational leadership on both side prevented nuclear Armageddon.
There is no de-escalation available here and there is one side which can no longer be considered as acting rationally. The US has already done everything it can to not escalate without giving Russia a carte blanche to invade everything it wants solely due to the threat of nukes, which would only make them bolder then they already are.
There is a red line that once crossed will never go back and the US and NATO making it extremely clear how the retaliation will happen. We are all only hoping that as mad as Putin is, that even he is not mad or insane enough to cross the red line.
Ok, for anyone not named Vladimir Putin, what does “stepping back from the precipice” actually mean to you?
Quote:
Paul Thoppil, the assistant deputy minister for Global Affairs, chalked it up to Beijing’s embrace of “the view that international rules and norms don’t apply to ‘great’ powers in their spheres of influence.”
Read this quote and it unlocks JohnnyB train of thought.
Also interesting is its from an article of Chinese Police stations in Canada, so ya lots to unpack on China’s view on sovereignty.
Of course it's naive or just capitulating to Russia as if the US isnt at minimum a equal power.
It's an internet meme but it's game theory. If you allow Russia to threaten nukes and everyone just backs down, they are just going to keep threatening nukes. The whole concept of nuclear peace is mutually assured destruction. There has to be fear in both sides of the others reaction. If Russia thinks they can get away with nukes... Then there is no reason not to use them.
This is actually great news. Kerch bridge's rail line is a major logistical supply route from Russia for the Kherson front. That intense a fuel fire will basically make the rail portion of the Kerch bridge unusable for months while allowing the road bridges to remain open in case the Russians troops need an escape route eventually from the Ukrainian counter offensives.
Unconfirmed reports it was a bomb placed on the train itself coming from Russia, we'll see soon enough.
Timing on this coincides with Ukraine's decision to suspend all negotiations while Putin is still alive. Once that decision was made, the op to blow the bridge was set in motion by Ukraine.
Ukraine must have concluded they don't care about a mix of Russian speaking population in Crimea and most of the Russian forces would surrender rather than fight in the area/are willing to take those additional losses against Russian forces fighting with their backs to the wall in Crimea.
Here's a past background video on why they kept Kerch bridge around till this point.
Last edited by FlameOn; 10-07-2022 at 11:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
Upon further look freeze framing, what looks to be a boat could just be a coincidental wave (don't see a boat), the initial fireball seems to come from the passing truck (and the debris seems to point that direction as well). Leaning more to this being the truck at this point.but could still be a boat.
What is 100% certain however is that Ukraine has confirmed this was their doing and was a very well planned attack at a critical junction.
See the 0:02 second mark at the bottom pillar, boat clearly visible.
Probably a boat drone set to go off at an exact coordinate
Insane, Ukraine actually went and managed to blow Putin's precious bridge, on his birthday
Well tells you how cheaply this bridge was built, I'm sure there was a crap ton of semtex packed into the bout but it still shouldnt be able to do that kind of damage just driven underneath where the blast is absorbed by the water or lost out the sides
The images look like phosphorus raining down on the bridge, and news are saying carbomb.
Pretty sure it was a car (or a truck).
What I'm wondering is, was it a suicide bombing? I wouldn't be technically impossible complicated to rig some automation, especially since it's basically just a straight road, but not completely trivial either, and you would expect there's some security on that road?
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
