How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Ultradave]

Some improving news on the nuclear reactor front. Half the staff at Chernobyl has been able to rotate out and go home replaced by off duty staff. More rotations to come. And I'll note here again since it's been a number of pages, that the last paragraph that mentions safeguards information from Chernobyl not being received by the IAEA. The safeguards they are talking about are not reactor operations. They are non-proliferation safeguards to prevent the diversion of nuclear material. I don't consider this much of an issue. The spent fuel is not terribly useful for any weapon purpose, even a dirty bomb, since due to the long time period since shutdown, it's not terribly radioactive anymore. Also, Russia has no need of it. Can't believe Ukraine would bother with it either.

Dave

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-27-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

 

[akd]

Russian drone videos of strike at Kyiv mall:

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by akd

[Lethaface]

51 minutes ago, keas66 said:

At this point in time I really don't know what to think about Putin and his Delusions / Ability to carry out actions we all deem nonsensical . He seems like a real Colonel Kurtz type to me right now .

I think the question is, do we have to think about it? That might be a personal thing though.

Personally I don't think too much about it, because what difference does it make for me? In fact I think that for too long we have catered to his threats and sought to find reasonable compromises. 
This (finding reasonable compromise) is, as long as the other party is reasonable, the safest thing to do and usually causes the least tensions. Every story has at least 2 sides, so usually there's much to be gained from trying to find 'common ground' and settling a dispute in such a way both parties can live with.

However when someone acts unreasonable, there is no merit in trying to be reasonable in order to deescalate. Unreasonable doesn't have to mean irrational, but in the end our response to threats should be the same whether the threatening party is being rationally unreasonable or irrationally unreasonable. The important part is whether the threats are in theory realistic (in this case they are, so better double check that nuclear readiness if we didn't do that already).

I'm reminded of some dialogues in Civilization 2, in which there was the option to either cave in to a demand or to choose 'we ignore your hollow threats'.

That's basically what I think about it (or just another coping strategy ). It is what it is and if the global nuclear war starts I guess it'll be over real soon. 

[rocketman]

I really don’t get that casual attitude to total annihilation?!

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, rocketman said:

I really don’t get that casual attitude to total annihilation?!

Not sure if casual is the right word, but what are you going to do about it?

Worrying won't help anything

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, rocketman said:

I really don’t get that casual attitude to total annihilation?!

If Putin can wave is magical nuclear stick, and get to wreck and conquer Ukraine, why does anyone think Poland, or the Baltics won't be next?

[Bulletpoint]

19 minutes ago, akd said:

Russian drone videos on strike at Kyiv mall:

 

It would explain the huge explosion, if they had several MLRS parked in there for refuel/rearming, together with a store of rockets.

Was it a Khinzal missile? It seems to have fire coming out the back, and move very rapidly, whereas I think Iskanders only have active engines during takeoff and then they coast for the rest of the flight?

Edited March 21, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Haiduk]

24 minutes ago, akd said:

Russian drone videos on strike at Kyiv mall:

 

And all began from TikTok video, uploaded as far as 24th Feb, when one guy filmed our vehciles around the mall. Maybe he wasn't Russian informator, just useful idiot, but who knows, maybe Russians payed attantion and sent UAVs to track our forces there. As I told, in previous days several missiles were intercepted in this district. 

Here that video

 And here that guy, which uploaded a video in TikTok, detained today by SBU. He is apologizing, but his likes under the video now can turn to 5-10 years of prison. 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It would explain the huge explosion, if they had several MLRS parked in there for refuel/rearming, together with a store of rockets.

Was it a Khinzal missile? It seems to have fire coming out the back, and move very rapidly, whereas I think Iskanders only have active engines during takeoff and then they coast for the rest of the flight?

No, this was typical ballistic trajectory. Iskander.

[akd]

Interesting story about exchanging the dead for the living:

https://kyivindependent.com/national/how-ukraine-swaps-living-soldiers-for-dead-russians/

[DesertFox]

To Berlin ???

 

 

[akd]

BTR-82A turrets have also joined the 2022 Ukrainian high jump competition:

 

[Cogust]

Shouldn't it be Manhattan first, and THEN Berlin?

[Sarjen]

4 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

To Berlin ???

 

That was a photo of 2015. The helicopter was shot down this year in Ukraine.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Sarjen

[DesertFox]

More Denazification in Kherson

 

 

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Cogust said:

Shouldn't it be Manhattan first, and THEN Berlin?

Oh, you clever dog!  Let's see who gets this joke

 

[Lethaface]

18 minutes ago, rocketman said:

I really don’t get that casual attitude to total annihilation?!

I was thinking about this, maybe it's just a different mindset / life experience whatever.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of WW3 and or NATO mindlessly jumping in the current war. I'm not in favor of starting up MAD if Russia chooses to use one tactical nuke. However, it will be a game changer and unfortunately would bring 'total annihilation' a step closer. Probably governments/militaries are already working on such contingency planning.

Personally I'd say tell Putin that if he uses a tac nuke, all options are on the table including boots on the ground in Ukraine. I also don't get why NATO/USA was so explicit in that they won't be sending troops, before the thing happened. Keeping some boots on the ground in Ukraine for whatever invented reason could have dissuaded Putin to invade, but even just saying the previously usual 'keeping all options on the table' wouldn't have cost a dime and might have done the same.

Anyway regarding the nukes, isn't this just a classic case of 'expect the worst, hope for the best'? 
There is plenty of game theory around MAD, but all assume that both sides press the button when it is clear the other side has launched. If we aren't prepared to press button, we might as well handover the nukes (and our will) and be done with it. 

But I refuse to allow Putin (or whomever) the pleasure of having me/us worrying whether he will be mad enough to destroy the earth. Because that's probably exactly the intent of such threats.

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Oh, you clever dog!  Let's see who gets this joke

 

They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within
I'm coming now I'm coming to reward them
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

[BeondTheGrave]

20 minutes ago, dan/california said:

If Putin can wave is magical nuclear stick, and get to wreck and conquer Ukraine, why does anyone think Poland, or the Baltics won't be next?

The one trillion dollar nuclear question that everyone asked in the Cold War: Would Washington trade New York for Hamburg or Bonn? Would it risk a total strike against the homeland to save the skin of some Europeans, if push really came to shove.

This is an unanswerable question. You cannot logic your way to an appropriate solution, trust me many far smarter than we have tried. Short of testing out your pet theory with a little light nuclear warfare, what remains for the US is convincing the other guy they might trade Bonn for Boston. If the risk is sufficient enough to prevent the USSR from taking a shot to test the theory, then deterrence has worked. 

But we have now an interesting wrinkle in our deterrence theory. The defender, the responder to escalation, is always in the weaker position. The enemy always has the plutonium stick to shake around. They can constantly flirt with the proposition that perhaps they make test the question and find out. Therefore NATO and the US, as the reactive party, always had to ensure that their deterrence threat was credible. This required a very careful balancing of both nuclear and conventional forces to prevent a Russian attempt at 'wormhole' escalation at any level. But it also required the careful selection of policies and crafting of forces to ensure that an appropriate and overwhelming retaliatory strike was on offer, and to suggest that there was genuine will to match any Russian raise. 

This is why I think the 'weak west' narrative is so mistaken. As with the rest of the conflict, if the US backs down from nuclear confrontation with the USSR in the face of an overt threat or Russian first use, it would spell the end of the entire ballgame. The answer to the above question must never move from maybe to probably not. If it did, Taiwain, Poland, Norway, everything would be up for grabs. There would be nothing to deter other powers from going 'all in' against US allies, especially if the plutonium stick works so well. This is one of those things the US just has to do if it wants to stay a superpower. To do otherwise would require the US to basically hang up the cape. It would be akin to totally withdrawing from NATO. It also explains why the US policy has been so moderated and calculated. It has to thread the eye of a needle between escalation and a firm response. Firm enough that no doubt is created regarding US resolve, but soft enough that there is no serious enough threat to require a Russian escalation. Very difficult tightrope.

But make no mistake, if it comes down to it the US will have to retaliate against a Russian nuclear attack in the Ukraine. That may not come in the way of a counterstrike, but it will happen. It has to happen. Because otherwise the entire proposition of deterrence is undermined. The entire NATO system is sabotaged. There can be no leaks under the nuclear umbrella. 

[akd]

Destroying Russian tanks makes Tatiana smile:

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by akd

[rocketman]

28 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I was thinking about this, maybe it's just a different mindset / life experience whatever.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of WW3 and or NATO mindlessly jumping in the current war. I'm not in favor of starting up MAD if Russia chooses to use one tactical nuke. However, it will be a game changer and unfortunately would bring 'total annihilation' a step closer. Probably governments/militaries are already working on such contingency planning.

Personally I'd say tell Putin that if he uses a tac nuke, all options are on the table including boots on the ground in Ukraine. I also don't get why NATO/USA was so explicit in that they won't be sending troops, before the thing happened. Keeping some boots on the ground in Ukraine for whatever invented reason could have dissuaded Putin to invade, but even just saying the previously usual 'keeping all options on the table' wouldn't have cost a dime and might have done the same.

Anyway regarding the nukes, isn't this just a classic case of 'expect the worst, hope for the best'? 
There is plenty of game theory around MAD, but all assume that both sides press the button when it is clear the other side has launched. If we aren't prepared to press button, we might as well handover the nukes (and our will) and be done with it. 

But I refuse to allow Putin (or whomever) the pleasure of having me/us worrying whether he will be mad enough to destroy the earth. Because that's probably exactly the intent of such threats.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for standing up to effing s**thead Putin, but the sad fact is that we have to factoring in the reality of the worst before deciding what to do. Personally, my fear turns to white hot anger in a somewhat productive way. If I didn’t worry, then I would start to worry if you get what I mean. So, when the war is over and we are all hopefully still here, I intend on turning that anger into a strong opposition to nuclear weapons. They are barbaric. It is insane that some countries can have them and thereby weild enourmous power over other countries. And they can have thousands of them. Can Sweden have one? Noooooo! So, my conclusion is that no one should have any. Is that realistic. No. Does that mean I will accept it. No. Anger/fear in this case turns to reaction/action which is productive for me. Accepting that people toy with the world for power’s sake (see lyrics for Dylan’s Masters of War). Am I a pacifist? No, but darn close to.

Edited March 21, 2022 by rocketman

[Bulletpoint]

15 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The one trillion dollar nuclear question that everyone asked in the Cold War: Would Washington trade New York for Hamburg or Bonn? Would it risk a total strike against the homeland to save the skin of some Europeans, if push really came to shove.

This is an unanswerable question. You cannot logic your way to an appropriate solution, trust me many far smarter than we have tried. Short of testing out your pet theory with a little light nuclear warfare, what remains for the US is convincing the other guy they might trade Bonn for Boston. If the risk is sufficient enough to prevent the USSR from taking a shot to test the theory, then deterrence has worked. 

But we have now an interesting wrinkle in our deterrence theory. The defender, the responder to escalation, is always in the weaker position. The enemy always has the plutonium stick to shake around. They can constantly flirt with the proposition that perhaps they make test the question and find out. Therefore NATO and the US, as the reactive party, always had to ensure that their deterrence threat was credible. This required a very careful balancing of both nuclear and conventional forces to prevent a Russian attempt at 'wormhole' escalation at any level. But it also required the careful selection of policies and crafting of forces to ensure that an appropriate and overwhelming retaliatory strike was on offer, and to suggest that there was genuine will to match any Russian raise. 

This is why I think the 'weak west' narrative is so mistaken. As with the rest of the conflict, if the US backs down from nuclear confrontation with the USSR in the face of an overt threat or Russian first use, it would spell the end of the entire ballgame. The answer to the above question must never move from maybe to probably not. If it did, Taiwain, Poland, Norway, everything would be up for grabs. There would be nothing to deter other powers from going 'all in' against US allies, especially if the plutonium stick works so well. This is one of those things the US just has to do if it wants to stay a superpower. To do otherwise would require the US to basically hang up the cape. It would be akin to totally withdrawing from NATO. It also explains why the US policy has been so moderated and calculated. It has to thread the eye of a needle between escalation and a firm response. Firm enough that no doubt is created regarding US resolve, but soft enough that there is no serious enough threat to require a Russian escalation. Very difficult tightrope.

But make no mistake, if it comes down to it the US will have to retaliate against a Russian nuclear attack in the Ukraine. That may not come in the way of a counterstrike, but it will happen. It has to happen. Because otherwise the entire proposition of deterrence is undermined. The entire NATO system is sabotaged. There can be no leaks under the nuclear umbrella. 

I think the Nato response to a Russian tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine would be to immediately implement a no-fly zone and a warning that any further ABC attacks would be met with strikes against Russian forces inside Ukraine.

I don't see Nato responding with nuclear weapons unless Russia strikes a Nato member country.

[DesertFox]

Hope the Ukrainians will benefit quickly from this one:

 

 

[billbindc]

30 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

The one trillion dollar nuclear question that everyone asked in the Cold War: Would Washington trade New York for Hamburg or Bonn? Would it risk a total strike against the homeland to save the skin of some Europeans, if push really came to shove.

This is an unanswerable question. You cannot logic your way to an appropriate solution, trust me many far smarter than we have tried. Short of testing out your pet theory with a little light nuclear warfare, what remains for the US is convincing the other guy they might trade Bonn for Boston. If the risk is sufficient enough to prevent the USSR from taking a shot to test the theory, then deterrence has worked. 

But we have now an interesting wrinkle in our deterrence theory. The defender, the responder to escalation, is always in the weaker position. The enemy always has the plutonium stick to shake around. They can constantly flirt with the proposition that perhaps they make test the question and find out. Therefore NATO and the US, as the reactive party, always had to ensure that their deterrence threat was credible. This required a very careful balancing of both nuclear and conventional forces to prevent a Russian attempt at 'wormhole' escalation at any level. But it also required the careful selection of policies and crafting of forces to ensure that an appropriate and overwhelming retaliatory strike was on offer, and to suggest that there was genuine will to match any Russian raise. 

This is why I think the 'weak west' narrative is so mistaken. As with the rest of the conflict, if the US backs down from nuclear confrontation with the USSR in the face of an overt threat or Russian first use, it would spell the end of the entire ballgame. The answer to the above question must never move from maybe to probably not. If it did, Taiwain, Poland, Norway, everything would be up for grabs. There would be nothing to deter other powers from going 'all in' against US allies, especially if the plutonium stick works so well. This is one of those things the US just has to do if it wants to stay a superpower. To do otherwise would require the US to basically hang up the cape. It would be akin to totally withdrawing from NATO. It also explains why the US policy has been so moderated and calculated. It has to thread the eye of a needle between escalation and a firm response. Firm enough that no doubt is created regarding US resolve, but soft enough that there is no serious enough threat to require a Russian escalation. Very difficult tightrope.

But make no mistake, if it comes down to it the US will have to retaliate against a Russian nuclear attack in the Ukraine. That may not come in the way of a counterstrike, but it will happen. It has to happen. Because otherwise the entire proposition of deterrence is undermined. The entire NATO system is sabotaged. There can be no leaks under the nuclear umbrella. 

This. No response at the first attempt means you get rolled worse down the road. But a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city isn’t an attack triggering Article 5 and responses don’t have to be an exact tit for tat response.

[akd]

Could, of course, be a hack, not a leak.

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by akd