How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

Do you thing that USA would obliterate Moscow, suffering the loss of it's major cities, just cause some nukes went off in the ukrainian countryside ? Honestly I hope they wouldn't.
Edit: Please mind that Ukraine is not under anybody's nuclear umbrella at the moment. I'm not aware that US or NATO's nuclear doctrine includes attacking other nuclear power for it's use of nuclear weapons against third party, if that party is not a part of NATO and there isn't immediate threat of escalation. 
Edit2: having said that, I really hope that I just went down the rabbit hole a bit to deep with my line of thinking.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Huba

[Huba]

Just now, Holien said:

Hmmm I would think many would disagree that it's their territory, but I presume you mean Russia believe they will lose it after taking it illegally...

Yeah, that's what I mean. It is their perspective that is important for their decisionmaking, not ours.

[DesertFox]

 

 

[Taranis]

2 minutes ago, Holien said:

That approach would cross a red line which would mean all out war with Russia. NATO and the world would not be able to accept it so I seriously hope they don't but hey Putler is beyond sane at the moment and maybe he does not care about the world his daughters and grandchildren will live in?

I think and hope there might be enough in the Russian military to understand that their children and grandchildren will suffer if they cross this line.

Humans are hardwired to procreate and ultimately that like other animals is the main desire to ensure their offspring survive and prosper.

Perhaps I am being naive but I hope reason prevails....

Agree with you, you were too fast before I replied. 

@Huba
If the nuclear weapon is used, personally, it is because Russia will fall and will want everyone to fall with it or in a last stand by going all-in. I really don't see how Russia could use it tactically without hastening its own end. We can talk about it from a theoretical point of view on how it could be used to create a breach in the front line. If it comes to that, I think WW3 will be official and nuclear won't stay tactical.

Putler is mad and do some things we really don't think could happen but on other hand, he said, "we want rouble for petrol and gas" and EU said "NO", nothing happen, he doesn't cut the delivey. So, I don't think he's ready to use nuclear (whitout asking if they had the capacity to do it and the acquiescence of the commanders).

(I'm not saying I'm right, only my POV)

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Taranis said:

Agree with you, you were too fast before I replied. 

@Huba
If the nuclear weapon is used, personally, it is because Russia will fall and will want everyone to fall with it or in a last stand by going all-in. I really don't see how Russia could use it tactically without hastening its own end. We can talk about it from a theoretical point of view on how it could be used to create a breach in the front line. If it comes to that, I think WW3 will be official and nuclear won't stay tactical.

Putler is mad and do some things we really don't think could happen but on other hand, he said, "we want rouble for petrol and gas" and EU said "NO", nothing happen, he doesn't cut the delivey. So, I don't think he's ready to use nuclear (whitout asking if they had the capacity to do it and the acquiescence of the commanders).

(I'm not saying I'm right, only my POV)

I seriously hope that you are right

[Taranis]

11 minutes ago, Huba said:

I seriously hope that you are right

 me too. I sleep better thinking that... Without wanting to be macabre if the war becomes total and nuclear, at least, we would surely not have time to worry too much about it...

Similarly, even the use of chemical weapons is still not free. Its use is possible but even on basic chemical weapons the Russians are a little reluctant and suspicious

But I agree with you, it could be interesting to have an operational reflection on the tactical use of nuclear weapons as there was with UAVs. But I'm not going to pollute this topic further with a divergent subject. (already difficult to follow, given the number of pages scrolling). I am not a veteran like others on this forum but I also take this opportunity to welcome you (I had not yet had the opportunity).

Edited April 14, 2022 by Taranis

[Taranis]

[Huba]

Thank you, I feel very welcome here, and the forum is really great. So the last post about nukes, promise.

AFAIK tactical use of nuclear weapons was always an important part Soviet planning for WW3, most of the disclosed plans included it. In the Cold War, both sides spent decades anticipating how it's use would impact the battlefield, they have to have it figured out quite well (as much as possible without first hand experience i think), it is nothing new. Now in a NATO/WP scenario we might assume it would lead to escalation to a strategic exchange, that's the conventional wisdom. But in a case like this, when the other side is not NATO, and not affiliated directly with any nuclear power ? It would be the US that would have to make a decision about escalation not only to strategic level, but even to direct confrontation with Russia, as we are not there at the moment. And they would have to do it fully knowing the consequences, not being under existential threat themselves. Would they do it?

[panzermartin]

My fear is not that Putin will push the button. But in case of miltary failure and internal collapse, more extreme radicals could take over (yes there are more radicals than Putin). Imagine the orcs manning the crucial posts like the Nazis did. Then what we would do? 

[kraze]

44 minutes ago, Huba said:

Do you thing that USA would obliterate Moscow, suffering the loss of it's major cities, just cause some nukes went off in the ukrainian countryside ? Honestly I hope they wouldn't.
Edit: Please mind that Ukraine is not under anybody's nuclear umbrella at the moment. I'm not aware that US or NATO's nuclear doctrine includes attacking other nuclear power for it's use of nuclear weapons against third party, if that party is not a part of NATO and there isn't immediate threat of escalation. 
Edit2: having said that, I really hope that I just went down the rabbit hole a bit to deep with my line of thinking.

You can't just drop a tactical nuke where you want your troops to go and especially if you want to capture it.

Digging in in Red Forest already showed what radiation does to russians and that one had time to die down for 36 years.

And russians don't have as many of their barbarians they can realistically sacrifice to ARS and still have an army.

And dropping them on rear cities just to genocide some more Ukrainians should lead to escalation - because if it doesn't - that's a signal to the whole world to get nukes ASAP and in a few years time you'll see random nuclear armed asian countries threatening US and EU because "nuclear non-proliferation BS" will have only "BS" in its name - and it will be even worse.

[Taranis]

Yes I agree with you. Their doctrine is even felt in their equipment with materials like the 2S4 Tyulpan which has a nuclear capacity. In theory, Ukraine is indeed outside the NATO conventions but I think the use of nuclear weapons would be like a huge Bucha war crime. From the point of view of the US/NATO reaction, I think it's 50/50, I think we have as much chance that they react, that they don't react. But this is something that cannot be ignored, it will necessarily trigger NATO military action. If we accept that, we accept the chemical weapon without saying anything, we don't cut the oil and we pay a tribute to Russia. It's an abstract idea, but I think that the chemical weapon is already a line very, very close to the line not to be exceeded. It's like Putler's threat declaring NATO equipment convoys as legitimate, I really think that's a bluff and he won't dare. This is to give full legitimacy to a NATO action. But hey... The invasion of Ukraine is already stupidity so why not...
About the existential threat, I really haven't any idea. The only one who knows the answer is Putler unfortunately. Is Russian defeat in the war an existential threat? Or is it an invasion of Crimea? An invasion of real Russian territory? Or an imminent fall of the Kremlin with the Ukrainian army at its doorstep?

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

You can't just drop a tactical nuke where you want your troops to go and especially if you want to capture it.

Digging in in Red Forest already showed what radiation does to russians and that one had time to die down for 36 years.

Sure you can, if you don't stay there for long. That's the whole purpose of mechanized forces. All fighting vehicles are NBC protected and should have no problem to roll through a contaminated area. It would be problematic for logistics though, that's for sure.
@Taranis But in other cases you mentioned, like direct targeting of NATO convoys or even some random use on chemical weapons (not much value to it apart from maybe Mariupol), NATO could react with conventional means. Not so much in case of tactical nukes being employed I think. The least they'd have do is to respond with own tactical nukes against Russian forces. But even if NATO would respond with conventional means, is still means a decision to get involved and risking being attacked themselves with tactical weapons, or risking  further escalation.
As for this war being a existential threat to Russia - if you equate the current regime with the country itself, as you might expect Putin to do, this war is very much an existential threat.

[Taranis]

I think the doctrinal development of the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break through the front was mostly a Cold War philosophy. This made it possible to contaminate only a small area but to create a breakthrough and launch the immense combat mass of the WARPACT into the breach (the vehicles being NBC protected to pass through without stopping) and drive it to the Atlantic. But I think the limitation of that philosophy at the time was not taking into account NATO's strategic nuclear response to such a breakthrough. I think Ukraine is far too small for such a doctrine that provided for a "continental" breakthrough

[Huba]

The whole Donbas region and the surrounding areas where fighting takes place is as large as West Germany, if not larger, and this was the intended theater for the tac nukes to be used. The forces are smaller though.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Huba

[kraze]

7 minutes ago, Huba said:

Sure you can, if you don't stay there for long. That's the whole purpose of mechanized forces. All fighting vehicles are NBC protected and should have no problem to roll through a contaminated area. It would be problematic for logistics though, that's for sure.

Russians and NBC protection? Let's be realistic here.

Edited April 14, 2022 by kraze

[TheVulture]

Video of Russian columns being hit on the roads near Izyum and Balakliya

https://t.me/kharkivlife/35235

 

[TheVulture]

Russia media claims that the Moskya is still afloat and being towed to port by tug.

https://t.me/rian_ru/158715

Quote

 

The source of fire on the cruiser "Moskva" is localized. There is no open fire. Explosions of ammunition have been stopped.

Cruiser "Moskva" maintains buoyancy. The main missile armament was not damaged.

The crew was evacuated to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet in the area.

Arrangements are being made to tow the cruiser to port.

Causes of the fire are under investigation.

 

 

[Huba]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

Russians and NBC protection? Let's be realistic here.

Don't be dismissive, there isn't an AFV not prepared for this since the 50s'.

[Taranis]

Just now, kraze said:

Russians? NBC? Let's be realistic here.

Yes  . You're right but I think @Huba is really in a theorical/doctrinal mind. Like what the doctrine or theorical russian capacity can do ? 
@HubaYes Ukraine is a great country but the exploitation would not be continental like was an invasion of Europe.

[Taranis]

3 minutes ago, Huba said:

Don't be dismissive, there isn't an AFV not prepared for this since the 50s'.

Yes but again it's theory. Lots of vehicles were "amphibious" and "NBC" in French army in 2010 but really few were maintained to do it. It's like the russian tank reserves. How many are still usable ? (10%?)

Edited April 14, 2022 by Taranis

[kraze]

Just now, Huba said:

Don't be dismissive, there isn't an AFV not prepared for this since the 50s'.

This is Russia, this is not how Russia works.

Provided those old AFVs still have perfect NBC protection and corruption rust didn't eat through it - they will still load lots of ivans in open top trucks. Because losing those is cheaper than losing an AFV.

Losing trucks is cheaper too.

[Huba]

12 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Yes  . You're right but I think @Huba is really in a theorical/doctrinal mind. Like what the doctrine or theorical russian capacity can do ? 
@HubaYes Ukraine is a great country but the exploitation would not be continental like was an invasion of Europe.

Well we are speculating here of course and I'm playing Devils advocate. I'd like to do some check on filtration systems in my AFVs if I were Russian commander AND cared for my troops. This would forfeit the element of surprise though.

Edit: regarding the distances involved - it's more or less 200km from Fulda to the French border, the same as from Izyum to the Dnipro river. Again, the involved forces are far smaller, but the scale of theater of operations is comparable I think

Edited April 14, 2022 by Huba

[LongLeftFlank]

I find the whole nuclear topic to be pretty much unthinkable and therefore TLDR. Just one geek's opinion though, carry on....

One observation, the winds change direction a *lot* at this time of year, so it would be spin the fallout bottle for a lot of Russians and Belarusians too.

[kraze]

8 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Russia media claims that the Moskya is still afloat and being towed to port by tug.

https://t.me/rian_ru/158715

 

Even if we believe russian "news" that it is afloat and not just its shell of a wreck being afloat - it's most likely in no shape to ever return to service any time soon if ever.

[kraze]

4 minutes ago, Huba said:

Well we are speculating here of course and I'm playing Devils advocate. I'd like to do some check on filtration systems in my AFVs if I were Russian commander AND cared for my troops. This would forfeit the element of surprise though.

But that's where the core problem exists.

In highly corrupt fascist societies, which Russia is, it's all about reports looking good.

You can't just write "my BMP2 has a huge hole in its side, ready to load in every alpha particle it can" - that will lead to questions who is responsible for that hole - and the guy responsible is "somehow" always the one who reported it.

This has been going in there for centuries.

At this point even if their nano-hitler ordered everyone to be honest - those guys at the bottom of the food chain still wouldn't want to be held responsible and point fingers at each other to play a Russian roulette of who is invited to his last tea party, let alone higher ranked guys.

"I can write that my BMP2 has a big hole made by some drunk mechanic and go to jail or I can write that my BMP2 is ready to tear apart a platoon of fat american M1A2SEP3 and get another medal - what an incredible hard choice"