Europe under extreme duress

[Griz882]

They used Atlanta as their stereotypical city for their modeling. The study disputes the idea of nuclear winter if 100 nukes go off. It doesn't touch the idea if 10000 nukes go off. In locations geographically distant, let alone including things such as neutron bombs.

I'm not sure what your point is with the other studies, as both of them concur with the study I posted.

Oh for fucks sake…feel free to disagree but don’t be idiotically obtuse. Indeed, try reading the studies which show you are wrong about your “end of civilization” theory. This is part of my stock and trade, I have a PhD and have briefed up to four stars on the history of this stuff. Had you bothered to read deeper you’d find I mentioned studies that discuss up to total nuclear war.

But, setting that aside, are you even aware of the fundamentals of Russian nuclear war strategy? I’d love to hear your knowledge on that.

 

[Mirage]

Oh for fucks sake…feel free to disagree but don’t be idiotically obtuse. Indeed, try reading the studies which show you are wrong about your “end of civilization” theory. This is part of my stock and trade, I have a PhD and have briefed up to four stars on the history of this stuff. Had you bothered to read deeper you’d find I mentioned studies that discuss up to total nuclear war.

But, setting that aside, are you even aware of the fundamentals of Russian nuclear war strategy? I’d love to hear your knowledge on that.

You think there's a 1 in 25 million chance that war with Russia leads to nuclear war, we are 100% going to war with Russia if Putin stays in power, and Russia doesn't have the capability to destroy the USA as we know it, and now you're challenging MY understanding of Russian nuclear strategy?

No thanks. Best of luck briefing 4 stars that sort of nonsense.

 

[Griz882]

I see you don’t have an answer - I figured as much. Google harder….it’s out there, junior.

Talk about nonsense.

 

[Spekkio]

Declaring war on Russia or using nukes on Russia at the outset have the same outcome. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a one in a million chance we go to war with Russia and it doesn't result in nuclear war.

So, again... Using this most likely outcome as our end state if we go to war over Estonia, then what end state do you think the alternative (letting Russia fight the Baltics alone with likely equal results as they've had in Ukraine), would accomplish that is worse?

I don't think letting Russia fight an Ally and not going to war is a good solution. It sucks. It's cowardly in a sense. But the possible end states for both the Baltics and the rest of the world are far better than the alternative, and achieving the best end state is what should drive out policy, is it not?

Putin is bold, but he's not stupid. And Russia historically backs down to strength when it knows it can't win. If our political policy was to commit forces to protect Ukraine, and we moved them into the area prior to the invasion, this war doesn't happen. The rub is that Ukraine isn't part of NATO, nor does it want to be, and one of our political objectives in all of this is to preserve the NATO alliance.

Idealism vs. Realpolitik at play here.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

but he's not stupid

He is sick, just remember it now to explain the nearest future for yourself. If he will strike with tactical nukes first, the targets will be on Ukranian soil.
How do you think would the NATO react?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

His last political opponent is in prison and was poisoned while on a trip in Germany.

Navalny? BTW, his surname has nothing common with navy, it is more like "bulk cargo" in Russian. And no, he wasn't in a trip in Germany, he was in a trip in Russia, and after stabilized in coma in RU hospital he was transferred by Luftwaffe airplane to Germany. And Putin got a positive glory for his approval for this transfer. The fact of poisoning was found out in Germany later.

And yes RU people is afraid. But this is not the main reason for them to be quiet, en masse. Thay have no other option - they have neither professions enabling the flee abroad nor languages except native Russian, allowing adaptation abroad. RU as a big prison is almost two centuries long image from a French traveller marquis de Custine, published in 1839. Nothing changed.

 

[Random8145]

5. I'm hung up on nuking people? I'm saying we should do absolutely everything possible to avoid that outcome, defending myself against a bunch of hawks who want to lunge headlong into nuclear war because we will only be protecting the Baltics in principle but not per the letter of NATO if not.

No one here is being hawk who "wants to lunge headlong into a nuclear war." You seem to have this view of us having to walk on eggshells or else Russia goes crazy and starts launching nukes. Have you ever considered that maybe the Russians should be the ones who have to consider how the U.S. would respond to their attacking? This "Eggshell foreign policy" (my words) is what was tried with the Russians up to Reagan, and it didn't work. It only incited further aggression.

Well perhaps it's a shame that military leaders don't get to decide if we use nukes, and likewise in Russia. Any war with Russia goes about like this: We start conventionally, we dominate, they use "tactical" nukes (larger than those used on Hiroshima/Nagasaki) to kill our military forces, and then the world goes boom. Assuming different is gambling with the future of everything.

I disagree with that. The Russians are not stupid. So by your thinking:

1) Russia even decides to try a conventional attack against NATO, knowing full well that if they start driving NATO forces back, NATO might launch nuclear weapons at them. And they would not try a conventional attack against NATO unless they were pretty sure they could succeed, which thus significantly ups the likelihood of nukes launched at them from NATO by their calculus.

2) Russian forces start losing. So while knowing full well that NATO is fighting defensively and seeking to keep Russia out, you reason that the Russians would just be complete fools and decide to up the ante with tactical nukes, knowing full well that this could lead to NATO deploying tactical nukes of its own to hit Russian forces, or possibly nukes at Russian cities. At the same time, on the NATO side, you seem to think that NATO's leaders are also fools who would just decide, "Alright, if Russia is going to use tactical nukes, then let's just launch nukes at Russia period," not taking into account that this would mean launches at NATO countries in kind.

You also assume that if Russia started using tactical nukes, and we responded with tactical nukes at their forces, that they'd just willy-nilly up the ante and start launching nukes at our cities. The Russians are evil but not crazy.

Yeah nuclear exchange is very unlikely right now, I agree. I don't think they'll hit the button unless we threaten their existence. So lets not do that, even if they invade the Baltics (which is extremely unlikely, I think most everyone agrees). That's my point... We can beat them as long as they don't press the button, so lets not go to direct war with them and gamble with them pressing it. We don't need to in order to defeat them and protect our European Allies.

Why are you seeing it that "we" would be going to war with the Russians? Why not that the Russians would be starting a war with the West (as they'd be the aggressor)? And why is your view then that if Russia attacks, again "we" are "gambling" with them pressing the button by fighting back? Why is it not seen from the Russian standpoint that if they attack, then they are gambling with NATO pressing the button?

 

[Random8145]

Putin is bold, but he's not stupid. And Russia historically backs down to strength when it knows it can't win. If our political policy was to commit forces to protect Ukraine, and we moved them into the area prior to the invasion, this war doesn't happen. The rub is that Ukraine isn't part of NATO, nor does it want to be, and one of our political objectives in all of this is to preserve the NATO alliance.

Idealism vs. Realpolitik at play here.

I think Ukraine actually would like to be part of NATO, they just don't see it as a realistic option right now.

 

[taxi1]

If our political policy was to commit forces to protect Ukraine, and we moved them into the area prior to the invasion, this war doesn't happen.

I was kind of surprised we didn't park an aircraft at the local Kyiv Airport, like (I think) we did in Tbilisi, Georgia during it's invasion.

 

[Mirage]

No one here is being hawk who "wants to lunge headlong into a nuclear war." You seem to have this view of us having to walk on eggshells or else Russia goes crazy and starts launching nukes. Have you ever considered that maybe the Russians should be the ones who have to consider how the U.S. would respond to their attacking? This "Eggshell foreign policy" (my words) is what was tried with the Russians up to Reagan, and it didn't work. It only incited further aggression.

The Russians DO have to be careful about us if they invade the Baltics. I'm not saying we should walk on eggshells or openly tell Russia we aren't going to declare war on them if they attack the Baltics. What I'm saying is that when we tell them that, I wish we were bluffing, because the consequences of us declaring war on Russia are very likely to be catastrophic, and the juice just isn't worth the squeeze considering how weak the Russian military actually is. We don't need to fight them directly ourselves to protect the Baltics, so it would be foolish to roll the dice and hope that we can fight them and also avoid nuclear war.

1) Russia even decides to try a conventional attack against NATO, knowing full well that if they start driving NATO forces back, NATO might launch nuclear weapons at them. And they would not try a conventional attack against NATO unless they were pretty sure they could succeed, which thus significantly ups the likelihood of nukes launched at them from NATO by their calculus.

2) Russian forces start losing. So while knowing full well that NATO is fighting defensively and seeking to keep Russia out, you reason that the Russians would just be complete fools and decide to up the ante with tactical nukes, knowing full well that this could lead to NATO deploying tactical nukes of its own to hit Russian forces, or possibly nukes at Russian cities. At the same time, on the NATO side, you seem to think that NATO's leaders are also fools who would just decide, "Alright, if Russia is going to use tactical nukes, then let's just launch nukes at Russia period," not taking into account that this would mean launches at NATO countries in kind.

You also assume that if Russia started using tactical nukes, and we responded with tactical nukes at their forces, that they'd just willy-nilly up the ante and start launching nukes at our cities. The Russians are evil but not crazy.

It's very unlikely that a war with Russia that they start in the Baltics stays contained to the independent Baltics. At a minimum we will take Kaliningrad, and almost certainly Poland, Belarus, and parts of mainland Russia will be involved. Your vision of us just building fortresses in the Baltics and defending it without going outside the borders is just not realistic. There's absolutely no way around us at least having to take or at least destroy Kaliningrad, and that's sovereign Russian territory. People a lot smarter than me have repeatedly found that this scenario leads to nuclear war with great likelihood.

Why are you seeing it that "we" would be going to war with the Russians? Why not that the Russians would be starting a war with the West (as they'd be the aggressor)? And why is your view then that if Russia attacks, again "we" are "gambling" with them pressing the button by fighting back? Why is it not seen from the Russian standpoint that if they attack, then they are gambling with NATO pressing the button?

In this very unlikely scenario we are discussing, Russia is likely not stupid enough to declare war on any Baltic nation outright. Much more likely it would be a repeat of what Putin did in Crimea/East Ukraine in 2014. Russia wouldn't be declaring war on us, we would be declaring war on them, though due to their aggression. We would have the option to either fight directly, or not... hence the debate. As for who is gambling... both sides would be gambling of course. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Russians would be gambling that it doesn't end in nuclear war, and so would we if we declared war.

 

[Griz882]

The Russians DO have to be careful about us if they invade the Baltics. I'm not saying we should walk on eggshells or openly tell Russia we aren't going to declare war on them if they attack the Baltics. What I'm saying is that when we tell them that, I wish we were bluffing, because the consequences of us declaring war on Russia are very likely to be catastrophic, and the juice just isn't worth the squeeze considering how weak the Russian military actually is. We don't need to fight them directly ourselves to protect the Baltics, so it would be foolish to roll the dice and hope that we can fight them and also avoid nuclear war.

Article 5 pretty much takes all the bluff, bluster, hope, and dreams out of the conversation. NATO has an obligation of mutual defense to wit…”an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” Even more so, “…if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party [attacked]…” That is an effective declaration of war and Putin is well aware of the meaning.

 

[Mirage]

Article 5 pretty much takes all the bluff, bluster, hope, and dreams out of the conversation. NATO has an obligation of mutual defense to wit…”an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” Even more so, “…if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party [attacked]…” That is an effective declaration of war and Putin is well aware of the meaning.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Everything is black and white and certain in your mind. No room for complexity or surprise. We are definitely going to war with Russia, it has almost no chance of going nuclear, and there is absolutely no chance we could find wiggle room with Article 5 if push came to shove. Nobody has ever done anything like that before in all of history. Certainly not even some of our NATO Allies when we invoked Article 5 after 9/11.

 

[Griz882]

Yeah, yeah, I know. Everything is black and white and certain in your mind. No room for complexity or surprise. We are definitely going to war with Russia, it has almost no chance of going nuclear, and there is absolutely no chance we could find wiggle room with Article 5 if push came to shove. Nobody has ever done anything like that before in all of history. Certainly not even some of our NATO Allies when we invoked Article 5 after 9/11. Certainly not even a Baltic country like Latvia. It's impossible, because the piece of paper says we have to treat it like an attack on ourselves.

Better black and white than colorful stupidity. I’d dare say there is far more complexity and nuance in my argument than your sad, little, “but nuclear war!” commentary. Let’s start with the fact that you still don’t know Russia’s core nuclear strategy (and seem to have a kind of cute “Dr. Strangelove” idea of how ours works).

Google harder, kid, Google harder.

 

[Mirage]

Better black and white than colorful stupidity. I’d dare say there is far more complexity and nuance in my argument than your sad, little, “but nuclear war!” commentary. Let’s start with the fact that you still don’t know Russia’s core nuclear strategy (and seem to have a kind of cute “Dr. Strangelove” idea of how ours works).

Google harder, kid, Google harder.

Kid? You're acting like a child. Just saying I don't know shit doesn't make it true pal. I have a master's in the subject and wrote my thesis on this stuff. You're not even asking a real question like you think you are. Core nuclear strategy? They have a variety of nuclear strategies at play, both offensive and defensive. You claim to do this for a living but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, saying there's no chance for nuclear was with Russia and that were 100% going to war with them, and now you're just being an asshole just for the sake of it.

I think our debate has run its course.

 

[Griz882]

Kid? You're acting like a child. Just saying I don't know shit doesn't make it true pal. I have a master's in the subject and wrote my thesis on this stuff. You're not even asking a real question like you think you are. Core nuclear strategy? They have a variety of nuclear strategies at play, both offensive and defensive. You claim to do this for a living but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, saying there's no chance for nuclear was with Russia and that were 100% going to war with them, and now you're just being an asshole just for the sake of it.

I think our debate has run its course.

??? For the love of God! Please let Putin savage all the lowly people of Latvia he wants! He might get angry!

Master’s thesis…enough said. As I noted…nuance. You lack it and you were never in the debate…just noise on the side.