Russia invades Ukraine - VI
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
- Status
Especially at an emotional level, I don’t disagree with your sentiments. But considering the 1,000-year downside of being wrong, it’s not an easy call either way.
That said, suppose Putin launches a tactical nuke. Let’s be generous and say it lands in an unpopulated area of Ukraine, and he does it just to demonstrate that he will play that card.
What’s your response?
Does that change if it’s a biological weapon or gas?
What, if anything, changes if any WMD of any description targets a center of population?
It’s one thing to stand up to a bully. It’s entirely another to provoke a madman into lighting the fuse to the end of the world.
Dealing from the position of military strength we have, I have my own thoughts and am happy to share them. But I’d like to hear yours.
Good questions.
One hopes that decision makers in Washington and Brussels are asking just such questions.
I agree there are no easy answers, and if this were to go sideways, it can be very bad very fast.
That said, I think setting some standards of force wrt limits in place before all this started would have been a good idea. Hindsight, etc. But I've seen some suggestions that NATO start placing forces in western Ukraine, where there currently aren't any russian forces, as pressure. We could start ramping up air power via MiG deliveries, missile-defense systems, etc.
The most important thing we can do here is to set a standard and be ready to respond. It's one thing to tell Putin not to do something, it's quite another to tell him "if you do X, we do Y" then follow through.
There are no easy answers, but I think telling Putin over and over that he can essentially do whatever he wants in Ukraine and we'll sit idly by (which we've done) only exacerbates the situation.
But ultimately, if we cannot figure out how to put bullies like this in their place, nukes WILL be used. It's not if, but when. Unless we figure out how to stop these atrocities, it's only a matter of time until a rogue state uses a nuclear weapon.
Good questions.
One hopes that decision makers in Washington and Brussels are asking just such questions.
Those seem really close together. This means more manpower to cover the frontage.
No overhead cover. Most Russian, and I presume Ukrainian, artillery is point detonating (PD), meaning it has to hit something to explode. If that is the ground and the soldiers are below ground level, they are probably okay, unless the blast itself kills them. If, however, someone is using Veriable Timed (VT) fusses, or, best of all, proximity fuses (it blows up when it gets near something, like the ground), no overhead cover means a lot of dead soldiers. As James Dunnigan said, "Artillery did most of the killing, and infantry did most of the dying."
Little attempt at camouflage. This makes the trenches identifiable from the enemy's direction, and they are right along the road, which makes them easy to spot from a map.
Bottom line? Cherries built these.
All russia does is lie.
We Have Questions About Russia's Claimed Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile Use In Ukraine (Updated)
The apparent first use of Russia's air-launched hypersonic ballistic missile against a target in Ukraine doesn't all add up.
www.thedrive.com
Anonymous: How hackers are trying to undermine Putin
The BBC speaks to hacktivists about past and future attacks in their "cyber war" against Vladimir Putin.
www.bbc.com
It will work well for collecting water, though
- Status
New Posts
-
-
Bielema: SEC needs to have 9 conference games...because numbers matter.- Latest: selmaborntidefan
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Alabama Transitions Wood to New Role, Returns Rainey to Staff- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0