old salt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:51 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:25 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:04 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:06 am
old salt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 12:36 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 6:35 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:40 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:56 am
Second, what I mean is that Putin will need to come to the conclusion that he's made all the moves he can, expended all the resources he can, that would bring Ukraine into submission and be habitable and ruled by Russia and/or its proxy. That's not possible if he goes nuclear, but it is at least conceivably possible if he turns many of the cities to rubble. Obviously the latter is awful, but it's what the Ukrainians appear to be prepared to withstand.
Low yield tac nucs would not render all of Ukraine uninhabitable. He could hit targets in W Ukraine which he knows he can't hold & create an uninhabitable buffer zone, leaving the roads, rail lines & pipelines intact. Control the entire Black Sea coastline & the territory E of the buffer zone.
mmm, I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that nukes, tactical or otherwise, have extended impact beyond the immediate area...and I think the usage of such would generate the response I detailed earlier of the entire decimation of Russia's military forces that did not immediately leave or surrender. I think/hope we would refrain from returning nuke fire, while providing an ultimatum to the Russian military.
The Russians have tactical doctrine for the use of low yield tac nucs. A low yield, subterranean burst would limit the spread of fallout.
We also have about 150 tac nuc bombs stored in 6 NATO countries, to deter that Russian military which is no longer a threat.
limit, not eliminate.
I realize they have 'doctrine', but certainly
the military itself would know that their own decimation would be almost immediate if they go to nukes. But I take seriously the possibility that some of the top brass would go along with such an order, though to the horror of their fellow brass much less troops and Russian people.
I'm merely saying that we should do so with conventional power after a warning to put down their weapons, leave the region, or surrender. Then decimate anyone not doing so. I don't think nukes are necessary to do so.
No it would not. The use of tac nucs would not necessarily lead to MAD. Escalation would depend on the circumstances.
Perhaps you're not following what I said..no nukes by us...very important that we show restraint in any such, despite what Russia does. But
complete decimation of their forces in and immediately threatening Ukraine can be accomplished pretty darn quickly albeit not without cost to our side. But don't go nuclear...same for chemical/biological...give them 12-24 hours to lay down their arms, start going the other direction, surrender, or get pummeled...anyone shooting at a NATO or Ukrainian force, annihilation of that direct threat.
Not without the use of NATO allies bases & airspace. Don't assume that is a given if Russia uses a tac nuc in Ukraine.
I think it's exactly the opposite reaction.
Indications are that they are actually more ready to go to direct confrontation,
now, than we are. And that's building with every horror in Ukraine.
Poland, for instance, is calling for ground forces, now. An "international peacekeeping mission".
I think they know that what is happening in Ukraine will happen to them if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine. And backing off because Putin uses a nuke will only invite more.
On the other hand, use of a nuke will galvanize the world in horror.
I think we need to be the ones with the most public restraint. But preparing.