Europe under extreme duress

[Max the Mad Russian]

bet that roughly 1/2 of Russia’s ICBMs are able to launch with certainty and at least 1/4 of the remaining crews aren’t willing to launch

That is the question. Though they wear uniform they are hardly soldiers, rather engineers in uniform. How the scared weapon engineer would behave being ordered to launch? Since ICBMs forces are located mostly in rural Russia and denied Internet by definition, it may seem that picking such engineer randomly we can observe clear XIX century creature not only educationally, but culturally as well. Namely the awfully low level of RU people from rural places was and is the thing that's striking me most of all.

 

[Mirage]

Complete failure of the western world, leading to the annexation of much of Europe, and eventually our own country? Yeah, I guess that kinda "sucks"......probably better to not stop it. Let's just let a bunch of russians take over the world because we happen to agree with their brand of (this is strange to say historically) religion, and conservatism. It won't be that bad this time. There won't be the gulags this time......I mean, there only will be for libs right? Give me a fucking break dude. This is pure evil. This is Hitler reincarnated, perhaps without the death camps. They have been our most profound enemy since the russian revolution, we just were dumb enough to think that we weren't enemies anymore for a while. That is very obviously not true, and it never was. We are about to have a world war, entirely because they chose to. That much is unavoidable. What we do in the next few months will have a big impact on the future of the world. If I am wrong, I will be happy, but I would bet my life and everything that I own on a real hot war with russia, regardless of our actions, in the next 12 months. Small possibility that is averted if putin is summarily defeated in Ukraine.

What are you talking about dude? I'm saying if Russia attacks the Baltics we should supply them and do everything we can to help short of attacking Russia. How you get from there to Russia invading and defeating the US in a conventional war is beyond me. Russia's advance west has already been stopped... In central Ukraine.

On one hand you tell us how Russia will go into the Balkans and get bogged down costing them more and more…but on the other you ask us to believe that they have a remarkably viable nuclear force capable of bringing on “the end of America…” I can tell you this…if their armor equipment, officers, and enlisted are incapable of fighting and maintaining their gear then their rocket and missile forces are in the same condition. I’m confident that every Russian boomer is being shadowed by at least two attack boats…all ready to sink same if their rusty missile doors are able to open. On the ground I’d be willing to bet that roughly 1/2 of Russia’s ICBMs are able to launch with certainty and at least 1/4 of the remaining crews aren’t willing to launch. So Russian nuclear capability is around 1/4 to 1/2 as effective as we imagine. Add to that some frantic missile defense efforts on our side and the impact, while horrible at every level, will hardly be nation ending.

By your math, 1/4 of Russia's nukes is 1564 nukes. If even a 10th of that 4th hit us, thats nation ending. All military bases, all capital cities, all government workers, most our population, all gone.

As to what my point had to do with yours…everything. Absolutely everything. War is an extension of politics and “should do” is never part of the calculation.

No, it has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to discuss what we should do, then don't participate in the debate, but that's what we're discussing and what the American response actually will be is irrelevant. We can discuss that as well of course, but it's a separate discussion.

Better short-sighted than blind.

Please enlighten me. What am I missing? How is thousands of nukes destroying the most advanced civilizations better than a fractured NATO and a conventional war in the Baltics?

 

[taxi1]

So you guys all think Europe, America, and Russia being completely destroyed is better than Putin fighting a losing battle in the Baltics…

In a way, we are executing your strategy right now in Ukraine, no? But since Ukraine is not in NATO we don’t have that hard decision to make on not stepping up for the ally. We just need to do everything to make Ukraine his losing battle. A good strategy.

 

[mapache2426]

What are you talking about dude? I'm saying if Russia attacks the Baltics we should supply them and do everything we can to help short of attacking Russia. How you get from there to Russia invading and defeating the US in a conventional war is beyond me. Russia's advance west has already been stopped... In central Ukraine.


By your math, 1/4 of Russia's nukes is 1564 nukes. If even a 10th of that 4th hit us, thats nation ending. All military bases, all capital cities, all government workers, most our population, all gone.


No, it has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to discuss what we should do, then don't participate in the debate, but that's what we're discussing and what the American response actually will be is irrelevant. We can discuss that as well of course, but it's a separate discussion.


Please enlighten me. What am I missing? How is thousands of nukes destroying the most advanced civilizations better than a fractured NATO and a conventional war in the Baltics?

Seems like the major mistake was admitting the Baltics (& Balkans) into NATO in the first place. They contribute little capability and much vulnerability to the alliance, whose credibility now depends on defending insignificant states at the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

By your math, 1/4 of Russia's nukes is 1564 nukes. If even a 10th of that 4th hit us, thats nation ending. All military bases, all capital cities, all government workers, most our population, all gone.

Look, nuke exchange between RU and America will bring the decades of horror to any other member of the club, most of all China. What, do you think, Chinese wait from their leadership in explanation why China, being no part of conflict, suffers greatly as a result of that exchange? India? Israel? GB, but not least? No food, no fresh water, billions of dying from nuke pollution and related cancer - all of them neither US nor russian citizens. Why we have to die, they will ask. Fair enough?
This is the Putin's rhetoric, be aware. His shield. All Eurasian population is his shield. Largest part of civilization, by the way. Is this world worth to live in, really?

 

[Mirage]

In a way, we are executing your strategy right now in Ukraine, no? But since Ukraine is not in NATO we don’t have that hard decision to make on not stepping up for the ally. We just need to do everything to make Ukraine his losing battle. A good strategy.

Yes, agreed. Russia can be easily beaten so long as we can contain it to a conventional war and don't let bravado lead us to the only way we lose... which is if it becomes nuclear. I know thinking long-term isn't usually a part of American policy, but that is a problem and not something we should continue out of tradition.

Look, nuke exchange between RU and America will bring the decades of horror to any other member of the club, most of all China. What, do you think, Chinese wait from their leadership in explanation why China, being no part of conflict, suffers greatly as a result of that exchange? India? Israel? GB, but not least? No food, no fresh water, billions of dying from nuke pollution and related cancer - all of them neither US nor russian citizens. Why we have to die, they will ask. Fair enough?
This is the Putin's rhetoric, be aware. His shield. All Eurasian population is his shield. Largest part of civilization, by the way. Is this world worth to live in, really?

Look, I'm not saying we let Putin have Europe because we're scared of nuclear war. I'm saying we beat him smartly, the way we are presently in Ukraine, even if he foolishly spreads his forces even thinner by invading the Baltics. The world we will be living in if that plays out is most likely one where Putin has further weakened his position, is likely killed by his own people, the Baltics are free again after a tough battle, Ukraine is reunited, but NATO is fractured and we have to re-figure out the European security situation. That is a world worth living in, yes. And if you can see past your nose then you'll agree that our great grandchildren will certainly be happy we didn't go to nuclear war because of some guy named Putin they couldn't care less about and is irrelevant for the rest of eternity.

 

[Flash]

You think a weakened NATO is as likely to cause nuclear war as full scale war with Russia would? Really?

If NATO collapses and it no longer provides the umbrella of nuclear deterrence to the alliance and its members, definitely. That deterrence ensures that Russia takes into account NATO nuclear weapons when contemplating and attack on any alliance members, without that threat the temptation to use nuclear weapons when conventional force doesn't work like it isn't in Ukraine becomes that much more tempting to a country that has made tactical nuclear weapons and threatening or implying the use of them an integral part of its recent military strategy.

Russia has been accused of these atrocities in the last few days by the country their at war with. I'm not saying their lying, but you shouldn't just assume it's true...

There is already ample outside (non-Ukrainian or even NATO) evidence that shows the atrocities in Bucha actually occurred.

...your argument hinges on the fact that they are widespread acts condoned by large numbers of the Russian people and soldiers. Ridiculous to assume all this with no evidence. You also state there is Russian indifference to targeting and the invasion itself. Again, on what evidence do you base this?

Have you not seen images of Mariupol? Kharkiv? The suburbs of Kyiv? Or going back further Grozny or Aleppo? They are indiscriminate in their targeting, leveling large parts of cities and towns without regard to who they kill in trying to accomplish their military objectives.

Have you been to Russia? Again, I think you'll find the people lovely, though many are the victims of propaganda and corrupt leaders.

Nope. My coworker, the Russian studies major, has been several times and says many are okay people individually but have a very bad track record when it comes to doing things as a nation. He said their attitude towards governance, war and politics is evident in their actions so far in the war along with the broad public support for it. As a literal expert in Russia, and from what I've seen so far, I'll stand by my amateur internet forum assessment.

 

[Mirage]

If NATO collapses and it no longer provides the umbrella of nuclear deterrence to the alliance and its members, definitely. That deterrence ensures that Russia takes into account NATO nuclear weapons when contemplating and attack on any alliance members, without that threat the temptation to use nuclear weapons when conventional force doesn't work like it isn't in Ukraine becomes that much more tempting to a country that has made tactical nuclear weapons and threatening or implying the use of them an integral part of its recent military strategy.

Actually attacking Russia will cause nuclear war with almost 100% certainty. Putin not being sure if either of the US, UK, or France will respond to him nuking something in Europe with nukes on Moscow, while we are not threatening his homeland or his life in open conflict, carries a very small risk of actual nuclear war. Surely you see that.

There is already ample outside (non-Ukrainian or even NATO) evidence that shows the atrocities in Bucha actually occurred.

And it very well may be true. I don't know. But even that evidence is only evidence that 20 people were killed. There hasn't been a war in history that I'm aware of where that didn't happen. We're guilty of far worse. Acting like the Russian people at large are a different breed and innately evil because of that is hardly a fair conclusion. This sort of talk reminds me of the way we talked about the Japanese during WWII, to name one of dozens of examples through history. If you think of your enemy as less human than you then it's easier to condone their mass extermination in nuclear war, I suppose. Kind of weird you are so casual about killing millions of innocent Russians but are outraged over the murder of a small number of Ukrainians (as I am too, mind you).

 

[Flash]

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?

We've already made the choice that if Russia invades the Baltics we are at war with Russia, a couple hundred US personnel there to explicitly defend them ensures that.

I can't understate just how disastrous it would be if we abrogated our treaty obligations to an ally in the middle of a war. Any treaty we are a party to, military or otherwise, would no longer be viewed as such and our standing not only as a military power but an economic one would be damaged beyond repair for generations. That would affect not just the government but eventually everyday life, supply chain issues affecting car production would be the least of our concerns. How? Nations that use 'hard power' in the form of military threats, coercion and attacks would become dominant the world over and it affect everything from commerce to politics. Think prices for gas, used cars and food are high now?

The naïve assumption that we can sit out world affairs and it would not affect us was proven wrong not just in 1917 but 1941 as well. To think that we can retreat back into some sort of isolationist slumber safely buffered by a pair of oceans is nothing more than a fantasy.

 

[Mirage]

We've already made the choice that if Russia invades the Baltics we are at war with Russia, a couple hundred US personnel there to explicitly defend them ensures that.

Irrelevant. We're talking about what we should do, not what we will do.

I can't understate just how disastrous it would be if we abrogated our treaty obligations to an ally in the middle of a war. Any treaty we are a party to, military or otherwise, would no longer be viewed as such and our standing not only as a military power but an economic one would be damaged beyond repair for generations. That would affect not just the government but eventually everyday life, supply chain issues affecting car production would be the least of our concerns. How? Nations that use 'hard power' in the form of military threats, coercion and attacks would become dominant the world over and it affect everything from commerce to politics. Think prices for gas, used cars and food are high now?

So you're response to "What's worse than the US, Europe, and Russia being destroyed in nuclear war" is "We'd lose credibility, have bad supply chain issues, and high inflation."

I'm not convinced.

The naïve assumption that we can sit out world affairs and it would not affect us was proven wrong not just in 1917 but 1941 as well. To think that we can retreat back into some sort of isolationist slumber safely buffered by a pair of oceans is nothing more than a fantasy.

Who is arguing for this? Not me. Read my posts again.

 

[Flash]

And it very well may be true. I don't know. But even that evidence is only evidence that 20 people were killed. There hasn't been a war in history that I'm aware of where that didn't happen. We're guilty of far worse.

My link is not the only evidence out there out there, just watch any newscast and you will see civilian bodies being uncovered from freshly dug graves along with video, ample eyewitness accounts and numerous other sources to even include videos.

As for us, if you dig far enough you can uncover instances where were brutal in war but we have done nothing even coming close to this in over 50 years, and then it was a single unit in a single instance. We as a military and country have come pretty far when it comes to waging war and what we find acceptable, in large part by abiding the laws of war and our own country. Russia has not, period.

To draw some sort of equivalence to us and Russia now is not only absurd but just plain ignorant, and willfully so.

Acting like the Russian people at large are a different breed and innately evil because of that is hardly a fair conclusion. This sort of talk reminds me of the way we talked about the Japanese during WWII, to name one of dozens of examples through history. If you think of your enemy as less human than you then it's easier to condone their mass extermination in nuclear war, I suppose. Kind of weird you are so casual about killing millions of innocent Russians but are outraged over the murder of a small number of Ukrainians (as I am too, mind you).

What?! I think it is kind of weird you would be so casual about war crimes and the ample evidence that shows Russia is guilty of them.

I think you've earned a free 'Jump to Conclusions Mat' if you got the fact I am 'casual' about killing millions of Russians or that I am dehumanizing them so I am okay with that happening. I am just calling them out for being the assholes they are for not just wholeheartedly and consistently supporting Putin and his autocracy in addition to waging unprovoked war on neighboring countries.

 

[Mirage]

My link is not the only evidence out there out there, just watch any newscast and you will see civilian bodies being uncovered from freshly dug graves along with video, ample eyewitness accounts and numerous other sources to even include videos.

As for us, if you dig far enough you can uncover instances where were brutal in war but we have done nothing even coming close to this in over 50 years, and then it was a single unit in a single instance. We as a military and country have come pretty far when it comes to waging war and what we find acceptable, in large part by abiding the laws of war and our own country. Russia has not, period.

To draw some sort of equivalence to us and Russia now is not only absurd but just plain ignorant, and willfully so.

What?! I think it is kind of weird you would be so casual about war crimes and the ample evidence that shows Russia is guilty of them.

We've killed many tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere since 9/11. Most of these I've no doubt we did everything to avoid, but such is war. I'm sure many of these bodies were piled up in streets at some point, and the optics could have been used against us. I'm not saying this is what happened in all cases in Ukraine right now, but we don't have enough evidence to definitively conclude what you are concluding.

Many other civilians were murdered in cold blood by elements of our ground forces. We don't condone those killings as a society, and I can tell you from experience and knowing many Russian people that most would not condone murdering civilians any more than we would. I'm not saying Russia is fighting their war as cleanly as we would. I'm not saying their govt is as moral as ours usually tries to be. I am saying that the Russian people writ large can't be blamed for the atrocities that some soldiers have likely committed in Ukraine, anymore than I should be blamed for Eddie Gallagher's actions.

I think you've earned a free 'Jump to Conclusions Mat' if you got the fact I am 'casual' about killing millions of Russians or that I am dehumanizing them so I am okay with that happening. I am just calling them out for being the assholes they are for not just wholeheartedly and consistently supporting Putin and his autocracy in addition to waging unprovoked war on neighboring countries.

The masses of Russian citizens are fed propaganda daily and are not calling for war on their neighboring countries. They aren't even being told they are at war with Ukraine. Any opposition to Putin is put down by force. Your idea of them knowing everything we know about what's going on and supporting it all is cartoonishly narrow minded and ignores all the depth and complexity of the situation.

 

[Griz882]

What are you talking about dude? I'm saying if Russia attacks the Baltics we should supply them and do everything we can to help short of attacking Russia. How you get from there to Russia invading and defeating the US in a conventional war is beyond me. Russia's advance west has already been stopped... In central Ukraine.


By your math, 1/4 of Russia's nukes is 1564 nukes. If even a 10th of that 4th hit us, thats nation ending. All military bases, all capital cities, all government workers, most our population, all gone.


No, it has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to discuss what we should do, then don't participate in the debate, but that's what we're discussing and what the American response actually will be is irrelevant. We can discuss that as well of course, but it's a separate discussion.


Please enlighten me. What am I missing? How is thousands of nukes destroying the most advanced civilizations better than a fractured NATO and a conventional war in the Baltics?

Put simply those missiles will NOT…let me state that with all clarity…NOT “destroy” the most advanced civilizations in the world. They just won’t. The capacity to cause a remarkable amount of horror and death and destruction is there…but the capacity to destroy a civilization is not. Human civilizations have survived much worse (just not in the blink of an eye) and we (as a whole) will survive a possible nuclear exchange.

I have discussed, over, and over, and over what we should do if Russia attacks a NATO member…go to war. The second they cross that line every Russian sub we are tracking should be sunk (via conventional torpedos) and allied armies should attack Russia from several areas (not a single front). At the same time a robust PSYOP campaign focused on Russia would make it clear we won’t turn to nukes if they don’t. Send focused e-mails and social media hits to known missile officers in Russia and their families. Down deeper, it is all about tactical matters and I have a feeling we would win at that level.

I find it interesting that you demand everyone engage you on your ideas but you refuse to engage them on theirs. The question has been asked but I’ll ask again…how much of the free world are you willing to give away for a “nuclear peace?” The acceptable answer does not include your babble about the end of mankind, it is some measurable number. One nation, two, three? Better yet, how many people? 50 million, 100 million, 1 billion? What is the number for peace in our time?

 

[Griz882]

Seems like the major mistake was admitting the Baltics (& Balkans) into NATO in the first place. They contribute little capability and much vulnerability to the alliance, whose credibility now depends on defending insignificant states at the risk of nuclear apocalypse.

Total garbage. Tell us, what is the capability to vulnerability metric for free choice and sovereignty?

 

[Mirage]

Put simply those missiles will NOT…let me state that with all clarity…NOT “destroy” the most advanced civilizations in the world. They just won’t. The capacity to cause a remarkable amount of horror and death and destruction is there…but the capacity to destroy a civilization is not. Human civilizations have survived much worse (just not in the blink of an eye) and we (as a whole) will survive a possible nuclear exchange.

I have discussed, over, and over, and over what we should do if Russia attacks a NATO member…go to war. The second they cross that line every Russian sub we are tracking should be sunk (via conventional torpedos) and allied armies should attack Russia from several areas (not a single front). At the same time a robust PSYOP campaign focused on Russia would make it clear we won’t turn to nukes if they don’t. Send focused e-mails and social media hits to known missile officers in Russia and their families. Down deeper, it is all about tactical matters and I have a feeling we would win at that level.

I find it interesting that you demand everyone engage you on your ideas but you refuse to engage them on theirs. The question has been asked but I’ll ask again…how much of the free world are you willing to give away for a “nuclear peace?” The acceptable answer does not include your babble about the end of mankind, it is some measurable number. One nation, two, three? Better yet, how many people? 50 million, 100 million, 1 billion? What is the number for peace in our time?

So you think that if we attack Russia's homeland they won't use nukes as long as we promise not to use them first? Of course they will!

Furthermore, you believe that 6000+ nukes won't destroy America and Europe? How naive. I'm not saying the end of humankind... I'm saying the end of the America and Europe that we know. Some folks will survive out in rural areas and live like our ancient civilizations did, or more likely be invaded by China or whoever still has a military to subdue our farmers. Individual civilizations have never experienced anything worse, so it's silly to say they've survived worse. The worst plague is a joke in comparison.

I've answered that question regarding how much of the free world I'm willing to give away. The answer is none. Fight Russia.. smartly and in a very constrained fashion, just the way we are currently in Ukraine. It's clear we can beat him that way in the Baltics if he tries. Even if we can't, then yes... I'm willing to give up the Baltics to avoid what I just described above. That's about all Russia has any ounce of hope of capturing, and I don't even think they have that if we are arming them. Germany? Yeah, right.

Now your turn. How many people are you willing to get killed in a nuclear war to keep our credibility in tact and honor the NATO alliance to the letter? 2 billion? 5 billion? Everyone last human? Maybe we should ask the Baltics... would you rather all die in a nuclear war and have your land uninhabitable for generations, or fight the Russians with our weapons and support for as long as it takes to secure a lasting freedom?