Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[AmosTrask]

equal or larger warhead than a 155mm artillery shell can be randomly assumed to be actually a nuclear weapon, because it could be.

That's a blast from the past. Those were retired in 1992 i believe. I'm quite sure your crews considered the W48 a suicide weapon. I wouldn't want to man a howitzer with nuclear payloads. 8 mile range or not the wind has been shown to spread radioactive particles for hundreds of miles in the nuclear tests of the Cold War. Anyone firing those can kiss their lives goodbye. Cancer and infertility is the least of their problems.

@Agent23 unlike Russia's technologically backwards asses, the USA has high tech on their side. The closest they intend to be or need are the ballistic missile carrying submarines of their fleet. Or the Nuke armed orbital satellites the conspiracy nutjobs think they have.

NB: the satellite part is a joke obviously. Just pointing it out so there isn't any miscommunication. Since you're a conspiracy nut on the Russian side. Bloody traitor.

 

[Marduk]

Yeah, sure, I have to believe you because you just randomly googled some stuff to try and prove your usual angle.

You asked, you got it. Yes, it proves my angle, and if you have no argument that justifies convoluted future hypotheticals that Russia wants addressed as if they were real right now, well, it's time to admit it was all smoke and mirrors and perhaps Russia was motivated by completely different "concerns" that were less PR friendly than the ones they were giving out to sympathetic parts of western public.

That's a blast from the past. Those were retired in 1992 i believe. I'm quite sure your crews considered the W48 a suicide weapon. I wouldn't want to man a howitzer with nuclear payloads. 8 mile range or not the wind has been shown to spread radioactive particles for hundreds of miles in the nuclear tests of the Cold War. Anyone firing those can kiss their lives goodbye. Cancer and infertility is the least of their problems.

Nuclear weapons are over-memed. Dosage matters. The crews weren't supposed to stick around and lick the grass for free rads, they were supposed to get back into their vehicles scram from the firing position before counter-battery fire hits, which would be a far bigger threat.
Larger bombs in Japan obviously didn't kill off people in anywhere near 8 mile radius with radiation. 1-2 miles is more realistic danger radius in this class of warhead size, maybe 3-4 if weather or geography are set the wrong way.

 

[Agent23]

You asked, you got it. Yes, it proves my angle, and if you have no argument that justifies convoluted future hypotheticals that Russia wants addressed as if they were real right now, well, it's time to admit it was all smoke and mirrors and perhaps Russia was motivated by completely different "concerns" that were less PR friendly than the ones they were giving out to sympathetic parts of western public.

I asked, and you gave me your pitch for a remake of The Sum of All Fears, 1 or 2 nukes can be intercepted, or taken out by ABM/air defenses.

You'd need a lot more, coming in very fast so as to overwhelm any defenses and take out the whole decision chain before someone can do something about it.

One or two shipping containers won't do.

Also, you do realize that this will all leave a paper trail and that nuclear sites are heavily scrutinized by spies and the like, and one "accidentally" ending up on a civillain freighter next to a potential enemy's shores might be a massive embarrassment at best, right?

 

[Marduk]

I asked, and you gave me your pitch for a remake of The Sum of All Fears, 1 or 2 nukes can be intercepted, or taken out by ABM/air defenses.

Who said 1-2 nukes?
What, you think that's all a bomber or submarine can carry, and USA is limited to just one?
Or that a whole RoRo freighter cannot carry more than 2 trucks?
What stops USA from using, say, 4 submarines, 4 destroyers, or 8 B-2's?

Then again, if the supposed fear is a sneaky decapitation attack, the implication is that if they have enough warning to intercept, they have enough time to order their own to be fired.

Meanwhile in the department of real US nuclear weapons:

AGM-183 ARRW - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The weapon uses a boost-glide system, in which it is propelled to hypersonic speed by a rocket on which it is mounted before gliding toward a target.[9] According to Popular Mechanics, the U.S. Air Force was, as of April 2020, considering using the remaining fleet of B-1B bombers as AGM-183A firing platforms, with each aircraft carrying up to 31 of the weapons mounted internally and on external pylons.[19]

Isn't that exactly the sort of hypothetical weapon you are trying to imply here?
No idea how many will B-21 carry, but definitely more than 2. Most likely something between 8 and 32.
But here's the kicker - it's air launched, not ground launched. And has enough range to reach Moscow if launched over any of about a dozen existing NATO countries or few large bodies of international waters.

You'd need a lot more, coming in very fast so as to overwhelm any defenses and take out the whole decision chain before someone can do something about it.

If the defenses are on alert and have time to fire, then it was just an ordinary first strike, not a sneak attack.

One or two shipping containers won't do.

Again, why two, not, say, 6 ships in different locations 20 containers each?

Also, you do realize that this will all leave a paper trail and that nuclear sites are heavily scrutinized by spies and the like, and one "accidentally" ending up on a civillain freighter next to a potential enemy's shores might be a massive embarrassment at best, right?

Who said enemy shores? I could think of several close enough NATO countries.

Obviously that's not the kind of program one sets up and puts it in the proverbial back of the shelf so that in some years some documentation can fall into the hands of a nosy spy or journo. If they wanted to do it, they would do it.

Nuclear facilities? Yeah, another reason to prepare such strike plans with already existing warheads and weapons, preferably without placing them in very obvious stationary facilities on foreign soil, that generates a lot of completely unnecessary scrutiny and paperwork.

 

[Agent23]

Who said 1-2 nukes?
What, you think that's all a bomber or submarine can carry, and USA is limited to just one?
Or that a whole RoRo freighter cannot carry more than 2 trucks?
What stops USA from using, say, 4 submarines, 4 destroyers, or 8 B-2's?

Then again, if the supposed fear is a sneaky decapitation attack, the implication is that if they have enough warning to intercept, they have enough time to order their own to be fired.

Meanwhile in the department of real US nuclear weapons:

AGM-183 ARRW - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Isn't that exactly the sort of hypothetical weapon you are trying to imply here?
No idea how many will B-21 carry, but definitely more than 2. Most likely something between 8 and 32.
But here's the kicker - it's air launched, not ground launched. And has enough range to reach Moscow if launched over any of about a dozen existing NATO countries or few large bodies of international waters.

If the defenses are on alert and have time to fire, then it was just an ordinary first strike, not a sneak attack.

Again, why two, not, say, 6 ships in different locations 20 containers each?

Who said enemy shores? I could think of several close enough NATO countries.

Obviously that's not the kind of program one sets up and puts it in the proverbial back of the shelf so that in some years some documentation can fall into the hands of a nosy spy or journo. If they wanted to do it, they would do it.

Nuclear facilities? Yeah, another reason to prepare such strike plans with already existing warheads and weapons, preferably without placing them in very obvious stationary facilities on foreign soil, that generates a lot of completely unnecessary scrutiny and paperwork.

Yeah, but there are such things called radar, sonar, satellites, other early warning systems...

 

[Marduk]

Yeah, but there are such things called radar, sonar, satellites, other early warning systems...

Yes, great, so... How is a fake-ABM facility located in a commonly known and populated area more resistant to them than a nuclear submarine, or a friggin stealth bomber with intercontinental range and stealthy cruise missiles or hypersonics onboard?

You can point a sat, or just a camera with internet connection pointed at the facility from a dozen of kilometers or two, set to send and alarm if the massive thermal plume of a missile launch is detected...

With a bomber, submarine or even a truck TEL, it's an actual challenge to track where the bloody thing is when on patrol in the first place, while with a stationary facility, everyone knows where to look at.
How does that justify Russia supposedly throwing a massive geopolitical shit fit over mere hypothetical potential of a fake ABM facility being used as a mediocre at best tool for decapitation strike purposes, while everyone, and especially USA has or can build far better tools for that purpose with less or no reaction since decades? Adding to the irony, the shit fit itself may provide a push of motivation and justification for truly building such better tools in the first place...

 

[Agent23]

Yes, great, so... How is a fake-ABM facility located in a commonly known and populated area more resistant to them than a nuclear submarine, or a friggin stealth bomber with intercontinental range and stealthy cruise missiles or hypersonics onboard?

You can point a sat, or just a camera with internet connection pointed at the facility from a dozen of kilometers or two, set to send and alarm if the massive thermal plume of a missile launch is detected...

With a bomber, submarine or even a truck TEL, it's an actual challenge to track where the bloody thing is when on patrol in the first place, while with a stationary facility, everyone knows where to look at.
How does that justify Russia supposedly throwing a massive geopolitical shit fit over mere hypothetical potential of a fake ABM facility being used as a mediocre at best tool for decapitation strike purposes, while everyone, and especially USA has or can build far better tools for that purpose with less or no reaction since decades? Adding to the irony, the shit fit itself may provide a push of motivation and justification for truly building such better tools in the first place...

One, attacking it would be harder since it is in a NATO country.

Two, they have a better chain of custody if they want to ship in nukes from other military facilities vs. getting a nuke, getting a missile to mod and loading it up.



Three, a few of those, hosting a few dozen missiles each would be cheaper.

 

[Marduk]

One, attacking it would be harder since it is in a NATO country.

And why can't a US bomber, TEL or submarine be in NATO territory/waters/airspace?
After all, it can turn out to be there, anywhere, as a matter of days or hours, rather than being fixed solid in a position.
Secondly, if Russia does counter-force strikes against US nuclear weapons (especially against real, as opposed to imagined ones) for whatever reason, it is de facto in the state of nuclear war with USA regardless of where exactly these weapons were, and as such NATO probably too, so that point is kinda redundant.

Two, they have a better chain of custody if they want to ship in nukes from other military facilities vs. getting a nuke, getting a missile to mod and loading it up.

How is it better than doing all the work in any normal nuclear facility in US port or airbase?
It is much worse, the host country would probably want to know about this, adding opportunities for leaks, and espionage threat is by all chance worse than in CONUS secure facilities.

Three, a few of those, hosting a few dozen missiles each would be cheaper.

Not with the price of the real AEGIS system that can't be plugged into actual ABM missiles because their tubes are filled with nukes pretending to be ABM missiles, the real estate, nevermind the political maneuvering cost...
How is that supposed to be cheaper than bombers that they will buy anyway, or a bunch of trucks and a freighter with additional few million dollars worth of lead?

Also, again, for what? If you want to do an actual sneaky decapitation strike, you don't intend to station this shit somewhere and just leave it lingering around, you intend to use it, and the less time passes before making this operational and firing the missiles, the less time for the details to leak out.
If it is on the other hand meant to be stationed as a deterrent, well, then those who are supposed to be deterred kinda need to know about it, defeating the point of being a fake ABM facility that's actually a nuclear silo.
But then again, as far as deterrence goes USA has better tools already elsewhere.

 

[AmosTrask]

You asked, you got it. Yes, it proves my angle, and if you have no argument that justifies convoluted future hypotheticals that Russia wants addressed as if they were real right now, well, it's time to admit it was all smoke and mirrors and perhaps Russia was motivated by completely different "concerns" that were less PR friendly than the ones they were giving out to sympathetic parts of western public.

Nuclear weapons are over-memed. Dosage matters. The crews weren't supposed to stick around and lick the grass for free rads, they were supposed to get back into their vehicles scram from the firing position before counter-battery fire hits, which would be a far bigger threat.
Larger bombs in Japan obviously didn't kill off people in anywhere near 8 mile radius with radiation. 1-2 miles is more realistic danger radius in this class of warhead size, maybe 3-4 if weather or geography are set the wrong way.

I know. However the perception of the artillerymen trained in their use was different. Some reported having nightmares of being irradiated.

 

[Agent23]

And why can't a US bomber, TEL or submarine be in NATO territory/waters/airspace?
After all, it can turn out to be there, anywhere, as a matter of days or hours, rather than being fixed solid in a position.
Secondly, if Russia does counter-force strikes against US nuclear weapons (especially against real, as opposed to imagined ones) for whatever reason, it is de facto in the state of nuclear war with USA regardless of where exactly these weapons were, and as such NATO probably too, so that point is kinda redundant.

How is it better than doing all the work in any normal nuclear facility in US port or airbase?
It is much worse, the host country would probably want to know about this, adding opportunities for leaks, and espionage threat is by all chance worse than in CONUS secure facilities.

Not with the price of the real AEGIS system that can't be plugged into actual ABM missiles because their tubes are filled with nukes pretending to be ABM missiles, the real estate, nevermind the political maneuvering cost...
How is that supposed to be cheaper than bombers that they will buy anyway, or a bunch of trucks and a freighter with additional few million dollars worth of lead?

Also, again, for what? If you want to do an actual sneaky decapitation strike, you don't intend to station this shit somewhere and just leave it lingering around, you intend to use it, and the less time passes before making this operational and firing the missiles, the less time for the details to leak out.
If it is on the other hand meant to be stationed as a deterrent, well, then those who are supposed to be deterred kinda need to know about it, defeating the point of being a fake ABM facility that's actually a nuclear silo.
But then again, as far as deterrence goes USA has better tools already elsewhere.

How many US TELs are there in Eastern Europe again?

The subs and the aircraft we already covered, you are going in circles.

 

[Marduk]

How many US TELs are there in Eastern Europe again?

There were hundreds in eastern NATO until the end of Cold War. And then, when Russia was in its meme 90's, USA retired them as part of INF treaties instead of using them for the meme sneaky decapitation strike.
How many nuclear missiles are there in US ABM facilities in Eastern Europe again?

Regardless, building new ones and putting them on a ship would still be much quicker than building\rebuilding a ABM facility.

The subs and the aircraft we already covered, you are going in circles.

No we did not, you just ignored the topic stubbornly because you had no argument why fake ABM facility with a few dozen missiles at most is not a massively inferior means of inflicting a surprise decapitation strike that would most likely fail the "surprise" part while causing a massive political shitstorm.

 

[DarthOne]

 

[Marduk]

More of the usual bullshit... Scaremongering and exploitation of public ignorance of military matters.
Russia used similar deplated uranium shells in Ukraine in their own tanks long before, so where's the NATO escalation for that?

Meanwhile, the plans to station nuclear weapons in Belarus are in motion since a long time.

Russia’s Tight Embrace of Belarus Raises Prospect of Nuclear Deployment

Voting in a referendum Sunday in Belarus could lead to Moscow deploying nuclear weapons there, just as Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised the alert level for his country’s nuclear forces.

www.wsj.com

Nuclear Issues in the Ukraine Crisis - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

**UPDATED FEBRUARY 22, 2023** By Samuel M. Hickey, Monica Montgomery, Connor Murray and Matthew Teasdale As the world watches Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, nuclear issues and the risk of escalation are abuzz in the news and on social media. We have received myriad questions about the...

armscontrolcenter.org

So sorry, no re-using escalations that were already put in motion long before in supposed reaction to sanctions, and probably were going to happen with this or that excuse anyway.

 

[Bacle]

Yeah, Putin's going to try to use Luka as a fall-guy for nuclear fuckery, and comparing actual nukes to DU tank rounds is more idiotic Russian media spin by Putin's cronies/peons.

There is an easy way for tensions to end though, it's called Russia removing their troops from all Ukrainian territories, and staying behind the 1991 borders without launching attacks on Ukraine, as well as returning the kidnapped children.

All of this destruction and devastation is Putin's choice, because he is an ill old man looking to recreate the USSR/Imperial Russia before he dies.

 

[AmosTrask]

All of this destruction and devastation is Putin's choice, because he is an ill old man looking to recreate the USSR/Imperial Russia before he dies.

If he fails he dies too. He's lost too many men to be able to back down. If Putin loses he gets killed. That more than anything else is why he's escalating instead of backing down.

 

[Agent23]

There were hundreds in eastern NATO until the end of Cold War. And then, when Russia was in its meme 90's, USA retired them as part of INF treaties instead of using them for the meme sneaky decapitation strike.
How many nuclear missiles are there in US ABM facilities in Eastern Europe again?

Regardless, building new ones and putting them on a ship would still be much quicker than building\rebuilding a ABM facility.

No we did not, you just ignored the topic stubbornly because you had no argument why fake ABM facility with a few dozen missiles at most is not a massively inferior means of inflicting a surprise decapitation strike that would most likely fail the "surprise" part while causing a massive political shitstorm.

Sure, sure.
By that logic, why do we have fixed silos, why not just keep everything on TELs and submarines and maybe rotating patrols of aircraft.
And of course the vsrious treaties, anti-ABM, anti-SRBM, limitations on the number of total launchers and the like.
This is an easy way to cheaply sneak in dozens of missiles and put them in hardened sites with anti-air defense, and it will also conveniently skirt the need for the local governments to say no before it is too late.

Because I doubt ther if push comes to shove most people will agree to have a first strike capable nuclear launch site controlled by another country on their soil, that includes a lot of you Poles, since I don't think all of you are as suicidal as you.
More whatabourism, nothing else.

 

[Marduk]

Sure, sure.
By that logic, why do we have fixed silos, why not just keep everything on TELs and submarines and maybe rotating patrols of aircraft.

Do we? Funny, everyone who can is going in that direction, because silo based nukes are the least useful part of nuclear triad all things consider.

The Future of the ICBM Force: Should the Least Valuable Leg of the Triad Be Replaced? | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

And of course the vsrious treaties, anti-ABM, anti-SRBM, limitations on the number of total launchers and the like.
This is an easy way to cheaply sneak in dozens of missiles and put them in hardened sites with anti-air defense, and it will also conveniently skirt the need for the local governments to say no before it is too late.

Too late for what? What's the ridiculous idea behind trying to use the least flexible and stealthy way of deploy nukes... to do a quick and sneaky nuclear strike?

Also touching on an argument you inconveniently brought up several posts before...
Do you think Poland cannot afford geiger counters in ports of entry?

Who the fuck cares if the sites are hardened if you plan to launch first anyway? Hardening only matters in an exchange, especially if you didn't launch first and don't plan to.
Nevermind that if the decapitation strike is meant to be sneaky and successful, hardening doesn't matter yet again because the idea is that the enemy won't be able to shoot back, at least not much, and of all things the super secret decapitation strike launchers would be empty by then.
If the enemy can launch a counter-force volley back, then your decapitation strike failed, and if the missiles in your super secret decapitation strike silos are still in the silos when they are getting arrivals, what the fuck was the point of the whole facility.

Because I doubt ther if push comes to shove most people will agree to have a first strike capable nuclear launch site controlled by another country on their soil, that includes a lot of you Poles, since I don't think all of you are as suicidal as you.

Lol any nuclear weapon is first strike capable...
Yet during Cold War, Pershings and Gryphons were located all over several NATO countries...

More whatabourism, nothing else.

More self-contradictory spaghetti of arguments where it's supposedly about USA using the expensive ABM facility to hide the least surprise decapitation strike capable way of delivering nukes and then not actually doing the surprise strike with it but just waiting for it to lose secrecy so that Russians fire nukes at it but it's hardened so that hopefully it fires as second strike, instead of using any of the better delivery methods because that would make too much sense for Russian propaganda excuses.

 

[AmosTrask]

More whatabourism, nothing else

More bullshit from a Vatnik, Bulgarian traitor when Russians are bombing and assassinating Bulgars you mean. Do us a favor and fuck off back to Turk . . . Oh wait you can't. Because you hate Turks too. I'll echo your earlier taunt and encourage you to go join Wagner or the Russian Army. I eagerly await the news of your capture or going AWOL

 

[Agent23]

Do we? Funny, everyone who can is going in that direction, because silo based nukes are the least useful part of nuclear triad all things consider.

The Future of the ICBM Force: Should the Least Valuable Leg of the Triad Be Replaced? | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

Too late for what? What's the ridiculous idea behind trying to use the least flexible and stealthy way of deploy nukes... to do a quick and sneaky nuclear strike?

Who the fuck cares if the sites are hardened if you plan to launch first anyway? Hardening only matters in an exchange, especially if you didn't launch first and don't plan to.
Nevermind that if the decapitation strike is meant to be sneaky and successful, hardening doesn't matter yet again because the idea is that the enemy won't be able to shoot back, at least not much.
If the enemy can launch a counter-force volley back, then your decapitation strike failed, and if the missiles in your super secret decapitation strike silos are still in the silos when they are getting arrivals, what the fuck was the point of the whole facility.


Lol any nuclear weapon is first strike capable...
Yet during Cold War, Pershings and Gryphons were located all over several NATO countries...

More self-contradictory spaghetti of arguments where it's supposedly about USA using the expensive ABM facility to hide the least surprise decapitation strike capable way of delivering nukes and then not actually doing the surprise strike with it but just waiting for it to lose secrecy so that Russians fire nukes at it but it's hardened so that hopefully it fires as second strike, instead of using any of the better delivery methods because that would make too much sense for Russian propaganda excuses.

Says the guy constantly pushing US/NAFO propaganda and whatever nonsense he finds off of google to back his claim.Just like when you tried to claim "expertise" in Bulgarian politics and everything from military aviation to the energy industry , and the same person that was constantly flip-flopped in his reasons for why he wanted involvement in Ukraine, with those renging from Muh freedom and muh sovereignty to some fantasies about Empire building.
Sorry, but I'd take Stalin's word over tours.
Not sorry.

 

[Marduk]

Says the guy constantly pushing US/NAFO propaganda

Doesn't make it wrong, just makes you hate it. Of all things, when i start quoting not exactly in-line with currently most anti-Russia folks sources like arms control organization that wrote it 4 years before the war, you start complaining about NATO propaganda.

Feel free to tell all of us what a valuable part of nuclear triad, especially suitable for sneaky decapitation strikes, are fixed silos in the XXI century, preferably with a fake ABM facility next to them for extra cost, the rest of us can get the popcorn out and have a laugh.

and whatever nonsense he finds off of google to back his claim.

That's more like what you do, though you only sometimes even bother to find something off google.

Just like when you tried to claim "expertise" in Bulgarian politics and everything from military aviation to the energy industry , and the same person that was constantly flip-flopped in his reasons for why he wanted involvement in Ukraine, with those renging from Muh freedom and muh sovereignty to some fantasies about Empire building.
Sorry, but I'd take Stalin's word over tours.
Not sorry.

Again, in no way that makes the Russian propaganda excuse you are pushing here any more justified or reasonable.
You're just declaring Russian propaganda unfalsifiable in your eyes.
a) If you believe whatever ridiculous scheme Russia accuses NATO of, great, NATO BAD!
b) If you think whatever ridiculous scheme Russia accuses NATO of is bullshit meant to justify something that's not ordinarily justifiable on Russia's side, you are a NATO shill and you would rather believe Stalin than that.