Ukraine war

[Ringo]

 

[Silver Cat]

They got plenty of support from Russia but we never nuked either. The Afghans were fighting to liberate their Country from the Russian Imperialists but no one nuked anyone. Nukes are just not very useful except against other nukes.

It depends on the price of victory and the price of defeat. There were no thirty million of WASPs living in Vietnam, and American people didn't understand well what they are fighting for. Ukraine is not Russian Vietnam. Ukraine is not even Russian Afghanistan. Ukraine is Russian Texas, California, or even the Confederacy. Do you really believe that Washington shouldn't use nukes to prevent Shanghai block's occupation of California?

What is even more important, there was a balance during Cold War. But now, with the awfully degraded American nuclear arsenal, the situation is pretty imbalanced.

 

[alang1216]

What is even more important, there was a balance during Cold War. But now, with the awfully degraded American nuclear arsenal, the situation is pretty imbalanced.

'Degraded'? What are you talking about, the US arsenal is more than capable of destroying either Russia or China or both at once.

 

[Ringo]

Ukrainian Corruption Made Clear as U.S. Considers Billions More in Aid

Where does the Ukraine gravy train go? Apparently to off-shore bank accounts of some bad hombres.

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[Silver Cat]

'Degraded'? What are you talking about, the US arsenal is more than capable of destroying either Russia or China or both at once.

Actually, no. Especially, in the case of the first Russian counter-force strike, with American wishthinkful decision-makers actively denying this possibility (and calling it "bluff"). You know, another Pearl Harbor. ICBMs, bombers and SSBN bases (plus few SSBNs in sea). After this - all you have is, say, two SSBNs in Northern Atlantic to destroy Russian cities in European part of Russia, and, say, three SSBNs in Pacific, to destroy Russian and Chinese cities. Trident II is a bit obsolete, Russian A-235, S-500, S-400 and even S-300 higher than V4 modification can intercept its incoming warheads. So, to destroy a target you need to overwhelm its ABD.
Two Ohios, twenty missiles each, means forty missiles and, say, 120 warheads. Moscow region's ABD can intercept, say, 200 incoming warheads (may be more). Therefore your retaliation won't destroy Moscow. You can take your chances in destroying Saint-Petersbourg or some smaller cities. And, as the Russians attacked first they already have their cities partially evacuated and partially sheltered. It definitely won't destroy Russia, but they definitely will be in rage and, in their third well-coordinated anti-value attack, they will virtually totally annihilate the USA. But, if the USA do not retaliate (after Russian counter-force strike which killed less than one million of civilians), we still can use our survived SSBNs as an argument in the peace negotiations and finish the war at the best possible (in that grave circumstances).

It is a part of official National Defense Policy (2022), and if it sounds like an invitation for a Russian attack - yes, it is. But, may be, it is the best what we can do in the current circumstances.

 

[longly]

If Putin wins in Ukraine, there's only one man and one party that bears full responsibility, and that is President Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. To allow Putin to win is a war crime as far as I'm concerned. Joe Biden is either a coward or a traitor. I am a Democrat, and I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility even though I do have some mitigation.

 

[longly]

Even if this is true, so what. There's a military saying that goes "shit happens". In Vietnam, we even napalmed our own troops. This kind of stuff is just part of the insanity of war and very little can be done about it, it's going to happen. We need to have enough grit to accept it,

 

[alang1216]

Actually, no. Especially, in the case of the first Russian counter-force strike, with American wishthinkful decision-makers actively denying this possibility (and calling it "bluff"). You know, another Pearl Harbor. ICBMs, bombers and SSBN bases (plus few SSBNs in sea). After this - all you have is, say, two SSBNs in Northern Atlantic to destroy Russian cities in European part of Russia, and, say, three SSBNs in Pacific, to destroy Russian and Chinese cities. Trident II is a bit obsolete, Russian A-235, S-500, S-400 and even S-300 higher than V4 modification can intercept its incoming warheads. So, to destroy a target you need to overwhelm its ABD.
Two Ohios, twenty missiles each, means forty missiles and, say, 120 warheads. Moscow region's ABD can intercept, say, 200 incoming warheads (may be more). Therefore your retaliation won't destroy Moscow. You can take your chances in destroying Saint-Petersbourg or some smaller cities. And, as the Russians attacked first they already have their cities partially evacuated and partially sheltered. It definitely won't destroy Russia, but they definitely will be in rage and, in their third well-coordinated anti-value attack, they will virtually totally annihilate the USA. But, if the USA do not retaliate (after Russian counter-force strike which killed less than one million of civilians), we still can use our survived SSBNs as an argument in the peace negotiations and finish the war at the best possible (in that grave circumstances).

So if we launch 120 warheads at Moscow, how many have to get through to destroy the city? The Patriot has been well tested and it is no where near 100% effective. Our ICBMs are on a hair trigger, how many will be launched before the Russian first strike lands? How good is Russia at detecting and stopping our stealth bombers?

Seems like a risk no sane country would take.

 

[Deadstick]

If Putin wins in Ukraine, there's only one man and one party that bears full responsibility, and that is President Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. To allow Putin to win is a war crime as far as I'm concerned. Joe Biden is either a coward or a traitor. I am a Democrat, and I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility even though I do have some mitigation.

Well Russia WILL win because if they don't it's the end of Russia, what i want to know is WTF has Ukraine got to do with you or your Country? we know why it matters to Russia it's next door and what happens there is important to Russia especially if it becomes a threat, they have centuries of shared history intermarriage etc it's thousands of miles from the US and what happens there doesn't matter to the every day life of a guy in New York.

 

[longly]

Well Russia WILL win because if they don't it's the end of Russia, what i want to know is WTF has Ukraine got to do with you or your Country? we know why it matters to Russia it's next door and what happens there is important to Russia especially if it becomes a threat, they have centuries of shared history intermarriage etc it's thousands of miles from the US and what happens there doesn't matter to the every day life of a guy in New York.

Because I love freedom, and as Sarah Palin once said, you can see Russia from her home, Alaska. I’ve been there in a cold winter sea ice freezes thick enough you could drive tanks across it. Putin knows he won’t live many more years, and he wants to be remembered as Putin the Great. He wants the return of the glory of the Russian Empire, and Alaska was once part of Russia. If he can take Alaska he will. If he wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there. He could invade and take Alaska; true the US has a highly impressive war machine; the problem is we don’t have the people to operate it. Capability does nothing for you if you don’t have the ability to implement it. I don’t think we could beat the Russians in the Arctic; that would require the willingness to accept a tremendous amount of suffering and the Russians have already proved that they can do it and we can’t.

The only way we could stop the Russians would be with tactical nukes. Obama got rid of most of ours, and I don’t see any potential Democratic president that has the guts to use them. Which potential Democratic president would sacrifice the people of Nome Alaska in order to stop a Russian advance?

 

[Deadstick]

Because I love freedom, and as Sarah Palin once said, you can see Russia from her home, Alaska. I’ve been there in a cold winter sea ice freezes thick enough you could drive tanks across it. Putin knows he won’t live many more years, and he wants to be remembered as Putin the Great. He wants the return of the glory of the Russian Empire, and Alaska was once part of Russia. If he can take Alaska he will. If he wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there. He could invade and take Alaska; true the US has a highly impressive war machine; the problem is we don’t have the people to operate it. Capability does nothing for you if you don’t have the ability to implement it. I don’t think we could beat the Russians in the Arctic; that would require the willingness to accept a tremendous amount of suffering and the Russians have already proved that they can do it and we can’t.

The only way we could stop the Russians would be with tactical nukes. Obama got rid of most of ours, and I don’t see any potential Democratic president that has the guts to use them. Which potential Democratic president would sacrifice the people of Nome Alaska in order to stop a Russian advance?

I don't know who told you all that but don't worry because it won't happen.

 

[Ringo]

Even if this is true, so what. There's a military saying that goes "shit happens". In Vietnam, we even napalmed our own troops.

The team of Patriot missiles (American missiles) with which the plane was hit consists of military officers and I think they were American military officers.
Before shooting down an airplane, it has to be guided and the exact type of airplane will be determined. The Ukrainian government was notified in sending an airplane with their prisoners of war.
So the plane was shot down deliberately, which is a war crime and if the command was american - a cause for war.
If the crew was ukrainian and just had no idea what they were doing, it begs the question to the US government - Why are you handing out sophisticated and deadly weapons to just anyone?
My opinion - because the US government is interested in the continuation of the war, it feeds on the blood of those. who died in this war like vampires, because it represents the interests of capitalists producing weapons and these death dealers need constant profit, i.e. the war, like a drug addict needs a dose....
Modern capitalism is leading mankind to destruction. It must be stopped.

 

[Silver Cat]

So if we launch 120 warheads at Moscow, how many have to get through to destroy the city? The Patriot has been well tested and it is no where near 100% effective.

Even S-300V4 is better than Patriot in the interception of incoming warheads. A-235 is much better. So, with exoatmospheric interception by A-235 and S-500, and in-atmospheric interception of leftovers by S-400 and S-300... Well, it seems, that they have good chances to intercept more than 200 warheads. Anyway, it's not about just defending the city. It's more about forcing your opponent to concentrate all efforts on elimination of the one, most important (from his point of view) target. Napoleon burned Moscow in 1812, and lost the war. Poles and Lithuanians burned Moscow in 1612, and lost the war. Mahmad Geray burned Moscow in 1521 and lost the war. Edigu burned Moscow in 1408 and lost the war. Algirdas burned Moscow in 1368 and lost the war. Gleb burned Moscow in 1177, and lost the war. It's not a big deal.
May be, Biden will be lucky to burn Moscow, too, but then, he will lost the war.

Our ICBMs are on a hair trigger, how many will be launched before the Russian first strike lands?

No, they are not.

And, launch-under-attack capability is not reliable now (especially with underfunded and barely working SBIRS satellites).
In the case of a smart, well prepared Pearl Harbor type attack, highly unlikely that even few ICBMs launched.

How good is Russia at detecting and stopping our stealth bombers?

Pretty good. And, what is even more important - they are not at the airborne alert anymore.

Seems like a risk no sane country would take.

It depends on possible alternatives. If there is a choice - to lost Crimea and Novorussia (twenty million Russians) and be defeated in the war, or - to have half of Moscow ruined and 10% of its population (mostly non-essensial) killed and severely injured, but win the war, destroy America and, therefore, gain the capability of recuperation - ok, obviously, the latter is much lesser evil (from their point of view). Yes, sure, they won't attack the USA only because they think that they have a good plan, but if there is a real risk of losing the war - they definitely will try their chances.

 

[alang1216]

Even S-300V4 is better than Patriot in the interception of incoming warheads. A-235 is much better. So, with exoatmospheric interception by A-235 and S-500, and in-atmospheric interception of leftovers by S-400 and S-300... Well, it seems, that they have good chances to intercept more than 200 warheads. Anyway, it's not about just defending the city. It's more about forcing your opponent to concentrate all efforts on elimination of the one, most important (from his point of view) target. Napoleon burned Moscow in 1812, and lost the war. Poles and Lithuanians burned Moscow in 1612, and lost the war. Mahmad Geray burned Moscow in 1521 and lost the war. Edigu burned Moscow in 1408 and lost the war. Algirdas burned Moscow in 1368 and lost the war. Gleb burned Moscow in 1177, and lost the war. It's not a big deal.
May be, Biden will be lucky to burn Moscow, too, but then, he will lost the war.

You mentioned Moscow as I recall. I think the targets of the US would be the military and industrial infrastructure.

No, they are not.
View attachment 898471
And, launch-under-attack capability is not reliable now (especially with underfunded and barely working SBIRS satellites).
In the case of a smart, well prepared Pearl Harbor type attack, highly unlikely that even few ICBMs launched.

I don't know about 'barely working' but they are about to be augmented with the Pentagon’s Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared, or OPIR, satellites. Russia would run an existential risk to try a sneak attack on the US since there would be too many ways the US might be alerted.

Pretty good. And, what is even more important - they are not at the airborne alert anymore.

They are not airborne but still ready to fly

It depends on possible alternatives. If there is a choice - to lost Crimea and Novorussia (twenty million Russians) and be defeated in the war, or - to have half of Moscow ruined and 10% of its population (mostly non-essensial) killed and severely injured, but win the war, destroy America and, therefore, gain the capability of recuperation - ok, obviously, the latter is much lesser evil (from their point of view). Yes, sure, they won't attack the USA only because they think that they have a good plan, but if there is a real risk of losing the war - they definitely will try their chances.

Let us hope reason prevails.

 

[Silver Cat]

You mentioned Moscow as I recall. I think the targets of the US would be the military and industrial infrastructure.

The most important strategic military and industrial infrastructure is covered by modern air and space defense systems. Not that important infrastructure is not that crucial. Anyway, after Russian first counterforce strike, the US retaliation can't be "devastating". And what is even more important, if the USA retaliate, Russia attacks the US military and industrial infrastructure, too. And their third, counter-value strike is virtually annihilating. We know it, the Russians know it. That's why there are pretty good chances that the USA will accept Russia's pretty generous (in this grave circumstances) peace terms and won't retaliate.

I don't know about 'barely working' but they are about to be augmented with the Pentagon’s Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared, or OPIR, satellites.

Those are GEO sats, too. And we need HEO and LEO sats to control polar regions.

Russia would run an existential risk to try a sneak attack on the US since there would be too many ways the US might be alerted.

The question is not only in stealthiness. The question is more about swiftness. Flight time of Bulava missiles from, say, M'Clure strait to AFB Minot at suppressed ballistic trajectory is lesser than five minutes. The launch-under-attack procedure takes (in the best circumstances) seven minutes. And our vulnerability "sleeping Joe in the middle" allow Russians to play even more daring and gambling scenarios.

They are not airborne but still ready to fly

They are not ready to flight if they are destroyed by the Russian nuclear attack.

Let us hope reason prevails.

It's not enough to hope. We have to do something. At least we should vote for a reasonable man. Somebody, who think about strategic stability and do not involve us in the stupid foreign conflicts. It's a direct way to catastrophe - to be simultaneously weak and aggressive.

 

[alang1216]

The most important strategic military and industrial infrastructure is covered by modern air and space defense systems. Not that important infrastructure is not that crucial. Anyway, after Russian first counterforce strike, the US retaliation can't be "devastating". And what is even more important, if the USA retaliate, Russia attacks the US military and industrial infrastructure, too. And their third, counter-value strike is virtually annihilating. We know it, the Russians know it. That's why there are pretty good chances that the USA will accept Russia's pretty generous (in this grave circumstances) peace terms and won't retaliate.

I believe the Japanese said the same things on Dec 6th.

Those are GEO sats, too. And we need HEO and LEO sats to control polar regions.

Do you have classified knowledge the rest of us don't?

The question is not only in stealthiness. The question is more about swiftness. Flight time of Bulava missiles from, say, M'Clure strait to AFB Minot at suppressed ballistic trajectory is lesser than five minutes. The launch-under-attack procedure takes (in the best circumstances) seven minutes. And our vulnerability "sleeping Joe in the middle" allow Russians to play even more daring and gambling scenarios.

To risk so much on Joe sleeping. Hard to imagine such insanity.

They are not ready to flight if they are destroyed by the Russian nuclear attack.

You seem to have lots of respect for a super power that couldn't even take over its neighbor. And very little respect for the intelligence capabilities of the US. I can't imagine Russia being able to achieve complete surprise.

It's not enough to hope. We have to do something. At least we should vote for a reasonable man. Somebody, who think about strategic stability and do not involve us in the stupid foreign conflicts.

I assume you mean Trump, the fair-haired boy of the Russians.

It's a direct way to catastrophe - to be simultaneously weak and aggressive.

Now that sounds more like Putin.

 

[Silver Cat]

I believe the Japanese said the same things on Dec 6th.

Actually, no. They wanted to repeat their more or less successful scenario of Russo-Japanese war. Anyway, it seemed as the best possible solution in time.

Do you have classified knowledge the rest of us don't?

May be. May be not. But geometry, as far as I know, is still not classified.

To risk so much on Joe sleeping. Hard to imagine such insanity.

There is risk in attacking, and there is risk in not attacking. And not, it's not about Joe sleeping. It's more about Joe's wishful-thinking and lack of expertise.

You seem to have lots of respect for a super power that couldn't even take over its neighbor. And very little respect for the intelligence capabilities of the US. I can't imagine Russia being able to achieve complete surprise.

American intelligence never have been really effective and in the recent years it has dramatically degraded into almost complete incompetence. But yes, even modern imbeciles can't miss the Russian preparations for the attack. The question is what can be done with this knowledge.
If intelligence report, that it seems that the Russians started their preparations for the first counter-force attack as an answer on American extremely provocative actions (like, say, sending American troops in Western Ukraine) the POTUS have choice:
1) Believe and halt his extremely provocative actions. (And Russia prevails this turn without actual nuclear fighting).
2) Believe and initiate our own preparations for the first counter-force attack against Russia. (And right now the USA don't have neither plan, nor capabilities to attack Russia and then survive their retaliation strike).
3) Do not believe that the threat is real, call that all this is bluff, and order intelligence to ignore all such "evidence", and continue his extremely provocative actions. (And this is direct way to catastrophe).

Actually, we believe that the Russian threats are real, and therefore we know, that they can (and will) win the war simply by raising bets. The only questions are - what price will pay Russia, Ukraine and the USA, and how many taxpayers' billions Joe will convert in his personal millions?

I assume you mean Trump, the fair-haired boy of the Russians.

He is not a boy of the Russians. He is the boy of Americans (at least of half of us).

Now that sounds more like Putin.

Only if you watch too much of TV gibberish. Read books and documents, pls.

 

[alang1216]

Actually, no. They wanted to repeat their more or less successful scenario of Russo-Japanese war. Anyway, it seemed as the best possible solution in time.

And how did that work out for them?

May be. May be not. But geometry, as far as I know, is still not classified.

No, geometry is not but our capabilities are. Even Russia and China probably don't know everything we have so it is an unknown factor for them.

There is risk in attacking, and there is risk in not attacking. And not, it's not about Joe sleeping. It's more about Joe's wishful-thinking and lack of expertise.

Lack of expertise? Joe has been in gov't for 50 years. He knows stuff.

American intelligence never have been really effective and in the recent years it has dramatically degraded into almost complete incompetence. But yes, even modern imbeciles can't miss the Russian preparations for the attack. The question is what can be done with this knowledge.
If intelligence report, that it seems that the Russians started their preparations for the first counter-force attack as an answer on American extremely provocative actions (like, say, sending American troops in Western Ukraine) the POTUS have choice:
1) Believe and halt his extremely provocative actions. (And Russia prevails this turn without actual nuclear fighting).
2) Believe and initiate our own preparations for the first counter-force attack against Russia. (And right now the USA don't have neither plan, nor capabilities to attack Russia and then survive their retaliation strike).
3) Do not believe that the threat is real, call that all this is bluff, and order intelligence to ignore all such "evidence", and continue his extremely provocative actions. (And this is direct way to catastrophe).

4) Put all our assets at high alert and well dispersed.

 

[Silver Cat]

And how did that work out for them?

Good enough. As a result of the war, they received acceptable peace conditions. Without the war, they would be the second Philippines.
Anyway, I'm not sure that we can win WWIII after another Pearl Harbour.

No, geometry is not but our capabilities are. Even Russia and China probably don't know everything we have so it is an unknown factor for them.

As well as Russian and Chinese capabilities in, say, detecting our submarines. May be, they already have some surprises.

Lack of expertise? Joe has been in gov't for 50 years. He knows stuff.

Joe is a political animal and demential puppet. What is worse - even his backroom boys can't even a write a sentence in Russian or Chinese without mistakes.

4) Put all our assets at high alert and well dispersed.

It's too dangerous, if you believe that the Russians are not really going to attack, and "just bluffing".
It increases risk of "non-accidental accidental war", and the Russians, highly likely, will read it as a preparation for the first American attack, and will make an attempt to attack first.
And dispersion also require patience and caution (to be not misunderstood by the Russians) as it was in 2023 during preparations for Ukrainian counteroffensive and, therefore, possible Russian nuclear attack.

As far as I know, at May 15, three boomers from the 20th submarine squadron of the US Navy were on combat patrol: the USS Rhode Island /since February 13/, the USS Alaska /since April 30/ and the USS Maryland /since May 11/.
Over the next 10 days, the USS West Virginia (May /19 ) and the USS Wyoming (May/23 ) left the Kings Bay base.
At June 2, the USS Tennessee left the base.
The USS Rhode Island (after changing its warheads to "tactical" W76-2) was the last to leave the Kings Bay naval base and enter the Western Atlantic at June 10.

Formally, Ukrainian counter-offensive started at June 5, and only at June 20, it became clear (even for CIA fools), that it had failed, and some boomers returned home.

 

[alang1216]

Good enough. As a result of the war, they received acceptable peace conditions. Without the war, they would be the second Philippines.

The Mouse that Roared? How many Japanese military and civilians had to die for that 'acceptable' peace?

Anyway, I'm not sure that we can win WWIII after another Pearl Harbour.

Channeling Putin?

As well as Russian and Chinese capabilities in, say, detecting our submarines. May be, they already have some surprises.

Only a madman would bet it all and hope for a surprise ending.

It's too dangerous, if you believe that the Russians are not really going to attack, and "just bluffing".
It increases risk of "non-accidental accidental war", and the Russians, highly likely, will read it as a preparation for the first American attack, and will make an attempt to attack first.
And dispersion also require patience and caution (to be not misunderstood by the Russians) as it was in 2023 during preparations for Ukrainian counteroffensive and, therefore, possible Russian nuclear attack.

You said "even modern imbeciles can't miss the Russian preparations for the attack" so it would be obvious, and widely announced, that US actions were in response to Russian "preparations for the attack". You shouldn't argue from both sides of your mouth.