Are nuclear weapons imminent?

[pallidin]

Russia seems to be threatening the use of "low-yield" nuclear weapons to advance their complete takeover of Ukraine.

[Duke Wellington]

16 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Russia seems to be threatening the use of "low-yield" nuclear weapons to advance their complete takeover of Ukraine.

I rub my crystal ball and the answer I get is yes.

If we analyse the conflict, then only two outcomes are possible. That is Russia takes a defeat and as a result Putin is finished. Or they use nukes. No other outcome is possible because Ukraine is being supplied by NATO.

Once Putin uses a low yield nuke then NATO will refuse to drop its support for Ukraine. They will ramp up their support, more nukes will follow, and we will rapidly progress into a downward spiral. As some point Putin in order to secure victory for Russia will have to nuke countries such as Poland and Germany. He will need to knock out their supply of arms and weapons.

And it`s all going downhill from there.

[spartan max2]

I'll just repeat what I said on the last Nuke thread.

Quote

If you have to keep making the same threat than it means you're not going to do it. See North Korea for example.

 

Putin has to worry about unrest at home, which limits his moves. That's way he waited to do a conscription and even now it's just "partial". Using a nuke could push that unrest over the edge 

 

[Piney]

14 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I rub my crystal ball and the answer I get is yes.

If we analyse the conflict, then only two outcomes are possible. That is Russia takes a defeat and as a result Putin is finished. Or they use nukes. No other outcome is possible because Ukraine is being supplied by NATO.

Once Putin uses a low yield nuke then NATO will refuse to drop its support for Ukraine. They will ramp up their support, more nukes will follow, and we will rapidly progress into a downward spiral. As some point Putin in order to secure victory for Russia will have to nuke countries such as Poland and Germany. He will need to knock out their supply of arms and weapons.

And it`s all going downhill from there.

Russia's nuclear defense system has a virus problem now. If Putty tries  to launch them they detonate in the silos.

Don't ask for a link. 

 

sorry @Uncle Yammy......... Just sick of Chicken Little bull****......

[Duke Wellington]

40 minutes ago, Piney said:

Russia's nuclear defense system has a virus problem now. If Putty tries  to launch them they detonate in the silos.

Don't ask for a link. 

 

sorry @Uncle Yammy......... Just sick of Chicken Little bull****......

Having searched I can find no media stories about this.

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Having searched I can find no media stories about this.

It's a British military rumor, and I need to correct my original post to launchpads because many are mobile.

  But Russia did launch It's nuclear torpedo sub, which is capable of shooting a few. 

 

[Commander CMG]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

It's a British military rumor, and I need to correct my original post to launchpads because many are mobile.

  But Russia did launch It's nuclear torpedo sub, which is capable of shooting a few. 

 

Don't correct your post Brother, Puking doesn't realize how good our nuclear defense is, and how many ping pong balls he would have to defend against 

[Tomas S]

3 hours ago, pallidin said:

Russia seems to be threatening the use of "low-yield" nuclear weapons to advance their complete takeover of Ukraine.

Funny thing is I wrote the same thing in another fora about a month ago. We must be using the same crystal ball!

[Piney]

23 minutes ago, Uncle Yammy said:

Don't correct your post Brother, Puking doesn't realize how good our nuclear defense is, and how many ping pong balls he would have to defend against 

I know he was threatening the UK directly with the Belgorod. Which would fail miserably because there's a bowling ball waiting for that tuna can.

[Duke Wellington]

45 minutes ago, Uncle Yammy said:

Don't correct your post Brother, Puking doesn't realize how good our nuclear defense is, and how many ping pong balls he would have to defend against 

Ehm, NATO nuclear defences aren`t as good as you are convincing yourself.

Against hypersonic nukes there is literally nothing we can currently do. The USA is safe from a hypersonic nuke for the time being. But not anybody withing a 2000km range. So, the EU will be unable to stop itself being devasted. The reason why we cannot do anything about them is we don`t have hypersonic interceptors yet.

RS-28 Sarmat (Satan 2s) have only recently started being made so we don`t know what their current numbers are. The USA cannot currently do anything about them. If Russia has just 1 or 2 it could devastate the USA as each can deliver a 100-megaton warhead.

There was a NATO report from a couple of years back saying against Satan 1s we would expect to knock out 60%. That simply isn`t good enough to go to nuclear war with.

Could we hit Russia back? Of course, they would be wiped off the face of the Earth. But we would be back in the stone age too.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Cookie Monster

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Ehm, NATO nuclear defences aren`t as good as you are convincing yourself.

Against hypersonic nukes there is literally nothing we can currently do. The USA is safe from a hypersonic nuke for the time being. But not anybody withing a 2000km range. So, the EU will be unable to stop itself being devasted. The reason why we cannot do anything about them is we don`t have hypersonic interceptors yet.

RS-28 Sarmat (Satan 2s) have only recently started being made so we don`t know what their current numbers are. The USA cannot currently do anything about them. If Russia has just 1 or 2 it could devastate the USA as each can deliver a 100-megaton warhead.

There was a NATO report from a couple of years back saying against Satan 1s we would expect to knock out 60%. That simply isn`t good enough to go to nuclear war with.

Could we hit Russia back? Of course, they would be wiped off the face of the Earth. But we would be back in the stone age too.

RS-28s aren't "hypersonic", unless your talking reentry and they have numerous problems.

[Commander CMG]

23 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Ehm, NATO nuclear defences aren`t as good as you are convincing yourself.

Against hypersonic nukes there is literally nothing we can currently do. The USA is safe from a hypersonic nuke for the time being. But not anybody withing a 2000km range. So, the EU will be unable to stop itself being devasted. The reason why we cannot do anything about them is we don`t have hypersonic interceptors yet.

RS-28 Sarmat (Satan 2s) have only recently started being made so we don`t know what their current numbers are. The USA cannot currently do anything about them. If Russia has just 1 or 2 it could devastate the USA as each can deliver a 100-megaton warhead.

There was a NATO report from a couple of years back saying against Satan 1s we would expect to knock out 60%. That simply isn`t good enough to go to nuclear war with.

Could we hit Russia back? Of course, they would be wiped off the face of the Earth. But we would be back in the stone age too.

I'm not convincing myself about anything, the reason I'm not worried about anything you believe Russia has to throw at us. 

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

Just sick of Chicken Little bull****

Regardless of what Putin or his cronies may or may not be willing to do, the very fact that a major nuclear power's leaders are willing to even threaten their use is something that is unprecedented.  He knows that neither NATO nor the U.S. will respond in kind, so the calculation comes down to how much damage would NATO (U.S.) inflict on his forces.  

With the possible exception of the total nutter, Kadyrov, I don't think anyone else in Russia wanted this fight.  Putin dragged them into it anyway.  To the extent that using nukes can be a "one man" decision, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion at all that he is bluffing.  His OWN life is on the line now.  I think his decision will be impacted more by China and India's demands than those of the collective west.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The USA cannot currently do anything about them.

Two points... His threats don't seem to be for a total nuclear war.  Second, that statement above is totally incorrect.  We may not be able to stop such a weapon but for 60+ years, our deterrence had nothing to do with stopping incoming warheads.  It has always been about the assurance that NO COUNTRY SURVIVES once they use nukes against another.

That doctrine began to change back in 2001 when Putin began creating newer, low yield devices that would be considered to be a part of their territorial defense forces.  This concept turned "MAD" on its head and now the U.S. is doing the same thing.

https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russias-deterrence-strategy/

The reality is that he has pushed all of his chips in and walking away now just isn't going to happen.  Rather than whether he would use nukes, I think we should be asking our leaders what they will do IF he does use them.  Just imagine the global effect of an airburst over Kiev or Odesa that fried their electronics but created no fallout or structural damage.  He could also detonate one that's a half or a quarter the size of the Hiroshima bomb, in the air over a forested area.  I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the global reaction would be, until the moment it actually happens.

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I'll just repeat what I said on the last Nuke thread.

 

Sooo... Putin will just accept a loss that will lead inevitably to his own demise?  That sounds like what you are saying.  I disagree.  If the rumors about the Kherson region collapsing are true, we may see very soon which of us is closer to correct.

[spartan max2]

13 minutes ago, and-then said:

Sooo... Putin will just accept a loss that will lead inevitably to his own demise?  That sounds like what you are saying.  I disagree.  If the rumors about the Kherson region collapsing are true, we may see very soon which of us is closer to correct.

I think if he uses a Nuke than his chances of being replaced by Russia and the military will be quite high. And he knows that so he is hesitant.

Same reason he has been reluctant about doing a draft. It adds to unrest 

[pallidin]

One of the major problems here is that Putin undoubtedly feels that he is losing his invasion advantage.

Apparently, Western weapons are far superior to Putin's and have gravely damaged his invasion force.

What concerns me greatly is that Putin is sooooooo backed into a corner.

[pallidin]

The other major problem is that Putin, obviously insane, has no intention of withdrawal.

 

[Occupational Hubris]

10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I'll just repeat what I said on the last Nuke thread.

 

Not to mention that Putin himself doesn't push the button. With his support waning among his top brass, i'd be suprised if they didn't defy such an order, knowing what it would start. 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I think if he uses a Nuke than his chances of being replaced by Russia and the military will be quite high. And he knows that so he is hesitant.

Same reason he has been reluctant about doing a draft. It adds to unrest 

While this is certainly a possibility, do we really want to bet the whole farm on it?  The current approach to Ukraine has put all of us in an unwinnable situation.  His attack has been derailed and he has suffered massive losses -IF the news is accurate- so he can't just walk away with less than something that at least LOOKS like a win.

OTOH, NATO has provided much of our better tech to Ukraine and it's obvious that the original assumption of Ukraine losing in a matter of days or weeks WOULD have been accurate but for the endless billions in aid as well as the critical intelligence we've provided them.  In effect, he's right when he says he's at war with NATO.  None of this makes his actions acceptable but we also need to be honest about how we got into this nightmare.  So... how do WE stop the endless support without being seen as having been bullied by fear of nukes?  I've not even heard that back channel negotiations are even being attempted.  SMH...

 

Have you read his speech where he launched the mobilization?

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/69465

The man seems to believe his mouthpiece, Alexander Dugin, that this is a war for their "civilization" versus the corruption of the west.  I daresay millions of his citizens believe the same way even if they're still unwilling to fight their brother Slavs.  Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia and I think it's likely that many in DC are becoming unimaginably wealthy by money laundering these tens of billions in "aid".  It's difficult to even get a hard number for what has been spent or "promised" so far.  They appropriated 40 billion in a single go and have been dribbling a few billion here or there for months.  It's bound to be over 60 billion at this point.

I became aware of THIS insanity yesterday -

https://www.independentsentinel.com/biden-forcing-us-taxpayers-to-fund-ukraine-pensions-salaries/

We're funding their PENSIONS now?  No way a big chunk of this cash isn't flowing into pockets in DC.  The whole nation should be OUTRAGED but no one in "main stream" media has even mentioned it.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

The other major problem is that Putin, obviously insane, has no intention of withdrawal.

 

I think he's EVIL, but I doubt he's actually insane.  He's been backed into a corner and if he stops before he "wins", he WILL be assassinated.  

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, and-then said:

While this is certainly a possibility, do we really want to bet the whole farm on it? 

Don't really have a choice. If we abandon Ukraine than Putin will continue to expand and others around the world will be emboldened.

Strength now avoids war later. 

Do you have a suggestion?

[+joc]

1 hour ago, and-then said:

I think he's EVIL, but I doubt he's actually insane.  He's been backed into a corner and if he stops before he "wins", he WILL be assassinated.  

H isn't in a corner.  He isn't insane.  There is a plan amidst the appearing madness.  Probably not his plan...but this Ukraine thing is a chess move!  A rather large one.  What is the next move?  We do not know...

[Gromdor]

55 minutes ago, joc said:

H isn't in a corner.  He isn't insane.  There is a plan amidst the appearing madness.  Probably not his plan...but this Ukraine thing is a chess move!  A rather large one.  What is the next move?  We do not know...

Moldova or Georgia.

[pallidin]

3 hours ago, and-then said:

I think he's EVIL, but I doubt he's actually insane.  He's been backed into a corner and if he stops before he "wins", he WILL be assassinated.  

Well, all I know is that Putin, an unprovoked aggressor, has killed many Ukrainians (including women and children) for a "land grab" and efforting to kill everyone so that they can't vote to join NATO.

What the hell did Ukraine do to Putin?  Nothing. What did Putin do to Ukraine? Murder.

He's insane.

Edited October 3, 2022 by pallidin