President Joe Biden said on Monday the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is “real”, days after denouncing Russia’s deployment of such weapons in Belarus. On Saturday, Biden called Putin’s announcement that Russia had deployed its first tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus “absolutely irresponsible”.
If he uses any, the entire west needs to get involved directly. People cannot just throw nukes around because they are failing to win a war of conquest.
Time to go relisten to Dan Carlin’s “Logical Insanity” episode.
And what the entire west is going to do about it? Express deep concerns? Deliver 10 more outdated tanks to Ukraine?
Russia is fielding T-55 tanks onto battlefields in Ukraine. If that sets the baseline, then nothing the west has sent can be considered “outdated”.
Totally irrelevant because:
So if the equipment hasn’t been helpful … Why is Russia losing so. Damn. Hard?
Are they really losing? Looking at the map it seems like they control 2x territory compared to pre-2022. And they just recently took Bakhmut.
They’re fielding T-55 tanks. Your explanation for that (which is suspect) is that they are being used for troop transport.
Why would a winning army be using tanks first made in 1958 and last made in 1962 as troop transport instead of modern present day BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles or modern BTR-80 vehicles?
The user is straight up a Russian troll. His name is fucking ArtemZ for fucks sakes.
Report for disinformation and don’t engage. You can’t argue putins talking points because they’re completely unhinged and not rooted in reality.
Much of the territory Russia occupied in Feb 2022 has been liberated by Ukraine, including major cities like Kherson and Kharkiv. Check out the map. Those large blue swaths in the North, East, and South are all places Russia used to occupy and no longer do.
That’s a set of highly unsubstantiated statements.
You’re fully committed to huffing that copium. Where are the Armata tanks? What is air defence doing? Kyiv in three days, right? :D
Tanks aren’t made to transport people and they are abysmally bad at it. They use a ton of fuel and don’t hold anybody but the crew. A passenger could sit on top, but if you are going the 100% unprotected route, there are piles of vehicles out there that are less maintenance and fuel intensive for troop transport. If that is honestly how Russia is using their T-55s, I encourage them to continue. It’s a massive waste of fuel and maintenance hours.
If you are using a tank purely for moving people around then the only crew member is tank commander. Speaking of fuel, it is not like Russia has any shortage of it.
I think most likely a targeted bombing campaign, carried out by the NATO forces that have been mustered on Russia’s borders to do so, knocking out Russian air bases and disabling ICBM launch sites.
There’s always the chance that Russia launches nukes at the West in retaliation and the world ends, but that’d rely on enough Russians preferring the end of their own lives, their family’s lives, and the lives of every person on the planet to … Putin not winning his war.
Why does it matter if tanks we are sending to Ukraine are 30 years old, when Soviet Union’s tanks are 60 years old?
New equipment is being sent, but that requires more training and personnel to maintain
What is the west going to do about a foreign power blowing up people with nukes? Exactly what we said we would do: direct and overwhelming conventional force against the country nuking others.
Out of curiosity, you say an overwhelming conventional force. Does that mean the NATO plan explicitly says it should be conventional?
I always imagined that if a country nukes another they would immediately be nuked themselves. Because if a country is using their nuclear arsenal, it’s probably a bit late to moves armies around.
No, but common sense dictates it should be. Nuclear weapons aren’t required; NATO can easily and quickly disable Russia’s military with conventional weaponry, and that’s the strategic goal.
The reason the classic response to nukes is nukes, is that in the Cold War paradigm there was an assumption that neither country could win (or would be willing to try) a conventional war.
The idea-here is two-fold:
With those ideas in mind, the West does have a response available that doesn’t bring us to MAD, but does make another using a tactical nuke in any capacity an awful idea: overwhelming conventional force.
If Russia gains a local tactical advantage by nuking 5,000 Ukrainian troops, then a response that involves the entire Russian Black Sea fleet exploding, logistical depots all over the front exploding, troops all over the front exploding, and the Kerch Bridge exploding has made what was a tactical victory for Russia into a massive strategic defeat for Russia. Using this method, we have not escalated to MAD, and have made it a very, very poor idea to use nukes for any purpose.
I am not aware of an explicit plan that says only a conventional response is authorized. However, notable US commanders have said a direct and overwhelming conventional response from the West is what will likely occur if Russia uses tactical nukes against Ukrainian troops.
What is MAD?
Mutually assured destruction
The US military undoubtedly has secret abilities they do not advertise. My guess is that in the event of real nuclear threat they will reveal and use something we’ve never seen before. Large scale EMP attacks perhaps?
space lasers