|
|
Post by baggins on May 17, 2022 11:53:47 GMT
And the Man wants to take on Poland next? |
|
|
|
Post by wrongsideoftheriver on May 17, 2022 13:05:14 GMT
Not sure what the exit plan is for Russia, the whole situation has becomone a joke for Putin and he hasnt acheived a single objective since starting. Im shocked how bad they've performed for a so say super power of the world.
With western aid inbound theres a real chance Ukraine can push Russia out of the country completely. Question is do they settle at that or look to go on the attack? could be a real possibility of nuclear wepons being launched if they have an attack on the motherland.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 17, 2022 13:15:30 GMT
Not sure what the exit plan is for Russia, the whole situation has becomone a joke for Putin and he hasnt acheived a single objective since starting. Im shocked how bad they've performed for a so say super power of the world. With western aid inbound theres a real chance Ukraine can push Russia out of the country completely. Question is do they settle at that or look to go on the attack? could be a real possibility of nuclear wepons being launched if they have an attack on the motherland. In the midst of all this, we must remember that Ukraine is being devastated as a country. There will be no winners in this. |
|
|
|
Post by wrongsideoftheriver on May 17, 2022 14:28:15 GMT
Not sure what the exit plan is for Russia, the whole situation has becomone a joke for Putin and he hasnt acheived a single objective since starting. Im shocked how bad they've performed for a so say super power of the world. With western aid inbound theres a real chance Ukraine can push Russia out of the country completely. Question is do they settle at that or look to go on the attack? could be a real possibility of nuclear wepons being launched if they have an attack on the motherland. In the midst of all this, we must remember that Ukraine is being devastated as a country. There will be no winners in this.
Hundreds of billions and generations of time will be needed to re-build Ukraine. Absolutely devasting what 80 odd days of war has caused with no end date in sight.
With out pointing out the obvious this is effecting the whole world right now and worse is yet to come.
Just curious to see what everyones view is how this all ends?.
With the US on the brink of aiding 33 billion dollars to Ukraine and the EU proving high tech military equipement/heavy plant this will drag on for years to come.
With the Russian army in turmoil (already lost a third of ground forces) it really does worry me what will happen when his ground forces are near depleted, leaves him with little to no option other than to threaten a nuclear strike to save face of defeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on May 17, 2022 15:19:16 GMT
In the midst of all this, we must remember that Ukraine is being devastated as a country. There will be no winners in this.
Hundreds of billions and generations of time will be needed to re-build Ukraine. Absolutely devasting what 80 odd days of war has caused with no end date in sight.
With out pointing out the obvious this is effecting the whole world right now and worse is yet to come.
Just curious to see what everyones view is how this all ends?.
With the US on the brink of aiding 33 billion dollars to Ukraine and the EU proving high tech military equipement/heavy plant this will drag on for years to come.
With the Russian army in turmoil (already lost a third of ground forces) it really does worry me what will happen when his ground forces are near depleted, leaves him with little to no option other than to threaten a nuclear strike to save face of defeat.
Can’t see him ( Russia) using nuclear weapons personally as it would result in mutual assured destruction or even tactical nukes if there’s such a thing. My money is on Putin being toppled as the Russian economy tanks in the next six months. Russia keeps Crimea and about 1/4 of the land they currently occupy. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 18, 2022 10:59:57 GMT
Hundreds of billions and generations of time will be needed to re-build Ukraine. Absolutely devasting what 80 odd days of war has caused with no end date in sight.
With out pointing out the obvious this is effecting the whole world right now and worse is yet to come.
Just curious to see what everyones view is how this all ends?.
With the US on the brink of aiding 33 billion dollars to Ukraine and the EU proving high tech military equipement/heavy plant this will drag on for years to come.
With the Russian army in turmoil (already lost a third of ground forces) it really does worry me what will happen when his ground forces are near depleted, leaves him with little to no option other than to threaten a nuclear strike to save face of defeat.
Can’t see him ( Russia) using nuclear weapons personally as it would result in mutual assured destruction or even tactical nukes if there’s such a thing. My money is on Putin being toppled as the Russian economy tanks in the next six months. Russia keeps Crimea and about 1/4 of the land they currently occupy. I'd imagine that the US would be the first to be alerted to Putin warming up the nukes, a final warning and if that's ignored they'll hit every site before any launch took place. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 18, 2022 12:37:11 GMT
Can’t see him ( Russia) using nuclear weapons personally as it would result in mutual assured destruction or even tactical nukes if there’s such a thing. My money is on Putin being toppled as the Russian economy tanks in the next six months. Russia keeps Crimea and about 1/4 of the land they currently occupy. I'd imagine that the US would be the first to be alerted to Putin warming up the nukes, a final warning and if that's ignored they'll hit every site before any launch took place. Not sure it quite works like that. Russia has the ability to use short ranged and low yield weapons in Ukraine and we wouldn't know until it happened unless our intelligence is spot on. There is no way the US can take out all of the sites and submarines. On something like this we aren't going to escalate to a nuclear exchange. If it wasn't for Russia's nuclear arsenal we'd almost certainly be involved directly already. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 18, 2022 12:51:18 GMT
I'd imagine that the US would be the first to be alerted to Putin warming up the nukes, a final warning and if that's ignored they'll hit every site before any launch took place. Not sure it quite works like that. Russia has the ability to use short ranged and low yield weapons in Ukraine and we wouldn't know until it happened unless our intelligence is spot on. There is no way the US can take out all of the sites and submarines. On something like this we aren't going to escalate to a nuclear exchange. If it wasn't for Russia's nuclear arsenal we'd almost certainly be involved directly already. Not sure, pretty confident we, NATO, US know exactly where their nukes are, and if their land based armour and troops are anything to go by, I'd be surprised if they managed to launch anything before they were taken out. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 18, 2022 13:02:51 GMT
Not sure it quite works like that. Russia has the ability to use short ranged and low yield weapons in Ukraine and we wouldn't know until it happened unless our intelligence is spot on. There is no way the US can take out all of the sites and submarines. On something like this we aren't going to escalate to a nuclear exchange. If it wasn't for Russia's nuclear arsenal we'd almost certainly be involved directly already. Not sure, pretty confident we, NATO, US know exactly where their nukes are, and if their land based armour and troops are anything to go by, I'd be surprised if they managed to launch anything before they were taken out. With 6,000 warheads and 2,000 available for launching immediately via land, sea and air, it's not a gamble I'm willing to take. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 18, 2022 13:13:14 GMT
Not sure, pretty confident we, NATO, US know exactly where their nukes are, and if their land based armour and troops are anything to go by, I'd be surprised if they managed to launch anything before they were taken out. With 6,000 warheads and 2,000 available for launching immediately via land, sea and air, it's not a gamble I'm willing to take. Most if not all out of date. Agreed though, not something I wan't to bet on. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on May 18, 2022 16:19:03 GMT
Not sure it quite works like that. Russia has the ability to use short ranged and low yield weapons in Ukraine and we wouldn't know until it happened unless our intelligence is spot on. There is no way the US can take out all of the sites and submarines. On something like this we aren't going to escalate to a nuclear exchange. If it wasn't for Russia's nuclear arsenal we'd almost certainly be involved directly already. Not sure, pretty confident we, NATO, US know exactly where their nukes are, and if their land based armour and troops are anything to go by, I'd be surprised if they managed to launch anything before they were taken out. This is unlikely. Russia has a submarine fleet and there's no chance that NATO or any separate US intelligence would know exact locations. Even Kim Jong has fired a few warheads into the air and nobody could do anything about it. NK is nothing compared to Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 21, 2022 20:30:06 GMT
Aren't submarine based nuclear weapons the key to the UK nuclear deterrent? In fact the only current option? We don't have to capability to prevent ground based missiles being launched, and the country would be annihilated, but we would be able to strike back and inflict massive damage on Moscow and other key cities.
Same with the Russians. Even in the unlikely event the US were able to take out ground based sites, the Russian subs would launch their missiles and all hell would break loose.
I'm not sure about how effective interception of missiles in the air might be. I have a feeling the US bigs up its capabilities there.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 21, 2022 23:00:06 GMT
Aren't submarine based nuclear weapons the key to the UK nuclear deterrent? In fact the only current option? We don't have to capability to prevent ground based missiles being launched, and the country would be annihilated, but we would be able to strike back and inflict massive damage on Moscow and other key cities. Same with the Russians. Even in the unlikely event the US were able to take out ground based sites, the Russian subs would launch their missiles and all hell would break loose. I'm not sure about how effective interception of missiles in the air might be. I have a feeling the US bigs up its capabilities there. That's right, no way can we be certain of getting all of the launchers. We can't even be certain how many they have. We've had one ballistic submarine at a time deployed constantly since the 1960s and as far as we know, it's never been traced. Russia will have 2 or more deployed, no chance we'd stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on May 22, 2022 6:08:04 GMT
If I remember correctly, the only way to stop a nuclear weapon is with a missile that quite literally has to hit the nuke mid air.
It’s possible, but ridiculously hard
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 22, 2022 10:56:00 GMT
If I remember correctly, the only way to stop a nuclear weapon is with a missile that quite literally has to hit the nuke mid air. It’s possible, but ridiculously hard Anti Ballistic Missile defence, still in its infancy and not something we have. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on May 22, 2022 12:34:41 GMT
If I remember correctly, the only way to stop a nuclear weapon is with a missile that quite literally has to hit the nuke mid air. It’s possible, but ridiculously hard Anti Ballistic Missile defence, still in its infancy and not something we have. Anthony Evans has got a good shot , should we deploy him somewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on May 23, 2022 9:01:59 GMT
If I remember correctly, the only way to stop a nuclear weapon is with a missile that quite literally has to hit the nuke mid air. It’s possible, but ridiculously hard Anti Ballistic Missile defence, still in its infancy and not something we have. Ah ok, thanks for that. Is that the only way for now, do you know? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 23, 2022 9:20:20 GMT
Anti Ballistic Missile defence, still in its infancy and not something we have. Ah ok, thanks for that. Is that the only way for now, do you know? Pretty much, the best option is for no one to have them but sadly that genie is out of the bottle. The main advantage Russia and the US have is pure numbers, it's theoretically possible to strike French or UK forces to prevent a counter attack but they have so many including no known numbers that any leader would never be certain of getting them all. That's why the "Star Wars" scheme was paradoxically a threat to the Soviet Union. Reagan genuinly saw it as peaceful but The Kremlin saw it as a way of preventing Soviet missiles hitting the US and therefore part of a first strike option. They felt threatened by it. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 23, 2022 12:15:22 GMT
Ah ok, thanks for that. Is that the only way for now, do you know? Pretty much, the best option is for no one to have them but sadly that genie is out of the bottle. The main advantage Russia and the US have is pure numbers, it's theoretically possible to strike French or UK forces to prevent a counter attack but they have so many including no known numbers that any leader would never be certain of getting them all. That's why the "Star Wars" scheme was paradoxically a threat to the Soviet Union. Reagan genuinly saw it as peaceful but The Kremlin saw it as a way of preventing Soviet missiles hitting the US and therefore part of a first strike option. They felt threatened by it. Reagan was the 80s version of Johnson, he just made things up. The Star Wars talk, was just that, talk. It worked. 6 years later the USSR fell apart. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 24, 2022 8:20:31 GMT
One of the, as yet largely unappreciated, consequences of the war is the effect on food supplies.
|
|
