War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Has the possibility of Ukraine firing missiles into Moscow been discussed in this thread?   

I don't think so, but the political fallout of such an action would legitimise a tactical 'nuclear' response; and all we could do is, fire a bigger bomb; and where would that end???

Edited October 30, 2022 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think so, but the political fallout of such an action would legitimise a tactical 'nuclear' response; and all we could do is, fire a bigger bomb; and where would that end???

So... Russia invades Ukraine, destroys population centers and Ukraine is supposed to just confine the war to their territory? Russia knows any use of nuclear weapons will bring down hellfire on their own cities so they use this threat to stop Ukraine from defending itself?   

[geordief]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So... Russia invades Ukraine, destroys population centers and Ukraine is supposed to just confine the war to their territory? Russia knows any use of nuclear weapons will bring down hellfire on their own cities so they use this threat to stop Ukraine from defending itself?   

Sure  that is their only card 

At the outset it was expected that, (a) their army would roll in effectively and decapitate the government and (b) nothing could be done by Nato for fear of a direct conflict btw two nuclear powers

 

Ukraine's balls and seeming intelligence has prevented the first outcome but nuclear escalation is a nightmare for the whole world.

 

It is very ,very unfair on Ukraine  but we have to hope they can see a way through this without provoking a nuclear showdown (which they might not get -perhaps they will just be abandoned  in the immediate term if they are defeated militarily)

 

Edit:what did we do for Hungary and Tzechoslovakia?

Edited October 30, 2022 by geordief

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Has the possibility of Ukraine firing missiles into Moscow been discussed in this thread?   

Ukraine has good engineers - the Antonov the world's largest aircraft is their product, so if they wanted to, they would make missiles capable of this.

 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So... Russia invades Ukraine, destroys population centers and Ukraine is supposed to just confine the war to their territory? Russia knows any use of nuclear weapons will bring down hellfire on their own cities so they use this threat to stop Ukraine from defending itself?   

Ukraine cannot defeat Russia without help from the West.

The West wants to help Ukraine, but not at the risk of a direct conflict with Russia.

The feeling is that if Ukraine attacks Moscow while the West is helping them, that the risk of direct conflict with Russia will become reality.

Therefore the West is doing what they can to prevent Ukraine from striking Russian territory by threatening to withhold support, and Ukraine is keeping their attacks in check so they don't lose support from the West.

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ukraine cannot defeat Russia without help from the West.

The West wants to help Ukraine, but not at the risk of a direct conflict with Russia.

The feeling is that if Ukraine attacks Moscow while the West is helping them, that the risk of direct conflict with Russia will become reality.

Therefore the West is doing what they can to prevent Ukraine from striking Russian territory by threatening to withhold support, and Ukraine is keeping their attacks in check so they don't lose support from the West.

Crimea seems to be a grey area as (to the best of my sketchy knowledge,)there may actually  have been a majority who wanted to revert to Russian control.

But the "referendum" was entirely unsatisfactory and is unrecognized  internationally(as was the  covert "invasion " that preceded  it) 

If Ukraine  succeeds in regaining it I wonder how stable the situation  there will be in the aftermath.

If this war with Ukraine leads to a civil war in Russia then presumably it may be more  difficult for Ukraine to  stay uninvolved but I doubt a missile into Moscow would be in their interest.

 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

Crimea seems to be a grey area as (to the best of my sketchy knowledge,)there may actually  have been a majority who wanted to revert to Russian control.

Does that really matter? If a majority of the people in London decide they want to be an independent country, is their right to do that a 'grey area'?

If I decide I want the land my home sits on to revert to Native American control, is anyone going to argue my desires should be taken seriously, and that perhaps my wishes should be allowed?

[geordief]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Does that really matter? If a majority of the people in London decide they want to be an independent country, is their right to do that a 'grey area'?

If I decide I want the land my home sits on to revert to Native American control, is anyone going to argue my desires should be taken seriously, and that perhaps my wishes should be allowed?

Sure ,it is black and white  but the perception  might be more nuanced had Russia played by the rules.

 

As it was/would have** been I expect Ukraine would have allowed continuing privileged Russian  access to Crimea.

As things have turned out I don't know if that is on the cards anymore. 

 

**had Russia treated its neighbour with a modicum of respect.

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

As it was/would have** been I expect Ukraine would have allowed continuing privileged Russian  access to Crimea.

 

What sort of privileged Russian access are you thinking of here?

[geordief]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What sort of privileged Russian access are you thinking of here?

I think traditionally it was the Port(s?)

 

In a military capacity.

[Sensei]

Stop writing "Russia did this", "Russia did that". It is V.P. and his minions, who are responsible. The average Russian has no influence nor desire to participate in this evil madness..

If I were an average Russian sent to fight Kiev, I would rather like to go for Moscow..

 

[Moontanman]

15 hours ago, geordief said:

Sure  that is their only card 

At the outset it was expected that, (a) their army would roll in effectively and decapitate the government and (b) nothing could be done by Nato for fear of a direct conflict btw two nuclear powers

 

Ukraine's balls and seeming intelligence has prevented the first outcome but nuclear escalation is a nightmare for the whole world.

 

It is very ,very unfair on Ukraine  but we have to hope they can see a way through this without provoking a nuclear showdown (which they might not get -perhaps they will just be abandoned  in the immediate term if they are defeated militarily)

 

Edit:what did we do for Hungary and Tzechoslovakia?

So the fear that Ukraine might defend itself by counter attacking Russia via conventional missiles fired at, oh say Moscow, to give the oppressors a taste of their own medicine cannot be done because Russia is too powerful allows Russia to pretty much invade any country they want? 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Stop writing "Russia did this", "Russia did that". It is V.P. and his minions, who are responsible. The average Russian has no influence nor desire to participate in this evil madness..

If I were an average Russian sent to fight Kiev, I would rather like to go for Moscow..

 

Hey if Biden launched an attack against cuba it would be wrong to say the USA did it? 

 

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

Ukraine cannot defeat Russia without help from the West.

The West wants to help Ukraine, but not at the risk of a direct conflict with Russia.

The feeling is that if Ukraine attacks Moscow while the West is helping them, that the risk of direct conflict with Russia will become reality.

Therefore the West is doing what they can to prevent Ukraine from striking Russian territory by threatening to withhold support, and Ukraine is keeping their attacks in check so they don't lose support from the West.

If i remember correctly the missiles to reach Moscow are being sent by Iran. I think that allowing Russia to be immune from attacks on their territory only emboldens them to attack other small countries. This precedent would increase the danger of nuclear war IMHO!  

[TheVat]

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

This precedent would increase the danger of nuclear war IMHO

 

I think the Munich argument has merit here.  Authoritarian aggressors will take whatever they can.  But I think Ukraine and allies would lose whatever moral authority and standing they now have if they okayed an attack on a large urban civilian population.  I'd say nyet to a Moscow attack.  Shelling a Russian power plant or fuel depot or military base, however, would be a legitimate dose of their own medicine.  Though I'd have reservations about hitting infrastructure that leaves innocent Russian citizens shivering in the dark.  Russia has done that, and shown themselves as monsters on the world stage.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So the fear that Ukraine might defend itself by counter attacking Russia via conventional missiles fired at, oh say Moscow, to give the oppressors a taste of their own medicine cannot be done because Russia is too powerful allows Russia to pretty much invade any country they want? 

I think that was the sentiment at first

Such a stout (and humiliating) counter attack was not anticipated. 

It is a very different ball game now but I still don't know what the (largely unspoken?) rules are.

 

I want them to target Russian infrastructure  in a tit for tat exercise but I cannot say if this is (a) wise (b) possible(c) ,Nato friendly(d)self defeating (e) avoidable

Is it Russia itself who will take out Putin?

I wish I had  a better sense of what will happen

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by geordief

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So the fear that Ukraine might defend itself by counter attacking Russia via conventional missiles fired at, oh say Moscow, to give the oppressors a taste of their own medicine cannot be done because Russia is too powerful allows Russia to pretty much invade any country they want? 

The thing about nukes is, it's a weapon of revenge not defence.

Ukraine is facing a bully, and the rest of the playground is hoping to see them bloody it's nose, not stab it's mother.

[zapatos]

Tit for tat always feels good, which is why we'd all like to see it.

Fortunately cooler heads prevail. Just as not sending that email when you are angry is always the better idea, not responding in a tit for tat manner is also the better idea. 

Whether or not attacks inside Russia's borders occur will likely be decided based on the overall view of the war at the time, and whether or not it is believed it will lead to the best outcome.

At the moment, the people who are best at this type of thinking are saying 'no'. I don't know if they are right but they are in a better position to make the decision than me and I am happy to defer to them.

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The thing about nukes is, it's a weapon of revenge not defence.

 

Nukes have kept us out of a war with Russia and the Soviet Union for 75 years. I'd say it's been working well for defense.

[DimaMazin]

On 10/31/2022 at 5:59 PM, zapatos said:

 

Nukes have kept us out of a war with Russia and the Soviet Union for 75 years. I'd say it's been working well for defense.

If usual weapon can destroy your nuklear weapon on your land then is your nuklear weapon good for defense?

Alredy nuklear weapon is scientificaly backward therefor it is  problem for defense.

[geordief]

1 minute ago, DimaMazin said:

If usual weapon can destroy your nuklear weapon on your land then is your nuklear weapon good for defense?

Alredy nuklear weapon is scientificaly backward therefor it is  problem for defense.

They are touted as being good for deterrence (not military defence as such)

I even wonder whether ,if we ever succeeded in complete nuclear disarmament  we would be forced to bring  them back to  continue their present "usefullness"

[DimaMazin]

56 minutes ago, geordief said:

They are touted as being good for deterrence (not military defence as such)

I even wonder whether ,if we ever succeeded in complete nuclear disarmament  we would be forced to bring  them back to  continue their present "usefullness"

For informational support of attak also. The war, between Russia and Ukraine, determines who is fool, who has lost nuclear weapon or who has nuclear weapon.

Edited November 4, 2022 by DimaMazin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, DimaMazin said:

If usual weapon can destroy your nuklear weapon on your land then is your nuklear weapon good for defense?

What usual weapons can destroy missiles in silos in the middle of South Dakota, or on submarines? The whole point is that since you cannot destroy them all, some will end up successfully used.

1 hour ago, DimaMazin said:

Alredy nuklear weapon is scientificaly backward therefor it is  problem for defense.

What do you mean by "scientifically backward"?

[DimaMazin]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What usual weapons can destroy missiles in silos in the middle of South Dakota, or on submarines? The whole point is that since you cannot destroy them all, some will end up successfully used.

What do you mean by "scientifically backward"?

Do you think nuklear weapon can be useful for Iran?

Nuklear weapon is expensive and scientifically senceless. What is a sence to have the weapon when all have the same?

[geordief]

27 minutes ago, DimaMazin said:

Do you think nuklear weapon can be useful for Iran?

Nuklear weapon is expensive and scientifically senceless. What is a sence to have the weapon when all have the same?

Deterrence (in the eyes of the holder of the weapons)

Since a  nuclear  exchange can destroy nearly all life on the planet we have to find an alternative way  for people to co exist without that recurring nightmare.**

 

What  does "scientifically senseless" mean ,anyway.? 

 

**all contributions and proposals welcome

Edited November 4, 2022 by geordief

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, DimaMazin said:

Do you think nuklear weapon can be useful for Iran?

 

Can you answer my question first?

44 minutes ago, DimaMazin said:

Nuklear weapon is expensive and scientifically senceless

What do you mean by "scientifically backward" and  "scientifically senseless"?

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, geordief said:

Deterrence (in the eyes of the holder of the weapons)

Since a  nuclear  exchange can destroy nearly all life on the planet we have to find an alternative way  for people to co exist without that recurring nightmare.**

 

What  does "scientifically senseless" mean ,anyway.? 

 

**all contributions and proposals welcome

We human's are so vane, that someone could imagine that a life in a bunker could be a life worth living...

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We human's are so vane, that someone could imagine that a life in a bunker could be a life worth living...

Wanting to live with difficulty rather than being dead is vain? Glad you are not in charge of the medical system.