The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Russia has a few escalations ladder to climb before nuclear response on Ukraine after US allowing strikes into Russia.
And they are:
We will see how Russia retaliates but the easiest will be to completely turn the lights and water off for Ukraine. It might collapse Zelenski government faster actually if Russia puts more pressure on the civilian population.
Another option I didn't include in the list above is a nuclear strike on Kursk. This might be consider if Russia fails to push Ukraine out but this highly unlikely since Russia is slowly pushing them out.
And they are:
- Completely destroy Ukraine energy grip; turn it back into the dark ages. This should have been done a long time ago.
- Destroy Ukraine government buildings in the capital
- Give weapons to Houthis
- Help NK develop ballistic missiles. This might be happening regardless
- Sell advanced weapons to North Korea. This might be happening regardless.
- Live nuclear ICBM test on the Pacific.
- Attack on a nuclear submarine base
- Attack on a strategic bomber base
- Attack on other ICBM base and early warning base
- Attack on the capital with US weapons
We will see how Russia retaliates but the easiest will be to completely turn the lights and water off for Ukraine. It might collapse Zelenski government faster actually if Russia puts more pressure on the civilian population.
Another option I didn't include in the list above is a nuclear strike on Kursk. This might be consider if Russia fails to push Ukraine out but this highly unlikely since Russia is slowly pushing them out.
Last edited:
Ukrainians are still complaining about the lack of artillery. The complaints are not about the supposed inferiority to Russian artillery, but rather the lack of full support from Ukrainian artillery. This is a particularly serious case, because at the moment there are three open and active production lines to produce ammunition for Ukraine:
USA - increasing production
Europe - increasing production
Ukraine - producing ammunition
Even if the US and Europe have to fill their own stockpiles that have been emptied, there should still be no lack of Ukrainian artillery support. This means that parity with the Russians is still far from being achieved, probably even by 2025.
This option would be almost unrealistic. Why would they bomb their own territory even in the event of defeat? It is much easier to attack the Ukrainian concentrations in Sumy, even if only to demolish every nearby village, than to eventually bomb their own territory.
Furthermore, even in this scenario, I still find it implausible because of the radioactive fallout.
This option would be almost unrealistic. Why would they bomb their own territory even in the event of defeat? It is much easier to attack the Ukrainian concentrations in Sumy, even if only to demolish every nearby village, than to eventually bomb their own territory. Furthermore, even in this scenario, I still find it implausible because of the radioactive fallout.
A nuclear weapon can detonate at any height, even underground. There are generally 5 possibilities:
1- detonation beyond the stratosphere or in space to increase the NEMP (PEMN) without radioactive fallout (nuclear fallout or fallout)
2 - detonation at a certain height (typically between 300 m and 2000 m) to maximize the shock wave and area destruction and minimize radioactive fallout
3 - detonation at ground level to maximize the destruction of underground and surface point structures and increase radioactive fallout
4 - detonation below ground level to maximize the destruction of underground structures
5 - underwater detonation to maximize the shock wave and increase the destruction capacity of underwater targets
Maximum nuclear fallout occurs in nuclear detonations at ground level, none occurs with nuclear detonations in the stratosphere/space.
A smaller number occur in aerial nuclear detonations, typically between 300 and 2000 meters above ground level, which is the most common form of nuclear weapon detonation.
Underground detonations produce less fallout than surface detonations because the “hole” produced is later closed by the collapse of the crater rims, which causes a certain sealing.
Another thing in the context is that nuclear weapons are excellent deterrents when used strategically and poor deterrents when used tactically.
Hundreds of Russian warheads would be needed along the front line to make a difference on the battlefield, and this would have unfavorable consequences for the Russians themselves given the proximity and would not bring the certainty of a surrender by the Ukrainians.
What we see is an empty battlefield and very different from what NATO strategists in the Cold War imagined, with the advance of thousands of Soviet tanks supported by massive artillery and thousands of attack aircraft. In this scenario, tactical nuclear weapons were seen as the best way to stop the Soviet advance.
Towards the end of the USSR, this view was replaced by a more realistic and less emotional one, and with the advent of precision-guided weapons, tactical nuclear weapons gradually gave way.
Using nuclear weapons to destroy Ukrainian cities far from the front is unthinkable, as it is unacceptable under any circumstances.
In the context of WWII, the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese cities had a devastating effect, given that failure to surrender would exact a high price from the defeated. This strategy of total destruction is no longer acceptable in the modern world.
Last edited:
The thing is Russian artillery production is a moving target. You can bet they are also increasing their own production and they started doing it earlier.
We know this. The reactivation of Russian industry occurred even before the West, which is why the Russians still in 2023 had a sharp increase in production because of the restart of the MIC still in 2022, but in the case of Ukraine that the article emphasizes, Ukrainian soldiers really complain about the lack of artillery support, they are fighting the Russians with marginal support from drones, that is, if they did not have the drones, that is, what is holding the Russians back at this very moment is the chronic lack of personnel but also of artillery, if it were not for the drones, Ukraine would have already lost much more ground than it has lost, this is absolutely shocking.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
This is why I said Russian threats are meant for audiences to the East more than NATO.
Russia says they wanna use nukes. Chinese ask through back channels what additional goodies they want to take nukes back off the table, and not long after Russia magically develops the ability to field new weapons on a massive scale. If the EU kicks up any fuss with China, China ask them if they prefer mushroom clouds over Europe instead and shuts them down hard.
Also, incinerating cities full of civilians have never been a Nazi monopoly least you forget Dresden, Tokyo, the Korean War, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If America can be the special shinning city on the hill after all the civilians and cities they have incinerated, who says it will be that different for Russia?
The Russians, the US and probably China have these small yield nuclear weapons raging from 1kt to 5kt, in the US and most of the stooge defense media there is this heated debate whatever the use of low yield nukes in a conflict will escalate in regional conflict into a strategic nuclear exchange, some US defense analysts in the US believe that the use of these weapons will not escalate any conflict beyond a theater conflict. My guess is that many Russians commanders are very tempted of the idea of using low yield nukes since the beginning of this conflict. So that issue is not Russia blowing Kiev with an 10Mt nuke, the issue would be Russia destroying an fortification with a 5kt nuke. What happens next?
The artillery shortage has likely been largely alleviated. I really don’t see as many complaints about shell hunger as I used to. IMO, there are other things that are becoming a greater issue.
1. Worsening shortages of actual artillery guns and MLRS.
2. Shortages of mines, note how easily Russian assaults reach their targets these days.
3. Fewer and fewer good defensive positions. Some of the trenches and fortifications Russians take have been unfinished or poorly constructed.
4. Dearth of manpower.
In my opinion, shortage of artillery shells is no longer a major factor for Ukraine. Artillery shell supply has substantially increased compared to 12 months ago. Other factors are now a more serious issue for Ukraine’s armed forces.
1. Worsening shortages of actual artillery guns and MLRS.
2. Shortages of mines, note how easily Russian assaults reach their targets these days.
3. Fewer and fewer good defensive positions. Some of the trenches and fortifications Russians take have been unfinished or poorly constructed.
4. Dearth of manpower.
In my opinion, shortage of artillery shells is no longer a major factor for Ukraine. Artillery shell supply has substantially increased compared to 12 months ago. Other factors are now a more serious issue for Ukraine’s armed forces.
I agree. Putin's bluff is being called out on all the red lines that have already been crossed.
Everything they said about Russia's legitimacy to strike with nuclear weapons has already been established:
Attacking SSGN submarine bases
Attacking strategic bomber bases
Attacking early warning radar sites
The only things that would trigger a nuclear response that Ukraine has not yet used, I believe, are an attack on a nuclear command center and also the silos.
The fact that the Russians have suffered no losses or minimal losses in such attacks is irrelevant in this case, because these are clearly red lines that have been crossed. Ukraine's mere attempt to do so could already be considered a legitimate nuclear counterattack, especially in the context of the threatening statements made by the entire Russian political leadership that are being shown to be empty. Medvedev has even become a joke in the West because of this.
In Ukrainian Telegram channels, I see these reasons for complaints over and over again:
1 - personnel problems
2 - lack of quality fortifications
3 - poor strategy
4 - poor leadership
These are the main reasons why, despite a shocking lack of infantry, the AFU has not yet broken.
One thing I have been analyzing for some time is the organizational structure of the AFU, which is completely deficient. Just to give you an idea, a Ukrainian brigade commander must have about seven bosses to whom he reports directly, this is an unprecedented mess that many analysts simply ignore, but in Ukrainian channels you can see this chronic problem affecting the defense strategy, there are several cases of Ukrainians retreating from their positions because of it.