Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 11-02-2024

(11-02-2024, 03:29 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-02-2024, 01:54 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

Good question. The US has always utilized "strategic ambiguity" to cause other nations to be unsure where the boundary was and therefore be cautious not to cross it. Similarly we have never signed on to any "No first use" pledge because 1) we have already done it once and 2) no nation will honor such a pledge if they believe first use is in their strategic interest. The President can order their use using whatever advisors (if any) he wishes to consult. POTUS has absolute authority. While there is plenty of scholarly analysis on the subject it comes down to what the President  thinks is prudent. This is one reason it is imperative the President be able to evaluate the situation rationally, dispassionately and logically. The POTUS can't be driven by emotion (like anger or fear). The POTUS also has to understand the consequences of acting or not acting (in so far as it is possible) by taking into account all the available facts and precedents. As far as I know no POTUS has ever come close to actually giving the "go" authorization. Let's hope it can stay that way.

I recall reading that POTUS has 100% authority, which is interesting in a democracy, but I get it, the president needs that authority to act quickly. 

Separately, I also recall reading that Putin doesn't have that 100% authority, that Russian nuclear policy mandates that Putin actually has to jump through some hoops before using nuclear weapons, specifically in consulting with Russian military officers and multiple approvals by fellow higher-ups. Is that true, to your knowledge?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-02-2024

(11-02-2024, 07:06 PM)Mick Wrote:  I recall reading that POTUS has 100% authority, which is interesting in a democracy, but I get it, the president needs that authority to act quickly. 

Separately, I also recall reading that Putin doesn't have that 100% authority, that Russian nuclear policy mandates that Putin actually has to jump through some hoops before using nuclear weapons, specifically in consulting with Russian military officers and multiple approvals by fellow higher-ups. Is that true, to your knowledge?

It is true, and at least some of the officers involved take it very seriously, or at least in the past did so. It was always assumed that while they would normally urge caution (military officers at that level are nearly always cautious) that in the end they would defer to the political authorities. There have been many interesting discussions about what would happen in the event use of tactical nuclear weapons were ordered. That requires lower level people who actually have other jobs to do it. Will the majors and captains who are not part of the strategic forces arrange for it not to work? The RVSN RF is more like SAC was back "in the day". They will execute the launch orders without even flinching. It is part of the drill and they don't need to think.

Equally there have been many discussions about what US submarine captains would actually do if they received a launch order. It needs to be remembered that these people are chosen only after evaluating at great length their willingness to do exactly that without hesitation. It is also imperative that our potential opponents (e.g. Russia and China) have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they will indeed launch if ordered. It would be a real shame if somebody convinced  them we wouldn't and a nuclear war started based on a misreading of our resolve. Some of the people I know well who have had lots of contact with these officers say that "I believe he would launch, but nobody really knows". The same is true of the Russians.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - rogpodge - 11-02-2024

https://www.kpbs.org/news/arts-culture/2012/10/19/secrets-dead-man-who-saved-world

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-03-2024

(11-02-2024, 10:21 PM)rogpodge Wrote:  https://www.kpbs.org/news/arts-culture/2012/10/19/secrets-dead-man-who-saved-world

https://fas.org/publication/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/ for a further look at the number and scope of tactical nuclear weapons naval deployment by the US. The USSR had similar deployments with arguably fewer safeguards.

What would have happened if the Russian submarine had used its nuclear torpedo is unknown. By itself, it probably wouldn't have started a nuclear war (although not doing the experiment was much better :-).  The weapon was in the same class as the US ASROC. While this weapon was a 10 kiloton explosive, the one time it was tested the water entry point was only 4,000 yards from the destroyer that launched it. https://www.destroyers.org/tcs-ships/ordnance-photos-and-articles/anti-submarine-rocket-asroc/ It is not that big of a bang in other words.

These weapons were not strategic threats. The US would probably have considered the action by the Russian submarine as "messaging", even though as we now know the action would have been without specific approval from the Russian national command authority! What happened next would have been the issue. Russia could have panicked, assumed a US strike was soon  to be on the way, and launched their own strike preemptively. The US certainly might have at that point invaded Cuba or something similar. When you are "eyeball to eyeball" a stupid mistake can become a very dangerous thing. There were lots of misapprehensions by both sides during the Cuban missile crisis. One more might have hurt a lot.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-05-2024

(10-18-2024, 01:08 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The "West", is already at war with Russia, China, NK, Iran. The problem is those countries know it, and we'd rather pretend we aren't.

BBC:
Mystery fires were Russian 'test runs' to target cargo flights to US

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 11-05-2024

reported in WSJ yesterday also.   Downright chilling.   Top question I have is was this from rogue elements, or centrally orchestrated?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 11-05-2024

(11-05-2024, 07:37 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  reported in WSJ yesterday also.   Downright chilling.   Top question I have is was this from rogue elements, or centrally orchestrated?

Anyone who finds this surprising has been asleep for a long, long time. I believe the chance that this was a "rogue" operation to be minimal. 
If you are on the other side, going rogue will get you dead very quickly.  Somewhere, someone has blessed all this stuff and until we respond in an appropriate manner it will go on.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 11-05-2024

I have no doubt that Putin ordered it or that the US should make every reasonable effort to deter acts like this. But what is the appropriate manner to respond?  We’re already devoting tens of billions of dollars in funds and military equipment to a war effort against Russia. We’re already trying to enforce a sanctions regime against Russia. Short of a direct military strike by the US, what more is there for the US to do? Maybe lift the restrictions on Ukraine using our mid range missiles?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 11-05-2024

Lift all restrictions (not publicly?), deliver all promised equipment with greatest haste.  Donate all equipment slated for decommissioning/scrap.  

I do wonder whether too *much* support from the US causes European neighbors to say "it's alright, they don't need our help."  Would be disappointing.  In a perfect world, more US support causes other nations to rally and do likewise.

Certainly more money and food would help, although domestic politics would be up in arms about that (esp since Russia seems to have a hand in firing up domestic sentiment counter to pro-Ukraine efforts).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 11-05-2024

My gut tells me that the US should set policy on the Ukraine conflict based on what's happening in that conflict.  For example, if the US is asking Russia to refrain from doing XYZ in its conduct of the Ukraine war in return for the US withholding permission to let Ukraine use its mid-range munitions, that makes sense to me.  I have no idea whether that concept is part of any doctrine that the US follows or whether its just a concept that makes sense in my mind and no one else's.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 11-05-2024

Any such quid pro quo offers would have to be approved by Ukraine, of course.  But in this case...there ain't no bargainin' with Putin.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-05-2024

(11-05-2024, 11:07 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Lift all restrictions (not publicly?),

IMO the US should remove all restrictions on donated weapon use. The involvement of North Korean combat troops should be cited as massive escalation by Russia and used as the justification for the US response. I would also create a program (ostensibly administered by Ukraine) that would allow active duty and reserve F-16 pilots (and ground crew) to resign their commissions and "go to work for Ukraine". One may recognize the "Flying Tigers" as the forerunner of this concept. I am sure enough pilots would take the opportunity to go fight. There would be an understanding that these pilots could re-enlist at a later date in the USAF and be restored to their previous rank and seniority. This is absolutely justified. Russia is using "mercenaries" on a massive scale who are in fact still part of the North Korean military. These few hundred "volunteers" that are in no way connected to the USAF any more are a pittance by comparison.

Quote:deliver all promised equipment with greatest haste.

We have very recently been doing better in this regard as Ukraine has publicly stated. However, IMO the problem remains that the war in Ukraine is not at all a priority for the US DoD and its constituent parts. There is no "mission requirement" officially in place specifying what the objectives are and who is responsible for doing what. Support of Ukraine is treated as a low-priority collateral duty. It is done on an ad-hoc basis with nobody having the responsibility of being "successful". Unless and until that changes, the results will not be good.

Quote:Donate all equipment slated for decommissioning/scrap.

IMO we can easily "over-do it".  We should have as objectives the establishment of certain capabilities in Ukraine that will help them win the war. Trying to do everything at once will not help. OTOH we should support programs that can work. We have plenty of F-16s that we can donate. That should become a "program of record". Everything should be on the table, but only those things Ukraine can actually use should be sent "immediately". New requirements will emerge that will require changing what we send. Nothing in our "surplus" inventory should be off limits.

Quote:I do wonder whether too *much* support from the US causes European neighbors to say "it's alright, they don't need our help."  Would be disappointing.  In a perfect world, more US support causes other nations to rally and do likewise.

IMO the Europeans are not deterred by how much the US sends. They know Ukraine is a basket case. Their problems are domestic politics, budget limitations, and industrial limitations. We have problems in the US military budget but they are nothing compared to what the Europeans face. Sad but true.

Quote:Certainly more money and food would help, although domestic politics would be up in arms about that (esp since Russia seems to have a hand in firing up domestic sentiment counter to pro-Ukraine efforts).

Ukraine is going to need more money just to run their government, let alone their civilian economy. Maybe the Europeans can do more there. It is reality though.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 11-05-2024

About those North Korean soldiers…

https://x.com/gideonrachman/status/1853838042194235420?s=61

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-05-2024

Very interesting thread on Russian artillery stockpiles. Takeaway is that their Soviet stockpiles are mostly tapped.

https://x.com/a_from_s/status/1853848360525902227

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 11-05-2024

I wonder what kind of deal the Ukrainians can negotiate from their position of weakness.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-06-2024

(11-05-2024, 10:31 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I wonder what kind of deal the Ukrainians can negotiate from their position of weakness.

Probably none. Putin has no reason (yet) to assume he can't totally occupy Ukraine relatively soon. He isn't going to give up on that idea unless/until he totally fails in that attempt. Putin also faces the problem of what happens after "victory". Will Russia actually be better off economically once they occupy Ukraine than they were before the war? Certainly not in the short term.

How the EU decides to handle the situation is IMO key to Russia's near-term economic health. An occupied Ukraine will be in dire need of reconstruction and economic assistance. Russia can't afford either right now. The EU may attempt to buy "peace" from Russia by agreeing to assist Russia in rebuilding Ukraine. Such an action would have clear "humanitarian" benefits and perhaps could  be politically "sold" as that. The EU also has to decide if they will return to their pre-war economic relationship with Russia.

Of course, all of this is speculation because none of us know what US policy will actually be going forward. IMO almost anything is possible.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BobK - 11-06-2024

Yes we know
That said I’ve enjoyed reading the commentary here Thank you all

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - newguy - 11-06-2024

i am much more concerned about Ukraine's fate than i was a couple days ago.  it would be nice if Biden could transfer more weapons there in the coming weeks, but that may be difficult.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-06-2024

(11-06-2024, 10:48 AM)newguy Wrote:  i am much more concerned about Ukraine's fate than i was a couple days ago.  it would be nice if Biden could transfer more weapons there in the coming weeks, but that may be difficult.

It also won't matter all that much. Ukraine needs, at an absolute minimum, a steady supply of 155 mm shells that place them at no worse than a 3:1 daily usage disadvantage WRT Russia. Without that, they will lose. If the US is supplying shells along with the EU it is barely possible to maintain that ratio. Without the US, it is not. Ukraine also needs a reliable supply of Patriot missiles. Europe can supply some, but it seems improbable they can match current levels. Eventually Ukraine runs out. At that point Russia can pound away at will. Morale wise, that is a disaster. Ukraine also needs ATACMS and other missiles for their HIMARS. Lots of those need to come from the US.

There are lots of "other things", like HARMs and JDAMS that Ukraine needs. Ukraine probably has some stocks of various munitions, but as these stocks are depleted, Ukraine loses the ability to effectively resist. We saw this last spring and it would be no better this spring. The difference was that eventually the logjam was broken. It that had not happened, it is IMO unlikely Ukraine would still be fighting.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-06-2024

This election is over.  I would think it is not politics to describe what the President-elect or his team has said about the Russia invasion of Ukraine, to give some idea of the future of this conflict, and perhaps the effect that pending future on the current situation.  If the powers here feel this stretches too much into politics, then I guess they'll take it down.

BBC's "What Trump's win means for Ukraine, Middle East and China"

Quote:During the campaign, Trump repeatedly said he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in a day”. When asked how, he suggested overseeing a deal, but has declined to give specifics.
A research paper written by two of Trump’s former national security chiefs in May said the US should continue its weapons supply to Ukraine, but make the support conditional on Kyiv entering peace talks with Russia.
To entice Russia, the West would promise to delay Ukraine’s much-wanted entry into Nato. The former advisers said Ukraine should not give up its hopes of getting all of its territory back from Russian occupation, but that it should negotiate based on current front lines.
It’s not clear how far the former advisers’ paper represents Trump’s own thinking, but it’s likely to give us a guide to the kind of advice he’ll get.

The article doesn't indicate when that research paper was written.  Likely, a lot has happened since then:  Russia's advance in Donbas.  Extended strike capability by Ukraine;  The dwindling military stocks of Russia;  North Korean arms and soldiers; The conflicts in the Middle East.   I hope the US President-elect looks at the situation as of the time he takes office and takes all this into account.

Meanwhile, the current administration no longer has to include a looming election in its calculus.  I don't know how that might change things.

---