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 - Goose - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 02:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Looking back 20 years ago, Russia had about 4000 births per day, which you would expect would be about half male and half female.  If they are losing 1000 soldiers a day, that is basically half the male population coming of age every year killed or wounded, plus however many Russians leave so as to avoid the war.  So, mathematically, yes, they can continue the fight indefinitely, though it will leave a of immense proportions demographic hole.

Indeed it will. The birth rate is presently falling anyway, so the demographic hole will indeed be a massive issue. This is one reason the North Korean troops are so important to Russia. 30K "foreign mercenaries" gives Russia another twenty days of war. There are unfortunately more where those came from. Putin doesn't care much about the demographic problem. Long-term planning doesn't seem to be his thing, since the question of what to do with Ukraine once he gets it will be a big problem as well. He will now be lord and master of a desperately poor country that is now also depopulated and destroyed. What could be better?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korean-long-range-self-180600222.html
In for a penny....

Quote:Of course, the effect is even more substantial for Ukraine; their fighting age male population (18 to 40) is about 1/4 that of Russia, so unless they are able to inflict a 4:1 casualty ratio, their prospects are worse than Russia's.

BC

Everybody and their brother should have realized this from day 1. Ukraine's only chance at victory was to beat Russia before Russia could mobilize their much greater resources. A war of attrition always has favored Russia. NATO realizes the same thing. In a conventional war, NATO has to very quickly become the hammer, not the anvil. Its ability to absorb long-term losses is not as great as the Russian one, despite NATO having a larger population. NATO has a much lower pain (both social and political) than Russia does. Our military is designed to do exactly that. That said, given the current state of our military I don't see any "thunder runs" to save Ukraine in our future, even if the political will were there.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 11-14-2024

This war will be over soon. Ukraine is already acknowledging that it will accept a land for peace deal. Either Russia will accept that deal or Russia will fight to the death (Ukraine’s).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 08:12 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  This war will be over soon. Ukraine is already acknowledging that it will accept a land for peace deal. Either Russia will accept that deal or Russia will fight to the death (Ukraine’s).

I strongly expect Russia will "fight to Ukraine's death". At this point there is no reason for them to do otherwise.

It must be said that in war, nothing is certain. This war  won't (IMO) end before February at the earliest. Ukraine is toast either way unless a miracle happens and Russia collapses or "the west" decides to prevent Ukrainian collapse by whatever means necessary. The US realized that letting Russia break the rule-based system of international relations would be a very serious blow to the world and to the US in particular. Unfortunately it appears that we have, yet again, abjectly failed to accomplish our mission.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 11-15-2024

(11-14-2024, 09:33 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-14-2024, 08:12 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  This war will be over soon. Ukraine is already acknowledging that it will accept a land for peace deal. Either Russia will accept that deal or Russia will fight to the death (Ukraine’s).

I strongly expect Russia will "fight to Ukraine's death". At this point there is no reason for them to do otherwise.

It must be said that in war, nothing is certain. This war  won't (IMO) end before February at the earliest. Ukraine is toast either way unless a miracle happens and Russia collapses or "the west" decides to prevent Ukrainian collapse by whatever means necessary. The US realized that letting Russia break the rule-based system of international relations would be a very serious blow to the world and to the US in particular. Unfortunately it appears that we have, yet again, abjectly failed to accomplish our mission.

Sad to say, you are once again correct.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 11-15-2024

(11-14-2024, 09:33 PM)Goose Wrote:  The US realized that letting Russia break the rule-based system of international relations would be a very serious blow to the world and to the US in particular. Unfortunately it appears that we have, yet again, abjectly failed to accomplish our mission.

Agreed.  

Ukraine's fall, should it happen, dramatically increases the odds that China will invade and conquer Taiwan.  Taiwan knows this.  If I were Taiwan I would be accelerating a nuclear weapons program.  In fact, my guess is that many countries are doing just that, given how unreliable an ally America has become.

Imagine what position Ukraine would be in if they had not given up their nuclear weapons.  For that matter, there has been some journalism suggesting that Ukraine could develop rudimentary nuclear capability within months.  They do have seven tons of plutonium.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
Given recent developments, why not?  I almost think that Zelensky would be derelict in duty if he were not attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon. 

I am not an international relations expert, but it seems to me that the risk of the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased over the last few weeks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-16-2024

(11-15-2024, 11:12 PM)81alum Wrote:  ....
Imagine what position Ukraine would be in if they had not given up their nuclear weapons.  For that matter, there has been some journalism suggesting that Ukraine could develop rudimentary nuclear capability within months.  They do have seven tons of plutonium.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
Given recent developments, why not?  I almost think that Zelensky would be derelict in duty if he were not attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon. 

I am not an international relations expert, but it seems to me that the risk of the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased over the last few weeks.

If you missed it, you might go back and review a set of messages here starting with

(10-17-2024, 01:14 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/nato-ukraine-membership-progress-donald-trump-brussels-1970816

Zelensky saying that if Ukraine is not admitted into NATO, they will pursue their own nuclear weapons. 

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-16-2024

(11-15-2024, 11:12 PM)81alum Wrote:  

(11-14-2024, 09:33 PM)Goose Wrote:  The US realized that letting Russia break the rule-based system of international relations would be a very serious blow to the world and to the US in particular. Unfortunately it appears that we have, yet again, abjectly failed to accomplish our mission.

Agreed.  

Ukraine's fall, should it happen, dramatically increases the odds that China will invade and conquer Taiwan.

Totally agree. There is also a significant pro-Bejing political element in Taiwan. They will be strengthened by the fear Taiwan will be on their own and has to make the best deal possible.

Quote:It also increases the probability that Taiwan decides to   Taiwan knows this.  If I were Taiwan I would be accelerating a nuclear weapons program.  In fact, my guess is that many countries are doing just that, given how unreliable an ally America has become.

For Taiwan, this is a tough one. When the word gets out this is happening (and it will. The place leaks like a sieve), China has a ready-made excuse to invade Taiwan before they succeed. It may ensure an invasion that otherwise may never come. OTOH, if they don't they may be unable to resist such an invasion.

Quote:Imagine what position Ukraine would be in if they had not given up their nuclear weapons.

They would be in a disastrously BAD position. They would have a bunch of H-bombs that are 20 years past the absolute maximum rebuild date with unstable precursors that could spontaneously explode any minute. USSR warheads were not designed for a long shelf life. They require periodic re-manufacturing (about every 10 years, 15 years absolute max) and without it they are dangerous. If you launch one of those weapons (on a missile that is equally old and probably liquid fueled) it is not at all improbable the warheads explodes from the shock of launch. It may not be a thermonuclear detonation (although it might be) but it would at a minimum be a dirty bomb detonated in Ukrainian territory. If it doesn't do that and reaches the target inside Russia (by no means certain given the age and technology of the delivery vehicle), it may or may not "work". In either case Ukraine could expect a massive Russian nuclear response.

Ukraine had no capability to rebuild the warheads. That was all inside the Russian Federation. Obviously they would have received no help in creating such a capability. Ukraine knew all this when they "gave up" the warheads and the launch platforms. They would have driven a much harder bargain if they had weapons that would actually be useful in 10 years.

Quote:For that matter, there has been some journalism suggesting that Ukraine could develop rudimentary nuclear capability within months.  They do have seven tons of plutonium.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
Given recent developments, why not?  I almost think that Zelensky would be derelict in duty if he were not attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon.

A "dirty bomb" would not be all that useful to Ukraine. It might make a few square miles of Russia temporarily (or longer) uninhabitable. That isn't enough damage to be any kind of a "knockout" blow. It wouldn't actually move the meter much. It would however give Russia an iron-clad justification to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. "They nuked us, we nuke them, only more and better".  A single nuclear weapon (obtained however) could do a lot more damage. Using it would not end the war however, and would unleash a (very) small subset of the Russian strategic deterrent on Ukraine. That would end the war, and Ukraine too.

Quote:I am not an international relations expert, but it seems to me that the risk of the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased over the last few weeks.

I agree that it has. Some non-nuclear NATO countries plus Japan will certainly think about it. They have the money and technology to do it reasonably rapidly. The problem with using nuclear weapons as a deterrent  against the US China, or Russia is that the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) has to be mutual in order to work. Yes, North Korea could possibly strike the US with a few warheads. That would be horrible. The US would obliterate North Korea. The US would continue to exist. North Korea would not.

The relatively smaller number of nuclear weapons most "small" states can produce aren't all that destabilizing in themselves. The problem is that the leaders of these states may misinterpret the strength it gives them and overreach. An example of this is India and Pakistan. Do they have a MAD relationship that precludes either side using nuclear weapons? Unclear. China-India is even more problematic. India's 172 (or so) warheads are less than half of China's 500 (or so). If China and India clash in a conventional war in the North, at what point does India decide it has to use nuclear weapons to avoid defeat? Perhaps they feel a first strike is their only hope because their second-strike capability would be inadequate?

For a long time the Cold War kept everybody "on side". That is no longer the case. As long as the US (NATO) and the Russian Federation didn't start  conventional wars oriented toward changing the balance of forces everything continued along pretty much as before. Russia has now crossed that line. The reality is that Ukraine having a few nuclear weapons does them no good because they probably could not deliver enough damage to deter Putin. The question would become "How strong a nuclear force is required to deter Russia?" and "How do we know when we have that force?". Indeed a very fraught situation.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 11-16-2024

(11-16-2024, 11:05 AM)Goose Wrote:  .
A "dirty bomb" would not be all that useful to Ukraine. It might make a few square miles of Russia temporarily (or longer) uninhabitable. That isn't enough damage to be any kind of a "knockout" blow. It wouldn't actually move the meter much. It would however give Russia an iron-clad justification to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. "They nuked us, we nuke them, only more and better".  A single nuclear weapon (obtained however) could do a lot more damage. Using it would not end the war however, and would unleash a (very) small subset of the Russian strategic deterrent on Ukraine. That would end the war, and Ukraine too.

From what that article and others indicate, Ukraine has the capability of doing something a little better than a dirty bomb--something like the Nagasaki plutonium bomb.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-17-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-lifts-ban-ukraine-using-181003167.html

At this point this action is basically a "so what?". The ATACMS isn't long range enough and has too small a warhead to be a "wonder weapon". Ukraine has too few of them as well, mostly because the US has too few of them. We diddled around for six or so years or so trying to figure out what we wanted for the PrSm. During that time we didn't by any more ATACMS because they would become "obsolete".

This is a bit of a different story: https://kyivindependent.com/uk-france-approve-ukraines-use-of-long-range-missiles-for-strikes-inside-russia-le-figaro-reports/
This is a direct result of the US allowing these items that use US technology to be used in this manner. These missiles have a 340 mile range, compared to the ATACMS 190 mile range. They carry a 990 lb warhead compared to the ATACMS 500 lb warhead. Of course ATACMS is a ballistic missile while Storm Shadow is a cruise missile. Cruise missiles are lots easier to shoot down. Ukraine has many more Storm Shadows than they do ATACMS. The Storm Shadow being air launched can be carried closer to the target before launch. These missiles will probably make more of a difference.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 11-18-2024

(11-17-2024, 02:51 PM)Goose Wrote:  This is a bit of a different story: https://kyivindependent.com/uk-france-approve-ukraines-use-of-long-range-missiles-for-strikes-inside-russia-le-figaro-reports/
This is a direct result of the US allowing these items that use US technology to be used in this manner. These missiles have a 340 mile range, compared to the ATACMS 190 mile range. They carry a 990 lb warhead compared to the ATACMS 500 lb warhead. Of course ATACMS is a ballistic missile while Storm Shadow is a cruise missile. Cruise missiles are lots easier to shoot down. Ukraine has many more Storm Shadows than they do ATACMS. The Storm Shadow being air launched can be carried closer to the target before launch. These missiles will probably make more of a difference.

Uh, did that article get updated (5 hours after publication) to drop mention of Storm Shadow and only mention ATACMS?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-18-2024

(11-18-2024, 12:08 AM)M T Wrote:  

(11-17-2024, 02:51 PM)Goose Wrote:  This is a bit of a different story: https://kyivindependent.com/uk-france-approve-ukraines-use-of-long-range-missiles-for-strikes-inside-russia-le-figaro-reports/
This is a direct result of the US allowing these items that use US technology to be used in this manner. These missiles have a 340 mile range, compared to the ATACMS 190 mile range. They carry a 990 lb warhead compared to the ATACMS 500 lb warhead. Of course ATACMS is a ballistic missile while Storm Shadow is a cruise missile. Cruise missiles are lots easier to shoot down. Ukraine has many more Storm Shadows than they do ATACMS. The Storm Shadow being air launched can be carried closer to the target before launch. These missiles will probably make more of a difference.

Uh, did that article get updated (5 hours after publication) to drop mention of Storm Shadow and only mention ATACMS?

Yes, apparently. The whole second half of the article was deleted. Here is a link to another one, but it is unclear if this "permission" really is in place.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/17/7484978/
The above is obviously a pro-Ukrainian source. A more neutral one is below, but is that the product of an echo chamber?
https://defence-industry.eu/france-and-britain-greenlight-use-of-storm-shadow-missiles-by-ukraine-against-russia/
This one certainly is.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/france-uk-approve-ukraine-s-use-of-scalp-storm-shadow-missiles-for-strikes-on-russian-soil/#google_vignette
The BBC article below was perhaps the "state of play" at the time. It is a bit "old". It seems to indicate the permission is either already in place or soon to be so. It may not be yet "official", and until it is we can't be sure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yxl7g7l22o
UPDATE: An additional data point. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/17/zelenskyy-neither-confirms-nor-denies-approval-for-strikes-inside-russia-with-atacms-storm-shadow/ Still unclear what is true.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Bruce Wang - 11-18-2024

(11-15-2024, 11:12 PM)81alum Wrote:  Ukraine's fall, should it happen, dramatically increases the odds that China will invade and conquer Taiwan.  Taiwan knows this.  If I were Taiwan I would be accelerating a nuclear weapons program.  In fact, my guess is that many countries are doing just that, given how unreliable an ally America has become.

Taiwan, ROC had a nuclear weapons program.  My first cousin once-removed was the head of this program.  The US caught them and told them to stop because it would trigger an invasion by the PRC. The program then went further underground.  It turned out the military attache to the program was a CIA asset and absconded with the proof.  He and his family now live in the US under assumed identities.  The US told the ROC if they continued to pursue nuclear weapons our security guarantee would end.  That was the end of the program.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 11-18-2024

Goose dateline='[url=tel:1731780328' Wrote:  1731780328[/url]']

81alum dateline='[url=tel:1731737560' Wrote:  1731737560[/url]']

Goose dateline='[url=tel:1731645181' Wrote:  1731645181[/url]']The US realized that letting Russia break the rule-based system of international relations would be a very serious blow to the world and to the US in particular. Unfortunately it appears that we have, yet again, abjectly failed to accomplish our mission.

Agreed.  

Ukraine's fall, should it happen, dramatically increases the odds that China will invade and conquer Taiwan.

Totally agree. There is also a significant pro-Bejing political element in Taiwan. They will be strengthened by the fear Taiwan will be on their own and has to make the best deal possible.

Quote:It also increases the probability that Taiwan decides to   Taiwan knows this.  If I were Taiwan I would be accelerating a nuclear weapons program.  In fact, my guess is that many countries are doing just that, given how unreliable an ally America has become.

For Taiwan, this is a tough one. When the word gets out this is happening (and it will. The place leaks like a sieve), China has a ready-made excuse to invade Taiwan before they succeed. It may ensure an invasion that otherwise may never come. OTOH, if they don't they may be unable to resist such an invasion.

Quote:Imagine what position Ukraine would be in if they had not given up their nuclear weapons.

They would be in a disastrously BAD position. They would have a bunch of H-bombs that are 20 years past the absolute maximum rebuild date with unstable precursors that could spontaneously explode any minute. USSR warheads were not designed for a long shelf life. They require periodic re-manufacturing (about every 10 years, 15 years absolute max) and without it they are dangerous. If you launch one of those weapons (on a missile that is equally old and probably liquid fueled) it is not at all improbable the warheads explodes from the shock of launch. It may not be a thermonuclear detonation (although it might be) but it would at a minimum be a dirty bomb detonated in Ukrainian territory. If it doesn't do that and reaches the target inside Russia (by no means certain given the age and technology of the delivery vehicle), it may or may not "work". In either case Ukraine could expect a massive Russian nuclear response.

Ukraine had no capability to rebuild the warheads. That was all inside the Russian Federation. Obviously they would have received no help in creating such a capability. Ukraine knew all this when they "gave up" the warheads and the launch platforms. They would have driven a much harder bargain if they had weapons that would actually be useful in 10 years.

Quote:For that matter, there has been some journalism suggesting that Ukraine could develop rudimentary nuclear capability within months.  They do have seven tons of plutonium.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
Given recent developments, why not?  I almost think that Zelensky would be derelict in duty if he were not attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon.

A "dirty bomb" would not be all that useful to Ukraine. It might make a few square miles of Russia temporarily (or longer) uninhabitable. That isn't enough damage to be any kind of a "knockout" blow. It wouldn't actually move the meter much. It would however give Russia an iron-clad justification to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. "They nuked us, we nuke them, only more and better".  A single nuclear weapon (obtained however) could do a lot more damage. Using it would not end the war however, and would unleash a (very) small subset of the Russian strategic deterrent on Ukraine. That would end the war, and Ukraine too.

Quote:I am not an international relations expert, but it seems to me that the risk of the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased over the last few weeks.

I agree that it has. Some non-nuclear NATO countries plus Japan will certainly think about it. They have the money and technology to do it reasonably rapidly. The problem with using nuclear weapons as a deterrent  against the US China, or Russia is that the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) has to be mutual in order to work. Yes, North Korea could possibly strike the US with a few warheads. That would be horrible. The US would obliterate North Korea. The US would continue to exist. North Korea would not.

The relatively smaller number of nuclear weapons most "small" states can produce aren't all that destabilizing in themselves. The problem is that the leaders of these states may misinterpret the strength it gives them and overreach. An example of this is India and Pakistan. Do they have a MAD relationship that precludes either side using nuclear weapons? Unclear. China-India is even more problematic. India's 172 (or so) warheads are less than half of China's 500 (or so). If China and India clash in a conventional war in the North, at what point does India decide it has to use nuclear weapons to avoid defeat? Perhaps they feel a first strike is their only hope because their second-strike capability would be inadequate?

For a long time the Cold War kept everybody "on side". That is no longer the case. As long as the US (NATO) and the Russian Federation didn't start  conventional wars oriented toward changing the balance of forces everything continued along pretty much as before. Russia has now crossed that line. The reality is that Ukraine having a few nuclear weapons does them no good because they probably could not deliver enough damage to deter Putin. The question would become "How strong a nuclear force is required to deter Russia?" and "How do we know when we have that force?". Indeed a very fraught situation.

I do think you may be underestimating the deterrent effect of even a small nuclear program. If North Korea could credibly nuke LA, SF, or Seattle, it almost doesn't matter that 98% of the country would be fine and NK would be nuked into oblivion. That being a real threat would mean we would have to treat them very differently and never back them into a corner where they would consider that trade off. 

Likewise if Ukraine had even a few nukes and a reliable way to deliver them to Moscow or St Petersburg, that drastically changes the calculus of the war. Yes Ukraine would then cease to exist. But It would mean that Russia would have to be careful not to back Ukraine into a position where that seems like a viable option. 

Remember the whole principle of MAD requires irrational actors. Say Russia decides to nuke the US to oblivion. The nukes are in the air and on their way. Should we fire back? Logical answer is no. We're already dead. Killing hundreds of millions more and rendering the planet more uninhabitable out of spite is not a rational move. But deterrence requires us to project and say we will retaliate whether we actually would or not. The true Game Theory Optimal outcome if I recall is to actually take the decision out of human hands. Broadcast to your enemy that if condition X is met then your Nukes have a Y% chance of being launched by a randomized program. Ukraine could say that if Russian forces advance within 10 miles of Kyiv the nuke may launch automatically at Moscow. How lucky does Putin feel?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-18-2024

(11-18-2024, 12:07 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  I do think you may be underestimating the deterrent effect of even a small nuclear program. If North Korea could credibly nuke LA, SF, or Seattle, it almost doesn't matter that 98% of the country would be fine and NK would be nuked into oblivion. That being a real threat would mean we would have to treat them very differently and never back them into a corner where they would consider that trade off. 

Likewise if Ukraine had even a few nukes and a reliable way to deliver them to Moscow or St Petersburg, that drastically changes the calculus of the war. Yes Ukraine would then cease to exist. But It would mean that Russia would have to be careful not to back Ukraine into a position where that seems like a viable option. 

Remember the whole principle of MAD requires irrational actors. Say Russia decides to nuke the US to oblivion. The nukes are in the air and on their way. Should we fire back? Logical answer is no. We're already dead. Killing hundreds of millions more and rendering the planet more uninhabitable out of spite is not a rational move. But deterrence requires us to project and say we will retaliate whether we actually would or not. The true Game Theory Optimal outcome if I recall is to actually take the decision out of human hands. Broadcast to your enemy that if condition X is met then your Nukes have a Y% chance of being launched by a randomized program. Ukraine could say that if Russian forces advance within 10 miles of Kyiv the nuke may launch automatically at Moscow. How lucky does Putin feel?

IMO you have it 180 degrees wrong. The success of MAD requires rational actors. It requires that both "sides" decide that the benefit of a first-strike attempt on their opponent is outweighed by the probability of a retaliatory strike that would obliterate them. That is the "rational" decision. MAD fails when one of the actors irrationally decides the potential benefit is worth the risk. Your notional scenario that a "rational" actor would NOT retaliate and therefore a first strike is "risk free" would first require an irrational gamble by the opponent. First of all, both sides have done all sorts of things to ensure the response is broad-based enough that even if some individuals chose not to react, enough will that it won't matter. Even if the NCA does not command a launch it is probable somebody who has the "facts" in the chain will. No sane, rational actor would ever take that risk.

Having some kind of "doomsday" machine makes no sense. This has been debunked many times. Anybody who is willing to assume the NCA of the opponent will chose not to launch a retaliatory strike can also assume the doomsday machine is a bluff for the same reasons. If the NCA won't launch a strike themselves, why would the build a machine that would? Same result as launching a retaliatory strike personally, same moral onus. There is also the additional possibility that the machine may not work. How does it decide to launch without relying on sensors that can't be "fudged" by the owners? The less such a machine is able to be bypassed the more its response to false alarms becomes unacceptably high. Blowing up the world by accident has to be traded off against the ability to disable the machine. Nobody would risk it, the benefits aren't high enough.

I do agree that the possession of nuclear weapons by a state like North Korea or Iran is a "problem" that has to be taken into account. It makes them even more dangerous. If a direct conflict between the US and North Korea happens, it could become an issue. If North Korea is losing a conventional war with South Korea and the US, it could launch a nuclear strike on the US. It would know that 1) that strike wouldn't be sufficient to prevent an overwhelming nuclear response and 2) North Korea and its leadership would cease to exist.  There would be no reason for the US to do anything else because we would have already suffered the worst-case strike North Korea can deliver. If North Korea is at all rational, they won't do that. The problem is they may not be "rational enough" to realize it won't work, or they don't care.

The idea that "we can't afford to put them in a situation where they might use nuclear weapons" is unfortunately unrealistic. Since it is patently obvious that a rational North Korean regime would realize it wouldn't survive such a choice, only a "crazy" regime would do so. It is impossible to know "how crazy" a regime actually is. They can make all kinds of threats. Which ones are "serious"? How do you know? It isn't rational that we should let North Korea do anything it wants because they might resort to nuclear weapons if we don't. It also isn't rational that we should gratuitously get into an armed conflict with them. It is very rational to ensure they understand that if they stay in their box we won't bother them. If they do not, we will protect our allies. If we won't North Korea has a blank check.

IMO the much more likely scenario if we get into a conventional war with North Korea protecting say Japan or South Korea is that North Korea realizes nuking us is pointless. Nuking Japan or South Korea is a lot "safer". The US now has to make a choice about how we respond. So does the target of that nuclear strike. It would make no sense to continue the conventional war if North Korea is just continuing to nuke our allies (while we refrain from a nuclear response). How would we respond? It is the old "Would the US risk New York for Bonn?".  What this scenario requires is that the US must have the ability to quickly neutralize the nuclear delivery capability of North Korea at the start of the war using only conventional weapons. Of course, the danger there is that North Korea decides its nuclear weapons are "use it or lose it" and therefore uses them on day one.

Substitute Iran in the above scenarios with the constraint that Iran can't actually hit the continental US with a missile fired from Iran, at least right now. They could strike CONUS by using a commercial ship to get close enough and the launch a missile, or with an "old style SSG".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - martyup - 11-18-2024

I really don't think giving Hal 9000 control of our nuclear weapons is ever going to be a good choice.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 11-18-2024

(11-18-2024, 03:05 PM)martyup Wrote:  I really don't think giving Hal 9000 control of our nuclear weapons is ever going to be a good choice.

There might come a point when it isn't up to us, though I suspect that is more true for our enemies.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-19-2024

There is some ambiguity on the actual range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles. These missiles have gone through several upgrades, which is probably the source of the confusion. The following link from the RAF says 300nm+.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150103054239/http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/stormshadow.cfm
Wikipedia also follows this, saying 300nm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

As to where permission to use these longer range cruise missiles lies, it is still unclear that the UK and/or France has actually granted permission to use these weapons inside Russia. It may be they will announce the permission by using these missiles. It would be very advantageous to cast this as part of the same event as the ATACMS permission. If it is much further delayed it gives Putin an opportunity to  create another public relation event inside Russia. There is no reason to delay action if the decision is already been made. The sooner the better.

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 11-19-2024

What is Putin’s endgame after Russia defeats and annexes Ukraine?  Occupy the territory and plunder the natural resources?  What happens to the people who live in the territory now?  They “become” Russian?  They live in the same place where they are now even though it’s leveled to dust? They move to other Russian territories? How complicated and fraught is such a plan?  Can Russia get away with this and profit?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 11-19-2024

With Crimea, Russia populated it with Russian emigres, many with links to the security apparatus, as a reward and also to have "reliable" types living there.

Perhaps the elderly stay. I presume most other Ukrainians would emigrate to other countries if Ukraine is fully conquered. I doubt that happens, but would be a very big refugee crisis if it does. They're not going to stick around to see what Russia will do with them.

.....

Ukraine used ATACMS to strike a Russian ammunition depot in Bryansk oblast. There was some reporting that ATACMS usage would be limited only to Kursk area but that has been disproven already. Unclear what limitations if any exist on Scalp/Storm Shadow at this point.

https://x.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1858867210933936446

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-19-2024

(11-19-2024, 10:17 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  With Crimea, Russia populated it with Russian emigres, many with links to the security apparatus, as a reward and also to have "reliable" types living there.

True. This approach was possible because in 2014 there was no organized resistance and therefore no destruction. Crimea is also considered a "nice place to live" by Russians. Getting people to move to a nice place with free housing (from dispossessed Ukrainians) and a (at least somewhat) good job was pretty easy. There were also lots of ethnic Russians already living there so a cultural fit existed.

In most of the currently occupied Ukrainian territories none of that applies. Russia also probably doesn't have the bodies to easily repopulate the area they will receive in a peace settlement along the current line of contact. Lots of this area is agricultural and doesn't need a large population. All the urban areas are destroyed and basically uninhabitable.  Nobody will want to move there.

Quote:Perhaps the elderly stay. I presume most other Ukrainians would emigrate to other countries if Ukraine is fully conquered. I doubt that happens, but would be a very big refugee crisis if it does. They're not going to stick around to see what Russia will do with them.

You are certainly correct that most Ukrainians will at least try to emigrate if Ukraine is fully conquered. IMO that will be largely true even if a rump Ukraine exists. It is very unlikely Putin would allow such a state to join the EU, let alone NATO. Putin will want a state that is economically dependent on Russia, as Belarus is. The infrastructure of the rump state will have suffered significant damage. Ukraine was already desperately poor before the war. It will be much, much worse afterwards, given the total loss of access to the Sea of Azov and a large part of its transportation and industrial base. The future existence of the rump state will also be in doubt. It might any day suffer the fate of the rump Czechoslovakia in early 1939. Nobody would say boo if it did. I think anyone that can leave probably will.

Unfortunately I expect that if this war ends with a "rump" Ukraine (or less), much of the EU will very quickly seek various forms of accommodation with Russia. Germany wants to go back to cheap natural gas and a robust economy. There are already lots of Germans that think embracing Russia is the way to get that. It isn't, but the popular will may dictate what is done. If that happens, most everybody else will follow. Relying on the US for anything will become very unpopular. Self-reliance will be deemed too expensive. Making a deal with the devil will become the order of the day.

---