Personally, I think it's only a matter of time, maybe 3-4 decades maybe 3-4 weeks, where humans engage in a significant nuclear war. I wonder how the LDS people would view horrific wide scale destruction being implemented using weapons completely and totally created by humans.

Although you might only have a few minutes to discuss the matter, before meeting your demise, I wonder how devout Christians, including the LDS variety, would fit it within ye old Armageddon story. Also, believing Christians are suppose to be somehow immune, then why did they all get summarily incinerated just like atheist Joe Schmuck.

True TBM's would find a way to get to the temple. That's the ultimate way of dying; is to die in God's house on Earth. <puke>

Well, it's too late for Bruce Willis to make a movie about nuclear war.

Is there much difference? :/

Putin is flexing right now. Hopefully it's just a flex. I live near a number of important military and security installations, so even now I'm plotting my retreat, if necessary. I think Putin is not that stupid, but you never know.

I think he (Putin) would prefer not to die. If he uses nukes, he's dead too. I suspect he gets far more joy threatening nukes and having everyone scared and terrorized over the possibility.

I figure I'm at risk dying from a super volcano at Yellowstone. It's scary to think about. The reality is that I'll probably die of heart failure like my relatives. So many ways to die, so little time to worry about them all!

The whole point of Armageddon is that, at the end, Jesus will show up. Only here's the thing: he won't.

If we throw a party, won't Jesus have to show up? That's why the push to make Armageddon happen.

I mean, if it works for Santa and Christmas, isn't nuclear war worth a shot?

Putin has a whole bunch of options short of toasting the planet.

Fire on a nuclear power plant, allowing some radiation to escape.

Fire on it again, allowing more radiation to escape.

Fire a tactical nuke in Kyiv that only takes out a dozen or so blocks.


“Bomb Seattle” is neither the first nor the only choice.

This is exactly correct.

Putin has already blurred all the lines. He's used chemical weapons in Syria, including against US allies. None of that elicited anything more than verbal protests from the West.

We like to believe that the use of nuclear weaponry is all or nothing, but there are many options in between. Putin has used nuclear weapons--radioactive poison--against his enemies within Russia and as far abroad as the UK. Again, there was no forceful Western response. If Russian troops fired a couple of nuclear-tipped short-range missiles at Ukraine, killing a few hundred troops, would that merit a tactical or strategic response from NATO? No.

The point is that he can use weapons of mass destruction in ways that alarm the world but do not trigger full-scale nuclear war. Such actions would increase public pressure in the NATO countries for governments to seek a compromise solution in Ukraine rather than run the risk of further escalation.

I wouldn't be surprised. . .

I scratch my head over what NATO is doing.

Can you be more specific, Kathleen?

What could NATO do more or differently to protect Ukraine? Are NATO member countries shirking their commitments in terms of promised(?) troops?

I read about arms shipments to Ukraine, but what is needed now? I understand the fear of nuclear war, and that the world is dealing with a crazy man, and possibly a diseased man who may be orchestrating his own grand suicide.

What is the criteria for warranting a strategic NATO response?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2022 03:23AM by Kathleen.

I’m reading about Article 5 now. Explains a lot.

Yeah, that's my question right now as well. What more can the west do?

I agree to some extent, I expect one or two nuclear bombs being detonated in a large city more likely to occur before a large scale attack. About 15 years ago the L.A. Times ran a story describing this scenario, arguing not if, but when.

Putin is the Hitler of the 21st C.
What makes him different from Hitler is he has the worlds largest nukes, and the International Space Station, the ultimate checkmate.

They say the invasion was unjustified, but I'm not sure. Putin detected a strong odor of marijuana wafting in from the direction of Kiev.

Who is ‘they’? Russia? You are aware they lie, to cover up their war crimes, right?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is ‘they’? Russia? You are aware they lie,
> to cover up their war crimes, right?

Bradley said:

"They say the invasion was unjustified, but I'm not sure. Putin detected a strong odor of marijuana wafting in from the direction of Kiev."

I think "they" refers to the rest of the world. "They" say Putin blah blah... so that's not Putin yakking.

I'd say the comment is meant as a joke, obviously, with the drug mention.

Many would likely ask is it too soon to joke. I would say yes. Obviously. Because the terror and the horror and the fear and the separation and the injuries and the deaths are occurring as we speak. Do we "joke" yet about Vietnam, the Gulf War, WWII. Not that I've noticed. Not that I would. Not that I'd laugh about.

Hogan's Heroes and McHale's Navy were two successful sitcoms from about fifty years ago about WWII.

M*A*S*H was one of the most successful sitcoms ever, ostensibly about the Korean War, but plenty of subtext about Vietnam.

And more recently, we had "Charlie Wilson's War",

Late night comics make jokes about what is going on in the world that day, including the Ukraine invasion.

Yes, I did think of M*A*S*H* while writing my post. I don't know the late night comics. I guess I should have qualified my comments. Yes, people do joke. It's part of our nature. Maybe it makes us feel better. It's not always comfortable. For me, that is especially true when the conflict is a current one. I've seen children ripped from their country and transplanted to a foreign place, strange and frightening to them, where they know no-one and can't understand the language. They're traumatized by the horrors they've witnessed and the loss of parents, friends and other loved ones. I have not seen anything as heartbreaking as children quaking in fear long after they've been removed from the war zones from which they've been rescued. They are considered "survivors of torture".

I can't laugh.

Neither can I.

How long do you think Putin could live on ISS if Russia and the US wiped each other out?

Answer: According to this ISS flight controller it would be 3-5 months

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zlj4d/how_long_could_iss_survive_without_resupply/
(see comment by spaceguy87)

Nor is the ISS large enough to carry enough individuals to provide the genetic diversity needed for our species's survival.

LW, what do you expect will be the next steps on Putin's part in the war with Ukraine ?

Ah yes, Kathleen as always getting to the heart of the matter.

Putin has been explicit about his long-term goals for nearly two decades. He wants to break NATO by showing that it cannot stand up to Russia and then to rebuild as much of the old Russian empire as he can. He has taken numerous steps in that direction by, among other things, crushing Georgia, effectively conquering eastern Ukraine in 2014, and then trying to drive the US away from its guarantee of Ukrainian security. That is the context for what is now occurring.

In this instance he has four alternative goals--he is an opportunist, always taking what he can get rather than fighting to the end. They are 1) taking all of Ukraine and thereby uniting the historical troika of Russia, Belorus, and Ukraine, 2) conquering the east and south and installing a puppet government in Kyiv, 3) conquering the east and south through Odessa and possibly Moldova, and 4) conquering the Donbas region and the corridor uniting Crimea and Russia. Tactically, he wants to do any or all of those with the maximum possible brutality so that what's left of Ukraine and the other countries of Eastern and Baltic Europe lose faith in NATO and have no choice but to strike separate deals with Russia.

The Ukrainian resistance, supported by NATO, has rendered objectives 1) and 2) highly unlikely and goal 3) dubious. So what he'll do now is 4) pulverize the Donbas and thereby unite Russia and the Crimea. If he does that successfully enough and/or divides NATO, he may then find it possible to move forward towards some of his other goals. But consolidating a corridor to the Crimea would be enough for him to declare victory and then sit back and wait for the next opportunity for territorial aggrandizement.

He may also, tactically, deploy limited chemical or nuclear weapons as a way of increasing the threat to his neighbors and NATO and perhaps breaking their resolve. It would be a great triumph to show that NATO won't react to the use of WMD, since that would reawaken European fears of US abandonment and thereby divide the alliance and make it easier to intimidate small countries one-by-one.

TY

"Transnistria" is another faux Russian statelet along the western Ukraine / Moldovan border, currently occupied by a few thousand Russian troops.


The Kaliningrad exclave (former German WWI era East Prussian Königsberg) is another region that Putin wants to "reconnect" with Mother Russia.


LW, I don't think Putin will use nuclear weapons or gas this close to Europe. He might use gas on the Ukrainians holding out in the Azov Steel plant, but if he does so, he'll try to do it in secret. I'd bet that Western powers have privately told Putin what would happen if he used chemical or nuclear weapons.


As for the West or NATO not being involved, I would also bet that there are "unofficial" military advisors in Ukraine right now. It's also a mystery why Putin isn't using his long range aviation assets (i.e. bombers) to attack the supply lines (road and rail, tactical cargo airfields, etc) that are bringing in all the military aid from Western nations. Is there some kind of "unofficial" air umbrella that we don't know about? What is keeping him from landing marines in Odessa? Cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea would affect grain shipments to the entire world. I think it's more than just the Ukrainian anti-ship missiles that took out the "Moskva."


Strategically, this war is a failure for Putin. Instead of dividing NATO, the opposite has happened, and now Sweden and Finland are ready to join. Finnish neutrality was one of Russia's key foreign policy positions, and now there will be another eight hundred miles of border with NATO. The Russian economy is in tatters. Putin's desire to live behind a new Iron Curtain with a new Cold War has wrecked his entire nation -- and we can't let someone like that ever try to take over America again.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Transnistria" is another faux Russian statelet
> along the western Ukraine / Moldovan border,
> currently occupied by a few thousand Russian
> troops.

Yes, that is part of the Option Three scenario I outlined. Interestingly, last night the FT reported that a Russian general had let slip that the Odessa/Moldova regions are the current Russian targets and that Donbas was the first step in that strategy--made me feel like a prophet, that did.

May I have 10% of your income?

[https://www.ft.com/content/3c60cbb9-2a7b-4e81-9f1c-fc05912b7f32 and subsequently all the rest of the media: look for Crimea Corridor.]


-----------------
> The Kaliningrad exclave (former German WWI era
> East Prussian Königsberg) is another region that
> Putin wants to "reconnect" with Mother Russia.

Far too distant from Russia and its forces. Kaliningrad would require invasion of Poland and possibly the Baltic states. That move would unavoidably mean war with NATO, so it's not on the table.


-----------------
> LW, I don't think Putin will use nuclear weapons
> or gas this close to Europe.

Ukraine is Europe.

--------------------
> He might use gas on
> the Ukrainians holding out in the Azov Steel
> plant, but if he does so, he'll try to do it in
> secret.

I disagree. He always lets the world know about his use of WMD. He did in Syria, and when poisoning dissidents abroad he uses radioactive materials that only Russia has in order to increase his opponents' fear. The controlled use of WMD is more for psychological purposes than for strictly military ones.


--------------------
> I'd bet that Western powers have
> privately told Putin what would happen if he used
> chemical or nuclear weapons.

I'm sure they have. But they said that about Syria in 2014 and they have warned him about using chemical and biological weapons in assassination plots. He has ignored those warnings because he knows full well the West won't start a war with Russia over them.


------------------
> As for the West or NATO not being involved, I
> would also bet that there are "unofficial"
> military advisors in Ukraine right now.

US special forces were in Ukraine training Ukrainians before the war, and the training to use Western weaponry continues. That means the advisors are still there.


----------------
> It's also
> a mystery why Putin isn't using his long range
> aviation assets (i.e. bombers) to attack the
> supply lines (road and rail, tactical cargo
> airfields, etc) that are bringing in all the
> military aid from Western nations. Is there some
> kind of "unofficial" air umbrella that we don't
> know about?

I don't know why Russia has not done that. Perhaps because the bombers would be the same ones that carry nuclear bombs and hence might result in NATO retaliation.


------------------
> What is keeping him from landing
> marines in Odessa? Cutting Ukraine off from the
> Black Sea would affect grain shipments to the
> entire world.

Again, that is part of Option Three. It would be like Hitler's conquest of the Sudetenland, leaving Ukraine virtually unsustainable as an independent entity and ripe for the picking in five or ten years. But Option Three must follow from Option Four since Putin must consolidate his flank in Donbas before moving to Odessa. He can't occupy that city sustainably until after the corridor to Crimea is consolidated.

-----------------
I think it's more than just the
> Ukrainian anti-ship missiles that took out the
> "Moskva."

I disagree. The Ukrainians have obviously been trained (probably by American special forces) to use those weapons. What is interesting is that the success casts doubt on the continued viability of American capital ships as well.


----------------
> Strategically, this war is a failure for Putin.
> Instead of dividing NATO, the opposite has
> happened, and now Sweden and Finland are ready to
> join. Finnish neutrality was one of Russia's key
> foreign policy positions, and now there will be
> another eight hundred miles of border with NATO.
> The Russian economy is in tatters. Putin's desire
> to live behind a new Iron Curtain with a new Cold
> War has wrecked his entire nation -- and we can't
> let someone like that ever try to take over
> America again.

That is true so far. But Option Four could be spun as a success and it would in some ways be one, terrifying the rump state of Ukraine and others. Finland/Sweden would be a mistake, probably, for NATO since the buffer serves the interests of West as well as East. But yes, the likelihood has increased.

This could still be a success for Russia. It's essential to Western interests that Ukraine win this war.

Don't forget Putin was KGB. Once a Chekist, always a Chekist.


Putin might not use direct military force to take over the Baltics and get direct access to Kaliningrad. There's been trouble in the past with the Russian minority and also mysterious cyberattacks of "unknown" (probably Russian) origin.


But you are 100% right about denying Ukraine to Russia. I don't think any US or NATO involvement would lead to a direct attack against any NATO country. Putin is making threats, but he does not have the means to make good on them. One option being discussed is declaring western Ukraine a "safe zone" for ostensibly humanitarian reasons -- and that would also allow air transport to resume for weapons as well. Military conflict didn't spread to mainland China or Russia during Korea and Vietnam, and I don't think it will spread further into Western Europe in this war. Putin is counting on the USA and Europe to be risk-averse after Afghanistan, but we just can't allow him to take Ukraine or cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea. We have to supply Ukraine with the heavy offensive weaponry needed to get Putin out of the Donbass region, period. Ukrainians have shown the world that the Russians aren't ten feet tall and can be beaten.


Unlike Iraq, we didn't start this fight, but we have to finish it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2022 12:50PM by anybody.

Given the absolutely fantastic show of tenacity put on by the Ukrainians, the US and the rest of the West should plan for the possibility of a protracted fight, and start some training on more complex weapons. It seems like a tall order, but the introduction to the fight of something like a squadron of F-15s outfitted with AIM-9Xs, AMRAAMs and a full compliment of Stormbreakers, would go a long way.

A10s would have a field day against those Russian convoys.

Both Russia and Ukraine are losing Su-25s at a high rate. There's no reason to believe A-10s would do any better. CAS aircraft are extremely susceptible to AA.

F-15s with a full load out of 28 StormBreakers could release those at altitude and standoff distance, in weather. It's admittedly fantastical to think we could get those into Ukraine hands, but to pervert John Lennon, imagine...

I try making jokes, but it doesn't help. I weep for Earth. I wish I could share LW's optimism. If we destroy this place, we will have nothing. We will become another Mars, if you believe those who remember their past lives there.

Gentlemen, it’s been a pleasure. How about a song from happier times?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FN047_LT0

My "optimism?"

ETA: Bradley, hard-headed realism is hardly optimism. If the question is whether the Ukraine imbroglio will lead to thermonuclear war, I'd guess that the odds are 10/1 or 20/1. From my perspective that is not at all optimistic since a 5% chance of worldwide disaster is outrageously high.

Indeed, another way to look at 20/1 odds is to say that on average the nightmare scenario will occur once in every 20 situations like the one we now confront. That means that within a century the odds of such a disaster are well above 50% and perhaps as high as 90%. And meanwhile we have global warming and other such problems to worry about.

Looking at a conundrum like Ukraine, reaching conclusions about the likelihood of egregious error, and trying to mitigate that probability is no more than what responsibility requires. But experience with such risk management teaches us that it is only a matter of time before the low-probability event occurs. That is in no way "optimistic."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2022 05:20AM by Lot's Wife.

And yet personally I do not feel the same way about nuclear war as I did in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps it is an age thing but I fully expected nuclear war at any moment back then. Not so much now despite what is happening in Ukraine. Now I have far more concern for what is happening around me in a world taken over by insulting nastiness and sound byte reaction.

You saw all the duck and cover hysteria, lived several decades since then and you still are here. Also we get fed bullshit and kept in the dark. Who knows what's really going on. Geopolitics is complicated.

Also no point in worrying about things you have no control over. Life is short. Have a good time. Chances of you dying in a household accident is higher than dying in a nuclear attack. One thing for sure. You are going to die.

"Do you ever stop and ask, 'is it all going to happen again?'" As a the poet wrote after the Somme. We know it did and could yet again.

What is happening now with the people holed up in the Mariupol steel plant?

Absolute tear-jerker:

3 hours ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/23/women-and-children-beg-for-help-in-video-from-besieged-mariupol-steel-factory

I’ve been reading on various news sites that the steel plant is under siege today.