Will Russia invade Ukraine and what happens if it escalates with NATO/US getting involved

[anonguest]

Some  alternate thoughts on the topic of nukes entering the current situation....

I get the impression that most (all?) non-expert commenters on this matter always seem to assume that IF things ever 'go nuclear' then it is a given that major population centres will be deliberately targeted (e.g. London, Moscow, Paris, Washington, etc etc).

But is that really likely to be the case? Would that have even ever been the reality in the old Cold War?

The objective in any war, nuclear or not, is to destroy your opponents military infrastructure and not to kill the population or destroy the general infrastructure.  For sure some, usally mostly smaller, population centres would be at pretty high risk by virtue of their unfortunate proximity to significant defense facilities (e.g place hosting naval dockyards, command centres such as NATO facilities, etc).  But generally most cities/towns, especially smaller ones, host no military facilities of any significant importance and so presumably pose no threat to an enemy? For example; Norwich, Durham, Bath, etc.

Whilst early atomic arms race, in the first two decades after 1945, heavily focused in being ever bigger and more powerful megaton class bombs (and delivery by B-52's or such like) the greater scientific insight gained about the relative inefficiency of such atomic 'sledgehammers' and the advent of accurate intercontinental and cruise missiles mean that much smaller 'tactical' nukes can be delivered to military targets without having to annihilate 2 million nearby civilians.

So even places that ordinarily pose operational importance (e.g. central London and heart of government, etc) are unlikely to be 'brutally' targeted.  For two reasons; (1) all important 'players' and operations will surely have been evacuated to other clandestine locations?, and (2) even if after this precuationary measure if the enemy still felt the need to take out what infrastructure did remain it could do so with de facto accurate direct hits using small kiloton or even sub-kiloton class bomb - which would kill thousands yes, but not millions.

So, in effect, I take with a slight pinch of salt all those various easily internet searchable cold war era documents purporting to show strategic targets in the UK (or anywhere else) and the insinuation that population centres nearby would be de facto 'wiped out'.  Again, this does not mean to suggest there will not be any terrible destruction. There would be for sure destruction of a like no one has ever known. But I think (hope!) that in reality it would not result in as going back to the stone age.

There is, of course, one exception to the above 'thesis'.....

It assumes that one side does not target a major population centre, particularly if of no/low military value, specifically to evidently deliberately annihilate said population centre (e.g. dropping one or more 2+ megaton bombs on London, Manchester, etc).  In which case then, presumably, things would move to what I have read the Israelis refer to as the Samson Option - or what we have known as MAD.

Edited March 3, 2022 by anonguest

[Blobsy]

3 minutes ago, Roman Roady said:

Sleep well kids!

80s nostalgia for me. I had a dream about being vaporised last night, been a while.

[always about entropy]

2 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

Clearly a few posters here are getting a perverse kick out of discussing the globe being carpet-bombed by nukes. Can we keep it topical? There are fetish websites for that sort of extreme DBSM…

Putin and his cronies live lavish lives, they have families/children of their own,and they enjoy the power  and control they have. The notion that this will escalate to the pressing of red buttons is ludicrous at this stage. Particularly when governments including our own are being very careful with their words and making it clear they will not actively fight in this war.

Yes it was going a bit mad max, especially as they are still pumping gas to us.

Energy is far better strategic weapon at this stage and still hasn't been used. The energy taps will go off long before any of the nuke stuff.

[slawek]

In the spirit of a widespread panic about WW3, I've just bought a Geiger counter. I always wanted one now I have an excuse. 

[always about entropy]

8 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Some  alternate thoughts on the topic of nukes entering the current situation....

Whilst early atomic arms race, in the first two decades after 1945, heavily focused in being ever bigger and more powerful megaton class bombs (and delivery by B-52's or such like) the greater scientific insight gained about the relative inefficiency of such atomic 'sledgehammers' and the advent of accurate intercontinental and cruise missiles mean that much smaller 'tactical' nukes can be delivered to military targets without having to annihilate 2 million nearby civilians.

That very interesting.

[henry the king]

32 minutes ago, MancTom said:

Even if you survive, there will be no food or water given most of Europe will be destroyed.

Human beings are resiliant and intelligent creatures. It would be carnage but we might find enough food. For example, a lot of households will have enough canned food for many months.

[Staffsknot]

50 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That all makes sense, and seems the most plausible analysis of the situation, it's the mentally unstable element that leaves me worried, the effect of personal pride and humiliation.

That's why I thought I'd address this to you, we have disagreed on some things but at end of day I'd hate this to be doing a running dogs in your head trying to grapple with it - if this provides a bit of relief or support then it needs saying.

Warfare is dark and horrible business, its easy to get pulled down by what is happening. Lots of people filing vastly overstated What ifs doesn't help

Edited March 3, 2022 by Staffsknot

[Hectors House]

2 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Some  alternate thoughts on the topic of nukes entering the current situation....

I get the impression that most (all?) non-expert commenters on this matter always seem to assume that IF things ever 'go nuclear' then it is a given that major population centres will be targeted (e.g. London, Moscow, Paris, Washington, etc etc).

But is that really likely to be the case? Would that have even ever been the reality in the old Cold War?

The objective in any war, nuclear or not, is to destroy your opponents military infrastructure and not to kill the population or destroy the general infrastructure.  For sure some, usally mostly smaller, population centres would be at pretty high risk by virtue of their unfortunate proximity to significant defense facilities (e.g place hosting naval dockyards, command centres such as NATO facilities, etc).  But generally most cities/towns, especially smaller ones, host no military facilities of any significant importance and so presumably pose no threat to an enemy? For example; Norwich, Durham, Bath, etc.

Whilst early atomic arms race, in the first two decades after 1945, heavily focused in being ever bigger and more powerful megaton class bombs (and delivery by B-52's or such like) the greater scientific insight gained about the relative inefficiency of such atomic 'sledgehammers' and the advent of accurate intercontinental and cruise missiles mean that much smaller 'tactical' nukes can be delivered to military targets without having to annihilate 2 million nearby civilians.

So even places that ordinarily pose operational importance (e.g. central London and heart of government, etc) are unlikely to be 'brutally' targeted.  For two reasons; (1) all important 'players' and operations will surely have been evacuated to other clandestine locations?, and (2) even if after this precuationary measure if the enemy still felt the need to take out what infrastructure did remain it could do so with de facto accurate direct hits using small kiloton or even sub-kiloton class bomb - which would kill thousands yes, but not millions.

So, in effect, I take with a slight pinch of salt all those various easily internet searchable cold war era documents purporting to show strategic targets in the UK (or anywhere else) and the insinuation that population centres nearby would be de facto 'wiped out'.  Again, this does not mean to suggest there will not be any terrible destruction. There would be for sure destruction of a like no one has ever known. But I think (hope!) that in reality it would not result in as going back to the stone age.

There is, of course, one exception to the above 'thesis'.....

It assumes that one side does not target a major population centre, particularly if of no/low military value, specifically to evidently deliberately annihilate said population centre (e.g. dropping one or more 2+ megaton bombs on London, Manchester, etc).  In which case then, presumably, things would move to what I have read the Israelis refer to as the Samson Option - or what we have known as MAD.

Ex is a has been and a sprut is a drip under pressure! But anyway I was trained to do NBC Reporting in the Army.

The objective of a nuclear strike is to deny your enemy to fight back, So airports and aerodromes would be targetted to stop military aircraft whether that be fighters, bombers or transport aircraft to use them. Sea ports would be bombed to stop them being used to get reinforcements to the continent. barracks, military infrastructure would be taken out as part of the effort to degrade a military response. Central London and the City would most certainly be targeted, your would be cutting off the head of Government so they couldn't order further strikes. London would just be a big radioactive muddy lake. major rail and road infrustructure would be taken out. 

The British Goverment did have the Burlington bunker at Corsham but that was mothballed years ago and actually is in no fit state for a seat of Goverment to be used in event of a nuclear strike.

 

[FallingAwake]

1 hour ago, henry the king said:

I told you all last week that Russia can't actually win. I stand by that.

Just like we could never win in Afghanistan. Russian rulers will never be accepted in most of Ukraine. So Russia can "capture" the cities but it achieves nothing. Because the people will bring an insurgency that will never go away. 

You have people in here debating stupid military stuff. What actually matters is the people. They will never accept the Russians, especially after the war crimes, and they will constantly be armed from the west. So this insurgency isn't going anywhere.

Afghanistan 2.0 for the Russians. This one will bring down Putin. Hopefully before a Nuclear war.

Well, world powers keep fighting these wars, don't they?

Russia invaded Afghanistan (for what?), and so the USA financed the rebels who became Al Quaeda and Bin Laden, who then attacked America, which then attacked Afghanistan and later Iraq, and then 20 years later pulled out of Afghanistan in a shambles.

What was achieved? Lots of military sales and US debt. At what cost? Hundreds of thousands of lives, to clear out a problem they funded, and to hold some territory for a while.

And now the cycle begins again. This time, it's Russia's turn.

It's all a bit of a sh**show, isn't it? There are no "winners" here except the people who get rich off the back of it.

[pig]

3 minutes ago, always about entropy said:

Yes it was going a bit mad max, especially as they are still pumping gas to us.

Energy is far better strategic weapon at this stage and still hasn't been used. The energy taps will go off long before any of the nuke stuff.

It has -  the West are starting to turn the energy taps off already. Nordstream 2 gone, general policy volte face by the Germans.

Doesn't sound like anything much will be ready in months though, although it looks like Russia is headed toward economic meltdown however quickly the West stops buying energy from Russia.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe-denmark-germany-ukraine-frankfurt-b2027689.html

[anonguest]

Just now, Hectors House said:

he objective of a nuclear strike is to deny your enemy to fight back

Surely that is the objective of ANY war?  To deny your opponent the means to fight back.

Isn't that what Russia is doing right now?  Yes, civilians are being killed but they are tragic incidentals and not (so far as ee know) deliberate.

[petetong]

2 minutes ago, henry the king said:

Human beings are resiliant and intelligent creatures. It would be carnage but we might find enough food. For example, a lot of households will have enough canned food for many months.

Given the level of contamination I am not sure it would matter how resilient people were and even if you had enough tinned food to survive short term the nuclear winter would stop photosynthesis, meaning sod all food. A report by western and soviet scientists which was sent to Reagan and Gorbichev basically said the earth would be uninhabitable for humans:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

[Hectors House]

Just now, anonguest said:

Surely that is the objective of ANY war?  To deny your opponent the means to fight back.

Isn't that what Russia is doing right now?  Yes, civilians are being killed but they are tragic incidentals and not (so far as ee know) deliberate.

Even more so in a nuclear exchange! Russia cares not about civillians, have a Google for Grozny images from 1994

[Grayphil]

15 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Why not start one then and begin donating yourself? I’ve donated. I’m guessing you haven’t. 

I've been donating, and because Im on leave from my job for a couple of months, I've been volunteering at a food bank that's now trying to get stuff over to the Ukraine.

Its not a lot, but it's a start.

What is going on is more than disgraceful

[always about entropy]

2 minutes ago, pig said:

It has -  the West are starting to turn the energy taps off already. Nordstream 2 gone, general policy volte face by the Germans.

Doesn't sound like anything much will be ready in months though, although it looks like Russia is headed toward economic meltdown however quickly the West stops buying energy from Russia.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe-denmark-germany-ukraine-frankfurt-b2027689.html

We haven't turned any taps off as far as I can see and its not that easy for the worlds largest consumer of gas imports (EU block) to replace the worlds largest exporter of natural gas Russia CIS with a new supplier. 

[anonguest]

Just now, Hectors House said:

Ex is a has been and a sprut is a drip under pressure! But anyway I was trained to do NBC Reporting in the Army.

The objective of a nuclear strike is to deny your enemy to fight back, So airports and aerodromes would be targetted to stop military aircraft whether that be fighters, bombers or transport aircraft to use them. Sea ports would be bombed to stop them being used to get reinforcements to the continent. barracks, military infrastructure would be taken out as part of the effort to degrade a military response. Central London and the City would most certainly be targeted, your would be cutting off the head of Government so they couldn't order further strikes. London would just be a big radioactive muddy lake. major rail and road infrustructure would be taken out. 

 

I'm not saying that would not or could not happen, just that the likely targets (the Westminster/Whitehall 'complex') could be practically eliminated with a kiloton class bomb.  An enemy would not need to drop a bomb that would destroy everything as far out as Hampstead to the North or Croydon to the South, to achive the goal of cutting off the head of government, as you describe it.  Remember the vast majority of the Lodon population live outside of the centre

Just now, Hectors House said:

 

The British Goverment did have the Burlington bunker at Corsham but that was mothballed years ago and actually is in no fit state for a seat of Goverment to be used in event of a nuclear strike.

 

Any 'secret' facilities that you or I know about are not secret and the enemy will know of, and target, them.

I just wonder in fact if any of these so called secret and supposed wartime operation sites are in fact decoys and that there are truly secret sites which it is hoped the enemy does not know of

[pig]

3 minutes ago, always about entropy said:

We haven't turned any taps off as far as I can see and its not that easy for the worlds largest consumer of gas imports (EU block) to replace the worlds largest exporter of natural gas Russia CIS with a new supplier. 

No there is nothing easy about it, but as things stand it will have to be done.

[pig]

10 minutes ago, Hectors House said:

Even more so in a nuclear exchange! Russia cares not about civillians, have a Google for Grozny images from 1994

Russia cares enough about civilians for Putin to need to lie about and to them.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

8 minutes ago, Grayphil said:

I've been donating, and because Im on leave from my job for a couple of months, I've been volunteering at a food bank that's now trying to get stuff over to the Ukraine.

Its not a lot, but it's a start.

What is going on is more than disgraceful

We all need to do our bit. Thank you for your contributions. 👍

[always about entropy]

Just now, pig said:

No there is nothing easy about it, but as things stand it will have to be done.

Should already have been done but we don't have the backbone to take the economic hit.

[Riedquat]

27 minutes ago, slawek said:

In the spirit of a widespread panic about WW3, I've just bought a Geiger counter. I always wanted one now I have an excuse. 

Careful where you take it. I was at school in Plymouth, in one physics lesson carefully-handled and locked away samples were taken out and pointed at a Geiger counter. Ticked away a bit. Then a kid took a lump of granite out of his pocket that he'd picked up off Dartmoor. The counter shot up compared to the must-be-handled-with-care sample.

[Riedquat]

24 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

That's why I thought I'd address this to you, we have disagreed on some things but at end of day I'd hate this to be doing a running dogs in your head trying to grapple with it - if this provides a bit of relief or support then it needs saying.

Warfare is dark and horrible business, its easy to get pulled down by what is happening. Lots of people filing vastly overstated What ifs doesn't help

Cheers. I'd feel considerably less worried though if I thought everyone involved was rational!

Edited March 3, 2022 by Riedquat

[slawek]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

Careful where you take it. I was at school in Plymouth, in one physics lesson carefully-handled and locked away samples were taken out and pointed at a Geiger counter. Ticked away a bit. Then a kid took a lump of granite out of his pocket that he'd picked up off Dartmoor. The counter shot up compared to the must-be-handled-with-care sample.

That is why I always wanted it. Running around and checking everything.

[pig]

8 minutes ago, always about entropy said:

Should already have been done but we don't have the backbone to take the economic hit.

? Take a look at recent news. Its starting to happen already.

Its the London laundromat and the Russia report thats the problem at the moment.

[Hectors House]

28 minutes ago, pig said:

Russia cares enough about civilians for Putin to need to lie about and to them.

I meant ours not his!

Edited March 3, 2022 by Hectors House
typo