Will Russia's military invasion of Ukraine include a nuclear disaster?
- Thread starter titan
- Start date
mark mywords
Active member
Not so unusual, a friend of my son who is in the TA (similar to national guard) was posted to Iraq about 20 years ago and took a box of tampons with him for the same purpose
Borg Refinery
Active member
Putin is the biggest threat right now and needs to go, but plenty of other aligned politicians also need to go; Modi, Bolsonaro, Xi, Kim Jong Un etc - they're all incredibly dangerous to the rest of the world.
I did leave out Trump because he's never gone as far as those others, well, if you ignore the coup attempt.
I did leave out Trump because he's never gone as far as those others, well, if you ignore the coup attempt.
Borg Refinery
Active member
Why do we help anyone?
Why do we send foreign aid to any countries?
Why do we help our neighbours?
Why are we empathic?
Etc
I'd like to add Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. A few days ago MbS was named the kingdom’s prime minister. He's the one who ordered journalist Jamal Khashoggi hacked to pieces.
Your humanitarianism is praiseworthy Oran. But of all the bad guys, Putin included, Putin is the only one of them that's explicitly threatened nuclear war.
We can't rule out the obvious. But part of the explanation may be what's known in psychology as "mirroring", to do what we would wish to be done if the roles were reversed. It basically helps keep the peace.
mark mywords
Active member
Isnt the entire purpose of nuclear weapons the implicit threat, making the implicit explicit is hardly a huge step
Note not only is the US the only country to ever use nuclear weapons (and against a country already on the verge of surrender) it also threatened to use them against USSR in 1962 and at least some historians claim that the US had planned to use them against Germany towards the end of the war against Germany
So whilst compiling a list of the bad and the mad shouldnt Putin come lower than several US presidents?
Rhetorically you may say so. Reality is more complex.
a) History: I don't recall the U.S. offering Japan much warning before nuking Hiroshima. And I've long perceived the warning for nuking Nagasaki was nuking Hiroshima.
b) Israeli's nuclear weapons don't match that standard either.
I disagree. I think even if unspoken, or informal, the standard that's prevailed my entire life (born '54) is that responsible sovereign nations can have nuclear weapons, BUT !! the only legitimate use of them is non-First Use, meaning only for retaliation to a nuclear attack. M.A.D.
This Rubicon Putin's fancy-footing to cross is precisely not merely a "huge step" but possibly unprecedented even as a threat. I don't recall a similar predecessor in history. Who? When? Where? Why?
Nope m #49, there's no shade of lipstick you can slap on this pig that'll make him pretty.
Putin erred.
He's desperate. His desperation has pressed him to the extreme.
"Shoulda woulda coulda"
I'll try to confine my perspective to be based on fact, not fiction. Doesn't mean Putin's the only naughty one in history. He's the only naughty one on the newspaper's front page, at the moment.
mark mywords
Active member
that was a different age America had nuclear weapons Japan didnt.
The purpose of the attack was not to bring japan to its knees and prompt surrender Japan was already on its knees and close to surrender.
The purpose of the attack was to field test weapons in an actual city, its one thing detonating a device on top of a tower in the middle of a desert its quite another dropping one from an aircraft over an actual city. The former suggests what might be possible the latter proves what is possible and it was done to a world audience Russia was very definitely watching and the implicit threat was quite clear
Why do you think the first attack was an "A" bomb and the other an "H" bomb?
Why attack Hiroshima a city previously spared intensive bombing and was basically intact (bombing an already flattened city doesnt tell you nearly as much)
Since the 1960s the entire purpose of nuclear weapons was "if you try and destroy us we will destroy you back" (mutually assured destruction)
Rampage
Member
The U.S. tightened the noose around Japan's neck methodically, one Pacific island after another. Japan had been fighting these numerous battles "to the death". There were even reports of Japanese civilians committing suicide rather than being captured or conquered.
Some military estimates that to complete the victory against Japan by ground combat might take as many as 14 divisions. Based on the attrition rates to that point, the cost victory in Japan (V-J) would have been horrendous, a bloodbath.
By those and similar estimates, though undeniably horrific, some military historians have claimed nuking Japan actually saved lives, by rendering the deployment of those 14 military divisions unnecessary.
The Allied requirement of Japan, "unconditional surrender", rather than negotiating terms. You say Japan was already on its knees and close to surrender. Even if so that hadn't changed its fight to the death combat style.
sear in the Middle East there's an expression "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Israel in recent history was reportedly surrounded by hostile neighbors. Then Sadat, Begin, & Carter created an agreement between Egypt and Israel that has proved durable.
While socially other Israeli neighbors may bluster so as not to appear treacherous, Israel can serve a useful role as when Israel attacked and destroyed Saddam's Osirak nuclear infrastructure in 1981. Israel's Arab neighbors didn't want a nuclear capable Saddam any more than Israel did. Those Arab neighbors may not have publicly cheered Israel for the service. But they probably benefitted from it, and they knew it.
Doesn't change my attitude about Putin, who has a wound between his lips that desperately needs an entire box of tampons. Rampage
I quote the post of Rampage because it seems to fit the bill.
However I view what has happened in the Ukraine as a "action from the past". Having survived the Second World War, which to me is as near as dam it mirrors a re-run of what's happened over the last few months to Ukraine. The main difference in what happened near 80 yrs. ago, being is the possible threat by Putin of the use of Nuclear weapons which at the time Hitler never had.
Putin's planning started some years ago, his aim being making Westen Europe dependent on his Gas and Oil, which the leaders of Europe fell for. Then Putin's invasion of the Crimea, which gave him to believe the Europeans "would never dare", set the Scene. So his "so called Warrior mind" acted.
How the West will overcome this "Battle with a mental "will never be defeated soul" is hard to predict, it all depends if we have those in leadership of the West will take a gamble and call Putin's Bluff.
I quote the post of Rampage because it seems to fit the bill.
However I view what has happened in the Ukraine as a "action from the past". Having survived the Second World War, which to me is as near as dam it mirrors a re-run of what's happened over the last few months to Ukraine. The main difference in what happened near 80 yrs. ago, being is the possible threat by Putin of the use of Nuclear weapons which at the time Hitler never had.
Putin's planning started some years ago, his aim being making Westen Europe dependent on his Gas and Oil, which the leaders of Europe fell for. Then Putin's invasion of the Crimea, which gave him to believe the Europeans "would never dare", set the Scene. So his "so called Warrior mind" acted.
How the West will overcome this "Battle with a mental "will never be defeated soul" is hard to predict, it all depends if we have those in leadership of the West will take a gamble and call Putin's Bluff.
Rampage
nuking civilians saves lives? Might seem implausible. But considering the attrition rates of the Pacific island battles, it may just be. Still a war crime though.
Wolf
When the only problem solving tool available is a hammer, problems may tend to look more like nails. Your perspective from world war two provides the context. Sadly, that's about how it got this way. Not much help in what to do to end it. The Russian people may be paying the price.
nuking civilians saves lives? Might seem implausible. But considering the attrition rates of the Pacific island battles, it may just be. Still a war crime though.
Wolf
When the only problem solving tool available is a hammer, problems may tend to look more like nails. Your perspective from world war two provides the context. Sadly, that's about how it got this way. Not much help in what to do to end it. The Russian people may be paying the price.
mark mywords
Active member
Whilst all of that (and the rest of your post ) is true what finished the war for Japan was Russia and the imminent threat of Russia attacking Japan, of course America likes to take the credit (just as many Americans like to take the credit for defeating Hitler) but in both cases it was the actions of Russia that were decisive
m #55
I should probably apologize in advance for turning my soapbox into a pulpit. It's human nature for suspicion and derision to waft like fog instead of pinpoint like a laser beam. Cold War disdain seems to have lead youngsters to believe Russia, the Soviets, Stalin were as much a U.S. enemy in WWII as afterward.
- surprise -
Also perhaps unnoticed by those that don't know, FDR couldn't walk, needed braces to stand. By "gentleman's" standards within the press and beyond, they knew, but helped keep FDR's secret.
I should probably apologize in advance for turning my soapbox into a pulpit. It's human nature for suspicion and derision to waft like fog instead of pinpoint like a laser beam. Cold War disdain seems to have lead youngsters to believe Russia, the Soviets, Stalin were as much a U.S. enemy in WWII as afterward.
- surprise -
Also perhaps unnoticed by those that don't know, FDR couldn't walk, needed braces to stand. By "gentleman's" standards within the press and beyond, they knew, but helped keep FDR's secret.
Rampage
Member
This is a lame proposal. If it's the best Musk can do he should stick to rocket science.
If instead Musk (a Ukraine sympathizer) is chumming the waters, introducing the thin edge of the wedge of peace negotiation with something that appeals to Russia, it may be worth pursuing. First get Russia to the negotiating table. Then tighten the noose.
mark, you're right that history books written in the West seem to downplay Russia's contribution to the Allied effort during World War II. It seems a slight, a weak insult. The historic accounts I read reported it was Russians that found Hitler's Berlin bunker.
As you know that Allied cooperation was a marriage of convenience. The U.S. was quick to cull the gems from defeated Germany. And Werner von Braun, cedited with the V1 & V2 rockets, later helped the U.S. both close the "missile gap", and put men on the moon.
R #57
I was contemplating the potential of a carefully planned, carefully choreographed summit between Russia & Ukraine. The challenge there is to find a face-saving exit for Putin. That might be something as trivial as heralding the bravery of the Russian invaders. Or it might take something more, like a bidding priority when product generated in such regions reach the international market.
I credit Musk for getting the ball rolling, thinking outside the box. But he hasn't even warmed up yet. Right direction, but a long way to go.
What I'd like to see here is and end so decisive that it discourages future adventures, putting a practical end to war in Eurasia. I'd also like a pony, and a rocket ship with a swimming pool.
I was contemplating the potential of a carefully planned, carefully choreographed summit between Russia & Ukraine. The challenge there is to find a face-saving exit for Putin. That might be something as trivial as heralding the bravery of the Russian invaders. Or it might take something more, like a bidding priority when product generated in such regions reach the international market.
I credit Musk for getting the ball rolling, thinking outside the box. But he hasn't even warmed up yet. Right direction, but a long way to go.
What I'd like to see here is and end so decisive that it discourages future adventures, putting a practical end to war in Eurasia. I'd also like a pony, and a rocket ship with a swimming pool.
U.N. Nuclear Agency Pushes for Safety Zone Around Ukraine's Largest Nuclear Plant
The Wall Street JournalUkraine War Updates: Russia Missile Strikes in Zaporizhzhia Kill At Least 1
The New York TimesUkraine leader says Putin wouldn't survive nuclear attack
ABC NewsThe obvious irony here is Putin explicitly asserted that his nuclear weapons threats should be taken seriously.
These 3 separate sources (take your choice) indicate Putin's threats are indeed being taken seriously.
Thinking a few steps ahead:
efforts are already being made to limit nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. That's what the Obama administration's seven nation Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, and US.
President Trump blustered that this agreement wasn't worth adhering to, Trump withdrew the U.S., implying Trump would replace it with a superior agreement. That never happened.
Meanwhile North Korea is again threatening its neighbors recently reportedly sending a missile to Japan. Too late to strangle that nuclear baby in the crib?