• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Biden Warns Possibility of Russian Tactical Nuke Use

jack said:
They take a mile to protect the inch with defense in depth. It's why they created the Warsaw Pact and put communist governments in charge in Eastern Europe
Click to expand...

Not to wander too far from the thread topic, but I was commenting more on the behavior of aggressive leaders (Hitler, Putin) and less on the rationale behind the Warsaw Pact and USSR defense strategy.
  • I wholeheartedly agree that the USSR approach to shield the motherland by putting as much distance (or buffer) as possible between the USSR and western Europe was driven in part by a deep fear of sneak attack from the west.
  • On aggressive leaders - they generally won't stop unless someone acts. I argue that Hitler continued his aggression in Europe because no one stood up militarily to Germany in its early moves. For example, in 1936, Hitler militarized the Rhineland in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. If someone spanked the Austrian corporal then, would things have turned out differently? Granted France and England lacked the will power (and arguably man power) then to stand in Hitler's way. But no one stood up to challenge Hitler's assumption that the west was cowardly, decadent and complacent. So why not roll forward?
Fast forward to today - An aggressive country (RU) probably believing the west would not act invaded a smaller country (UA). Granted this is an oversimplification. The leader of the aggressive country had repeatedly made statements about creating a "greater Russia" (of sorts). Sound familiar? But standing up to Putin at least demonstrates that we are not who we were in 1936.

Here is my feeble attempt to keep this on topic - if there are any parallels between aggressive leaders of the past and Putin's current action, how would that aggressive leader behave with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal? Does Biden's warning carry any more weight given a past analysis of aggressive leaders?
 
Socom7 said:
Biden says the threat of Russia using tactical nukes in the Ukraine conflict is real.

"When I was out here about two years ago saying I worried about the Colorado river drying up, everybody looked at me like I was crazy," Biden told a group of donors in California on Monday. "They looked at me like when I said I worry about Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. It's real," Biden said.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden...-tactical-nuclear-weapons-is-real-2023-06-20/
Click to expand...
Well of course it’s real, that is why we helped Ukraine sink their flag ship. Did we ever recover those broken arrows? Asking for a friend.
 
TruthandJustice said:
Well of course it’s real, that is why we helped Ukraine sink their flag ship. Did we ever recover those broken arrows? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
I am speculating a little but I just don’t see the US taking such a drastic step unless they felt something bad was imminent. I would have done the same thing. Nip it in the bud before it happens.
 
Last edited:
william said:
What is our policy if a nuke is used in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
The US has not come right out and said what they would do. But their response has indicated that a nuclear strike by Russia will not necessarily result in a nuclear response.

ZedBoy said:
I'm not saying we nuke them: no. I'm saying if it's going to happen just let it happen already.
Click to expand...
Put up or shut up, right? I actually get what you mean. If it's going to happen, get it over with. The stress of anticipation is sometimes worse than the actual event.

Silent said:
Ukraine is losing war
Click to expand...
You have a strange concept of "losing".
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The US has not come right out and said what they would do. But their response has indicated that a nuclear strike by Russia will not necessarily result in a nuclear response.


Put up or shut up, right? I actually get what you mean. If it's going to happen, get it over with. The stress of anticipation is sometimes worse than the actual event.


You have a strange concept of "losing".
Click to expand...
I honestly think most of it's just a ploy because if you nuke what you want you can't have it. If the CMC (Cuban Mis crisis) didn't cause it I really want to know what the last straw is? Even that one guy (Who saved the world) he stopped a launch that looked like it was coming towards them. (honestly I think he made calls and had moles and didn't work off direct knowledge).
 
ZedBoy said:
I honestly think most of it's just a ploy because if you nuke what you want you can't have it.
Click to expand...
Russia doesn't "want" Ukraine. They just don't want the West to have it.

The only part of Ukraine Russia wants is Crimea.

ZedBoy said:
If the CMC (Cuban Mis crisis) didn't cause it I really want to know what the last straw is?
Click to expand...
CMC would have done it if the US didn't promise to pull those Jupiter 2 missiles out of Turkey.

ZedBoy said:
Even that one guy (Who saved the world) he stopped a launch that looked like it was coming towards them. (honestly I think he made calls and had moles and didn't work off direct knowledge).
Click to expand...
He refused to launch because he reasoned (accurately) that if the US was going to do a first strike, it wouldn't be with just one or two missiles which is what the radar was reporting.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Russia doesn't "want" Ukraine. They just don't want the West to have it.

The only part of Ukraine Russia wants is Crimea.


CMC would have done it if the US didn't promise to pull those Jupiter 2 missiles out of Turkey.


He refused to launch because he reasoned (accurately) that if the US was going to do a first strike, it wouldn't be with just one or two missiles which is what the radar was reporting.
Click to expand...
I mean what made the Jupiters so scary to the USSR and why don't we typically report it in our history books: Almost every school history book I've picked up doesn't talk about the missiles we traded off (I learned about it from the history channel).
 
ZedBoy said:
I mean what made the Jupiters so scary to the USSR
Click to expand...
They were scary because they were close.
ZedBoy said:
and why don't we typically report it in our history books: Almost every school history book I've picked up doesn't talk about the missiles we traded off (I learned about it from the history channel).
Click to expand...
Yeah. History books make it look like the USSR capitulated. They didn't. The US did. The world should be glad that Khrushchev was willing to eat crow and let everyone think that the USSR was the one who backed down.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
They were scary because they were close.

Yeah. History books make it look like the USSR capitulated. They didn't. The US did. The world should be glad that Khrushchev was willing to eat crow and let everyone think that the USSR was the one who backed down.
Click to expand...
I suggest watching and comparing and contrasting 2 movies on this subject: the missiles of October and thirteen days. While dramatizations, they were made at different times. Thirteen days mentions the Jupiter missiles. Missiles of October does not.
* If I remember correctly...
 
If a nuke is used in Ukraine. The US would probably hit several key military installations just inside Russias boarder. As well as send aircraft in for close air support.
The Kerch bridge to Crimea and the harbor at Sevastopol. Also the isthmus connecting Crimea to Ukraine would see its roads destroyed.
At the same time the Defcon level would raise (probably to 3) and strategic forces would go on heightened alert with strategic bombers airborne.

DWS is correct Biden is old school and bellicose.

All the while the US would be saying so what we destroyed your key military and transportation hubs suppling troops in Ukraine.
You used a nuke, you crossed a 70 year old red line. Is this really worth it to you?

I’m not necessarily advocating this path.
Just an observation.

All that said this is factored in by Putin’s advisors (if he has any left). And I still maintain it won’t happen.
 
All I'm saying is the US should have a clear cut policy on our response to a nuclear weapon being used in combat. All I hear right now is we might do this, or we might do that. I guess that could be a policy. You know keep them guessing although you are really playing with fire when you do that. "Imagine" a functioning UN where all the nuclear powers got together to sign a treaty that said that any country that used a nuclear weapon in combat would be immediately vaporized by all the other nuclear powers. I know, I know dream on. That would never happen because of the fallout drifting into non combative countries.
 
william said:
All I'm saying is the US should have a clear cut policy on our response to a nuclear weapon being used in combat. All I hear right now is we might do this, or we might do that. I guess that could be a policy. You know keep them guessing although you are really playing with fire when you do that. "Imagine" a functioning UN where all the nuclear powers got together to sign a treaty that said that any country that used a nuclear weapon in combat would be immediately vaporized by all the other nuclear powers. I know, I know dream on. That would never happen because of the fallout drifting into non combative countries.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that we do not know what is being said behind doors by military, State Dept and IC community.
What they are letting Biden say publicly is just a shadow of what’s being communicated privately.

Personally I don’t believe we will know what was said behind closed doors for a decade or more.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Russia doesn't "want" Ukraine. They just don't want the West to have it.

The only part of Ukraine Russia wants is Crimea.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more strongly. There's nothing Russia has done that would remotely suggest they would be appeased if allowed to keep just Crimea. Russia has outright annexed four additional regions of Ukraine, and Russian propagandists loudly advocate for annexing further regions, while senior members of the Russian government fantasize about holding military parades in Kyiv. Putin himself has said that Ukrainians and Russians are "practically one people".
 
Socom7 said:
I couldn't disagree more strongly. There's nothing Russia has done that would remotely suggest they would be appeased if allowed to keep just Crimea. Russia has outright annexed four additional regions of Ukraine, and Russian propagandists loudly advocate for annexing further regions, while senior members of the Russian government fantasize about holding military parades in Kyiv. Putin himself has said that Ukrainians and Russians are "practically one people".
Click to expand...
They want the land continuity all the way to Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, and Moldovan boarders.
It’s as much psychological as strategic.
 
OReid said:
They want the land continuity all the way to Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, and Moldovan boarders.
It’s as much psychological as strategic.
Click to expand...
That would be their semi-avowed goal for the time being, but of course it doesn't stop there. If they conquer Ukraine, they will want Poland. Then Germany. And so on.

Realistically speaking, however, I do not currently see a scenario where Russia conquers all of Ukraine without triggering a wider war with NATO. If the Ukrainian army collapses, expect several European countries - for which continued Russian expansion is an existential threat - to outright send troops into UA. This could, and probably will, precipitate a wider war. The Kremlin appears to be aware of this "problem" given their inconsistent messaging. Some propagandists and also people like Medvedev state that Ukraine will eventually be partitioned, with the western regions going to Poland and Hungary, and Russia taking over the rest (possibly leaving a rump Ukrainian state in the center). Notably, they can't seem to make up their mind whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps they think that this is something around which a peace agreement could be framed - but there are strong undertones of "this is only temporary until we rebuild our army, then we'll march further west".

I'm afraid that at some point this will inevitably lead to a game of nuclear chicken, with unpredictable results. It doesn't look like Russia will truly stop at anything short of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom