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

US, France, U.K, Give Ukraine Permission to Use Their Long Range Weapons to Strike Deep Within Russia

When was the last launch? Quite a while ago. Lots of time to make improvements, or receive advanced tech. “Sure we will send our troops to fight for Russia, but we want missiles to defend against the west.” You’d have to be a fool to think that deal didn’t happen, man.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/asia...ssile-test-south-korea-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
5 months. And sorry but I really doubt Russia is going to be able to outfit NK with their own missiles on par with Russia's. And even if they did Russian missiles have proven to be extremely ineffective compared to US AD and countermeasures. This is not a tangible threat you are proposing IMHO.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/asia...ssile-test-south-korea-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
5 months. And sorry but I really doubt Russia is going to be able to outfit NK with their own missiles on par with Russia's. And even if they did Russian missiles have proven to be extremely ineffective compared to US AD and countermeasures. This is not a tangible threat you are proposing IMHO.
You are both bringing up valid points. One comment I will toss in is that underestimating an enemy is the absolute worst strategic error one can make. Assuming they can't or won't try is not a good idea.
 
Yeah exactly, he could just order it at any time. Without any reason what so ever, he is a dictator.
I still believe he did in fact actually order something back in 2022 but we got out ahead of it and stopped it in its tracks. We allowed Ukraine to sink the Russian flagship because it was carrying nukes that could be launched with little to no warning.
 
You are both bringing up valid points. One comment I will toss in is that underestimating an enemy is the absolute worst strategic error one can make. Assuming they can't or won't try is not a good idea.
If it was anyone but NK I would be concerned.
 
You are both bringing up valid points. One comment I will toss in is that underestimating an enemy is the absolute worst strategic error one can make. Assuming they can't or won't try is not a good idea.
A nation makes reasoned choices in confronting and enemy. Nukes and ballistic delivery of them creates a situation where a nations flanks or homes are always at risk.
They are always an exponential escalation. And it is in that exponential escalation that it is relayed upon as a mutual deterrence.

Russia has in launching a conventional war upon a neighbor who is not nuclear but willing to fight back to great lengths. Russia has in subsequently and repeated threats to escalate with a nuclear attack. They have completely disregarded the mutual deterrence doctrine. Trying to use the threat of nuke as a crowbar in a conventional conflict.

It’s utter bullshit and they do need confronted and defeated in this instance. Becaue if not this tactic will be used again.
 
they do need confronted and defeated in this instance. Becaue if not this tactic will be used again.
Maybe not a full "defeat" per say. At the very least, they need to understand that nuclear blackmail won't work. Are there ways to arrive at that conclusion without a destabilizing defeat?
 
All of this sounds great, but what happens when NK troops start getting killed? The NK’s were a brilliant move by Putin tactically. Another angle to consider is a few months back Putin gave NK the missile technology to hit DC from the Korean Peninsula. Putin then asked for NK troops on the ground in Ukraine.

The West is now bombing deep inside Russia with top tier weaponry, and the current chatter is that NK troops were killed. It’s possible that Putin is counting on NK firing their new long range precision missile into CONUS. The USA attacks NK instead of Russia, and WW3 begins.

North Korea are the useful idiots on the battlefield now. I think this is a viable strategy unfortunately.
DRPK troops dying mean nothing
This is and has always been Putin shit on all established doctrine and agreements regarding nukes
By threatening to use nukes against a non nuclear nation. Why Becaue their attempts to quickly invade a sovereign state fell flat on its face.
So what the hell we’ll use the threat of nukes for force them to capitulate.
Rinsed and repeated now several times already.

Your point that they might actually do it has from the beginning been correct. Putin at anytime could lobe one over the boarder of Ukraine or Poland.
It’s a new world welcome to it.
Now what the hell are we supposed to do with this issue. Run and hide with our ____ between our legs crying we’re sorry don’t shoot.
FFS it has been a serious power conflict between nato and Russia since 2014 and escalated in feb of 2022.
Even if the risk of something is higher there is no winning path out now but victory or defeat.
The consequences of either are already backed in the cake.
If your that concerned maybe nows the appropriate time for you to adjust your life to the risk.
That’s all any of us can do individually in times like this.
 
Maybe not a full "defeat" per say. At the very least, they need to understand that nuclear blackmail won't work. Are there ways to arrive at that conclusion without a destabilizing defeat?
By that I meant a capitulation of Russian forces inside Ukraine or some agreed upon new Ukrainian boarders.
What those are or will be are beyond our influence here. The ATICAMS are just bandaids. It will require a sound conventional military defeat of Russian forces inside Ukraine.
This is what happens when you decide to play in a war and have no sound path to victory save throwing weapons or money at it. It’s bullshit and now it’s going to take nato blood to end it. Ukraine was able and has fought well to repel Russia but they do not have the man power or organized command of man air armor and artillery to create decisive victory.
The longer we wait the more that will die.
I don’t like it. It’s a Fing mess but either do it or cut Ukraine off and let them bleed to death.
 
You are both bringing up valid points. One comment I will toss in is that underestimating an enemy is the absolute worst strategic error one can make. Assuming they can't or won't try is not a good idea.
We have seen WAY too many firsts and have had WAY too many things that weren’t on our bingo card come to fruition this year… I have a weird feeling this next couple months are gonna be filled with lots of firsts…

The other thing we need to consider, that a lame duck administration may be either trying to sabotage the incoming administration, or the incoming administration gave the current administration the go ahead to squeeze in what it can.
 
We have seen WAY too many firsts and have had WAY too many things that weren’t on our bingo card come to fruition this year… I have a weird feeling this next couple months are gonna be filled with lots of firsts…

The other thing we need to consider, that a lame duck administration may be either trying to sabotage the incoming administration, or the incoming administration gave the current administration the go ahead to squeeze in what it can.
Way too many firsts in the context of modern warfare. Especially from a direct superpower. On face value its terrifying however I dunno how to be terrified when a country that wants to expand its front yard but the endgame is using nukes? Dosent make sense.
 
We have seen WAY too many firsts and have had WAY too many things that weren’t on our bingo card come to fruition this year… I have a weird feeling this next couple months are gonna be filled with lots of firsts…

The other thing we need to consider, that a lame duck administration may be either trying to sabotage the incoming administration, or the incoming administration gave the current administration the go ahead to squeeze in what it can.
I think more times than not it’s not some grand plan but incompetence that sets nations actions. Seem to have seen a lot of that.

In 2021 we were incompetent or simply inattentive to the developing situation between Russia and Ukraine.
Was it a misstep or incompetence that led Putin to believe he could take Ukraine by force with little actual response by nato.

Most political leaders sadly do not focus their attention or focus on strategic foreign affairs. They’re focused on reelection or maintain their control of power. Thus they are either ignoring important signals or they don’t regard them as personally important to them.

Too few leaders today actually regard themselves as proponents or defenders of their nation. It’s just a job they do not a cause
 
World War 3 can still be a conventional war, contrary to popular belief.
Notice how I said endgame? You're not wrong but it's going to end as a nuclear stalemate or hellfire. There's no other conclusion to that and they all know that that's why they're trying hard to not make it so. Putin can believe that he can toss a nuke but his advisors and other powerful friends might not see eye to eye on that. Last time someone try to shake things up that badly he got a lead trim on his head in Dallas.
 
Notice how I said endgame? You're not wrong but it's going to end as a nuclear stalemate or hellfire. There's no other conclusion to that and they all know that that's why they're trying hard to not make it so. Putin can believe that he can toss a nuke but his advisors and other powerful friends might not see eye to eye on that. Last time someone try to shake things up that badly he got a lead trim on his head in Dallas.
The only way I see Putin using a nuclear weapon, is in an escalate to de-escalate strategy. Putin is absolutely capable of that. The problem is, the west keeps edging him closer and closer to that threshold.

Up until now, we thought that threshold was long range strikes into Russia. That has now happened, and we are still green. For how long however remains to be seen.
 
The only way I see Putin using a nuclear weapon, is in an escalate to de-escalate strategy. Putin is absolutely capable of that. The problem is, the west keeps edging him closer and closer to that threshold.

Up until now, we thought that threshold was long range strikes into Russia. That has now happened, and we are still green. For how long however remains to be seen.
Do we have a scenario where escalation to descalation actually avoided total war? I can’t think of any off hand.
 
Do we have a scenario where escalation to descalation actually avoided total war? I can’t think of any off hand.
Well this kind of is a peculiar doctrine to nuclear weapons so obviously no.

But conventionally there have been instances I believe.
But even there as well the strategic plan to hit early and hard is not a sure plan for victory. ie Pearl Harbor was a catastrophe for Japan.
 
Up until now, we thought that threshold was long range strikes into Russia. That has now happened, and we are still green. For how long however remains to be seen.
I have seen this site in blue and yellow before now and not bee overly worried. I suspect that if it changes again I will take it more seriously - certainly so if Russia related.
 
The Vienna convention basically made it sovereign soil for all intents and purposes. An attack on an embassy is an attack on that nation itself.
The Vienna convention basically made it sovereign soil for all intents and purposes. An attack on an embassy is an attack on that nation itself.

Embassies are not sovereign soil. Common misconception.

The embassy is the hosted country’s property and the hosted country is responsible for enforcing laws within (and effectively) the grounds. However the land is the hosting countries.

It very similar to landowner leasing a lot for a movable such as an RV, Camper or Mobile Home (here after referred to as Tornado magnet)

My 2¢ YMMV

Also you both are correct. I sense a group hug coming…..


Addendum: Well crap. Looks like I missed two full pages of replies on my iPhone. Obviously the subject has been clarified and we have moved on completely.

I am quite embarrassed 😳

Just going to lurk here for a while….
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom