World War III Updates

[Boomer6]

You old bastards know if you decide you want to add something to your post, you can just edit the post, instead of making 6-9 in a row...?

FFS.

[FourFans]

Interesting thought experiment I came across: What do we do if Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and they don't work?  We now know that a large section of China's rocket forces are inop due to corruption.  It stands to reason that Russia's might be suffering the same fate.  How do you think we'd respond to that?

[Lawman]

Interesting thought experiment I came across: What do we do if Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and they don't work?  We now know that a large section of China's rocket forces are inop due to corruption.  It stands to reason that Russia's might be suffering the same fate.  How do you think we'd respond to that?

What gets real crazy is when you start thinking about deconfliction of launch path/sequencing, detonation of missiles and effects on the rest of the group, or orbit tracks in a full exchange.

It’s not like we sat down with the Russians and said “ok all our ICBMs will TOT using these flight paths, and yours can use these ones…

The math involved into that with static ICBMs would be hard enough. Start throwing train mounted or road mobile systems into the mix… the convergence necessary to accurately sequence a full on nuclear first strike would be insanely high bar to hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swizzle]

8 hours ago, Lawman said:

What gets real crazy is when you start thinking about deconfliction of launch path/sequencin...

Meh, Big Sky/Space theory...what could go wrong!?

(/s) Also, do TBMs or ICBMs have ADS-B out? Or just in? Or not supposed to at all but it got included because that military didn't pay to remove that feature? (/s)

[brabus]

8 hours ago, FourFans said:

How do you think we'd respond to that?

Don’t. (Yeah, that should do it…)

[BashiChuni]

don't

[Lord Ratner]

18 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

Meh, Big Sky/Space theory...what could go wrong!?

(/s) Also, do TBMs or ICBMs have ADS-B out? Or just in? Or not supposed to at all but it got included because that military didn't pay to remove that feature? (/s)

"ICBM69, Miami center, leaving my airspace, change squawk now 3422 and contact Jacksonville center on 132.2."

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Don’t.

Oh, I know how I WANT us to respond.  Respond with rational and reasoned thought and applying common sense while still holding out enemies accountable for their actions.   But that's NOT how we've been acting.  I'm curious about the most likely action our current leadership would actually take.  It could get kinda interesting when you consider that those making recommendations to NCA are probably argyle wearing academics who have never had their lives placed in any form of peril.  Put those people on the receiving end of a suspected nuclear launch and I'd be surprised if they make totally rational inputs.  Beyond that, I highly doubt Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to make a good snap decision in such a case.  Hence the question: What would we actually do?

[fire4effect]

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com)

Actually makes a great point.

[BashiChuni]

because ukraine has NEVER been a US national security concern. we have never and will never care about ukraine.

it's apples to oranges.

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com)

Actually makes a great point.

Easy—Israel is a much stronger ally than Ukraine, especially considering both regions.  Also, we’re much more concerned about pissing Russia off (even more) than we are with Iran.  Not to mention the politics here in the US involved with supporting Israel over the years.  Oh and the regions are different as well in terms of US priorities, but I think I kind of mentioned that already.  
 

But to be fair, I don’t think we should actively get involved with either.

[fire4effect]

8 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

because ukraine has NEVER been a US national security concern. we have never and will never care about ukraine.

it's apples to oranges.

I would counter that was the thought in the 1930s with Germany. Hitler just wanted a little more territory and he would be good. I have little doubt had Putin been in power in the 1930s-40s he would have been just as bad. 

What line is too far?

I'm still as pissed as many over the Charlie Foxtrot that was/is Afghanistan but at least Ukraine is willing to fight.

[BashiChuni]

im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons.

putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.

[HeloDude]

25 minutes ago, fire4effect said:

I would counter that was the thought in the 1930s with Germany. Hitler just wanted a little more territory and he would be good. I have little doubt had Putin been in power in the 1930s-40s he would have been just as bad. 

What line is too far?

I'm still as pissed as many over the Charlie Foxtrot that was/is Afghanistan but at least Ukraine is willing to fight.

There’s a massive difference between Chamberlain telling Hitler that the UK is fine Germany taking additional territory in 1930s and the west condemning Russia for invading Ukraine but not wanting to give them an endless supply of resources. 
 

Appeasement is not the same as spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have to support a country halfway around the world.

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons.

putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.

Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe...

Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."

[fire4effect]

I guess we can agree to disagree on this but one of the worse things is to suddenly find out a military prediction is wrong because by then it's usually too late. 

As an example, I admit Hamas hitting Israel like they did was something I would have never seen coming in a million years. I'm still dumfounded Israel could get caught that flat footed. 

[Chuck17]

Perhaps the real win in all this was watching AMC tell USTC to KIO when it came to Bravo alerts…

Chuck

 

[tac airlifter]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:15 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well.  

What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them.

I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion. 

Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please. 

We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success. 

Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End. 

Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox:

If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs. 

Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Good reply, thank you for writing it out.  I'll reply in kind when able if you're still interested, but it won't be for a bit.  More than once here I've gotten a thoughtful reply, but lamentably have been too busy to respond in a worthy fashion.  🥃

[gearhog]

On 4/17/2024 at 11:58 PM, busdriver said:

At the end of the day, yes.  They aren't NATO.  This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process.

This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up.  This war will be fought economically.  Hopefully.

I really really hope.  Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb.  Sending more money/equipment is par for the course.  

Also Moldovia is fucked too.

Perhaps you're right, the war will be fought economically. If one wanted to slowly weaken, bleed, and defeat Russia, here's how we should go about it:

Economically: First, we get Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. Interfere in their elections by funding Communists and leftists. That's assuming they have free and fair elections. Once their domestic spending outpaces their GDP by a substantial amount, we compel them to send hundreds of billions of dollars more to foreign governments. They'll be forced to further into debt, using creative tools to sustain their economy.  Soon, they won't be able to maintain an infrastructure, the Russian standard of living declines, and social unrest ensues.

I also see other strategic opportunities to weaken Russia:

Socially: Using technology and social media, we inundate it's population with propaganda. We flood them with polarizing ideas and political ideologies. We create organizations that fund the migration of millions of poverty level people, particularly military age young men, from a vast array of cultural, religious backgrounds, creating a further strain on resources and social cohesion. Sponsor protests. Encourage violence.

Militarily: Focus on making Russian military service an undesirable career choice. Create a recruiting crisis that shrinks the size of their military. Make them reliant on complex technologies with multiple single points of failure and insanely expensive acquisitions processes instead of mass and production. Create cognitive dissonance by telling Russians they're fighting for the nobel principles Russia was founded on while simultaneously incentivizing Russian politicians to destroy those principles.

Energy: Make them deplete their energy reserves and hamstring domestic production by making them adhere to global climate change policies. Make them reliant on foreign cheap oil.

I could go on, but I see plenty of opportunities to weaken Russia over the long term. The key is, it takes time. We can't allow ourselves to be provoked into an overreaction, massive escalation, or direct military conflict. If we're patient, Russia will eventually collapse from within.

Edited April 20 by gearhog

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Good reply, thank you for writing it out.  I'll reply in kind when able if you're still interested, but it won't be for a bit.  More than once here I've gotten a thoughtful reply, but lamentably have been too busy to respond in a worthy fashion.  🥃

No rush. I've done the same. Perils of the Internet🤷🏻‍♂️

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

Very good points and analysis.

Another area to examine is the negative trend of their population and how the war has accelerated it.

Russian's population has been in a slow decline for sometime.  There was a small recovery a few years ago but the war will soon reflect on the demographics and will have a huge impact in years to come.  At least 50,000 have been killed in Ukraine, many many more severely injured.  They already have a huge age imbalance due to lower birthrates and a few other issues.  Without immigration (which they don't like), they have a huge socioeconomic aging bubble moving through the system.  While they are attempting to rebuild their military they will continue to face challenges finding qualified MAMs to meet their needs. 

 

 

 

 

[FourFans]

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

[skybert]

Dibs!!

[fire4effect]

4 hours ago, FourFans said:

@Biff_T:  See that yellow circled part?  Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

This demographic does seem to try harder to please. So I've been told.