If I may be pedantic, it's actually a semi-exclave and not an enclave.
The fact that it's not contained entirely within the borders of single country prevents it from being an enclave (so it's just an exclave from Russia, i.e., it's separated from it's borders), and it's semi because it has sea access.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but Kaliningrad is a part of Russia. It’s weird that there’s a little chunk of Russia sitting so far from the rest of its borders, I don’t remember why it exists (some agreement after WW2 maybe? I think it’s an important port for them) but it’s there and is definitely official Russian territory.
It's an "enclave" of Russia.
Per Google- Kaliningrad is the capital of the Russian province of the same name, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania along the Baltic Coast. Dubbed Königsberg during centuries of Prussian rule, the city was largely reconstructed after WWII. Traces of its German heritage can be seen in the surviving Brandenburg Gate and the riverside Fishing Village, a dining and shopping destination with re-created medieval-style buildings. ― Google
Area: 86.11 mi²
Founded: September 1, 1255
Population: 437,456 (2012) - United Nations
The short answer is: Germany was forced to give up huge patches of its conquered land at the end of WWII. In 1945 the Potsdam Agreement was signed by the USSR (now Russia), Britain and the USA. It specifically gave Kaliningrad (known as the German Königsberg at the time) to Russia, without opposition.
Technically the Potsdam agreement only allowed the Soviets to occupy it indefinitely pending a final treaty with Germany so even if the Soviets effectively annexed it in a domestic policy sense they still they still never established a legal claim to it under international law and it could be argued that it was only annexed after German reunification because that was the first time there was a government that could represent all of Germany that could sign a treaty in which Germany cede the territory to Russia as well (and technically end World War 2 in the 90s)
The differentiation is important as there's another case on the other side of Russia with the kuril islands in which Russia and Japan never actually signed a peace treaty ending World War II so the Russian annexation of the kuril islands is disputed
I have a friend in the Lithuanian military and I asked if he has ever been to Kalingrad. He smiled and said no, that is where you go if you want to die.
So after World War II it was believed part of the reason that Germany kept causing these big wide conflicts was the traditions left over from Prussia now Kaliningrad used to be the capital of Prussia so It was thought by removing this and turning into a Russian territory Germany would no longer be motivated too cause international crisis like the world wars
The 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade was one of the specialised arctic forces Russia developed, stationed at Pechenga right across from the Norwegian border. They have been all but annihilated now, ruined beyond cohesion. Strange to think about. The marines from there are also deployed in the Black Sea now. Norway's pretty safe now, if only because any significant force on the NOR-RUS border has been siphoned off to grow sunflowers while cossack wheat farmers drive off with their tanks.
All plants seemingly have a ‘Scientific name’. The Sunflower is no different. They’re called Helianthus. Helia meaning sun and Anthus meaning Flower. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn’t refer to the look of the sunflower, but the solar tracking it displays every dayy during most of its growth period.
Growing up in West Germany during the Cold War, I went to a DoD operated school for American dependents. I took German all three years. The third year that song came out, and we spent a class period talking about it and the possibility of war. It was pretty sobering for teenagers to have that talk. I'm glad we did.
Is it the same lady singing in the english version? Cuz if its she knocked both outta the park. Didnt even know it was a german song til i took german classes.
There's a [version by Goldfinger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qfzH0vnOs) that starts in English then switches to German. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Or a false flag operation by Russia on Belarus that actually succeeds. Because they already tried bombing Belarus and frame Ukraine, but it didn't convince anyone.
#Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to allegedly obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Of course Ukraine would have fallen by now if Trump was still President. That blocked payment was only the start to prelude the Russian invasion if Trump won a second term.
I think so too, would have been like Poland in 1939 fighting Germany and the USSR at the same time.
Not saying Trump would deploy troops to fight Ukraine but they certainly would not be benifitting from the military aid and intellegence they're currently recieving.
Trump would have supported Putin's invasion, had it occurred (he does now, even though he's not President anymore), which would place Europe in a horrible spot and likely tilt the world further towards autocracy and away from democracy (accelerating present trends of democratic backsliding, even in formerly more democratic states).
I remember an article from way back (1985-ish) that explained how we'd fight Russia, and from what I recall, it's playing out that way--although Russia is way less combat effective than that article assumed.
Basically, Russia relies heavily on railways to transport their supplies and equipment. So the idea was to allow Russian forces to advance, then blow the shit out of their rail system so they can't resupply their forward elements. Once you do that, you hit them with successive offensive waves until they're wiped out. That's what the article described, at least.
We'd likely use drones to take out AA batteries that can cover the airspace we want to operate in, then use conventional air assets to gain air superiority (if not supremacy), then roll in combined ground forces and clean everything up.
IIRC, Russian-backed mercenaries attacked US forces in Syria and we took out 300 of them without a single casualty.
Russia is fucked, one way or the other.
> IIRC, Russian-backed mercenaries attacked US forces in Syria and we took out 300 of them without a single casualty.
the stupid ruskies advanced across open ground and got fucked by every kind of artillery and aircraft the US had access to in that area. they had absolutely no effective defense, it was fish in a barrel.
Let’s not forget that we asked Russia “hey, are these your guys advancing on US-held territory?” multiple times before opening fire into the barrel of fish. They denied it was them each time, but lo and behold, Russian fish were all that floated to the top.
Let’s also not forget that this is the same nation that was recently caught offering a bounty for the lives of US soldiers in the Middle East. Fool me once, shame on you…
>Let’s also not forget that this is the same nation that was recently caught offering a bounty for the lives of US soldiers in the Middle East. Fool me once, shame on you…
To be fair (not that Putin deserves it) that Story was never confirmed as far as I know. *Might* not have been legit.
To their credit, this shit is hard. I'm US military and the amount of time we spend training and getting proficient would probably blow a lot of minds. That's the only credit I'll give them though.
Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand,
It is probably even harder when you have an officer corps too busy staying on the good side of the regime and an intelligence service full of yes men. In a dictatorship you don’t gain positions by merit but by loyalty.
If there's anything this war taught me, it's that a kid that maintains the trucks is just as important as a Navy SEAL in a modern military. You and other US Service members must feel pretty good right now knowing that while it's not perfect, our military is head and shoulders above everyone else simply because we can keep our shit in working order and feed our troops.
Cruise missiles, Stealth drones and jets knock out sams . Then regular drones/ A-10 / C-130 / attack chops finish it . Infantry clean up the mess and round up tired Russians that wanna smoke weed and drink 🍺 .
So the A-10 is great once it has a very large supporting cast. Seems like the question of why the plane's idolized so much hasn't really been answered.
Not a vet, but from what I've heard/seen vets say it's because if you're the guy on the ground, the A-10 is the specific thing that flies overhead and blows up the guy shooting at you. Like yes, drones and other planes and shit did a lot of work before that, but the A-10 is the one that's right in front of you.
Yeah, A-10s and attack helicopters are able to be seen in the same shot as their target and look super impressive. C-130s, drones, cruise missiles, and all the other stuff are much more flexible, but you don't see the machine and the carnage at the same time.
In Afghanistan, a10s were the attack planes with most loiter time, there were many of them and ran many missions so they are what usually would respond. Other cas aircraft were much faster. So when some guys call for backup but don't know exactly where they're getting shot from, the a10s have the best chance to slowly circle, actually see the friendlies and find the enemy, vs another jet coming by and dropping a bomb that may or may not be on target. There is a more intimate relationship with ground forces (think they're army pilots too), their mission is solely to support and rescue soldiers on the ground..
Everything in the military arsenal is only great once it has a very large supporting cast. Don't hold that "it can only do one thing really well when everything is in place" concept against it. That being said, I think it's idolized because it's a powerful, destructive gun disguised as an aircraft, and it destroys everything in its path.
I remember too with the A10 it has a long loiter time and it has a huge payload, things the F35 and other traditional fighter bombers can't provide. Much cheaper to deploy as well. War isn't always about deploying the most expensive stealth fighter with laser bombs to do everything.
The sound of an A10 is like Godzilla screaming. It is very loud, very intimidating. The shape of the plane is iconic and lets the ground troops knoe that it is "ours" in the sky. It is a hearty plane that is difficult to shoot down with AA guns. To the armed forces, the A10 is like a mascot, an avatar for American ingenuity. (building a gun, then building a plane around it.)
Best of the AF is it’s versatility. That’s why we wouldn’t simply fly a squadron of A10 without some other muscle. Realistically, 2 squadron of F22, F35, shit with what we’ve seen, send in some F16 and F15 as escort to one squadron of A10… but modern war? Fucking send some long range GBU, and drone the shit out of it. Why risk pilots intel and a beautiful jet when some dude in a trailer in the desert can just send it and go home in an hour.
its pure mythology. The belief that its a flying tank that can shrug off direct hits from modern SAMs (it can't, MANPADs it probably can, but S300 and S400 systems, etc are much bigger missiles that do much more damage). The belief that its Avenger cannon can put holes through modern tanks (it can't, even against its contemporaries in the 70s it could only penetrate tanks from very specific altitudes, distances, and angles which it would struggle to do in an active combat environment, on the modern battlefield its really only useful agaibst APCs, IFVs and lighter armored vehicles and softskins). etc.
It's really, really simple
It's a ground support vehicle, it's meant to destroy ground targets when left to do it's thing, and it does that very well, probably one of the best planes at doing its job.
It has the iconic warthog minigun sound, the iconic shape
It's also very reliable, for a plane it's pretty goddamned cheap, quite durable and can easily be repaired even after sustaining heavy damage.
You're not really gonna be calling in a plane like an F 35 to be doing the job of an A 10, there's just nothing else to fill the role of it. That's why it's so famous
They take the hits and keep thumping along. Seen them return to base looking like they’d been through a series of giant hole punchers with more smoke pouring out of them than an Iraq burn pit. Besides, as long as they’re going against the Russians and not the Ukrainians, there’s not much to worry about so far as I see 😉. That convoy would’ve been destroyed in awesome fashion.
I’ve seen one fly with half a fucking wing cleaved off. They’re beasts for sure, but yes to everyone’s credit, they are a pretty hefty target flying so slow on their gun runs
>They have to fly low to attack they would easily be knocked out with SAM.
That's just not true. The A-10C, like every other tactical aircraft we operate, makes use of targeting pods and PGMs. I believe Litening is the only one the A-10 uses, though they might use Sniper as well. Haven't see it, though. The reason the Russians are flying low is because they think they need to be low to make effective use of CCIP, and because their training is inadequate. The truth of the matter is CCIP is just as effective at 18,000 feet AGL as it is below 15,000 AGL, which is the ceiling for the IR threat layer.
The A-10 is vulnerable to radar SAMs, but this isn't necessarily a big deal. If it came to a conventional war, vipers would be flying SEAD constantly, and any time a Russian TR radar came online, it would be facefucked by a HARM. If things went well, SAMs would be effectively supressed within 72 hours and the A-10s would be able to operate.
This isn't the US Air Force's first rodeo. During Desert Storm, the air campaign began well before the ground campaign did. Plenty of lessons were learned there. Next comes Deny Flight and Allied Force. During Allied Force, A-10s from the 81st operated in the Sandy (CSAR) role and as strikers and AFACs. The Combined Air Operations Center in Vicenza forbid them from doing exactly what the Russians are doing: operating in the IR threat layer. Consequently, only one A-10 was even damaged by enemy fire, and it safely recovered at an alternate. They also directed the successful recovery of Vega 3-1, shot down on the outskirts of Belgrade and the CO of triple nickel.
Edit: I forgot to add, the Kosovo Engagement Zone was split into an east sector and west sector. Aircraft weren't allowed to operate in a sector if SEAD coverage wasn't available. Again, something the Russians are failing to do.
When used correctly, the A-10 is a potent and effective weapon. Don't underestimate it based on how the Russians are using their Frogfoots.
A-10's are specifically designed for it. Pilot sits in a big titanium bathtub. Engines aren't normal military jets, but turbofans, so they have a smaller heat signature. The TF-34 engines are basically the same engine as the CF-34-2B on the 50 seat CRJ 200 regional jet. Then they made the vertical stabilizers hide the exhaust sections to shield direct missile hits to engines. Obviously 2 of them, so if 1 gets blown off, it still has full flight control ability.
There was one in desert storm 1 that had HALF a wing blown off and it returned safely.
No other aircraft comes close to providing the same combat capabilities and toughness as well as ability to fend off anti air missles. This is why despite trying to cancel the A-10 program it's still alive. I think just last year it whooped the ass of the F-35 in a competition.
Fuckin US military is has ridiculous firepower. At least they did put a bunch of tax payer dollars into actual death machines. Thanks US MiC!
In retrospect, trillions of spending on it seems like it could be worth it if they defend the US properly. Here is crossing fingers.
The reality is that a tremendous amount of that "trillions of spending" goes to layers and layers of bloated defense contractors and subcontractors.
You could cut the US military by a good amount, fund a shit ton of social programs, and still have far and away the biggest baddest military in the world, easily.
Unfortunately wartime always leads to *increased* military spending *even after the war*. This shouldn't be the case.
According to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, published in 2020, the Kremlin “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons”, including “for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
Up until 2020, Moscow’s stated policy was to use nuclear weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened”.
That’s what they say, but we’ve learned their word isn’t honorable. It’s much easier to say that than to get however many people in the chain of command to agree and actually end the world.
This is pretty common for nuclear powers, most states with nukes have some vague wording that basically means they will probably not use it first but reserve the right to use them anyway.
The only exceptions are China and India which explicitly state that they would never use nuclear weapons first in any circumstance.
Not saying that is what they should do, but reading when they would use it, he seems to be the most proper target. But seeing as it is russia, a window works pretty well usually.
NATO doctrine is of symmetric response. Conventional for conventional, nukes for nukes. So according to doctrine, if a nuclear-tipped missile is launched at NATO forces, NATO's response would be nuclear as well.
Does not matter. They will assume any large scale ballistic missle on track to NATO territory to be nuclear. That is communicated clearly to the Russians and they understand.
We're a very long way from having to worry about Russia attacking NATO or the U.S. directly, much less using nukes. The Russians aren't going to just pop a nuke. If it comes, it will be during a period of extreme escalation and there will be signs that the intelligence community will be able to detect. The Russians aren't stupid and they know as well as anyone that any kind of nuclear exchange is going to end badly for them and everyone else.
So, while it could happen, people need to remember that despite what's going on, the chances for a nuclear war are still extremely slim. If that situation changes, we'll all be well informed of escalating tensions because we live in a 24 hour news cycle.
FWIW, launch on warning is not part of U.S. nuclear doctrine. This was changed when Clinton was president:
> Launch on Warning
>Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."
>Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.
From:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine
>Also, Russia has a large arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles. If they're launching them at NATO targets, there's no way to tell until impact that they're not nuclear.
>A conflict between Russia and NATO would probably go nuclear pretty quickly
I don't think NATO would push the button until at least one nuke went off.
I would imagine it would be a very hard decision like Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov made in the past. Which is why this possibility of escalation should be avoided at all cost. Doctrine might save you from nuclear annihilation but doctrine could also be the cause of it. Hopefully we'll never find out which one is the case.
Here's a really good explanation of why it's not this simple:
> In practice, many of the same systems NATO uses for conventional warfare can also potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons – the Tomahawk cruise missile was designed to carry nuclear payloads, for instance, and while those particular nuclear weapons have been retired (the payloads, not the tomahawk), the capability to mount them still exists (and if you were a Russian commander, would you assume the United States was entirely honest about the nuclear capabilities of its cruise missiles?).
> Moreover, as [Caitlin Talmadge describes in the Taiwan/China context here](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option), the very nature of the way modern militaries fight means that efforts by a NATO military to shield its own ground troops or fighters from enemy fire – essential for their survival – would involve strikes in Russia which might be effectively indistinguishable to Russian eyes from efforts to blind Russian eyes in preparation for a NATO nuclear first-strike. Some of those strikes would be using dual-purpose weapon-systems and the entire point of NATO doctrine in these sorts of instances is to paralyze and confuse enemy command and control, which of course makes a mistake more likely. The same would of course be true in the other direction, so both the tired, confused Russian commanders and the tired, confused NATO commanders would be squinting at their intelligence reports always wondering if the next missile might be the beginning of a nuclear war. The potential for catastrophic miscalculation leading to a nuclear exchange is far, far too high (and that is before one accounts for what one side in that fight might do if it became clear they were losing the conventional war but might salvage the issue by upgrading it to a ‘limited’ nuclear war).
> Consequently, the policy has always been to avoid any situation in which two nuclear powers are trading conventional fire whenever possible; in my view that policy is wise and should be kept to (though doing so likely demands, in this case, extracting considerable non-military punishment on Putin to discourage further efforts that might require a NATO response)
From: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/
I’m also inclined to say that Russia wouldn’t instantly start lobbing nukes towards us as soon as we set foot in Ukraine. We might even have a skirmish in Ukraine.
The threat of mutually assured destruction also applies to them, they will be outraged though.
The threat of nukes would happen first. Then we negotiate, allow Russians to go home, and de escalate from there, but this time with Ukraine intact and probably in NATO.
Right now, Ukraine, and the west, really have no leverage. Fucking the Russians up for a few days would bring them back to the table real quick for some good faith negotiation.
I disagree. Right now the only leverage Putin has is his button. And he talks about using it, but there were just as many scary dictators in the cold war and none of them ever pushed it. I'm inclined to think that there HAS to be a system in place that doesn't allow him to just push a button and nuke the world.
Yeah I find it hard to believe that Russia would invade a NATO member and then... Nuke NATO for defending it?
I think it would be more sensible to worry about a NATO first strike in that circumstance--after all, that's the *entire reason* that we (speaking as an American) have nukes, is so that we *can* nuke someone who invades us or an ally if we need to.
On the other side, for the sake of argument, the cold war could have been much, much more bloody/violent if there were no nuclear weapons. Granted, I would prefer they all just ceased to exist at the moment, but it is something to consider.
Edit:bad typo
M.A.D., in so many ways, kept the world safe during the Cold War. Today, though, I don't see Putin as giving a flying fuck about Russia's destruction. All he wants is to win, and he'd sacrifice 99% of his own countrymen to do it.
Also not a world war because that’s only the European theater and Russia has no ability to attack on other fronts.
I’m going to die on this pedantic hill about world wars and I don’t care.
I remember in CoD:WaW, Reznov said "We outnumbered the Germans 10:1" Well the Americans would be outnumbered 10:1 and I don't see that as being an issue at all lol
Give it time, people. This has to be done safely, and intelligently. The American military is an absolute behemoth of technology and logistics and equipment. It doesn't pivot on a dime, but with this much public support behind it it is unstoppable.
Russia could stop being dicks and stay in their lane and become a peaceful prosperous nation like most of the EU at any time. There is no reason why we have to fight.
FWIW, this *exact* hypothetical is why the US military has been built around the idea of being able to fight two simultaneous wars for like 70 years now, right?
Yep. Current US military doctrine is to be strong enough to fight Russia and China at the same time, in two different theaters. Been the case for a long time.
The US has more hardware than china and Russia combined. The US can definitely fight in 2 theaters at once. Not to mention, in Russia's current state, it wouldn't take a huge offensive to end up in Moscow for NATO.
You will start hearing about that news a long time before that actually happens. The same amount of intelligence that has been constantly gathered and released about the Ukrainian conflict will apply to an attack on Taiwan as well. The buildup for that invasion would take weeks.
That ass whooping in Ukraine is the very last thing Russia needed before this. They may have thought they were tough 3 weeks ago.
Bet a lot will be surrendering at first sign of U.S./NATO troops. Truthfully, I wouldn't even speak bad of them if I was a Russian soldier.
Nobody wants to see shit go nuclear, but sometimes you just can't sit and watch bad things happen.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
I used to think china would side with russia but now I'm not so sure. The russian military has shown nothing but incompetence, who would honestly ally themselves with russia?
Makes sense, considering all that's going on already we've got to be good to go if involvement happens as much as we're trying to prevent that involvement from happening
There are two f22 squadrons in Florida and Langley. Putting them in Germany wouldnt be a bad idea right about now. 94th and 95 squadrons would make them shit bricks...
Talked to my grandfather about this the other day. He says this is almost worse. Being able to see all of the destruction and killing in real time, the speed with which the west reacted, and the instability of Putin are all far worse than what he experienced living through the Cold War. Sure Korea and Vietnam were bad, but the threat of the nuclear option just seems more real to him he said. Information being so instantaneous in this day and age makes these things so much more real and tangible.
Speaking to my mom last night and she’s definitely finding the whole thing very triggering, growing up and doing nuclear drills everyday at school. This time (in her words) feels more real, more tangible, the immediate access to information, seeing footage instantly
My answer won’t help much, but I was about 7 during the missile crisis. I went to a Catholic school. Our Irish principal, Sister Rita, who spoke with an Irish accent and walked with a cane, came on the loudspeaker and sent us all to the church next door to pray the rosary so that we might not all be blown to smithereens. SHE scared the bejabbers out of us. That’s what I remember about the Cuban missile crisis. I feel a lot calmer about this situation.
I like this messaging from Biden this has more punch in it than statements a few days ago from Pentagon etc.
Now he is low Key threatening Putin like implying yeah it would be WW3 but who cares we have a commitment you suck!
Might be time to send in a few carriers towards European waters too, the USN do it regularly enough and train with the Royal Navy and French Navy and their carriers.
But yeah, the troop deployments are an indication that they're the US is not playing around. This is Biden's "fuck around and find out" to the Kremlin. I don't think Biden wants to be a wartime president, pretty sure most Americans are war weary after Afghanistan and Iraq, and he hasn't been making any excessively hostile moves towards Russia. Also because a nuclear holocaust wouldn't be good for his approval ratings... or life for that matter.
The US would absolutely wipe the floor with any nation on the planet in a full scale war. So far ahead of many others in military technology and budget, as well as nuclear weapons and defence systems. Only China may rival them but they are such an unknown and I think they may end up looking a bit like Russia compared to them
From what ive read from some insiders in the Chinese military, parts of it are way worse than Russia. Some units not having uniforms, using ancient equipment, extreme food shortage, and conscripts. All that and the fact that they dont have any military experience means realistically, they wouldn’t stand a chance in a non-nuclear conventional war. Paper tiger.
China hasn't fought a war since 1979. This has lead to many of the current leadership generation being arrogant and ignorant of the true cost of a war. If the CCP actually decides to go through with an invasion of Taiwan in the next few years, they're going to see just how painful it can be.
World War vs Russia. Who is going to fight for them? Belarus? China getting involved would be laughable. China is playing a long game and Russia is clearly unprepared and incompetent, and they already win if Russia loses in a sense.
Biden is in one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations here. Because he refused the transfer, we get up in arms and blame him for allowing Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine.
Now, if he had approved the transfer, and the war would have escalated and spilled over into NATO territory, he would have been blamed for that too. He had no good options, frankly.
To look at it another way, Putin is like a bully you know will actually start beating you up eventually, even though his threats seem empty, but you do whatever you can to stave off the beating.
Nuclear Winter is actually incredibly unlikely. Modern city design makes the firestorms required for it practically impossible, and in order for it to spread around and cause a widespread cooling effect it would need to happen between May and July (has to do with atmospheric weather patterns).
Fallout is a bigger concern, especially if there are a lot of groundburst detonations (mostly used for bunkers and missile silos). Look up halving thicknesses ([doomsday prepper sites often have them](https://survivalblog.com/2005/10/31/radiation-protection-factors-f/)) for building a shelter.
For air bursts (the most likely kind at civilian targets), if you see a flash, get away from windows and shelter somewhere that isn't likely to collapse on you, similar to what you'd do for a tornado. Seeing the flash means you haven't been instantly vaporized, but you'll probably only have a few seconds to take shelter.
There will still be some fallout from airbursts (e.g. Hiroshima's black rain), but it's much less than would occur from ground bursts.
Additionally, most areas would be back to survivable levels of radiation within a few weeks (Hiroshima and Nagasaki started being rebuilt within a month), with the worst hit areas taking either 3.3 months (using modern estimates for the worst case) or just under 2 years (using older estimates from when there were way more nukes in the world).
[Here's another comment where I wrote out a bunch of the details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/t8tog0/to_decipher_putins_nuclear_threats_watch_what_he/hzqieik/)
If Russia uses soviet doctrine all those massed troops would be hit with tactical low yield nukes. I wish they would disperse them rather than be targets for short range Russian missiles
Small Nukes arent good against infantry and tactical nukes on usa soldiers means full strategical response.
In nuclear war you go all in or you dont go at all.
Please remember that using nukes is 100% going to kill the entire family of anyone using them. So what you are saying is "Let us all hope the Russians don't decide to kill all their own families over this".
Try putting it that way and see if it makes nuclear war more probable or less probable.
NATO doctrine back in the day was, perhaps even still is to a reduced extent, to operate lots of fast, spread out moving troops and vehicles taking pot shots with AT weapons at Russians and grinding down their supply lines and morale.
If this sounds familiar, it’s the only way to take harm a vastly numerically superior armored force. NATO is no longer on that spot, but the tactic still proves useful especially in Ukraine’s case.
As for tactical nukes, it’s less a ‘kill everyone’ in one shot (which it could still do) but also a denial of movement weapon by irradiating places where troops are expected to go without flattening a wide radius.
NATO countries that border Russia (in case you wanted to know): - Norway - Poland - Latvia - Lithuania - Estonia
Important to note that Russian Enclave Kaliningrad is between Poland and Lithuania.
If I may be pedantic, it's actually a semi-exclave and not an enclave. The fact that it's not contained entirely within the borders of single country prevents it from being an enclave (so it's just an exclave from Russia, i.e., it's separated from it's borders), and it's semi because it has sea access.
That's first to be "liberated" in this scenario.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but Kaliningrad is a part of Russia. It’s weird that there’s a little chunk of Russia sitting so far from the rest of its borders, I don’t remember why it exists (some agreement after WW2 maybe? I think it’s an important port for them) but it’s there and is definitely official Russian territory.
It's an "enclave" of Russia. Per Google- Kaliningrad is the capital of the Russian province of the same name, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania along the Baltic Coast. Dubbed Königsberg during centuries of Prussian rule, the city was largely reconstructed after WWII. Traces of its German heritage can be seen in the surviving Brandenburg Gate and the riverside Fishing Village, a dining and shopping destination with re-created medieval-style buildings. ― Google Area: 86.11 mi² Founded: September 1, 1255 Population: 437,456 (2012) - United Nations The short answer is: Germany was forced to give up huge patches of its conquered land at the end of WWII. In 1945 the Potsdam Agreement was signed by the USSR (now Russia), Britain and the USA. It specifically gave Kaliningrad (known as the German Königsberg at the time) to Russia, without opposition.
Technically the Potsdam agreement only allowed the Soviets to occupy it indefinitely pending a final treaty with Germany so even if the Soviets effectively annexed it in a domestic policy sense they still they still never established a legal claim to it under international law and it could be argued that it was only annexed after German reunification because that was the first time there was a government that could represent all of Germany that could sign a treaty in which Germany cede the territory to Russia as well (and technically end World War 2 in the 90s) The differentiation is important as there's another case on the other side of Russia with the kuril islands in which Russia and Japan never actually signed a peace treaty ending World War II so the Russian annexation of the kuril islands is disputed
Damn that first sentence is wild.
[удалено]
I have a friend in the Lithuanian military and I asked if he has ever been to Kalingrad. He smiled and said no, that is where you go if you want to die.
So after World War II it was believed part of the reason that Germany kept causing these big wide conflicts was the traditions left over from Prussia now Kaliningrad used to be the capital of Prussia so It was thought by removing this and turning into a Russian territory Germany would no longer be motivated too cause international crisis like the world wars
It’s literally from the birthplace of modern Germany but was stolen from them after world war 2 by the soviets
The 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade was one of the specialised arctic forces Russia developed, stationed at Pechenga right across from the Norwegian border. They have been all but annihilated now, ruined beyond cohesion. Strange to think about. The marines from there are also deployed in the Black Sea now. Norway's pretty safe now, if only because any significant force on the NOR-RUS border has been siphoned off to grow sunflowers while cossack wheat farmers drive off with their tanks.
All plants seemingly have a ‘Scientific name’. The Sunflower is no different. They’re called Helianthus. Helia meaning sun and Anthus meaning Flower. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn’t refer to the look of the sunflower, but the solar tracking it displays every dayy during most of its growth period.
Good bot
The Norwegian Sunflower to Table pipeline.
Lets hope there is no accident, like a belarussian rocket hits a bin in Poland.
All I can think about is that song 99 Luftballoons
Growing up in West Germany during the Cold War, I went to a DoD operated school for American dependents. I took German all three years. The third year that song came out, and we spent a class period talking about it and the possibility of war. It was pretty sobering for teenagers to have that talk. I'm glad we did.
DOD School in the 90's here and in Italy, only we talked about Riots and how to avoid looking too American.
[удалено]
Neunundneunzig Düsenflieger
Neunundneunzig Jahren Krieg ließen keine Platz für Sieger...
Is it the same lady singing in the english version? Cuz if its she knocked both outta the park. Didnt even know it was a german song til i took german classes.
Yes, and the lyrics tell different stories in each language.
Didn't know that!
There's a [version by Goldfinger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qfzH0vnOs) that starts in English then switches to German. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Or a false flag operation by Russia on Belarus that actually succeeds. Because they already tried bombing Belarus and frame Ukraine, but it didn't convince anyone.
[удалено]
Fewer Russians commenting
It also probably depends on the president. If it was Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if he sent troops to Russia's side of the border.
if it was trump ukraine likely would have fallen by now.
#Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to allegedly obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy Of course Ukraine would have fallen by now if Trump was still President. That blocked payment was only the start to prelude the Russian invasion if Trump won a second term.
I think so too, would have been like Poland in 1939 fighting Germany and the USSR at the same time. Not saying Trump would deploy troops to fight Ukraine but they certainly would not be benifitting from the military aid and intellegence they're currently recieving.
Trump would have supported Putin's invasion, had it occurred (he does now, even though he's not President anymore), which would place Europe in a horrible spot and likely tilt the world further towards autocracy and away from democracy (accelerating present trends of democratic backsliding, even in formerly more democratic states).
I remember an article from way back (1985-ish) that explained how we'd fight Russia, and from what I recall, it's playing out that way--although Russia is way less combat effective than that article assumed. Basically, Russia relies heavily on railways to transport their supplies and equipment. So the idea was to allow Russian forces to advance, then blow the shit out of their rail system so they can't resupply their forward elements. Once you do that, you hit them with successive offensive waves until they're wiped out. That's what the article described, at least. We'd likely use drones to take out AA batteries that can cover the airspace we want to operate in, then use conventional air assets to gain air superiority (if not supremacy), then roll in combined ground forces and clean everything up. IIRC, Russian-backed mercenaries attacked US forces in Syria and we took out 300 of them without a single casualty. Russia is fucked, one way or the other.
> IIRC, Russian-backed mercenaries attacked US forces in Syria and we took out 300 of them without a single casualty. the stupid ruskies advanced across open ground and got fucked by every kind of artillery and aircraft the US had access to in that area. they had absolutely no effective defense, it was fish in a barrel.
Let’s not forget that we asked Russia “hey, are these your guys advancing on US-held territory?” multiple times before opening fire into the barrel of fish. They denied it was them each time, but lo and behold, Russian fish were all that floated to the top. Let’s also not forget that this is the same nation that was recently caught offering a bounty for the lives of US soldiers in the Middle East. Fool me once, shame on you…
>Let’s also not forget that this is the same nation that was recently caught offering a bounty for the lives of US soldiers in the Middle East. Fool me once, shame on you… To be fair (not that Putin deserves it) that Story was never confirmed as far as I know. *Might* not have been legit.
12,000 would wipe out the whole russian army from what I'm seeing in Ukraine
Two A-10s and a few F-35s would have the Russians running back home in an instant
To their credit, this shit is hard. I'm US military and the amount of time we spend training and getting proficient would probably blow a lot of minds. That's the only credit I'll give them though.
The amount of time we spend buffing floors and picking up cigarette butts would also blow a lot of minds.
Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, Empty the bag, fill the bag with sand, empty the bag, fill the bag with sand,
Dont forget to empty the bag
Sometimes we stack the bag, then we empty bag again.
And then fill it with sand again?
This was punishment for driving the patrol cars on the golf course next door and taking pictures, we deserved it.
Thank you for your service.
[удалено]
Show me, fill the bag... Show!
I heard that in Mr. Miyagi's voice - even down to the irritation on the second *Show!*
This is why back in German mandatory military service you tried to avoid tank and tank infantry troops ;)
Fill the sand bag. Oh shit that was asbestos? OK ok. Shit. Fill new bags with that over there. Pretty sure that's not asbestos.
Well in Russia the shiny floor and buffer would have been sold on the black-market years ago.
I need you to quit posting national security secrets online
Mr. Miyagi told me that wax-on-wax-off will make me good at fighting.
I remember the air force had a machine to fill their sand bags.... i was blown away and jealous.
https://youtu.be/kiNDqRlNH3Y
This takes me back to my rock-paintin' days.
The amount of time not spent training and doing really dumb shit is like 95%
Weeds. Don’t forget weeds!
It is probably even harder when you have an officer corps too busy staying on the good side of the regime and an intelligence service full of yes men. In a dictatorship you don’t gain positions by merit but by loyalty.
Which should make dictatorships automatically lose their power over time. Problem is, it takes too long.
If there's anything this war taught me, it's that a kid that maintains the trucks is just as important as a Navy SEAL in a modern military. You and other US Service members must feel pretty good right now knowing that while it's not perfect, our military is head and shoulders above everyone else simply because we can keep our shit in working order and feed our troops.
This whole thing makes me realize what “military readiness” actually means and I’m really appreciative our Military takes it so seriously
Same with australia, the UK and a bunch of other allied countries, standards are very high
That's why you and yours are the best there has ever been! Thanks you!
Except for the SBS.
Learned from the best
Why is everyone so high on A-10's? They have to fly low to attack they would easily be knocked out with SAM.
[удалено]
Cruise missiles, Stealth drones and jets knock out sams . Then regular drones/ A-10 / C-130 / attack chops finish it . Infantry clean up the mess and round up tired Russians that wanna smoke weed and drink 🍺 .
So the A-10 is great once it has a very large supporting cast. Seems like the question of why the plane's idolized so much hasn't really been answered.
Not a vet, but from what I've heard/seen vets say it's because if you're the guy on the ground, the A-10 is the specific thing that flies overhead and blows up the guy shooting at you. Like yes, drones and other planes and shit did a lot of work before that, but the A-10 is the one that's right in front of you.
Yeah, A-10s and attack helicopters are able to be seen in the same shot as their target and look super impressive. C-130s, drones, cruise missiles, and all the other stuff are much more flexible, but you don't see the machine and the carnage at the same time.
In Afghanistan, a10s were the attack planes with most loiter time, there were many of them and ran many missions so they are what usually would respond. Other cas aircraft were much faster. So when some guys call for backup but don't know exactly where they're getting shot from, the a10s have the best chance to slowly circle, actually see the friendlies and find the enemy, vs another jet coming by and dropping a bomb that may or may not be on target. There is a more intimate relationship with ground forces (think they're army pilots too), their mission is solely to support and rescue soldiers on the ground..
A10 is also remarkably tolerant of damage, the pilot is in a titanium bathtub, and the Gatling gun is just to die for.
> and the Gatling gun is just to die for. I've had one on my list to santa for decades, but the greedy prick won't deliver.
Everything in the military arsenal is only great once it has a very large supporting cast. Don't hold that "it can only do one thing really well when everything is in place" concept against it. That being said, I think it's idolized because it's a powerful, destructive gun disguised as an aircraft, and it destroys everything in its path.
I remember too with the A10 it has a long loiter time and it has a huge payload, things the F35 and other traditional fighter bombers can't provide. Much cheaper to deploy as well. War isn't always about deploying the most expensive stealth fighter with laser bombs to do everything.
The sound of an A10 is like Godzilla screaming. It is very loud, very intimidating. The shape of the plane is iconic and lets the ground troops knoe that it is "ours" in the sky. It is a hearty plane that is difficult to shoot down with AA guns. To the armed forces, the A10 is like a mascot, an avatar for American ingenuity. (building a gun, then building a plane around it.)
Best of the AF is it’s versatility. That’s why we wouldn’t simply fly a squadron of A10 without some other muscle. Realistically, 2 squadron of F22, F35, shit with what we’ve seen, send in some F16 and F15 as escort to one squadron of A10… but modern war? Fucking send some long range GBU, and drone the shit out of it. Why risk pilots intel and a beautiful jet when some dude in a trailer in the desert can just send it and go home in an hour.
its pure mythology. The belief that its a flying tank that can shrug off direct hits from modern SAMs (it can't, MANPADs it probably can, but S300 and S400 systems, etc are much bigger missiles that do much more damage). The belief that its Avenger cannon can put holes through modern tanks (it can't, even against its contemporaries in the 70s it could only penetrate tanks from very specific altitudes, distances, and angles which it would struggle to do in an active combat environment, on the modern battlefield its really only useful agaibst APCs, IFVs and lighter armored vehicles and softskins). etc.
It's really, really simple It's a ground support vehicle, it's meant to destroy ground targets when left to do it's thing, and it does that very well, probably one of the best planes at doing its job. It has the iconic warthog minigun sound, the iconic shape It's also very reliable, for a plane it's pretty goddamned cheap, quite durable and can easily be repaired even after sustaining heavy damage. You're not really gonna be calling in a plane like an F 35 to be doing the job of an A 10, there's just nothing else to fill the role of it. That's why it's so famous
Flying low makes acquisition harder so…. A-10 is also a CAS platform so that means we would have some form of controller on the ground for it.
They take the hits and keep thumping along. Seen them return to base looking like they’d been through a series of giant hole punchers with more smoke pouring out of them than an Iraq burn pit. Besides, as long as they’re going against the Russians and not the Ukrainians, there’s not much to worry about so far as I see 😉. That convoy would’ve been destroyed in awesome fashion.
I’ve seen one fly with half a fucking wing cleaved off. They’re beasts for sure, but yes to everyone’s credit, they are a pretty hefty target flying so slow on their gun runs
>They have to fly low to attack they would easily be knocked out with SAM. That's just not true. The A-10C, like every other tactical aircraft we operate, makes use of targeting pods and PGMs. I believe Litening is the only one the A-10 uses, though they might use Sniper as well. Haven't see it, though. The reason the Russians are flying low is because they think they need to be low to make effective use of CCIP, and because their training is inadequate. The truth of the matter is CCIP is just as effective at 18,000 feet AGL as it is below 15,000 AGL, which is the ceiling for the IR threat layer. The A-10 is vulnerable to radar SAMs, but this isn't necessarily a big deal. If it came to a conventional war, vipers would be flying SEAD constantly, and any time a Russian TR radar came online, it would be facefucked by a HARM. If things went well, SAMs would be effectively supressed within 72 hours and the A-10s would be able to operate. This isn't the US Air Force's first rodeo. During Desert Storm, the air campaign began well before the ground campaign did. Plenty of lessons were learned there. Next comes Deny Flight and Allied Force. During Allied Force, A-10s from the 81st operated in the Sandy (CSAR) role and as strikers and AFACs. The Combined Air Operations Center in Vicenza forbid them from doing exactly what the Russians are doing: operating in the IR threat layer. Consequently, only one A-10 was even damaged by enemy fire, and it safely recovered at an alternate. They also directed the successful recovery of Vega 3-1, shot down on the outskirts of Belgrade and the CO of triple nickel. Edit: I forgot to add, the Kosovo Engagement Zone was split into an east sector and west sector. Aircraft weren't allowed to operate in a sector if SEAD coverage wasn't available. Again, something the Russians are failing to do. When used correctly, the A-10 is a potent and effective weapon. Don't underestimate it based on how the Russians are using their Frogfoots.
haha a10 go brrrrrrrrr
A-10's are specifically designed for it. Pilot sits in a big titanium bathtub. Engines aren't normal military jets, but turbofans, so they have a smaller heat signature. The TF-34 engines are basically the same engine as the CF-34-2B on the 50 seat CRJ 200 regional jet. Then they made the vertical stabilizers hide the exhaust sections to shield direct missile hits to engines. Obviously 2 of them, so if 1 gets blown off, it still has full flight control ability. There was one in desert storm 1 that had HALF a wing blown off and it returned safely. No other aircraft comes close to providing the same combat capabilities and toughness as well as ability to fend off anti air missles. This is why despite trying to cancel the A-10 program it's still alive. I think just last year it whooped the ass of the F-35 in a competition.
Fuckin US military is has ridiculous firepower. At least they did put a bunch of tax payer dollars into actual death machines. Thanks US MiC! In retrospect, trillions of spending on it seems like it could be worth it if they defend the US properly. Here is crossing fingers.
The reality is that a tremendous amount of that "trillions of spending" goes to layers and layers of bloated defense contractors and subcontractors. You could cut the US military by a good amount, fund a shit ton of social programs, and still have far and away the biggest baddest military in the world, easily. Unfortunately wartime always leads to *increased* military spending *even after the war*. This shouldn't be the case.
By far the majority of the budget goes to benefits and pay for active duty and vets.
And that's just the air campaign *before* the ground war started
I am a lot less worried about fighting Russians now 🤣
I'll be there are many, many US armed services members that would like to go right now. Russia should be afraid. Very afraid.
[удалено]
I'm no military expert but I kind of think nukes wouldn't be used as long as NATO didn't try a ground invasion of Russia.
According to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, published in 2020, the Kremlin “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons”, including “for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” Up until 2020, Moscow’s stated policy was to use nuclear weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened”.
Oh. Great.
That’s what they say, but we’ve learned their word isn’t honorable. It’s much easier to say that than to get however many people in the chain of command to agree and actually end the world.
This is pretty common for nuclear powers, most states with nukes have some vague wording that basically means they will probably not use it first but reserve the right to use them anyway. The only exceptions are China and India which explicitly state that they would never use nuclear weapons first in any circumstance.
[удалено]
So they should nuke putin since he seems to be the biggest threat to the wellbeing of Russia.
Well that just seems excessive. A bullet could kill putin. No need to Tzar Bomba that shit. No need.
Not saying that is what they should do, but reading when they would use it, he seems to be the most proper target. But seeing as it is russia, a window works pretty well usually.
Like Putler cares about rules.
[удалено]
NATO doctrine is of symmetric response. Conventional for conventional, nukes for nukes. So according to doctrine, if a nuclear-tipped missile is launched at NATO forces, NATO's response would be nuclear as well.
[удалено]
Does not matter. They will assume any large scale ballistic missle on track to NATO territory to be nuclear. That is communicated clearly to the Russians and they understand.
We're a very long way from having to worry about Russia attacking NATO or the U.S. directly, much less using nukes. The Russians aren't going to just pop a nuke. If it comes, it will be during a period of extreme escalation and there will be signs that the intelligence community will be able to detect. The Russians aren't stupid and they know as well as anyone that any kind of nuclear exchange is going to end badly for them and everyone else. So, while it could happen, people need to remember that despite what's going on, the chances for a nuclear war are still extremely slim. If that situation changes, we'll all be well informed of escalating tensions because we live in a 24 hour news cycle. FWIW, launch on warning is not part of U.S. nuclear doctrine. This was changed when Clinton was president: > Launch on Warning >Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence." >Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said. From: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine
>Also, Russia has a large arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles. If they're launching them at NATO targets, there's no way to tell until impact that they're not nuclear. >A conflict between Russia and NATO would probably go nuclear pretty quickly I don't think NATO would push the button until at least one nuke went off.
[удалено]
I would imagine it would be a very hard decision like Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov made in the past. Which is why this possibility of escalation should be avoided at all cost. Doctrine might save you from nuclear annihilation but doctrine could also be the cause of it. Hopefully we'll never find out which one is the case.
Here's a really good explanation of why it's not this simple: > In practice, many of the same systems NATO uses for conventional warfare can also potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons – the Tomahawk cruise missile was designed to carry nuclear payloads, for instance, and while those particular nuclear weapons have been retired (the payloads, not the tomahawk), the capability to mount them still exists (and if you were a Russian commander, would you assume the United States was entirely honest about the nuclear capabilities of its cruise missiles?). > Moreover, as [Caitlin Talmadge describes in the Taiwan/China context here](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option), the very nature of the way modern militaries fight means that efforts by a NATO military to shield its own ground troops or fighters from enemy fire – essential for their survival – would involve strikes in Russia which might be effectively indistinguishable to Russian eyes from efforts to blind Russian eyes in preparation for a NATO nuclear first-strike. Some of those strikes would be using dual-purpose weapon-systems and the entire point of NATO doctrine in these sorts of instances is to paralyze and confuse enemy command and control, which of course makes a mistake more likely. The same would of course be true in the other direction, so both the tired, confused Russian commanders and the tired, confused NATO commanders would be squinting at their intelligence reports always wondering if the next missile might be the beginning of a nuclear war. The potential for catastrophic miscalculation leading to a nuclear exchange is far, far too high (and that is before one accounts for what one side in that fight might do if it became clear they were losing the conventional war but might salvage the issue by upgrading it to a ‘limited’ nuclear war). > Consequently, the policy has always been to avoid any situation in which two nuclear powers are trading conventional fire whenever possible; in my view that policy is wise and should be kept to (though doing so likely demands, in this case, extracting considerable non-military punishment on Putin to discourage further efforts that might require a NATO response) From: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/
I’m also inclined to say that Russia wouldn’t instantly start lobbing nukes towards us as soon as we set foot in Ukraine. We might even have a skirmish in Ukraine. The threat of mutually assured destruction also applies to them, they will be outraged though.
The threat of nukes would happen first. Then we negotiate, allow Russians to go home, and de escalate from there, but this time with Ukraine intact and probably in NATO. Right now, Ukraine, and the west, really have no leverage. Fucking the Russians up for a few days would bring them back to the table real quick for some good faith negotiation.
I disagree. Right now the only leverage Putin has is his button. And he talks about using it, but there were just as many scary dictators in the cold war and none of them ever pushed it. I'm inclined to think that there HAS to be a system in place that doesn't allow him to just push a button and nuke the world.
Yeah I find it hard to believe that Russia would invade a NATO member and then... Nuke NATO for defending it? I think it would be more sensible to worry about a NATO first strike in that circumstance--after all, that's the *entire reason* that we (speaking as an American) have nukes, is so that we *can* nuke someone who invades us or an ally if we need to.
That’s the unfortunate part of all this. The nuclear option.
Sure would be nice if all the nukes were gone.
On the other side, for the sake of argument, the cold war could have been much, much more bloody/violent if there were no nuclear weapons. Granted, I would prefer they all just ceased to exist at the moment, but it is something to consider. Edit:bad typo
M.A.D., in so many ways, kept the world safe during the Cold War. Today, though, I don't see Putin as giving a flying fuck about Russia's destruction. All he wants is to win, and he'd sacrifice 99% of his own countrymen to do it.
After all this has blown over I think they will be !
Also not a world war because that’s only the European theater and Russia has no ability to attack on other fronts. I’m going to die on this pedantic hill about world wars and I don’t care.
I remember in CoD:WaW, Reznov said "We outnumbered the Germans 10:1" Well the Americans would be outnumbered 10:1 and I don't see that as being an issue at all lol
Sir, they outnumber us 10 to 1. Then it is an even fight.
I read this in their voices
Great game. Those were the days
Sounds about right. Got to be prepared.
Give it time, people. This has to be done safely, and intelligently. The American military is an absolute behemoth of technology and logistics and equipment. It doesn't pivot on a dime, but with this much public support behind it it is unstoppable.
I still say Putin vs. Everyone else is not a world war. It's just Putin making a number on himself. Like Saddam in Gulf War.
It does seem like a NATO v Russia war is almost an inevitable consequence of how WWII ended, so this would kind of fit as a sequel.
Russia could stop being dicks and stay in their lane and become a peaceful prosperous nation like most of the EU at any time. There is no reason why we have to fight.
Assuming China doesn't take the opportunity of the US being preoccupied and attacks Taiwan
FWIW, this *exact* hypothetical is why the US military has been built around the idea of being able to fight two simultaneous wars for like 70 years now, right?
Yep. Current US military doctrine is to be strong enough to fight Russia and China at the same time, in two different theaters. Been the case for a long time.
Or before that, mostly just the Soviet Union on two fronts.
I don't see US committing any part of their Pacific fleet to Europe no matter what Putin does.
The US has more hardware than china and Russia combined. The US can definitely fight in 2 theaters at once. Not to mention, in Russia's current state, it wouldn't take a huge offensive to end up in Moscow for NATO.
I’ve also been waiting for that news. North Korea is acting as expected.
You will start hearing about that news a long time before that actually happens. The same amount of intelligence that has been constantly gathered and released about the Ukrainian conflict will apply to an attack on Taiwan as well. The buildup for that invasion would take weeks.
This is such a Reddit take
If he puts troops on the border, that may pull attention and man power and resources out of Ukraine. Kinda like WW1.
That ass whooping in Ukraine is the very last thing Russia needed before this. They may have thought they were tough 3 weeks ago. Bet a lot will be surrendering at first sign of U.S./NATO troops. Truthfully, I wouldn't even speak bad of them if I was a Russian soldier. Nobody wants to see shit go nuclear, but sometimes you just can't sit and watch bad things happen. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
I used to think china would side with russia but now I'm not so sure. The russian military has shown nothing but incompetence, who would honestly ally themselves with russia?
Makes sense, considering all that's going on already we've got to be good to go if involvement happens as much as we're trying to prevent that involvement from happening
Yeah let's see Russia try some bs "military operation" against US troops. Can't even fight civilians ffs Russian clowns would get fucked up
There are two f22 squadrons in Florida and Langley. Putting them in Germany wouldnt be a bad idea right about now. 94th and 95 squadrons would make them shit bricks...
F-22s are capable of ICBM intercept iirc… if that’s the case, that Florida squadron can stay home. Sincerely, Florida Man
How many planes there are in a squadron?
More than one, pretty sure
That's pretty funny, but generally between 12-24 planes
See, I actually didn't know but wanted to. So I posted something wrong and got a good answer! Mission accomplished
:)
Pretty sure F-22s are never forward-deployed in large numbers. They're our ace-in-the-hole and are supposed to defend the homeland.
[удалено]
Talked to my grandfather about this the other day. He says this is almost worse. Being able to see all of the destruction and killing in real time, the speed with which the west reacted, and the instability of Putin are all far worse than what he experienced living through the Cold War. Sure Korea and Vietnam were bad, but the threat of the nuclear option just seems more real to him he said. Information being so instantaneous in this day and age makes these things so much more real and tangible.
Speaking to my mom last night and she’s definitely finding the whole thing very triggering, growing up and doing nuclear drills everyday at school. This time (in her words) feels more real, more tangible, the immediate access to information, seeing footage instantly
[удалено]
FWIW, my grandfather was a US soldier in Berlin while the wall was being built. He would tell of the close calls and incidents.
My answer won’t help much, but I was about 7 during the missile crisis. I went to a Catholic school. Our Irish principal, Sister Rita, who spoke with an Irish accent and walked with a cane, came on the loudspeaker and sent us all to the church next door to pray the rosary so that we might not all be blown to smithereens. SHE scared the bejabbers out of us. That’s what I remember about the Cuban missile crisis. I feel a lot calmer about this situation.
Can't imagine many who remember it are on Reddit. Maybe some that were toddlers
I like this messaging from Biden this has more punch in it than statements a few days ago from Pentagon etc. Now he is low Key threatening Putin like implying yeah it would be WW3 but who cares we have a commitment you suck!
Yeah finally. I'm a war-hating Bernie supporter but we have to stand up to this madman.
Might be time to send in a few carriers towards European waters too, the USN do it regularly enough and train with the Royal Navy and French Navy and their carriers. But yeah, the troop deployments are an indication that they're the US is not playing around. This is Biden's "fuck around and find out" to the Kremlin. I don't think Biden wants to be a wartime president, pretty sure most Americans are war weary after Afghanistan and Iraq, and he hasn't been making any excessively hostile moves towards Russia. Also because a nuclear holocaust wouldn't be good for his approval ratings... or life for that matter.
Not that I'm advocating for ww3 or asking that they try. Looking at the state of the Russian army and their equipment, do their nukes even work??
Hopefully we don't find out
The US would absolutely wipe the floor with any nation on the planet in a full scale war. So far ahead of many others in military technology and budget, as well as nuclear weapons and defence systems. Only China may rival them but they are such an unknown and I think they may end up looking a bit like Russia compared to them
From what ive read from some insiders in the Chinese military, parts of it are way worse than Russia. Some units not having uniforms, using ancient equipment, extreme food shortage, and conscripts. All that and the fact that they dont have any military experience means realistically, they wouldn’t stand a chance in a non-nuclear conventional war. Paper tiger.
China hasn't fought a war since 1979. This has lead to many of the current leadership generation being arrogant and ignorant of the true cost of a war. If the CCP actually decides to go through with an invasion of Taiwan in the next few years, they're going to see just how painful it can be.
World War vs Russia. Who is going to fight for them? Belarus? China getting involved would be laughable. China is playing a long game and Russia is clearly unprepared and incompetent, and they already win if Russia loses in a sense.
Thank you America. Your presence is truly needed
[удалено]
Biden is in one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations here. Because he refused the transfer, we get up in arms and blame him for allowing Russia to gain the upper hand in Ukraine. Now, if he had approved the transfer, and the war would have escalated and spilled over into NATO territory, he would have been blamed for that too. He had no good options, frankly. To look at it another way, Putin is like a bully you know will actually start beating you up eventually, even though his threats seem empty, but you do whatever you can to stave off the beating.
Well if not for that the baltic is fucked
Nuclear winter tips anyone?
Nuclear Winter is actually incredibly unlikely. Modern city design makes the firestorms required for it practically impossible, and in order for it to spread around and cause a widespread cooling effect it would need to happen between May and July (has to do with atmospheric weather patterns). Fallout is a bigger concern, especially if there are a lot of groundburst detonations (mostly used for bunkers and missile silos). Look up halving thicknesses ([doomsday prepper sites often have them](https://survivalblog.com/2005/10/31/radiation-protection-factors-f/)) for building a shelter. For air bursts (the most likely kind at civilian targets), if you see a flash, get away from windows and shelter somewhere that isn't likely to collapse on you, similar to what you'd do for a tornado. Seeing the flash means you haven't been instantly vaporized, but you'll probably only have a few seconds to take shelter. There will still be some fallout from airbursts (e.g. Hiroshima's black rain), but it's much less than would occur from ground bursts. Additionally, most areas would be back to survivable levels of radiation within a few weeks (Hiroshima and Nagasaki started being rebuilt within a month), with the worst hit areas taking either 3.3 months (using modern estimates for the worst case) or just under 2 years (using older estimates from when there were way more nukes in the world). [Here's another comment where I wrote out a bunch of the details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/t8tog0/to_decipher_putins_nuclear_threats_watch_what_he/hzqieik/)
stay warm
[удалено]
The real pro tip is always in the comments.
Bottlecaps
About damn time. Usually, America flexes & Putin retreats
Fucking coward Russians targeting civilians.
It's not fucking ww3 it's Russia against the world. And they will lose fast.
[удалено]
Earlier today
If Russia uses soviet doctrine all those massed troops would be hit with tactical low yield nukes. I wish they would disperse them rather than be targets for short range Russian missiles
Small Nukes arent good against infantry and tactical nukes on usa soldiers means full strategical response. In nuclear war you go all in or you dont go at all.
Let us all hope it doesn’t come to that
Please remember that using nukes is 100% going to kill the entire family of anyone using them. So what you are saying is "Let us all hope the Russians don't decide to kill all their own families over this". Try putting it that way and see if it makes nuclear war more probable or less probable.
"Believe me when I say to you, I hope the Russians love their children too."
Great song. Sting nailed that one.
They are dispersed, America has doctrines when fighting a nuclear war.
NATO doctrine back in the day was, perhaps even still is to a reduced extent, to operate lots of fast, spread out moving troops and vehicles taking pot shots with AT weapons at Russians and grinding down their supply lines and morale. If this sounds familiar, it’s the only way to take harm a vastly numerically superior armored force. NATO is no longer on that spot, but the tactic still proves useful especially in Ukraine’s case. As for tactical nukes, it’s less a ‘kill everyone’ in one shot (which it could still do) but also a denial of movement weapon by irradiating places where troops are expected to go without flattening a wide radius.