Jump to content
mugtang

What if Putin uses nuclear weapons?

Putin uses a tactical nuke In Ukraine  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. What is our response

    • Nuclear strike against Russia
    • Nuclear strike against Russian forces in Ukraine
      0
    • Conventional strikes inside Russia against military targets
    • Deployment of military forces to Ukraine to push out Russia
    • Conventional strikes against Russian forces in Ukraine
    • More economic sanctions (not sure what is left to sanction)
    • Nothing


Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2022 at 10:02 AM, mugtang said:

There are a few issues with invading Russia proper:

1.  It will take months to build up sufficient forces in Europe to invade Russia.  Probably need 750k troops. Obviously they wouldn’t all be American but they would make up the bulk of forces

2. We would likely have to invade through either the Baltics or Ukraine.  We could go through Belarus I suppose.  But if we go through the Baltics then Russians could easily concentrate their defenses. It would be a bloody fight. And there’s not much to stop them from using tactical nukes to slow down our advance.

3. It’s a long way to Moscow assuming they don’t nuke our troops.  While the US military is experts in logistics, that is a heavy lift.

4. The Russian spring.  Let’s say Russia nuked Kiev today and we begin building up an invasion force immediately.  We’re looking at probably December before we could conduct a full scale invasion.  We wouldn’t reach Moscow until March or April probably.  And then we are fighting in the Russian mud and any advance is slowed to a crawl.

5.  Don’t underestimate the Russian will to defend their homeland.  If we invade, regardless of whether or not Russia nukes a city, they will see us as the aggressor and will fight to the last man.

The better option is to conduct aerial strikes on Russian forces in Russia and reduce their capacity to make war.  Establish a no-fly zone over Western Russia and slowly bleed them to death.  Maybe we could get the Chinese to invade the east with the promise that they can annex whatever territory they take in Siberia and exploit the resources there. 

Yeah I think the Serbia response is the best.  If they use nukes on a population center we have to establish a no fly zone and you bomb Moscow and St. Petersburg with conventional weapons.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 4:12 PM, DestinFlPackfan said:

Wouldn't something like Israel's Iron Dome defense system be of use ..to prevent landing of Nuke tipped warheads?

Granted aireal destruction would still have severe ground affects. But, if they were shot down over RU territory........

Not sure how far the Iron Dome can  reach.

Iron dome should be in use now to understand its effectiveness but Israel is not a reliable ally. 

  • OG R-Tard 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 11:56 PM, Nevada Convert said:

An invasion of Russia? Are you totally insane? That would absolutely start WWIII. Russian and old Soviet doctrine see nukes totally different than we do. Russian generals have the power to use nukes without permission from Putin or the Duma. They see nukes as a much more normal part of regular warfare. You have to understand how they think.... they don’t think like we do. If we invaded Russia conventionally, Putin would know he couldn’t defeat us that way, anyway. So he’s going to use his extreme weapons, instead. Russia would nuke the US before they let us pull an Iraq/Sadaam purge.

 

 

I have a tendency to agree that we probably should stay away from Russia....but we should make it clear that NATO would consider the deployment of nuclear weapons an indirect strike on NATO itself.  It would almost certainly cause a response that would cost Russia the entirety of its Ukrainian seized territory at a bear minimum.  An immediate Russian defeat would be in NATO's best interest to stop the attack.  At minimum, we would likely take off any guardrails to the types of military hardware we provide to Ukraine.  A no fly zone would have to be set up over 100% of Ukraine and any threatening missiles or anything else would have to be taken out.  It should be clear that we won't use nuclear in Ukraine...because we don't need it to win...like Putin does.

So if having a chance to hold or win the war is important to Putin...nukes cannot be used.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 8:55 AM, sactowndog said:

Iron dome should be in use now to understand its effectiveness but Israel is not a reliable ally. 

Israel certainly has made some big mistakes and done some dumb things, but if we’re going to judge the US - Israel relationship, I think we’ve been more inconsistent than they have with us. Our policy with them is quite different when a GOP or Dem prez is in office. 

Israel is a survivor, and it’s extremely impressive the way they set their minds to solve a big problem and then just fvcking do it. We’ve had water shortages in the West for decades, but decades ago they had a much bigger problem and they designed a desalination and distribution system that’s the best in the world. They design and develop all kinds of impressive weapons.

The ONLY reason Iran doesn’t have operational nukes right now is because of Israel. We have done nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, we’ve made it worse by giving Iran big money while they cheat. From Israel’s perspective, what kind of reliable ally does that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 6:18 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Israel certainly has made some big mistakes and done some dumb things, but if we’re going to judge the US - Israel relationship, I think we’ve been more inconsistent than they have with us. Our policy with them is quite different when a GOP or Dem prez is in office. 

Israel is a survivor, and it’s extremely impressive the way they set their minds to solve a big problem and then just fvcking do it. We’ve had water shortages in the West for decades, but decades ago they had a much bigger problem and they designed a desalination and distribution system that’s the best in the world. They design and develop all kinds of impressive weapons.

The ONLY reason Iran doesn’t have operational nukes right now is because of Israel. We have done nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, we’ve made it worse by giving Iran big money while they cheat. From Israel’s perspective, what kind of reliable ally does that?

One that attacks us ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

steals US military secrets 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

and have tried to exterminate the Palistinians 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 9:16 AM, Akkula said:

I have a tendency to agree that we probably should stay away from Russia....but we should make it clear that NATO would consider the deployment of nuclear weapons an indirect strike on NATO itself.  It would almost certainly cause a response that would cost Russia the entirety of its Ukrainian seized territory at a bear minimum.  An immediate Russian defeat would be in NATO's best interest to stop the attack.  At minimum, we would likely take off any guardrails to the types of military hardware we provide to Ukraine.  A no fly zone would have to be set up over 100% of Ukraine and any threatening missiles or anything else would have to be taken out.  It should be clear that we won't use nuclear in Ukraine...because we don't need it to win...like Putin does.

So if having a chance to hold or win the war is important to Putin...nukes cannot be used.  

Putin has threatened to not just strike Ukraine but to strike Western Europe with Nukes.   Such a strike would be considered an attack on NATO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting ideas here…

I can’t say what I would ACTUALLY do because I don’t know crap about it.  So with the understanding that my plan is grounded in a dangerously high level of ignorance, here is what I’d “do”:

I’d announce publicly that Putin has crossed the line and that the Russians have 72 hours to surrender him to NATO or to the Hague, to commit to the immediate withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea (starting within another 24 hours), and to commit $100 billion (or whatever) to the reconstruction of Ukraine.  OR ELSE – without specifying what ELSE is.  I would neither encourage nor discourage speculation that ELSE might mean using battleground nukes – I’d just say that we seek regime change and that we hope and trust that this matter can be resolved without expansion beyond its already unacceptable level.

I’d immediately impose an no-fly zone in Ukraine and I’d take out all Russian command and control centers, fuel dumps and weapons depots in Ukraine.

I’d also announce that, if they do not surrender Putin, etc, per the above, in 72 hours, we will take out all Russian command and control centers, fuel dumps and weapons depots in Crimea, Belarus and Russia itself – within 100 miles of the Ukrainian border.

I would not only announce all this publicly, I’d print millions of flyers explaining what we are doing and what we will soon do and I’d use drones to drop them over major and even some minor Russian population centers.

I’d also use drones and I’d paper Russian troops inside Ukraine, with the added demand that they immediately abandon their equipment and weapons and walk back to Russia – with the understanding that we would try to guarantee their safety while doing so.

My sense is that, if Putin uses battlefield nukes, he will have overplayed his hand.  The majority of his military command cannot possibly support such a tactic, and certainly the Russian people would not support it.  So present him with a military leadership that is, on some level, in revolt, with troops that are abandoning Ukraine on their own, and with hopefully massive rioting in the streets and hope that somebody on the inside takes him out.

If they don’t surrender Putin within 72 hours, then I don’t know what the heck I would do.  Maybe start with taking out the fleet in the Black Sea?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 1:56 AM, Nevada Convert said:

An invasion of Russia? Are you totally insane? That would absolutely start WWIII. Russian and old Soviet doctrine see nukes totally different than we do. Russian generals have the power to use nukes without permission from Putin or the Duma. They see nukes as a much more normal part of regular warfare. You have to understand how they think.... they don’t think like we do. If we invaded Russia conventionally, Putin would know he couldn’t defeat us that way, anyway. So he’s going to use his extreme weapons, instead. Russia would nuke the US before they let us pull an Iraq/Sadaam purge.

 

 

As opposed to setting a precedent of "it's fine to nuke neighboring capital cities"? 

No convert. How they think is they'll push till someone stops them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 12:02 PM, mugtang said:

There are a few issues with invading Russia proper:

1.  It will take months to build up sufficient forces in Europe to invade Russia.  Probably need 750k troops. Obviously they wouldn’t all be American but they would make up the bulk of forces

2. We would likely have to invade through either the Baltics or Ukraine.  We could go through Belarus I suppose.  But if we go through the Baltics then Russians could easily concentrate their defenses. It would be a bloody fight. And there’s not much to stop them from using tactical nukes to slow down our advance.

3. It’s a long way to Moscow assuming they don’t nuke our troops.  While the US military is experts in logistics, that is a heavy lift.

4. The Russian spring.  Let’s say Russia nuked Kiev today and we begin building up an invasion force immediately.  We’re looking at probably December before we could conduct a full scale invasion.  We wouldn’t reach Moscow until March or April probably.  And then we are fighting in the Russian mud and any advance is slowed to a crawl.

5.  Don’t underestimate the Russian will to defend their homeland.  If we invade, regardless of whether or not Russia nukes a city, they will see us as the aggressor and will fight to the last man.

The better option is to conduct aerial strikes on Russian forces in Russia and reduce their capacity to make war.  Establish a no-fly zone over Western Russia and slowly bleed them to death.  Maybe we could get the Chinese to invade the east with the promise that they can annex whatever territory they take in Siberia and exploit the resources there. 

I like the idea giving The Chinese a prize.  If Russia uses nuclear weapons they longer deserve to be a country. Give China a chuck of it. Occupied the rest of it I guess. Probably a million or more Russian citizens will die from war and starvation. I guess if they don’t want those consequences they can get rid of Putin 1st. 
 

Id Eventually split up Russia into a number of different countries. I’d be reluctant to help them rebuild either. 
 

This conflict would leave a couple million dead, more if it goes total nuclear. Russian nuclear capability is probably way overestimated much like the military was. They wouldn’t be able to deliver any by bombers and I would think the air defenses would destroy a number of the ICBM. Their subs would be sunk in short order. I would think someone in Russia would get rid of Putin before he launched a full scale nuclear war. Russia would take 100x the damage they could ever give out.
 

Surely Biden has our attack subs following every Russian nuclear sub. Our satellites should know exactly when they leave port. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 12:28 PM, mugtang said:

Recent studies have shown that nuclear winter is not likely even in a scenario where Russia and the US have a full scale nuclear exchange.

I think this simulation is more likely what happens given current geopolitical issues:

 

Nuclear winter was like 95% of the deaths from past predictions. An all out nuclear if every bomb goes thru is estimated at 15 million instance deaths and another 15 million within a few months.  Then a shit load of people getting cancer in their 60 and 70s. 
 

even if nuclear winter doesn’t happen you probably see another 5 to 10 million die from starvation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2022 at 8:43 AM, happycamper said:

As opposed to setting a precedent of "it's fine to nuke neighboring capital cities"? 

No convert. How they think is they'll push till someone stops them. 

You’re insane. If Russia nukes a NATO member in a population city, they just started WWIII. Simple as that. Sending in our troops to get nuked is the last thing we should do. You don’t seem to understand how Putin plays ball now. For “military operations” against small opponents, he’s fine with conventional because he thinks his nearly non-existent conventional power can still get the job done.

But he doesn’t have the money to keep a ‘super power’ sized conventional force going, so he puts most of his money into extreme weapons and is leveraging his power with the West with those along with his energy. They’re real, and they’ll work enough to devastate this planet. Out of the approximately 6,000 nukes he’s reported to have, only around 1,000 or so are viably useable in short order. I wouldn’t even count on many of his old Satan systems to even work, but his brand new Satan 2’s definitely do, and they’re terrifying. 

If we invaded Russia tomorrow with a Iraq/Sadaam type operation, he couldn’t stop us conveniently. So he would use tactical nukes as the equalizer to stop us, and he would. We would have to start using them ourselves, and Russia would turn into a radioactive country. Why would we want our troops there in that hell?   Our troops would die, their troops would die, civilians would die. 

A Russian invasion is the absolute dumbest idea anyone could possibly come up with. If we get into a nuclear war, you don’t need troops for that. 

It’s my understanding that with the old Satan systems the Russians have most of, they’re not ready to fire within minutes as ours are. They have to make special preparations that can easily be seen with spy satellites. I’m quite sure we have every one of those locations locked in with coordinations to take them out if we wanted to.

If Putin hits a NATO city with a nuke, my guess is we’d launch immediately and obliterate all of those nuke sites and have the finger on the button to take out the Kremlin as a call is made to Putin to stand down, and any sign of him not doing so would be the end of that place. They would try to launch all they could at us, and some would work and hit us. It would be WWIII. It wouldn’t be large enough to end life on earth, but the disruption of that magnitude on our global economy would kill more people than the nukes themselves, at least in the short run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 2:50 AM, Nevada Convert said:

You’re insane. If Russia nukes a NATO member in a population city, they just started WWIII. Simple as that. Sending in our troops to get nuked is the last thing we should do. You don’t seem to understand how Putin plays ball now. For “military operations” against small opponents, he’s fine with conventional because he thinks his nearly non-existent conventional power can still get the job done.

But he doesn’t have the money to keep a ‘super power’ sized conventional force going, so he puts most of his money into extreme weapons and is leveraging his power with the West with those along with his energy. They’re real, and they’ll work enough to devastate this planet. Out of the approximately 6,000 nukes he’s reported to have, only around 1,000 or so are viably useable in short order. I wouldn’t even count on many of his old Satan systems to even work, but his brand new Satan 2’s definitely do, and they’re terrifying. 

If we invaded Russia tomorrow with a Iraq/Sadaam type operation, he couldn’t stop us conveniently. So he would use tactical nukes as the equalizer to stop us, and he would. We would have to start using them ourselves, and Russia would turn into a radioactive country. Why would we want our troops there in that hell?   Our troops would die, their troops would die, civilians would die. 

A Russian invasion is the absolute dumbest idea anyone could possibly come up with. If we get into a nuclear war, you don’t need troops for that. 

It’s my understanding that with the old Satan systems the Russians have most of, they’re not ready to fire within minutes as ours are. They have to make special preparations that can easily be seen with spy satellites. I’m quite sure we have every one of those locations locked in with coordinations to take them out if we wanted to.

If Putin hits a NATO city with a nuke, my guess is we’d launch immediately and obliterate all of those nuke sites and have the finger on the button to take out the Kremlin as a call is made to Putin to stand down, and any sign of him not doing so would be the end of that place. They would try to launch all they could at us, and some would work and hit us. It would be WWIII. It wouldn’t be large enough to end life on earth, but the disruption of that magnitude on our global economy would kill more people than the nukes themselves, at least in the short run. 

convert, did you bother to read any of this thread before coming in? or do you lack intelligence or education and choose to open your mouth anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 2:27 AM, happycamper said:

convert, did you bother to read any of this thread before coming in? or do you lack intelligence or education and choose to open your mouth anyway?

That’s it? that’s all you got?  There isn’t any scenario where invading Russia is anywhere near prudent. Only yahoo’s like you come up with insane ideas like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 5:38 AM, Nevada Convert said:

That’s it? that’s all you got?  There isn’t any scenario where invading Russia is anywhere near prudent. Only yahoo’s like you come up with insane ideas like that. 

convert I specifically referenced what I think should happen if russia were to nuke a large city in ukraine. not a military target with a tac nuke, specifically destroying a non-nato city of millions. 

you go on blathering about nuking nato city hypotheticals out of that butthole you call a mouth. convert, i don't give a shit about you. you aren't worth the energy to go over stuff i already posted clearly and concisely. so i just gotta ask. did you even read what people were talking about, or are you such dumbass you couldn't understand our posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 9:43 PM, sactowndog said:

Putin has threatened to not just strike Ukraine but to strike Western Europe with Nukes.   Such a strike would be considered an attack on NATO.  

One would hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2022 at 9:03 AM, Yoda said:

Some interesting ideas here…

I can’t say what I would ACTUALLY do because I don’t know crap about it.  So with the understanding that my plan is grounded in a dangerously high level of ignorance, here is what I’d “do”:

I’d announce publicly that Putin has crossed the line and that the Russians have 72 hours to surrender him to NATO or to the Hague, to commit to the immediate withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea (starting within another 24 hours), and to commit $100 billion (or whatever) to the reconstruction of Ukraine.  OR ELSE – without specifying what ELSE is.  I would neither encourage nor discourage speculation that ELSE might mean using battleground nukes – I’d just say that we seek regime change and that we hope and trust that this matter can be resolved without expansion beyond its already unacceptable level.

I’d immediately impose an no-fly zone in Ukraine and I’d take out all Russian command and control centers, fuel dumps and weapons depots in Ukraine.

I’d also announce that, if they do not surrender Putin, etc, per the above, in 72 hours, we will take out all Russian command and control centers, fuel dumps and weapons depots in Crimea, Belarus and Russia itself – within 100 miles of the Ukrainian border.

I would not only announce all this publicly, I’d print millions of flyers explaining what we are doing and what we will soon do and I’d use drones to drop them over major and even some minor Russian population centers.

I’d also use drones and I’d paper Russian troops inside Ukraine, with the added demand that they immediately abandon their equipment and weapons and walk back to Russia – with the understanding that we would try to guarantee their safety while doing so.

My sense is that, if Putin uses battlefield nukes, he will have overplayed his hand.  The majority of his military command cannot possibly support such a tactic, and certainly the Russian people would not support it.  So present him with a military leadership that is, on some level, in revolt, with troops that are abandoning Ukraine on their own, and with hopefully massive rioting in the streets and hope that somebody on the inside takes him out.

If they don’t surrender Putin within 72 hours, then I don’t know what the heck I would do.  Maybe start with taking out the fleet in the Black Sea?

If the Russians were willing to shoot their own soldiers for retreating, starve their own citizens, force Civilians to stay in war zones during WW2, unleash the brutal and barbaric terror campaigns in Aghanistan, they will have no problems using tactical nukes in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2022 at 9:43 AM, happycamper said:

As opposed to setting a precedent of "it's fine to nuke neighboring capital cities"? 

No convert. How they think is they'll push till someone stops them. 

Always have, always will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...