qhat posted:

Nukes wouldn’t achieve any of the goals of Russia, even tactical ones.

Capt.Whorebags posted:

Is anyone still confident that Putin is thinking rationally? All of these assessments about "what would this gain" and "it would cause more problems" assume that he's a rational actor.

I guess that there's no real way to tell what state of mind he is in, but at this stage there are no good options for him, only varying degrees of shithouse ones. There is no return to status quo ante.

Capt.Whorebags posted:

Is anyone still confident that Putin is thinking rationally? All of these assessments about "what would this gain" and "it would cause more problems" assume that he's a rational actor.

I guess that there's no real way to tell what state of mind he is in, but at this stage there are no good options for him, only varying degrees of shithouse ones. There is no return to status quo ante.

Carmant posted:

What if Putin nuked the moon

Comstar posted:

Nothing Russia can do will achieve any of the goals it wants, even tactical ones. But nuking Kyiv would give him a few minutes satisfaction.

Carmant posted:

What if Putin nuked the moon

Capt.Whorebags posted:

Is anyone still confident that Putin is thinking rationally? All of these assessments about "what would this gain" and "it would cause more problems" assume that he's a rational actor.

I guess that there's no real way to tell what state of mind he is in, but at this stage there are no good options for him, only varying degrees of shithouse ones. There is no return to status quo ante.

Grip it and rip it posted:

If Putin were completely unhinged I dont think his flunkies would continue following his instructions

Outrail posted:

Counterpoint: The previous US president

FishBulbia posted:

https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1575893236383506432

Carmant posted:

What if Putin nuked the moon

John F Bennett posted:

Good

gently caress the moon

Outrail posted:

Counterpoint: The previous US president

Grip it and rip it posted:

The DoD stopped giving Trump escalatory responses in his security briefings after he blew up Qassim Suleimani, because they recognized that they were dealing with a loving idiot.

Grip it and rip it posted:

The DoD stopped giving Trump escalatory responses in his security briefings after he blew up Qassim Suleimani, because they recognized that they were dealing with a loving idiot.

Outrail posted:

Who cares about the moon name one thing the moon has ever done for us.

wins32767 posted:

Putin's going to get shot if he loses the war, so he's going to keep escalating because in escalation there is a chance he might win. He's being extremely rational for his personal situation.

Foxfire_ posted:

I don't think there's any reason to think that's true. If he backed down, he'd be embarrassed and maybe lose some internal soft power, but no Russian general is going to go "That saber rattling makes me think this trainwreck of diplomacy is worse than it was yesterday, it's coup time!"

Putin trying to order an invasion on the other hand, does have an increased chance of a general saying "This might escalate and end badly for me personally. Is obeying more or less dangerous than trying to do something about it?". Attempting an invasion of Ukraine is more likely to get Putin coup'ed than quietly swallowing Ukraine from the edges.

Foxfire_ posted:

I don't think there's any reason to think that's true. If he declared victory and retreated everybody today, he'd be embarrassed and maybe lose some internal soft power, but no Russian general is going to go "That retreat makes me think this trainwreck of a war is worse than it was yesterday, it's coup time!"

Putin trying to order a nuclear strike on the other hand, does have an increased chance of a general saying "This might escalate and end badly for me personally. Is obeying more or less dangerous than trying to do something about it?". Attempting a nuclear attack is more likely to get Putin coup'ed than declaring victory and retreating.

wins32767 posted:

The generals aren't the issue

quote:

Curtis LeMay (1906-1990) was a United States Air Force general.

[...]

LeMay’s Strategic Air Command was ready to bomb North Korea, except for one crucial step: it had no nuclear bombs. Though the military protected the bombs with guards and fences, it did not have access to them. LeMay said in retirement, “These bombs were too horrible and too dangerous to entrust to the military. They were under lock and key of the Atomic Energy Commission.” LeMay wanted bombs ready to be loaded into the hatches of his bombardment crews at any time.

Dropping nuclear bombs on major North Korean cities was also LeMay’s idea to force an end to the Korean War at its inception. His superiors demurred; such an attack would be too bloody, and cost too many civilian lives.

[...]

LeMay continued to be a strong advocate for use of nuclear weapons. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, LeMay tried to goad President Kennedy into bombing the missile sites in Cuba. LeMay believed that a massive display of US force would force the Soviets into capitulation. Kennedy was more cautious; the blockade worked and the crisis passed. Early in the Vietnam War, he advocated widespread bombing of key North Vietnamese industrial and military targets; President Johnson thought that this would draw the USSR and China into the war. LeMay wanted to threaten to North Vietnam that they stop aggression or “We’ll bomb them back into the Stone Age.” Outspoken and unpopular, he retired in 1965.

During the 1968 election, LeMay joined Alabama Governor and infamous segregationist George Wallace as vice-presidential running mate. Wallace and LeMay ran as part of the newly-established American Independent Party. Both were controversial candidates: Wallace opposed federally-enforced desegregation, while LeMay called for use of nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. They won 13.5% of the popular vote and won five states in the Deep South--a strong showing for a third party.

Rappaport posted:

tractor fanatic posted:

Is there a path to deescalation anymore? Seems like Russia's gone all in, and there's no space to negotiate. The only way out is defeat, and then pray that Russia doesn't launch

qhat posted:

It seems like Putin has backed himself into a corner for no good reason. Before the referendums you could perhaps envisage Ukraine ceding the separatist Donbas, its claim to Crimea, and its bid to join NATO permanently; pleasing nobody but at least being enough to stop the fighting. Trouble is Putin just made a big showing about how a bunch of other regions are Russia's permanently, backtracking on that would be political suicide for him. Honestly, the way the Russians have been behaving over the past few weeks is making it seem like that they are going to launch nukes regardless and want to soften the blow to the population. The referendums had nothing to do with proving anything internationally, to Russia it was all about domestic justification. Hopefully that is not the whole story though, since nukes would trigger a massive conventional response by the west and assuming nukes don't start flying left and right, would end Russia's ambitions in Ukraine overnight.

quote:

But in background conversations, a range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included unplugging Russia from the world economy or some kind of military response — though one that would most likely be delivered by the Ukrainians with Western-provided, conventional weapons.

quote:

For months, administration officials have said they could think of almost no circumstances in which a nuclear detonation by Russia would result in a nuclear response. But there has been discussion of several non-nuclear military responses — using conventional weapons, for example, against a base or unit from which the attack originated, or giving the Ukrainian forces the weaponry to launch that counterattack. In the minds of many officials, any use of nuclear weapons would require a forceful military response.

But many of the options under discussion also involve nonmilitary steps, casting Mr. Putin as an international pariah who broke the nuclear taboo for the first time in 77 years. It would be a chance, some officials say, to bring China and India, along with much of Asia and Africa, into the effort to impose sanctions on Russia, cutting off some of the biggest markets that remain for its oil and gas.

Willo567 posted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/world/europe/washington-putin-nuclear-threats.html

Here's another article from a week ago that has other options considered

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/politics/us-russia-nuclear.html

Willo567 posted:

According to this NY Times article, the likely response would be providing Ukraine weapons able to counterattack where tactical nukes are launched and unplugging Russia from the world economy

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/world/europe/washington-putin-nuclear-threats.html

Here's another article from a week ago that has other options considered

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/politics/us-russia-nuclear.html

Comstar posted:

And what country will Putin flee too? Saudi Arabia?

FishBulbia posted:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1578188802836791296

Comstar posted:

Though I may have got ahead of myself.

Next step on to the road to a 1918 revolution: not feeding, housing, arming or leading your armies, so they start to elect their own leaders when you want to send them on one last honorable attack on the enemy.

How long did it take from the German navy started to elect their own leaders, before the Kaiser fled to the Netherlands?


And what country will Putin flee too? Saudi Arabia?