Nuclear War in Ukraine: Officially sanctioned Clancychat & Co. containment thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Nuclear War in Ukraine: Officially sanctioned Clancychat & Co. containment thread

«‹›25 »

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Everyone have fun with clancy-chat. There's been so many discussions about this in the Ukraine-Russia post and no place to just vent the clancychat. Now it exists.

Putin sees a diminishing population, inevitable decreases in efficiency and production vs. "the west" and decides now is the time (because it isn't going to get better) to launch invasions based on Russian appearance. He's wrong, badly wrong. Now the Russian offensive is collapsing, and there is not fallback position. The state has been nearly bankrupt with sanctions, allies are turning away, it is time! Launch the nukes!

cinci edit:
The main thread is preferred for regular conversations, but for all your speculative needs about WW3, nuclear war, or simple Clancychat this thread is good to go. Those 3 rules are waived for this thread, but others remain in place.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Oct 12, 2022

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:29

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Moving my question from the Ukraine war thread, what would the NATO response likely be if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine? Would they get involved militarily?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:13

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Nukes in Warsaw

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:13

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

No, do not launch the nukes

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:15

Doccers: Aug 15, 2000; Patron Saint of Chickencheese

Does NATO/the US even need to use nukes to respond? modern precision weapons kinda make them... moot to accomplish their goals as I understand it. So Putin fires off a few tactical nukes, and NATO responds by removing high value targets... which ones and how, I don't know. I suspect Putin himself is not an easy man to get to even with a bunker buster.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:17

Smeef: Aug 15, 2003; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!; Pillbug

In this thread op stands for operator, son

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:17

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Doccers posted:

Does NATO/the US even need to use nukes to respond? modern precision weapons kinda make them... moot to accomplish their goals as I understand it. So Putin fires off a few tactical nukes, and NATO responds by removing high value targets... which ones and how, I don't know. I suspect Putin himself is not an easy man to get to even with a bunker buster.

Would NATO even respond militarily to Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine and risk destroying the entire world, or would Russia be permanently considered a pariah state?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:19

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Doccers posted:

Does NATO/the US even need to use nukes to respond? modern precision weapons kinda make them... moot to accomplish their goals as I understand it. So Putin fires off a few tactical nukes, and NATO responds by removing high value targets... which ones and how, I don't know. I suspect Putin himself is not an easy man to get to even with a bunker buster.

Probably need to destroy the Russian silos.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:20

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

The only winning move is not to play.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:20

Djarum: Apr 1, 2004; by vyelkin

Willo567 posted:

Moving my question from the Ukraine war thread, what would the NATO response likely be if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine? Would they get involved militarily?

If Russia used/uses nukes there would likely be an international push to get involved and retaliate. There would need to be shown that there are consequences to using them to keep the MAD doctrine intact. With a weakened Russia my guess is airstrikes on main military and government sites to make sure that they don't get a chance to use it again.

The biggest issue would be the submarines although I doubt that any sub commanders would want to end the world especially for a decapitated government and military.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:21

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Djarum posted:

If Russia used/uses nukes there would likely be an international push to get involved and retaliate. There would need to be shown that there are consequences to using them to keep the MAD doctrine intact. With a weakened Russia my guess is airstrikes on main military and government sites to make sure that they don't get a chance to use it again.

The biggest issue would be the submarines although I doubt that any sub commanders would want to end the world especially for a decapitated government and military.

Wouldn't Putin at that point order nuclear launches against all NATO nations striking Russia?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:22

Despera: Jun 6, 2011

Willo567 posted:

Moving my question from the Ukraine war thread, what would the NATO response likely be if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine? Would they get involved militarily?

I've read US command has studied this scenario a lot and was looking for low yield nukes to counter

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:24

Nazzadan: Jun 22, 2016

I would imagine "Russia goes crazy and starts nuking" is very very high on the list of things the US military has brainstormed options for and I would hope by now there is a response that doesn't involve losing most of the developed world in the process.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:26

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Here's a fun wrench to throw into the mix:

What kind of shape are the ICBMs actually in? Given, you know, what all we've seen.

I mean he could have a pretty astronomical failure rate and still blow up civilization of course.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:28

Budzilla: Oct 14, 2007; We can all learn from our past mistakes.

Willo567 posted:

Wouldn't Putin at that point order nuclear launches against all NATO nations striking Russia?

Basically.

Look at the current war. Putin decided to go all in on Ukraine rather than take bites out out of it. So instead of securing Luhansk and Donetsk and expanding the war from there when his demands weren't met, he just went "take everything". If the stakes are much higher why not go full nuclear strike?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:29

Djarum: Apr 1, 2004; by vyelkin

Willo567 posted:

Wouldn't Putin at that point order nuclear launches against all NATO nations striking Russia?

There wouldn't be a Putin or much military command left. They would go after command and control. Frankly there is enough leaks and spies within Russia now that I am pretty confident it is known who and where it is all is. You just pull a decapitation strike and end the threat quickly.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:40

Despera: Jun 6, 2011

Hope russias nukes are as well maintained as everything else

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:41

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

Finally. Thank you Op.Back in the 80's, this topic was all the rage. It would be nice if you put this in the op maybe?

The worst one (as in silliness) was one where the Russian's attack AFTER the Berlin wall falls but before Germany is united. That pretty much killed the genre. But Tom Clancy and Larry Bond could not be stopped.

Seven Days to the Rhine was the Soviet plan to attack NATO.

quote:

Battle outline

The scenario for the war was NATO launching a nuclear attack on Polish and Czechoslovak cities in the Vistula river valley area in a first-strike scenario, which would prevent Warsaw Pact commanders from sending reinforcements to East Germany to forestall a possible NATO invasion of that country.[2][4][3] The plan expected that as many as two million Polish civilians would die in such a war and Polish operational strength would be completely destroyed.

A Soviet nuclear counter-strike would be launched against West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and North-East Italy.

Nuclear response

Maps associated with the released plan show nuclear strikes in many NATO states, but exclude both France and the United Kingdom. There are several possibilities for this lack of strikes, the most probable being that both France and the United Kingdom are nuclear weapons states, and as such retain nuclear arsenals that could be employed in retaliation for nuclear strikes against their nations.[2][3][9][5]

The French Force de dissuasion employed a nuclear strategy known as dissuasion du faible au fort (weak-to-strong deterrence); this is considered a "counter-value" strategy, which implies that a nuclear attack on France would be responded to by a strike on Soviet-bloc cities.[2][3]

The Guardian, however, speculates that "France would have escaped attack, possibly because it is not a member of NATO's integrated structure. Britain, which has always been at the heart of NATO, would also have been spared, suggesting Moscow wanted to stop at the Rhine to avoid overstretching its forces."[2][3]

In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's integrated military command structure. In practical terms, while France remained a NATO member and fully participated in the political instances of the Organization, it was no longer represented on certain committees like the Nuclear Planning Group and the Defence Planning Committee. Foreign forces were removed from French territory and French forces temporarily withdrawn from NATO commands.[10] The 1st French Army, with its headquarters at Strasbourg, on the Franco-German border, was the main field headquarters controlling operations in support of NATO in West Germany, as well as defending France. Although France was not officially part of NATO's command structure, there was an understanding, formalised by regular joint exercises in West Germany, that France would go to the aid of NATO, should the Warsaw Pact attack. To that end, the Headquarters and two divisions of II (Fr) Corps were permanently stationed in West Germany, with the wartime mission of supporting NATO's US-led Central Army Group (CENTAG).[11]

There are many high-value targets in Britain (like RAF Fylingdales, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Lakenheath) that would then have to be struck in a conventional manner in this plan, though a nuclear strike would be far more effective (and, as the plans show, a preferable option for the Soviet leadership as shown by their strikes in Western Europe). The plan also indicates that USAF fighter-bombers, primarily the long-ranged F-111 Aardvark, would be employed in nuclear strikes, and that they would launch from those British bases.[2][3]

The Soviets planned to use about 7.5 megatons of atomic weaponry in all during such a conflict.

Known targets

Vienna was to be hit by two 500-kiloton bombs, while Vicenza, Verona, Padua, and several bases in Italy were to be hit by single 500-kiloton bombs.[6] Hungary was to capture Vienna.[5]

Stuttgart, Munich, and Nuremberg in West Germany were to be destroyed by nuclear weapons and then captured by the Czechoslovaks and Hungarians.[5]

In Denmark, the first nuclear targets were Roskilde and Esbjerg. Roskilde, while having no military significance, is the second-largest city on Zealand and located close to the Danish capital Copenhagen (the distance from central Copenhagen to Roskilde is only 35 km or 22 mi). It would also be targeted for its cultural and historical significance to break the morale of the Danish population and army. Esbjerg, the fifth-largest city in the country, would be targeted for its large harbour capable of facilitating delivery of large NATO reinforcements. If there was Danish resistance after the two initial strikes, other targets would be bombed.[12]
Additional plans

The Soviet Union planned to have reached Lyon by day nine and to press on to a final position at the Pyrenees.[5] Czechoslovakia thought it to be too optimistic at the time, and some present-day Western planners believe that such a goal was unrealistic or even unattainable.[5]

If anyone thinks that this was going to work...well I have a bridge in the Ukraine to sell you. The US and NATO plan was to use Nuclear weapons in retaliation.

Bellingcat https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaKbNRDneZKX discuses the original Russian plan to invade Ukraine WAS to use a tactical nuclear weapon.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:41

Bremen: Jul 20, 2006; Our God..... is an awesome God

Nessus posted:

Here's a fun wrench to throw into the mix:

What kind of shape are the ICBMs actually in? Given, you know, what all we've seen.

I mean he could have a pretty astronomical failure rate and still blow up civilization of course.

This has been a question I've seen come up, and quite possibly not great if the state of the forces attacking Ukraine are any indication. But the problem there is 90% of Russia's nukes turning out to be duds is probably the difference between "end of the human race" and "billions die" so it's not a great thing to find out.

Anyways, my response to a nuke in the Ukraine:

Willo567 posted:

You don't think that would cause NATO to get directly involve in the war afterwards?

It should, and the ideal solution here would be the entire rest of the world coming together and going "No. This stops NOW" to ensure no one ever thinks of trying that again. But Putin using a nuke on Ukraine because they made him look bad would probably greatly increase the perception that that he'd launch ICBMs if NATO intervened directly, so my suspicion is it would actually make intervention less likely.

At the very least, the Russian sanctions would never end. Not in a hundred years.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:46

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Nuclear war is inevitable now. Get to Canada and hope your local fascist battalion let's you play world of Warcraft all day as long as you don't protest.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:48

dominoeffect: Oct 1, 2013

Comstar posted:

Bellingcat https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaKbNRDneZKX discuses the original Russian plan to invade Ukraine WAS to use a tactical nuclear weapon.

Fiona Hill had a similar outlook in this recent interview: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340. Not really sure what to make out of all this, though in any case I hope cooler heads will prevail

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:49

Bremen: Jul 20, 2006; Our God..... is an awesome God

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Nuclear war is inevitable now. Get to Canada and hope your local fascist battalion let's you play world of Warcraft all day as long as you don't protest.

Honestly, I'm not that worried about nuclear war now. I mean, I don't discount it entirely but I think it's very low odds - it requires both Putin to be completely bonkers and no one in the chain to stop him.

I'm much more worried about the invasion of the Ukraine being the last nail in the coffin for nuclear non-proliferation. Ten or twenty years from now I expect almost any nation that can build or acquire some on the black market somehow to have an arsenal, because they know it'll protect you from invasion and keep anyone from stopping you if you go invading, and I don't see every dictator and wannabe conqueror having nukes as being a stable situation for very long.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:52

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

I watched the bellingcat video on Russia-Ukraine, and from what I can gather, the guy said that Putin was only thinking about tactical nuclear weapons, but didn't provide context on when Putin would use them other than "he's insane". Would it be if NATO got involved most likely?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:54

dominoeffect: Oct 1, 2013

Bremen posted:

Honestly, I'm not that worried about nuclear war now. I mean, I don't discount it entirely but I think it's very low odds - it requires both Putin to be completely bonkers and no one in the chain to stop him.

I'm much more worried about the invasion of the Ukraine being the last nail in the coffin for nuclear non-proliferation. Ten or twenty years from now I expect almost any nation that can build or acquire some on the black market somehow to have an arsenal, because they know it'll protect you from invasion and keep anyone from stopping you if you go invading, and I don't see every dictator and wannabe conqueror having nukes as being a stable situation for very long.

Similar thoughts here. I can't imagine Ukraine would be getting invaded right now if they still had their nukes

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:55

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Even given that Putin made a bad choice to invade Ukraine, he still hasn't and didn't start by launching nukes. And NATO, even seeing his very provocative actions has been pretty reasonable about trying to NOT escalate the confrontation?

# ? Mar 5, 2022 06:56

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Bremen posted:

Honestly, I'm not that worried about nuclear war now. I mean, I don't discount it entirely but I think it's very low odds - it requires both Putin to be completely bonkers and no one in the chain to stop him.

I'm much more worried about the invasion of the Ukraine being the last nail in the coffin for nuclear non-proliferation. Ten or twenty years from now I expect almost any nation that can build or acquire some on the black market somehow to have an arsenal, because they know it'll protect you from invasion and keep anyone from stopping you if you go invading, and I don't see every dictator and wannabe conqueror having nukes as being a stable situation for very long.

This is a great point. It certainly gives North Korea a poo poo ton of more reasons to keep trying to perfect their arsenal.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:01

Despera: Jun 6, 2011

Putin has two daughters he supposedly cares about so ending the world probably be not great for them

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:01

Nazzadan: Jun 22, 2016

It's true ones my girlfriend

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:03

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

I think it's likely that the Russian invasion in the North towards Kiev will be defeated in 3-5 days. The south will keep going but grind to a halt next week too. It was 15 days to Poland and the invasion has failed.

The only way Putin can win is to destroy the Ukrainian will to fight. With 1000's of AT and AA missiles, along with new volunteers from the west, he will soon be outnumbered.

Unless someone in Russia takes him out, he will turn to his last remaining trump card. If he destroys Kiev he'll think he can still win AND tells the West to back off. Probably threaten to nuke more Ukrainian cities unless the West stops supplying Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to defeat his land armies.

The West won't be in a position to do much directly until the "exercises" currently forming up in Poland kick off.

I can't say what will happen then, but I hope you all have a nuclear survival plan ready to go.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:21

Bremen: Jul 20, 2006; Our God..... is an awesome God

Comstar posted:

I think it's likely that the Russian invasion in the North towards Kiev will be defeated in 3-5 days. The south will keep going but grind to a halt next week too. It was 15 days to Poland and the invasion has failed.

The only way Putin can win is to destroy the Ukrainian will to fight. With 1000's of AT and AA missiles, along with new volunteers from the west, he will soon be outnumbered.

Unless someone in Russia takes him out, he will turn to his last remaining trump card. If he destroys Kiev he'll think he can still win AND tells the West to back off. Probably threaten to nuke more Ukrainian cities unless the West stops supplying Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to defeat his land armies.

The West won't be in a position to do much directly until the "exercises" currently forming up in Poland kick off.

I can't say what will happen then, but I hope you all have a nuclear survival plan ready to go.

You know the saying, win the battle but lose the war?

If Putin nukes Kyiv he might win the war but lose the world. Yeah, Ukraine would probably surrender and NATO probably wouldn't do anything out of fear of more nukes, but North Korea would be a treasured member of the international community compared to Russia after that. China would abandon him and the never ending sanctions would destroy his country. There'd be no end to the assassins after him.

I don't think he's that stupid. I hope I'm not wrong.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:33

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Comstar posted:

Bellingcat https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaKbNRDneZKX discuses the original Russian plan to invade Ukraine WAS to use a tactical nuclear weapon.

I watched the time stamps another poster in the Russia-Ukraine thread stated were about tactical nukes, and Bellingcat doesn't mention that the plan was to originally use a tactical nuke, just that Putin was thinking about it. He also doesn't say if his sources said when they thought Putin might use one

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:33

Blitz of 404 Error: Sep 19, 2007; Joe Biden is a top 15 president

Comstar posted:

The only way Putin can win is to destroy the Ukrainian will to fight. With 1000's of AT and AA missiles, along with new volunteers from the west, he will soon be outnumbered.

Cmon

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:34

MSB3000: Jul 30, 2008

Comstar posted:

I think it's likely that the Russian invasion in the North towards Kiev will be defeated in 3-5 days. The south will keep going but grind to a halt next week too. It was 15 days to Poland and the invasion has failed.

The only way Putin can win is to destroy the Ukrainian will to fight. With 1000's of AT and AA missiles, along with new volunteers from the west, he will soon be outnumbered.

Unless someone in Russia takes him out, he will turn to his last remaining trump card. If he destroys Kiev he'll think he can still win AND tells the West to back off. Probably threaten to nuke more Ukrainian cities unless the West stops supplying Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs to defeat his land armies.

The West won't be in a position to do much directly until the "exercises" currently forming up in Poland kick off.

I can't say what will happen then, but I hope you all have a nuclear survival plan ready to go.

Amazing that you have the Eye of Agamotto.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:44

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Bremen posted:

I don't think he's that stupid. I hope I'm not wrong.

Boomer fox news brain gets some of the smart ones too. Nothing else to do about it

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:47

Comstar: Apr 20, 2007; Are you happy now?

Bremen posted:

If Putin nukes Kyiv he might win the war but lose the world. Yeah, Ukraine would probably surrender and NATO probably wouldn't do anything out of fear of more nukes

I actually think Ukraine would NOT surrender and keep on fighting. Their ability to do would be massively hampered, but unless he nukes all top 10 cities, I don't think they actually would.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:50

Carmant: Nov 23, 2015; Treadmill? What's that? Is that some kind of cake?

I need Putin to tactically nuke some of these Elden Ring bosses for me

# ? Mar 5, 2022 07:55

Mister Speaker: May 8, 2007; WE WILL CONTROL
ALL THAT YOU SEE
AND HEAR

It won't be so bad. Gamma rays are just spicy light.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 08:09

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Comstar posted:

I actually think Ukraine would NOT surrender and keep on fighting. Their ability to do would be massively hampered, but unless he nukes all top 10 cities, I don't think they actually would.

I don't know which wish.com intelligence department is feeding you this startlingly comprehensive and confident analysis but I want you to at least refer to them by a spicy acronym.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 08:18

Mazed: Oct 23, 2010

I hate that we decided to call it Clancy chat instead of Metal Gear chat

# ? Mar 5, 2022 09:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:29

with a rebel yell she QQd: Jan 18, 2007; Villain

So there is this Russian dude we watch a lot with the wife. He came out with this video today and added English subs for good measure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHVKZYA2bZE
The video is pretty much what the title says except the first few minutes where he explains why he thinks a nuclear strike is a possibility for Putin.

Clancy chat yaaaay :psypop:

# ? Mar 5, 2022 10:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Nuclear War in Ukraine: Officially sanctioned Clancychat & Co. containment thread

«‹›25 »