Non - Nuclear Targets

[kevinkins]

double clicked post

[FilitchM2]

The Tweet does not mention NATO will soon grow 3 more members,

All that remains is to come to an agreement with Turkey. And you're going to accept Ukraine into NATO? I'll disappoint you - not in this reality

the government needs to kidnap children to try to stem the tide.

Does you have a proofs?

And on the ground, their operational art teaches Russia how to throw thousands of untrained conscripts on to the modern battle field.

Does you have a proofs?

So, a target list would ideally accelerate this downward spiral perhaps concentrating on what's left of Russia's economy even dropping gift car

Bla-bla-bla. A rare set of propaganda clichés.
Real economists thinking different https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... climbs-out

[FilitchM2]

https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

If according to this "expert" the power plants are non-military targets, then I have bad news for you. This "expert" understands nothing about the military. You don't need to read any further set of words in this tweet.

[kevinkins]

Note paragraph 2 as one example:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... october-13

"Another milblogger noted witnessing the coffins of mobilized men arrive in Chelaybinsk, Moscow, and Yekaterenburg, and claimed that many mobilized men are surrendering to Ukrainian forces.[4] One Russian milblogger complained on October 13 that newly mobilized men are being deployed in a haphazard way that will lead to 10,000 deaths and 40,000 injuries among them by February 2023.[5]"

And that's just a single regiment.

This below is sad don't you think?

https://apnews.com/article/ukrainian-ch ... 7986d85ef6

Might want to read your citation from the Economist:

"Western sanctions, launched in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, have wounded Russia’s long-term prospects. Blocking the world’s ninth-largest economy from accessing foreign tech and expertise has cut its growth potential by as much as half, forecasts suggest. Output of oil and gas, the lifeblood of Russia’s economy, is about 3% lower than before the invasion and may fall further once European embargoes come into effect at the turn of the year. In the first six months of the war between 250,000 and 500,000 Russians fled the country, reckons Liam Peach of Capital Economics, a consultancy. Lots were highly educated and well paid."

That does not mention the further evacuation after Putin's call up resulting in lines at borders and the ongoing search for able bodied (anyone that can walk) men to fill the lines.

Russia seems to be evaporating before our eyes.

[FilitchM2]

Note paragraph 2 as one example:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... october-13

"Another milblogger noted witnessing the coffins of mobilized men arrive in Chelaybinsk, Moscow, and Yekaterenburg, and claimed that many mobilized men are surrendering to Ukrainian forces.[4] One Russian milblogger complained on October 13 that newly mobilized men are being deployed in a haphazard way that will lead to 10,000 deaths and 40,000 injuries among them by February 2023.[5]"

And that's just a single regiment.

This below is sad don't you think?

So, there is no real proof. And only approximations. It should be understood that there is an information war going on. And you can’t unconditionally trust an unknown blogger. Unless, of course, you want to make an objective picture of the world. And not a picture with Mordor on one side and Hobbitania and the Outlying West on the other.

https://apnews.com/article/ukrainian-ch ... 7986d85ef6

Adoption of parentless children is not kidnapping. And this is not a text about people leaving Russia.

Might want to read your citation from the Economist:

"Western sanctions, launched in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, have wounded Russia’s long-term prospects. Blocking the world’s ninth-largest economy from accessing foreign tech and expertise has cut its growth potential by as much as half, forecasts suggest. Output of oil and gas, the lifeblood of Russia’s economy, is about 3% lower than before the invasion and may fall further once European embargoes come into effect at the turn of the year. In the first six months of the war between 250,000 and 500,000 Russians fled the country, reckons Liam Peach of Capital Economics, a consultancy. Lots were highly educated and well paid."

That does not mention the further evacuation after Putin's call up resulting in lines at borders and the ongoing search for able bodied (anyone that can walk) men to fill the lines.

Russia seems to be evaporating before our eyes.

I know very well that people are leaving Russia. About half, if not more, of the employees of the American company I worked left for Georgia and Kazakhstan. You claimed that the authorities were kidnapping children so that people wouldn't leave.

[kevinkins]

No, Russia is conducting a forced adoption of children to replace those who have or will leave soon. That's kidnapping. It's sad to think a nation state believes such tactics will bring good will upon it and stem the overall poor demographic trend Russia is trying to stop. This is not from The Onion:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/russia- ... ldren.html

https://www.theonion.com/

[Gunner98]

https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

If according to this "expert" the power plants are non-military targets, then I have bad news for you. This "expert" understands nothing about the military. You don't need to read any further set of words in this tweet.

A power plant needs to be proven as a 'dual use' facility or it is categorized as not a legal target as it induces unnecessary suffering on civilian population.

I am not certain of the criteria a power plant would need to pass to be proven as 'dual use' but it probably involves directly supporting defence industry or rail systems moving military units or supply etc. Supporting food, general supply or water production wouldn't cut it. Also if it was a nuclear plant or a hydro-eclectic dam, it would be an illegal target as it would unleash 'natural forces', that bit was added to the Hague conventions to prevent attacks like the Brits conducted on the Rhur dams in 1943, the Dambuster raid, which didn't have much military effect but caused a lot of civilian suffering.

[SunlitZelkova]

Only reason for war - NATO existence and expansion to East. Disband NATO or shrink it to borders of 1990 year and war will off.

I think we are past that point. Rolling back NATO does not stop those countries from forming bilateral defence relationships with the US or European nations. That is a simple sovereign right of any nation, not some imperialist scheme or whatever.

At that point Russia would just need to invade every former Soviet country to prevent them from becoming a “threat” to Russia.

To *Westerners* (pro-Ukraine people) reading this, I am aware NATO expansion isn’t seen as the main cause of the war, but I am entertaining the Russian narrative for the purpose of discussion.

It's putting the cart before the horse.
Ukraine became a threat after it systematically developed its armed forces and pumped them full of weapons.
Russia did not and did not intend to attack the Baltic states, which are a springboard for NATO troops and preach a similar (though lighter) version of modern Nazism and the worship of German Nazism of the 30s and 40s.
It was the shift to a real threat to Russia's interests from Ukraine that caused this war.

Fair enough.

Also, I forgot that it wasn't just NATO expansion, but also Ukraine's alleged treatment of the Russian speaking portions of its population that Russia claimed as justification for the war too.

When putting together a target list, it is usually good to understand the current capabilities of your adversary, Here is a nice summary pertaining to Russia in October 2022. While not 100 percent complete ...

https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

The Tweet does not mention NATO will soon grow 3 more members, Russia's economy is in self inflicted tatters, and their people are running so fast the government needs to kidnap children to try to stem the tide. And on the ground, their operational art teaches Russia how to throw thousands of untrained conscripts on to the modern battle field. So, a target list would ideally accelerate this downward spiral perhaps concentrating on what's left of Russia's economy even dropping gift cards only redeemable for food at Ukrainian grocery stores.

A huge problem with this assessment is that it forgets the existence of intercontinental ballistic missiles used at intermediate ranges. Arrow 3 and Patriot won't stop those, even if there were enough sites to defend every single city and military installation.

Guesstimates on Russian missile reliability that popped up near the beginning of the war are not reliable. USSR/Russia fired off all of its Pioner missiles as part of their disposal under the INF Treaty, and they had a 98% success rate. These were missiles maintained under the Soviet economy of the late 80s, not a far cry from where Russia is right now.

------My own opinions on this matter------

I think the idea of striking Russia in response to nuclear use is absurd. Russia will retaliate, then NATO will retaliate. It will either be limited nuclear war and then a ceasefire with both sides of Europe in ruin, or a full scale strategic exchange.

Either Russia is and will continue to be deterred similar to how the US was deterred against using nuclear weapons in Vietnam by the mere thought of Soviet and Chinese retaliation- without any explicit statements or comments from those two- or Russia isn't/won't be, and we are already doomed.

A conventional retaliation against nuclear use won't be mere "punishment" or some sort of warning against further escalation, it will be the opening of a new conflict/expansion of the existing one.

So, for NATO, if they absolutely do feel they have to retaliate kinetically against Russia, instead of effectively initiating conventional combat with Russia, with no end game in sight, it would make more sense for them to start a "nuclear" war. If the B-2 Spirit could strike against Russian leadership positions and early warning radars, and SM-3s could knock out early warning satellites, it would pave the way for a counterforce first strike against all Russian nuclear forces. With Russian nuclear forces eliminated, NATO would be free to engage in Ukraine and bring a swift end to the conflict. Anything less, like striking only Russia's tactical nuclear forces with conventional weapons, etc., would be the same series of events in slow motion, except Russia would be fully alert and prepared to strike at Europe and the US as well, so when the B-2s and Minutemen finally come raining down they will be hitting empty siloes and sub bases.

I would like to clarify that my position on what would be best for humanity is mere politics however and thus does not fall under the scope of this forum.

[kevinkins]

"A conventional retaliation against nuclear use won't be mere "punishment" or some sort of warning against further escalation, it will be the opening of a new conflict/expansion of the existing one.'

So NATO would allow Russia to use tac nukes (missiles or shells) with impunity? I don't think so. You mentioned high value targets (non-nuke) like HQs. That is the intent of the thread. In the end Ukraine's land is too valuable to poison it with fallout. But it's Putin's recent rhetoric in the context of Russia's horrible military performance and pressure on his 20 year rule that makes one think - just maybe he is irrational after all.

[SunlitZelkova]

"A conventional retaliation against nuclear use won't be mere "punishment" or some sort of warning against further escalation, it will be the opening of a new conflict/expansion of the existing one.'

So NATO would allow Russia to use tac nukes (missiles or shells) with impunity? I don't think so. You mentioned high value targets (non-nuke) like HQs. That is the intent of the thread. In the end Ukraine's land is too valuable to poison it with fallout. But it's Putin's recent rhetoric in the context of Russia's horrible military performance and pressure on his 20 year rule that makes one think - just maybe he is irrational after all.

I did not say that.

I suggested that striking command posts alone is not going to stop him. If it is going to escalate into a full scale war between NATO and Russia anyways, the only option NATO has to stop it is to launch a counterforce nuclear first strike against Russia.

Anything less is just sitting in denial and waiting until MAD occurs.

Also, now that I have thought of it, trying to take out tactical nuclear weapon sites doesn't make much sense. Politically there is not much of a difference between a 100 kiloton Iskander detonation vs. a 1 megaton Yars detonation, so he could simply switch to using strategic weapons against Ukraine.

[Nikel]

I like Abbas Gallyamov's theory that P. will be "retired by the system", when he realises he has lost internal support.

He is saying this could happen early next year when winter is coming and Europeans will freeze nonsense happen to be just that, nonsense.

However this could be accelerated by defeat on the ground, so that escalating is the only option and a tactical nuke or whatever is used.

Hopefully the system will retire him then, just when he gives the order.

And not after is used and then NATO has to respond.

Then, IMHO the strikes have to be overwhelming, something like the Battle of Tsushima defeat.

The system is shocked and replaces P.

He will be replaced by somebody in the middle between the 2 extremes, the Siloviki and the liberal-technocrats.

[blu3s]

I suggested that striking command posts alone is not going to stop him. If it is going to escalate into a full scale war between NATO and Russia anyways, the only option NATO has to stop it is to launch a counterforce nuclear first strike against Russia.

NATO doesn't need nuclear warheads to destroy RUS nuclear capabilities, as mention above

Pentagon simulations indicated that an attack with the bulk of U.S. cruise missiles (about 3,000-4,000 and only with conventional warheads) could destroy 80-90% of Russia's nuclear potential.

[Nikel]

Destroying nuclear facilities in the RF means nuclear explosions in the RF.

And of course they will retaliate with whatever they still have, all of it.

This is not the way to go.

The strikes have to be on conventional forces, and the results decisive comparing losses in each side.

[blu3s]

Destroying nuclear facilities in the RF means nuclear explosions in the RF.

And of course they will retaliate with whatever they still have, all of it.

This is not the way to go.

The strikes have to be on conventional forces, and the results decisive comparing losses in each side.

If you attack conventional forces without attacking their nuclear force is to give them every chance of nuclear attack.

If you attack Russia you cannot expect a limited response, the only option that should be considered would be to leave it without response capacity.

It is increasingly difficult for Russia to use a tactical nuclear weapon.

[Nikel]

I understand your point, though do not agree, may be wishful thinking from my part, but I do not think the "Russian system" would prefer destruction to removing P.

Also I do not see how you can destroy such stockpile of nuclear weapons and facilities without causing a global fallout.

[kevinkins]

I think a half dozen nuclear shells vs tactical nuke missiles are the most likely if Putin thinks those shells will effect the war's outcome in Russia's favor. But even a very limited use of battlefield nukes would require a NATO response. Would that be a direct kinetic response on Russian soil - maybe. Against troops in Ukraine - maybe. Cutting off energy exports completely - maybe. Would anything like that push Putin over the edge and go theater wide nuclear - maybe if he is truly mad and losing his grip on power? A full scale NATO preemptive strike is not in the cards and they are tying to match Russia's rhetoric with dire threats of there own. Meanwhile, they are trying to carefully usher the Russian army out of Ukraine leaving Putin far worse off than before his ill-fated invasion. Russia would be kicked out of Ukraine quickly if nukes were taken off the board. Russia's conventional armed forces really do s**k. The mere presence of nukes in the hands of Putin makes the world hesitate while he Ukrainian people suffer.

[SunlitZelkova]

I suggested that striking command posts alone is not going to stop him. If it is going to escalate into a full scale war between NATO and Russia anyways, the only option NATO has to stop it is to launch a counterforce nuclear first strike against Russia.

NATO doesn't need nuclear warheads to destroy RUS nuclear capabilities, as mention above

Pentagon simulations indicated that an attack with the bulk of U.S. cruise missiles (about 3,000-4,000 and only with conventional warheads) could destroy 80-90% of Russia's nuclear potential.

These would take too long to ingress towards the targets. ICBMs are very far inland. Even just 5 minutes warning would be enough to launch.

I assuming that eliminating second strike capability and then making some sort of ceasefire offer is not going to work. This would involve letting Putin and Co. off the hook for their crimes in Ukraine. Would Ukraine be able to accept a simple withdrawal from Ukrainian land but no punishment for Russia beyond the losses they suffered?

I understand your point, though do not agree, may be wishful thinking from my part, but I do not think the "Russian system" would prefer destruction to removing P.

Also I do not see how you can destroy such stockpile of nuclear weapons and facilities without causing a global fallout.

An issue I see with this is that those who espouse such sentiments don't have the resources to remove him. "The elite" is actually rather divided. Some are silent, some can only make thinly veiled statements towards peace, and some want to remove Putin but only because he is incompetent at killing Ukrainians and they think they can do better.

Any coup would require the support of the FSB and military, just as it did in '53 and '64 in the USSR. None of the generals possess much political experience however, while the FSB apparently played a part in convincing Putin to start the war and can't be counted on to install a pro-peace leader.

Fallout would not wrap around the globe. At worst, in the areas closest to Europe and Japan, it could track over those areas. But fallout is much more preferable to actual nuclear explosions in Europe and Japan.

[FilitchM2]

You are strangely unlearnable people. You are discussing how to do the actions that the Russian leadership feared would happen and that would cause Russia to start this war. At the same time, in the most serious way, you call Putin responsible for the war. It's some strange mixture of dementia, a sense of superiority and invulnerability, and contempt for other nations. If your leadership thinks the same way, then a nuclear war cannot be avoided.

[kevinkins]

"You are discussing how to do the actions that the Russian leadership feared would happen and that would cause Russia to start this war."

Fear is good and starting the war was suicidal for the Russian people. Maybe by 2060 they will recover.

"Putin responsible for the war."

He was. But we will give him a break since his advisors kept him in the dark regarding the shape the Russian military was in.

"If your leadership thinks the same way, then a nuclear war cannot be avoided."

Russia is so incompetent they will wind up nuking themselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/16/gunmen- ... paign.html

Better stay inside:

https://www.businessinsider.com/russian ... in-2022-10

"Petraeus was also deeply skeptical of Putin's mobilization of reservists, stating it would only produce "cannon fodder.""

But Petraeus misspoke a bit, he should have said "only produce more cannon fodder."

[FilitchM2]

Your post is best proof for my assert "It's some strange mixture of dementia, a sense of superiority and invulnerability, and contempt for other nations."