Not really because it's not France being attacked or a Nato member.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Not really because it's not France being attacked or a Nato member.
NATO outright said they wouldn’t nuke but would “decimate militarily” Russia if they did, which is exactly what you would expect to be the case. Not sure Macron keeps getting pelters for it mind.
I suspect Macron has said it for public reasssurance that we're not all going to have a spicy firey death in apocalypse.
MAD is a doctrine that works but when you actually get down to it, I have never thought we'd just fire right back at the enemy and end everything everywhere.
MAD is a doctrine that works but when you actually get down to it, I have never thought we'd just fire right back at the enemy and end everything everywhere.
Yeah, what does that actually mean though? We (the West/Nato) are officially at war? Or we send absolutely every possible weapon to aid Ukraine?
It means every RU military asset outside of Russia mainland they can find they hit. That includes the entire Black Sea fleet that is not in harbour .
I doubt it means the fleet. I reckon it "just" means anything in Ukraine, which is still a whole lot of stuff. Attacking the fleet in international waters is a declaration of war, while an aerial intervention on Ukrainian territory might not be. Russia is obviously going to refer to it as one, but they already do that, and what really matters is what they really think (and they clearly don't actually think they are at war with NATO right now).
The nuclear deterrrent isn't "use a nuke and get nuked", it's "nuke us and get nuked". Of course, using a nuke has thankfully become such an incredible taboo that even a tactical nuke in Ukraine (not a NATO/EU member) is still crossing a line and would warrant a drastic response. But nuking Russia means a nuclear war, so that will never happen short of a nuclear attack on a nuclear power.
The fact that it's being mentioned is pretty unnerving. I know people in their 40s/50s will probably say this is what it was like during the 80s Cold War but it's not something that I want to grow accustomed to.
I don’t know, I doubt that the general public are supposed to know. It’ll be whatever NATO generals and leadership decide it is, and it’s a threat that Russia are going to take incredibly seriously.
I’m not going to sit here and play armchair general because the only people who know are inside locked rooms with far more intelligence on the active situation than you or I.
Is that really the point though.
Putin is continually threatening the use of his nuclear weapons against Ukraine. And NATO has said that it takes the threat seriously.
So why would one of the 3 nuclear powers that form the bulk of the NATO alliance supporting Ukraine against Russia reveal his intentions.
The more things change…
The world was never bandying about threats of nukes in the 80s like now, it was more of an understood & accepted threat / MAD. It was a severely Cold War during that decade & it had its share of episodes which unnerved the Soviet Union (Able Archer being one, Reagan’s joke laughably being another), but I cannot recall any overt declarations & threats as we have been hearing now.
Last edited:
Depending on the intelligence, no, that's true, but if the intelligence is "hey, some people you might want dead are at this location", then ...
I'm not talking about giving orders on who they have to shoot.
I reckon the UK would launch if the US did. We don't really have a fully independent nuclear deterrent so we are likely tied in to the American response anyhow.
Because French nukes wouldn't be part of the response. NATO can respond proportionally without getting radioactive. And if nukes are needed, French nukes won't be, US has plenty.
NATO and the US have for months been making it very clear behind the scenes to Russia what the reaction would be to a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine.
Nobody should for a second believe that the West would answer a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine with nukes of their own. For one thing, Russia has such an arsenal of tactical nukes precisely because NATO has an overwhelming firepower advantage in conventional weaponry. NATO doesn't need to respond with nukes, because they can destroy the Russian army without them. And they would never answer with strategic nukes, because that would be world war 3 and nuclear holocaust.
Yeah this, I think the deal is that we effectively need American co-operation (permission?) to operate Trident. So potentially could hold off joining in, but would need them to enable us if we wanted to. We would obviously get involved though.
I don’t think Russia will launch a nuke (tactical or otherwise) at Ukraine, as it really doesn’t serve a purpose. The reason why the yanks/NATO don’t have tactical nukes is that their conventional arsenal serves the same purpose without the necessity of using “WMDs” - MOAB being an example. Therefore, Russia would only invite a conventional response with no ability to truly escalate beyond an attack on NATO countries that’ll only invite a relatively immediate loss. A strategic nuke at that point would be game over for everyone - fecks the point of being a trillionaire Russian leader if you can’t do anything and your nation doesn’t exist. Lastly, China obviously does not want a nuclear war.
I really hope sense prevails sooner rather than later and Russia somehow reverse ferrets and comes to its senses. The obsession with a multipolar world (i.e. Russia is a superpower) is holding the world to ransom by diverting time and energy to potential war. Far greater issues at stake.
Heard this a lot last day or 2, I disagree. He is literally just stating something that should be obvious, but evidently isn’t. The US and NATO have already said exactly the same thing.
He’s said it just to calm down the casual observers who think this has a chance of escalating to nuclear war, of whom there are many.
It's not really revealing anything it's already fairly obvious if Russia Nukes Ukraine NATO aren't going to nuke Russia triggering armageddon and they aren't going to nuke Russian forces in Ukraine. The message they seem to be sending out and want Russia to understand is if Russia uses a tactical nuke they will really be fighting NATO and their military and bases in Crimea will be wiped out.
Happy to learn otherwise but I think the reason why people say the UK nuclear deterrent is not independent is because they assume it uses US satellites for navigation and targeting, although it actually uses starlight, night and day.
Obviously long-term the UK would rely on US technical support, but not initially.
Although the UK is kind of dependent in one way because if the US did launch then their enemy would likely hit the UK anyway just in case. But in the ludicrously unlikely scenario where the UK wanted to bomb someone the US didn't, it could, if that makes sense.
A few (2 or 3) newly mobilized soldiers have opened fire on their own during training. At least 11 people are dead (more deaths get reported with every minute).
Another wonderful case of well-planned mobilization.
Another wonderful case of well-planned mobilization.
How are you hearing about this, what platform?
Thanks. Was figuring it was coming from indie reporting.
Is this your Tigerland scene in which a soldier snaps but the main difference is that 1) the weapon is an assault rifle and 2) is not jammed?
Yeah all that is fair comment. I just think British politicians have been so aligned with the US in relation to nuclear weapons this country would always defer to the US's wishes and advice on their use.
Tbf. I was more concerned about the IRA and their bombing back then.
Konrad is one of the better analysts out there regarding the war.
A bit late, don't you think China?
Mobilization to death about 2 weeks in some cases... I don't think that in WW1 or WW2 the belligerents were sending conscripts to the front that quickly and therefore unprepared.
They sent it by Internet Explorer.
People talk about World War III. Obviously, NATO would have a few countries joining in if that happens but who is going to join Russia side other than Belarus anyway? I really doubt any other superpower countries would join them.
So this would have been over pretty quickly in a conventional war ? Even in a nuclear war, I really doubt the likes of China, India would nuke anyone. Obviously, it would be devastation for all of us. But I really don't see why those countries will join one side or another in any scenario in this age.
It would always only be Russia vs some NATO countries in most likely Ukrainian territories only?
So this would have been over pretty quickly in a conventional war ? Even in a nuclear war, I really doubt the likes of China, India would nuke anyone. Obviously, it would be devastation for all of us. But I really don't see why those countries will join one side or another in any scenario in this age.
It would always only be Russia vs some NATO countries in most likely Ukrainian territories only?
Russia's Revenue from O&G
