14 ms·

Something that's been concerning me about all these UFOs being shot down is that perhaps it could be best explained by the start of something else building up..

by kypro 4y ago

Something that's been concerning me about all these UFOs being shot down is that perhaps it could be best explained by the start of something else building up... Realistically these UFO's aren't alien crafts but hostile spy drones. Perhaps the reason we haven't heard about these drones before could be that the US has never felt the need to act (the spying poses no real imminent threat), or maybe the hostile state sending the drones only now feels the need to spy on US military bases. But however you look at this either the US is suddenly much more concerned about someone spying on their military bases, or some state suddenly feels the need to spy on US military bases. We also know that NATO countries now seem to be willing to arm UA with weaponry not just capable of putting up a decent defence against Russian forces, but actually pushing them back into Russian territory. It seems the US and allies no longer just wants UA to hold their own against RU, but actually win the war. Imo if UA is able to push RU back they're likely to try to reclaim annexed territories back from RU. It seems likely the US and allies would understand this is a probable outcome. After all would NATO countries be sending tanks and such expensive weaponry if they thought UA had no chance? It seems likely they are betting on a UA victory and all that entails. Most experts agree the conflict in UA will pick up again in the spring. And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. If the US knows RU is likely a couple of months away from using nukes in UA then perhaps this would explain why they're suddenly so worried about these spy drones, or why there's been a sudden increase in them. Maybe I'm making too many assumptions here, but it just feels like there's lots of chess pieces moving in worrying ways right now. This request being yet another. Am I wrong to be concerned?

barrkel 4y ago
> And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely The consensus military opinion I've read on this is that tactical nukes aren't very useful militarily; troops in the field are too dispersed. If there's a hardened target, then yes, otherwise not great. They then have to be weighed against the costs of crossing that Rubicon. > why they're suddenly so worried about these spy drones I think this is largely because of opposition screeching.
- notahacker 4y ago
  I doubt the "spy drones" are of any particular military value anyway. It's more a test to see what will happen if you send something suspicious into your rival's airspace. The Trump administration chose to ignore them, the Biden administration in slightly different geopolitical circumstances chose to shoot them down. Since this would have been an anticipated outcome, I don't think it really changes anything other than making it clear to China that the present US government won't necessarily overlook everything for the sake of good relations.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    The U.S. has been pushing the UK to not include any Chinese equipment in any infrastructure they buy. It’s not clear to me what the Chinese could have learnt thst they didn’t already know.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      I don't think they'd have learned much from the visuals of a balloon (it takes marginally higher resolution images than a satellite but so do lots of less obvious stuff like aircraft and consumer drones that are perfectly entitled to be in US airspace). But the US was pushing the UK not to include Chinese equipment (and indulging in some very loud anti-China rhetoric mostly for domestic consumption) under the previous administration but was too cautious to pull the trigger, so them not being too cautious now is new information. Unmanned balloons are obviously a lower risk way of testing that than other ways it could test the US tolerance, and may play well with Chinese domestic audiences too.
      - LemmyInThePub 4y ago
        > I don't think they'd have learned much from the visuals of a balloon I suggest a balloon payload would be better aimed at monitoring (and establishing patterns of) RF traffic rather than visual data.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
matthewdgreen 4y ago
Russia isn’t going to go nuclear unless Ukrainian forces start heading towards Moscow. They would sure like you to think that they would, though.
- sobkas 4y ago
  > Russia isn’t going to go nuclear unless Ukrainian forces start heading towards Moscow. They would sure like you to think that they would, though. No, Russia isn't going nuclear unless Ukraine will move into Russian territory. While Putin annexed parts of Ukraine to be able to use draft soldiers there, it still part of Russian territory in his mind and minds of many Russians (starting with generals and oligarchs ending with ordinary citizens). So use of tactical nuclear weapons can't be ruled out.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    It's not "part of his mind" it's a propaganda tactic ment for you to think this way.
  - dia80 4y ago
    Not so, Kherson was annexed and is now back in Ukrainian hands. You can conclude from this that RU accepts their annexations are BS.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    Ukraine has already taken over annexed Russian territory. Putin is pretending it never happened. Again, it’s a lot easier for Putin to fluff himself to the Russian public than it would be to avoid Western nations wanting to assassinate him. Let’s not forget that until a few months ago the Russian public wasn’t even allowed to call this a war, and today they are sending their kids over to fight what they believe is a just war.
rocketbop 4y ago
> Most experts agree the conflict in UA will pick up again in the spring. And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. It doesn’t seem likely to me, I haven’t really heard that opinion from foreign policy experts on Hoover or the Economist etc. Of course anything is possible but it’s hard to see what would be gained.
- kypro 4y ago
  I suppose I mean likely as in > 20% chance, not necessary the most likely outcome. RU has said that they will use nuclear weapons if their territory is threatened and UA and RU have territorial disputes. Personally I don't see a situation in which UA is able to take Crimea and RU doesn't launch a tactical nuke. Putin isn't going to allow Crimea to be taken, and I honestly suspect he'd rather risk his life than live with the shame of such a defeat. But this assumes that UA would try to retake Crimea and that's something that will only happen if UA manages to push back RU. And while Zelensky has suggested he wishes to liberate Crimea, whether he will or not probably depends on US support. So there are at least a few conditionals here, but I personally don't think Putin launching a nuke is that unlikely in the event of an embarrassing defeat where contested territory is taken from them.
  - vixen99 4y ago
    Embarrassment is one thing; currently neutral countries reconsidering their trading relationship with Russia in the wake the nuclear red line being crossed, is another.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > if their territory is threatened Yabbut the Russian government considers half of Ukraine to be Russian territory, including a good chunk of Donbas that they don't even occupy. I don't think they'll try to use tactical nukes, even if Putin is on the rocks politically; it's really hard to occupy territory that's been devastated by a nuke, and you need the right equipment. The Russian forces are notoriously ill-equipped. Also, I suspect the Russians doubt whether their tactical nukes actually work. These devices need constant maintenance, and critically they need fresh tritium. I doubt that manufacturing and distributing tritium is higher on the MoD's agenda than delivering artillery shells to the frontline.
localplume 4y ago
I'm not sure. It is impossible to theorize what Russia would do in the wake of that kind loss, nor is it possible to theorize the conditions that would trigger the use of nuclear weapons and in what way. The last time nuclear weapons was used was in a very different situation, and with radically different technology, and thus with radically different policies. As with the build up to the invasion in late 2021, I think we would see much more happening before something as serious as that occurs; it is difficult to truly hide your intentions in today's world with the technology we have.
ihatepython 4y ago
[flagged]
- djaychela 4y ago
  I think you probably need to back up each of those statements with some evidence? Most of them seem to be pretty out there from my point of view, so I think you should back them up with citations and evidence. Otherwise it does look a bit like you're taking 2 and 2 and coming up with 9742123.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  There is no "WW3" if one side is just russia.
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    Will China side with Russia or the US? China will use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. The US cannot fight two wars vs Russia and China. China knows that if they let Russia be defeated, then they are next.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      >The US cannot fight two wars vs Russia and China. US is winning conventional war with Russia without losing a single soldier and using 1-2% of what they spend on Iraq war. >China will use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. Sure, "take back". Use factual words - invade. >China knows that if they let Russia be defeated, then they are next. Next of what? Being defeated when they rush into extremely aggressive, genocidal war? They need to be sure of that, yes. Russia's loss is 100% self inflicted.
      - ihatepython 4y ago
        The US plan is to first defeat Russia, and then to defeat China. They expect China to wait their turn. However the US will not win this war. If Russia's existence is at stake, they will use their nuclear weapons. There is very little chance that this war will remain conventional.
digdugdirk 4y ago
You're not wrong to be concerned, just likely off on the probabilities by orders of magnitude. 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  The coast near Moscow?
  - rjknight 4y ago
    Clunky, but I read that as "the nearest coast to Moscow".
  - foxyv 4y ago
    Near is a relative term with ballistic missiles.
- kypro 4y ago
  > 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? > 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles. It's a good point. I suppose it depends on the nature of the conflict though. Maybe you're right, that in the event of an all out nuclear war there would be no point in trying to achieve a tactical advantage – but does either side really know the exact nature of the conflict well enough to make that assumption at this point? Perhaps both sides just know conflict is likely.
consumer451 4y ago
> Most experts agree the conflict in UA will pick up again in the spring. And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. This is a very significant claim. Could you please provide some citations to support it?
- kypro 4y ago
  It's "mud season", a period between winter and spring where it's hard to travel off-road because vehicles are prone to getting stuck in the mud. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-kherson-bakhmut-sobchak.html#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20muddy%20season,and%20equipment%20to%20enemy%20fire https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/world/europe/ukraine-russ.... My understanding is that later in the Spring conditions begin to improve. The tanks the US and allies have been sending recently are likely in preparation for a remobilisation of Russias forces once the "mud season" is over.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    I'm sorry, I meant this part: "And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely."
timeon 4y ago
RU is gaining initiative since January. Most useful thing that UA got from NATO for now is military intelligence that has scale which maybe only China can match. This is available for UA since beginning. We still do not know how effective new weapons are going to be. Maybe that is why the volume of western tanks is so low. I don't think there will be Nukes.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  > Most useful thing that UA got from NATO for now is military intelligence that has scale which maybe only China can match. This is available for UA since beginning. I've read (months ago) that the intelligence Ukraine is getting from US is relatively limited and already filtered out / processed. It's probably one of the tools US is using to "steer" the war.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The volume of Western tanks is low because the West has been hesitant to send any modern weaponry to Ukraine. What they’ve basically sent so far, with which Ukraine has demolished the Russian weaponry, is old, almost decommissioned weapons they weren’t using anyways.
  - glogla 4y ago
    We have seen some old equipment, but we have also seen HIMARS, Starstreak, NASAMS, Patriot, HARM, M777 (with Excalibur smart rounds), several types of drones, and bunch more stuff that is pretty much state of the art. Now there's 300 Bradleys and bunch of tanks on the way. Yes, no F-35, which would be fun to watch, but I understand NATO has to keep some aces up its sleeves. ETA: there were also some ... mysterious happenings. Like we still don't know exactly what blew up the airbase on Crimea. We don't know exactly what blew up the bridge. We don't know exactly what is hitting airbases many hundreds of kilometers behind the borders - some of them further from Ukraine than Moscow.
mattgperry 4y ago
> It seems the US and allies no longer just wants UA to hold their own against RU, but actually win the war There is no "hold their own". This would be a state of perpetual warfare. The only way to end the war is to allow Russia to claim Ukraine or push Russia out of Ukraine. Personally I would rather the Russian border to be as far east as possible.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Theoretically, the US might hope to turn Ukraine into Russia's Iraq - never any decisive loss, just gradually bleeding soldiers and equipment for 20 years for little benefit, until they get bored and go home. A conspiracy-minded person who thought America blew up the Nordstream pipelines to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas might see a similar benefit to prolonging the conflict.
  - yks 4y ago
    The US itself is in the state of being always a few years away from taken over by a crowd very sympathetic to the Putin's cause and Putin personally. Prolonging this conflict is therefore also quite risky to the current establishment or whatever you want to call the adherents of the post-WW2 world order.
    - weard_beard 4y ago
      The US is in the state of being always a few years away from taken over by any interest with money. When the money runs out, it is no longer a few years away. See: Sam Bankman-Fried.
      - yks 4y ago
        That is true, but Russia in particular had practically unlimited money to buy off both the US elites and their opposition, due to the rich natural resources and lack of need to support the high standards of living for the Russian population. Only China has more resources but so far they haven't formed a powerful message US politicians can use to rally their constituents to pro-China causes.
drewcoo 4y ago
> hostile spy drones In the form of naked eye visible . . . balloons. Because "hostile spy drones" is more plausible than . . . invasion from another planet? 19th century science fiction meets Phillip K Dick.
shapefrog 4y ago
> such expensive weaponry if they thought UA had no chance? It seems likely they are betting on a UA victory and all that entails. > And in the event of a potential UA victory Ukraine are not going to win the "war", by any meaningful measure. There are no western countries that assign anything above a 0% probability of victory. The equipment that we are sending is excellent, but it is all old and literally surplus to requirements. The headline number (X bn of arms sent) makes for nice reading, but all the equipment would otherwise be rusting in a field somewhere and is better used being blown up (or blowing up some russian equipment) in the Ukraine. The NATO tactic remains to contain the conflict, bog Russia down in a long drawn out campaign (decades would be great) and avoid having to actually face a pointless one sided war (direct russian conflict) that frankly would be embarrassing for everyone and simply result in the pointless killing of millions of people, while simultaneously making everyone hate each other even more from multiple generations.
- djaychela 4y ago
  >The equipment that we are sending is excellent, but it is all old and literally surplus to requirements. Can't speak about anything else, but the Challenger 2 Tanks the UK is sending are old or surplus. They're the UK's current main battle tank, and extremely capable.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    Challenger 2 entered service with the British Army in June 1998 and the last of the 386 tanks was delivered in April 2002, with an out of service date of 2025. In 2019, then-British Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt labelled the Challenger 2 as obsolete. Indeed the decommissioning has effectively started with just over 200 remaining, and many of those not in a fit state to be deployed. The plan, announced in 2021, involved upgrading 148 Challenger 2 tanks to Challenger 3s and retiring the remaining 79 vehicles. As I said above, we are sending extremely effective equipment, but its not the stuff rolling off the production lines at the skunk works. These main battle tanks that are being sent were destined for the scrapyard in the next couple of years.
sobkas 4y ago
> Imo if UA is able to push RU back they're likely to try to reclaim annexed territories back from RU. It seems likely the US and allies would understand this is a probable outcome. After all would NATO countries be sending tanks and such expensive weaponry if they thought UA had no chance? It seems likely they are betting on a UA victory and all that entails. And what USA/NATO believed about Afghanistan? They through a lot of resources at it and it didn't stop it from collapsing(or it even helped collapse because there were enough resources to steal, so cleptocrats had incentive to fight to rule Afghanistan).
eunos 4y ago
Eh I think it is the people getting agitated instead of NatSec council. Case in point that Chinese balloon spotted in Montana. I think Biden admin want to sweep that info under the rug, but since a local publication in Montana publish it, all hell broke loose.
twoquestions 4y ago
> Am I wrong to be concerned? Fortunately yes. There are very long and well-respected traditions when it comes to nukes, and despite Russian propaganda and shitposters going on about nuclear tidal waves and other nonsense, serious diplomats have maintained that nuclear policy remains the same, which means they'll only use nukes if there's an existential threat to Russia (which getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine is not), or enemy nuclear strike (which we aren't about to do). Here's a deep dive from someone smarter than me in these things, it put my mind at ease and I hope it works for you too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4
- conorcleary 4y ago
  Yeah, but the element of surprise and cold-served revenge is something that bad actors thrive on. So the least expected attack becomes the most impactful.
- kypro 4y ago
  Could I ask two questions? 1: Do you believe there's a chance Ukraine will try to retake Crimea? 2: Do you believe Putin could see Ukraine trying to retake the Russian territory of Crimea with NATO weapons as an existential threat to Russia? Unless I'm wrong, I think this is all you need? I'm not saying Ukraine will try to take Crimea or that it's even likely, but I suppose it seems quite possible that could happen now that Ukraine has been armed with NATO tanks and Zelensky has suggested many times that he wants to "liberate" Crimea. So am I correct in thinking where we disagree here is that you don't believe it's likely Putin would consider an invasion of Crimea with NATO weapons an existential threat to Russia? Presumably you believe Putin agrees Crimea isn't really theirs and that NATO sending weapons enabling Ukraine to invade Russian territory poses them no existential threat?
LinuxBender 4y ago
Am I wrong to be concerned? I don't think so. Normalcy bias is strong in the public right now and I don't blame people for wanting simple explanations for the recent events. Regarding the balloons my unpopular opinion is that they may have received intel that the spy balloons are to condition the US into complacency and then replace the payload with something else using a later set of balloons. This would never make it into the news. Given that the military have recently been given pre-approval to take down anything that is deemed to be a threat that tells me there are more chess pieces in motion than we are aware of. Regarding Russia I see a lot of comments about Russia never possibly using nukes. Adding to my unpopular opinions nobody can say that with confidence. Russia are approaching the end of their existence as a nation and are losing the numbers needed to fight their traditional methods of kinetic warfare and the only option left on the table is nukes. They just need an excuse. Existential threat has been the repeat narrative from the Kremlin and that is the legal language written into their laws regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I can't speak for anyone else but I will do my best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
- nradov 4y ago
  Let's say Russia does decide to use nukes. What would they target? Their main objective in the war is to seize control of Ukrainian energy and agricultural resources; they don't want to turn it into an irradiated wasteland. Using a nuke against Ukrainian military forces would be a waste since they are now dispersed and dug in. Many of those forces are close to Russian forces so a nuclear strike would endanger their own troops.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    Their main objective in the war is to seize control of Ukrainian energy and agricultural resources I do not believe that is their primary objective. Should any resources survive their onslaught they are just bonus material. They have already destroyed most of the factories train tracks and a good deal of the power generation. Russia have no ability currently to replace these things or to rebuild Ukraine which would be necessary in order to make use of the lands resources. What would they target? The remaining power, hospitals, the remaining agricultural factories to starve everyone. That alone would drive out most of the remaining people. I believe the primary objective is to secure Russia. That requires conquering all neighboring former Soviet countries and Ukraine is just in the way and has a nice bonus water port. Should they succeed in taking Ukraine this spring then I would expect Poland and/or Finland to be attacked at some point later on.
vbezhenar 4y ago
1. Russia is incentivized to use tactical nukes to destroy ukrainian infrastructure like bridges which are very hard to destroy with other means. 2. US warned that there will be catastrophic consequences if Russia used nuclear weapons. It's not clear what exactly do they mean. But it would be logical to suppose that this would indicate full scale NATO invasion. 3. In this case Russia military doctrine allows to use strategic nuclear weapon which is certainly will be used against USA, probably military targets first. 4. This is likely to trigger full scale nuclear response to Moscow and other major cities and consequent response from Russia. After initial strikes there will be armageddon plan which will destroy every big force on the planet just in case. I don't think that this scenario is very probable, but there's clear path to the end of the world. My only hope is that China would not allow #1 to happen and if China would decide to isolate Russia, it'll not last long economically.
- EForEndeavour 4y ago
  I naively hope that somewhere high up in the chain of command between Putin deciding to order a nuclear strike and human hands actuating physical controls, there's at least one person with the good judgment and cool head of Stanislav Petrov[1], and the superhuman willingness to sacrifice themselves for a chance at saving untold millions of lives. Basically, I'm hoping for violent mutiny of nuclear forces in the event of a first-strike order. It feels very strange to wish that people on the other side of the world who I will never meet will just give up their lives/futures and those of their families and kill if necessary to prevent the first domino from falling. [1] In 1983, Stanislav Petrov's early warning system showed a total of five inbound US nuclear missiles. He correctly assessed these to be false alarms, and disobeyed standing orders to trigger an immediate and compulsory nuclear counter-attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
- fsloth 4y ago
  2. Would probably be "just" sinking black sea fleet with a non-nuclear bombardment or equal. The consequence needs to be a loss that has political and military significance but does not need to more than necessary. 3.& 4. Would mean Russia's self annihilation and they won't go there. It's no joke that nuclear powers are saber rattling ofc.
jwmoz 4y ago
Sounds like WW3 planning. Great.
LemmyInThePub 4y ago
> And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. No. The ISW consider Russia using nuclear weapons to be extremally unlikely; the Russian rhetoric around them simply being to provoke western fear (and thus delay the sending of western weapons), as you have so aptly demonstrated. The ISW publish daily reports on the Ukraine war that are well worth reading https://www.understandingwar.org/ https://www.understandingwar.org/ A recent assessment by ISW of Putins nuclear threats are here: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/special-report-assessing-putin%E2%80%99s-implicit-nuclear-threats-after-annexation https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/special-report...
ezconnect 4y ago
Those recent balloons are just distraction from the Nordstream pipeline news. It's to flood the news stream with new breaking news. Typical USA playbook.
kstenerud 4y ago
The UFOs are mostly spy drones (although it's still to early to say how many of them are - maybe all of them are?). These drones are more likely opportunistic than tactical. Even the US response to them is valuable intelligence, as it has opened up the possibility of a DOS attack forcing the air force to waste missiles (which are not only expensive, but take time to replace). Under Putin, Russia is unlikely to resort to nukes so long as Ukraine doesn't storm actual Russian territory (as opposed to annexed land). If Putin were to be replaced, the new guy will likely be a hardliner, and then it's anyone's guess (although still leaning towards unlikely). America has already privately contacted all levels of the Russian government to spell out the consequences of nukes, and enough people in government (including Putin) still fear America's direct involvement in this war (rhetoric notwithstanding). No nation can ever be allowed to actually use nukes in conquest; the ensuing arms race as every despot rushes for their own immunity to the American military would be catastrophic.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  Spy drones, or weather balloons? I've seen more evidence, so far, for weather balloons. It honestly seems like a really childish conspiracy theory to claim that China is spying on people using the biggest, most conspicuous aircraft imaginable. Slow moving, massive balloons, visible for hundreds of miles, and slaves to the wind. Easy to spot, easy to predict, easy to avoid, and easy to take down. I'm going to need to see a lot more evidence that these are spying machines.
caeril 4y ago
> Perhaps the reason we haven't heard about these drones before could be that the US has never felt the need to act My understanding, and it could be completely wrong (sourced from various tweet threads), is that the first balloon discovery prompted StratCom to change the nominal focusing range of our radar and optical networks, after which we suddenly discovered there were a lot more UFOs than anyone even realized, and that StratCom is just as surprised as the general public is.

by kypro 4y ago

barrkel 4y ago

> And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely The consensus military opinion I've read on this is that tactical nukes aren't very useful militarily; troops in the field are too dispersed. If there's a hardened target, then yes, otherwise not great. They then have to be weighed against the costs of crossing that Rubicon. > why they're suddenly so worried about these spy drones I think this is largely because of opposition screeching.

notahacker 4y ago
I doubt the "spy drones" are of any particular military value anyway. It's more a test to see what will happen if you send something suspicious into your rival's airspace. The Trump administration chose to ignore them, the Biden administration in slightly different geopolitical circumstances chose to shoot them down. Since this would have been an anticipated outcome, I don't think it really changes anything other than making it clear to China that the present US government won't necessarily overlook everything for the sake of good relations.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The U.S. has been pushing the UK to not include any Chinese equipment in any infrastructure they buy. It’s not clear to me what the Chinese could have learnt thst they didn’t already know.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    I don't think they'd have learned much from the visuals of a balloon (it takes marginally higher resolution images than a satellite but so do lots of less obvious stuff like aircraft and consumer drones that are perfectly entitled to be in US airspace). But the US was pushing the UK not to include Chinese equipment (and indulging in some very loud anti-China rhetoric mostly for domestic consumption) under the previous administration but was too cautious to pull the trigger, so them not being too cautious now is new information. Unmanned balloons are obviously a lower risk way of testing that than other ways it could test the US tolerance, and may play well with Chinese domestic audiences too.
    - LemmyInThePub 4y ago
      > I don't think they'd have learned much from the visuals of a balloon I suggest a balloon payload would be better aimed at monitoring (and establishing patterns of) RF traffic rather than visual data.
rjzzleep 4y ago

matthewdgreen 4y ago

Russia isn’t going to go nuclear unless Ukrainian forces start heading towards Moscow. They would sure like you to think that they would, though.

sobkas 4y ago
> Russia isn’t going to go nuclear unless Ukrainian forces start heading towards Moscow. They would sure like you to think that they would, though. No, Russia isn't going nuclear unless Ukraine will move into Russian territory. While Putin annexed parts of Ukraine to be able to use draft soldiers there, it still part of Russian territory in his mind and minds of many Russians (starting with generals and oligarchs ending with ordinary citizens). So use of tactical nuclear weapons can't be ruled out.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  It's not "part of his mind" it's a propaganda tactic ment for you to think this way.
- dia80 4y ago
  Not so, Kherson was annexed and is now back in Ukrainian hands. You can conclude from this that RU accepts their annexations are BS.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  Ukraine has already taken over annexed Russian territory. Putin is pretending it never happened. Again, it’s a lot easier for Putin to fluff himself to the Russian public than it would be to avoid Western nations wanting to assassinate him. Let’s not forget that until a few months ago the Russian public wasn’t even allowed to call this a war, and today they are sending their kids over to fight what they believe is a just war.

rocketbop 4y ago

> Most experts agree the conflict in UA will pick up again in the spring. And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. It doesn’t seem likely to me, I haven’t really heard that opinion from foreign policy experts on Hoover or the Economist etc. Of course anything is possible but it’s hard to see what would be gained.

kypro 4y ago
I suppose I mean likely as in > 20% chance, not necessary the most likely outcome. RU has said that they will use nuclear weapons if their territory is threatened and UA and RU have territorial disputes. Personally I don't see a situation in which UA is able to take Crimea and RU doesn't launch a tactical nuke. Putin isn't going to allow Crimea to be taken, and I honestly suspect he'd rather risk his life than live with the shame of such a defeat. But this assumes that UA would try to retake Crimea and that's something that will only happen if UA manages to push back RU. And while Zelensky has suggested he wishes to liberate Crimea, whether he will or not probably depends on US support. So there are at least a few conditionals here, but I personally don't think Putin launching a nuke is that unlikely in the event of an embarrassing defeat where contested territory is taken from them.
- vixen99 4y ago
  Embarrassment is one thing; currently neutral countries reconsidering their trading relationship with Russia in the wake the nuclear red line being crossed, is another.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > if their territory is threatened Yabbut the Russian government considers half of Ukraine to be Russian territory, including a good chunk of Donbas that they don't even occupy. I don't think they'll try to use tactical nukes, even if Putin is on the rocks politically; it's really hard to occupy territory that's been devastated by a nuke, and you need the right equipment. The Russian forces are notoriously ill-equipped. Also, I suspect the Russians doubt whether their tactical nukes actually work. These devices need constant maintenance, and critically they need fresh tritium. I doubt that manufacturing and distributing tritium is higher on the MoD's agenda than delivering artillery shells to the frontline.

localplume 4y ago

I'm not sure. It is impossible to theorize what Russia would do in the wake of that kind loss, nor is it possible to theorize the conditions that would trigger the use of nuclear weapons and in what way. The last time nuclear weapons was used was in a very different situation, and with radically different technology, and thus with radically different policies. As with the build up to the invasion in late 2021, I think we would see much more happening before something as serious as that occurs; it is difficult to truly hide your intentions in today's world with the technology we have.

ihatepython 4y ago

[flagged]

djaychela 4y ago
I think you probably need to back up each of those statements with some evidence? Most of them seem to be pretty out there from my point of view, so I think you should back them up with citations and evidence. Otherwise it does look a bit like you're taking 2 and 2 and coming up with 9742123.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
There is no "WW3" if one side is just russia.
- ihatepython 4y ago
  Will China side with Russia or the US? China will use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. The US cannot fight two wars vs Russia and China. China knows that if they let Russia be defeated, then they are next.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >The US cannot fight two wars vs Russia and China. US is winning conventional war with Russia without losing a single soldier and using 1-2% of what they spend on Iraq war. >China will use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. Sure, "take back". Use factual words - invade. >China knows that if they let Russia be defeated, then they are next. Next of what? Being defeated when they rush into extremely aggressive, genocidal war? They need to be sure of that, yes. Russia's loss is 100% self inflicted.
    - ihatepython 4y ago
      The US plan is to first defeat Russia, and then to defeat China. They expect China to wait their turn. However the US will not win this war. If Russia's existence is at stake, they will use their nuclear weapons. There is very little chance that this war will remain conventional.

digdugdirk 4y ago

You're not wrong to be concerned, just likely off on the probabilities by orders of magnitude. 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles.

avgcorrection 4y ago
The coast near Moscow?
- rjknight 4y ago
  Clunky, but I read that as "the nearest coast to Moscow".
- foxyv 4y ago
  Near is a relative term with ballistic missiles.
kypro 4y ago
> 1. Tactical nukes aren't a likely step for Russia if Ukraine takes back their territory - even if they go for Crimea. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is crossing a line, and that the regime is done if they do so. Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed? > 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles. It's a good point. I suppose it depends on the nature of the conflict though. Maybe you're right, that in the event of an all out nuclear war there would be no point in trying to achieve a tactical advantage – but does either side really know the exact nature of the conflict well enough to make that assumption at this point? Perhaps both sides just know conflict is likely.

consumer451 4y ago

> Most experts agree the conflict in UA will pick up again in the spring. And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. This is a very significant claim. Could you please provide some citations to support it?

kypro 4y ago
It's "mud season", a period between winter and spring where it's hard to travel off-road because vehicles are prone to getting stuck in the mud. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-kherson-bakhmut-sobchak.html#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20muddy%20season,and%20equipment%20to%20enemy%20fire https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/world/europe/ukraine-russ.... My understanding is that later in the Spring conditions begin to improve. The tanks the US and allies have been sending recently are likely in preparation for a remobilisation of Russias forces once the "mud season" is over.
- consumer451 4y ago
  I'm sorry, I meant this part: "And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely."

timeon 4y ago

RU is gaining initiative since January. Most useful thing that UA got from NATO for now is military intelligence that has scale which maybe only China can match. This is available for UA since beginning. We still do not know how effective new weapons are going to be. Maybe that is why the volume of western tanks is so low. I don't think there will be Nukes.

The_Colonel 4y ago
> Most useful thing that UA got from NATO for now is military intelligence that has scale which maybe only China can match. This is available for UA since beginning. I've read (months ago) that the intelligence Ukraine is getting from US is relatively limited and already filtered out / processed. It's probably one of the tools US is using to "steer" the war.
rhaway84773 4y ago
The volume of Western tanks is low because the West has been hesitant to send any modern weaponry to Ukraine. What they’ve basically sent so far, with which Ukraine has demolished the Russian weaponry, is old, almost decommissioned weapons they weren’t using anyways.
- glogla 4y ago
  We have seen some old equipment, but we have also seen HIMARS, Starstreak, NASAMS, Patriot, HARM, M777 (with Excalibur smart rounds), several types of drones, and bunch more stuff that is pretty much state of the art. Now there's 300 Bradleys and bunch of tanks on the way. Yes, no F-35, which would be fun to watch, but I understand NATO has to keep some aces up its sleeves. ETA: there were also some ... mysterious happenings. Like we still don't know exactly what blew up the airbase on Crimea. We don't know exactly what blew up the bridge. We don't know exactly what is hitting airbases many hundreds of kilometers behind the borders - some of them further from Ukraine than Moscow.

mattgperry 4y ago

> It seems the US and allies no longer just wants UA to hold their own against RU, but actually win the war There is no "hold their own". This would be a state of perpetual warfare. The only way to end the war is to allow Russia to claim Ukraine or push Russia out of Ukraine. Personally I would rather the Russian border to be as far east as possible.

michaelt 4y ago
Theoretically, the US might hope to turn Ukraine into Russia's Iraq - never any decisive loss, just gradually bleeding soldiers and equipment for 20 years for little benefit, until they get bored and go home. A conspiracy-minded person who thought America blew up the Nordstream pipelines to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas might see a similar benefit to prolonging the conflict.
- yks 4y ago
  The US itself is in the state of being always a few years away from taken over by a crowd very sympathetic to the Putin's cause and Putin personally. Prolonging this conflict is therefore also quite risky to the current establishment or whatever you want to call the adherents of the post-WW2 world order.
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    The US is in the state of being always a few years away from taken over by any interest with money. When the money runs out, it is no longer a few years away. See: Sam Bankman-Fried.
    - yks 4y ago
      That is true, but Russia in particular had practically unlimited money to buy off both the US elites and their opposition, due to the rich natural resources and lack of need to support the high standards of living for the Russian population. Only China has more resources but so far they haven't formed a powerful message US politicians can use to rally their constituents to pro-China causes.

drewcoo 4y ago

> hostile spy drones In the form of naked eye visible . . . balloons. Because "hostile spy drones" is more plausible than . . . invasion from another planet? 19th century science fiction meets Phillip K Dick.

shapefrog 4y ago

> such expensive weaponry if they thought UA had no chance? It seems likely they are betting on a UA victory and all that entails. > And in the event of a potential UA victory Ukraine are not going to win the "war", by any meaningful measure. There are no western countries that assign anything above a 0% probability of victory. The equipment that we are sending is excellent, but it is all old and literally surplus to requirements. The headline number (X bn of arms sent) makes for nice reading, but all the equipment would otherwise be rusting in a field somewhere and is better used being blown up (or blowing up some russian equipment) in the Ukraine. The NATO tactic remains to contain the conflict, bog Russia down in a long drawn out campaign (decades would be great) and avoid having to actually face a pointless one sided war (direct russian conflict) that frankly would be embarrassing for everyone and simply result in the pointless killing of millions of people, while simultaneously making everyone hate each other even more from multiple generations.

djaychela 4y ago
>The equipment that we are sending is excellent, but it is all old and literally surplus to requirements. Can't speak about anything else, but the Challenger 2 Tanks the UK is sending are old or surplus. They're the UK's current main battle tank, and extremely capable.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  Challenger 2 entered service with the British Army in June 1998 and the last of the 386 tanks was delivered in April 2002, with an out of service date of 2025. In 2019, then-British Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt labelled the Challenger 2 as obsolete. Indeed the decommissioning has effectively started with just over 200 remaining, and many of those not in a fit state to be deployed. The plan, announced in 2021, involved upgrading 148 Challenger 2 tanks to Challenger 3s and retiring the remaining 79 vehicles. As I said above, we are sending extremely effective equipment, but its not the stuff rolling off the production lines at the skunk works. These main battle tanks that are being sent were destined for the scrapyard in the next couple of years.

sobkas 4y ago

> Imo if UA is able to push RU back they're likely to try to reclaim annexed territories back from RU. It seems likely the US and allies would understand this is a probable outcome. After all would NATO countries be sending tanks and such expensive weaponry if they thought UA had no chance? It seems likely they are betting on a UA victory and all that entails. And what USA/NATO believed about Afghanistan? They through a lot of resources at it and it didn't stop it from collapsing(or it even helped collapse because there were enough resources to steal, so cleptocrats had incentive to fight to rule Afghanistan).

eunos 4y ago

Eh I think it is the people getting agitated instead of NatSec council. Case in point that Chinese balloon spotted in Montana. I think Biden admin want to sweep that info under the rug, but since a local publication in Montana publish it, all hell broke loose.

twoquestions 4y ago

> Am I wrong to be concerned? Fortunately yes. There are very long and well-respected traditions when it comes to nukes, and despite Russian propaganda and shitposters going on about nuclear tidal waves and other nonsense, serious diplomats have maintained that nuclear policy remains the same, which means they'll only use nukes if there's an existential threat to Russia (which getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine is not), or enemy nuclear strike (which we aren't about to do). Here's a deep dive from someone smarter than me in these things, it put my mind at ease and I hope it works for you too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

conorcleary 4y ago
Yeah, but the element of surprise and cold-served revenge is something that bad actors thrive on. So the least expected attack becomes the most impactful.
kypro 4y ago
Could I ask two questions? 1: Do you believe there's a chance Ukraine will try to retake Crimea? 2: Do you believe Putin could see Ukraine trying to retake the Russian territory of Crimea with NATO weapons as an existential threat to Russia? Unless I'm wrong, I think this is all you need? I'm not saying Ukraine will try to take Crimea or that it's even likely, but I suppose it seems quite possible that could happen now that Ukraine has been armed with NATO tanks and Zelensky has suggested many times that he wants to "liberate" Crimea. So am I correct in thinking where we disagree here is that you don't believe it's likely Putin would consider an invasion of Crimea with NATO weapons an existential threat to Russia? Presumably you believe Putin agrees Crimea isn't really theirs and that NATO sending weapons enabling Ukraine to invade Russian territory poses them no existential threat?

LinuxBender 4y ago

Am I wrong to be concerned? I don't think so. Normalcy bias is strong in the public right now and I don't blame people for wanting simple explanations for the recent events. Regarding the balloons my unpopular opinion is that they may have received intel that the spy balloons are to condition the US into complacency and then replace the payload with something else using a later set of balloons. This would never make it into the news. Given that the military have recently been given pre-approval to take down anything that is deemed to be a threat that tells me there are more chess pieces in motion than we are aware of. Regarding Russia I see a lot of comments about Russia never possibly using nukes. Adding to my unpopular opinions nobody can say that with confidence. Russia are approaching the end of their existence as a nation and are losing the numbers needed to fight their traditional methods of kinetic warfare and the only option left on the table is nukes. They just need an excuse. Existential threat has been the repeat narrative from the Kremlin and that is the legal language written into their laws regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I can't speak for anyone else but I will do my best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

nradov 4y ago
Let's say Russia does decide to use nukes. What would they target? Their main objective in the war is to seize control of Ukrainian energy and agricultural resources; they don't want to turn it into an irradiated wasteland. Using a nuke against Ukrainian military forces would be a waste since they are now dispersed and dug in. Many of those forces are close to Russian forces so a nuclear strike would endanger their own troops.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  Their main objective in the war is to seize control of Ukrainian energy and agricultural resources I do not believe that is their primary objective. Should any resources survive their onslaught they are just bonus material. They have already destroyed most of the factories train tracks and a good deal of the power generation. Russia have no ability currently to replace these things or to rebuild Ukraine which would be necessary in order to make use of the lands resources. What would they target? The remaining power, hospitals, the remaining agricultural factories to starve everyone. That alone would drive out most of the remaining people. I believe the primary objective is to secure Russia. That requires conquering all neighboring former Soviet countries and Ukraine is just in the way and has a nice bonus water port. Should they succeed in taking Ukraine this spring then I would expect Poland and/or Finland to be attacked at some point later on.

vbezhenar 4y ago

1. Russia is incentivized to use tactical nukes to destroy ukrainian infrastructure like bridges which are very hard to destroy with other means. 2. US warned that there will be catastrophic consequences if Russia used nuclear weapons. It's not clear what exactly do they mean. But it would be logical to suppose that this would indicate full scale NATO invasion. 3. In this case Russia military doctrine allows to use strategic nuclear weapon which is certainly will be used against USA, probably military targets first. 4. This is likely to trigger full scale nuclear response to Moscow and other major cities and consequent response from Russia. After initial strikes there will be armageddon plan which will destroy every big force on the planet just in case. I don't think that this scenario is very probable, but there's clear path to the end of the world. My only hope is that China would not allow #1 to happen and if China would decide to isolate Russia, it'll not last long economically.

EForEndeavour 4y ago
I naively hope that somewhere high up in the chain of command between Putin deciding to order a nuclear strike and human hands actuating physical controls, there's at least one person with the good judgment and cool head of Stanislav Petrov[1], and the superhuman willingness to sacrifice themselves for a chance at saving untold millions of lives. Basically, I'm hoping for violent mutiny of nuclear forces in the event of a first-strike order. It feels very strange to wish that people on the other side of the world who I will never meet will just give up their lives/futures and those of their families and kill if necessary to prevent the first domino from falling. [1] In 1983, Stanislav Petrov's early warning system showed a total of five inbound US nuclear missiles. He correctly assessed these to be false alarms, and disobeyed standing orders to trigger an immediate and compulsory nuclear counter-attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
fsloth 4y ago
2. Would probably be "just" sinking black sea fleet with a non-nuclear bombardment or equal. The consequence needs to be a loss that has political and military significance but does not need to more than necessary. 3.& 4. Would mean Russia's self annihilation and they won't go there. It's no joke that nuclear powers are saber rattling ofc.

jwmoz 4y ago

Sounds like WW3 planning. Great.

LemmyInThePub 4y ago

> And in the event of a potential UA victory the use of tactical nuclear weapons from RU seem likely. No. The ISW consider Russia using nuclear weapons to be extremally unlikely; the Russian rhetoric around them simply being to provoke western fear (and thus delay the sending of western weapons), as you have so aptly demonstrated. The ISW publish daily reports on the Ukraine war that are well worth reading https://www.understandingwar.org/ https://www.understandingwar.org/ A recent assessment by ISW of Putins nuclear threats are here: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/special-report-assessing-putin%E2%80%99s-implicit-nuclear-threats-after-annexation https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/special-report...

ezconnect 4y ago

Those recent balloons are just distraction from the Nordstream pipeline news. It's to flood the news stream with new breaking news. Typical USA playbook.

kstenerud 4y ago

The UFOs are mostly spy drones (although it's still to early to say how many of them are - maybe all of them are?). These drones are more likely opportunistic than tactical. Even the US response to them is valuable intelligence, as it has opened up the possibility of a DOS attack forcing the air force to waste missiles (which are not only expensive, but take time to replace). Under Putin, Russia is unlikely to resort to nukes so long as Ukraine doesn't storm actual Russian territory (as opposed to annexed land). If Putin were to be replaced, the new guy will likely be a hardliner, and then it's anyone's guess (although still leaning towards unlikely). America has already privately contacted all levels of the Russian government to spell out the consequences of nukes, and enough people in government (including Putin) still fear America's direct involvement in this war (rhetoric notwithstanding). No nation can ever be allowed to actually use nukes in conquest; the ensuing arms race as every despot rushes for their own immunity to the American military would be catastrophic.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
Spy drones, or weather balloons? I've seen more evidence, so far, for weather balloons. It honestly seems like a really childish conspiracy theory to claim that China is spying on people using the biggest, most conspicuous aircraft imaginable. Slow moving, massive balloons, visible for hundreds of miles, and slaves to the wind. Easy to spot, easy to predict, easy to avoid, and easy to take down. I'm going to need to see a lot more evidence that these are spying machines.

caeril 4y ago

> Perhaps the reason we haven't heard about these drones before could be that the US has never felt the need to act My understanding, and it could be completely wrong (sourced from various tweet threads), is that the first balloon discovery prompted StratCom to change the nominal focusing range of our radar and optical networks, after which we suddenly discovered there were a lot more UFOs than anyone even realized, and that StratCom is just as surprised as the general public is.