5 ms·

The smart view of that is that regardless of whatever ridiculous arguments for Russian imperialism people want to engage in Russia is not physically capable of

by khuey 4y ago

The smart view of that is that regardless of whatever ridiculous arguments for Russian imperialism people want to engage in Russia is not physically capable of conquering the Baltic states.

Auracle 4y ago
*Without using their nukes
- khuey 4y ago
  Nuclear weapons can't take and hold territory.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    Turning it into a barren wasteland makes it easier to take or hold with disposable conscripts.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      Is Russia low on land? Are they running out, that depopulating several nations and holding their territory with conscripts makes strategic sense?
      - anonymousab 4y ago
        In the hypothetical of them using nukes, we'd probably be past the point of there being any reason other than to wipe out the other side and show force to the rest of the world. That they control/own it by might sheerly for the sake of doing so and not by any other rationale.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      That will be the end of Russia entirely.
      - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
        > That will be the end of Earth entirely. FTFY
    - khuey 4y ago
      It really doesn't. The front in eastern Ukraine has been shelled into oblivion at this point and it hasn't made it easy for Russia to advance.
      - The_Colonel 4y ago
        That's because Russia is also short on shells. The bulk of their advance in April-July was facilitated by their mass artillery fire.
    - vladTheInhaler 4y ago
      I'm not sure that's true. Operating in a radioactive environment makes every single task so much harder. When Russia can barely afford the time to teach its recruits how to shoot, how could they possibly spare the time to teach them how to manage radioactive contamination?
      - anonymousab 4y ago
        In this case "nobody can have it" is effectively the same as "we have it" in terms of keeping NATO at a further distance from the important parts of the federation. Or whatever the Kremlin justification is these days.
- tokai 4y ago
  Nukes are useless tactically. Especially when you can't provide CBRN uniforms and training to all your troops.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    That's a stretch. Imagine Russia could use their nukes without retaliation. They could have completely destroyed every military base and city in Ukraine before the invasion, along with the people's will to fight. Or just used the threat of doing so to take Ukraine piece by piece.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      The consequences of using nukes are an inherent part of using them. We might as well imagine they could use their tanks without maintenance or supply lines, or use their infantry without providing any training.
    - greedo 4y ago
      Russia has been continually threatening to use nuclear weapons and it hasn't affected anything. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would be a pariah for centuries, assuming it didn't lead to global thermonuclear war.
  - GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
    > Nukes are useless tactically This seems to be the case, but no one knows for sure. It's likely that there are people in power who think they can gain an advantage using tactical nukes. Some weapons are specifically designed for this purpose, such as the American ER weapons (PDF) https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/1975.pdf https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/1975.pdf
- Slartie 4y ago
  Nuking the country right next to your country sure seems like a great idea. Cause everyone knows that radiation stops at the border!
  - The_Colonel 4y ago
    Today's nukes can be very "clean". Even the old Hiroshima/Nagasaki did not cause that terrible residual radioactivity (neither city stopped being continuously inhabited). Chernobyl released ~400 times as much radioactive material into the environment as the Hiroshima bomb. The nuke isotopes are also much shorter lived than what Chernobyl released.
pjc50 4y ago
Well, not since they joined NATO in 2004. I'm not sure I would have bet entirely on "not able to", either, prior to 2022: the advancing forces in Ukraine crossed a distance greater than the width of the Balkans before being stopped. It's quite possible a single overnight push to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia would have worked. Turning it into a grinding air war while NATO ground forces were brought into position to retake it.
motohagiography 4y ago
Even as NATO members, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania provide key sea ports. Putin is already in a thinly veiled proxy war with NATO in Ukraine anyway. The risk I'm asking about is whether this current defacto-war-with-NATO-factor may neutralize the deterrent effect of mutual defense treaty mechanisms from his perspective. It's debatable whether there is anyone in office in a NATO country who is prepared to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, or who has sufficient democratic political support to manage or sustain a land war. If China takes Taiwan at the same time, it's mutally beneficial for both Putin and Xi. What leader in NATO can persuasively threaten either Xi or Putin right now, let alone if they acted together? The responses on this thread haven't really shown a capability for reasoning about the conflicts in economic or abstract terms, which is concerning because as a sample, if an inability to be clear eyed and unblinking about these things is consistent with the view of people in media policy circles, not only is there is a real risk of being blindsided, but it's evidence of a culturally held bias that creates the incentive for these powers to act.

by khuey 4y ago

The smart view of that is that regardless of whatever ridiculous arguments for Russian imperialism people want to engage in Russia is not physically capable of conquering the Baltic states.

Auracle 4y ago

*Without using their nukes

khuey 4y ago
Nuclear weapons can't take and hold territory.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  Turning it into a barren wasteland makes it easier to take or hold with disposable conscripts.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    Is Russia low on land? Are they running out, that depopulating several nations and holding their territory with conscripts makes strategic sense?
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      In the hypothetical of them using nukes, we'd probably be past the point of there being any reason other than to wipe out the other side and show force to the rest of the world. That they control/own it by might sheerly for the sake of doing so and not by any other rationale.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    That will be the end of Russia entirely.
    - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
      > That will be the end of Earth entirely. FTFY
  - khuey 4y ago
    It really doesn't. The front in eastern Ukraine has been shelled into oblivion at this point and it hasn't made it easy for Russia to advance.
    - The_Colonel 4y ago
      That's because Russia is also short on shells. The bulk of their advance in April-July was facilitated by their mass artillery fire.
  - vladTheInhaler 4y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. Operating in a radioactive environment makes every single task so much harder. When Russia can barely afford the time to teach its recruits how to shoot, how could they possibly spare the time to teach them how to manage radioactive contamination?
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      In this case "nobody can have it" is effectively the same as "we have it" in terms of keeping NATO at a further distance from the important parts of the federation. Or whatever the Kremlin justification is these days.
tokai 4y ago
Nukes are useless tactically. Especially when you can't provide CBRN uniforms and training to all your troops.
- Auracle 4y ago
  That's a stretch. Imagine Russia could use their nukes without retaliation. They could have completely destroyed every military base and city in Ukraine before the invasion, along with the people's will to fight. Or just used the threat of doing so to take Ukraine piece by piece.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    The consequences of using nukes are an inherent part of using them. We might as well imagine they could use their tanks without maintenance or supply lines, or use their infantry without providing any training.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Russia has been continually threatening to use nuclear weapons and it hasn't affected anything. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would be a pariah for centuries, assuming it didn't lead to global thermonuclear war.
- GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
  > Nukes are useless tactically This seems to be the case, but no one knows for sure. It's likely that there are people in power who think they can gain an advantage using tactical nukes. Some weapons are specifically designed for this purpose, such as the American ER weapons (PDF) https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/1975.pdf https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/1975.pdf
Slartie 4y ago
Nuking the country right next to your country sure seems like a great idea. Cause everyone knows that radiation stops at the border!
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  Today's nukes can be very "clean". Even the old Hiroshima/Nagasaki did not cause that terrible residual radioactivity (neither city stopped being continuously inhabited). Chernobyl released ~400 times as much radioactive material into the environment as the Hiroshima bomb. The nuke isotopes are also much shorter lived than what Chernobyl released.

pjc50 4y ago

Well, not since they joined NATO in 2004. I'm not sure I would have bet entirely on "not able to", either, prior to 2022: the advancing forces in Ukraine crossed a distance greater than the width of the Balkans before being stopped. It's quite possible a single overnight push to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia would have worked. Turning it into a grinding air war while NATO ground forces were brought into position to retake it.

motohagiography 4y ago

Even as NATO members, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania provide key sea ports. Putin is already in a thinly veiled proxy war with NATO in Ukraine anyway. The risk I'm asking about is whether this current defacto-war-with-NATO-factor may neutralize the deterrent effect of mutual defense treaty mechanisms from his perspective. It's debatable whether there is anyone in office in a NATO country who is prepared to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, or who has sufficient democratic political support to manage or sustain a land war. If China takes Taiwan at the same time, it's mutally beneficial for both Putin and Xi. What leader in NATO can persuasively threaten either Xi or Putin right now, let alone if they acted together? The responses on this thread haven't really shown a capability for reasoning about the conflicts in economic or abstract terms, which is concerning because as a sample, if an inability to be clear eyed and unblinking about these things is consistent with the view of people in media policy circles, not only is there is a real risk of being blindsided, but it's evidence of a culturally held bias that creates the incentive for these powers to act.