djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rJnEvp.1uv3@kithrup.com:

> In article <iuvckht1f82irk8vnu0sriihc6ecno03th@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:44:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The
>>> rails
>>>were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be
>>>replaced if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the
>>>situation it seems possible that the segment of the rail bridge
>>>will be brought down by the first train the Russians run along
>>>it after not repairing it properly.
>>
>>Obviously the Ukrainians are hoping the next train via that
>>route will be a Ukrainian, not a Russian train!
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> To the best of my knowledge, the Ukrainians want the bridge
> *gone*.

I'm sure that will be near the top of their list of Things To Do once
they have defeated Russia and won the war. In the meantime, there's
strategic advantage to damaging it enough to be unusualbe, but not
enough to be unrepairable, and the Ukranians intend to *win*.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <vmqdkhtueavbkegud77g1c7kg3jsrscmui@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 20:41:28 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>The usual alternative, on land, is trucks. That was, after all,
>>the rationale behind building both the Autobahn and US Interstate
>>Highway networks. Not to mention that one of the few specific
>>pieces of equipment Eisenhower credited with helping win WW2 in
>>Europe was the 2.5 ton truck.
>
>It also promoted the movement of troops from place to place, if
>needed.

(Hal Heydt)
I read once that someone did a survey about a month after the
D-Day landing and found that the average US Army unit was--at
that point--30% *over* complement for motor transport.

By and large, the GIs had grown up being backyard mechanics,
keeping older cars running during the Depression. The Feldgrau
didn't have that background. So abandoned German vehicles,
abandoned because they wouldn't run, soon had a GI peering under
the hood and finding easy fixes. Then repainting the ID markings
and driving away with them.

Kind of like the way the Ukraine Army is gathering all that
working, but abandoned Russian equipment.

In article <t7rdkh17ut0o533neeku2sd1m00nea2l4q@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:28:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Given the construction of the bridge, it would be pretty difficult
>>to actually destory it.
>
>I hate to say it, not wanting to give anybody ideas, but a small
>tactical nuke would probably remove it pretty permanently.
>
>But multiple PGMs aimed at the pilings might have the same effect, at
>least for the duration of the war.

(Hal Heydt)
Depends on what sort of PGMs you have in mind. Apparently, the
bridge is pretty heavily defended, at least from air attack.
They already had S300 AA missiles in place and have added S400
launchers as well.

There are also nearby barges with radar reflectors to hide the
radar signature of the bridge and they--apparently--have smoke
screen generators as well to try to foil optical targeting.

Supposedly, they also have ground "defenses" which appear to
mostly be inspecting heavy vehicles using the bridge. Given how
corrupt the Russian kleptocracy is at all levels, one might
suspect that most "inspections" are probably rather cursory and
subject to being avoided with relatively little expense.

There are claims that they also have defenses against water-borne
attacks, but in light of what actually happened, one might be
dubious about them actually existing. Or if the exist, how
effective they are.

In light of what happened to the road bridge segments, I wouldn't
be surprised if is a method to make that happen to the rail bridge
as well. Possibly by firing a small rocket with a heavy warhead
upwards from under the bridge to dislodge a platform segment or
two and let gravity do the rest of the work. Alternatively, the
same sort of attack that was used gainst the road bridge might
work against the causeway portion of the rail bridge.

Short version is that the Ukraine hit the Russians in the stupid
and there is no reason to think they can't do it again, and maybe
worse.

In article <0hrdkhdqnh4k3ingk404gb7l44h5t78okp@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 01:38:55 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
><snippo>
>
>>Based on today's news of retaliatory cruise missile attacks on
>>Ukrainian territory for what Putin calls a raid on Russian territory
>>(albeit territory nobody outside Russia calls Russian territory) it's
>>clear Putin at least thinks Zhilenskyy is fully on board with the
>>attack.
>
>Or just wants revenge for "his" bridge (which apparently is a
>bridge-building achievement) being attacked, regardless of what
>Zelenskyy may or may not have been aware of.

(Hal Heydt)
It is an achievment. It was built fairly rapidly (about three
years for the road portion). It's the longest bridge in Europe.
However, it is not a notable *engineering* achievment. There is
nothing there that pushes the art of what is possible forward.
Plus, from the pictures of it combined with what happened to the
last bridge in that area, it might well be subject to being
collapsed by ice pressure.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <t7rdkh17ut0o533neeku2sd1m00nea2l4q@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:28:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Given the construction of the bridge, it would be pretty difficult
>>>to actually destory it.
>>
>>I hate to say it, not wanting to give anybody ideas, but a small
>>tactical nuke would probably remove it pretty permanently.
>>
>>But multiple PGMs aimed at the pilings might have the same effect, at
>>least for the duration of the war.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Depends on what sort of PGMs you have in mind. Apparently, the
>bridge is pretty heavily defended, at least from air attack.
>They already had S300 AA missiles in place and have added S400
>launchers as well.
>
>There are also nearby barges with radar reflectors to hide the
>radar signature of the bridge and they--apparently--have smoke
>screen generators as well to try to foil optical targeting.

The US has provided Harpoon (sea-skimming) missiles to Ukraine
(albeit shore launched), which while they use active-radar-homing,
likely have inertial guidance (or perhaps GPS/Glonass?) as well.

<snip>

>Short version is that the Ukraine hit the Russians in the stupid
>and there is no reason to think they can't do it again, and maybe
>worse.

Indeed. Unless it was actually (a) FSB disinformation campaign
designed to justify the later random missile attacks on Uk, or
(b) internal russian dissidents or (c) the Chechen leader stirring
the pot, or (d) Georgians poking a stick in the bear's eye.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rJnME0.1G62@kithrup.com:

> Short version is that the Ukraine hit the Russians in the stupid

That is, apparently, a target that is hard to miss.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <fDE1L.218833$3AK7.8558@fx35.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Indeed. Unless it was actually (a) FSB disinformation campaign
>designed to justify the later random missile attacks on Uk, or
>(b) internal russian dissidents or (c) the Chechen leader stirring
>the pot, or (d) Georgians poking a stick in the bear's eye.

(Hal Heydt)
It has also been suggested that was an internal feud between
different parts of the Russian intelligence aparatus. Since
defense of the bridge has been transferred from the Army to the
FSB, one might see some merit in that as a possibility.

Or, of course, it could have been a well planned, well executed
Ukrainian operation and they are quietly laughing up their
sleeves at the Russians running around like the Keystone Kops
trying to figure out what happened and how. Meanwhile, the
Ukraine forces aren't going to just sit on their laurels.

On 10/12/2022 11:48 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rJnEvp.1uv3@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <iuvckht1f82irk8vnu0sriihc6ecno03th@4ax.com>,
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:44:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The
>>>> rails
>>>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be
>>>> replaced if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the
>>>> situation it seems possible that the segment of the rail bridge
>>>> will be brought down by the first train the Russians run along
>>>> it after not repairing it properly.
>>>
>>> Obviously the Ukrainians are hoping the next train via that
>>> route will be a Ukrainian, not a Russian train!
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> To the best of my knowledge, the Ukrainians want the bridge
>> *gone*.
>
> I'm sure that will be near the top of their list of Things To Do once
> they have defeated Russia and won the war. In the meantime, there's
> strategic advantage to damaging it enough to be unusualbe, but not
> enough to be unrepairable, and the Ukranians intend to *win*.

"Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.

Lynn

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:50:35 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Should the government have such power?
> That's entirely another question.

If governments _in general_ didn't have the power to build roads,
well, it would have slowed the popularity of the internal combustion
engine, which might be helpful for global warming. But on balance,
efficient transportation to and from cities has been important to the
economic development of the United States. This has been very
beneficial to the world as a whole, during two World Wars and the
Cold War, and is still beneficial today, as the U.S. contributes aid to
Ukraine during its current difficulties.

However, probably you mean whether or not the Federal Government of
the United States shouls "have such power".

Given the importance of being able to evacuate major cities quickly
in the event of a nuclear attack in the Cold War, it's hard for me to even
entertain an argument against it.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Or just wants revenge for "his" bridge (which apparently is a
> bridge-building achievement) being attacked, regardless of what
> Zelenskyy may or may not have been aware of.

I've seen it claimed, by the English-language service of Polish state
TV, that the current attacks on civilians in Ukraine had been long
prepared in advance, and thus would likely have happened anyways
even if the Russians had no convenient provocation to point to.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:21:53 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> Plus, from the pictures of it combined with what happened to the
> last bridge in that area, it might well be subject to being
> collapsed by ice pressure.

Ah, but by that time, Europe will have agreed to stop supplying arms
to Ukraine in order to get oil and natural gas deliveries back, and
Ukraine will have collapsed due to being without power!

So Russia only needs the bridge until winter comes, thus ice won't be
a problem!

At least, that's how they could be thinking...

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.

Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
> In article <rJnEJ...@kithrup.com>,
> Hal Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> >(Hal Heydt)
> >Probably not since it was built before Barnes Wallace little
> >trick with skip bombs, aided by a clever little bomb sight
> >suggested by one W. Churchill, and delivered by 617 Squadron.

> (Hal Heydt)
> The inventor's name is actually Barnes Wallis. My apologies for
> the error.

Ah. As in Simpson.

John Savard

On 10/12/2022 6:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.
>
> Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.
>
> John Savard

True that.

Lynn

In article <124e12d2-3a86-46c9-9dab-8b7aaf428d80n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.
>
>Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.

(Hal Heydt)
Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
relevant equipment actually works.

On 10/12/2022 7:35 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <124e12d2-3a86-46c9-9dab-8b7aaf428d80n@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.
>>
>> Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
> relevant equipment actually works.

That is a lot of if's.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ti794t$1ip1v$2@dont-email.me:

> On 10/12/2022 11:48 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> news:rJnEvp.1uv3@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <iuvckht1f82irk8vnu0sriihc6ecno03th@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:44:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down.
>>>>> The
>>>>> rails
>>>>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should
>>>>> be replaced if a competent civil engineer is involved.
>>>>> Given the situation it seems possible that the segment of
>>>>> the rail bridge will be brought down by the first train the
>>>>> Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the Ukrainians are hoping the next train via that
>>>> route will be a Ukrainian, not a Russian train!
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the Ukrainians want the bridge
>>> *gone*.
>>
>> I'm sure that will be near the top of their list of Things To
>> Do once they have defeated Russia and won the war. In the
>> meantime, there's strategic advantage to damaging it enough to
>> be unusualbe, but not enough to be unrepairable, and the
>> Ukranians intend to *win*.
>
> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in
> nuclear fire.

Possibly, but if that were giong to happen, we just passed the most
likely, so far, moment. (And there's still all the reasons why
Putin may try to, and not be *able* to.)

But hey, we all know you masturbate furiously over apoclypse
fantasies, so have at it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <ti7ndh$1jtb6$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/12/2022 7:35 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <124e12d2-3a86-46c9-9dab-8b7aaf428d80n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying in nuclear fire.
>>>
>>> Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
>> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
>> relevant equipment actually works.
>
>That is a lot of if's.

(Hal Heydt)
Yes it is, and because they are not independent conditions, the
chances of occurrence is the product of the chance of each of the
steps. Thus reducing the probability that it will happen. It's
thin reed, but I'll take it.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
> relevant equipment actually works.

I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the second and
third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot down when it got too
near Sakhalin - the Russian military is trained to obey orders - *and* that
disobedience endangers their famililes, not just themselves. And a nuclear
strike against the U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched to
work.

It's to Putin's advantage to pretend to be crazier than he actually is, but he
has to have been at least somewhat crazy to start this in the first place.
And if he has reason to think that he will die anyways, taking the whole world
with him is... still evil, but not so much irrational, any more.

Well, then: if we want to be _absolutely_ sure that World War III doesn't
happen, we had better ask Ukraine to... negotiate peace, shouldn't we?

The problem with that is that Russia has made it very clear what its terms
are for an "acceptable" peace:

1) No security in place in Ukraine that stops Russia from invading it in future
any time it feels like it; and

2) A change of government in Ukraine, so that it is ruled by a puppet of Putin,
who has shown how much he cares about Ukrainins by hitting their civilians
with missiles.

So, quite reasonably, the Ukrainian people see that as scarcely less bad than
being destroyed in a hail of Russian nuclear missiles, if that _is_ going to be
Russia's response to their having driven out all Russian forces from all their
territory.

However, I view that as the _least_ likely way in which Putin would introduce
nukes into the conflict. Either the wind blows the fallout into Russia itself,
or the wind blows the fallout into NATO countries, which will then consider
themselves to have been attacked.

Thus, if Putin were to be that crazy, he might has well go all in, and wipe
at least one *American* city off the face of the Earth. In hopes that
the American people will rise up and say that if Trump were President,
he would have just told the Ukrainians to go... (expletive deleted)...
themselves, and this wouldn't have happened.

And so Trump gets elected in 2024, and America and Russia live together
happily ever after. That, of course, would be _wildly_ optimistic on Putin's
part about how America would actually respond - but it's not as if he has
not been given _some_ food for such fantasies.

The other possibility is simply that Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine.

I've read an article claiming that if the U.S. _only_ retaliated in a non-nuclear
fashion causing an equivalent amount of damage, this would be giving in,
encouraging Putin. Instead, while the U.S. shouldn't _escalate_, it should
retaliate in a tit-for-tat manner, with a tactical nuke of its own.

I think it's sufficiently important not to escalate that this should be dialed
back just a tad. A non-nuclear response to the first one, and then a tactical
nuke in response to the _second_ would show _both_ resolve and a strong
intent to err on the side of avoiding escalation.

This should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.

What should have happened was that *well before* this invasion got
under way, the U.S. put *its* red line around Ukraine. So that even
Putin would stay away, keeping what he had already bit off of Ukraine,
and nothing more would happen, just like during the whole Cold
War.

This way... how we might expect Putin to think:

You let us bomb civilians in Kyiv, and you didn't do anything.

So now we're rolling our tanks into Estonia because we don't think
you will do anything *either* because you don't want our nukes raining
down on *you*.

Ultimately, it boils down to this:

Courage is _not_ without risk, but...

Cowardice is _certain_ death.

John Savard

In article <05c54a8f-352a-4aa0-a696-2e3476ed5be4n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>
>> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
>> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
>> relevant equipment actually works.
>
>I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the second and
>third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot down when it got too
>near Sakhalin - the Russian military is trained to obey orders - *and* that
>disobedience endangers their famililes, not just themselves. And a nuclear
>strike against the U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched to
>work.
>
>It's to Putin's advantage to pretend to be crazier than he actually is, but he
>has to have been at least somewhat crazy to start this in the first place.
>And if he has reason to think that he will die anyways, taking the whole world
>with him is... still evil, but not so much irrational, any more.
>
>Well, then: if we want to be _absolutely_ sure that World War III doesn't
>happen, we had better ask Ukraine to... negotiate peace, shouldn't we?
>
>The problem with that is that Russia has made it very clear what its terms
>are for an "acceptable" peace:
>
>1) No security in place in Ukraine that stops Russia from invading it in future
>any time it feels like it; and
>
>2) A change of government in Ukraine, so that it is ruled by a puppet of Putin,
>who has shown how much he cares about Ukrainins by hitting their civilians
>with missiles.

(Hal Heydt)
Putin's version of an acceptable "peace" is Ukraine absorbed into
and under the thumb of Russia, regardless of how many dead or
scattered Ukrainians that takes.

The only questions that remain are what he is willing to do to get
that, and whether or not his military can or will deliver it for
him.

Not surprisingly, Ukrainians aren't interested in that scneario.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 4:23:32 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>
> > Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
> > the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
> > relevant equipment actually works.
> I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the second and
> third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot down when it got too
> near Sakhalin - the Russian military is trained to obey orders - *and* that
> disobedience endangers their famililes, not just themselves. And a nuclear
> strike against the U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched to
> work.
>
> It's to Putin's advantage to pretend to be crazier than he actually is, but he
> has to have been at least somewhat crazy to start this in the first place..
> And if he has reason to think that he will die anyways, taking the whole world
> with him is... still evil, but not so much irrational, any more.
>
> Well, then: if we want to be _absolutely_ sure that World War III doesn't
> happen, we had better ask Ukraine to... negotiate peace, shouldn't we?
>
> The problem with that is that Russia has made it very clear what its terms
> are for an "acceptable" peace:
>
> 1) No security in place in Ukraine that stops Russia from invading it in future
> any time it feels like it; and
>
> 2) A change of government in Ukraine, so that it is ruled by a puppet of Putin,
> who has shown how much he cares about Ukrainins by hitting their civilians
> with missiles.
>
> So, quite reasonably, the Ukrainian people see that as scarcely less bad than
> being destroyed in a hail of Russian nuclear missiles, if that _is_ going to be
> Russia's response to their having driven out all Russian forces from all their
> territory.
>
> However, I view that as the _least_ likely way in which Putin would introduce
> nukes into the conflict. Either the wind blows the fallout into Russia itself,
> or the wind blows the fallout into NATO countries, which will then consider
> themselves to have been attacked.
>
> Thus, if Putin were to be that crazy, he might has well go all in, and wipe
> at least one *American* city off the face of the Earth. In hopes that
> the American people will rise up and say that if Trump were President,
> he would have just told the Ukrainians to go... (expletive deleted)...
> themselves, and this wouldn't have happened.
>
> And so Trump gets elected in 2024, and America and Russia live together
> happily ever after. That, of course, would be _wildly_ optimistic on Putin's
> part about how America would actually respond - but it's not as if he has
> not been given _some_ food for such fantasies.
>
> The other possibility is simply that Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine.
>
> I've read an article claiming that if the U.S. _only_ retaliated in a non-nuclear
> fashion causing an equivalent amount of damage, this would be giving in,
> encouraging Putin. Instead, while the U.S. shouldn't _escalate_, it should
> retaliate in a tit-for-tat manner, with a tactical nuke of its own.
>
> I think it's sufficiently important not to escalate that this should be dialed
> back just a tad. A non-nuclear response to the first one, and then a tactical
> nuke in response to the _second_ would show _both_ resolve and a strong
> intent to err on the side of avoiding escalation.
>
> This should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.
>
> What should have happened was that *well before* this invasion got
> under way, the U.S. put *its* red line around Ukraine. So that even
> Putin would stay away, keeping what he had already bit off of Ukraine,
> and nothing more would happen, just like during the whole Cold
> War.
>
> This way... how we might expect Putin to think:
>
> You let us bomb civilians in Kyiv, and you didn't do anything.
>
> So now we're rolling our tanks into Estonia because we don't think
> you will do anything *either* because you don't want our nukes raining
> down on *you*.
>
> Ultimately, it boils down to this:
>
> Courage is _not_ without risk, but...
>
> Cowardice is _certain_ death.
>
> John Savard
I think it is very likely that the US have enough radar and other coverage to track in real time the position of everything Russian within Ukraine and close to it. I think Russian use of nuclear weapons would be followed very quickly by a massive use of US/NATO precision weapons within a very short space of time - shock and awe 2022. I think that this would not only show that the Russian use of nuclear weapons was counter-productive, but discourage proliferation by showing that modern precision weapons at the end of a modern kill chain could be militarily more effective than cold war era battlefield nukes in the hands of a Warsaw Pact style army.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:05c54a8f-352a-4aa0-a696-2e3476ed5be4n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
> wrote:
>
>> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
>> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
>> relevant equipment actually works.
>
> I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the
> second and third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot
> down when it got too near Sakhalin - the Russian military is
> trained to obey orders - *and* that disobedience endangers their
> famililes, not just themselves.

Of course, we do have an historical precedent from the Soviet era,
in the person of Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov

>And a nuclear strike against the
> U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched to work.
>
It is questionable just how many Soviet missiles would have worked
when they were still being maintained by people who supposedly knew
what they were doing. And the warheads are far more demanding to
keep working. A nuclear strike against the US would be
thermonuclear, and H bombs require tritium, which has a half-life
of 12.3 years. It is entirely conceivable that there are *no*
functioning H bombs in the Russian arsenal at this point. (Plus,
the Soviets used polonium for their initiators, and they have
apparently taken all the polinium out to poison dissidents with.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 12/10/2022 18.34, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:50:35 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

>> Should the government have such power?
>> That's entirely another question.

> Given the importance of being able to evacuate major cities quickly
> in the event of a nuclear attack in the Cold War, it's hard for me to even
> entertain an argument against it.

I lived in a major metropolitan area for nearly four decades. The thought
of "evacuat[ing] major cities quickly" is absurd, as may be seen every
workday afternoon. And that's only a small part of the population heading
out.

I think that the portrayals of evacuations in _Independence Day_ are, if
anything, understated.

--
Michael F. Stemper
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.

On 10/12/2022 10:23 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
>
>> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody in
>> the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
>> relevant equipment actually works.
>
> I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the second and
> third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot down when it got too
> near Sakhalin - the Russian military is trained to obey orders - *and* that
> disobedience endangers their famililes, not just themselves. And a nuclear
> strike against the U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched to
> work.
>
> It's to Putin's advantage to pretend to be crazier than he actually is, but he
> has to have been at least somewhat crazy to start this in the first place.
> And if he has reason to think that he will die anyways, taking the whole world
> with him is... still evil, but not so much irrational, any more.
>
> Well, then: if we want to be _absolutely_ sure that World War III doesn't
> happen, we had better ask Ukraine to... negotiate peace, shouldn't we?
>
> The problem with that is that Russia has made it very clear what its terms
> are for an "acceptable" peace:
>
> 1) No security in place in Ukraine that stops Russia from invading it in future
> any time it feels like it; and
>
> 2) A change of government in Ukraine, so that it is ruled by a puppet of Putin,
> who has shown how much he cares about Ukrainins by hitting their civilians
> with missiles.
>
> So, quite reasonably, the Ukrainian people see that as scarcely less bad than
> being destroyed in a hail of Russian nuclear missiles, if that _is_ going to be
> Russia's response to their having driven out all Russian forces from all their
> territory.
>
> However, I view that as the _least_ likely way in which Putin would introduce
> nukes into the conflict. Either the wind blows the fallout into Russia itself,
> or the wind blows the fallout into NATO countries, which will then consider
> themselves to have been attacked.
>
> Thus, if Putin were to be that crazy, he might has well go all in, and wipe
> at least one *American* city off the face of the Earth. In hopes that
> the American people will rise up and say that if Trump were President,
> he would have just told the Ukrainians to go... (expletive deleted)...
> themselves, and this wouldn't have happened.
>
> And so Trump gets elected in 2024, and America and Russia live together
> happily ever after. That, of course, would be _wildly_ optimistic on Putin's
> part about how America would actually respond - but it's not as if he has
> not been given _some_ food for such fantasies.
>
> The other possibility is simply that Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine.
>
> I've read an article claiming that if the U.S. _only_ retaliated in a non-nuclear
> fashion causing an equivalent amount of damage, this would be giving in,
> encouraging Putin. Instead, while the U.S. shouldn't _escalate_, it should
> retaliate in a tit-for-tat manner, with a tactical nuke of its own.
>
> I think it's sufficiently important not to escalate that this should be dialed
> back just a tad. A non-nuclear response to the first one, and then a tactical
> nuke in response to the _second_ would show _both_ resolve and a strong
> intent to err on the side of avoiding escalation.
>
> This should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.
>
> What should have happened was that *well before* this invasion got
> under way, the U.S. put *its* red line around Ukraine. So that even
> Putin would stay away, keeping what he had already bit off of Ukraine,
> and nothing more would happen, just like during the whole Cold
> War.
>
> This way... how we might expect Putin to think:
>
> You let us bomb civilians in Kyiv, and you didn't do anything.
>
> So now we're rolling our tanks into Estonia because we don't think
> you will do anything *either* because you don't want our nukes raining
> down on *you*.
>
> Ultimately, it boils down to this:
>
> Courage is _not_ without risk, but...
>
> Cowardice is _certain_ death.
>
> John Savard

You know, nobody is talking about Russia using biological agents in
Ukraine. Russia has a long history of using bioweapons.
https://www.amazon.com/Dancer-Devil-Stalin-Murder-Pavlova/dp/1684512549/

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tia4ei$1srtp$1@dont-email.me:

> On 10/12/2022 10:23 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Only Putin is crazy enough to want that to happen, everybody
>>> in the chain of command carries out the orders, *and* all the
>>> relevant equipment actually works.
>>
>> I'll have to admit that I'm not overly optimistic about the
>> second and third "if"s there. South Korean flight 007 got shot
>> down when it got too near Sakhalin - the Russian military is
>> trained to obey orders - *and* that disobedience endangers
>> their famililes, not just themselves. And a nuclear strike
>> against the U.S. only requires _most_ of the missiles launched
>> to work.
>>
>> It's to Putin's advantage to pretend to be crazier than he
>> actually is, but he has to have been at least somewhat crazy to
>> start this in the first place. And if he has reason to think
>> that he will die anyways, taking the whole world with him is...
>> still evil, but not so much irrational, any more.
>>
>> Well, then: if we want to be _absolutely_ sure that World War
>> III doesn't happen, we had better ask Ukraine to... negotiate
>> peace, shouldn't we?
>>
>> The problem with that is that Russia has made it very clear
>> what its terms are for an "acceptable" peace:
>>
>> 1) No security in place in Ukraine that stops Russia from
>> invading it in future any time it feels like it; and
>>
>> 2) A change of government in Ukraine, so that it is ruled by a
>> puppet of Putin, who has shown how much he cares about
>> Ukrainins by hitting their civilians with missiles.
>>
>> So, quite reasonably, the Ukrainian people see that as scarcely
>> less bad than being destroyed in a hail of Russian nuclear
>> missiles, if that _is_ going to be Russia's response to their
>> having driven out all Russian forces from all their territory.
>>
>> However, I view that as the _least_ likely way in which Putin
>> would introduce nukes into the conflict. Either the wind blows
>> the fallout into Russia itself, or the wind blows the fallout
>> into NATO countries, which will then consider themselves to
>> have been attacked.
>>
>> Thus, if Putin were to be that crazy, he might has well go all
>> in, and wipe at least one *American* city off the face of the
>> Earth. In hopes that the American people will rise up and say
>> that if Trump were President, he would have just told the
>> Ukrainians to go... (expletive deleted)... themselves, and this
>> wouldn't have happened.
>>
>> And so Trump gets elected in 2024, and America and Russia live
>> together happily ever after. That, of course, would be _wildly_
>> optimistic on Putin's part about how America would actually
>> respond - but it's not as if he has not been given _some_ food
>> for such fantasies.
>>
>> The other possibility is simply that Russia uses tactical nukes
>> in Ukraine.
>>
>> I've read an article claiming that if the U.S. _only_
>> retaliated in a non-nuclear fashion causing an equivalent
>> amount of damage, this would be giving in, encouraging Putin.
>> Instead, while the U.S. shouldn't _escalate_, it should
>> retaliate in a tit-for-tat manner, with a tactical nuke of its
>> own.
>>
>> I think it's sufficiently important not to escalate that this
>> should be dialed back just a tad. A non-nuclear response to the
>> first one, and then a tactical nuke in response to the _second_
>> would show _both_ resolve and a strong intent to err on the
>> side of avoiding escalation.
>>
>> This should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.
>>
>> What should have happened was that *well before* this invasion
>> got under way, the U.S. put *its* red line around Ukraine. So
>> that even Putin would stay away, keeping what he had already
>> bit off of Ukraine, and nothing more would happen, just like
>> during the whole Cold War.
>>
>> This way... how we might expect Putin to think:
>>
>> You let us bomb civilians in Kyiv, and you didn't do anything.
>>
>> So now we're rolling our tanks into Estonia because we don't
>> think you will do anything *either* because you don't want our
>> nukes raining down on *you*.
>>
>> Ultimately, it boils down to this:
>>
>> Courage is _not_ without risk, but...
>>
>> Cowardice is _certain_ death.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> You know, nobody is talking about Russia using biological agents
> in Ukraine. Russia has a long history of using bioweapons.
> https://www.amazon.com/Dancer-Devil-Stalin-Murder-Pavlova/dp/
> 1684512549/
>
Does it come with a complimentary tin foil hat?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.