A birthday gift for Putin. NATO destroyed Crimea Bridge, escalation coming?

[rightwinger]

It is an interesting question what NATO can do if the Putin regime resorts to tactical nuclear weapons. Some answer should be, because otherwise it sends a wrong signal not only to the Kremlin, but also to such pariahs as N Korea and Iran.

Definitely, it won't be a direct attack on Russian territory or even Russian troops inside of Ukraine.

I think the answer will be sending arms to Ukraine which now is taboo, such as tanks and medium-range missiles. And setting up some sort of a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Using WMDs in modern warfare cannot be tolerated

NATO should respond with a powerful military assault on the Russians

 

[SavannahMann]

I’ve watched the video several times. I have an observation.

There is a large orange fireball that is sustained for a long time.



That isn’t normal with Military Grade explosives. You get a flash, and a brief fireball, but nothing like what is seen on the bridge.



The fireball on the bridge looked like petroleum or some similar accelerant. It looked like a Hollywood explosion.



Yes. I know the difference. I was a 12B Combat Engineer in the Army. I’ve blown up every kind of conventional explosive except Torpex which is used exclusively in Torpedoes.

Now the Putin Trolls want to claim it was NATO or some secret military group. They would do it very differently. They would place the explosives underwater to take out the pillars. And they would have hit the center span not the near one.

Or they would hit the bridge with a bomb from a stealth aircraft.

These explosives look homemade. They look like they were mixed up by the attackers. I don’t know what kind. I can make some guesses. But the residue would be the telling clue. C-4 and other high explosives have a telltale residue you can see and test.

Low yield explosives like gunpowder have a different residue.

But there is too much fire following the explosion for it to be Military Grade explosives.

 

[ESay]

In response to a nuclear bomb? That's stupid, way too little.

Depends on what you mean saying 'a nuclear bomb'. Hardly Putin is insane enough to use a nuclear bomb that wipes out cities or something like that. Or directly attack a NATO country.

Tactical nukes have way smaller range. And they can be used against large Ukrainian army units or critical infrastructure.

 

[xyz]

Depends on what you mean saying 'a nuclear bomb'. Hardly Putin is insane enough to use a nuclear bomb that wipes out cities or something like that. Or directly attack a NATO country.

Tactical nukes have way smaller range. And they can be used against large Ukrainian army units or critical infrastructure.

Yes, I was well referring to a tactical nuke. What you posted was a very weak response.

 

[ESay]

Using WMDs in modern warfare cannot be tolerated

NATO should respond with a powerful military assault on the Russians

Are tactical nuclear weapons considered as WMDs?

 

[rightwinger]

Are tactical nuclear weapons considered as WMDs?

Anything nuclear

 

[SavannahMann]

Depends on what you mean saying 'a nuclear bomb'. Hardly Putin is insane enough to use a nuclear bomb that wipes out cities or something like that. Or directly attack a NATO country.

Tactical nukes have way smaller range. And they can be used against large Ukrainian army units or critical infrastructure.

Tactical Nukes are a lie. They don’t exist. They exist only in the minds of fools who think you can win a nuclear war. They don’t exist.

Because it is a line. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke. You say just in Ukraine. You can’t limit it. Radioactive dust and residue will float on the winds to other nations. It won’t frighten the world. It will infuriate them. They will respond. Everyone has nuke tipped cruise missiles. They will launch some to retaliate. And Russia will retaliate with bigger bombs.

Or the US will try and stay conventional. But stealth bombers will rain down death on Russia. Russia will escalate.

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke. Anything that wakes world leaders within five minutes is not tactical. It is a strategic action. Intending to frighten them.

So stop the lies with the tactical nuke nonsense. You know it isn’t tactical.

Tactical is defined as affecting the battle today. A short term issue or answer. The radioactive ground unusable by the either side shows it is strategic not tactical.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Tactical Nukes are a lie. They don’t exist. They exist only in the minds of fools who think you can win a nuclear war. They don’t exist.

Because it is a line. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke. You say just in Ukraine. You can’t limit it. Radioactive dust and residue will float on the winds to other nations. It won’t frighten the world. It will infuriate them. They will respond. Everyone has nuke tipped cruise missiles. They will launch some to retaliate. And Russia will retaliate with bigger bombs.

Or the US will try and stay conventional. But stealth bombers will rain down death on Russia. Russia will escalate.

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke. Anything that wakes world leaders within five minutes is not tactical. It is a strategic action. Intending to frighten them.

So stop the lies with the tactical nuke nonsense. You know it isn’t tactical.

Tactical is defined as affecting the battle today. A short term issue or answer. The radioactive ground unusable by the either side shows it is strategic not tactical.

A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW)[1] is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed mostly to be targeted at the enemy interior far away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war. No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation.

Tactical nuclear weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[multivita-man]

No it depends on Ukraine. I have a idea. Like Putin's critics he can accidentally fall out of a 14th floor window.

Without Western/NATO support, Ukraine would be in a world of hurt -- even worse than they are now. This whole war isn't just a war against Ukraine; it's an attempt to undo the US/Western political world order, so it's a war against us as well. This conflict is about a lot more than just Ukrainian sovereignty, which we really didn't seem to give a shit about until Putin started going for the whole enchilada. And as such, we should have a say in how this ends, and when.

 

[SavannahMann]

A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW)[1] is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed mostly to be targeted at the enemy interior far away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war. No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation.

Tactical nuclear weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is fuzzy bullshit. Let’s be serious. Let’s say you are the President. You are sleeping and awoken by the ringing phone. Your aides tell you that a Nuke has gone off in Ukraine. Detonation confirmed by satellite.

You rush to the Situation Room. By the time you get there the phone has started ringing. Allies all around the world wound up over it.

The idea that the Nuke will remain Tactical in the minds of the world is fantasy. And all the leaders will be screaming that something must be done. People will be freaking out. Certain that this is the end.

Now. If it was just Us and Russia armed with Nukes. We might be able to calm it down. But it isn’t just us is it? Germany has control of a few. Britain, France, hell Turkey has some.

Israel, Pakistan, India, and the list goes on.

The idea of a Tactical Nuke would be that the West stays out in fear. They won’t. The politicians would be torn limb from limb by the public if they don’t respond.

So British, German, and American fighters sweep in and destroy key Russian supply depots. The Black Sea Fleet heads for the bottom of the sea. Russia has to respond. And they use more “tactical” nukes. It escalates in a day. Two at the most.

One nuke starts the ball rolling. And there is no stopping it once it gets going.

 

[para bellum]

These explosives look homemade. They look like they were mixed up by the attackers.

I'm thinking fertilizer bomb. They've identified the driver, a Russian man from Krasnador. The Russians "inspected" the truck minutes before. Basically opened the back and looked in for a second, then let it go on. Wouldn't wanna be them, lol.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I'm thinking fertilizer bomb. They've identified the driver, a Russian man from Krasnador. The Russians "inspected" the truck minutes before. Basically opened the back and looked in for a second, then let it go on. Wouldn't wanna be them, lol.

Watch it turn out to be a Chechen! Now that would thicken the stew!

 

[xyz]

Without Western/NATO support, Ukraine would be in a world of hurt -- even worse than they are now.

But they would still be able to fight, they've been fighting Russia for 8 years.

 

[José]

Originally posted by rightwinger
If Putin ups the ante and begins using tactical nukes, NATO will not hesitate to become engaged. Not with tit for tat nuclear strikes but with conventional strikes that bring the war to Russia.

It will hesitate.

NATO will hesitate to launch strikes against Russia for about 2 or 3 centuries.

You can take that to the bank.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It will hesitate.

NATO will hesitate to launch strikes against Russia for about 2 or 3 centuries.

You can take that to the bank.

NATO will do what we tell them to do..as usual.

 

[multivita-man]

But they would still be able to fight, they've been fighting Russia for 8 years.

Sure, but my point is, I reject the idea that this is strictly between Russia and Ukraine and that the rest of us should hold out for a perfect peace in which Ukraine gets every single line item it wants.

I think holding out for a perfect peace is a mistake. Not only does this increase the chances that this becomes a nuclear conflict, but the economic and political impact of this conflict will spread throughout the world. It's going to put pressure on a lot of governments, including ours. People are going to be pissed off about the price of commodities.

We absolutely need to end Russian aggression but we have a role to play in bringing the different parties together and the sooner we can end this shit the better.

 

[José]

Originally posted by EvilEyeFeegle
NATO will do what we tell them to do..as usual.

The irony is that I agree with the general feeling of the Board. I think a nuclear strike on Ukraine would be over the top, too.

Hell... even the need to cite a nuclear strike as a kind of line separating what can and cannot be done is overkill.

Even the carpet bombing of Kiev would be way out of line, IMO.

 

[ESay]

Yes, I was well referring to a tactical nuke. What you posted was a very weak response.

To tell the truth, I can imagine only a few people in the West who would be ready to start a nuclear war over Ukraine. I think that even a no-fly zone will be too much of them, because it can cause a direct confrontation with the Russians.

My bet is this conflict will be frozen before it can escalate into a nuclear exchange.

 

[alexa]

I don't think Putin wants to launch ICBMs. I think that's a low risk...initially.

But I can envision a scenario in which he drops a tactical nuke and then things quickly spiral out of control, with both sides escalating and counter-escalating. If Putin drops a low-yield nuke, it wouldn't be for any strategic purpose; it would be to terrorize and intimidate Ukraine and NATO in order to force a negotiation, or to possibly strain the alliance. If that happens, there will be pressure to go for an all-out assault on Russia's remaining military in Ukraine, which will either frighten or infuriate Moscow.

The world has avoided nuclear holocaust because we've had rational thinkers running the world's most important regimes - at least most of the time. We're getting ourselves into a situation where one side is going to be making decisions about nukes that are potentially guided more by emotion than logic.

I think people assume that exit strategy = pussing out and rolling over for Ivan. It's not. As I said, Putin has lost. We should make a peace deal that largely favors post-2014 Ukraine. I know Zelensky will want unconditional surrender, but as far as I'm concerned, he's not the only decision maker here. He would have been deposed by now if it weren't for Western/NATO support, so we have a say in this whether he likes it or not.

I have heard that Putin knows 'Globalists' want him to throw a tactical bomb. The US apparently has a plan on how to deal with this obviously being extremely fierce against Russia and very open to using real nukes themselves. This goes with something that Donald told me. The military are trained to believe they can win a nuclear war. They did mention that their plan could lead to full scale war.

But of course a better idea would be the other I heard where they both agree on a cease fire which hopefully lasts for ever. Of course could start again in the spring.

 

[xyz]

I have heard that Putin knows 'Globalists' want him to throw a tactical bomb. The US apparently has a plan on how to deal with this obviously being extremely fierce against Russia and very open to using real nukes themselves. This goes with something that Donald told me. The military are trained to believe they can win a nuclear war. They did mention that their plan could lead to full scale war.

But of course a better idea would be the other I heard where they both agree on a cease fire which hopefully lasts for ever. Of course could start again in the spring.