Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That ended well for the Japs.

I don't see any benefit from superpowers delivering surprise attacks on this scale. The whole point of mutually assured destruction makes it pointless.

The way it ended is irrelevant in regards the effectiveness of the actual attack.
Look at the state of the US post the attack, they were on their knees relatively in regards Naval.

The whole point of a very significant unexpected attack is that it could, potentially, mean the ability to launch that retaliatory MAD attack might be destroyed.

Going back to pearl harbour, immediately after the attack the US Navy in that area was basically ineffective.

 

[potatolord]

The way it ended is irrelevant in regards the effectiveness of the actual attack.
Look at the state of the US post the attack, they were on their knees relatively in regards Naval.

The whole point of a very significant unexpected attack is that it could, potentially, mean the ability to launch that retaliatory MAD attack might be destroyed.

Going back to pearl harbour, immediately after the attack the US Navy in that area was basically ineffective.

That anyone thinks a pre-emptive strike on Russia would do anything less than trigger a full scale nuclear exchange is baffling.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Too much Command and Conquer and not enough TED Talks.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That anyone thinks a pre-emptive strike on Russia would do anything less than trigger a full scale nuclear exchange is baffling.

Its pretty unlikely yes.
You would need a lot of very very good intel and some lucky.

A decent chunk of US and Russian nukes are still bombs. If you can take out the airfields quickly you can certainly reduce the ability to respond. The bunkers unlikely.
Then it comes down to the standing orders, no response within x time, launch or not type stuff.

Its a pretty unlikely scenario overall, but due to developments its closer to a reality now than it one was.

 

[jigger]

Its pretty unlikely yes.
You would need a lot of very very good intel and some lucky.

A decent chunk of US and Russian nukes are still bombs. If you can take out the airfields quickly you can certainly reduce the ability to respond. The bunkers unlikely.
Then it comes down to the standing orders, no response within x time, launch or not type stuff.

Its a pretty unlikely scenario overall, but due to developments its closer to a reality now than it one was.

Trojan washing machines.

 

[potatolord]

Its pretty unlikely yes.
You would need a lot of very very good intel and some lucky.

A decent chunk of US and Russian nukes are still bombs. If you can take out the airfields quickly you can certainly reduce the ability to respond. The bunkers unlikely.
Then it comes down to the standing orders, no response within x time, launch or not type stuff.

Its a pretty unlikely scenario overall, but due to developments its closer to a reality now than it one was.

No-one is going to gamble on getting that lucky.

Russia has around 1,500 deployed strategic warheads and around 700 deployed ICBMs, according to NewStart. It also has around 1,800 tactical nuclear weapons. NewStart expires in 2026 and is looking very unlikely to be renewed.

 

[potatolord]

This is an interesting chart, from The Economist:

"There are signs of a significant increase in Ukraine’s bombardment of Russian forces, starting in early August (see chart). Our tracker of war activity, which updates daily using satellite data, suggests that the number of war-related fires in Russian-held areas is higher than at any time since the conflict began. (Abnormally hot and dry vegetation is surely also playing a part.) A similar, if smaller ramp-up, took place before a counter-offensive last autumn, which resulted in the liberation of Kherson. Though the tracker also observed an increase in such fires before the current offensive started in June, which resulted in limited immediate gains."

 

[Roar87]

You must be on some mega money from Russia, for the ***** you put out.

I think Romania is in the most powerful military alliance ever to exist, so any actual attack on Romania - not a drone landing in a field, but a deliberate attack - would be met with such ridiculous amounts of air power that no one would ever consider attacking them. Have you seen the conventional disparity between NATO and Russia? It's so big a fight between us and them wouldn't be close to a fair fight, and they know this. So no, there is no threat to Romania's border. Attacking Ukraine is one thing, taking on a NATO member is rather different.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Us and them, them and us. It's hard to keep track sometimes.

 

[Grim5]

Us Presidential drawdown fund is running low with just $3 billion left in there, but the senate looks likely to approve a $24 billion top up to the fund later this month

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699539692578910417

 

[Roar87]

Us Presidential drawdown fund is running low with just $3 billion left in there, but the senate looks likely to approve a $24 billion top up to the fund later this month

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699539692578910417

Is that a photo or a video?

 

[StriderX]

I distinctly remember Russia using a chemical weapon in Salisbury, they are not above it.

 

[esmozz]

I bow to your greater keyboard general status.....

Implying therefore, you are a keyboard general of lower status…….okay.

(its why AA missiles are more deadly generally than GA missiles.

Is this actually true or have you just made that up. Actually I think I know the answer to that.

.
The RAF don't go up to check every plane approaching the UK is what it claims.

Every aircraft approaching U.K. airspace is subject to a very high degree of scrutiny. I assume the same is true of any major country.

Cargo plane nukes is an absurd idea on so many levels, I appreciate this is the Battlefield Ukraine: Tides of Conquest thread for gamers but still……

 

[Roar87]

The way it ended is irrelevant in regards the effectiveness of the actual attack.
Look at the state of the US post the attack, they were on their knees relatively in regards Naval.

The whole point of a very significant unexpected attack is that it could, potentially, mean the ability to launch that retaliatory MAD attack might be destroyed.

Going back to pearl harbour, immediately after the attack the US Navy in that area was basically ineffective.

Dead Hand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As if the best military planners never thought of this lol

 

[StriderX]

How is it absurd?

The US already has Rapid Dragon and it's not much of a stretch to add a nuclear payload to it.

 

[jigger]

I think Romania is in the most powerful military alliance ever to exist, so any actual attack on Romania - not a drone landing in a field, but a deliberate attack - would be met with such ridiculous amounts of air power that no one would ever consider attacking them. Have you seen the conventional disparity between NATO and Russia? It's so big a fight between us and them wouldn't be close to a fair fight, and they know this. So no, there is no threat to Romania's border. Attacking Ukraine is one thing, taking on a NATO member is rather different.

Romania and Moldova are both very much under threat from Vladolf. Unification and the removal of Russian forces would secure the region.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

How is it absurd?

You don't see a problem in using civilian airliners to deliver a surprise nuclear attack?

By the time that would ever be a viable miltary option, all civilian air traffic would have been already wiped off the face of the planet, along with most other life.

It's existance also justifies a peer enemy to target any civilian air traffic within strike distance of their airspace at the outset of any war.

 

[esmozz]

How is it absurd?

The US already has Rapid Dragon and it's not much of a stretch to add a nuclear payload to it.

Civilian cargo plane loaded with nukes sneaking into Russia and blaming it on DHL…..

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Is this actually true or have you just made that up. Actually I think I know the answer to that.

For equivalent missiles its very much true yes.
The ground based need to use a massive amount of energy to get upto speed and elevation.

Its specifically why they are working on more air launched.

Dead Hand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As if the best military planners never thought of this lol

Yes they did indeed and its well known that when a Russian should have launched due to a failure within their system, he didn't.
LOL.

 

[StriderX]

You don't see a problem in using civilian airliners to deliver a surprise nuclear attack?

By the time that would ever be a viable miltary option, all civilian air traffic would have been already wiped off the face of the planet, along with most other life.

It's existance also justifies a peer enemy to target any civilian air traffic within strike distance of their airspace at the outset of any war.

Well I was writing that thinking we're talking about C-130's.