You'd struggle to retaliate without being hit. I mean...its kinda in the definition of the word.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
You'd struggle to retaliate without being hit. I mean...its kinda in the definition of the word.
Only fool is you my friend.
You know how article 5 works? you know the missiles are in subs?
Do you think Russia wants to be turned to glass because of 12 challenger 2's?
Obviously not
Last edited:
Looks that way.
They've removed the story, the page just 404's although the Daily Star, who also reported the story by the Mirror, still have theirs up. The MoD is yet to "publicly" make a statement about so far either but there's "unofficial" MoD reporting by the Defence Editor at The Economist that the MoD have denied the story is true at the moment.
Mirror - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-sends-apache-helicopters-armed-28955516
Star - https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/britain-apache-helicopters-ukraine-war-28957065
Unofficial Denial reporting - https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1614570053290139648
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
Furthermore, I don't think the plan is to wait for impact to see if they are nuclear ticklesticks rather than WMD. I imagine early warning systems might be involved, unless I have misunderstood what they are for.
Exactly what they want everyone to think, had we all stood up to Putin in first place there wouldnt be these needless deaths to this day on both sides.
We was all to weak you dont beat Putin by showing weakness.
It's worth remembering that it's not just the tanks themselves but their equipment and ammunition that comes into play, I.E during the first gulf war Iraq's export model T-72s lacked automatic rangefinders, this meant that even against western tanks that were inferior on paper they ended up getting wrecked because by the time they'd lined up their target and got their gun elevation dialled in properly they were dead already. Then by the second gulf war they had managed to get their hands on some full fat non-export model T-72s (with proper armour) from a former SSR and when they ran into some western tanks it was a full on brawl but the western tanks eventually came out on top with no losses after hitting each of them with several depleted uranium rounds because the T-72's ammo couldn't penetrate them.
There is the issue that the Leopards being sent can't use ammunition capable of frontally penetrating a T-80/90, but it's not a major issue as Ukraine have hundreads of things that can.
Ukraine spent a significant part of 2014-2022 reactivating and upgrading their SAM network as their main focus, now that they have made sure their airspace is an effective no fly zone for Russia they may well be diversifying resources, and with the west refusing to give them missiles capable of striking as far into Russia as Moscow they may well be working on getting their tactical ballistic missile production back on line. I'm sure even Putin would think twice about striking Kiev if he knew Moscow would get hit back.
In fact expanding on that point, it's unlikely to be a coincidence that Putin's interest in Ukraine started a few years after Ukraine scrapped all their Scud missiles/launchers (Ukraine were a major constructor of Soviet ballistic missiles) he certainly played Obama on that one.
I explained why this is a dangerous falsehood earlier in the thread, but for anyone interested in why it's wrong I'll copypasta the post in spoiler tags:
I don't mean to be rude here but this just isn't wrong it's very naive.
A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to understand that the idea/concept of nuclear weapons (and the associated taboos) is completely different in the west to the rest of the world. Here in the west when most of us think of nuclear weapons we tend to think of an enormous fireball/mushroom cloud vaporising a city/island and oh-my-god the humanity, but those strategic nuclear weapons are not the only type of nuclear weapon, there are also tactical nukes. Tactical nukes are significantly smaller, I.E a nuclear tipped torpedo capable of eradicating a whole battleship/carrier with one hit, a nuclear SAM capable of downing an entire bomber formation, a nuclear tipped artillery shell capable of doing damage almost comparable to carpet bombing or even a precision missile capable of destroying a fortified bunker/building in one hit.
For us the two get lumped together and we generally think the use of any nuclear weapons is an unthinkable taboo, however in the former USSR and China (and NK) there is a much stronger mental detachment between strategic and tactical weapons. In these states using these weapons has much less stigma/taboo with military leaders and the public, and in some cases it's even seen as pragmatic (I.E if a tactical nuke is almost as good as sending bombers but you don't have the air superiority to send bombers it's a cost saver). It's worth noting that even in the west the use of tactical nukes is much less unpopular with generals/politicians than it is with the public, hell the entire reason the USA developed the MOAB thermobaric vacuum bomb was because they wanted the functional ability to drop tactical nukes the middle east without any of the political fallout (no pun intended) using actual tactical nukes would generate. Russia of course created their own more powerful version of the MOAB (Called the FOAB), which of course they couldn't afford to build in great numbers. However they can't reliably use their FOABs against Ukraine as the have to be dropped from bombers and if they could send in bombers they would be bombing and there would be no need for them to consider the extra expense of tactical nukes, however as mentioned above when bombing would see your bombers shot down then TNs become much more attractive from both a financial and effectiveness POV.
Many older posters may remember the infamous apocalyptic TV Movie "Threads" from the 80s? In that the thing that turned a tense situation into WW3 was when NATO sent B-52 bombers to hit a Soviet base in Iran and the Soviets defended the base with a nuclear tipped anti-air missile. It was and still is a very real example of how the differing western//non-western approaches to TNs can result in the west being surprised by others willingness to use them (for reference all of the USSRs cold war battle plans involved TNs, all of them).
When Xi says the use of nuclear weapons is a no go and Putin shouldn't even be saber rattling about them, and people think "ooh Russia can't afford to use them or they'll lose China's support" they're wrong, he's not referring to all nuclear weapons he's referring purely to strategic weapons he just isn't being specific because of the aforementioned difference in western/non-western mentality towards TNs (especially as he knows taking Taiwan may well require him to use TNs).
It's also important to note that this difference in mentality didn't magically move from the middle of Germany to the Russia/Ukraine border the day the USSR collapsed, if Ukraine still had tactical nukes and it had looked like all was lost in the early days of the war then there's a good chance they would have started flying towards Russian military targets. But obviously if Ukraine still had nukes they would never have been invaded in the first place, hell if they hadn't scrapped their Scuds a decade ago (at the behest of the USA who wanted to score points with Putin /Facepalm) they would have been safe (thanks Obama).
A lot of people in this thread seem to fail to understand that the idea/concept of nuclear weapons (and the associated taboos) is completely different in the west to the rest of the world. Here in the west when most of us think of nuclear weapons we tend to think of an enormous fireball/mushroom cloud vaporising a city/island and oh-my-god the humanity, but those strategic nuclear weapons are not the only type of nuclear weapon, there are also tactical nukes. Tactical nukes are significantly smaller, I.E a nuclear tipped torpedo capable of eradicating a whole battleship/carrier with one hit, a nuclear SAM capable of downing an entire bomber formation, a nuclear tipped artillery shell capable of doing damage almost comparable to carpet bombing or even a precision missile capable of destroying a fortified bunker/building in one hit.
For us the two get lumped together and we generally think the use of any nuclear weapons is an unthinkable taboo, however in the former USSR and China (and NK) there is a much stronger mental detachment between strategic and tactical weapons. In these states using these weapons has much less stigma/taboo with military leaders and the public, and in some cases it's even seen as pragmatic (I.E if a tactical nuke is almost as good as sending bombers but you don't have the air superiority to send bombers it's a cost saver). It's worth noting that even in the west the use of tactical nukes is much less unpopular with generals/politicians than it is with the public, hell the entire reason the USA developed the MOAB thermobaric vacuum bomb was because they wanted the functional ability to drop tactical nukes the middle east without any of the political fallout (no pun intended) using actual tactical nukes would generate. Russia of course created their own more powerful version of the MOAB (Called the FOAB), which of course they couldn't afford to build in great numbers. However they can't reliably use their FOABs against Ukraine as the have to be dropped from bombers and if they could send in bombers they would be bombing and there would be no need for them to consider the extra expense of tactical nukes, however as mentioned above when bombing would see your bombers shot down then TNs become much more attractive from both a financial and effectiveness POV.
Many older posters may remember the infamous apocalyptic TV Movie "Threads" from the 80s? In that the thing that turned a tense situation into WW3 was when NATO sent B-52 bombers to hit a Soviet base in Iran and the Soviets defended the base with a nuclear tipped anti-air missile. It was and still is a very real example of how the differing western//non-western approaches to TNs can result in the west being surprised by others willingness to use them (for reference all of the USSRs cold war battle plans involved TNs, all of them).
When Xi says the use of nuclear weapons is a no go and Putin shouldn't even be saber rattling about them, and people think "ooh Russia can't afford to use them or they'll lose China's support" they're wrong, he's not referring to all nuclear weapons he's referring purely to strategic weapons he just isn't being specific because of the aforementioned difference in western/non-western mentality towards TNs (especially as he knows taking Taiwan may well require him to use TNs).
It's also important to note that this difference in mentality didn't magically move from the middle of Germany to the Russia/Ukraine border the day the USSR collapsed, if Ukraine still had tactical nukes and it had looked like all was lost in the early days of the war then there's a good chance they would have started flying towards Russian military targets. But obviously if Ukraine still had nukes they would never have been invaded in the first place, hell if they hadn't scrapped their Scuds a decade ago (at the behest of the USA who wanted to score points with Putin /Facepalm) they would have been safe (thanks Obama).
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,658
It literally said, the missiles that hit Kyiv weren't able to be detected and intercepted, that suggests use of hypersonic missiles
There were 2 strikes, a first directed at infrastructure in Kyiv and a second that was detected and affected all of Ukraine which resulted in the apartment block in Dnipro (which is nowhere near Kyiv) hit with a Kh-22 which is not supersonic
Maybe you should practice what you preach with fact checking when you can't even distinguish between 2 different events on the same day
I still don't understand this arbitrary Red line the West has drawn, it's okay to hit civilian targets with conventional weapons, but use nukes and it's suddenly wrong, like the red line should be at killing civilians not on what type of weapon is used
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 15,978
- Location
- Fareham
No one is saying it's OK to hit civilians though? it's only Russia who are saying that they are happy to do it. If anything doing more of it is just galvanizing support for Ukraine to prevent just this.
Nukes in any form should be avoided because it sets dangerous precedents and those can play against Russia just as well as for them.
We were talking about strategic nukes being launched at the UK, mate, so this is all irrelevant.
And I think you're wrong about tactical nukes too, although there is a slightly higher chance of their use it's still extremely remote.
Last edited:
Wow, such reading comprehension failure.
1. I never mentioned a news story because I was replying to a post that quoted your post, that quoted a twitter post that was in context of the Kyiv attack.
2. That twitter account was referring to the fact the missile came from the north in Belarus. Which is only a matter of minutes away for a standard non hypersonic missile.
3. So when they said it was not detectable, it is because there would be little or no time to detect, track and react to it due to the short distances involved as it was launched from maybe as little as 200km away.
But yeah, let’s instead conclude hypersonic missile.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 15,978
- Location
- Fareham
Who here, backed into a corner, your basically dead anyway, push that big red button, maybe a separate thread with a poll, but lets see here first
No one is backing Russia into a corner though, who is attacking them?
If they want to make themselves think they're being backed into a corner then that is their issue doesn't make it ours.
Their narrative is so twisted they even "annexed" 4 territories they don't even own 100% of with sham referenda and now they're trying to pretend they're defending Russia (they're not).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 518
- Location
- West Midlands
It's gone up to 25 killed and 73 injured will probably rise further - murdering russians
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,658
They have had no issues detecting and intercepting strikes in the past from the North though, so what makes this one different ? Even strikes from Belgorod on Kharkiv where the missiles take less than 2 minutes to arrive, they are able to detect
It's not a red line though is it, the only time old Joe has been stern in his assurances that it would be a grave mistake is in regard to nukes or chemical weapons, so it's basically kill civilians conventionally we won't intervene, use nukes we will, why though ? What's so much worse about a nuke, so what if it kills thousands instantly, is it any worse than multiple missiles killing thousands over a longer period of time ? The red line should have been crossed months ago when it was evident that Russia are doing a low key Genocide, not waiting until they use nukes and basically giving them a green light to conventionally destroy Ukraine while we drip feed support to the Ukrainians
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 15,978
- Location
- Fareham
I don't really see it that way, it's more for the war theatre we don't expect to see chemical weapons or nukes being used. I don't think anyone is signing off on killing civilians being OK to do.
I mean you can buy kitchen knives from the supermarket and they don't tell you not to kill people with them, but it's just obvious isn't it?
Last edited:
- Status