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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those Turkish drones seem to be useful, no wonder Russia was upset about them:

(edit - actually I'll avoid embedding this one in the thread, nothing graphic in this just blurry footage from a drone and an explosion, but just in case people don't want to see it when scrolling)
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497861256975249411?

bingham67 said:

There no dead bodies I can see if not appropriate please delete.

but check the comments for full video.
Click to expand...

I think the problem partly is that the VDV is a separate branch of the Russian Armed forces, obviously, as they're airborne they're lightly equipped. But being a separate branch (similar say to the USMC) rather than say part of the army means that their leaders (being specifically airborne people rather than Army generals with a range of options) have basically that one tool to get things done - so have thrown them into that day 1 raid on the airfield etc.. and other high-risk operations when they don't really have much in the way of organic support from armour, artillery etc..
 
ubersonic said:
Not a simple question, but to answer:
  • If they launched nuclear missiles at NATO targets in the US it would be picked up and a counterattack almost certainly launched.
  • If they launched nuclear missiles at NATO targets in Europe it would be picked up but would hit before a counterattack could be launched, in which case a response would be launched by the non-European NATO members and whatever is left of European NATO members.
  • If they launched nuclear missiles at Ukraine it would be picked up and a counterattack almost certainly not launched.
  • If they used nuclear bombs or artillery shells launched missiles against Ukraine it would not be picked up (until detonation obviously) and a counterattack almost certainly not launched.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Nuclear launch sites are heavily protected. Secondly this is why submarines which can launch nuclear weapons exist. The US has planes that can be immediately launched and remain protected from any fallout to react as well.

Also any ICBM can be aborted. So you must react very quickly, and show that any action you take will definitely result in your country getting irradiated with massive craters.

Then it is up to the country that triggered it to decide what happens next. That is what MAD is.
 
Looks like Putin has achieved his objective with some of the responses on here with the nuclear threat its a desperate move the war is not going has he planned the Russian army is being shown up to be a bit crap and he did not expect western unity.
 
muon said:
Incorrect. Nuclear launch sites are heavily protected. Secondly this is why submarines which can launch nuclear weapons exist.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, you said something was incorrect in my explanation which you quoted, but your response wasn't really relevant to any of the four bullet points, in fact it seemed to be reiterating my points. Which of the four points do you have issue with and why?
 
ubersonic said:
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, you said something was incorrect in my explanation which you quoted, but your response wasn't really relevant to any of the four bullet points. Which of the four points do you have issue with and why?
Click to expand...

Your second bullet point is wrong.

Even if the UK was ashes before it could react. The UK would still land nuclear bombs in Russia.

It doesnt require the US. The only other non-European NATO member with nukes.
 
Yeah well with trident, they wouldn't be able to stop it so any attack anywhere would see the end of Russia and hence pointless.
 
datalol-jack said:
Depends on the type of the missile launched and the starting position. If Russian variants can hit the USA in 15 mins, then the UK in less time is what the planners take into account. Suppose we have a wider range of delivery missiles from ancient to modern in Russia across its landmass, it's very unlikely today that you would be getting any more time on average to prepare and evacuate. Even old tech can hit in 35 mins. On full alert, these things are ready to go, so we are not factoring in prep and activation time with commands being passed, etc.
Click to expand...
East coast Russia to west coast usa is not very far
 
muon said:
Your second bullet point is wrong.

Even is the UK was ashes before it could react. The UK would still land nuclear bombs in Russia.

It doesnt require the US. The only other non-European NATO member with nukes.
Click to expand...
It seems you either misread or misunderstood the second bullet point, as you're saying what it does.
 
So do we have the facility to shoot down/take out nuclear arms that make their way towards UK soil, if such an event were to happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom