Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to aircooled :
We very much did know about the effects of radiation and fallout, from the deaths in the US nuclear program to the observation of effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The immediate radiation effects were so thoroughly mapped at Hiroshima that we could tell the exact orientation of the bomb when it detonated by the shielding effect of its lifting eye.
"lifting eye"?
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Yeah, I was more referring to the unknown very far ranging (as in distance) effects that where possible.
I think he is referring to the rather eery shadows that resulted, which I think are the result of heat radiation, not gamma or beta etc. They could determine the exact location of the detonation in 3D space by comparing the shadow angles.
Here is a display in Hiroshima, which I have actually seen in person:
In reply to aircooled :
Im not actually concerned with the damage of nuclear artillery, although I am concerned about the health issues associated with them for the people of Ukraine. I am worried about the USs position to respond to it.
If nuclear artillery use by Russia leads to a bolstering of support for Ukraine (which I think is most likely) and the US wants to maintain we are only supporting someone at war with Russia, not actually at war ourselves position, which has its obvious benefits, they cant do much except wag their finger at Russia and maybe send the next thing we initially told Ukraine no on. Last I checked it was F16s. I see this as more escalation, and will just cause a response from Russia, which will require another response from the west. Its also unlikely to soften Russia's position, even more ammo for the "we are actually at war with the west" state propaganda.
The other thing the US can do in response, and I do not think its actually likely , but is to give up the facade of not being at war with Russia. This could look a bunch of different ways but is obviously pretty bad for us and everyone.
I think its less likely, but possible, the usage of nuclear artillery can lead to less support in the US. If it gets used it will get covered by media stateside, largely to make Russia look even more evil. Sure some people will respond with we must stop Putin, but I think a bunch of people who have been told all the talk of nuclear escalation in the war was over blown and unlikely and all the people talking about it are scaremongers, then all the sudden all the news outlets keep saying nuclear and talking about "nuclear attacks." We already have support trending down, and all of the sudden maybe this war is as dangerous as we where warned. If support by the public drops quickly, the politicians will continue to do what they want, for a short time, but we are about to gear up for election season, and for a short period of time politicians will be worried about doing something Americans dont want. Obviously without the USs support Ukraine is in a much worse position.
What Im saying is all of the responses by the US are a E36 M3 sandwich. Our choices are escalation, massive escalation, or Ukraine not being able to defend themselves.
Truthfully the best response, for Americans (Im aware its all terribly bad for Ukrainians), would be no response and wait out the news cycle, but as Frenchy said that wont happen.
I think most all of what you are highlighting (which seem generally reasonably likely) are very good reasons for Russia not to use them. I don't really see any of those advantaging Russia.
As noted, the never ending escalation is the primary concern but I am not sure any of it could justify Russian nuke use. Also likely part of the reason it's graduated since Russia has almost nothing left to escalate to, thus the fallback of nuclear threats, which is currently their most effective weapon (to be clear, the threats not the weapons).
I don't think your (effectively) non-response issue is that unlikely, it really is a pretty good response since the act is effectively self punishing. What Russia just did to themselves of course would need to be made very clear, by as many nations as possible.
One other piece in the game of course is China. I am pretty certain they would have a very negative reaction. They recently made it pretty clear they were not in any sort of military alliance with Russia, and Russia really does not want to piss them off.
In reply to aircooled :
I'm of two minds on how Russia will actually respond to the depleted uranium rounds.
On one hand they may not actually want Ukraine to have them for obvious reasons and that's why they were vocal about it.
One the other hand it was obvious they would be sent all along. Russia got out ahead of it and was able to set the narrative parameters. If they arent sent its a win for Russia, but when they were inevitably sent they would have some "ammo" for a response among the countries supporting them and the Russian people. More of "we didn't escalate, the west did" type stuff. Or as an excuse for an escalation they've already been planning.
Russia talking about it early means they get atleast a small "win" out of either response, and the west is left with a bunch of losing response possibilities.
I don't think tactical nuke is the next step in escalation for Russia but I also don't think it's as off the table as others do, because if they use one, the west has no good paths to respond.
In reply to aircooled :
China saying they arent in a military alliance with Russia, is just China saying they won't commit to defending Russia.....until it benefits them.
They are actively supporting Russia and its aims. They are trying to maintain the facade similar to the US. It is very likely however the Ukraine situation turns out end up benefitting China. Weaker Russia is better for China (easier to take over the resources) stronger Russia is also better for China (the west will be undermined and China will have a stronger ally, but not a threat to them, to further displace the west)
China is only trying to save face on the world stage right now, their actions will solely depend on how strong Russias position is at any given time
I don't think China is really supporting Russians aims. They are actively trying to stop the war (of course making them the great peacemakers and "helping" rebuild both countries). I am pretty sure they are not in any agreement that Russia should control Ukraine (they of course have investments in Ukraine) and seem to be providing almost no direct help to that goal.
I think everyone can agree that China is and always will be involved to the sole benefit of China. That generally true of course with most all nations, it's just much more black a white with them.
In reply to aircooled :
China has helped Russia prop up the ruble, offered economic support, increased trade with Russia, used anti NATO rhetoric mirroring Russia talking points when talking about the war, and they have voted in favor of Russia (or sometimes abstained, essentially the same thing in certain cases) at the UN since the invasion.
The Chinese embassy released a list titled something like "Falsehoods spread by the US on the Ukraine Issue." Even the US president has accused China of supporting the Russia military.
The haven't strayed too far from the veil of neutrality publicly, as to not incur sanctions themselves, but they have offered material support for Russia.
aircooled said:I don't think China is really supporting Russians aims. They are actively trying to stop the war (of course making them the great peacemakers and "helping" rebuild both countries). I am pretty sure they are not in any agreement that Russia should control Ukraine (they of course have investments in Ukraine) and seem to be providing almost no direct help to that goal.
I think everyone can agree that China is and always will be involved to the sole benefit of China. That generally true of course with most all nations, it's just much more black a white with them.
Plus China is well known for following the long game. A decade is short term for them.
Plus they probably are hoping Russia bleeds itself dry. Everything China needs is due north of them in Russia. Oil, minerals, fresh water?
Plus Russia and China have regularly gone to war. As far back as the /860's. Russia took outer Manchuria from China. During China's century of humiliation.
That part of Russia has 8 million Russians and darn near that in Asians.
The biggest cites in that part of Russia today are 50/50 Russians and Asians.
Draining the area of young Russians to go die in the Ukraine, is playing right in China's hands.
If today China headed north with the army. Everything it would take to fight China would need to come down one railroad line.
With the Russian Air Force as depleted as it is. And the pilots barely getting enough hours to be able to land and take off, with some probability of success ( let alone fight in combat) the Russia /China war would be over almost before it began.
Think of China's preferred outcome here. Do they want Russia to win? Doubtful - there's little benefit, and considerable risk, to China if Russia becomes materially stronger and emboldened by military success in Ukraine. Do they want Russia to lose? One has to define "lose"; China may not want Russia to achieve its objective, but it certainly does not want Russia crushed and the regime weakened to the point that it becomes unstable. A Russia in existential turmoil or revolution is definitely something China is trying to avoid. So what does China want? Much like I've argued here before when discussing US objectives, I think there's a strong case to be made for the best outcome for China being a chastened and weakened, but stable, Russia. This allows China to further increase its influence in Asia, particularly Central Asia, while maintaining Russia as a useful junior partner to hopefully keep the US at least partially committed in Europe (every resource in Europe is one that is not committed directly against China in East Asia). For very different reasons, I think both China and the US benefit from prolonging the conflict, denying Russia victory, but not creating broader instability that threatens serious escalation.
In reply to 02Pilot :
You are right but also wrong. Now I'm hearing that America wants to increase the stockpile of weapons systems.
In reply to frenchyd :
I'm not considering factors outside geopolitics for purposes of this discussion. There are, of course, broader economic considerations, but it's not always as simple as "if money goes to A it is necessarily denied to B". Take, for example, the build-up of the 1950s. Sure, defense spending rose dramatically, but so did infrastructure spending and education spending, all under the pretext of it being necessary to the defense effort. Taking a whole-of-government approach here makes discussion very difficult. Better, I think, to stay focused on the immediate circumstances to maintain clarity.
In reply to 02Pilot :
I think China comes out ahead in either situation. Remember they think about the long game. If Russia is massively weakened but not in huge turmoil (this is bad for EVERYONE) and it's easier for China to exert influence on Russia and their massive amounts of natural resources, that China desperately needs.
Russia comes out ahead and China gets a stronger partner to undermine the west, a goal they are actively working on together, but Russia won't be strong enough to pose any real threat to Chinas dominance in their alliance.
Politically speaking China is in a good position with this war, and the US is in a terrible one.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Fair enough. For purposes of this discussion. I did get a little cute with the D.I.E.
frenchyd said:In reply to 02Pilot :
You are right but also wrong. Now I'm hearing that America wants to increase the stockpile of weapons systems.
- While that is very good for America's defense contractors it diverts much needed money from real American problems. Infrastructure, education, debt, etc. Hmmmm, Debt Infrastructure Education. Is ignoring those the key to a successful country?
As far as just the US's debt, it's pretty obvious they aren't concerned in doing anything about that. We've more than tripled our national debt to more than $33 Trillion dollars in 15 years.
Opti said:In reply to 02Pilot :
....Politically speaking China is in a good position with this war, and the US is in a terrible one.
While I agree China is essentially in a good position here (hard to loose), but I just don't see how the US situation is politically terrible. Yes, a lot of money being spent, but that is not really a (geo)political issue. Otherwise I see only positives for the US.
Now.... if the US does, what it has many times since after WWII (get involved, and drop it like a bad habit, potentially leaving it worse than it was) I certainly see that as a big hit on the US politically. At this point I would expect there are many nations who are very much expecting that to happen.
In reply to aircooled :
Let me clarify. The US benefit to this war has already happened, minimizing Russia on the world stage. That's happened, they are facing sanctions and in the current environment will have a hard time reintegrating into global politics with the west. Going forward I think it's all bad for the US.
I see all of our options boiling down to, continual escalation of this war, where we have a chance of nukes going off (I think it's currently a small chance but a serious one) and/or the US actually entering this war, or if Russia takes the upper hand, we will watch the benefits the US has seen evaporate and then some.
This is partly why I think the US should be pushing very hard for a quick diplomatic end to this war, especially as it devolves into trench warfare. I know it's an unpopular opinion here but in reality I don't think it's that controversial to say Ukraine will probably not restore its former borders, and saying they won't negotiate until Russia gets pushed out completely means we are unlikely to see and real gains in diplomatic talks.
I don't think Russia taking the upper hand is a realistic scenario at this point, short of them doing something deeply unhinged involving nukes that would make them a worse-than-NK-level pariah state for at least as long as Putin or at least his cronies remain in power.
It's a bitter pill to swallow that Ukraine may need to let Russia keep Crimea, if Russia comes out of this seeing it as a game of "one piece at a time" that would be a terrible outcome setting the stage for the next invasion. It's already happened once.
In reply to Opti :
OK, I understand and generally agree. I think that is reasonable to say the US has it's best results already, and I think many practical people would agree a quicker end is better for most everyone (maybe not the Ukrainians to some degree but they really need to stop the bleeding also).
As noted previously, this summer will be the big decision point. Continued heavy US investment will be much harder to justify if Ukraine is still where it is now.
At some point, the US has to taper off. This will almost certainly be resisted (and maybe resented) by the Ukrainians. Which is part of the downside I think you are referring to but I think that will be pretty localized to Ukraine and likely not strong or widespread. I can see the Ukrainians pushing a lot of guilt, but I don't think an angle of blame or shame will work.
I think the reasonable guess is that there will be a treaty / cease fire later this year. Neither side is likely capable of moving much after that and the US is unlikely to finance anything that might (because it will get really expensive and involved). I see it unlikely anyone else would be willing to throw in the cash either (including China of course).
The other gain the US gets is an EU that is Russia-averse, and also continuing to be more wary of China. China is trying to have it multiple ways right now, and Europe in general has lost some faith in them as a partner before the invasion, and nothing that has happened since has really done a good job of making them more trustworthy.
In reply to eastsideTim :
That's why they are building their own EU with BRICS. Look up all the countries asking to join
In reply to Opti :
"Russian" and "Diplomacy" are pretty much the definition of mutually exclusive concepts. Russia is to Ukraine what the American Gov was to the Native Americans when the USA was being birthed, and Russia's Putin would be dealing at the same level of bad-faith in any negotiations as did Andrew Jackson in the USA. Russia just is what they is, can't really help themselves.
There is irony to be found here.
In reply to NOHOME :
Every country negotiates in bad faith. Deals only hold up as long as its in the countries favor, as soon as things change none of those promises matter. This is not exclusive to Russia.
You illustrated one of the many agreements the US has broken.
It is part of geopolitics and everyone involved is aware.
P3PPY said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to aircooled :
We very much did know about the effects of radiation and fallout, from the deaths in the US nuclear program to the observation of effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The immediate radiation effects were so thoroughly mapped at Hiroshima that we could tell the exact orientation of the bomb when it detonated by the shielding effect of its lifting eye.
"lifting eye"?
I think he meant the attachment point when they used a crane or whatnot to move the bomb around.
Google a pic of Little Boy and most will show it with a lifting lug on top of the body of the bomb.
Opti said:In reply to NOHOME :
Every country negotiates in bad faith. Deals only hold up as long as its in the countries favor, as soon as things change none of those promises matter. This is not exclusive to Russia.
You illustrated one of the many agreements the US has broken.
It is part of geopolitics and everyone involved is aware.
While I don't know that I would characterize all negotiations as in bad faith, it is absolutely true that international agreements only hold up while all parties find value in maintaining the agreement. That, then, is the key to creating durable treaties: composing them in such a way as to create value for all signatories, and to maximize the likelihood that that value will remain for all over a long period of time. This is by no means a sure thing, and no agreements last forever, simply because conditions change over time.
Since the Indian Wars were brought up, I'll use an example from that period as an illustration. Following the Civil War, US pioneers began moving to open a route into Montana to reach the gold fields near Virginia City, and forts were built along the way to protect against hostile Indians. Several small engagements went badly for the Americans (the Fetterman Fight, the Box Canyon Fight), and in 1868 the Second Fort Laramie Treaty was signed, resulting in abandonment of the forts and cession of large areas of hunting land to the Indian tribes. One area that could not be agreed upon was left as "unceded territory", a half-measure that simply failed to define ownership for the time being. As long as this territory remained unsettled and of little value to the Americans, the arrangement might have worked.
Two things changed that rendered the treaty untenable: the advance of the Northern Pacific Railroad westward, and the discovery of gold in the Black Hills - part of the "unceded territory" - in 1874. The original object of the treaty was now of lesser importance, and both Indians and Americans now saw that conditions had changed. Indians began attacking survey parties for the railroad and prospectors, and the US Army moved to protect them within the "unceded territory". This resulted in open conflict the treaty had been intended to avoid, but because neither party saw value in the treaty by this time, neither felt the need to try to maintain it. It's not that they negotiated in bad faith in 1868, but that the conditions of the early 1870s no longer resembled the conditions at the time the treaty was concluded.
You'll need to log in to post.
