Russia invades Ukraine

[najaB]

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

Oh, then yes they have used ballistic missiles on several occasions already. They've even turned surplus S-200s into ground attack weapons.

Edit: I thought that both sides had done this, but after a quick web search it looks like the Ukrainians have but the Russians have not.

 

[Yew]

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

It's a very expensive way to destroy targets, particularly if they get shot down by some relatively affordable air-defence missiles.

 

[edwin_m]

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

Those monitoring such things won't know whether a nuclear-capable missile is nuclear armed until it lands, by which time it may be too late. So the other side may decide to get their retaliation in first.

I don't think anyone doubts that Putin could hit any part of Ukraine with a nuclear missile anyway, so demonstrating that doesn't really help him. All the more reason why I think Ukraine is probably developing a nuclear deterrent.

 

[najaB]

All the more reason why I think Ukraine is probably developing a nuclear deterrent.

I don't doubt that they have the technical ability to do so, but do wonder if they would divert scarce resources into it given that they'd have to test for it to be taken seriously, and a handful of warheads doesn't really act as a deterrent against an enemy who has over a thousand.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't doubt that they have the technical ability to do so, but do wonder if they would divert scarce resources into it given that they'd have to test for it to be taken seriously, and a handful of warheads doesn't really act as a deterrent against an enemy who has over a thousand.

In that case the UK might as well give ours up.

The important thing is to present a credible threat of damaging the opponent to an extent that they can't tolerate. It's already proven that Ukraine can deliver a device far into Russian airspace, including to cities whose people's support Putin can't afford to lose (as shown by the selective mobilisation). Demonstrating delivery of a nuclear warhead by the drones or missiles that Ukraine already has, along with some uncertainty about how many such warheads they have stockpiled, would at the very least force Putin to pull back air defences from the front line to protect more sensitive targets.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if we had a big bang out over the Black Sea sometime soon. Few people would welcome that but from Ukraine's point of view it may be the only way to avoid submission.

 

[najaB]

In that case the UK might as well give ours up.

Why? We have over 100 warheads on active service at any given point in time, which is enough to provide realistic deterrence - especially since they aren't ground based meaning that we have a credible second-strike capability.

In even the most optimistic scenario, Ukraine might have developed a couple dozen warheads at best, haven't tested them to know that they work and have neither a boomer fleet nor deep buried silos so would be extremely vulnerable to a first strike.

 

[DarloRich]

The wittering from the demented hitsuma about election in Ukraine is illustrative.

I bet they want elections so that Musk and his IG Farben alike tech bros can flood the area with fake news to help a pro Putin/Pro Trump person be elected in Ukraine.

 

[Annetts key]

The wittering from the demented hitsuma about election in Ukraine is illustrative.

I bet they want elections so that Musk and his IG Farben alike tech bros can flood the area with fake news to help a pro Putin/Pro Trump person be elected in Ukraine.

Trump doesn't respective the U.S. constitution so why would he respect the Ukrainian constitution and laws?

And anyway, it's none of Trumps business. It's up the the Ukrainians when to have elections. Yesterday (on Channel 4 news) an Ukrainian opposition politician said that now is not the right time for elections.

I do think that while the cameras are live, a reporter or European government member should ask Trump when he will ask Putin to step down and will Putin allow free and fair elections in Russia. May be a popcorn moment...

 

[Mogster]

Do they necessarily have to be nuclear-armed, though? I was thinking about a conventional payload to make a point: we can hit you anywhere, that sort of thing.

Putin has attacked Ukraine with a few ballistic missiles. However it seems ballistic missiles are an expensive way of delivering a 1 ton range conventional warhead. I don’t think Putin has enough to really make the sort of point you are suggesting even. A few 1000kg warheads will do localised damage but not the sort of generalised city trashing that happened in WW2.

July 1943 the RAF and USAF delivered 2000 tons per day for a week to Hamburg. Hamburg was gone, but favourable weather and a firestorm caused much more of the damage than the explosives. No one has the capability to do even close to that now without nukes, heavy bomber fleets are small (even the US has less than 200) and vulnerable to air defence. Tactically ICBMs with nuclear warheads have made the heavy bomber obsolete.

 

[philosopher]

July 1943 the RAF and USAF delivered 2000 tons per day for a week to Hamburg. Hamburg was gone, but favourable weather and a firestorm caused much more of the damage than the explosives. No one has the capability to do even close to that now without nukes, heavy bomber fleets are small (even the US has less than 200) and vulnerable to air defence. Tactically ICBMs with nuclear warheads have made the heavy bomber obsolete.

Modern guided bombs and missiles mean you can destroy specific targets such as munitions factories without bombing entire cities. In World War Two, daylight raids tended to incur high losses and even if they did not get shot down it was still difficult to bomb a specific target using unguided bombs. At night targeting specific locations was almost impossible.

 

[DustyBin]

Putin has attacked Ukraine with a few ballistic missiles. However it seems ballistic missiles are an expensive way of delivering a 1 ton range conventional warhead. I don’t think Putin has enough to really make the sort of point you are suggesting even. A few 1000kg warheads will do localised damage but not the sort of generalised city trashing that happened in WW2.

July 1943 the RAF and USAF delivered 2000 tons per day for a week to Hamburg. Hamburg was gone, but favourable weather and a firestorm caused much more of the damage than the explosives. No one has the capability to do even close to that now without nukes, heavy bomber fleets are small (even the US has less than 200) and vulnerable to air defence. Tactically ICBMs with nuclear warheads have made the heavy bomber obsolete.

It’s worth noting that ballistic missiles have been used by both sides in this conflict; Iskander and ATACMS for example are both ballistic missile systems.

 

[35B]

Modern guided bombs and missiles mean you can destroy specific targets such as munitions factories without bombing entire cities. In World War Two, daylight raids tended to incur high losses and even if they did not get shot down it was still difficult to bomb a specific target using unguided bombs. At night targeting specific locations was almost impossible.

We digress, but "almost impossible" was only partly to do with difficulty - the historical record is pretty clear (going back to Brickhill in "The Dambusters") that Harris didn't really care about precision bombing, and the focus of both RAF Bomber Command and USAAF was on area bombing, with civilians treated as a direct target.

 

[najaB]

We digress, but "almost impossible" was only partly to do with difficulty - the historical record is pretty clear (going back to Brickhill in "The Dambusters") that Harris didn't really care about precision bombing, and the focus of both RAF Bomber Command and USAAF was on area bombing, with civilians treated as a direct target.

Though, one has to wonder what was cause and which effect: did the inability to achieve precision lead to the adoption of area bombing, or did the focus on area bombing result in no attempt to achieve precision?

To bring this somewhat back to topic, this philosophical distinction goes a long way to explain the difference between western and Russian tactics and the design of weapons to support them.

Western commanders view the individual service person as an asset and so weapons are designed to be as precise as possible (making them more expensive), where Russian commanders treat the individual as disposable and so their weapons design approach is "less precise, big bang" - which makes them cheaper, but also results in a lot more collateral damage.

I wonder if this is a big factor in the war dragging on as long as it has - the Russians expected Ukraine to follow more traditional Russian/Soviet tactics, the fact that they're more Western in approach (smaller units that operate more autonomously rather than large massed units operating as one) means that they've struggled to inflict the mass casualties that the expected, and the Ukrainian's using western weapons initially struggled against mass human wave attacks - they couldn't kill Russians fast enough. That being why cluster munitions were provided as the war bogged down.

 

[Ediswan]

Though, one has to wonder what was cause and which effect: did the inability to achieve precision lead to the adoption of area bombing, or did the focus on area bombing result in no attempt to achieve precision?

Everything I have seen and read suggests that a lot of effort went into precision navigation and bombsights for high altitude use. They never really achieved 'hit the intended factory'. However, area bombing was also seen (by those in charge) as an effective weapon in its own right.

 

[Annetts key]

In the west, I believe the use of precision weapons is driven more by the want to destroy or damage a target first time rather than having to keep returning to try again.

If you destroy or damage a target first time, in theory, you use less ammunition, less other resources (making logistics easier) and put your own personnel in danger less often.

And of course, if you do destroy or damage a target first time, if that is an enemy weapons system, it can’t be used again. Whereas if you use area weapons, if you miss the target, the enemy weapons system could continue operating...

One of the odd things about the war in Ukraine is that Russia uses precision weapons (missiles and guided glide bombs) to target civilian infrastructure, including apartment blocks, Post Office / mail / parcels centres, shops etc.

Meanwhile on the battlefield, area weapons like non-precision artillery and MLRS are widely used. And earlier in the war, unguided air launched rockets were often fired from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft.

 

[najaB]

Everything I have seen and read suggests that a lot of effort went into precision navigation and bombsights for high altitude use. They never really achieved 'hit the intended factory'. However, area bombing was also seen (by those in charge) as an effective weapon in its own right.

I know that there was a lot of press around the Norden bombsight - eg. the claim that they could put a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20,000ft and the great deal of secrecy surrounding them (carried to the plane under cover before each flight), but all of it was hype for propaganda purposes.

 

[edwin_m]

I know that there was a lot of press around the Norden bombsight - eg. the claim that they could put a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20,000ft and the great deal of secrecy surrounding them (carried to the plane under cover before each flight), but all of it was hype for propaganda purposes.

If nothing else, they would have had no idea of the wind strength and direction at all altitudes from the plane down to the ground, which could have had a significant effect on the landing even if the aim was theoretically perfect.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

One of the odd things about the war in Ukraine is that Russia uses precision weapons (missiles and guided glide bombs) to target civilian infrastructure, including apartment blocks, Post Office / mail / parcels centres, shops etc.

Not so odd when you consider Putin's aim is destroy any sense of Ukrainian identity or culture. He just wants them to be good (ie subservient) little Russians. As such the deaths of civilians matter to him even less than those of his own soldiers, which is very little. And the destruction of apparently random civilian targets helps to reinforce his authoritarianism.

 

[Howardh]

Not so odd when you consider Putin's aim is destroy any sense of Ukrainian identity or culture. He just wants them to be good (ie subservient) little Russians. As such the deaths of civilians matter to him even less than those of his own soldiers, which is very little. And the destruction of apparently random civilian targets helps to reinforce his authoritarianism.

If/when Putin eventually takes over Ukraine, there's gonna have to be a lot of expensive rebuilding to do; so has he struck a bargain with Trump to allow USA to buy those vital earth resources at basement prices, so Putin gets hard-currency and Trump/Musk his valuables?

Conspiracy theory?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If/when Putin eventually takes over Ukraine, there's gonna have to be a lot of expensive rebuilding to do; so has he struck a bargain with Trump to allow USA to buy those vital earth resources at basement prices, so Putin gets hard-currency and Trump/Musk his valuables?

Conspiracy theory?

I'll see your conspiracy and raise you as follows: a former Soviet intelligence officer now living in Kazakhstan has suggested that at one time the KGB was actively recruiting US business people and that a young Donald Trump was one such target with codename Krasnov. To be taken with a rock sized pinch of salt I think! If it was actually true it might explain some things but I suspect it's someone seeking publicity.

 

[DustyBin]

If/when Putin eventually takes over Ukraine, there's gonna have to be a lot of expensive rebuilding to do; so has he struck a bargain with Trump to allow USA to buy those vital earth resources at basement prices, so Putin gets hard-currency and Trump/Musk his valuables?

Conspiracy theory?

Is this not the deal Trump wants to make with Zelensky?

The problem (well, one of them) is that Trump isn’t really offering Ukraine much in return.

 

[najaB]

The problem (well, one of them) is that Trump isn’t really offering Ukraine much in return.

Seems that the offer is "existence".

 

[Falcon1200]

As Trump is demanding a share of Ukraine's mineral wealth to pay for the support the USA has given.... Surely every other country which has supported Ukraine, eg us here in the UK, is entitled to a proportionate share too? Haven't heard Trump say anything about that....

 

[najaB]

As Trump is demanding a share of Ukraine's mineral wealth to pay for the support the USA has given.... Surely every other country which has supported Ukraine, eg us here in the UK, is entitled to a proportionate share too? Haven't heard Trump say anything about that....

Don't be silly.

 

[Falcon1200]

Don't be silly.

Of course, sorry!

 

[Harpo]

As Trump is demanding a share of Ukraine's mineral wealth to pay for the support the USA has given.... Surely every other country which has supported Ukraine, eg us here in the UK, is entitled to a proportionate share too? Haven't heard Trump say anything about that....

Hopefully other nations have sufficient morality to discourage Trump rather than joining in with his looting.

However nobody appears to want to remind him that he has no mandate whatsoever to negotiate a Russia/Ukraine ‘deal’.

 

[najaB]

However nobody appears to want to remind him that he has no mandate whatsoever to negotiate a Russia/Ukraine ‘deal’.

He can facilitate a deal - usually there is a third-party involved, see the role that Qatar played in the recent Israel/Palestine negotiations.

However he's not entitled to negotiate or agree anything on Ukraine's part.

 

[Killingworth]

He can facilitate a deal - usually there is a third-party involved, see the role that Qatar played in the recent Israel/Palestine negotiations.

However he's not entitled to negotiate or agree anything on Ukraine's part.

The Art of the Deal.

In this case Putin has Ukraine over a military barrel so Trump can come to the rescue - with a financial barrel of his own. Zelensky is in a vicious vice without any resolute and united strong independent European alternative in sight.

All too predictable once Biden's failing grasp became so apparent.

At the back of the mind it should be remembered that the US ambassador in London in 1940 was for some form of truce. We did get immense American support but were still paying for it decades later. Trump is less secretive about his aims.

 

[brad465]

At the back of the mind it should be remembered that the US ambassador in London in 1940 was for some form of truce. We did get immense American support but were still paying for it decades later. Trump is less secretive about his aims.

You might be thinking of the Anglo-American loan that the US gave the UK after the war to keep us afloat. That's what we paid back monetarily for over 5 decades.

 

[Killingworth]

You might be thinking of the Anglo-American loan that the US gave the UK after the war to keep us afloat. That's what we paid back monetarily for over 5 decades.

Lend-Lease, a complex arrangement that helped both sides and boosted American industry immensely. See; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease