re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

the NYT trivializing nuclear war saying maybe one or two small nuclear strikes are justified

---

If you put your tampon in and re-read the article using your big girl comprehension then you’ll notice that it was warning against - not “calling for” - the use of such weapons.

But you’re addicted to your own hysteria.

quote:

---

The military term would be called combined arms. Artillery is pretty fricking awesome if you use it in conjunction with armor or infantry to accomplish a certain task. The idea is to put the enemy into a dilemma. Shoot a bunch of artillery so he has to hide in his hole or move in order to not die. While he’s hiding your ground units can advance without being shot at. If he moves he runs into a minefield or ambush. If he retreats you get to take his position. You should use all of your weapons in coordination to leave the enemy with no good options. This works on a micro and macro level. At the squad level you can use a machine gun and mortars to keep the enemy from popping up and shooting at you while your infantrymen through grenades into the enemy foxholes. So either die by grenade or die by machine gun fire. At a larger level you can assault with with tanks to drive the enemy into the open where artillery will frick them up.

---

Can this be done effectively for very long if the other side is dominating the skies?

I always see people talking about how important Air superiority is. And in a conventional style war like this with two traditional militaries I would agree. But we've seen that against an "asymmetrical", guerilla style force, that it's not a deciding factor. Yes, it is a huge advantage, but isn't necessarily gonna win a war against a force that can blend in with the population and fight in unconventional ways. The Russians and our own military found that out in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Lot of smoke here but still unconfirmed. Would be a huge deal because Russia has some elite guys in this area.

---

I saw some stuff about this happening to them on the eastern side of Kyiv too. If both can hold on and not let them breakout, there are going to be a substantial number of POWs to accommodate.

Eta: What I saw was over near Brovary. Here's a YT video where he talks about what's going on around that front. Skip ahead to 11:48 for where he talks about the eastern flank of Kyiv. YouTube

quote:

---

Could be he doesnt like heels Zelensky getting close to nato. Maybe hes taking over areas that have things he wants. Maybe hes just crazy

I have no idea if they can win.

---

See wasn’t too hard to type out more sentences.

There are must have been some new sources you paid attention to even come to these first 2 conclusions. Regardless Putin and Russia invaded a sovereign country. Yes the US has done it too and no that doesn’t mean Ukraine doesn’t have issues of it’s own. But regardless of what news sources you look at it, Russia is at fault which is why most here are cheering against them.

quote:

---

Just not sure why we are involved in this in any way and why so many on here are all good with it You would think we would want to focus on our own house

---

The US is doing what has always being done. The US supplying European countries with weapons is nothing new. Under Trump weren’t there Javelins sent over?

Most people here are not wanting to get involved directly. It’s possible to want there to be focus on the US while also putting some focus on this invasion.

quote:

---

From what I've heard from him, the problems the Russians are facing are primarily due to a fundamental miscalculation of the Ukrainians resolve and a very poorly trained Russian military.

---

By no means an expert either, but from what I can tell a few things are an issue:

-Russia miscalculated Ukraine military capabilities (likely due to successes in 2014). Since 2014 Ukraine has received substantial aid and training from western militaries, and restructured to be more in line with those militaries. Ukraine has had thousands of regular troops cycle through the JFO/Donbas conflict, gaining combat experience. Russia hasnt.

- overly ambitious goals at the onset caused Russia to spread forces thin across several fronts, creating higher than expected casualties and logistical problems. They’re still dealing with is miscalculation today.

- Russia cannot establish air superiority. Ukrainian ground based air defenses continue to give them problems.

- Russia is incapable of combined arms operations… air and ground forces (infantry and armored) working together to accomplish goals. Due in large part to their own military doctrine, inability to establish air support, and inflexibility within local command.

- Russias overall command structure makes fighting a complex, multi-front war extremely difficult. To fight a war like this you need strong NCO structure who has the knowledge and freedom to make quick decisions based on real time info… Russia can’t do it.

So we went from:

quote:

---

The New York Times is now actively calling for nuclear war

---

To:

quote:

---

They’re grooming us by downplaying how destructive a single nuke can be.

---

Which also isn’t true.

The entire point of the article is that tactical nuclear weapons create a huge risk of escalation, and I think the following sums it up pretty well:

quote:

---

A global race for the smaller arms is intensifying. Though such weapons are less destructive by Cold War standards, modern estimates show that the equivalent of half a Hiroshima bomb, if detonated in Midtown Manhattan, would kill or injure half a million people.

The case against these arms is that they undermine the nuclear taboo and make crisis situations even more dangerous. Their less destructive nature, critics say, can feed the illusion of atomic control when in fact their use can suddenly flare into a full-blown nuclear war. A simulation devised by experts at Princeton University starts with Moscow firing a nuclear warning shot; NATO responds with a small strike, and the ensuing war yields more than 90 million casualties in its first few hours.

---

It doesn’t call for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. It just explains why we have them. The counterpoint is basically “if we don’t have them, the risk of Russia using small nukes is higher because they know we don’t have a proportional response available.”

If you want to interpret the article as justifying the existence of tactical nuclear weapons in our arsenal, I might buy that (though even that seems like a stretch). But in no way does anything in that article advocate for the use of these weapons. You’re looking for reasons to be outraged.

(no message)

(no message)

Wow, look at Fox News calling for more trans athletes in women’s sports .