Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Abhorsen said:

None of what you listed has to do with our ability to stop nukes. Note also that we know we have those things, so using them as an argument that the US is sandbagging doesn't work.


We're working on one, but still, it's woefully inadequate from what I can tell. Which, fair enough, some of this is new tech, and there's a ton of political problems that need to go through.

Don't get me wrong, the GMD program is absolutely great at what it's designed to do: stop a country from getting a few ICBMs then holding the US at gunpoint forever. What it isn't, that people keep pretending that it and other anti missile programs are, is a Russia/China nope button.

Click to expand...

We know about them now.

But at that time, who would have thought we were able to do such things until it happend?
The military is ready for things.
A whole hell of a lot.
We have the largest military budget in the world for a reason.
There is shit we have that is probably more advanced then what we know about.

We just keep it secret because we don't like to brag

Abhorsen said:

For everyone saying that our current ABM is anywhere near enough to deal with Russia, we have 44 Ground Based Interceptors. It seems designed to say Fuck North Korea and Iran, and we might as well fire it off against everyone else (which, fair enough, the two most likely places to launch are the Norks and Iran). Even if every one hits a missile, that's still 250+ Ballistic Missiles (times the MIRV amount). We have a few others, but even all together they won't be enough No, a nuclear exchange with Russia kills us all.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is pretending it's a magic wall that would stop everything.

That doesn't change the fact that it depreciates the ability to threaten with nukes, and given the Chinese are estimated to have 50-100 missiles capable of reaching across the Pacific, it's a very significant deterrent against then.

Also, given if Russia pushes the big red button, it will be splitting fire into Europe, 44 ground-based and however many sea-based ABM missiles will be able to interrupt a meaningful percentage of those headed towards the US.

Not enough that you want to have a nuclear war. The chance of even one missile slipping through means you don't want a nuclear war. But this is enough to make it clear that while every player in Nuclear War loses, some people are going to lose harder, and in the current world that's Russia or China.

That's enough to take some wind out of the sails of bombastic nuclear threats. Not all. But some.

You know, if the rest of us are lucky, after this China will decide Russia has been weakened enough to go ahead and invade.

Then the rest of the world wins.

WolfBear said:

I remember her, I think!

Click to expand...

She was the home wrecker. Husband ditched his family for her but their separation meant she wanted more.

paulobrito said:

Nobody knows. Do you want to risk the world on that bet?
BTW, historically the nuclear forces are the best equipped/maintained in the Soviet Union. Just saying.

Click to expand...

No need.kgb are cowards,they would never start war in which they die.So,send nukes to Ukraine,and let them hit one for one for each kgb used.

PsihoKekec said:

And in Russia as well. USA on the other hand had a lack of political will regarding it's nuclear weapons maintenance and only in the last decade started allocating funds towards refurbishing the facilities that do nuclear warhead maintenance.

Click to expand...

postsoviet supposed to maintain their missiles,too.which is falling from the sky on its own.But - it would never be used for reasons above.

History Learner said:

More accurately, your shadow will be seeing the wall behind you after it's permanently left there from the flash of a Russian ICBM detonating.



I wonder what the following Brazilian and Australian Cold War will look like, after they are left to pick up the pieces?

Click to expand...

1.No,becouse kgb are cowards.Sralin would go for mutual destruction,they would not.
2.USA would survive 500 hits,postsoviets after losing Moscov and Petersgurg would cease to exist.Becouse their state are those two cities which live on rest.

P.S could you deliver some funny soviet sources? and remember,do not meet kgb alone! They really sometimes kill their own agents.

Has usual, ATP lives in a fantasy world.

paulobrito said:

Has usual, ATP lives in a fantasy world.

Click to expand...

In real world.If postsoviet were ruled by sralin,we would arleady burn.Them,too - but sralin would not care.
When putin and others putins from kgb are thinking about their precious skin first.That is why we would not have war,unless tey think that they would die anyway.

When you live in fantasy world with still powerfull soviet union capable of taking Europe.Awaken,they are gone.

LordsFire said:

You know, if the rest of us are lucky, after this China will decide Russia has been weakened enough to go ahead and invade.

Then the rest of the world wins.

Click to expand...

Ideal solution,but it still leave us with Biden and other leftist,who now try to destroy us.
So,i would prefer war there till 2025,and China stomping postsoviets after USA have normal president again.

Arch Dornan said:

She was the home wrecker. Husband ditched his family for her but their separation meant she wanted more.

Click to expand...

Shame on her!

lloyd007 said:

Outside of some magical infallible and invincible shield that could also prevent any dead hand final FU device making Chernobyl look like eating a banana in relative release of radioactive particles, the basic rules of MAD still apply.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

Let's review - Russia, as has been clearly shown by current events, is essentially still stuck in the 90s in terms of military technology. Meanwhile, the United States has been on the cutting edge of this development. Now account for long-range stealth recon drones like the RQ-180, and then ask yourself how much more advanced ISTAR assets than that exist that are still very hush hush skunkworks level.

Now ask yourself - why has Russia blown scads of money on dumbshit doomsday weapons like the Status-6 and the nuclear-powered cruise missile when they could simply defeat our meager missile defense shield by just standing up more warheads? They blew INF out of the water, do you really think they give a fuck about START II? Hell, even under START limits they should, on paper, have WAY more warheads than required to saturate our ABM defenses, and if they're worried about some prospective roll-out of, e.g. AEGIS Ashore across CONUS then just building more of the weapons they already have on hand, fully mature and developed would be the easy and most cost-effective way to go.

What are they worried about?

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a very, very successful pre-emptive counter-force strike by the US. Because the Russians seem awful worried about it to me.

Zachowon said:

Tactical nuclear weapons.
Not strategic ones.
Tactical level low yield nukes to wipe out enemy forces and to claim destruction of the enemy force.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the doctrine, hence why I'm also well aware the conclusion of tactical usage then and now was an escalation to the strategic level.

And US troops would be sent, as would NATO.
Sending ICBMs at that would end the world.
Putin is stupid if he uses Tactical Nukes, he isn't stupid enough to sign his own death warrant

Click to expand...

I'm sure NATO would send troops, it's also why I'm equally sure they would all die in the nuclear exchange. Russian doctrine, and NATO for that matter, is very clear on this and hence why nobody has tried to start a war between us since 1945.

Saw this and the guy was stating that things like rape ect will earn a trip to the firing squad the usual. But for some reason he felt the need to also specify sexual relations with flora is a no no, Who the hell tried to fuck a plant?

History Learner said:

I've likewise already cited the Pentagon in this thread throwing cold water on claims this is something they can keep doing. They may yet score more victories-the situation around Krasny Lyman looks particularly dire at this moment-but that's it as far as strategic opportunities.

Click to expand...

Both Ukrainian and Russian sources indicate the decisive moment for the situation around Lyman has arrived; Ukrainian channels have been saying for days Zelensky ordered the deployment of all possible reserves to this vector of the front while Russian forces are saying the defense has reached the critical stage as BARS-16 (Kuban Cossack volunteers), the LRP NM and Russian Army regulars have been taking on all comers for weeks around the city. AFU breakthrough success to the North has reduced the supply route into the city to the road through Tors'ke, which is under artillery from the AFU. Sasha Kots within the last hour reports fighting has reached the city itself, with Yampol nearby as in the "gray zone" (contested).

So, if the AFU takes the city, what does that mean? Most likely, a fall back to a defensive line based on Svatove-Kreminna-Rubizhne. However, one thing Ukrainian sources continue to report is high casualties, exhaustion from weeks of offensive and the depletion of reserves; indications are they've pulled troops from as far as Kiev and Odessa for these operations since the start of September. Why is this relevant? Ukrainian sources report a build up of Russian forces on the flanks, particularly in Belgorod. Sasha Kots also likewise questioned the lack of reinforcements to the Lyman direct axis, which would indicate they're going somewhere, in line with Ukrainian reporting. Perhaps a trap is afoot? It is hard to tell this early.

planefag said:

Are you sure about that?

Let's review - Russia, as has been clearly shown by current events, is essentially still stuck in the 90s in terms of military technology. Meanwhile, the United States has been on the cutting edge of this development. Now account for long-range stealth recon drones like the RQ-180, and then ask yourself how much more advanced ISTAR assets than that exist that are still very hush hush skunkworks level.

Now ask yourself - why has Russia blown scads of money on dumbshit doomsday weapons like the Status-6 and the nuclear-powered cruise missile when they could simply defeat our meager missile defense shield by just standing up more warheads? They blew INF out of the water, do you really think they give a fuck about START II? Hell, even under START limits they should, on paper, have WAY more warheads than required to saturate our ABM defenses, and if they're worried about some prospective roll-out of, e.g. AEGIS Ashore across CONUS then just building more of the weapons they already have on hand, fully mature and developed would be the easy and most cost-effective way to go.

What are they worried about?

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a very, very successful pre-emptive counter-force strike by the US. Because the Russians seem awful worried about it to me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in your fantasies, sure, but a very good indicator of how wrong your assessment is comes almost at the beginning in classifying Russia as a 1990s military; the existence of combat usage of hypersonic missiles by the Russians before the U.S. can even get a working model in competition rather quickly dissuades this overall notion. Moving specifically into the focus of this post, we can means test it very quickly:

1. Under both the Trump and Biden Administrations, the U.S. worked to extend the START Treaty with Russia. If they had an advantage, why bother?
2. If NATO has a first strike advantage the Russians are apparently afraid of, why has NATO refused to directly engage in Ukraine? Are we to assume NATO is a bunch of pussies, or perhaps they are cognizant of the Russian strategic arsenal remaining potent? Or, have you recanted on your position as far as the quality of the Russian Army? At least one of these has to be true, it's that simple.

I can present further evidence in this vein, but I'm curious to see how you respond to #2 first.

Carrot of Truth said:

Saw this and the guy was stating that things like rape ect will earn a trip to the firing squad the usual. But for some reason he felt the need to also specify sexual relations with flora is a no no, Who the hell tried to fuck a plant?

Click to expand...

I mean, best case scenario I can imagine is that he got mixed up with fauna? Still not great that you'd need to remind forces not to go AWOL to do it with a donkey, but maybe better than getting all rosy cheeked with a rose bush?

planefag said:

What are they worried about?

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a very, very successful pre-emptive counter-force strike by the US. Because the Russians seem awful worried about it to me.

Click to expand...

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the Soviets / Russians have literally ALWAYS been worried about that. You don't build and maintain 20k functioning nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War unless you want to make absotively posilutely certain "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" is the TRUTH and everyone knows it.

And even if Russia's current capabilities have decayed below that point, testing it out isn't a strange game, it's a stupid one with an enormously stupid prize for the winner of anyone who plays it.

A translation of the speech can be found in the link.

lloyd007 said:

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the Soviets / Russians have literally ALWAYS been worried about that. You don't build and maintain 20k functioning nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War unless you want to make absotively posilutely certain "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" is the TRUTH and everyone knows it.

And even if Russia's current capabilities have decayed below that point, testing it out isn't a strange game, it's a stupid one with an enormously stupid prize for the winner of anyone who plays it.

Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point of Planefag's post.

If Russia thought that the ABM wasn't a serious impediment, they could have just maintained or built more of the nuclear delivery systems based on the well-matured and tested systems they already have.

Instead they've invested billions on developing experimental new systems specifically designed to bypass ABM technology.

Tiamat said:

A translation of the speech can be found in the link.

Click to expand...

The hilarious thing here is that it isn't the West spreading russophobia, it's the Russians doing it.

History Learner said:

And yet you've seen fit to engage in this dialogue, after ostensibly not having time to engage the rest of the post. Let's not pretend you were attempting to do a cherry pick and this right here proves it, in that you're trying to use one point to claim the entire post was wrong.

The only dishonesty here is you.

Click to expand...

Are you really going to sit there and pretend that this sprawling debate wouldn't be even more ridiculously time consuming if I tried to take on your whole post at once? Who do you even think is going to believe this lie? I mean, I guess there's at least one person. (@TerrificWarden)

History Learner said:

Forgive me for assuming you had the ability to recognize a UAV is a warplane. Likewise, why are we suddenly limiting ourselves to fighter jets? You were the one talking about definitions before, would you like me to quote you?

Click to expand...

This does not prove the claim.

Why would I want that when I just cut through all of them? It's why you're trying the fake tough act now.

Click to expand...

lol

Why would I do that when I already proved you were wrong and you, yourself, confirmed you were cherry picking? You've now graduated to special pleading as well, so at this point I'm trying to see how many dishonest takes you're going to make.

Click to expand...

Do you really not know what cherry picking is? I just got done indicating that it's more than simply "picking one subtopic to argue about". You can disagree with my definition or you can disagree with what I'm claiming I've done, but you can't claim I admitted to "cherry picking" because as I define that term I have admitted no such thing and you have yet to define it in such a way that I admitted to actions constituting cherry picking. That's not special pleading when my definition is entirely normal and not constructed for the purpose of excluding what I'm doing from cherry picking.

I wouldn't argue if someone said I was just trying to go after low hanging fruit. Although you're making this absurdly difficult I could hardly disagree that my goal in only arguing about one paragraph was to reduce my own workload.

I'd agree Ukraine has a pretty good grasp of its losses, which is why any low counts or defending of Oryx's numbers doesn't have merit if they're lower than even the people we both agree on have reason to downplay them. The Western Aid angle doesn't make sense, however, because they wouldn't be asking for the equipment (and still be asking for it now) if they didn't actually need it because of high loss rates.

Click to expand...

Show me the military that complained about having too much dakka. They don't need to be suffering catastrophic losses to want more reinforcement. Your objection is absurd!

It also leaves out the fact the West has intelligence agencies and space recon assets to which they can verify Ukrainian losses too, so Ukraine lying wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

Truly, working the public to generate political support for military desires has never happened.