The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

[vhcat70]

We all know that there are American soldiers in Ukraine. That is not debatable. They just are not formally part of the U.S. military. So, please …

And, the country that dealt with Chernobyl won’t use tactical nukes because it prohibits invasion? Look, I am not arguing that Putin will actually use nukes, but the reason he states is just dumb. Ukraine would effectively be disabled if Russia uses a precisely placed nuke. At that point, every front in the war becomes disabled for Ukraine. There are many reasons Russia would not use a nuke. That is not one of them.

In fact, by suggesting this is a proxy war, why would Russia need to invade after it used a nuke if its desire is to quench Westernization?

He says they're aren't US soldiers there, you do. Taking your position, since US soldiers are in Ukraine, you think there's a chance Putin would nuke them?

I read in the article that nuke(s) would make Ukraine unattractive to Russia or anyone to occupy for a good long while. No? I think nukes emit more radiation than Chernobyl did. Could be wrong.

I just think it's a bad signal to the bad actors to pull up stakes there.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I think if you give it some thought, you can answer this question. A tactical strike would cut off the head of operations for Ukraine and would greatly change the demeanor of the populace and fighting apparatus. If you think a nuke is off the table because it would then force the Russians to push into the aftermath, we disagree. Of course, to reiterate, I am not saying that Russia would nuke Ukraine. Rather, as stated, I do not think the author’s rationale is correct. If you think his rationale is correct, we disagree.

I agree with parts and disagree with parts. However, he would obviously have more experience with the situation than we do.

Your tactical nuke wouldn't end anything. At best it would create national martyrs and at worst it would be fully ineffective and malign Russia even deeper into the international dumpster for nothing.

If you think a low yield tactical nuke with a blast zone of 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile, 2600 feet to 3900 feet, could end the war, we don't just disagree. You're simply wrong.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

He says they're aren't US soldiers there, you do. Taking your position, since US soldiers are in Ukraine, you think there's a chance Putin would nuke them?

I read in the article that nuke(s) would make Ukraine unattractive to Russia or anyone to occupy for a good long while. No? I think nukes emit more radiation than Chernobyl did. Could be wrong.

I just think it's a bad signal to the bad actors to pull up stakes there.

There are US trained American soldiers fighting for Ukraine. Fact.

I never said Putin would nuke anyone. I said his reasoning was mistaken. I still believe that.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I agree with parts and disagree with parts. However, he would obviously have more experience with the situation than we do.

Your tactical nuke wouldn't end anything. At best it would create national martyrs and at worst it would be fully ineffective and malign Russia even deeper into the international dumpster for nothing.

If you think a low yield tactical nuke with a blast zone of 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile, 2600 feet to 3900 feet, could end the war, we don't just disagree. You're simply wrong.

Again, I was not making the argument for or against Putin having a motivation to nuke. I was simply refuting his reasoning.

 

[vhcat70]

There are US trained American soldiers fighting for Ukraine. Fact.

1) Current members of the US Armed Forces fighting or 2) Americans trained by the US military & maybe in the US military at some time in the past or 3) both? I certainly believe some US ex-military are volunteers in Ukraine.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

1) Current members of the US Armed Forces fighting or 2) Americans trained by the US military & maybe in the US military at some time in the past or 3) both? I certainly believe some US ex-military are volunteers in Ukraine.

Your belief has been personally confirmed by me and others.

 

[vhcat70]

Your belief has been personally confirmed by me and others.

OK, so there aren't current members of the US military fight in Ukraine to your knowledge. Thanks.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Again, I was not making the argument for or against Putin having a motivation to nuke. I was simply refuting his reasoning.

Huh? Weren't you just on the "well placed nuke" subject? I have trouble with my train 9f thought these days but you're confusing me.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

OK, so there aren't current members of the US military fight in Ukraine to your knowledge. Thanks.

I am sorry you misunderstood my comment. But, your guy, who you adopted as your own comment, said, “ there are no American soldiers in Ukraine.” There ARE American soldiers in Ukraine. Thanks for letting me reinforce that fact.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Huh? Weren't you just on the "well placed nuke" subject? I have trouble with my train 9f thought these days but you're confusing me.

Context matters, counselor. You should know that. Rather than getting frothy every time someone you disagree with makes a post, take a minute to understand the context. VHCat’s post said Putin won’t use a nuke because his soldiers would not be able to follow the nuke. My point was that soldiers don’t have to follow a nuke for a tactical nuke to be useful in war.