Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[Angra Mainyu]

There are so many ways it could spiral out of control as the cycle of violence keeps provoking stronger and stronger retaliatory responses to escalations.

How, specifically? Realistically?

But there are also other countries armed with nuclear weapons besides NATO countries.

Yes, I actually listed all of them in the post you were replying to.

China could see an opportunity to go for a blockade of Taiwan, and North Korea might be itching to take advantage of the distraction in Europe.

China would almost certainly want to wait for several reasons, like:

1. China's plan to invade Taiway is long term. While I expect the invasion to very probably happen before the end of the decade, it is too soon. They haven't fully prepared yet.

2. The poor performance of Russia in this war is a lesson they are studying carefully.

3. China does not yet have enough nukes for MAD. It's building them, probably so that if they invade Taiwan and beat the US conventionally, they do not want the US to launch a limited nuclear retaliation. But it will take years before they're ready.

In any event, a blockade also is not global nuclear war. China would not use nukes, since:

a. It has too few.
b. Even if it had enough for MAD, Xi is not suicidal. Nor does he want to see China destroyed. On the contrary, the plan is to have China become dominant.

As for NK, why would they do that?
Their nukes seem to be aimed at regime survival and blackmail, not at attacking anyone. Kim is also not suicidal. He does not want total war, but to maintain his power.

And then there is the powder keg of nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and India.

Both countries have no dog in the Ukraine war. There is simply no significant connection for them to use nukes. Or to even start a war against each other (at any rate, that war would be local, not global).

Do you honestly think we can predict a safe scenario in which tactical nuclear weapons could be actually used?

Safe? No, of course not. The tactical nukes would kill a lot of people. How is that safe? Safe for whom?
In any case, I give a low probability to the use of tactical nukes, but a far lower probability to a global nuclear war.

The whole purpose would be to produce a capitulation of the type that occurred in Japan at the end of WWII, but would that be the model for the aftermath of Putin's use of nukes in 2022?

No, the purpose would be to win the war, if everything else failed. It would be like:

1. Use conventional weapons, and try to conquer Donbas.

2. If that is not enough, add large numbers of chemical weapons, blaming it on Ukrainian Nazis.

3. If that is not enough, then use small nukes in large numbers against military targets in Ukraine, avoiding cities, etc.

4. If that is not enough, consider further targets.

The purpose would not be to scare them and force a surrender. It would be to win. It's like a massively boosted rocket artillery raining very small nukes on Ukrainian forces. Not to make them surrender, but to kill them.

I don't think we can predict the outcome, and certainly not in an internet discussion group populated by non-experts such as ourselves.

We always make probabilistic assessments on the basis of incomplete information, experts or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

even if you could clean it up, who's going to want to move back there?

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving and popular modern cities.

Cleaning them up was clearly far from impossible; And lots of people want to live there, for lots of reasons.

Radiation isn't a non-issue, but it is far from being the massive long-term issue that you appear to imagine.

Data point: I once flew over Hiroshima at night, 5 miles up but very clear air. When I realized where we were I looked as carefully as I could looking out the window of a jetliner and couldn't find any dark spot for ground zero. Either it was way away from the current city center or the city has grown back over ground zero. Attempts to repeat the observation have always been foiled by clouds, timing, or the path the airplane took.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for more modern "clean fusion" H-bombs, every one in existence is triggered by a fission bomb, which supplies most of the radiation emitted by the explosions. It is not at all clear what kind of tactical nukes Putin would choose to deploy against the Ukrainians, but there would inevitably follow a response from the Western alliance, which could not let such an escalation go without more serious consequences than just a few more sanctions against oligarchs or boycotting Russian oil and gas sales. There would likely be a military retaliation of some kind that could provoke another, more serious escalation from the other side. The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons is madness, as is the idea that a global nuclear war would be survivable for either side. Yet people on both sides, including in our own little online discussion community, are openly speculating about actually engaging in such madness. I know that there is a lot of talk in Russia about using their nuclear weapons to teach NATO and the US a lesson, thinking that a nuclear exchange would somehow produce some kind of satisfying catharsis to the cycle of violence.

But the modern bombs use less fissionable material.

 

[Copernicus]

But the modern bombs use less fissionable material.

Outside of the fact that thermonuclear bombs are up to a thousand times more powerful than fission bombs and capable of wiping out entire cities, there appears to be some evidence that they are no cleaner than classic atomic bombs when it comes to radiation.

See abstract for Radioactive hazard resulting from the explosions of a ‘clean’ hydrogen bomb and of a conventional fission bomb

...However, taking an estimate over the whole period of decay of the reaction products, it is found that ten-megaton bombs of the two types give rise to roughly the same dose of radiation to the tissues, and claim approximately the same number of victims. In round figures we expect: Deuterium-tritium bombFission bomb Dose to the tissues50,000 x 10−6 r40,000 x 10−6 r, Dose to the bones50,000 x 10−6 r88,000 x 10−6 r Number of mutations (in a population of 2·5 x 109)50,00040,000 Number of cases of leukaemia (in a population of 2·5 x 108)15,00026,000 Thus on the score of radiation injury to the world population, a clean hydrogen bomb operating by the reaction of. deuterium and tritium cannot be considered less dangerous than an ordinary atomic bomb.

However, I admit to being no expert in such matters and must rely on sources whose merits are difficult for me to evaluate. The debate over the 'cleanliness' of hydrogen bombs is especially academic when one considers that an all-out nuclear war would cause a lot more damage and radiation than those two little 'dirty' bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lots of 'clean' H bombs would likely make the world a lot dirtier and less habitable than the end of WWII. Why can't we just wait for global warming to finish us all off? Wouldn't that make more sense?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why can't we just wait for global warming to finish us all off? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Because global warming is not the sort of thing that could realistically kill humans off.

 

[Copernicus]

Why can't we just wait for global warming to finish us all off? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Because global warming is not the sort of thing that could realistically kill humans off.

I disagree, but we needn't derail the thread on a debate over who is right. In my opinion, FWIW, Nuclear war and global warming both have the potential to alter the Earth's climate to a point where it can no longer sustain a viable human population. A global nuclear war would likely be a quicker way to go.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It’s a “Special Military Operation”.
So you can’t make me fight in it. More and more Russian soldiers are refusing to fight in Ukraine. How many? Unknown, but enough that the Russian military has seen a need to make a point to all contract soldiers that they ought not do this with propaganda in their service booklets.
So far, no prosecutions.

 

[Copernicus]

It’s a “Special Military Operation”.
So you can’t make me fight in it. More and more Russian soldiers are refusing to fight in Ukraine. How many? Unknown, but enough that the Russian military has seen a need to make a point to all contract soldiers that they ought not do this with propaganda in their service booklets.
So far, no prosecutions.

The stamp says “Inclined toward treason, lies, and deception", because they are inclined towards courage, truth, and straight talk. Many of these are soldiers who fought in Ukraine and were withdrawn to regroup. They know what they were made to do, and they have a technical legal right to refuse to go back to that hell. If they witnessed some of the atrocities committed against civilians, they need to spread the word back home.

 

[Patooka]

Speaking of tactics and logistics:



Basically, the video outlines that part of US military training exercises now involve dealing with an opposing force that has no problems shelling civilian targets and the surprising effectiveness of social media as a military asset.

 

[SLD]

Speaking of tactics and logistics:



Basically, the video outlines that part of US military training exercises now involve dealing with an opposing force that has no problems shelling civilian targets and the surprising effectiveness of social media as a military asset.

Every military out there is watching this unfold very carefully. They are breaking down their doctrines and tactics and reinventing them as we speak. This will be studied for decades.

 

[Elixir]

Russia could easily launch a Kinzhal or Iskander missile at the presidential palace, for example. Or several. But they haven't. ... it has a problem targeting civilians in a way that cannot be denied sufficiently for their purposes

IOW, no, it's not true that they "could easily launch a Kinzhal or Iskander missile at the presidential palace" unless they don't mind the Kremlin possibly being destroyed along with any deniability of their war crimes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Russia could easily launch a Kinzhal or Iskander missile at the presidential palace, for example. Or several. But they haven't. ... it has a problem targeting civilians in a way that cannot be denied sufficiently for their purposes

IOW, no, it's not true that they "could easily launch a Kinzhal or Iskander missile at the presidential palace" unless they don't mind the Kremlin possibly being destroyed along with any deniability of their war crimes.

First, my first point is about Zelensky. Here is my post for context: https://iidb.org/threads/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-tactics-and-logistics.25758/post-1002066

Second, no, that is not in other words. It is the opposite. Yes, it is true that they could easily launch it. They choose not to.

Third, whether the Kremlin would be destroyed is irrelevant to my point. But no, there is no significant risk of the Kremlin being destroyed. How would that happen? Ukraine does not have the capability to do that. The US and others will not take action that would certainly result in nuclear war just because Putin kills Zelensky and some people in Kyiv. They have already used those missiles repeatedly. One more will not suddenly make Biden choose to sacrifice the US in an attack against the Kremlin, even if that one kills Zelensky. But again, that is also beside the point I was making.

 

[Elixir]

Second, no, that is not in other words

My mistake.
I forgot that a thought experiment requires … thought.

Nothing I said was predicated on the assumption that Ukraine has an extant capability to destroy Russia.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Second, no, that is not in other words

My mistake.
I forgot that a thought experiment requires … thought.

Nothing I said was predicated on the assumption that Ukraine has an extant capability to destroy Russia.

Obviously, my reply does not suggest that anything you said is predicated on that assumption.

 

[Hermit]

A pretty good analysis of the war. Longish read.

 

[Harry Bosch]

A pretty good analysis of the war. Longish read.

That is a good article. Yes long! I only read first 5 pages. But I'll read the rest today or tomorrow. Very good analysis. I agree with the first premise that since Russia will attempt to take all of southern Ukraine, it really means that they are committed to eventually conquering all of Ukraine. This mean that really there is no hope of a peace between Ukraine and Russia. Even if a cease fire is started, the Russians will never live up to it.

 

[Rhea]

Very interesting - thanks. The detsailed discussion of the russian strategy was very interesting.

 

[Elixir]

A pretty good analysis of the war. Longish read.

Thanks. Really excellent read.

 

[Copernicus]

A pretty good analysis of the war. Longish read.

I found the detailed discussion interesting about the dependency of Russian advanced weaponry on components of American and Western manufacture. Apparently, they will need to get those components via third parties, especially China and India, in the future. I'm guessing that that is how North Korea gets its hands on those same necessary components to manufacture its advanced weapons systems. Global supply chains have created some very strange bedfellows.

The section on Moldova towards the end was also very enlightening, as it explains why Russia is so hopped up about a land bridge to Transnistria. What was missing from the report was any mention of Hungary, which must also be a major component of Kremlin strategy. I'm guessing that that analysis was missing because Hungary is a NATO and EU member, even though Orban is obviously a Putin ally in NATO clothing. The report itself was produced by the British government, which might wish to avoid openly criticizing Hungary.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The Ukrainian military said Saturday it destroyed a Russian command post in Kherson.

The Ukrainian military intelligence agency posted a statement saying the command post was hit on Friday and two generals were killed and one was critically wounded.

Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said in an online interview that 50 senior Russian officers were in the command center when it came under attack. He said their fate was unknown.