Thread: The Ukraine Situation

They need to give them a Squadron of A-10's

Ukraine allegedly has pilots that have been trained to fly them, there is nothing feared more by a 40 mile long convoy of armor and trucks

They are also asking for Patriot Batteries, and those are actually in Poland..

Unfortunately, no matter what type of weapons are/can be supplied to Ukraine it would only prolong the inevitable outcome of Russia militarily defeating them. In prolonging that conflict the price Ukraine and it's people pay will be enormously larger.

Only direct military intervention by outside countries could tip the scales in favour of Ukraine defeating Russia militarily. That involves the very real possibility of widening the conflict into what could escalate become WWIII and include the use of nuclear weapons.

The only other solution would be a diplomatic one and the prospects of that seem pretty dim at the moment.

Lets just hope there are people out there on all sides that are smart enough to find a way through to a solution that allows Ukraine to survive as an independent nation and stops the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Bob

I bet Ukraine regret the day they ever agreed to give up and destroy their nuclear arsenal and listened to NATO when they said they would protect them from any future invasions.

Originally Posted by celticcrusader

I bet Ukraine regret the day they ever agreed to give up and destroy their nuclear arsenal and listened to NATO when they said they would protect them from any future invasions.

Lessons for the rest of the world

Don't give up your weapons
Don't believe Politicians that say they will protect you

Originally Posted by celticcrusader

I bet Ukraine regret the day they ever agreed to give up and destroy their nuclear arsenal and listened to NATO when they said they would protect them from any future invasions.

My considered opinion is that if Ukraine had kept their nuclear arsenal, it would have been a huge mistake to use it.

Putin would be overjoyed to press his button if he could say that Ukrain pressed theirs first.

Originally Posted by STF

My considered opinion is that if Ukraine had kept their nuclear arsenal, it would have been a huge mistake to use it.

Putin would be overjoyed to press his button if he could say that Ukrain pressed theirs first.

Nobody has used a Nuke in warfare since Nagasaki, almost 80 years, the idea of having them is that nobody invades a country that has them...

You might have a border skirmish, but you start shelling a city the reaction could destroy your country..

Even Pakistan and India have managed to not blow each other up

Turns out that even if Ukraine kept its nukes which were mostly ICBMs with MIRV warheads they could only be possibly reprogrammed to hit Russia's far east. Their cruise missiles were disabled by the USSR before the breakup of the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...ns_and_Ukraine

NATO gave no guarantees of protection against Russian invasion. They never had that obligation as Ukraine never was and still is not a member of NATO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances

Other counties did provide some assurances of the Ukraine's independence free of the threat of invasion in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

Bob

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Nobody has used a Nuke in warfare since Nagasaki, almost 80 years, the idea of having them is that nobody invades a country that has them...

You might have a border skirmish, but you start shelling a city the reaction could destroy your country..

Even Pakistan and India have managed to not blow each other up

There is always a first time. Look at Putin and tell me he would not use nukes. Anyone want to call his bluff by directly military intervening in the Ukraine with all the risks that would bring to the table regarding the use of nukes?

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

There is always a first time. Look at Putin and tell me he would not use nukes. Anyone want to call his bluff by directly military intervening in the Ukraine with all the risks that would bring to the table regarding the use of nukes?

Bob

So what you are saying is it works, you just contradicted your own premise...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So what you are saying is it works, you just contradicted your own premise...

Yes, of course nukes work in war. The US proved that in WWII when only one country had them. The immediate and long term effects of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave a lot of people globally pause to think that their use again in war would be insanity to contemplate as more and more countries became nuclear capable. Luckily we have avoided their use in war till now.

The real spectre of facing a nuclear war has reared it's ugly head again with the invasion of Ukraine and Putin putting Russia's nuclear deterrent force on high alert. It's anyone's guess if he is bluffing or not about the use of nukes. The question then becomes whether or not anyone wants to become involved in chucking nuclear warheads around. If that does happen there is a very good likelihood that that would inevitably escalate from a local conflict to a global one. I'd hate to see what the winner of such a conflict would look like never mind the loser.

No contradiction of premise there. Just stating what the absolute worst case scenario might be. Once you start down that path it will be difficult to impossible to turn back.

Bob