Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The psychological impact of using a nuclear weapon in anger would be absolutely massive. This would be a hundred times more shocking and controversial than using chemical weapons, given the physical damage it would do and deliberately releasing radiation into the atmosphere in the middle of Europe. If it didn't escalate into a nuclear war, it would take them decades to rehabilitate themselves.....they would make North Korea look like a normal state.

God bless all here. Don't know about you but that's what I say every time I go into a boozer.

Listening to Putin is like being in the Multiverse where everything that might not happen might happen (or something along/parallel to those lines). But for what it's worth, lightening speed could mean hypersonic non nuclear weapons.

They can but most of the larger weapons would be noticed. However there's still bombs and even nuclear shells. The US developed them years ago but got rid of them. Maybe Russia has them? And there's the fact that

However when Putin says he'll retaliate with weapons that no-one else has he could be talking about biological or chemical or nuclear. He could even be talking about cyber attacks on critical infrastructure.

I'd imagine some people here are familiar with names like Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear. They're state affiliated Russian hacking groups. And they've done serious damage in the past. Fancy Bear have even hacked Ukrainian artillery. And another russian criminal group attacked the HSE. They aren't "State affiliated" but I'd imagine that there's some kind of communication between them. Who knows what they have up their sleeves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear#Ukrainian_artillery

I think the Ukrainians are sharing too much.

They got caught before through too much information on social media.

Actually the NVA fought pitched battles with the Americans.

It wasn't all this myth of just guerrilla tactics by the Viet Cong.

Khe Sanh was a good old fashioned siege ala Dien Bien Phu, except this time the Americans had the airpower to keep it.

The Viet Cong were obliterated in actual urban battles during the Tet offensive, so wasn't just hit and run.

The battle for Hue lasted over three weeks.

The Vietnamese didn't have tanks in the field nor air cover per say, and yes the Americans never officially invaded North Vietnam but by christ did they bomb it.

BTW here is little bit of trivia, the famous picture of the South Vietnamese officer executing the Viet Cong officer in Saigon, that helped define the war, was take during the Tet Offensive and the guy executed had by all accounts just executed a South Vietnamese officer, his wife, their 6 children and the officer's 80-year-old mother.

We said that about this war.

Anyway, China has a nuclear umbrella pact with Ukraine, if Ukraine is attacked by nuclear weapons China has to step in (whether they would honour the pact is another debate)

It's interesting to see that the old policy of punishing subordinates by sending them to the Russian Front is making a comeback. 😀

Not historical, of course, but here's a masterclass in threat delivery by Mr Neeson:

I see the odd comment about the possible state of Russia's nuclear deterents what with the way the army is at the moment.

Back in the 1980s Thatcher was doing her nut at one stage thinking that US would even contemplate a nuclear deal with USSR, because the then Red Army was forecasted to be able to conquer Europe in months.

Nuclear was what was minding Western Europe.

The Red Army suffered a lot in Afghanistan and not sure it ever recovered, even as it morphed into basically the Russian army.

Russia has been a corrupt place since it's very creation and the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

That corruption has gotten even worse since Putin took over.

Now the big question is what state is the nuclear arsenal in.

It might not be great, but damn I still wouldn't want to test it.

I think that's why North Korea is doing this nuclear tests. They are able to produce them and show that they can, but I think it would be too costly to maintain them in a longer run. So it is just a show off. As well as this Satan 2 in case of Russia.

I think in his world they're taking the Donbas at lightning speed. Everything is opposite, lightning = glacial and vice versa

Speaking of the subs, I've recently read and watched a number of assessments on the state of the Russian ballistic missile submarine fleet by the likes of HI Sutton. Apparently, they are the focus of most of the attention and funds appropriated to the Russian Navy.

Whilst the majority of their SSBN fleet is made up of old Delta-IV class ballistic missile boats, these are generally believed to be in good shape, with proper maintenance and a pretty comprehensive number of training and patrol operations. Okay, technically, there's also a solitary Typhoon class boat still in operation, the Dmitry Donskoy, but she is mostly used as a testbed for the development of the RSM-56 Bulava ballistic missile, which is being introduced together with the new Borei class ballistic missile boats. The general assessment is that this force, despite being a generation behind their SSBN counterparts in western navies, generally operates at the same state of readiness, state of repair, and proficiency as their US and Royal Navy counterparts.

What's more, Russia is currently introducing a new class of ballistic missile submarine to replace the Delta-IVs, the Borei class. These boats are a full generation ahead of anything currently operated by western navies with regards to the technology and systems used onboard, at least until the US Columbia class and Royal Navy Dreadnought class ballistic missile boats enter service from the mid-2020s onwards. Six of these new boats have been completed, of which five are operational, with a sixth boat, Generalissimus Suvorov, currently working up before joining the Pacific Fleet later this year. A further four boats are currently under construction, with the final aim being a total of fourteen boats, likely split 50-50 between the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

Whatever scenarios people are contemplating with regards to nuclear weapons, it would be foolish not to assume that these ballistic missile submarines will be operational and able to respond to any launch order issued by the Kremlin, whatever the state of the land-based nuclear forces may be.

Absolutely, any sort of 'small' nuclear weapon used by Russia, would bring swift and immediate response from EU states / NATO and other allies. Conventional forces on the ground and in the air to demolish what remains of the Russian military in Ukraine. The scenarios and battle plans are surely in hand after two months to intervene at short notice.

I think the whackjobs on state TV discussing dropping nuclear weapons is actually a good sign. It means they know they are losing the war in Ukraine and the nuclear option is pretty much all they have to fall back on. In other words, they know the game is up and that the "special operation" may well fail. All the nuclear stuff is just hot air and a desperate attempt at deflection.