Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[PeroK]

Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?

We can't be ruled by our fears to the extent that we become impassive to the destruction of the free world. If there's nothing in this world that you think is worth fighting for, then what is your world worth?

 

[russ_watters]

Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.

Your premise starts with an assumption that nuclear war isn't just possible, but likely. Otherwise, no, it's not less risk.

 

[bob012345]

Probably not, but:

• I think it's very unlikely even in the event of NATO entry into the war.
• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

I agree. Unless the West is foolish enough to attack Mother Russia directly, a wider war will likely remain conventional.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. Unless the West is foolish enough to attack Mother Russia directly, a wider war will likely remain conventional.

Russia has in fact come right out and said just that. To me it was practically an invitation (I mentioned this before). Better to lose to the US and keep us as an enemy/peer than to lose to Ukraine and have no enemy-peers.

To me the stakes are higher for Putin if we remain on the sidelines than if we enter.

 

[phinds]

When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.

I admire your optimism but not your grasp of reality. Humankind will keep searching for bigger and better weapons until/unless full peace and prosperity takes over everywhere and I'm not even sure about then.

 

[bob012345]

I don't think we need to be too concerned about nuclear war. The West has a secret weapon. A Fifth Column in Russia. It's the tens of millions of angry Babushka's in the empty grocery stores due to sanctions. They will topple Putin.

 

[bob012345]

When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.

I admire your optimism but not your grasp on reality. Humankind will keep searching for bigger and better weapons until/unless full peace and prosperity takes over everywhere and I'm not even sure about then.

I don't think my statement was very optimistic as it presumed a collapse and rebuilding of civilization. But I agree Humanity will never achieve a state of permanent peace and prosperity.

 

[russ_watters]

• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

Actually, let me expand on or even walk back that one. World War II was fought on two continents plus Oceania and involved all of the major world powers fighting as peers against each other. Russia has proven with this war that it is not a major world power. While I'm sure everybody recognizes that only the United States is a truly global power at this point I think most people believed and expected that Russia was still a major regional power perhaps on par with the larger European countries like Germany France and the UK. Instead Russia has proven that it is a second-tier regional power. That would make a war against NATO a small Regional War not a World War. It would be no more of a World War than the first Gulf War was. I don't want this to become an argument over definitions - what matters here is the comparisons between other wars. If calling it a World War means we picture it being as destructive as World War I or World War II then that really isn't an accurate comparison or label.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't want to oppose you, but let me add some points. I would not underestimate China as a world power. If a local conflict becomes a nuclear conflict then it isn't local anymore. WW I and WW II both started locally. And who would make any predictions about the other unsolved conflicts (Pakistan and India, China and Taiwan, Russia and Japan, Israel and Iran) and other autocrats (North Korea)? There is a lot of potential for outbreaks besides Russia. And WW I and WW II weren't really global wars. There was no fighting in the Americas, Australia, Antarctica, and most parts of Africa. They were Eurasian wars with others participating. So, even if a conflict between NATO and Russia could be contained, there are good chances it won't stay that way.

 

[anorlunda]

That's not logic that I can follow. Sorry.

I don't think I can express it better than this.

The hellish thing about nuclear strategy is that only extremes are possible, no nuances, no middle roads are available. So between the USA and Russia, our choices are all-out nuclear war, or no war at all.

You argued that it was time for us to fight. I presume you mean a limited war between NATO and Russia. I don't believe that it is possible to guarantee that a war will remain limited. Where end-of-the-world is in question, estimates of likelihood are not sufficient. All out war or no war at all are our choices. That's my logic.

Of course, I prefer no war at all. I also believe that Biden and all the leaders of NATO countries have the same position as I do. No escalation that might trigger WWIII.

 

[gmax137]

Before we even get to the nuclear holocaust phase: Anyone done a survey of the 18 to 20 year olds? Are they ready to go die? Are you ready to send your sons & daughters? How about the draft, ready to start that up again?

We here in the civilized West ought to be smart enough to deal with a tyrant like Putin without killing our kids.

 

[geordief]

^t

I don't think I can express it better than this.

You argued that it was time for us to fight. I presume you mean a limited war between NATO and Russia. I don't believe that it is possible to guarantee that a war will remain limited. Where end-of-the-world is in question, estimates of likelihood are not sufficient. All out war or no war at all are our choices. That's my logic.

Of course, I prefer no war at all. I also believe that Biden and all the leaders of NATO countries have the same position as I do. No escalation that might trigger WWIII.

I think someone in this thread mentioned a "preemptive (nuclear presumably) strike"

We must appreciate that no such possibility exists.

It is indeed possible for one side to (premptively) annihilate the other but it is not possible for that side to escape annihilation itself from hidden missiles that are primed to be delivered even after the nation that owned them has been completely destroyed.

So let us hear no more of "preemptive strikes" as a way to navigate our way out of this conflict

As I suspect Zelensky knows and has intimated some of Ukraine will be lost unless Russia can be forced to leave its territory.

If this conflict risks dragging out over years such a concession may well be formalized in my opinion.

And the reason for this is that Russia is a nuclear power.It may well play this to its advantage but it will be apparent in due course that it will have been a Pyrrhic victory and will force the world to readress the problem of nuclear proliferation more seriously (if there remains a world to address it)

 

[hutchphd]

We are not allowed to destroy a 100k years of human effort because we are offended by Putin and his apologists (And I do feel deeply offended) What needs to come out of this horror is a world where this will be less likely to happen next time. That is the best we can hope for, and a small victory. We are a very young advanced ( i.e. one capable of self-annihilation) civilization. /

 

[Office_Shredder]

And WW I and WW II weren't really global wars. There was no fighting in the Americas, Australia, Antarctica, and most parts of Africa.

This feels disingenuous to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939

Like, 75% of the world's population lived in a country that was directly involved in the war. If that's not a world war I don't know what is.

Also, Japan invaded Alaska.

 

[BillTre]

Also, Japan invaded Alaska.

They also dropped some balloon bombs on Oregon!
I think a German battleship was followed to Argentina or somewhere like that.

 

[Office_Shredder]

They also dropped some balloon bombs on Oregon!
I think a German battleship was followed to Argentina or somewhere like that.

6,000 people died. I don't think you realize this was a small, but serious, front of the war. About as many people died on the Aleutian Island campaign as Pearl Harbor + Midway combined.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Also, Japan invaded Alaska.

The very first naval battle of WW2, the Battle of the River Plate, was fought in South America.

 

[Astronuc]

I think a German battleship was followed to Argentina or somewhere like that.

The heavy/battle cruiser (or pocket battlehip) Graf Spee was blocked in Argentina by British warships, Exeter, Achilles and Ajax. The crew scuttled rather than turn the ship over to the British Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

"Admiral Graf Spee inflicted heavy damage on the British ships, but she too was damaged, and was forced to put into port at Montevideo, Uruguay."

Australia

The Japanese bombed Darwin and were contemplating invading Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin

However, Japanese losses in the Coral Sea and more importantly, the significant loss of 4 carriers in the Battle of Midway, changed the course of the war, and from then on Japan began retreating from the Pacific Theatre.

Before we even get to the nuclear holocaust phase: Anyone done a survey of the 18 to 20 year olds? Are they ready to go die? Are you ready to send your sons & daughters? How about the draft, ready to start that up again?

We here in the civilized West ought to be smart enough to deal with a tyrant like Putin without killing our kids.

I would go before I would let my son go.

 

[strangerep]

Probably not, but:

• I think it's very unlikely even in the event of NATO entry into the war.
• What is by definition WWIII likely wouldn't be a big deal if it remained non-nuclear.

If you were losing a conventional war, but you still have thousands of nukes, would you really leave them unused? I don't think so. Psychotic dictators think nothing of taking their whole nation down with them, i.e., blaming everyone else in their country for the war failures.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If you were losing a conventional war, but you still have thousands of nukes, would you really leave them unused? I don't think so. Psychotic dictators think nothing of taking their whole nation down with them, i.e., blaming everyone else in their country for the war failures.

Depends on your definition of losing. The us lost Vietnam. It lost Afghanistan. It got kicked out of North Korea. None of those involved anyone getting nuked.

As long as there are ground rules on what the participants are comfortable with without nuking each other, there shouldn't be a problem. I think the us and China could have a full blown conflict over Taiwan without nuking each other - I would rather not find out, but it should be feasible.

 

[strangerep]

Depends on your definition of losing. The us lost Vietnam. It lost Afghanistan. It got kicked out of North Korea. None of those involved anyone getting nuked.

None of those are what I meant. The US itself was not being invaded. Can you imagine a future USA in danger of losing to an invasion by a future China and saying "ooh, no,... we mustn't use our nukes..."

 

[russ_watters]

If you were losing a conventional war, but you still have thousands of nukes, would you really leave them unused? I don't think so.

None of those are what I meant. The US itself was not being invaded.

Russia isn't going to be invaded here either. That's the hard line they told us not to cross and we wouldn't cross.

 

[strangerep]

Russia isn't going to be invaded here either. That's the hard line they told us not to cross and we wouldn't cross.

...and thus the cycle repeats. Retreat, re-arm, regroup,... re-focus onto eastern Ukraine.

Was it wrong for me to cheer so sincerely when that fuel depot inside Russia's borders got hit?

 

[russ_watters]

...and thus the cycle repeats. Retreat, re-arm, regroup,... re-focus onto eastern Ukraine.

What are you talking about? We drive Russia out of Ukraine and bring Ukraine into NATO and it's over.

Was it wrong for me to cheer so sincerely when that fuel depot inside Russia's borders got hit?

No, it wasn't. I did too. What's your point?

 

[strangerep]

We drive Russia out of Ukraine and bring Ukraine into NATO and it's over.

I hope you're right. I really do.

 

[256bits]

This isn't a physical limitation, it's mostly because of bureaucratic slowness and not willing to spend too much money planning/parallelizng work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Azul_LNG

Took 4 years from contract signed to actual production open, and this was building the full port from scratch, including ecological assessment and remedy. If, say, Russia cut off gas imports today and half of Germany was going to freeze to death next winter, I bet something could be built in the next six months to help with the situation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badak_NGL
3 years start to finish.

From initial conception to final product most likely took way more than the actual construction phase.
These ports for LNG are not simple off the shelf from the hardware store.
For Germany itself, does it have available port space, and pipeline access.
If not who is going to be squeezed out and take it on the chin for King and country.
Bureaucratic slowness, I agree, but all dominos have to remain upright and that is their job.

 

[Jarvis323]

How about we just invite Russia to join NATO?

 

[russ_watters]

Before we even get to the nuclear holocaust phase: Anyone done a survey of the 18 to 20 year olds? Are they ready to go die? Are you ready to send your sons & daughters? How about the draft, ready to start that up again?

Given how poorly Russia is faring in Ukraine, I don't see how what you describe is anywhere close to the realm of possibility and more to the point, nobody is suggesting it. There's a couple of options:

1. An air-only war. For example in Yugoslavia 1999 NATO flew 38,000 sorties with no combat deaths (two deaths due to a helicopter crash).
2. A ground war to expel Russia a la 1991 Gulf War. This did not involve a draft, instead using the all volunteer military. For that war, there were 292 killed, about half of which were combat deaths. Iraq's military in 1991 was substantially superior to what Russia has demonstrated in Ukraine. I rather suspect American servicemembers would be more motivated to expel Russia from Ukraine than they were to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

We here in the civilized West ought to be smart enough to deal with a tyrant like Putin without killing our kids.

How's that going so far? Are we going to defeat Putin with a science Olympiad or something? I can't fathom what "smart enough" means here.

 

[vela]

We drive Russia out of Ukraine and bring Ukraine into NATO and it's over.

I would think bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the trigger that causes Putin to decide to use nukes.

 

[russ_watters]

I would think bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the trigger that causes Putin to decide to use nukes.

What makes you think that? I feel like people who believe odds are good that Putin might use nukes believe he's either crazy or stupid, prone to rash decisions, and a liar where it matters. He's told us the criteria:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-peskov-putin-nuclear-weapons-biden-1692753

Peskov told PBS "no one is thinking about [...] using a nuclear weapon," and that the Ukrainian conflict has "nothing to do with" any threat to Russia's existence. The comments come a week after on CNN he repeatedly refused to rule out that Russia would consider nuclear force against an "existential threat."

If that wasn't the criteria, why wouldn't he tell us? Deterrence only works if you tell your enemy the circumstances under which you would use the nukes.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he isn't the cold, cunning, calculating KGB agent he appears to be.

 

[russ_watters]

How about we just invite Russia to join NATO?

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

 

[bob012345]

I would think bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the trigger that causes Putin to decide to use nukes.

Putin is not suicidal. I doubt very much he would end Russia over Ukraine.

 

[Office_Shredder]

From initial conception to final product most likely took way more than the actual construction phase.
These ports for LNG are not simple off the shelf from the hardware store.

This is not right. The second one they started construction on two years after discovering natural gas there, and it was one of the first LNG refineries in the world.

For Germany itself, does it have available port space, and pipeline access.
If not who is going to be squeezed out and take it on the chin for King and country.
Bureaucratic slowness, I agree, but all dominos have to remain upright and that is their job.

It's only necessary bureaucracy if you care about making sure all the dominos stay up. If Russia today said haha we're cutting it all off good luck next winter, and Germany thought they were literally going to have millions of deaths, then yes, hard decisions have to be made, but deciding it's too hard to change anything in the next six months is a decision in itself.

 

[bob012345]

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

 

[artis]

I really do feel the WW3 rhetoric is just going in circles with no end.
I myself believe that the conflict should be and can be contained within Ukraine by making the right decisions and doing so fast as we are already late on everything.
It wasn't obvious from the beginning but it is obvious now that Russian conscripts are really not in a mood to fight over Ukraine and that is an advantage we can and should use.
Just provide Ukraine weapons , I don't even think NATO involvement is needed. Ukrainians learn fast give them good weapons and as things are currently it seems they would be able to push Russia out.

Why we have to bring MAD and nukes and all that mayhem into this all the time?
If this stays in Ukraine I don't see any nukes, apart from Putin enjoying his daily threats of course.

One thing is true, nuclear weapons do change the force balance. Just look at North Korea, given their rhetoric the US would have made a regime change there 10 times over by now and yet they haven't and I think it's not because Kim is so untouchable or hard to find, I think it's because they have the A bomb and an ICBM to deliver it. Their close proximity to China might also be a factor.

 

[vela]

What makes you think that? I feel like people who believe odds are good that Putin might use nukes believe he's either crazy or stupid, prone to rash decisions, and a liar where it matters. He's told us the criteria:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-peskov-putin-nuclear-weapons-biden-1692753

If that wasn't the criteria, why wouldn't he tell us? Deterrence only works if you tell your enemy the circumstances under which you would use the nukes.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he isn't the cold, cunning, calculating KGB agent he appears to be.

It could very well be true that right now, no one in Russia is seriously contemplating using nuclear weapons, but you're not talking about now. You're talking about the future, and Russia may evaluate things differently if they're not only pushed out of Ukraine but left in an even worse position of having the country join NATO.

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

 

[Jarvis323]

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

For me it's more like a thought experiment. What would that mean? Is there no obligation for other NATO countries to do anything if one NATO country attacks another? Would there be a trial to determine who started it, and then the aggressor would be kicked out? And once the aggressor is kicked out, would the other NATO countries be obligated to attack the aggressor if they didn't cease afterwards?

Would it give rest to worries that Russians might have over having neighbors in NATO when they aren't?

 

[artis]

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

Ukraine won't be accepted into NATO now. Putin knows this.
NATO cannot accept a country just like flipping a switch, there is a long process that makes sure the potential candidate country is safe for NATO and won't spill over their military secrets and is able to host troops etc.
We went through a long process before we joined, had to get stuff ready.
In the shape Ukraine is now I can't see the possibility of membership.
If not for anything else then for the fact that Ukraine has parts of it's territory contested and occupied (Crimea etc)

 

[Jarvis323]

I don't think it would be surprising if Russia used a nuclear weapon on a non-nuclear, non-NATO country, because there is no expectation of returned fire. I doubt they would use one on Ukraine, because it would be indefensible senseless violence that couldn't easily be explained by a propaganda machine, and that would have extreme consequences.

I am on board with Ukraine, and others, immediately joining NATO, without much discussion and all at once. I don't think Russia would respond with nuclear war, and it would be a sensible consequence, one that Russia should have expected and can be understood to have brought on itself. It would be a logical response in accordance with rules and expectations that have been established. And it would help pressure nations to take seriously international rules based agreements in the future.

Otherwise, efforts intended to keep the peace in the future will be weakened, and security will be in serious jeopardy again later as a result.

 

[russ_watters]

For me it's more like a thought experiment. What would that mean? Is there no obligation for other NATO countries to do anything if one NATO country attacks another? Would there be a trial to determine who started it, and then the aggressor would be kicked out? And once the aggressor is kicked out, would the other NATO countries be obligated to attack the aggressor if they didn't cease afterwards?

Would it give rest to worries that Russians might have over having neighbors in NATO when they aren't?

Sorry, that's too bizarre for me to sort out.

 

[artis]

 

[russ_watters]

It could very well be true that right now, no one in Russia is seriously contemplating using nuclear weapons, but you're not talking about now. You're talking about the future, and Russia may evaluate things differently if they're not only pushed out of Ukraine but left in an even worse position of having the country join NATO.

The rules of engagement are pre-thought out for the exact purpose of not having to re-think them when the situation changes. That's what the quote was talking about; future scenarios.

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically.

Well, neither of us are in his head so you could be right, but what you describe is not what "existential threat" means, so it requires Putin to be crazy/stupid/impulsive. IMO, he understands what the term means and he understands what NATO is. NATO in Ukraine is two steps short of an existential threat. It's neither an invasion or even a threat of invasion.

He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

He also didn't threaten a pre-emptive nuclear strike if he didn't get it.

 

[artis]

Here is a Ukrainian designed and Belorussian made ATGM being put to use, like the one from my previous post shooting down the low hoovering Russia helicopter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skif_(ATGM)



"Buratino" the nickname is said to be given to a Russian TOS-1 thermobaric weapon system.
Also the character in Russian literature based on the Pinocchio character
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buratino

 

[artis]

One can check out live map of UA where people constantly update certain events of war.
https://liveuamap.com/

 

[artis]

My neighbors Estonians have given Ukraine sizeable military aid
https://estonianworld.com/security/blog-russia-ukraine-crisis-a-view-from-estonia/

The military, medical and technical aid to Ukraine that is being arranged in cooperation of Estonia’s Centre for Defence Investment and the Estonian Defence Forces has diversified in the last weeks. By today, Estonia has sent to Ukraine eighty different types of military equipment – ammo, defence equipment and modern military technology, in the amount of over €220 million.

My country have also sent around 200 million Eur worth of military equipment.
The not so good part is that those 200 million are a sizeable portion of our total military budget.Now there is a different problem mounting, Ukraine is a sinkhole of military equipment and Europe, especially eastern part is draining of that equipment, volunteers are buying all they can and sending to Ukraine so much so hunting stores are sold out.
The way I see it NATO but more so EU needs to not just give to Ukraine but also step up giving to existing members that border with Russia.
We cannot compromise our own security while helping Ukraine.

The situation is not made better by the fact the EU doesn't import Russian steel anymore, this is clogging up the supply chain and steel prices are sky high now, scrap prices are also up. Our local military manufacturers are taking a hit in terms of delays and prices due to this.
I wonder whether Sweden can ramp up it's metal export

 

[artis]

A video from the Russian side, apparently this is in Mariupol ,

 

[PeroK]

You argued that it was time for us to fight. I presume you mean a limited war between NATO and Russia. I don't believe that it is possible to guarantee that a war will remain limited. Where end-of-the-world is in question, estimates of likelihood are not sufficient. All out war or no war at all are our choices. That's my logic.

Of course, I prefer no war at all. I also believe that Biden and all the leaders of NATO countries have the same position as I do. No escalation that might trigger WWIII.

Okay, by that logic the best way to avoid WWIII is to form an alliance with Russia. Stop supplying arms to Ukraine and have a NATO-Russia pact.

 

[artis]

This is really interesting, the very man himself Igor Girkin aka "Strelkov" is sh!t talking the Russian army. The very former KGB agent now turned guerilla warfare commander fighting in Donbas since 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin
But hear him out, I think his assessment is very accurate, both on how little progress was made, how it compares to the Soviet-Finnish war in 1940 and how spring and leaves will change situation.
An assessment so accurate it wouldn't fly in Moscow state TV.

 

[PeroK]

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

Someone who disgrees with you is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who proposed to run against Putin for president in 2003 and served 10 years in jail as a result. He believes that force is the only thing Putin understands or responds to and that appeasement just encourages him. Now, I'm not saying that Khodorkovsky is correct - I simply do not know - but it does mean that your proposed policy of appeasement could be the one that leads to WWIII.

Not least because Poland will be next and they are in NATO. At that point you and @anorlunda will have to decide whether to throw Poland out of NATO or risk WWIII. If you don't want to risk WWIII over Ukraine, why would you risk it over Poland?

I understand that you and @anorlunda are convinced that any attempt to oppose Putin militarily will lead to WWIII. But, you may in fact be dead wrong. By not standing up to Putin you may be encouraging him that all of Europe could be his. And that will lead to WWIII.

There's an interview with Khodorkovsky here.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/04/03/putin-insane-ex-russian-oligarch-ukraine-gps-vpx.cnn

 

[artis]

For those that are interested I suggest see this twitter feed and scroll down past the videos, where the man explains in writing about the Soviet army and their tactics and how this "Z operation" might have been planned after similar ones done by the USSR in the past , like in 1968 Prague, only worse off and less prepared etc.
Some really good points and possible reasons for why this is failing.
If eventually such claims turn out to be correct, the relentless talking about WW3 and which inaction will lead to which country being nuked might all be useless fear mongering as it might just end as a simple Russian defeat in Ukraine.