R.O.E's in Ukraine

would a so called 'over the horizon' or stand off weapon be considered US involvement, i mean Russia is using nuke capable missiles on cities

and honestly we can use bombs or missiles they cant trace back to the US or at least prove without a doubt it was a US strike.

also back in cold war one we would do border skirting ISR, we HAVE to have eyes on the ground other than satellites


this whole situation seems very very murky

we are equipping them with weapons they use to kill Russians but that isn't called US involvement but if we fire cruise missiles or fly ISR drones over it is a step too far.


if we are training and equipping the Ukrainians and for sure giving them intel what is a few cruise missiles between old friends


i would say the drones and weapons we are giving the Ukrainians is killing far far more Russians and have scared Russians out of their armor during the night time to camp in the woods would be more of an issue than surgical strikes.

Russia has no entered their second afghan war, there are insurgents in Ukraine have real military experience and tactical training with effective AT missiles and real time ISR and drone coverage

this isn't some afghans with a few stingers, i find the lines drawn to be perplexing and very murky.

if some of the first tier forces were made civilians and all decided to go over to the Ukraine to help with the fighters an easy work around.

a reply to: noscopebacon
Biden can't afford to have his approval ratings to drop any lower, and with much of the US against WWIII they have to convince us bombing Russia is the right thing to do. Once the polls show enough US citizens demanding we get involved the missiles will fly.

a reply to: noscopebacon

Russia has been using Iskanders for a few years now against Georgia and in Syria. Those are also nuclear capable. I wouldn't worry about that aspect. Once it comes to one having a nuclear warhead it'll be beyond the point of return anyway.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

its more if they are going to moan about US missiles cruise or otherwise getting used why use a nuclear capable weapon when others suffice, why cant we use missiles but they can.

i know the Iskandar can have a none nuclear EMP warhead so that makes since at least in a metropolitan area and SEAD roles


this is ether going hot or not, no way to avoid that now and i think we should just do it if we are going to do it and not as a retaliation

a reply to: noscopebacon

i mean Russia is using nuke capable missiles on cities

"Capable" is the key word there .
Even some F-14s and F-15s are nuclear capable.
The US even had a "cannon" that was designed to be nuclear "capable"
Shame on you .
You reading those glorified headlines , huh ?

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Russia has been using Iskanders for a few years now against Georgia

When ?
Oops , you meant the other Georgia.
Carry on .

a reply to: Gothmog

it just seems kind of contrived thats all


war is war

a bomb is a bomb

dead is dead

so i find it funny when certain weapons are banned or frowned apon, as crazy as it sounds the best thing to happen is for this to go nuclear on the tactical scale and bring everyone to the tables.

i feel like we are speeding towards a wall at 100mph with cut brake lines and people are worried about seat belts.

take something like HPM's and you can easily track how that goes real dark metaphorically and militarily imagine what else there is out there the public has no idea of.

i have seen with my own eyes a man portable and deployable what i can only call an explosively formed emp's, very small.



you cant shoot someone with a hollow point but you can slam a hypersonic body into them and its okay??


seems silly

a reply to: noscopebacon

as crazy as it sounds the best thing to happen is for this to go nuclear on the tactical scale and bring everyone to the tables.

The situation WOULD NOT remain tactical .

a reply to: Gothmog

i bet it would.

maybe some of eastern Europe will get hit but the would will force peace talks


could get that NWO they all talk about

a reply to: noscopebacon

maybe some of eastern Europe will get hit but the would will force peace talks

See , now you have backed off your original statement .
If any tactical nuke is used anywhere in the world, it gets ugly within 30 minutes .

a reply to: Gothmog

no i think a small tactical war that might spill into Poland is quite doable and could be pulled back from

i think Putin is very worried about who is around him, i wonder how many commanders would launch their BIG ICBM's.

i think even US forces would not launch all our missiles i think people will freeze or just lose it or refuse orders to do it

i think if less than total 5 nukes or less used by both sides and we can still talk. also no major Russian and NATO bases could be hit, it would all have to be support and clear military targets

limited nuclear war is war gamed all the time, and is and continues to be deemed winnable so who knows

a reply to: noscopebacon

We've been using Tomahawks for years in multiple conflicts. Also nuclear capable.

a reply to: Gothmog

If I could volunteer any one State to be "Nuclear Whipping Boy" it would be a coin toss between Ohio and Georgia.

I think You got it pretty much right. Putin could launch a tactical nuke in Ukraine and US more than likely would not engage, still to high risk for broader conflict..Putin has broken off the tip of a spear in Ukraine, but its lodged in there, and Ukraine is bleeding out. Putin has a lot more 'spears' he could break off in people. He has the world by the toes and could feasibly slog this out indefinitely without having to do anything more escalatory.a reply to: noscopebacon

originally posted by: noscopebacon
would a so called 'over the horizon' or stand off weapon be considered US involvement, i mean Russia is using nuke capable missiles on cities

and honestly we can use bombs or missiles they cant trace back to the US or at least prove without a doubt it was a US strike.

Russia has pretty advanced surveillance capabilities. They would know if an attack was launched from the West at their forces in Ukraine.

As for whether Russia could use a tactical nuclear weapon, honestly, I think they could. None of the other nuclear powers would launch a strategic nuclear strike in response to a non-allied nation being nuked. Especially with the current dovish leaders we have. MAD only works if the other side believes you'd do it. I seriously doubt Putin believes Biden or Macron would nuke him. We have lost credible deterrence, and the world is a much more dangerous place because of it.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

cant tell if your joking about Georgia

but star for classic Simpsons

a reply to: face23785

i think Russia has advanced capabilities for sure, but nothing like the US has.

or defense industry has just grown and grown and grown where as Russia had a decade maybe more of stagnation.

its one thing to figure something out on paper but it is another building, testing, integrating and than flying your platform.

they are likely where we were in the 90's but that is just me guessing off what i have seen who knows what's really out there you know.

for all we know the tic tac's are Russian

a reply to: noscopebacon

I never joke about my disdain for the States of Ohio and Georgia.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

watch an interesting video from VoT

questioning the state of Russia's nuclear assets, like if they would even work.