Why does the US choose to fight wars this way?

Post Reply New Topic

of course. Mutually assured destruction. For every Russian nuke there's ten Western nukes, aimed at them.
That would mean suicide for Russia if they used nukes. But it would also end human life.
That was the situation the world lived in between 1960 and 1990.

Mutually assured destruction however made sure Nato and the So iet union never actually went to all out war against each other, so while an awful situation, it also kept peace, somewhat

The entire world agreed, pretty much. United Nations, NATO etc - it's not just restrictions placed on how the USA is able to wage war. There are international/global agreements in place to conduct war in a more civilized way vs. a total free for all where there are no consequences for using horrific chemical weapons on children and so on. Sure, some militaries still do atrocious things - but then they're accused of/charged with war crimes and may face penalties which could be jail time or sanctions or ___ who knows what depending on the circumstances.

They have a plan for if nuclear war breaks out, but it's not good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_as ... estruction

Both the US and Soviets (later Russia) have tried at times to develop weapons systems that would disrupt that outcome but so far neither side has actually succeeded and most of the weapons systems that were developed with that goal never reached operation status due to issues (like the America SDI).

But that's not a real plan, that is more like shooting someone after you have been shot and are trying to get off one last shot before you die. Do they have any plan to take out the shooter before allowing themselves to be shot in the first place?

No, neither of them has succeeded at developing a solution of that sort since the situation began. Such a solution would potentially trigger the other side to shoot first before it was put in place anyways.

Oh okay I see. So I guess there is no beating Russia then and if Putin wants to start the Soviet Union all over again and after most likely taking Ukraine, he can just reclaim back other countries as well, through take over, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop him out of fear of nuclear retaliation?

Or if not more countries, will we just have to accept the fact that the Ukraine will just likely have to become part of Russia again?

We have to be prepared for the potential scale of such a conflict.

The NATO bloc would probably risk it over a member state. I don't believe they'll risk it over a non-member state. They might be more willing to risk if it doesn't appear that Putin intends on stopping in Ukraine, but Putin might not have enough of a military after he's done in Ukraine to make that a viable goal anyways.

Ukraine might actually beat Russia. It's not guaranteed but it's also not impossible. Even if Russia takes Ukraine that doesn't mean they'll manage to hold it. It's pretty much impossible to occupy territory if literally everyone is hostile.

Not escalating things might be preferable because Russia's oligarchs aren't going to like how Putin's war has messed up their lives of luxury and that might be his undoing in this story.

Oh okay but I didn't think Ukraine had a chance against a nuclear power without a lot of help from others though, not just funding but a lot of actual combat help.

But also, as for Putins own people not liking him as a result, it's very rare that people are willing to overthrow their own leader, just because they do not like him though.

Rare, but not impossible - it could happen if the sanctions hurt ordinary Russians badly enough.

Also, we don't need the majority of Russians to act.. nor a very large minority. Really, all we need is One Russian that's close enough to putin that dislikes him and his ways and this war enough to put an end to it all.

One would think it wouldn't be possible but there's a lot of factors to consider.

Ukrainians are fighting to defend their homes; Russians are the aggressor against a nation they often express kinship with given how intertwined the two peoples histories are. High morale vs. low morale.

Russia has made mistakes in how they've understood the situation; for example they brought parade uniforms with them, clearly not anticipating how things would go. They have long supply routes and they don't have very sophisticated logistics systems so they're slow to change what actually gets delivered vs. what they need. Ukraine is fighting at home with relatively short supply routes.

Ukraine's military right now is largely focused around light infantry, they haven't made much use of their own armour and obviously won't match the Russian forces in that regard but they're very well-equipped with RPGs, various anti-tank systems (AT-4, NLAW, Javelin) and MANPADS (man portable air defence systems, like the Stinger). These are significant force multipliers that allow a light infantry focused force to counter more sophisticated things they may face. They're largely focusing attacks on fuel and supply trucks as well, rather than directly trying to fight tanks. Why fight them? They're just as useless with no fuel as if you blow them up. A force of that nature operating in an urban environment can be incredibly difficult for a heavily mechanized force to effectively address.

Russia will likely not be able to sustain a campaign as the costs ramp up meanwhile the Ukrainians will force them to absorb those costs as long as attempts at occupation last. At some point something structural (either economic or social) in Russia will break under the stress if they refuse to withdraw because the costs, the internal pressures and the external pressures combined will make someone act.

Putin isn't ever going to be up for election against someone who can promise to end the war, so that sort of solution doesn't exist. At some point he can choose to be the guy who ends it, although that might have political costs at home or something will break out from under him and that crisis will end it.

Oh okay, I thought Putin was just so sociopathic that he was not going to break at all no matter what he is faced with, but perhaps I am overestimating him too much.

And I thought that Russia had all this same military equipment the Ukraine had. Could the Ukraine fight back dirty as well, such as taking captured Russians hostage and use them as bargaining chips perhaps? But also, how long till Putin's next election, if the war can afford to wait for that?

How have those sanctions on Cuba, Iran and North Korea worked out?

Putin's about to realize how much his buddies embezzled from his army and how much of a paper tiger he's always been. That might trigger your One Russian scenario, but that guy's probably gonna be another Putin. I agree there's a serious likelihood of that happening and in the short-term it will be good for Ukraine but I wouldn't count on it resolving the whole matter of how Russia relates to the rest of the world in the long-term.

Widespread antiwar protests leading to a change of course would likely lead to a preferable outcome compared to the biggest mobster getting killed and the underbosses fighting it out.

Well I guess whether or not sanctions will actually work on Putin or whether Putin needs to actually be killed to be beaten, will determine whether or not the pen is actually mightier than the sword?

I don't mean Putin will break though, I mean Russia will break. The same way it broke in 1991, or 1917, or 1905... A more free society has release mechanisms for those sorts of pressures but a more autocratic society doesn't and that allows for the appearance of change. Putin pretty much needs to back down while still being able to claim victory in order to not hold all the blame and lose legitimacy.

For the most part Russia and Ukraine have similar military equipment, except Russia's is usually upgraded and they have more of it. Ukraine has Turkish drones and of western missiles though.

Putin doesn't face fair elections, I said the opposite of how you might have read it.

I don't think it'll be one or the other, it'll be death by a thousand cuts where a bunch of smaller factors combine to that eventual outcome.

I'm also not really expecting it to be a happy ending, even in a best case scenario.

Oh okay I read it as if you meant he might not be re-elected as a result of this, I apologize if I read it wrong.

So the point of the sanctions then, is to motivate the Russian people into overthrowing Putin then? Is that really an effective way to win a war though, instead of fighting the nation yourselves, you just manipulate the nation's people into overthrowing their leader? It seems that might not be as effective or if you can even motivate them enough to do that.