NTP2
Well-Known Member
I liked it.
Russian Plans, Possibly for War With Nato, in the Years Ahead
- Thread starter Dotini
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
France has already made a statement that, as the only member of the EU with nukes, they are paying close attention.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
I believe the UK has them, they aren’t part of the EU but they might team up with France.
dr wogz
Fly caster
I scratched my head for a few seconds when I read it until I realized that, yes, the UK is no longer in the EU and there may have been some intent to point that out.
In crystal clear terms, US Sec Def Lloyd Austin has warned Eastern European Nato nations to prepare for war with Russia. It would seem Ukraine morale has dipped badly with the chaotic retreat from Avdiivka - they had no prepared trenches or fortifications to fall back to. Slaughter from above on the battlefield. There is acrimony and blame among their top brass, and I expect more heads to fall, maybe even at the very top.
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-will-drawn-war-russia-if-ukraine-loses-lloyd-austin-1874913
Snippet:
Ukraine has been struggling on the battlefield in recent weeks while dealing with a shortage of ammunition and equipment that could potentially be remedied with more aid. Russian victories over the past two weeks include taking the Dontesk city of Avdiivka on February 17 and three additional settlements close to the city earlier this week.
Earlier during the House hearing on Thursday, Austin said that the U.S. failure to secure more Ukraine aid has sent an unfavorable signal to the world and hindered the Ukrainian military's confidence and sense of purpose.
"Our allies are troubled by the message that we're sending," Austin said. "Certainly, it has impacted the morale of the Ukrainian troops. If we continue down this path, it will be a gift to Putin, and we certainly don't want that to happen."
"As others look at this, they will question whether or not we are a dependable ally or dependable partner," he added. "And that's very troubling for us as well."
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is pictured on Thursday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. Austin asserted during the hearing that NATO would be hurtled into war with Russia if Moscow succeeds in defeating Ukraine.
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-will-drawn-war-russia-if-ukraine-loses-lloyd-austin-1874913
Snippet:
Ukraine has been struggling on the battlefield in recent weeks while dealing with a shortage of ammunition and equipment that could potentially be remedied with more aid. Russian victories over the past two weeks include taking the Dontesk city of Avdiivka on February 17 and three additional settlements close to the city earlier this week.
Earlier during the House hearing on Thursday, Austin said that the U.S. failure to secure more Ukraine aid has sent an unfavorable signal to the world and hindered the Ukrainian military's confidence and sense of purpose.
"Our allies are troubled by the message that we're sending," Austin said. "Certainly, it has impacted the morale of the Ukrainian troops. If we continue down this path, it will be a gift to Putin, and we certainly don't want that to happen."
"As others look at this, they will question whether or not we are a dependable ally or dependable partner," he added. "And that's very troubling for us as well."
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is pictured on Thursday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. Austin asserted during the hearing that NATO would be hurtled into war with Russia if Moscow succeeds in defeating Ukraine.
Exactly like Austin said. If the Government won't aid Ukraine. Then our partners and allies will no longer trust the US. The current state of the Government is making the US look foolish and untrustworthy. I'm sure China is watching what we are doing for Ukraine. If the Government throws Ukraine under the bus now. China might think the US won't support Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or the Philippines. If Putin wins the World will only get more dangerous.
At risk of sounding like a stuck record, the EU is a trade area not a military organisation. Of the 45 European nations 27 are in the EU and 29 are in NATO.
Please stop referring Europe as if it is a nation.
To answer your question, within the European nations only the UK and France have nuclear capability, and that capability us dwarfed by Russia, even if only a few of their warheads work.
Got it. Thanks for your advice.
Next question, is there anything more the UK can do to help Ukraine?
Curious news this week. In the middle of a war with Ukraine, Russia has basically announced their intent to, eventually, invade Moldova. This, despite not currently having the landing craft, naval support, or land bridge necessary to do so. I would think that this would give Moldovan politicians every reason to offer any, and every kind of support possible to Ukraine. Time will tell.
I think Russia is playing politics here. Moldova sits on Ukraine's SW border. The Eastern region (Transnistra) is an unrecognised breakaway republic with a small Russian 'peacekeeping' force in situ. My guess is that Russia is thawing the internal frozen conflict between Transnistra and Moldova to (a) try to distract Ukraine and (b) keep the Moldovan government in a state of conflict so they can't apply to NATO. Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Europe so I don't think they have much to offer Ukraine at this point.
This isn’t correct and not the primary use of tritium in modern bomb design. The main use for tritium is in the creation of boosted fission primarys in thermonuclear weapons.
All modern strategic weapons are of a two stage design. The primary is a hollow pit of plutonium which is imploded. The primary fission reaction then heats up a secondary made of a uranium core and lithium deuteride fuel. The lithium deuteride is what make the massive bomb. The primary just creates the environment that allows for that fusion to occur and it’s not tritium that does the fusing in the secondary. This is known as the Teller Ulam device.
Where tritium comes into play is in the primary. It creates what is called a boosted fission reaction. The primary is still a fission device but as the device detonates, tritium is pumped into the core and immediately fuses into Helium. This is not done to cause a bigger boom from the fusion reaction itself from the fusing Tritium, but is to speed up and more completely burn the plutonium. That’s because every tritium fusion which occurs provides two free neutrons to add to the fissioning core.
Having said all that, the really big reason for the use of tritium is it allows for miniaturization of modern bombs. Ones that can be made to fit on top of a missile instead of a bomb bay of an airplane. By using tritium the traditional tampers which are depleted uranium which used to be used to contain the blast can be replaced with lightweight beryllium. Further, the explosive lenses that start the reaction can be smaller. Further still, the amount of plutonium in the core can be half of that used in a traditional implosion device. Further still since the plutonium needed is much less, its diameter is also reduced.
Modern two stage strategic weapons are on the order of 1 foot in diameter by 2 feet long. The most elegant use of a boosted fission device is the creation of the W54 warhead for the Davy Crockett, the nation’s first and only bazooka fired nuclear weapon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Not very much tritium at all is needed in a boosted fission device. It does need to be regularly replaced. Most of the tritium in the US was made at the Savannah River Site in Georgia. I used to regularly visit there when I worked for Bechtel, the company that ran the lab.
Thank you for that. So, with that in mind, what happens to boosted fission devices if the tritium is *not* replenished. Does the device still function but at a reduced yield (fizzle)? Does it not work at all (radioactive dispersal but otherwise a dud)?
I don’t know the answer with certainty. I suspect it’s likely a fizzle. Considering the amount of plutonium is decreased over a conventional primary, you still have critical mass considerations to maintain. Because the fusing tritium supplies an endless amount of neutrons to supercharge the chain reaction, a smaller mass of plutonium can be used over what would be needed to achieve and sustain fission.
Without the boost, it’s likely you’d have the explosion of the lenses and a tiny yield or no yield at all. Certainly the secondary of lithium deuteride would not reach the temperatures required to achieve fission.
It’s important to note that Russia likely does have many non boosted type bombs which don’t rely on tritium. Tritium enables miniaturization. Miniaturization isn’t that big a concern for uranium type gun weapons which can be fired from artillery tubes or larger bombs which can be dropped from planes where space is a concern. Based on the hapless record of their Army’s performance in the war, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that much of their national strategic stockpile is ineffective.
Additionally, it’s important to realize as I just did that tritiums half life is 12.3 years. That means at the end of 12.3 years you’d have half as much as you started with. In 26 years only 25% would remain. 25% isn’t nothing. Point being I imagine weapons designers use more tritium at the time of manufacture to allow for natural decay. How far that can dip and work as designed is likely a closely held national secret.
Likely it's in Russia's plan to take Odessa, hence it will have the land bridge.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
and the funny thing about nuclear weapons is they are extremely fragile when it comes to their physics and timing, the devices themselves are robust and designed to be, but if the tritium is "expired" so to speak the bomb may not function or may not produce a usable yield if it does hit its target. IIRC tritium is used to boost the reaction to increase yield, the bomb would still detonate just at a much lower yield...but I am not a physicist nor a nuclear weapon specialist just somebody who reads too much.
From the well-regarded The War Zone and the Financial Times of London comes an eye-popping assessment of Russia's doctrinal use of tactical nukes. This could be of some concern.
https://www.twz.com/nuclear/russias-low-threshold-for-nuclear-weapons-use-detailed-in-new-report
Snippets:
...the Financial Times' piece says the leaked documents provide additional specific details that point to lower Russian thresholds for tactical nuclear weapon use than have been previously understood, at least publicly. They also reportedly speak directly to escalate-to-deescalate-type strategies.
"Other potential conditions include the destruction of 20 percent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines, 30 percent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more cruisers, three airfields, or a simultaneous hit on main and reserve coastal command centers," according to the story. "Russia’s military is also expected to be able to use tactical nuclear weapons for a broad array of goals, including 'containing states from using aggression […] or escalating military conflicts', 'stopping aggression', preventing Russian forces from losing battles or territory, and making Russia’s navy 'more effective'."
The U.S. government has generally assessed that Russia has up to 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons in recent years. This is in addition to its strategic nuclear weapons, such as road-mobile and silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Its tactical nuclear stockpile is understood to include a variety of air, sea, and ground-launched weapons, including, but not limited to short-range ballistic missiles, air-dropped gravity bombs, torpedos, and artillery shells. The Russian military even reportedly has nuclear land mines.
Concerns about the exact circumstances under which Russia's government might launch a nuclear strike, especially one involving the use of lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, are hardly new. Fears about the willingness of Russian authorities to pursue a so-called escalate-to-deescalate strategy, which would consist of launching a limited nuclear strike — even one resulting in very minimal damage — in an attempt to freeze a conflict and thus manipulate its outcome in Moscow’s favor, have only become more pronounced since the country's all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Altogether, the Financial Times' new report shows that "Russian doctrine for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons by the Russian Navy includes a much lower threshold for nuclear use than previously thought, and far lower than the Kremlin has claimed in the years since the end of the Cold War," William Alberque, the director of Strategy, Technology, and Arms Control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank wrote on X.
From the reported details in the leaked documents, "Russia's naval nuclear doctrine is consistent with its very real shortcomings and precarious position compared to the US Navy, therefore integrating nuclear planning at lower levels, giving commanders wide targeting flexibility after initial nuclear use," Alberque added.
Kristensen further highlighted that the scenarios outlined in the Financial Timespiece, even those with the potential for an escalate-to-deescalate strategy, all involve a response to attacks on Russia itself. Discussions about escalate-to-deescalate in the past have typically revolved around Russia's use of such a strategy to prevent the irrevocable failure of intervention outside of the country's borders, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine or a theoretical land-grab in the Baltics.
From the reported details in the leaked documents, "Russia's naval nuclear doctrine is consistent with its very real shortcomings and precarious position compared to the US Navy, therefore integrating nuclear planning at lower levels, giving commanders wide targeting flexibility after initial nuclear use," Alberque added.
My comment: Are we arriving at the end of civilization on Earth? From my perspective, American civilization hit its highpoint in 1963. Tant pis. When did Berlin and London hit their high points?
https://www.twz.com/nuclear/russias-low-threshold-for-nuclear-weapons-use-detailed-in-new-report
Snippets:
...the Financial Times' piece says the leaked documents provide additional specific details that point to lower Russian thresholds for tactical nuclear weapon use than have been previously understood, at least publicly. They also reportedly speak directly to escalate-to-deescalate-type strategies.
"Other potential conditions include the destruction of 20 percent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines, 30 percent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more cruisers, three airfields, or a simultaneous hit on main and reserve coastal command centers," according to the story. "Russia’s military is also expected to be able to use tactical nuclear weapons for a broad array of goals, including 'containing states from using aggression […] or escalating military conflicts', 'stopping aggression', preventing Russian forces from losing battles or territory, and making Russia’s navy 'more effective'."
The U.S. government has generally assessed that Russia has up to 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons in recent years. This is in addition to its strategic nuclear weapons, such as road-mobile and silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Its tactical nuclear stockpile is understood to include a variety of air, sea, and ground-launched weapons, including, but not limited to short-range ballistic missiles, air-dropped gravity bombs, torpedos, and artillery shells. The Russian military even reportedly has nuclear land mines.
Concerns about the exact circumstances under which Russia's government might launch a nuclear strike, especially one involving the use of lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, are hardly new. Fears about the willingness of Russian authorities to pursue a so-called escalate-to-deescalate strategy, which would consist of launching a limited nuclear strike — even one resulting in very minimal damage — in an attempt to freeze a conflict and thus manipulate its outcome in Moscow’s favor, have only become more pronounced since the country's all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Altogether, the Financial Times' new report shows that "Russian doctrine for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons by the Russian Navy includes a much lower threshold for nuclear use than previously thought, and far lower than the Kremlin has claimed in the years since the end of the Cold War," William Alberque, the director of Strategy, Technology, and Arms Control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank wrote on X.
From the reported details in the leaked documents, "Russia's naval nuclear doctrine is consistent with its very real shortcomings and precarious position compared to the US Navy, therefore integrating nuclear planning at lower levels, giving commanders wide targeting flexibility after initial nuclear use," Alberque added.
Kristensen further highlighted that the scenarios outlined in the Financial Timespiece, even those with the potential for an escalate-to-deescalate strategy, all involve a response to attacks on Russia itself. Discussions about escalate-to-deescalate in the past have typically revolved around Russia's use of such a strategy to prevent the irrevocable failure of intervention outside of the country's borders, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine or a theoretical land-grab in the Baltics.
From the reported details in the leaked documents, "Russia's naval nuclear doctrine is consistent with its very real shortcomings and precarious position compared to the US Navy, therefore integrating nuclear planning at lower levels, giving commanders wide targeting flexibility after initial nuclear use," Alberque added.
My comment: Are we arriving at the end of civilization on Earth? From my perspective, American civilization hit its highpoint in 1963. Tant pis. When did Berlin and London hit their high points?
Last edited:
Interesting, seems what I thought I knew was overly simplified. Thanks for posting this, learned something today.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
Deleted.
Last edited:
I saw the headlines and some of the analysis. It's interesting and somewhat concerning, but it is also extraordinarily curious (and suspicious) that this information "leaked" at exactly the time that France is openly discussing boots on the ground, the U.S. is debating a major aid package, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania are scrounging a half million to a million "excess" artillery rounds, Russia is taking is largest monthly losses in the entire war in Ukraine (including 13 planes in 13 days and one ship per month), Israel has finally committed to giving aid to Ukraine in response to Russian support of Iran, Ukraine is ramping up domestic production of a million drones per year, and even with a Ukraine that is short of ammunition and gigantic losses from throwing everything that they have at the front, Russia can still only manage to take small towns and gain a few kilometer per week/month.
Russia seems to be "giving it all she's got" and barely making any headway. Such effort may not be sustainable and she's losing some of the few allies that she had. Oh, and North Korea's artillery ammunition seems to be about 50 percent reliable, which is to say, NOT reliable and artillery crews are said to be openly afraid to use it.
Now would seem to be an excellent time to plant doubts about a nuclear exchange in the minds of their enemies. The timing alone make the "leak" suspicious. Oddly, it could work against them. NATO nations could now reasonably assume that a Russian first strike is far more likely than originally suspected (and they should), so they will now plan and prepare a response. If Russia has hopes that the detonation of a small nuke would slow things down, which they would if it was a surprise, they may find that when everyone has had time to discuss and prepare, that there will be no "slowing down" because there is already a chain of contingencies planned, prepared, on paper, and orders in the hands of the folks with the launch buttons. Rather than slowing things down, this "leak" may well set up a "tit for tat" measured response that doesn't end well for Russia.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
I know that you were trying to be optimistic (and I agree) but the prospect of nuclear exchange is not pleasant.
At the end of the day, most of us pin our hopes on "cooler heads" that, even in Russia, understand that there are no winners once the nuclear genie is let out of the bottle. We hope this is true regardless of what Russian military doctrine may, or may not, be. More than once, this scenario has been avoided because of one person who decided not to do it, or to simply wait.
May it ever be so.
For the record, Victoria Nuland's resignation has been accepted.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,991
- Reaction score
- 4,099
Too late. Will be remembered for policies that led to the destruction of Ukraine.
An architect of the project may be gone, the policy and budget may have been dumped, but defense leaders from around the world discuss support for Ukraine:
Snippet:
Snippet:
"The director of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), Alexander Bortnikov, said on Tuesday that the US, UK, and Ukraine were behind the Moscow concert hall attack that killed at least 139 people on Friday - despite repeated claims of responsibility by Islamic State. Russian president has also insisted on alleged Ukrainian involvement. No proof has been provided for these claims...Then why is Russia insisting that there was a Western hand behind those attacks?"
Comment: The US and the UK may have gone too far if this video is correct. However, it is predicted Russia will refrain from WWIII at this moment and instead bomb the Presidential Palace in Kiev as well as reduce the city of Kharkiv.
"The director of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), Alexander Bortnikov, said on Tuesday that the US, UK, and Ukraine were behind the Moscow concert hall attack that killed at least 139 people on Friday - despite repeated claims of responsibility by Islamic State. Russian president has also insisted on alleged Ukrainian involvement. No proof has been provided for these claims...Then why is Russia insisting that there was a Western hand behind those attacks?"
Comment: The US and the UK may have gone too far if this video is correct. However, it is predicted Russia will refrain from WWIII at this moment and instead bomb the Presidential Palace in Kiev as well as reduce the city of Kharkiv.
Reports from the front lines suggest the latest targets of Russia in Ukraine are hospitals and civilians, rail yards, rail stations and rail tracks. Russian nuclear IRBMs are reportedly being deployed to the borders of the Baltic states and Poland. All remaining Abrams tanks are reportedly retreating to the rear. The coming summer could be warmer than usual.
