I’m saying that Russia can’t, in fact, “wreck havoc on Ukranian supply-chains and leadership” with nuclear weapons, at least not for long. Rails are made of hardened steel. Roads are made of asphalt. Neither can really be “knocked out” without being inside the fireball of a nuclear weapon. Russia can use its entire nuclear stockpile to seriously damage Ukrainian logistics for a while, but I don’t think their command structure can really take advantage of that, based off their recent performance. And trucks can still drive off-road. With NATO supply lines, Ukraine can afford to lose a million trucks a month to mud, if that’s what it takes to get supplies to the front. As for leadership, they can disperse as well. With Starlink, they are entirely capable of directing operations from a corn field in either Poland or Ukraine. The Ukrainian command structure is also specifically built to survive decapitation strikes and interdiction of communication. Both NATO and PACT forces had detailed plans for fighting a total war after a strategic nuclear exchange. On the battlefield, nuclear weapons aren’t eschalogical, they’re just another weapon.
Also, Russia can’t exterminate the Ukrainian people with nuclear weapons, even if it uses its entire strategic stockpile there, especially if Ukraine disperses their population. It’s a matter of math, not will. If the people aren’t in cities, what is Russia going to target? A villiage of a few hundred with a strategic nuclear weapon? It’ll run out long before making a big dent on Ukrainian demographics.
So let’s say it’s mid 2023, Ukraine is pushing the Russians, and Russia conducts a nuclear test in Crimea. Ukraine responds by pausing operations for a week and dispersing its population. Then continues to drive into Crimea. What does Russia do then? Tactical nukes might slow things down, but only until they run out. Strategic weapons may result in conventional NATO retalliation and again can only do so much. Nuclear weapons can’t stop a dominant Ukrainian military if the political and military leadership stands firm, and based on what I’ve seen so far I think they will.
Something that sounds simple—“dispersing” your population—really comes with a huge cost. You can’t just send your population into the fields and expect them to live there.
And trucks can still drive off-road.
For which they require gasoline.
With NATO supply lines, Ukraine can afford to lose a million trucks a month to mud
I don’t think this is accurate, Nato doesn’t just have a million trucks a month lying around somewhere to send.
If the people aren’t in cities, what is Russia going to target?
I don’t particularly enjoy playing this morbid game of guessing what Russia could do, but targeting things like dams, bridges, power-plants, and other infrastructure would do far more damage than you seem to acknowledge.
Then continues to drive into Crimea.
Do they drive through the water, or how does this work? I feel like your arguments prove to much. If Ukraine had it that easy, why haven’t they taken even Kherson yet?
Ukraine is recieving ~70% of its pre-war GDP in military aid alone. They’ve already sent much of their civilian population to the EU. If there’s a serious nuclear threat, population dispersal is simply a continuation of existing policies. The Germans can pick up the tab if nothing happens.
There are millions of civilian trucks in Europe. Yes, attrition rate will be high if they are used in a military context, but if nukes get dropped there are bigger things to worry about.
Russia knocking out dams, bridges, and power-plants doesn’t do much in the long-run. Sure, Ukrainian civilians won’t be operating with power, and hospitals won’t work, but those are small things in the context of nuclear war. The only major river in Ukraine is the Dnepier, and Russia is currently running a significant part of its supply lines through pontoons there right now. Nuking hospitals might kill a lot of people, but it doesn’t do much for the war effort.
As for Crimea, we’re talking about the context of Russia using nuclear weapons, which pre-supposes Ukraine being able to take Crimea. And I think they will, in time. Russia is currently only spending ~5% of its GDP on its military. Ukraine, when taking into account foreign military aid, is spending 90%+.
The Germans can pick up the tab if nothing happens.
We are at the point where German mainstream media is willing to write stories about how the people in Crimea are standing behind Putin. If you want to know where that media outlet is located on the political spectrum Wikipedia points out that it’s partly owned by the SPD which is the main party in Germany’s governing coalition.
Germany was never really willing to support Ukraine to retake Crimea. That’s why Ukraine got so little German support pre-2022 invasion.
The idea that Germany is willing to just spend tens of billions to support Ukraine seems very unrealistic to me.
I’m saying that Russia can’t, in fact, “wreck havoc on Ukranian supply-chains and leadership” with nuclear weapons, at least not for long. Rails are made of hardened steel. Roads are made of asphalt. Neither can really be “knocked out” without being inside the fireball of a nuclear weapon. Russia can use its entire nuclear stockpile to seriously damage Ukrainian logistics for a while, but I don’t think their command structure can really take advantage of that, based off their recent performance. And trucks can still drive off-road. With NATO supply lines, Ukraine can afford to lose a million trucks a month to mud, if that’s what it takes to get supplies to the front. As for leadership, they can disperse as well. With Starlink, they are entirely capable of directing operations from a corn field in either Poland or Ukraine. The Ukrainian command structure is also specifically built to survive decapitation strikes and interdiction of communication. Both NATO and PACT forces had detailed plans for fighting a total war after a strategic nuclear exchange. On the battlefield, nuclear weapons aren’t eschalogical, they’re just another weapon.
Also, Russia can’t exterminate the Ukrainian people with nuclear weapons, even if it uses its entire strategic stockpile there, especially if Ukraine disperses their population. It’s a matter of math, not will. If the people aren’t in cities, what is Russia going to target? A villiage of a few hundred with a strategic nuclear weapon? It’ll run out long before making a big dent on Ukrainian demographics.
So let’s say it’s mid 2023, Ukraine is pushing the Russians, and Russia conducts a nuclear test in Crimea. Ukraine responds by pausing operations for a week and dispersing its population. Then continues to drive into Crimea. What does Russia do then? Tactical nukes might slow things down, but only until they run out. Strategic weapons may result in conventional NATO retalliation and again can only do so much. Nuclear weapons can’t stop a dominant Ukrainian military if the political and military leadership stands firm, and based on what I’ve seen so far I think they will.
Something that sounds simple—“dispersing” your population—really comes with a huge cost. You can’t just send your population into the fields and expect them to live there.
For which they require gasoline.
I don’t think this is accurate, Nato doesn’t just have a million trucks a month lying around somewhere to send.
I don’t particularly enjoy playing this morbid game of guessing what Russia could do, but targeting things like dams, bridges, power-plants, and other infrastructure would do far more damage than you seem to acknowledge.
Do they drive through the water, or how does this work? I feel like your arguments prove to much. If Ukraine had it that easy, why haven’t they taken even Kherson yet?
Ukraine is recieving ~70% of its pre-war GDP in military aid alone. They’ve already sent much of their civilian population to the EU. If there’s a serious nuclear threat, population dispersal is simply a continuation of existing policies. The Germans can pick up the tab if nothing happens.
There are millions of civilian trucks in Europe. Yes, attrition rate will be high if they are used in a military context, but if nukes get dropped there are bigger things to worry about.
Russia knocking out dams, bridges, and power-plants doesn’t do much in the long-run. Sure, Ukrainian civilians won’t be operating with power, and hospitals won’t work, but those are small things in the context of nuclear war. The only major river in Ukraine is the Dnepier, and Russia is currently running a significant part of its supply lines through pontoons there right now. Nuking hospitals might kill a lot of people, but it doesn’t do much for the war effort.
As for Crimea, we’re talking about the context of Russia using nuclear weapons, which pre-supposes Ukraine being able to take Crimea. And I think they will, in time. Russia is currently only spending ~5% of its GDP on its military. Ukraine, when taking into account foreign military aid, is spending 90%+.
We are at the point where German mainstream media is willing to write stories about how the people in Crimea are standing behind Putin. If you want to know where that media outlet is located on the political spectrum Wikipedia points out that it’s partly owned by the SPD which is the main party in Germany’s governing coalition.
Germany was never really willing to support Ukraine to retake Crimea. That’s why Ukraine got so little German support pre-2022 invasion.
The idea that Germany is willing to just spend tens of billions to support Ukraine seems very unrealistic to me.
If you look at German politics, I don’t think it’s that easy to just spend tens of billions in foreign aid.