Zeihan on why France is thinking about soldiers to Ukraine - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15309559
Rugoz wrote:Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the world will turn against Russia, including China. Putin's regime would not survive it. Regime survival trumps everything else.

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear weapon, drops it on Ukrainian positions and then claims it is a false flag? What if Russia gets a battle field nuclear weapon and drops it on its own troops and claims its not a false flag. What if Russia gets a battle field nuclear weapon and gives it to the Houthis. Russia has numerous ways to escalate without nuclear weapons and with nuclear weapons.

Yes obviously if the Russians just start openly chucking nuclear weapons at Ukraine it would look bad, but that's probably not how they would play if they ever got to the stage where they thought they were really going to lose Crimea. My guess is what they would do is escalate it into a conventional conflict with NATA, at which point it becomes much more justifiable for Russia to use a nuclear weapon to bring people to their senses and force everyone to the peace table.

Is it possible that the directions of the war could dramatically reverse? Is it possible Ukraine could actually get back the land bridge, Crimea and the Donbas with out nuclear war or some terrible conventional conflict for NATO? Yes its possible. War and diplomacy are inherently unpredicatble. But its not a gamble any sane person should be pursuing.

People have talked about ground troops. What they don't seem to have considered is the posssiblity that if NATO was really on the verge of achieving an overwhelming and humiliating victory over Russia, that China would deploy ground troops.
#15309561
Rich wrote:
How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear weapon, drops it on Ukrainian positions and then claims it is a false flag?



Nuclear material carries impurities that reveal it's origin.

China won't be sending troops, that's daft. Russia and China are frenemies. If Putin wasn't so busy, he'd be trying to keep China from taking Siberia.

Odds are France would send support personnel. That would free up a lot of guys for combat duty.
#15309569
Skynet wrote:@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???

I doubt Russia is so corrupt like media portrays for example 1g Cocaine is in Russia 300 Euro whereas EU 50 Euro. Drug dealers need corrupt police.


What exactly is wrong? We know how many rockets we can intercept and we will intercept vast majority of your nukes flying at us, we are not Ukraine and even Ukraine intercepts the vast majority. Russian rocket tech is 20 years behind ours nowadays. This doesn't even take in to account that the picosecond anything moves in that direction we will bomb the launch sites and mobile launchers. And the old bombers that you have will all be shot out of the sky since they are mostly 70-60s years behind and build in the 50s and 60s. Not sure about the submarines but we probably have a plan for them also.

Russia might have a lot of warheads on paper but all that technology is really old and obsolete by modern standards. How many of it even will function properly looking at Ukraine?
#15309576
JohnRawls wrote:What exactly is wrong? We know how many rockets we can intercept and we will intercept vast majority of your nukes flying at us, we are not Ukraine and even Ukraine intercepts the vast majority. Russian rocket tech is 20 years behind ours nowadays. This doesn't even take in to account that the picosecond anything moves in that direction we will bomb the launch sites and mobile launchers. And the old bombers that you have will all be shot out of the sky since they are mostly 70-60s years behind and build in the 50s and 60s. Not sure about the submarines but we probably have a plan for them also.

Russia might have a lot of warheads on paper but all that technology is really old and obsolete by modern standards. How many of it even will function properly looking at Ukraine?


Nobody has the means to intercept any significant number of ICBMs.

The US has GMD (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense), which cost $40bn to develop. A single interceptor costs $75m.
“Due to its fragility to countermeasures, and the inability to expand it readily or cost-effectively, the current midcourse intercept system cannot be expected to provide a robust or reliable capability against more than the simplest attacks by a small number of relatively unsophisticated missiles within the 15-year time horizon of this report,” the study says.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/no- ... ats-study/

Russia has an old Soviet-era system that is supposed to protect Moscow by firing nukes against incoming nukes.
#15309596
Rugoz wrote:Nobody has the means to intercept any significant number of ICBMs.

The US has GMD (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense), which cost $40bn to develop. A single interceptor costs $75m.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/no- ... ats-study/

Russia has an old Soviet-era system that is supposed to protect Moscow by firing nukes against incoming nukes.


Our modern missiles can easily intercept ICBMs on re-entry nowadays. Didn't you notice the hypersonics getting destroyed in Ukraine. ICBMs are technically hypersonics on re-entry that don't move much besides forward. As long as you have Patriot systems or Aircraft in air in the vicenity then it can be destroyed and highly likely will be destroyed. Our electronics are much more advanced nowadays than in the 70s and 80s and our system in general are way more advanced in tracking and guidance.

And I am not even talking about launch here when they are practically helpless. Midcourse there is obviously the mid course defense.
#15309651
JohnRawls wrote:Our modern missiles can easily intercept ICBMs on re-entry nowadays. Didn't you notice the hypersonics getting destroyed in Ukraine. ICBMs are technically hypersonics on re-entry that don't move much besides forward. As long as you have Patriot systems or Aircraft in air in the vicenity then it can be destroyed and highly likely will be destroyed. Our electronics are much more advanced nowadays than in the 70s and 80s and our system in general are way more advanced in tracking and guidance.

And I am not even talking about launch here when they are practically helpless. Midcourse there is obviously the mid course defense.


Too much koolaid I'm afraid.

ICBMs reenter at Mach 25 and impact at Mach 20. Apart from GMD, there has only been one Aegis test which was successful at intercepting an ICBM. Needless to say the warhead is hereby engaged outside the atmosphere with an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle.
#15309662
Rugoz wrote:Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the world will turn against Russia, including China. Putin's regime would not survive it. Regime survival trumps everything else.



First strike doctrine is you fire all your atomic weapons at once in hope to eliminate enemy nuclear weapons... in such a scenario is China not important nor international trade ...

If Crimea is lost not just the regimes survival but the Russian state could face balkanisation... so is nuclear gambling the better scenario for Russia.




Post Scriptum:

Excuse for my orthography but my PC has failure so I have to write with smartphone
#15309670
Skynet wrote:First strike doctrine is you fire all your atomic weapons at once in hope to eliminate enemy nuclear weapons... in such a scenario is China not important nor international trade ...


That is impossible. Most nukes nowadays use SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) as a delivery platform. France and the UK only have SLBMs (and ALBMs), no ICBMs. Basically, Russia could nuke France and France would still be able to flatten all major Russian cities in retaliation.

Skynet wrote:If Crimea is lost not just the regimes survival but the Russian state could face balkanisation... so is nuclear gambling the better scenario for Russia.


Nothing would happen if Crimea is lost. The "balkanisation" of Russia is a weird fantasy not grounded in reality. At best it accelerates the end of Putinism (which will come at some point anyway).
#15309708
Rugoz wrote:That is impossible. Most nukes nowadays use SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) as a delivery platform. France and the UK only have SLBMs (and ALBMs), no ICBMs. Basically, Russia could nuke France and France would still be able to flatten all major Russian cities in retaliation.


The 2nd strike capability is a problem... but the Aggressor would survive at least the countryside whereas the defender would be anhiliated


Nothing would happen if Crimea is lost. The "balkanisation" of Russia is a weird fantasy not grounded in reality. At best it accelerates the end of Putinism (which will come at some point anyway).


Russia is not an European culture they are machos.... if Putin loses the war we will see desintegration ... I doubt the Pentagon wants 6000 nukes in warlord hands...
#15309826
@Rugoz Germany has the best option... within 2 hours it can become a nuclear power (this revelead a politician a talk show 10 years ago)... and if you can produce 1 you can produce 50 warheads in a year.

I hope Switzerland has not destroyed all Abdul Khadir Khan files... he had modern enrichment tech like laser enrichment...

@JohnRawls
ICBMs have also fake warheads and disperse deflection material to jam the radarsystems
#15309844
Skynet wrote:@Rugoz Germany has the best option... within 2 hours it can become a nuclear power (this revelead a politician a talk show 10 years ago)... and if you can produce 1 you can produce 50 warheads in a year.

I hope Switzerland has not destroyed all Abdul Khadir Khan files... he had modern enrichment tech like laser enrichment...

@JohnRawls
ICBMs have also fake warheads and disperse deflection material to jam the radarsystems


Mirvs are nothing new. The warheads are dummies and don't really jam anything and are fake targets. :eh:
#15309848
JohnRawls wrote:Mirvs are nothing new. The warheads are dummies and don't really jam anything and are fake targets. :eh:


Chaff, originally called Window[1] or Düppel, is a radar countermeasure involving the dispersal of thin strips of aluminium, metallized glass fiber, or plastic.[2] Dispersed chaff produces a large radar cross section intended to blind or disrupt radar systems.[3


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

8)
#15309851
Skynet wrote:Chaff, originally called Window[1] or Düppel, is a radar countermeasure involving the dispersal of thin strips of aluminium, metallized glass fiber, or plastic.[2] Dispersed chaff produces a large radar cross section intended to blind or disrupt radar systems.[3


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

8)


Chaff doesn't work exactly how you think it works :eh: The point of chaff is to saturate the strike space with them. But the whole point of it is to deliver them with a lot of missiles first and if you are going to use Mirvs for it then its not really effective since it already reached the target by nuke standards so what is the point of chaff then in a nuke/thermal nuke if you could just fly there anyways? :roll: You also kinda have to solve how to edject that chaff from a dummy at hypersonic speeds without destroying the chaff itself. Which makes the whole system unreasonably expensive when the whole point of a dummy is to be cheap. :knife:

Chaff is kinda pointless compared to distances at which intercontinental missiles fly. Plus chaff is not that effective nowadays when systems can track hundreds or thousands of targets at once with modern electronics.
#15309860
Like I said 2 posts ago there are methods to jam the radar and you were wrong.

It is easy for an ICBM to disperse CHAFFs even at Mach 10-20

You send 1500 missiles and at once and 2-3 percent JAFF. The first who would reach the target disperse radar jamming stuff to open the radar gate for the following 1500.

A first strike is done within 30 minutes.


Chaffs stay long in the air and combined with JAFF are unbeatable

Contemporary radar systems can distinguish chaff from legitimate targets by measuring the doppler effect;[4] chaff quickly loses speed after leaving an aircraft, and the resulting shift in wavelength of the radar return can be measured. To counter this, a chaff cloud can be illuminated by the defending vehicle with a doppler-corrected frequency. This is known as JAFF (jammer plus chaff) or CHILL (chaff-illuminated).[5]


To counteract this filtering, the JAFF or CHILL technique has been developed. This uses an additional jammer broadcaster on the aircraft to reflect a signal off the chaff cloud that has the proper frequency to match that of the aircraft. This makes it impossible to use Doppler shift alone to filter out the chaff signal. In practice, the signal is deliberately noisy in order to present multiple false targets.[20]

In essence, the JAFF technique is a low-cost offboard decoy, moving the jammers from the launcher platform to the decoy, and using the chaff as a reflector to provide angular separation.[20]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

#15310407
late wrote:Now that is brass cojones... (brass balls, the kind that are between a guys legs. More on that later). France is seriously considering sending it's army to Ukraine.

The unspoken part is that Europe won't survive as it is if Putin is not stopped. Or maybe Macron did say it. Sorry, I've had other things dividing my attention.

Putin really does see Ukraine as existential, meaning that for Russia to survive Ukraine and Poland and a few other countries have to be conquered. Most of those countries are in NATO, meaning the stakes are already sky high. Which makes the case for more involvement stronger.

I am curious how the American Right, which is saying Europe doesn't do enough, and that we should do less, will react to France doing more.

Anyway, thanks largely to the Trump Clown Show, this isn't getting the attention it deserves, so without further ado:



Zeihan is such an idiot. It's funny rhat he has been promoted so much.

France is basically a country for Africans so it makes sense they would fight Russia and promote globalism.

But it's pretty obvious how putin could prevent European countries from getting too frisky: he could simply threaten to attack Israel
#15310417
late wrote:What you said doesn't make sense, it's cliche upon cliche.

What he says usually does.

Dude...I only saw one video...buy he was praising canada for mass migration because according to him it would raise the GDP....as if human beings are perfectly replaceable little economic units and totally transforming the demographics of a country has zero consequences.

That is a completely idiotic point of view. If he really believes that then he is one of the stupidest people on earth.

It has been understood by everyone since humans first wrote stuff down that demographic transformations tend to cause political instability and usually civil war. He doesn't even think to mention that as even a potential downside, lol. He's an idiot.
#15310494
Skynet wrote:@JohnRawls

This worst case result:



Is hole of hole North-East Europe has the risqs worth


You can post the scenarios all you want. Most of them are hypotsesis or drama. Nuclear Winter hypothesis and so on was wrong even under the top Cold War arsenals and nowadays its even less likely with bombs being less in yield. Same goes for other apocalycptic scenarios.

If an exchange happens, then obviously we will get hurt but we will utterly decimate you and then move in to hang the rest.

Well whatever dude. Clearly you are determined to[…]

The op is literally just an attempt to explain lo[…]

How Transphobic Are You?

This is because studies, like all knowledge of the[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Europe re-militarizes is the only one way to go, […]