Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3873]

What’s the limit on “geese”

What does it matter? Academy never has them in stock.

[Pato del Muerto 53483]

Does anyone here think the people that would have to launch a nuclear payload would be at all confident in the delivery system, based on how their other systems have performed?

even a dumb bomb would require a sortie to get well across the border. 
 

putin doesn’t care, but some folks might be concerned that a nuclear tipped missiles might just make a u-turn and head back at them, or fizzle out a couple km down the road in Russia. 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by MillerEP

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[utee94 16084]

11 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

It's time to declare Russia a terrorist state and start holding the rest of the world accountable for interactions with them.

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[MillerEP 30905]

Luhansk on the theater square is not very crowded

[Rimbo 27013]

54 minutes ago, tokamak said:

This annexation thing seems real, real bad to me. Not only can Russia not "give them back", but their line is going to shift to "Ukraine is literally attacking Russian territory with Western weapons and Western encouragement".

I'd be more worried if anyone was falling for it.

They aren't. Everyone from the UN Secretary General on down is basically saying, "No, you're not allowed to just annex stuff."

[Born to Run 6601]

No more than 3 pods in the launcher, or the game warden will fine you. 

Except during the special Light Goose Conservation season, err Russian Orc season. Then you can use electronic techno callers, no plug restrictions, shoot before sunrise and no bag limits.

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[Rimbo 27013]

52 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And if Putin doesn't know all that at this point, then he's far dumber than I think.

I dunno, man. He seems to be pretty dumb.

[Rimbo 27013]

49 minutes ago, The Dog said:

The nuclear saber rattling is disconcerting but IMHO the "annexation" was more for domestic consumption so that people will accept mobilization. It changes the narrative internally from "we're attacking Ukraine to stop Nazis" to "we're defending our territory from an aggressor". And yes, many will buy it as that's what the propagandists will say. It's a big change in the story but it's how Putin rolls. 

None of that changes the situation on the ground in Ukraine nor does it change what is about to occur once Lend-Lease kicks off tomorrow. The mobilization isn't going to work and Russia is running out of modern weapons. 

They're running out of antique weapons, too!

[Pato del Muerto 53483]

UK soldiers gonna be in helly Hansen this winter. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

we're going to end up in treaty of versailles land next year when russia's economy is zero point zero from all these sanctions.  they'll be trading with mozambique as their biggest partner.  then the next putin will be able to get everyone riled up because of the unfair economic pain they've been put in. 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[Pato del Muerto 53483]

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

we're going to end up in treaty of versailles land next year when russia's economy is zero point zero from all these sanctions.  they'll be trading with mozambique as their biggest partner.  then the next putin will be able to get everyone riled up because of the unfair economic pain they've been put in. 

Maybe we learned a thing or two about ignoring a military ramp up that goes against the previously signed treaty. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

On what basis do you think that Russia could actually mount a strategic nuclear strike at this point?

The maintenance and physical condition of the Russian nuclear missile force is obviously questionable, based on what we've seen from Russia's conventional forces.  I think it's probably likely that the nuclear forces are maintained better than the conventional forces.  But is that a fair assumption?  After all, isn't the most high-dollar stuff that would be rife for corruption committed to the nuclear forces?  And of all things, isn't that what a grifter would think "this will never be used, so what's the harm if I steal it?"

The quality of the missile-force personnel is also a question.  We've seen shoulder patches from the missile forces in Ukraine, which indicates that Russia is using missileers as . . . and I can't believe this, but apparently it's true . . . fucking infantry in Ukraine.  Does that imply that there are silos in Siberia that are un-/under-manned?

But more than either of those things, we're not going to let them.  From last December, we've known everything Putin was going to do before his own military commanders do. We knew long before Russia's military commanders that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.  We knew beforehand that Russia was going to do these referenda.  And we even knew the date on which Russia was going to "annex" these territories.

Based on all that, I suspect that we would know if Putin decided to launch a strategic nuclear strike even before the order to launch made its way down to the missile forces.

And if that is the case, that would give us an opportunity to launch a counterforce strike.  And let's be real clear about something--our strategic nuclear forces are in real good shape.  And we are very capable of launching an effective counterforce strike against Russia.  We obviously wouldn't get all of their missiles.  But we'd probably take out well more than 75% of their strategic nuclear force, while we retain 75% of ours as a remaining deterrent.  

And if Putin doesn't know all that at this point, then he's far dumber than I think.

 I agree that the actual readiness of the Russian nuclear arsenal is a valid question, but I do question our willingness to launch a preemptive strike on Russia.  However, let's say we are willing and it is 75% successful.  I think Russia currently has about 1,600 warheads mounted on missiles that are theoretically ready to launch.  A 75% successful preemptive strike would leave about 400 warheads.  If only 25% of those actually launch and reach the US that's 100 warheads detonating.  I think that would pretty much be the end of America as a functioning country even if we did wipe Russia from the face of the earth.  As far as Putin being aware of the state of his nuclear force, what in is actions so far has indicated anything like a realistic assessment of his forces capabilities?  I have a very pessimistic view that this will have kind of a palatable outcome for anyone.

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[Apep 645]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

On what basis do you think that Russia could actually mount a strategic nuclear strike at this point?

The maintenance and physical condition of the Russian nuclear missile force is obviously questionable, based on what we've seen from Russia's conventional forces.  I think it's probably likely that the nuclear forces are maintained better than the conventional forces.  But is that a fair assumption?  After all, isn't the most high-dollar stuff that would be rife for corruption committed to the nuclear forces?  And of all things, isn't that what a grifter would think "this will never be used, so what's the harm if I steal it?"

 

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that the submarine fleet would be in much better shape than the ground-based ICBMs. Presumably the USN and our NATO allies are tracking every Typhoon and are ready to send them to the bottom of the ocean.

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[Gengs1 2583]

17 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

I think Ukraine needs to start offering cigaret cartons for surrender, I am sure they would get a lot of easy pow that way 

[DDD Dad 14648]

3 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Dumb question possibly but instead of spending billions more, losing more lives and escalating things to possibly Nuclear war can the Ukraine not negotiate giving Putin this and his “victory”.  "I want the Kyiv government and their real bosses in the west to hear me ... Residents of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson are becoming our citizens forever." 

Ukraine joins NATO and they put in the negotiation that if he tries to get any more land from them or any other “old Russia county” that we will react and Ukraine will take the areas back.  I know many will say he will just try for more and it won’t be enough but he’s not going to stop as is until he’s dead so why not try to negotiate atleast?

This most certainly would achieve peace in our time.

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[SquishMitten 10497]

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

This annexation thing seems real, real bad to me. Not only can Russia not "give them back", but their line is going to shift to "Ukraine is literally attacking Russian territory with Western weapons and Western encouragement".

[Ghost of LL 15698]

28 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

 I agree that the actual readiness of the Russian nuclear arsenal is a valid question, but I do question our willingness to launch a preemptive strike on Russia.  However, let's say we are willing and it is 75% successful.  I think Russia currently has about 1,600 warheads mounted on missiles that are theoretically ready to launch.  A 75% successful preemptive strike would leave about 400 warheads.  If only 25% of those actually launch and reach the US that's 100 warheads detonating.  I think that would pretty much be the end of America as a functioning country even if we did wipe Russia from the face of the earth.  As far as Putin being aware of the state of his nuclear force, what in is actions so far has indicated anything like a realistic assessment of his forces capabilities?  I have a very pessimistic view that this will have kind of a palatable outcome for anyone.

The point isn't that we wouldn't leave a few missiles behind (though the goal is that we get 100%).  It's that after that initial strike, we have an opportunity to open a line o communication and say, "look--that was a real bad hit.  But we didn't hit any of your cities.  So everything's fine.  But we still have 1,200 warheads; you have just a handful.  So let's call a ceasefire and put this thing to bed."

And if they don't then we go for Round 2.

But I don't agree that the detonation of 100 warheads would be "the end of America as a functioning country."  I mean, yeah--the stock market would go down.  But you also have to remember a few things.  First, those warheads aren't all aimed at us; they're going to be spread among us and our NATO allies (and probably our allies in the Asia-Pacific region).  So really you're probably just talking about fifty warheads in the United States.

Second, those warheads would likely be aimed at targets with a high military value.  You'd aim for Abilene before you aimed at Austin.  Because Austin just kills a bunch of assholes who refuse to use a blinker on MoPac.  Abilene gets you the B-1 fleet.  And if you're Russia, you're a lot more worried about the B-1s than the BMWs.  

I'm not saying it's a good outcome.  But I am saying that it's an outcome that wouldn't be as catastrophic as you paint it.  I mean, to be honest, our conventional bombing of Germany and Japan was far worse than the nuclear attack that Russia would be able to mount after an effective American counter-force strike.

27 minutes ago, Apep said:

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that the submarine fleet would be in much better shape than the ground-based ICBMs. Presumably the USN and our NATO allies are tracking every Typhoon and are ready to send them to the bottom of the ocean.

There's only one Typhoon left.  I don't know whether it was retrofitted with the caterpillar drive.

But yeah--we're tracking everything.

[dimyh 1890]

4 hours ago, Keef said:

You can go through my older posts and see exactly what I think about a Trump.  Spoiler, it isn't great.  I voted for Biden and am quite liberal.

There is obviously no equating what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. what Putin is doing in Russia.  They are not moral equivalents, or even close to that.  But my point was we as a population got all riled up about two consecutive wars that, looking back on it, I have a hard time articulating real reasons why we were even there (especially Iraq).

And the question that was posed was, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, should we escalate further (or even respond reasonably in kind, like by directly attacking Russian troops) and risk a global nuclear war.  I said no, for the reasons I articulated, and others said yes, for reasons (that are very good reasons) that I appreciate and understand.  

Appreciate the posts even though we do not draw the same conclusions. I believe you are presenting your own concerns in a reasonable manner and not merely spouting vatnik propaganda points. It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about being vaporized over a war half the globe over but not taking a stand right now has its own repercussions. From the start I always believed Putin had committed strategic suicide the moment he sent troops across the border. The fact that he could secure a short-term victory still meant a long-time loss as we would resurrect the ghost of USSR only to have it slowly die away due to economic strangulation. Ending the war now with a few territorial concessions still has the West winning long-term, maybe 40 years out, with a neo glasnost undoing everything Putin is ranting about. However by not taking the additional risk and trying to end it right now has some significant consequences:

1. Normalizes nuclear threats for offensive gains - if that becomes the norm then any nuclear nation can just wave around their arsenal to meet their demands.
2. Nuclear proliferation - since nukes can be used with offensive threats then the only defense is having your own. Which means many smaller/less stable nation states will be loading up. I'm not looking forward to international nuclear Mexican standoffs between all the regional crazies.
3. No longer deters land grabs - if Putin can get away with annexing clay with brute force then that opens up that opportunity for others sharing the same mindset.
4. Continues propaganda machine - the most brainwashed in Russia are the older generation, still watching TV and still sipping that old Soviet nostalgia juice. The younger generation has lived without that legacy and is not as averse to Western culture. Adding another younger generation, immersed in more anti-West propaganda over their formative years is going to dilute the ones needed to make a long-term cultural change. Because it needs to be understood: the West is not trying to destroy Russian culture...we just want to stop the imperialistic ultra-nationalist ideals that says that they can bludgeon their neighbors anytime they want.

 

While my initial idea was that by waiting it out and not joining the conflict directly we could achieve the same end goal by re-enacting a mini cold war. However we could strive for a more decisive win. We may not have a better opportunity of poor military performance, pathetic leadership vs a unified multi-national response featuring a defensive target valiantly fighting for their survival.

The actions from this conflict are going to redefine the world order in ways we have not seen since the end of WWII. 

 

 

[SquishMitten 10497]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Second, those warheads would likely be aimed at targets with a high military value.  You'd aim for Abilene before you aimed at Austin.  Because Austin just kills a bunch of assholes who refuse to use a blinker on MoPac.  Abilene gets you the B-1 fleet.  And if you're Russia, you're a lot more worried about the B-1s than the BMWs.  

As much as I would like to agree with this, who the hell really knows? This whole campaign in Ukraine has shown them targeting civilian infrastructure as much, if not more, than military targets. At some point in time, I'd imagine most of their nukes were pointed at military installations around the world, but at least some of them are likely targeted at London, DC, NY, Paris, etc. Gaming this out, if Putin wanted to put himself in the strongest position (not strong, but strongest), as you did in this same post when you said:

"The point isn't that we wouldn't leave a few missiles behind (though the goal is that we get 100%).  It's that after that initial strike, we have an opportunity to open a line o communication and say, "look--that was a real bad hit.  But we didn't hit any of your cities.  So everything's fine.  But we still have 1,200 warheads; you have just a handful.  So let's call a ceasefire and put this thing to bed."

If he's able to get off even one of the remaining missiles at a major western city, your idea doesn't go so well, and nukes start flying everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a lot more of them have been re-targeted at civilian populations recently. 

[AUS-97HORN 12050]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

@Keef

 

reread that tweet again, and again, and again.

 

They just fucking said they arent stopping at the 4 Oblasts that they DONT EVEN FULLY CONTROL, they are going after every large city not named Kyiv to annex them... and then of course once they "have" those,  they will say they need Kyiv, and then they will say parts of Poland, and then, and then, and then, and then.

 

THEY ARENT GOING TO FUCKING STOP CLAIMING LAND THAT ISN'T THEIRS.

The only way this ends is Putin dying. and frankly at this point I dont give a fuck how he dies, a coup, an individual Oligarch, his entire motorcade blown to pieces, or his Sochi palace with him in it hit by every fucking Block II Tomahawk we have in the Air Force out of Aviano, ITA

 

[Ghost of LL 15698]

4 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

@Keef

 

reread that tweet again, and again, and again.

 

They just fucking said they arent stopping at the 4 Oblasts that they DONT EVEN FULLY CONTROL, they are going after every large city not named Kyiv to annex them... and then of course once they "have" those,  they will say they need Kyiv, and then they will say parts of Poland, and then, and then, and then, and then.

 

THEY ARENT GOING TO FUCKING STOP CLAIMING LAND THAT ISN'T THEIRS.

The only way this ends is Putin dying. and frankly at this point I dont give a fuck how he dies, a coup, an individual Oligarch, his entire motorcade blown to pieces, or his Sochi palace with him in it hit by every fucking Block II Tomahawk we have in the Air Force out of Aviano, ITA

 

It doesn't matter if Putin dies.  Someone will follow him.  It is a broken country housing a sick society.

Russia delenda est.

[dimyh 1890]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:48 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

As we are talking about the particulars of this war, I want to pause for a second to appreciate the gravity of this moment in the historic sense. 77 years ago, the United States introduced the atomic bomb to the world. Since that moment, nuclear weapons have been de facto used as a defense. No nation possessing nuclear weapons has attempted to gain territory under threat of nuclear annihilation. Across tens of nasty proxy wars and crises, no nation has directly said that losing a proxy war would trigger nuclear use. 
 

As Russia prepares formal annexation and to declare these provinces “Russia” in the middle of a conflict, here is the new understanding of these world-ending weapons— a nation can declare part of another nation to be its own and then defend its ill-gotten gains with nuclear weapons. 
 

Whether this is allowed to happen or not will have profound implications for nuclear proliferation and for the global system that we can’t really understand even as it is happening.  

Also in case any vatnik trollbot starts standing on their moral high ground and proclaims USA is a complete monster for using nukes then consider this:

Nagasaki - pop size 195k. Est casualties 40k-75k

Mariupol - pop size 450k. Est casualties 20k-100k. Also includes estimates that around 90% of all buildings have been destroyed or damaged. The entire city has been practically razed from the earth. While still too early to get any reliable numbers this has the potential to match or even exceed a nuclear bomb. And this was not just one attack from over 77 years ago but a sustained attack just a few months ago. So who really is the monster?

 

[Schulz2.0 29280]

 

[elfenix 34749]

we don't start with a nuclear strike.  we start with a decapitating conventional strike. 

[dimyh 1890]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:28 PM, Brisketexan said:

Yep. He’s at the table and down $10k. He can’t go home down that much, so he has only once choice: continue to bet more, and bet big, hoping to win it back. But…he sucks at poker. So, that’s a problem. The outcome is only going to be him losing even more.

gotdamn this thread has been blazing fast the past few days. Just adding on to Brisket's poker analogy about escalation. USA is not escalating; we are just cold calling.

It's like a NL tourney with Ukraine on the BB with a short stack, USA UTG limps in, a few other callers and Russia OTB sees the opportunity to squeeze the little guy and steal the pot. Ukraine has some cards and reraises. USA is just slick cold-calling 3bets the whole way.

USA flops the nuts and checks down. Russia is still fixated on Ukraine and trying to get them all-in based on a weak draw and not noticing that USA is straight calling down the whole way even though they've got 10x the chips. Next thing he knows he's pot committed on the turn and the desperate realization that even if he hits his miracle card he's probably toast.

All the while Ukraine knows its probably beating Russia and even if it does lose out, USA has already told them they are bankrolling them for the rest of their Vegas trip.

 

[KYHorn 17614]

 

 

 

[Foosters 18279]

My suggestion to avert nuclear war is to covertly let every military commander, high ranking government official, and other important Kremlin figures know that if a nuclear warhead is used on a NATO nation, everyone they know and hold dear to them will be targeted for assassination. Their brother living in Vienna? Gone. Their 22 year old socialite daughter living in Paris? Bullet to the head. Their 5 year old grandson playing with toy Z tanks in preschool? Accidentally falls off a balcony. We will kill everyone they hold even a passing affection towards. After that is all done, we'll come for you. 

Of course, this is probably why I'm not in charge.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22294]

53 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Second, those warheads would likely be aimed at targets with a high military value.  You'd aim for Abilene before you aimed at Austin.  Because Austin just kills a bunch of assholes who refuse to use a blinker on MoPac.  Abilene gets you the B-1 fleet.  And if you're Russia, you're a lot more worried about the B-1s than the BMWs.  

I'm not saying it's a good outcome.  But I am saying that it's an outcome that wouldn't be as catastrophic as you paint it. 

You seem to think we are dealing with a rational leader.  I don’t believe that there would be any negotiating with him.  In addition, it seems likely that a madman at that point would not strike at military targets, but would rather go for maximum destruction. Take out the top 20 or so cities and I think the outcome is somewhat bleaker than “not good”.

[statsman 5693]

The Ukraine NATO application? Great idea. Not for immediate admission that would throw us into a war, but to create a bargaining chip that we can give up, in pursuit of a truce. 
 
“OK, Vlad, you withdraw all of your troops to Russia and give up your claim to any Ukrainian territory. In return, we won’t let Ukraine join NATO”. 

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

On what basis do you think that Russia could actually mount a strategic nuclear strike at this point?

The maintenance and physical condition of the Russian nuclear missile force is obviously questionable, based on what we've seen from Russia's conventional forces.  I think it's probably likely that the nuclear forces are maintained better than the conventional forces.  But is that a fair assumption?  After all, isn't the most high-dollar stuff that would be rife for corruption committed to the nuclear forces?  And of all things, isn't that what a grifter would think "this will never be used, so what's the harm if I steal it?"

The quality of the missile-force personnel is also a question.  We've seen shoulder patches from the missile forces in Ukraine, which indicates that Russia is using missileers as . . . and I can't believe this, but apparently it's true . . . fucking infantry in Ukraine.  Does that imply that there are silos in Siberia that are un-/under-manned?

But more than either of those things, we're not going to let them.  From last December, we've known everything Putin was going to do before his own military commanders do. We knew long before Russia's military commanders that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.  We knew beforehand that Russia was going to do these referenda.  And we even knew the date on which Russia was going to "annex" these territories.

Based on all that, I suspect that we would know if Putin decided to launch a strategic nuclear strike even before the order to launch made its way down to the missile forces.

And if that is the case, that would give us an opportunity to launch a counterforce strike.  And let's be real clear about something--our strategic nuclear forces are in real good shape.  And we are very capable of launching an effective counterforce strike against Russia.  We obviously wouldn't get all of their missiles.  But we'd probably take out well more than 75% of their strategic nuclear force, while we retain 75% of ours as a remaining deterrent.  

And if Putin doesn't know all that at this point, then he's far dumber than I think.

 

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The point isn't that we wouldn't leave a few missiles behind (though the goal is that we get 100%).  It's that after that initial strike, we have an opportunity to open a line o communication and say, "look--that was a real bad hit.  But we didn't hit any of your cities.  So everything's fine.  But we still have 1,200 warheads; you have just a handful.  So let's call a ceasefire and put this thing to bed."

And if they don't then we go for Round 2.

But I don't agree that the detonation of 100 warheads would be "the end of America as a functioning country."  I mean, yeah--the stock market would go down.  But you also have to remember a few things.  First, those warheads aren't all aimed at us; they're going to be spread among us and our NATO allies (and probably our allies in the Asia-Pacific region).  So really you're probably just talking about fifty warheads in the United States.

Second, those warheads would likely be aimed at targets with a high military value.  You'd aim for Abilene before you aimed at Austin.  Because Austin just kills a bunch of assholes who refuse to use a blinker on MoPac.  Abilene gets you the B-1 fleet.  And if you're Russia, you're a lot more worried about the B-1s than the BMWs.  

I'm not saying it's a good outcome.  But I am saying that it's an outcome that wouldn't be as catastrophic as you paint it.  I mean, to be honest, our conventional bombing of Germany and Japan was far worse than the nuclear attack that Russia would be able to mount after an effective American counter-force strike.

There's only one Typhoon left.  I don't know whether it was retrofitted with the caterpillar drive.

But yeah--we're tracking everything.

I commend GoLL for taking on the task of writing "nuclear war schmuclear war, that's what i say."

[Ten Bears 2500]

4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

Was that a soldier crawling out before the last blast?

Good.

[956 Worldwide 35592]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

On what basis do you think that Russia could actually mount a strategic nuclear strike at this point?

The maintenance and physical condition of the Russian nuclear missile force is obviously questionable, based on what we've seen from Russia's conventional forces.  I think it's probably likely that the nuclear forces are maintained better than the conventional forces.  But is that a fair assumption?  After all, isn't the most high-dollar stuff that would be rife for corruption committed to the nuclear forces?  And of all things, isn't that what a grifter would think "this will never be used, so what's the harm if I steal it?"

The quality of the missile-force personnel is also a question.  We've seen shoulder patches from the missile forces in Ukraine, which indicates that Russia is using missileers as . . . and I can't believe this, but apparently it's true . . . fucking infantry in Ukraine.  Does that imply that there are silos in Siberia that are un-/under-manned?

But more than either of those things, we're not going to let them.  From last December, we've known everything Putin was going to do before his own military commanders do. We knew long before Russia's military commanders that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.  We knew beforehand that Russia was going to do these referenda.  And we even knew the date on which Russia was going to "annex" these territories.

Based on all that, I suspect that we would know if Putin decided to launch a strategic nuclear strike even before the order to launch made its way down to the missile forces.

And if that is the case, that would give us an opportunity to launch a counterforce strike.  And let's be real clear about something--our strategic nuclear forces are in real good shape.  And we are very capable of launching an effective counterforce strike against Russia.  We obviously wouldn't get all of their missiles.  But we'd probably take out well more than 75% of their strategic nuclear force, while we retain 75% of ours as a remaining deterrent.  

And if Putin doesn't know all that at this point, then he's far dumber than I think.

I am a lot less sanguine about this than you and I think you’re skipping past at least a rung in the escalation ladder.  Russia has a nuclear trident just like we do and has been demonstrating the abilities of the conventional versions of those capabilities in Ukraine. Thermonuclear warheads do not need to be precision. 
 

The likely ladder is that Russia deploys a “tactical” weapon against UA forces or a high value mixed target.  The United States and NATO retaliate with massive conventional strikes against Russian forces in UA, seeking to send the message that we are not after RU territory. 
 

Russia responds by activating its Long Range Aviation that is certainly in the air by now and launching nuclear armed cruise missiles from Belarus and Russia at the nearest NATO installations in Poland, the Baltics, and battle groups in Slovakia and Romania.  Similarly they use Iskandr nuclear capable missiles from Kaliningrad to target installations in Poland and the Baltic. Their submarine fleet in the Arctic sea will target installations in Germany and at least one symbolic European capital, let’s say Warsaw is likely gone. 
 

This is all extremely plausible and doesn’t even require activation of their land-based ICBMs.  It will be far easier to disguise their intentions with their air and sea borne deterrents.  And it will kill millions. 

[MillerEP 30905]

While Putin is fantasizing in front of a crowd of lackeys, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are entering Liman
(video not yet confirmed)

[utee94 16084]

23 minutes ago, statsman said:

The Ukraine NATO application? Great idea. Not for immediate admission that would throw us into a war, but to create a bargaining chip that we can give up, in pursuit of a truce. 
 
“OK, Vlad, you withdraw all of your troops to Russia and give up your claim to any Ukrainian territory. In return, we won’t let Ukraine join NATO”. 

It might work if I believed Putin would honor such a deal.  But he won't.  So it won't.  

[MillerEP 30905]

 

[Viper 12219]

12 minutes ago, utee94 said:

It might work if I believed Putin would honor such a deal.  But he won't.  So it won't.  

that's why we crawfish and have everyone enter nato right after