Quote:
Originally Posted by TransWorld
1. I said NATO supplying sufficient equipment and ammunition to Ukraine CAN push the Russians out of all of Ukraine. That includes Crimea. That is without NATO nor Ukraine using nuclear weapons. That is my opinion, as well as that of many others. You are welcome to your opinion.
The issue, of course, is the possibility of RUSSIA using Tactical Nuclear weapons, since they are already using dual use capable weapons systems and their TNW use doctrine would permit if not mandate their use if they were going to be pushed out of Crimea. You either knew that and chose to ignore the issue - which as I said would be shirking a very serious issue in your response - or you were discounting any chance of the Russians actually applying their own use of nuclear force doctrine which considering the possible consequences of such use is pretty irresponsible.
Quote:
2. Have you met General Mattis, or are you just quoting what you read? Jim Mattis, after he retired, invited me to have lunch with him in Washington state, near his house. We had great conversations. I value our friendship.
Who gives a *******? I've known a fair number of generals in my career, some pretty good, a few not so much. and many have used the expression. But as I said, the saying predates Mattis's use of it. It probably predates his birth and paraphrases an old Sun Tzu quote about "knowing your enemy."
But having said that, the man does have interesting opinions on Tactical Nuclear weapons.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/mattis-no-such-thing-as-a-tactical-nuclear-weapon-but-new-cruise-missile-needed/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20―%20There%20is%20no%20such,a s%20a%20'tactical%20nuclear%20weapon.
Quote:
WASHINGTON ― There is no such thing as a “tactical” nuclear weapon, despite the introduction of two so-called tactical options in the recently released Nuclear Posture Review, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress on Tuesday.
“I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer,” Mattis told members of the House Armed Services Committee.
An excerpt:
Quote:
The Nuclear Posture Review, formally released Feb. 2, called for creatinga low-yield nuclear warhead for America’s sea-launched ballistic missiles, as well as the development of a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.
Officials rolling out the document said these weapons are needed to counter what the NPR directly refers to as Russia’s “tactical nuclear weapons.” Those weapons, which Russia is building out at a high rate, are described by the Pentagon as the backbone of Moscow’s controversial “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.
Under that concept, if fighting broke out between NATO forces and Russia, Moscow would move quickly to use a tactical nuclear weapon. The assumption would be that the U.S., armed only with large, world-ending strategic weapons, would be unable to retaliate appropriately and essentially stand down in the face of Russian aggression. Hence, the need for smaller nuclear weapons which could match Russia if need be.
While Mattis may be against the idea that using a low-yield nuclear warhead in combat does not escalate things to a strategic level, he still threw support behind the reasoning for building out the two new U.S. capabilities.
So what do you think about RUSIs opinion that trying to liberate Crimea would meet the known Russian criteria for escalating to battlefield nukes? That's a little more germane to the issue than your friendship with Mattis.
OH, by the way, the Long Range Standoff Weapon that Mattis endorsed back in 2018 to deter Russia (or others) from using tactical nukes is projected to have an IOC of 2030, although as many airlines can tell you, a lot of times those delivery dates slip.
Today
Today