Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Bond
Star B
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:28 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Bond »

Chap wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:22 pm
By the way, how is WS reacting to the present situation of likely imminent annexation?
Right now he's focused on saying the Ukrainian actions in Kharkiv and Kherson have stalled and were disastrous. Disastrous meaning Ukraine regained hundreds of square miles in a couple weeks and has led to a massive mobilization of Russian conscripts that have been sent to front without any gear or training. He's also focused on blaming the USA for the Nord Stream pipeline being damaged/sabotaged. Feels more like a "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" situation where everyone could be a suspect. Except Germany I suppose.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:29 pm
The use of a nuke in Ukraine will be for strategic reasons, not to gain a tactical advantage on the battlefield.
What you are saying now is that tactical nukes can be used for strategic purposes, which may be correct.

What you said before is that there were no such things as tactical nukes, which is not correct.
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:29 pm
Anyway, sources on the US retaliating directly against Russian forces of one is deployed in Ukraine?
Source information was provided in the first sentence of the paragraph.

If changing Unofficial to Confidential would help, please feel free.
___________________________________

To anyone worried about the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the recent article linked below may help.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/23/opinions ... index.html
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

DrW wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:58 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:29 pm
The use of a nuke in Ukraine will be for strategic reasons, not to gain a tactical advantage on the battlefield.
What you are saying now is that tactical nukes can be used for strategic purposes, which may be correct.

What you said before is that there were no such things as tactical nukes, which is not correct.
I believe what I said is there is no such thing as a tactical nuke as the decision to use nuclear weapons is always strategic. Which is true. Especially in the case of the subject of discussion.
Source information was provided in the first sentence of the paragraph.

If changing Unofficial to Confidential would help, please feel free.
That does nothing to resolve the grim reality such an act would be the start of a war with Russia that had already gone nuclear. Forgive me, but I don't think this confidential source is sufficient to make such confident claims. In fact the presentation works against the credibility of the claim.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:46 pm
That does nothing to resolve the grim reality such an act would be the start of a war with Russia that had already gone nuclear. Forgive me, but I don't think this confidential source is sufficient to make such confident claims. In fact the presentation works against the credibility of the claim.
It seems to me, honorentheos, that you are overly concerned with the concept of NATO making any substantive retaliatory strike on Russian forces in Ukraine in the event of nuclear weapons use.

You seem to believe that any response that involves direct engagement by NATO with Russia, weak and disorganized as their military is, would result in a “nuclear war”. You seem to take this as a given. Why is that?

You use jingoistic terms such as “grin realities” and “gone nuclear”. What do you think ”going nuclear” means?

If Putin were to detonate a low-yield tactical nuke in a remote area over the black sea to show he is willing to use nuclear weapons, would that be going nuclear?

If he did so, do you believe that such an act would necessitate a nuclear exchange? Is a limited nuclear exchange the same as nuclear war? Do you not believe that the direct responses described by others below could be effectively carried out using conventional weapons?

We do not know exactly what the US means by the “catastrophic consequences” promised (not threatened) if Putin detonates a nuclear weapon. We are told that more specific descriptions of possible responses have been privately and directly conveyed to Russia. Do you believe that the American and NATO statements regarding non-specific "catastrophic consequences" would not include the option of direct NATO or US action against Russian targets?

Two recognized arms control experts, writing for in the Washington Post, stated the following:
”William Alberque and Fabian Hoffmann in the Washington Post” wrote: Furthermore, Alberque and Hoffman continued, the defensive alliance's "leaders must state that nuclear use would risk a military response by NATO. This response would entail strikes against Russian military targets — either in a targeted fashion against units involved in the nuclear use (especially in response to the first scenario), or a wider attack against Russian forces in Ukraine and Belarus, perhaps even in Russia — crippling Russia’s supply lines, airfields, missile launch sites and command-and-control infrastructure. Such a response should spell the effective end of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. NATO would not need boots on the ground to conduct such an attack; massed conventional cruise missile strikes fired from aircraft above NATO territory and the surrounding seas could do the job."
Here is a direct response option recommended by the folks at CNN.
”CNN” wrote: NATO must direct that it will take out Russia's tactical nuclear weapons if they move out of their current locations to a position where they could threaten Ukraine and must also make clear that any deliberate attacks on nuclear power stations will exact an equal and greater response from NATO. This is the time to call Putin's bluff.
You have expressed doubt about the credibility of the response I described involving direct NATO engagement of Russian targets in Ukraine. Taking out Russian command and control capability in Ukraine as I described is a far less drastic response than is recommended by Alberque and Hoffman. It seems that you cannot imagine that the US would risk what you refer to as nuclear war by responding directly to unlawful and unwarranted Russian aggression.
”William Alberque and Fabian Hoffmann in the Washington Post” wrote: But leaving unanswered the use of nuclear weapons as part of an unlawful attack on a neighboring state is untenable," they cautioned. "It would signal to the world that the West will allow aggressors to do whatever they want if they make nuclear threats, paving the way for further atrocities, nuclear use and, most likely, uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. No country currently facing a security dilemma and with the means to develop a nuclear arsenal would forgo doing so if the West backs down."
Fortunately for the West, there are those in the business who understand that there are ways to successfully deal with Putin short of a nuclear war.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

DrW wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:03 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:46 pm
That does nothing to resolve the grim reality such an act would be the start of a war with Russia that had already gone nuclear. Forgive me, but I don't think this confidential source is sufficient to make such confident claims. In fact the presentation works against the credibility of the claim.
It seems to me, honorentheos, that you are overly concerned with the concept of NATO making any substantive retaliatory strike on Russian forces in Ukraine in the event of nuclear weapons use.

You seem to believe that any response that involves direct engagement by NATO with Russia, weak and disorganized as their military is, would result in a “nuclear war”. You seem to take this as a given. Why is that?
The issue is more political than this captures. As I stated upthread, the likelihood of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine is tied to a series of other events, most likely aimed at getting the West to pressure Ukraine to the negotiations table to concede Russian annexation of Crimea and areas being annexed following the referenda that just occurred.

It is axiomatic that overt, direct action against a nation’s military is an act of war that either results in declarations of war or intense diplomatic engagement to avoid escalation. It’s not that our directly targeting Russian forces following the use of a nuke would result in nuclear war. It’s that it would be an escalation that also cedes the moral high ground of the West in having opposed Russian aggression against Ukraine while avoiding direct confrontation ourselves. This makes any claims that we would pursue this something one should be skeptical of on principle. So, I asked for a source. Unless the nuclear fallout affects a NATO ally (possible) or the warhead is targeted at NATO forces (very unlikely), we would be making a move that we would have to justify on the world stage at the same time Russia is making the claim the use of the nuke was in defense of their existence against Western aggression.

So let’s say that we do directly engage Russian forces. Let’s say that we are able to take out Russian central command in the Ukraine theater with minimal cruise missile losses or collateral damage. Russia is very likely to decry this as the West pulling off the mask and abandoning any pretenses of not seeking the destruction of Russia. Then what? We could find ourselves in a hot war in Eastern Europe. We could see Russia elevate their nuclear readiness to the highest levels. Would we resist the urge to respond in kind? I don’t think we can nor would we risk this. Worst case scenario, nukes eventually fly. But best case? The most probable outcome is another nation acting as negotiator to deescalate. Regardless of which nation gets to lay claim of being the saviors of humanity, the most likely outcome is China ascending further as they point to the former Soviet Union and NATO as having almost unleashed Armageddon on the world, the old world order being dangerous, and new world leadership being demanded to counter the risks arising from decaying powers.

The Ukraine resistance has revitalized Western Liberal Democracy and created global political capital that a direct military attack on Russian forces would negate, even as response to the use of a nuclear weapon. We could possibly minimize the risk if we made a strategic strike on a deployed tactical nuclear weapon platform as it was moving into theater, though it would be far better to assist Ukraine in carrying out that strike. But there are risks either way.
Fortunately for the West, there are those in the business who understand that there are ways to successfully deal with Putin short of a nuclear war.
Indeed.

Anyway, I think the most critical issue here is one of speaking with overconfidence when it isn’t warranted. The description of our response to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in theater was presented as a given. Source for this confidence? Suspect. Early on I thought the claims about US training Ukrainian pilots was dodgy, too. The last clear, open discussions on this included the US House passing a bill in July to fund that effort but the Senate not having approved the funding. A few weeks back the Senate Armed Services Committee chairperson, Senator Jack Reed, suggested it wouldn’t be part of the final package approved in the stop gap funding bill. Now, I believe you’ve mentioned having DoD contracts and contacts, and it’s possible that the announcement was a cover for keeping our training efforts hidden to some extent. It would beg the question of why whatever source you have on it would both tell you about it and then you share it on the internet, though. COMSEC. Not my concern, though. HARM missiles are included in the stop gap bill so who knows.

Back in January 2021 we had a discussion about the likely political outcomes of the January 6th insurrection and how probable it was the political right would be forced to capitulate and evolve. I don’t think events played out too differently than I suggested then even as I expressed hope you were right. I say the same thing here. I hope you are right while being skeptical of the confidence and limited strategic thinking demonstrated.
.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

”homorentheos” wrote: Anyway, I think the most critical issue here is one of speaking with overconfidence when it isn’t warranted. The description of our response to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in theater was presented as a given.
{SNIP]
Now, I believe you’ve mentioned having DoD contracts and contacts, and it’s possible that the announcement was a cover for keeping our training efforts hidden to some extent. It would beg the question of why whatever source you have on it would both tell you about it and then you share it on the internet, though. COMSEC. Not my concern, though. HARM missiles are included in the stop gap bill so who knows.
The above was in response to a paragraph in an earlier post (pasted below). In reviewing again what I wrote upthread, I see that you are correct. The word “would” in the first sentence should have been edited to “could” to reflect the capability the US has rather than any firm intent to exercise that capability.
”DrW should have” wrote: Unofficial statements by retired general officers in the West in response to Putin's latest threats have indicated that the US would could immediately and completely destroy Russian military command centers if Putin uses tactical nukes in Ukraine. The Russian Black Sea Fleet could also be completely destroyed using conventional stand-off weapons, which would have the additional benefit of further opening shipping lanes in the region. (Such an operation could be readily accomplished within 72 hours using surface-, sea-, and air-launched conventional warhead cruise missile weapons already pre-positioned in NATO countries and in international waters.)
As stated, all of the individuals referred to are retired military. We have all held DoD TS or DOE Q clearances in the past. Clearly, none of us hold those clearances now. Therefore, none of us have access to currently classified information and COMSEC is not an issue.

The scenario described was suggested and is certainly within US capabilities. Although the required capability is about the same, the operation I described is much less drastic than that suggested in the Washington Post article cited.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

“Ukrainian intelligence believes that the threat of the Russian Federation using tactical nuclear weapons is “very high”, representative of Main Directorate of Intelligence Vadym Skibitsky reported.” - reported by Euromaiden Press, which is Ukrainian, so who knows how their propaganda works.

I’m glad the UN spoke up today and told Russia it doesn’t recognize their nonsense referendum (as did Hungary, I believe) - I’m interpreting this as a message to Russia that use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine’s stolen lands won’t fly. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed Russia doesn’t drop them on anyone, anywhere, for any reason especially if the broader world community straight rejects their lies and justifications.

I suspect they’re the culprits behind the Nord Stream thing, so I’m not confident the world’s opinions means much to them and they’ll do something catastrophic because they don’t care about consequences.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Dr Exiled »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:22 pm

I suspect they’re the culprits behind the Nord Stream thing, so I’m not confident the world’s opinions means much to them and they’ll do something catastrophic because they don’t care about consequences.

- Doc
That could be but it seems idiotic to destroy the means of getting gas to Germany when Putin could just keep the spigot off. Also, having the pipeline functional is tempting for Germany to cave to its businesses and population, now or in the future, when they are bankrupt or freezing during winter, and negotiate behind the EU's back with Russia to ease the high cost energy problem. That isn't a problem now. It's also a boon for other producers and a way to ensure that a big market doesn't deal with Putin and making him stronger economically. It's a way to enforce the sanctions. The Germans were protesting right before the sabotage.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
User avatar
DrW
Priest
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by DrW »

In spite of its being the largest country on Earth geographically, Russia as a nation is highly vulnerable to nuclear attack because of the distribution of its population.

If two relatively low-yield nuclear weapons caused a militarily weakened Japan to surrender, think what the effect that two well-placed thermonuclear weapons would have on Russia.

He who lives in a glass house --.

Image
Last edited by DrW on Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." (David Hume)
"Errors in science are learning opportunities and are corrected when better data become available." (DrW)
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Gadianton »

I think with the pipeline incident "incentives" take a far back seat to the personality type that would actually execute on such a thing. It's basically vandalism. I don't really see Germany or Poland or the USA doing the equivalent of spray painting "F __" on the side of the building no matter how pissed off. A big maybe on Ukraine, but it basically has to be Russia. Now, if the evidence ends up showing it was the US, then I'll eat my hat.

a for nukes:

what does the CIA know that we don't know? If Russia does such a bad job with their tanks, can they trust their nukes? What condition is Perimeter in lately? If Russia breaks down at an administration level, then how much more dangerous are not only rogue generals who have the power to launch but the 80s-level AI tech of their Perimeter system in the mire of administrative chaos?

Stuxnet proves it's at least conceivable that Russian nukes can be hacked. The level of cover to get access, the low-tech equipment, network isolation, and possibly even totally foreign operating system could make it virtually impossible, but I do wonder about it.

As for bringing tactical nukes on the battlefield, what happens if they bring them in and some get donated to Ukraine like tanks and other weapons have been?
Post Reply