Do the pros of sending tanks to Ukraine outweigh the cons?

We can't pretend this is not a massively dangerous situation, most dangerous than any time in history before

fs.blog/mutually-assured-destruction/

There are several key components of the doctrine of MAD:

Both sides in a combat must have the capacity to completely destroy the other. Any inequality in their power has the potential to tip the balance. The US and USSR have since developed more nuclear technology – guided missile systems, and weapons sprinkled around the globe in submarines. Neither side can have sufficient nuclear shelters to protect substantial numbers of people in the event of an attack. If one side can cause a degree of destruction which would prevent a counterattack, the concept of MAD is not applicable.

Both sides must have a genuine reason and motivation to believe that the other would be willing to destroy them. Any doubt in this area is dangerous.

Both sides must be able to detect attacks with perfect accuracy. This necessitates the ability to know when a nuclear attack has occurred, without any errors. If one side uses stealth detonation (such as bombs smuggled into a country), MAD is not assured.

Both sides must know exactly where a threat originates from. One serious problem is the border between China and Russia, both of which have nuclear weapons. Parts of China actually protrude into Russia, which could lead to complications as one could make it appear as if an attack originated from the other.

Both sides must act rationally (in short, all those with power must be able to act like adults and take the concept of MAD seriously.) A rogue leader with a great deal of power and a disregard for human life beyond their own would have the potential to start a nuclear war. A chilling fact is that this came close to happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis when a lone submarine commander attempted to detonate a nuclear missile. That single act of insanity might have easily meant that you could not be reading this right now. Carl Sagan sums this up: “The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist-deep in gasoline, one with three matches and the other with five…every thinking person fears nuclear war and every technological state plans for it. Everyone knows it is madness and every nation has an excuse.”

As that list shows, the concept is somewhat fragile and requires constant vigilance and innovation to maintain. There is also the ever prevalent risk of accidental or terrorist detonation.

Airlift them in, no, a C5 does not do short airstrips, but don’t underestimate the capacity of the army engineers they have been practicing this for years.

Bullies have to be confronted. Oh yes, but no comparison with WW2. To you think MAD works when you have a madman pushed into a corner?

I am terrified for my ACs and GCs. Either way.

But a nuclear strike is a real theat. And then what?

Ever since the 70s some of us fought against nuclear proliferation and always said that MAD would only work short-term. This is even more dangerous as smaller nuclear devices are available to Putin.

Is Putin ill? I doubt it. Is he evil? Undoubtedly. Is he old? Well, I agree that 70 isn’t young, but there are many 70+ year olds who are very active, very alert, very vibrant and in good health.
I believe that he is power and control crazed, and that his lust for power and control enables him to carry out (or instruct others to do it) atrocities in order for him to have more power. He rules by terror but also by ensnaring others into believing that they, too, will have power and control as long as they follow him - which we know happens, how else can he have such power and control - money, a comfortable lifestyle, these are the things which buy people as he well knows.
However, he has to be confronted. If we all sit back, it won’t just be Ukraine who suffers in the long term, and goodness me, Ukraine shouldn’t be suffering this terror right now, either. Maddyone writes an excellent post. Bullies have to be confronted, he has to be confronted. I’m terrified, but we have to learn from history. What did our parents and grandparents fight for, if we just sit back complacently, hoping that appeasement will work - it doesn’t, the bullies just laugh.

Greyduster

You’re absolutely right, MOnica but I was thinking in terms of the initial move to a forward operating base where the tanks can be prepared for the front line, and crews and engineers assigned. It’s a bit like, say, someone in London ordering a Nissan from the factory in Sunderland and hoping someone is not actually going to drive it down the M1 to them rather than put it on a transporter. You don’t want them to be too far away from where they’re going to be needed when fuel supplies are finite, and tanks are not very fuel efficient in open country. If this seems a bit simplistic I apologise, and I am always happy to be corrected.

Thus, the US tanks could be brought in airlift, short field. Have to be transported from US, boats take time, over-land gas cost money, go ahead and securely airlift. Does Ukraine have short field near the front? I've no idea.

Someone will make a good logistical plan.

varian

It must be about six months ago that the suggestion was mooted that Poland should donate a number of Soviet era fighter jets, which Ukranian pilots are trained to use, to Ukraine, whilst the allies replaced them be giving Poland American jets .

I thought at the time this might be a good idea, but I know nothing about the complexities of defence decisions and if an Air Vice Marshall thinks it would be a bad idea, then I agree.

One of the issues with this, often talked about by commentators with a great deal more knowledge than I have, is that while tanks are perceived to be mainly weapons of defence, fighter jets are thought of as possible weapons of attack.

The western countries, it seems, are happy to let Ukraine act as our proxy but dread being dragged into a fight for democracy themselves.

Katie59

Norah you are believing all the propaganda we are being fed.
The US could send tanks within a few weeks, or they may never be sent. Some (not many) have new depleted uranium armor most don’t and the US has thousands, in any case there more than enough European tanks to supply Ukraine.

Tanks are symbolic, the Russians found out they are very vulnerable to missiles, modern tanks are no different, they are better protected but the US had to withdraw them from Iraq because so many were being damaged by IEDs.

NATO has plenty of weaponry of all kinds it could send to Ukraine the politicians will decide what and when. The Russians are struggling now because they don’t have reserves of modern weapons, although new tanks and aircraft have
been developed they have not been produced in numbers.

Oh dear.

You’re absolutely right, MOnica but I was thinking in terms of the initial move to a forward operating base where the tanks can be prepared for the front line, and crews and engineers assigned. It’s a bit like, say, someone in London ordering a Nissan from the factory in Sunderland and hoping someone is not actually going to drive it down the M1 to them rather than put it on a transporter. You don’t want them to be too far away from where they’re going to be needed when fuel supplies are finite, and tanks are not very fuel efficient in open country. If this seems a bit simplistic I apologise, and I am always happy to be corrected.

Greyduster I think that, following Ramstein, the Americans and the Germans fell into step. I only hope they can actually get it to the front line. Senior military figures in both Britain and US have outlined the logistical difficulties and vulnerability of moving tanks and heavy weapons across Ukraine to get them to where they are needed. Rail lines only go so far and then its roads where there are any.

Indeed

I suppose the US could airlift, 2 to a time, to short fields, if they had any tanks to spare at this moment. Maybe.

Katie59 Norah you are believing all the propaganda we are being fed.

As are you!

I'm assuming governments aren't revealing all they know.

Greyduster Tanks do not need roads, just flat country. Stalin designated Ukraine as the country to grow wheat so it has vast areas of, effectively prairie, like the mid west US, ideal tank country.

Katie59 you are also cherry picking what information to believe.

War is a dirty game, all ways has been, always will be.

They have already decided what they will send, or at least we and some other countries have: The Tallinn Pledge:
“We the Defence Ministers of Estonia, the United Kingdom, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania; and the representatives of Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Slovakia met today, 19 January, to reaffirm our continued determination and resolve to supporting Ukraine in their heroic resistance against the illegal and unprovoked Russian aggression. We condemn Russia’s attacks designed to terrorise Ukraine’s people, including intentional attacks against the civilian population and civilian infrastructure which may constitute war crimes. We reject Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and its illegal claims to have annexed Ukrainian territory.
We recognise that equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping them to defend what they already have. Together we will continue supporting Ukraine to move from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. By bringing together Allies and partners, we are ensuring the surge of global military support is as strategic and coordinated as possible. The new level of required combat power is only achieved by combinations of main battle tank squadrons, beneath air and missile defence, operating alongside divisional artillery groups, and further deep precision fires enabling targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes in occupied territory.
Therefore, we commit to collectively pursuing delivery of an unprecedented set of donations including main battle tanks, heavy artillery, air defence, ammunition, and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine’s defence. This substantial assistance to Ukraine comes from our own national stocks, and resources illustrating the mutual understanding of the severity of the situation and our commitment to urgently increase and accelerate support for Ukraine. Having made this “Tallinn Pledge”, we shall head to the Ukraine Defence Group meeting in Ramstein tomorrow 20 January and urge other Allies and partners to follow suit and contribute their own planned packages of support as soon as possible to ensure a Ukrainian battlefield victory in 2023”. This was followed by a lengthy and impressive list of equipment donations.
I think that, following Ramstein, the Americans and the Germans fell into step.
I only hope they can actually get it to the front line. Senior military figures in both Britain and US have outlined the logistical difficulties and vulnerability of moving tanks and heavy weapons across Ukraine to get them to where they are needed. Rail lines only go so far and then its roads where there are any.

Norah you are believing all the propaganda we are being fed.
The US could send tanks within a few weeks, or they may never be sent. Some (not many) have new depleted uranium armor most don’t and the US has thousands, in any case there more than enough European tanks to supply Ukraine.

Tanks are symbolic, the Russians found out they are very vulnerable to missiles, modern tanks are no different, they are better protected but the US had to withdraw them from Iraq because so many were being damaged by IEDs.

NATO has plenty of weaponry of all kinds it could send to Ukraine the politicians will decide what and when. The Russians are struggling now because they don’t have reserves of modern weapons, although new tanks and aircraft have
been developed they have not been produced in numbers.

GrannyGravy13

Katie59

GG13 it’s not hard to find good information we promised 14 Challengers, by coincidence 14 have been doing exercises in Poland all last summer, they are quite close by, other countries including Germany who have 2000 leopard tanks have also been taking part. In addition The US has 3 brigades of MI tanks in Germany also large numbers of Bradley infantry support light tanks.

There is plenty of hardware in Europe, how much they let Ukraine use and when is purely a political decision and we are only going to know when it happens.

You can only find information that is released.

If you think NATO and Governments are releasing all of the details then I am sorry but you are misinformed.

Why would all details be released? If you can source information so can the Russians.

Indeed.

Source - Forbes

"There’s a good reason it might take months—even the better part of a year—for Ukraine to get those first 31 M-1A2 Abrams tanks from the United States.

Vehicle-maker General Dynamics Land Systems has to remove the uranium from the tanks then swap in tungsten. Both metals can be problematic.

It takes six months for GDLS to build an M-1A2 at the government-owned tank factory in Lima, Ohio. The firm manufactures just three “new” tanks a week. It uses, as the basis of each, one of the thousands of surplus M-1s sitting around at U.S. Army arsenals. All have a depleted-uranium mesh in their armor mix.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the nuclear industry. In the United States, it falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy—and is subject to DOE regulations that bar its export.

Not everyone agrees the export-ban is necessary. As far back as 1986, the U.S. General Accounting Office—now the Government Accountability Office—questioned the regulation. “DOE should be able to develop more objective criteria that will allow flexibility while better meeting established nonproliferation goals,” the GAO asserted.

Unless and until the rules change, an M-1 has to lose its depleted uranium, and get something to replace it, before the U.S. government will sell or donate the tank abroad."

Governments don't want all to know the precise detail.

Source - CTV

"Germany’s ambassador to Canada says NATO will not become “a party to the conflict” in Ukraine, despite several countries announcing they’ll answer President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s pleas for tanks, possibly increasing the risk of Russian escalation.

Sabine Sparwasser said it’s a “real priority” for Germany to support Ukraine, but that it’s important to be in “lockstep” coordination with other allied countries.

“There is a clear line for Germany,” she told CTV’s Question Period host Vassy Kapelos, in an interview airing Sunday. “We do want not want to be a party to the conflict.”

“We want to support, we want to do everything we can, but we, and NATO, do not want to be a party to the war,” she also said. “That's I think, the line we're trying to follow.”

Defence Minister Anita Anand announced this week Canada will send Four Leopard 2 battle tanks — with the possibility of more in the future — to Ukraine, along with Canadian Armed Forces members to train Ukrainian soldiers on how to use them.

As GG13 said, we can all google. I, myself, perceive a limited number of tanks in a very long amount of time

Katie59

GG13 it’s not hard to find good information we promised 14 Challengers, by coincidence 14 have been doing exercises in Poland all last summer, they are quite close by, other countries including Germany who have 2000 leopard tanks have also been taking part. In addition The US has 3 brigades of MI tanks in Germany also large numbers of Bradley infantry support light tanks.

There is plenty of hardware in Europe, how much they let Ukraine use and when is purely a political decision and we are only going to know when it happens.

You can only find information that is released.

If you think NATO and Governments are releasing all of the details then I am sorry but you are misinformed.

Why would all details be released? If you can source information so can the Russians.

GG13 it’s not hard to find good information we promised 14 Challengers, by coincidence 14 have been doing exercises in Poland all last summer, they are quite close by, other countries including Germany who have 2000 leopard tanks have also been taking part. In addition The US has 3 brigades of MI tanks in Germany also large numbers of Bradley infantry support light tanks.

There is plenty of hardware in Europe, how much they let Ukraine use and when is purely a political decision and we are only going to know when it happens.

Seems that the bulk of weapons will be delivered by end March. Time enough to prevent Russians spring offensive I would have thought, as spring comes later in Ukraine. Just as well. I still think that sinews will have to be strained on our part. If we know what the timescales are, so do the Russians.

Greyduster

I would also say that the biggest enemy for the Ukranians is time. It takes time to get tanks into Ukraine, time to train the crews to use the new technology (there’s only so much they can they can do remotely) and time to get them to where they need to be for maximum effectiveness. If they are expecting a big Spring offensive everyone needs to get their skates on.

Seems that the bulk of weapons will be delivered by end March .
Time enough to prevent Russians spring offensive I would have thought, as spring comes later in Ukraine.

Katie59

GrannyGravy13

Katie59 you appear to have insider knowledge

No, it’s not difficult to google who is doing what, see through the propaganda we are getting. Russia has large stocks of old weapons, very limited modern weapons and is having great difficulty increasing production of more, Putin is furious that he cannot even defeat Ukraine. He knows NATO has far more weapons they could send to Ukraine, they are so desperate they are removing nuclear warheads from missiles and using those.

Google may be your friend for most information, but it certainly isn’t when it comes to war.

It is an approximation of what certain people think not facts.

A proxy war indeed, that IS being controlled by the number of weapons that are being sent.

I would also say that the biggest enemy for the Ukranians is time. It takes time to get tanks into Ukraine, time to train the crews to use the new technology (there’s only so much they can they can do remotely) and time to get them to where they need to be for maximum effectiveness. If they are expecting a big Spring offensive everyone needs to get their skates on.

As MOnica has said this is indeed an attack on the West and all the NATO countries, but NATO trains and has trained for this ceaselessly - for every possible scenario - and there has only ever been one enemy. You never underestimate an enemy, no matter how strong your forces are. If we are fighting a war, it is a proxy war and that’s the hardest war to fight because you have no real control.

The one thing this war has shown is that the Russian army is a paper tiger. Untrained soldiers using archaic equipment to fight a modern war. It is having to scrape the barrel for drones, buying from pariah countries like Iran and North Korea, who are undoubtedly going to drive hard deals, to their advantage,

The UKraine war has also shown the Russian army has poor morale and poor leadership. But Putin has been described as a rat, and tells, with admiration, of a rat caught in corner, and getting away by attacking those who would kill it. We must live in fear of what atrocity he might unleash.

But we do need to remember is that this war is an attack on the west and all the NATO countries, Ukraine is the proxy frontline for a Russia v US and Western European war.