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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

fs.blog/mutually-assured-destruction/

Katie59

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.

Nobody said a C5.

C-17: "The design of the aircraft (high-lift wing, slats, and externally blown flaps) allows it to operate through small, austere airfields.

The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,500 feet (1,064 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters)."

C-17 can load for airlift 2 of the big new tanks.

MAD does not require both sides to act rationally, because if both sides were rational the danger doesn't arise. MAD has to be based on the enemy being irrational and being kept from action by knowing whatever they do the enemy will respond at a higher level and it can. We cannot afford the irrational enemy to be better armed than us.

As to Putin. The rumours that he is in poor health are coming from so many directions, that while details may be lacking or varied. The basic fact that he is in poor health seem more likely as not. Average life expectancy in Russia is 72, so he is not far off it. Although this low figure is accounted for by the average Russians exceptionally heavy alcohol consumptions - and Putin is teetotal.

How knowing your life may not have long to run affects his decsion making we do not know.

Fleurpepper

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

fs.blog/mutually-assured-destruction/

It is a dangerous time Fleurpepper, but asking another country to plead with a bully is asking them to choose which version of failure they prefer. This would then apply to any other country Russia decided they were entitled to.

Exactly, if he is ill and knows he hasn't got long, he is mad enough to want to try. Which is why many of us, but far too few, tried to stop nuclear proliferation for 50 years ...
because we knew that day would come.

USA intelligence recently refuted the suggestion that Putin is seriously ill, or even a bit ill

C-17 can load for airlift 2 of the big new tanks.

No just one, but I really don’t see NATO C17s airlifting tanks into Ukraine because fuel and supplies would also need to do the same.

I can’t watch the news anymore. Those brave and valiant Ukraines suffering so much, just want it to end. The Russians are being fed misinformation from Putin and I feel sorry for most of them, somebodies loved ones.. Don’t know what any of us can do but support the Ukraines in what they need including the tanks.
You would think that after all history has taught us, wars would not happen.

I beginning to find it rather surreal that we have a group of grans discussing the logistics of moving heavy armaments across a battlefield (not that we shouldn’t be, by any means). The guys on ARRS (The Army Rumour Service) would have a field day with this😂 but they are far more irreverent about it than us! One concluded recently that it would be far easier to give them all a rifle, five rounds and a small packed lunch!

Monica ''MAD does not require both sides to act rationally, because if both sides were rational the danger doesn't arise. MAD has to be based on the enemy being irrational and being kept from action by knowing whatever they do the enemy will respond at a higher level and it can. ''

I have been thinking about this since you posted, and it truly does NOT make sense. An irrational madman, especially one at the end of life and with his family all hidden far away and safe, and with absolutely no respect or compassion for his own people, is EXACTLY what will prove MAD to be a fallacy.

This especially now that smaller, more precise nuclear weapon give the mentally insane illusion that a 'neat, small and well targeted' nuclear strike could just act as a warning. Sheer madness.

Blimey what are you all putting in your tea…

GrannyGravy🤣!

GrannyGravy13

Blimey what are you all putting in your tea…

😂😂😂

I beginning to find it rather surreal that we have a group of grans discussing the logistics of moving heavy armaments across a battlefield

I expect the FSS is glued to this thread, awaiting further developments so that they can report back to Putin.

GrannyGravy13

Blimey what are you all putting in your tea…

It's were they are getting all this from I worry about.

Fleurpepper

Exactly, if he is ill and knows he hasn't got long, he is mad enough to want to try. Which is why many of us, but far too few, tried to stop nuclear proliferation for 50 years ...
because we knew that day would come.

Russia warns United States: The end of nuclear arms control may be nigh
Reuters
GUY FAULCONBRIDGE
January 30, 2023, 5:43 AM

Do you mean to tell me that when all those pudding faced apparatchiks in Moscow realise that their beloved leader has actually gone off his rocker, and they might get back as good as they give, they won’t suddenly wake up and smell the coffee? There are only so many places in the Kremlin bunker, guys!

Isn't this rather sexist? I beginning to find it rather surreal that we have a group of grans discussing the logistics of moving heavy armaments across a battlefield

It is suggesting that no older woman has ever served in the defence services, studied war studies at university, or has any knowledge, or interest in military history

Why on earth shouldn't we know about the logistics of moving tanks ? The landing beaches in Normandy were chosen deliberately to enable tanks to travel across the land. The original choice of 1anding beaches was rejected because the hinterland was unsuitable for tanks

Please accept my apologies. I was being lighthearted, and you’re absolutely right that it was a clumsy assumption to make. I served in the Army, as did my husband - a career soldier, and I have been a lifelong student of military history from the campaigns of Alexander upwards, and still have an abiding interest in and connections to the military. And yes, there will certainly be others on here similarly experienced and disposed. I hope my previous opinions though will be considered as measured.