> ...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
My claim comes from the clear line that was drawn in the sand by NATO. A nuclear attack demands a deviating response. This is also the exact reason why Russia will never use nukes. They understand that there state ceases to exist once that button is pushed.
The comparison to the only use of nukes during a war is also invalid as during that time every nuclear power was effectively on the same side. That’s obviously no longer true with the current conflict.
> Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
These are the visually confirmed loses that we are seeing. But if you want to dismiss them with the same comment sure but if you do that you can claim to know what it is (3:1 or otherwise).
> In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Knowing how a cryptosystem works and knowing the EW capabilities of your opponent is a huge upper hand. It may not lead to the instant breaking of ciphers or countermeasures against Russian EW equipment but it makes it a lot easier.
This ignores all the ELINT/SIGINT that America is getting from hoovering up all the signals at the border too.
> Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
Here’s the long term outcomes if Ukraine loses the war. Multiple European countries that border Russia likely want to join NATO and the European countries in NATO largely increases there defence spending.
That seems like a pretty poor victory to me.
But long term we don’t know who is going to win, but we do know it’s not going to be via suicidal moves like nuking Ukraine or building T-34s again.
My claim comes from the clear line that was drawn in the sand by NATO. A nuclear attack demands a deviating response. This is also the exact reason why Russia will never use nukes. They understand that there state ceases to exist once that button is pushed.
The comparison to the only use of nukes during a war is also invalid as during that time every nuclear power was effectively on the same side. That’s obviously no longer true with the current conflict.
> Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
These are the visually confirmed loses that we are seeing. But if you want to dismiss them with the same comment sure but if you do that you can claim to know what it is (3:1 or otherwise).
> In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Knowing how a cryptosystem works and knowing the EW capabilities of your opponent is a huge upper hand. It may not lead to the instant breaking of ciphers or countermeasures against Russian EW equipment but it makes it a lot easier.
This ignores all the ELINT/SIGINT that America is getting from hoovering up all the signals at the border too.
> Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
Here’s the long term outcomes if Ukraine loses the war. Multiple European countries that border Russia likely want to join NATO and the European countries in NATO largely increases there defence spending.
That seems like a pretty poor victory to me.
But long term we don’t know who is going to win, but we do know it’s not going to be via suicidal moves like nuking Ukraine or building T-34s again.