Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Subs are probably the single most complicated to operate military system. The time needed to train the crew would be in years. Also, one hit and your sunk. 8 cruise missiles can be dispersed and concealed in the same way they did with the Neptune launcher in Odessa.

On pro Russia rallies:

I think rallying to show support for an invasion, and possibly a fresh genocide being done in Europe yet again, is a bit...on the nose right now (putting it mildly).

There's limits to freedom of speech. Seems like it is risk to public order + decency (that sounds old fashioned, but 🤷‍♀️) and should be shut down, possibly for participants' own health if we have 25-30 k or so Ukrainian refugees (fleeing the same war the "Z" fans would be celebrating) in Ireland now.

Some of the "this is Ireland" (yes, and not the USA) and "we have freedom of speech here" notions strike me as idealistic and detached from reality. Hopefully nothing violent happens if pro war rallies take place.

Rumors of a coup. I'd take it with a pinch of salt Kremlin on high alert as coup rumours grow in Moscow: Disgruntled generals join FSB looking to oust Putin and end Ukraine war (cityam.com)

Of course there will be trouble if the 'Z' rallies happen. And then that kind of stuff will be used by the Kremlin as 'proof' about anti-Russian discrimination in the west.

Absolutely. The lack of nuclear weapons is the root cause of this disaster.

Or nuclear weapons are the problem………….

Also get your point on it. Just think myself that not only is it revolting (akin to a Nazi rally - I mean a real, live, full on Nazi rally, not just some far right types marching) but if this is being announced quite far in advance, there is potential for trouble. May not be ideologically sound as regards perfect freedom of speech, but perhaps better and safer in this case just to tell organisers it is not wanted here, and for the guards to be ready to disperse (or arrest if they won't go) those showing up to hold it.

What line of common sense can you offer that supports your view that an invading army that rapes, tortures, murders and displaces over 10 million people, can have their nuclear weapons pointed at all corners of the globe - yet a country such as Ukraine, subjected for months to the most barbaric of crimes against countless children and civilians, and fighting for its very existence, yet you think its a crazy suggestion for them to have a few nukes.

I would think that if the threat were there, right on their doorstep, that if they don't get the hell out of Ukraine in 24 hours then Ukraine would obliterate Moscow and St.Petersburg, there's a reasonable chance of an end to the war. While Putin is allowed to carry on with his total destruction of Ukraine, with no fear of military reprisals on Russian territory, then there's none.

If Putin can have nuclear weapons, and threaten to use them, then a country that has just been invaded by this madman is equally entitled to them.

Tom Clonan was on RTE News this evening pointing out that that Kremlin TV nut was effectively talking b*****ks and he doubts they have the capacity to launch even one of their undersea missiles. He also said the idea that they could set off a super tsunami with a single missile is beyond laughable, they would need thousands of them...they've been watching too many James Bond movies. Spoofers and playground school bullies, that's what we're dealing with.

Putin could simply respond with, "If you nuke me, I will nuke you and everyone else. You have a few nukes, but I have thousands."

Maybe a nuclear threat from Ukraine would genuinely be the quickest way to get Russia out of Ukraine, but there's no way any western nation will roll the dice on providing them, for the same reasons NATO is not currently prepared to directly engage Russian forces.

Don't ban the rallies, even though they are way beyond obnoxious. Two reasons: one, they are against our hopefully liberal principles which is to tolerate freedom of expression unless there is a pretty direct threat of violence; two, any such ban will be used by the Kremlin as "evidence" of Western suppression of "anti Nazi" political opinion.

We are bigger than these goons.

If Ukraine somehow got a few nuclear weapons, and if the gave Russia a 24 hour ultimatium that Moscow and St. Petersburg would be obliterated unless Russia withdrew, then Ukraine would 100% be obliterated by Russia's nuclear weapons before that 24 hour period was up. Any country with a nuclear arsenal has it as the first point on their nuclear doctrine that they will use the weapons against anyone who threatens them with nuclear weapons. This is just a fact. Ukraine can have all the ethical justification in the world to actively protect themselves in such a way, but the cold reality is that it would result in their nuclear obliteration, and almost certainly an escalation to global nuclear conflict. There is no way that Russia would back down to that threat. The entire point of having a nuclear arsenal is that you're willing to use it in exactly this scenario, and there is absolutely no reason to think that Russia are not willing to do so.

The good news is that none of this is going to happen. No-one is going to give or station nuclear weapons in Ukraine while this war is ongoing. It would be an insane thing to do. It doesn't matter how ethically justified it might be, or how wrong and evil Russia are. The realities of the situation, and the inevitable outcomes, have to be taken into account. Would the worst Pyrrhic victory of all history be worth it? Almost any reasonable person would say no.

One could make a good argument that Ukraine would not have been invaded in the first place if they had kept their nuclear weapons from the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, that ship has sailed. Maybe there'll be a chance again to revisit that after this war, but that will entirely depend on how it ends and what strength is left in Russia when it does.

Putin has been telling all of Russia and the world that part of the reason for his invasion is that Ukraine has ballistic missiles, as well as "Nazi's" So he couldn't exactly blame that on the West if it were suddenly to become common knowledge that they do in fact have nukes.

If they were smuggled in to secret locations all over Ukraine, set up, then a discreet "leaking" of their possession of these... perhaps Zelensky and a few of his commanders pictured with them, then plastered all over the internet. Hell, they could even set one off in a remote part of Ukraine as a warning.

It doesn't matter that Putin has thousands of nukes. The majority probably are not active or don't work. But that's besides the point. What it boils down to is would Putin be willing to take the risk that Moscow and St.Petersburg would be obliterated from the map, at the expense of continuing his futile and irrational war?

Very well put, Gregor, but rather contradictory...

Russia HAS threatened using nuclear weapons. Several times.

So by your logic Ukraine has every right to reciprocate that threat, or even use them... as per your above quote. As do all the Western powers.

If there's no threat in return then he's just going to carry on. And I believe it will escalate more and more and more, until the time comes when Putin has nothing left to fight with, and then we'll see nuclear fireworks, regardless.

I'd like to reiterate that the sole purpose of the supplying nuclear weapons to Ukraine idea was as a deterrent against the Horde getting desperate and thinking the could get a win just by nuking Kyiv, with negligible consequences, which unfortunately they are likely right about.

These should absolutely not be used to threaten the Horde with get out of Ukraine, or else... And the possession of them should be kept secret from the public, but with a enough of a leaking that Putrid is let in on the secret.