Russian invasion of Ukraine

alioth wrote:

It did send a message though, and it forced Argentina to withdraw its air force to Argentina, as they feared the Port Stanley airfield would be put out of action (and their planes bombed along with it). This change of tack by the Argentinians made life much easier for the Navy Harriers, who were now fighting aircraft that had to worry about fuel endurance – forcing this change did a lot more damage to the Argentinian effort than the bombing of Stanley ever did.

I believe the fear was that Vulcan missions (using conventional weapons) could strike Argentine air bases on the mainland, so the Argentine air force reduced the number of jets flying combat missions over the islands in order to keep more back for air defence. Their jets weren’t operating out of Port Stanley anyway, so the fuel situation of those that did engage over the islands was unchanged.

It is debatable whether Port Stanley would ever realistically have hosted Argentine jet fighters and threatened the Royal Navy task force in this way – the runway was of marginal length. C-130s operated before and after Black Buck, and Pucaras were also based there but they posed no serious threat.

alioth wrote:

The Vulcans had long retired from nuclear duties by the Falklands (and were on the verge of retirement, full stop). All nuclear duties had been taken over by the Royal Navy. The Vulcans were all flying in camo livery, not anti-flash white. By the early 80s, the UK didn’t have any nuclear weapons that could be loaded onto a plane.

Today that is easily looked up with one google sweep. In 1982 there was no such thing. So did the Argentinians know that? Fact was that Argentinia had to realize, the UK had the capacity to bomb their cities if it chose. If I look at the current crisis where B-52’s are regularly flying in the crisis zone, it is the message that counts.

Also the Vulcans were not capable of even air-air refuelling when the call came, they had to relearn it and to reactivate the systems, which involved canibalizing some airplanes in museums and elsewhere. Heaven knows what the Vulcan cound have been made capable of if necessary. There is a great documentary about those rides, well worth watching. What was done there was remarkable.

alioth wrote:

It did send a message though, and it forced Argentina to withdraw its air force to Argentina, as they feared the Port Stanley airfield would be put out of action (and their planes bombed along with it). This change of tack by the Argentinians made life much easier for the Navy Harriers, who were now fighting aircraft that had to worry about fuel endurance – forcing this change did a lot more damage to the Argentinian effort than the bombing of Stanley ever did.

It had a massive consequence for the further events, yes. It also showed how determined Britain was.

Some interesting reading here https://westminster-institute.org/author/andrei-illarionov/

A good proof how applying academic logic to warfare leads to completely wrong conclusions. If you had asked anyone who had experienced war (literally any person from Bosnia or Croatia) at the time of this interview – December 2021, whether Putin was going on to invade Ukraine, the answer would have been simple yes. The question would be only when – February, March or April.

@Malibuflyer what wars have been won by bombing civilians. IMO quite the opposite has proved true.

Graham wrote:

the west needs to treat Russia like North Korea for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately that has not worked out well in the longer run, which is not to say that I have any better ideas!

kwlf wrote:

Unfortunately that has not worked out well in the longer run, which is not to say that I have any better ideas!

I don’t think it’s ever really been tried, that was the point of the article – that each time we sanction him we quickly roll it back because of our own economic interests.

The most likely outcome seems to be some sort of peace deal with a Ukrainian commitment not to join NATO or the EU. At which point, I’m afraid, the west will basically tell Putin “that was very naughty, don’t do it again” and start to move towards a normalising relations again.

gallois wrote:

what wars have been won by bombing civilians.

Allies vs. Japan in WWII?

The Allies would certainly have won over Japan even without dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it would have taken much longer and been very bloody. (That’s not to imply that I necessarily think dropping nukes was a good idea.)

Yes, I did omit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but they did need the nukes, the standard bombing of Japanese cities did no more or less than the blitz on London. ie did a lot of damage, killed a lot of civilians and made the indigenous population more resolved not to give in.
Also by the time the nukes were dropped on Japan, VE day was already done so Japan’s big ally had surrendered.

There is a very good book called Nemesis by Max Hastings on the above topic, and the two posts above are probably quite accurate.

Russia is doing the same in Ukraine. Civilian bombing with negligible military value, and it gets them a really bad reputation around the world. The Ukrainian military is holding out well on the ground, and are shooting down several Russian fast jets every day.

How many cruise missiles does Russia have?

However

At which point, I’m afraid, the west will basically tell Putin “that was very naughty, don’t do it again” and start to move towards a normalising relations again.

is probably right. Too much economic pressure and lack of unity in Europe.