I can’t vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.
TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called “sit and wait predation”. It’s designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.
Tell that to Ukraine.
Ukraine made a deal with America to disarm back when America was a little trustworthy. Things have changed, and I say they’re good to resume nukes.
That would solve nothing because they would be condemned for using it.
The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.
Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.
And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?
Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?
If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.
OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke. That’s a legitimate issue to consider. I don’t think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can’t rely on it to stop it entirely. It’s as if there’s a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability. If that’s a realistic possibility, we should tackle it. Maybe after we get nukes.
With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.
Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain’t afraid to use it, without “starting a nuclear war.”
Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke because the consequences would be severe, Including possible tactical nuclear reciprocity, and becoming a global pariah who loses the few allies they have left. It also makes no sense to nuke the prize you want to own or pop off nukes upwind of your territory as your own people will be very pissed off with any fallout. It would also trigger a massive change in posture of NATO. Any country so irresponsible with nuclear weapons to use them on non threats, non-nuke countries becomes a candidate for a capitulating first strike.
Russia has updated their nuclear doctrine so NATO powers can’t conventionally cripple russia by proxy via Ukraine as it would risk devastating escalation. But again, no one wants escalation. It’s an unnecessary posture as Russia started this as an agressor, and played the great game very, very badly due to internal corruption. They could stop it at any time.
Edit: As for Canadian defense against the US, there is no hot war defense possible. There are 2 effective defensive possibilities.
Nuclear deterrent. (A sub based nuclear second strike only capability similar to the UK.)
Preparation for an insurgency. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan, the US can take and hold whatever it wants for as long as it wants. Canada could not defend against any hot war. An insurgency however would make it way too costly for the US to hold onto Canada for any length of time and would be devastating to onshore infrastructure and industrial capacity at a time where China is quickly rising. They would also be expelled from NATO and would have to counter China alone without its Western World allied military capabilities or soft power.
You’re expanding on why they haven’t nuked Kiev or any other part of Ukraine. That all makes sense. I assumed that already in my argument and went for the next - they’re not using nukes and they’re engaing in a hot war mostly on Ukranian but also on Russian territory. Therefore having nukes doesn’t guarantee you won’t get a hot war on your land. You’re not addressing that bit. I’m not saying you must, I just think there’s a reasonable argument that a hot war under certain intensity on your territoty is possible even if you have nukes. Even if less likey than without having nukes. That’s not an argument against getting nukes for Canada.
To speculate a bit, because of many of the same reasons you stated for why Russia hasn’t nuked Ukraine, I don’t think Russia would have nuked Ukraine, even in a fantastical scenario where Ukraine started the war with incursion into Russia.
Agreed on the points of Canadian defence.
No guarentees in life, but it is a bold statement with no evidence that comes to mind. Can anyone name a single nuclear armed country who was invaded?
All wars since nukes have been proxy wars by great powers. Russia is exceptional, in that it invaded a weaker, non-nuke non-threat country and flubbed it so badly guerilla strikes are hapening behind its front lines and frankly, across the country. They weren’t invaded, and Ukraine poses no real threat to the USSR so there are still no examples to support your statement.
And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?
What bluff?
Answer
I did. This sounds suspiciously like trolling.
Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.