Timeline for Why not have a partial no-fly zone for Ukraine? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2022 at 12:43 | history | left closed in review |
Machavity Mithridates the Great Dave Gremlin |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| Jun 29, 2022 at 14:26 | vote | accept | user3280964 | ||
| Jun 29, 2022 at 15:57 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2022 at 14:23 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 30, 2022 at 12:43 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2022 at 14:01 | history | closed |
Wag the mainstream media dog Alexei convert CGCampbell Giter |
Duplicate of What would setting up a no-fly zone by NATO over Ukraine actually mean? | |
| Jun 29, 2022 at 10:31 | comment | added | convert | @Charlie Evans Covered operation is a diferent thing, oficially there were no russian fighting in Korea o Vietnam, inoficialy is something diferent. Inoficially there are NATO trups fighting in Ukraine, but oficialy they are not there. | |
| Jun 29, 2022 at 9:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 29, 2022 at 14:04 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2022 at 9:15 | comment | added | Wag the mainstream media dog | Does this answer your question? What would setting up a no-fly zone by NATO over Ukraine actually mean? Why does Zelenskyy urge NATO to impose a no-fly zone? | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 22:37 | comment | added | Charlie Evans | @convert On the contrary, there is evidence that the Soviet military leadership was seriously concerned by the strength of the conventional Chinese forces, and their own precarious position in the Far East, in 1969. As I said, it depends what you mean by "direct" but Soviet and American airmen fought each other directly in the Korean war, and soviet-manned SAM batteries appear to have shot down US aircraft in the Vietnam war. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 21:22 | comment | added | convert | @Charlie Evans In the war between PRC and USSR, USSR was the stronger side, so no need to escalate to nuclear level. And when tallking about Korean and Vietnam, that were proxy wars without direct confrontation between the 2 superpowers. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 21:14 | comment | added | convert | "Not even Russia claims that Kherson is Russian soil - yet." Where you cot that? Can give you some sorces which say the oposite. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 20:57 | answer | added | Italian Philosopher | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 19:32 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | @Fizz in 1969 China had minor nuclear capability, it was not a MAD scenario by any means. Pakistan and India are not a MAD scenario either, planet-wise (which doesn't mean their Kargill war was a very clever move). Point is, in both cases, had it escalated it would have been nasty, but not back to cockroaches-only. Which is where USA-Russia is at. Even USA-China isn't there (yet). It's really not a good idea and we have to go back to the Cold War to understand why it isn't. The probability of coming to nukes is low, true, don't disagree, but the outcome is too catastrophic if it does. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 19:23 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica: yes, no contact is the best strategy, but China and the USSR were both nuclear armed and they fought conventional border skirmishes. As did India and Pakistan. It's not that I'm wishing NATO and Russia start exchanging conventional artillery duels, but there is a tendency on this site and in some part of the press to overstate things in re nuclear weapons coming into play right away. However, it is basically unanswerable how things would turn out between NATO and Russia until we get there. So the Q is prolly too speculative. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 18:26 | answer | added | Charlie Evans | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 17:59 | comment | added | Charlie Evans | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Did the Cold War teach us that two nuclear powers shouldn't be in direct conflict? The PRC and USSR were both nuclear powers and fought directly in 1969, without the conflict escalating to nuclear weapons. Depending on what you mean by "direct", Soviet and American forces also engaged during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, without any nuclear escalation. After the Cold War, the Kargil War is another example where two nuclear states limited themselves to conventional war. A fight between nuclear states seems a bad idea, but it isn't really history that teaches this. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 17:17 | answer | added | o.m. | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 17:16 | answer | added | Timur Shtatland | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 17:00 | comment | added | user3280964 | The question is about partial no-fly zone. You make excellent about escalation. We do have to be extremely careful. I'm asking this: Isn't a partial no fly zone being extremely careful? For example if we talk about a no-fly zone purely above Lviv - there are no Russian jets or SAMs there to worry about already. Where would the escalation come from? If one Russian jet sneaks through and gets shot down by NATO - that's the definition of controlled and extremely careful approach isn't it? Forget the Dnieper example (it's probably bad for your reasons), but that's not the question. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 16:47 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | No, you don't understand. Any time you have a Russia - NATO units trading shots you risk starting out an escalation chain. First limited conventional, then less limited conventional, then limited nukes, then full on nukes. So, no, no putting NATO jets where they shoot at Russian ones or get shot at by Russian ones. End of story. I am not downvoting but really we all went through the no-fly zone arguments 3 months ago. Here, but also in the general media. It's just a terrible idea and so are any direct combat roles for NATO on Ukrainian territory (including wheat convoy escorts). | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 16:45 | comment | added | user3280964 | You can't use a nuke to take out planes. Well you can I guess, but at that point it's just an excuse for Russia to launch nukes for no good reason. If Russia wants to launch nukes for no good reason they can do it today, right now. No need to wait for planes in the air. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 16:41 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | It's not a question of all or nothing in regards to territory and it has little to do with attacking Russian soil (that's only a concern when Ukrainian forces attack Russia). It has to do with avoiding the potential for any NATO-on-Russia direct combat. WW3 and nukes and all that. No NATO combat troops should be in Ukraine, period. 50 years of Cold War taught us this: don't put 2 nuclear powers in direct conflict. Now, within those parameters NATO can do all sorts of other stuff, including ignoring all of Putin's nuclear bluster. | |
| Jun 28, 2022 at 16:37 | history | edited | Rick Smith | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited title
|
| S Jun 28, 2022 at 16:29 | review | First questions | |||
| Jun 28, 2022 at 17:22 | |||||
| S Jun 28, 2022 at 16:29 | history | asked | user3280964 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |