Originally posted by jlvfr
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostOtoh, guided munitions have completely transformed the way any war is fought. At the heigh of the Cold War, it would take (for example) a flight of our old A-7P a pass with a full dumb-bomb loads to cause serious damage to (for example) a mech platoon. Today, a single F-16MLU would fire LGBs or missiles from X miles away, 1 per tank...
And the Russians invented hugging tactics.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostCutting off naval shiping in the Bosphorus? There's a legal way for Turkey to do that?...
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostOf course the insanity is that while the Baltics are currently indefencible - and it seems that is unlikely to change; "We will agree on the deployment by rotation of four robust multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland." http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_132351.htm the Dnipro is defencible and currently being defended. The Straits at Constantinople could be closed - stifling Muscovite operations in Syria (this would not be illegal I am informed) - SWIFT cut off/North Stream 2 stopped/dirty Muscovite money (much of it in London) found and confiscated etc etc etc. We could cripple them without a shot while moving deterrent forces into CEE.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 16 Jun 16,, 00:29.Chimo
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThink you're missing the point about the Baltics. They are militarily indefensible because there's nothing military to defend. They are at best a side action. Both the Russians and us would aiming to destroy each other's centres of force and those centres are in Poland and Russia/Belarus. The Baltics are nothing more than conduits to get to those centres. It would be idiotic to place forces so far from your strongpoints that does nothing to collapse the bad guys.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostA side note...what impact will BREXIT have on NATO?
Probably need a separate thread for that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostProbably minimal other than short term economic shock. The British can leave the EU, but they will still be part of the common market which is a separate treaty.
That has to include NATO impacts.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThink you're missing the point about the Baltics. They are militarily indefensible because there's nothing military to defend. They are at best a side action. Both the Russians and us would aiming to destroy each other's centres of force and those centres are in Poland and Russia/Belarus.
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe absolutely only thing that makes them defensible is an imperial patron willing to die for them. They have 3 choices, the US (NATO), the EU (NATO but different patronage) or Russia. Pick one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostBut everything I have seen shows that the UK will have to renegotiate a myriad of trade agreements which are abrogated by BREXIT. And that includes defense deals.
That has to include NATO impacts.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostUK to renegotiate NATO deals in case of Brexit? They'd be leaving the economic union, not the military one.
Economic changes will ALWAYS have political and military impacts.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostIntermarium.Chimo
Comment
Comment