Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    along NATO’s eastern borders in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland..."[/I]
    Realistically, I don't see any way how thse could be protected anyway. In case of a full scale war, the Baltic countries are simply too far from the center of NATO's power (western/central Europe) to expect any real help, and are too small for a defense in depth. As for Poland, I doubt NATO could prevent it's eastern areas from being overrun. We might retake them latter, but at the start?

    Comment


    • #77
      I stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        I stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war.
        Well... it would be limited to the planet Earth, so...

        Comment


        • #79
          "...In case of a full scale war, the Baltic countries are simply too far from the center of NATO's power (western/central Europe) to expect any real help, and are too small for a defense in depth. As for Poland, I doubt NATO could prevent it's eastern areas from being overrun. We might retake them latter, but at the start?"

          Full scale war is the final manifestation of NATO's emasculation. THAT doesn't occur without complete confidence within Russia of a muted, non-nuclear response from NATO. It is a decision made knowing victory is virtually certain and the consequences arising from engaging in open warfare shall be nil.

          The final stage of NATO's physical dismemberment.

          The most remote scenario also, btw.

          What isn't remote nor (perhaps) as openly, blatantly and violently pursued is the use of hybrid warfare as a precursor to a limited military attack aimed at sundering the Baltic states and maybe Poland out of the NATO fold. Hybrid warfare as a means of combat is a tacit acknowledgement of Russia's unpreparedness to engage in open conflict with NATO across the entire theatre or, even, selected portions therein without assuring that conditions on the ground offer a favorable resolution before the first shot is fired.

          In American football parlance, they'll take what our defense will give them.

          Therefore, the key question isn't how such a conflict would unfold but what level of deterrence is necessary to prevent such? A successful investment defending NATO's eastern frontier will not provide tangible evidence other than the continuing absence of combat and will always leave open the question of how much more cheaply might our notional opponent have been deterred.

          If you can ask that question in retrospect then success for NATO has been achieved by MAINTAINING the current status quo.

          Russia already understands that sanctions, however presently onerous because of Ukraine, would go through the roof. That cost is certain and would likely entail their complete isolation from the western commercial/financial system. It would be for Russia a step into an entirely brave new world. That minimal, baseline penalty would only be the beginning, however. To that would be added the tangible costs of waging war as their intent becomes clear.

          Deterrence is the only complete victory. Anything else is a defeat at some level for NATO regardless of the consequences suffered by Russia and its people from such a decision.
          Last edited by S2; 09 Jun 16,, 15:11.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #80
            "I stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war."

            O.K. Sorry you didn't find it useful.

            I did.
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by citanon View Post
              What if tacair bases get hit by theater ballistic missiles and planes in the air are threatened by long range SAMs?

              That seems to be what the Russians are putting together.

              It doesn't seem like this combo can hold off NATO airpower indefinitely, but maybe the Russians can create windows of vulnerability to engage in ground operations?
              Well, we do have this big floaty things called aircraft carriers.

              And Tomahawks can fly along way.

              Okay, that was needlessly snarky. But I am not afraid of a Russia...because it will not be only US v Russia in that fight. Poland has a good Air Force...small but very good. Others chip in their pieces. And we could flex forces as well.

              And little green men? That can be a 2 way street. Remember what the purposes are for much of the Special Operations Forces of the US & NATO. And they are all battle hardened.
              Last edited by Albany Rifles; 09 Jun 16,, 15:37.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                I stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war.
                This is your bailiwick, but can you really write off the possibility that the Russians may believe they can utilize tactical nuclear weapons in some manner without risking a full exchange from NATO?

                What if they are strictly used on Non-NATO territory rather than attacking NATO members, or even just a demonstration strike on Russian territory that NATO conventional forces appear poised to move on? That would send a powerful political message without actually harming any NATO territory or personnel.
                Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 09 Jun 16,, 15:50.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Hmmm... Why would someone bet on nukes when it's cheaper to donate few hundred million?
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                    This is your bailiwick, but can you really write off the possibility that the Russians may believe they can utilize tactical nuclear weapons in some manner without risking a full exchange from NATO?

                    What if they are strictly used on Non-NATO territory rather than attacking NATO members, or even just a demonstration strike on Russian territory that NATO conventional forces appear poised to move on? That would send a powerful political message without actually harming any NATO territory or personnel.
                    Mind you the vast majority of Russians are on their western side. Where would you drop it?

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	population-density-map.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	288.8 KB
ID:	1468786
                    Last edited by Doktor; 09 Jun 16,, 16:43.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                      Hmmm... Why would someone bet on nukes when it's cheaper to donate few hundred million?
                      Which does Russia have laying around in excess?

                      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                      Mind you the vast majority of Russians are on their western side. Where would you drop it?
                      As tempting as it would probably be for Putin personally to pick Grozny, a more realistic scenario in my opinion might be an unannounced "test" of a tactical airburst over Mt. Elbrus during a time of tension. It is well situated to send a strong message to Turkey in particular and NATO generally, while serving as a pointed reminder to Georgia and Chechnya to keep quiet.

                      I imagine such an action could serve as an effective deterrent to any sort of vigorous Western interference with "little green men protecting ethnic Russians" in Tbilisi. I wouldn't think such an action would result in more than condemnation/sanctions or perhaps a show of resolve from NATO, yet it would help Russia to achieve a political goal by showing that it is serious about bringing Georgia back into the fold.

                      This is all speculation naturally, but I could see where the Russians might consider nukes to be useful in limited use cases as opposed to the all-or-nothing war with NATO scenario.
                      Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 09 Jun 16,, 18:08.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Which does Russia have laying around in excess?

                        Cheaper then war. What's a bil or two?
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                          This is your bailiwick, but can you really write off the possibility that the Russians may believe they can utilize tactical nuclear weapons in some manner without risking a full exchange from NATO?
                          There is no such thing as tac nukes. One flies. They all fly. We have gone over this a 1000 times during the Cold War. Israel explodes a nuke on Syria. China explodes a nuke on a Russian column inside Chinese territory. There is not one scenario that did not go out to a full nuclear exchange.

                          Putin is a Cold Warrior. He remembered how close we came to nuclear war and I am not talking about the accidents. I'm talking about we deliberately cocking the nuclear trigger and I have news for you. In all our confrontations with Moscow, it is we, the West, who cocked the nuclear trigger first.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Far better option so far.

                            But, can that change?
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by S2 View Post
                              "I stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war."

                              O.K. Sorry you didn't find it useful.

                              I did.
                              If we goto DEFCON 3, US nukes are automatically readied. If we don't goto DEFCON 3, that means this is a surprise nuclear strike on a NATO ally which automatically necessitate at the very least, the cocking of the nuclear trigger and no one, not even Putin, can predict a panic response. That is why we don't have a launch on warning. It's way too dangerous. What do you would happen if we have a confirmed nuclear impact? On an ally?

                              Also, 65% of NATO's nuclear arsenal (and that's including the Brits and French) are ready to launch within 30 minutes. The Russians are at 10%. They're counting on crisis management to give them the time to ready their nukes. They have their SSBNs to respond to a surprise attack but other their ICBMs are dormant. How do we know this? We have inspectors on the ground ... as they do us ... as per the START.

                              So no, this article when it comes to nukes is not useful and in fact, extremely misleading. The Russians are not prepared to use nukes. Their force structure precludes it and if they did launch with their current force posture, they will be on the worst receiving end of the exchange.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                There is no such thing as tac nukes.
                                I've always heard the distinction as one based primarily on target set.

                                Hit a column of armor or military base= Tactical nuke
                                Hit industry or a city = Strategic nuke

                                Was the distinction between devices as tactical or strategic made obsolete with the advent of variable yield devices or was there never a distinction to begin with?

                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                China explodes a nuke on a Russian column inside Chinese territory. There is not one scenario that did not go out to a full nuclear exchange.
                                This is a bit of a surprise to me. I knew that offensive use of nukes invited retaliation and escalation, but hitting the enemy on your own territory as well?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X