Originally posted by S2
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR
Collapse
X
-
-
-
"...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
-
"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
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostWhat 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?
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
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostI stopped reading once I read limited nuclear war.
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
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostThis 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 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
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostHmmm... Why would someone bet on nukes when it's cheaper to donate few hundred million?
Originally posted by Doktor View PostMind you the vast majority of Russians are on their western side. Where would you drop it?
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
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostThis 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?
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
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThere is no such thing as tac nukes.
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 PostChina 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.
Comment
Comment