US/NATO/Nordic Alliance vs Russia
Discussion
Supernova190188 said:
far bigger population if more soldiers were needed via conscription etc
Like this?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31759597
AJS- said:
There is a hell of a lot of Russia to destroy compared with Britain or France. Fortunately I don't believe either side is in the grip of such utter insanity as to seriously contemplate such a thing.
there is but if only few hit their economy would sink quickly and they would be done in that aftermath hypothetical worldWouldn't "the economy" in the peacetime sense be a bit redundant? I would imagine food, water, steel and oil would be many times more useful than Range Rovers, premier league TV rights or other things which make money in the absence of all out nuclear war. Russia's vast winderness and generous endowment of natural resources would appear to give it an advantage in this regard.
Though it is all fortunately a very hypothetical scenario.
Though it is all fortunately a very hypothetical scenario.
Mojocvh said:
Really?
Lol its irrelevant really, when one side designs agricultural machinery with guns so they can be operated by darken inbread peasants. The Russian Air Force is a joke an utter joke of a shambolic mess ran by ingrates and staffed by drunk peasants, I would imagine in a real war they would fold within a few days. They can't even get a civilian jet from one place to another, on time and in working order.AreOut said:
yeah I'm talking about scenario with no other sides involved(which is only possible in theory), Russians would crush, just count how much they would have to spend on decontamination even if they had no other damage at all
You should read up on Chernobyl and the process that led to the end of the Cold War. Russia isn't as keen on nukes as it once was.http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
...."To solve the problem of Russia's conventional military weakness, he has dramatically lowered the threshold for when he would use nuclear weapons, hoping to terrify the West such that it will bend to avoid conflict. In public speeches, over and over, he references those weapons and his willingness to use them. He has enshrined, in Russia's official nuclear doctrine, a dangerous idea no Soviet leader ever adopted: that a nuclear war could be winnable."....
..."Russia's official nuclear doctrine calls on the country to launch a battlefield nuclear strike in case of a conventional war that could pose an existential threat. These are more than just words: Moscow has repeatedly signaled its willingness and preparations to use nuclear weapons even in a more limited war.
This is a terrifyingly low bar for nuclear weapons use, particularly given that any war would likely occur along Russia's borders and thus not far from Moscow. And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
"It’s not just a difference in rhetoric. It’s a whole different world," Bruce G. Blair, a nuclear weapons scholar at Princeton, told the Wall Street Journal. He called Putin's decisions more dangerous than those of any Soviet leader since 1962. "There’s a low nuclear threshold now that didn’t exist during the Cold War."...
XI. The nuclear dangers: Does Putin believe nuclear war can be "won"?
..."There is a corollary in Russia's nuclear doctrine, a way in which the Russians believe they have solved the problem of Western military superiority, that is so foolhardy, so dangerous, that it is difficult to believe they really mean it. And yet, there is every indication that they do.
That corollary is Russia's embrace of what it calls a "de-escalation" nuclear strike. Go back to the scenario spelled out in Russia's military doctrine: a conventional military conflict that poses an existential threat to the country. The doctrine calls for Russia to respond with a nuclear strike. But imagine you're a Russian leader: How do you drop a nuclear bomb on NATO's troops without forcing the US to respond with a nuclear strike in kind, setting off a tit-for-tat cycle of escalation that would end in total nuclear war and global devastation?
Russia's answer, in the case of such a conflict, is to drop a single nuclear weapon — one from the family of smaller, battlefield-use nukes known as "tactical" weapons, rather than from the larger, city-destroying "strategic" nuclear weapons. The idea is that such a strike would signal Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and would force the enemy to immediately end the fight rather than risk further nuclear destruction.
Nikolai Sokov, a nuclear weapons expert and former official in the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, explained in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that this is not a far-fetched option of last resort; it has become central to Russian war planning."...
well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
...."To solve the problem of Russia's conventional military weakness, he has dramatically lowered the threshold for when he would use nuclear weapons, hoping to terrify the West such that it will bend to avoid conflict. In public speeches, over and over, he references those weapons and his willingness to use them. He has enshrined, in Russia's official nuclear doctrine, a dangerous idea no Soviet leader ever adopted: that a nuclear war could be winnable."....
..."Russia's official nuclear doctrine calls on the country to launch a battlefield nuclear strike in case of a conventional war that could pose an existential threat. These are more than just words: Moscow has repeatedly signaled its willingness and preparations to use nuclear weapons even in a more limited war.
This is a terrifyingly low bar for nuclear weapons use, particularly given that any war would likely occur along Russia's borders and thus not far from Moscow. And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
"It’s not just a difference in rhetoric. It’s a whole different world," Bruce G. Blair, a nuclear weapons scholar at Princeton, told the Wall Street Journal. He called Putin's decisions more dangerous than those of any Soviet leader since 1962. "There’s a low nuclear threshold now that didn’t exist during the Cold War."...
XI. The nuclear dangers: Does Putin believe nuclear war can be "won"?
..."There is a corollary in Russia's nuclear doctrine, a way in which the Russians believe they have solved the problem of Western military superiority, that is so foolhardy, so dangerous, that it is difficult to believe they really mean it. And yet, there is every indication that they do.
That corollary is Russia's embrace of what it calls a "de-escalation" nuclear strike. Go back to the scenario spelled out in Russia's military doctrine: a conventional military conflict that poses an existential threat to the country. The doctrine calls for Russia to respond with a nuclear strike. But imagine you're a Russian leader: How do you drop a nuclear bomb on NATO's troops without forcing the US to respond with a nuclear strike in kind, setting off a tit-for-tat cycle of escalation that would end in total nuclear war and global devastation?
Russia's answer, in the case of such a conflict, is to drop a single nuclear weapon — one from the family of smaller, battlefield-use nukes known as "tactical" weapons, rather than from the larger, city-destroying "strategic" nuclear weapons. The idea is that such a strike would signal Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and would force the enemy to immediately end the fight rather than risk further nuclear destruction.
Nikolai Sokov, a nuclear weapons expert and former official in the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, explained in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that this is not a far-fetched option of last resort; it has become central to Russian war planning."...
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st July 22:12
Mojocvh said:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
Nothing new here. The British Army's operational doctrine during the cold war was predicated upon the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first-up defence against massed Soviet armour. The intention was to canalize them into specific areas, and then plaster them with battlefield nukes. And it would happen almost immediately. BAOR doctrine was crystal clear on this.well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st July 22:12
AJS- said:
Wouldn't "the economy" in the peacetime sense be a bit redundant? I would imagine food, water, steel and oil would be many times more useful than Range Rovers, premier league TV rights or other things which make money in the absence of all out nuclear war. Russia's vast winderness and generous endowment of natural resources would appear to give it an advantage in this regard.
Though it is all fortunately a very hypothetical scenario.
The speed with which a european war would chew through personnel, equipment, fuel and munitions renders worrying about the ability to make anything other than more Haribo pointless; it would be all over bar the shouting, raping and pillaging within a fortnight(assuming it didn't just go nuclear and be over in 15 minutes).Though it is all fortunately a very hypothetical scenario.
Joey Ramone said:
Mojocvh said:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
Nothing new here. The British Army's operational doctrine during the cold war was predicated upon the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first-up defence against massed Soviet armour. The intention was to canalize them into specific areas, and then plaster them with battlefield nukes. And it would happen almost immediately. BAOR doctrine was crystal clear on this.well worth a read...IV. How it would happen: The Baltics scenario
And it suggests Putin has adopted an idea that Cold War leaders considered unthinkable: that a "limited" nuclear war, of small warheads dropped on the battlefield, could be not only survivable but winnable.
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st July 22:12
deckster said:
Also, and something very much to consider; although we 'won' WW2, if an outsider today took a look at the standards of living and relative economies of Germany and the UK they would probably come to the opposite conclusion.
I do find it tiresome when people put down the UK like this. It is more likely that such an outsider would think that, given the war ended 70 years ago it is not entirely surprising that living standards are close to identical in the UK and Germany.(GDP per capita in 2014, according to the World Bank, was US$ 47,590 in Germany and US$ 45,653 in the UK.)
Octoposse said:
I spent much of the 1980’s in forests ‘somewhere in Germany’ looking Eastwards, expecting the Russians to come at any moment (OK, poetic licence – it was mainly swimming galas and cleaning stuff, but the overall point holds true). Being young and possibly even more stupid than the average ISIS recruit nowdays, we were mildly excited by the prospect – despite knowing full well we were utterly and completely f
ked if they did. If I recall correctly, the MILAN gunners got one practice shot a year, and our Nuclear/Biological/Chemical ‘proof’ APCs leaked like sieves in the rain.
I was slightly older/wiser when I had tiny bit-part walk-on parts in two itsy bitsy little wars. Probably got mild PTSD (never been diagnosed/treated, but manifests itself in nothing more onerous than the occasional sob sparked by obscure reminders).
Absolutely horrific beyond words. Not so much for the soldiers – although it can be pretty grim for some at times. But for those ‘unfortunate’ families, children, ordinary people, caught up in it all – horrific.
At bedtime, in his powder-blue attic room with pictures of Captain Barnacle and dinosaurs, my five year old snuggles up for re-assurance about swimming lessons, learning to ride a bike, an invitation (or not) to x’s party, the Lego Ninjago he’s seen in a shop window. The pit of horror and despair I’d feel in a cellar, feeling the vibration of artillery shells, wondering who’s dead out there in the smashed school, where the boy’s mum is, did that last mortar shell hit the bread queue where his grandmother is . . . distracting the child with talk of ‘what we’ll do next year’. And that’s mild compared with the situation multiplied several million times over in Syria, Ukraine, etc.
That’s why I want an ‘grown up’ and engaged relationship with Russia, not one that makes it appears that ‘games theory’ shapes our government’s actions as much as it does Greece’s hugely successful negotiations with its creditors, and where ordinary Ukrainians and others are expendible.
You couldn’t begin to measure the human misery that would flow from even the most limited of armed conflicts in populous Europe.
Best and most mature post I've read on pistonheads in a long time.ked if they did. If I recall correctly, the MILAN gunners got one practice shot a year, and our Nuclear/Biological/Chemical ‘proof’ APCs leaked like sieves in the rain.I was slightly older/wiser when I had tiny bit-part walk-on parts in two itsy bitsy little wars. Probably got mild PTSD (never been diagnosed/treated, but manifests itself in nothing more onerous than the occasional sob sparked by obscure reminders).
Absolutely horrific beyond words. Not so much for the soldiers – although it can be pretty grim for some at times. But for those ‘unfortunate’ families, children, ordinary people, caught up in it all – horrific.
At bedtime, in his powder-blue attic room with pictures of Captain Barnacle and dinosaurs, my five year old snuggles up for re-assurance about swimming lessons, learning to ride a bike, an invitation (or not) to x’s party, the Lego Ninjago he’s seen in a shop window. The pit of horror and despair I’d feel in a cellar, feeling the vibration of artillery shells, wondering who’s dead out there in the smashed school, where the boy’s mum is, did that last mortar shell hit the bread queue where his grandmother is . . . distracting the child with talk of ‘what we’ll do next year’. And that’s mild compared with the situation multiplied several million times over in Syria, Ukraine, etc.
That’s why I want an ‘grown up’ and engaged relationship with Russia, not one that makes it appears that ‘games theory’ shapes our government’s actions as much as it does Greece’s hugely successful negotiations with its creditors, and where ordinary Ukrainians and others are expendible.
You couldn’t begin to measure the human misery that would flow from even the most limited of armed conflicts in populous Europe.
Zod said:
I do find it tiresome when people put down the UK like this. It is more likely that such an outsider would think that, given the war ended 70 years ago it is not entirely surprising that living standards are close to identical in the UK and Germany.
(GDP per capita in 2014, according to the World Bank, was US$ 47,590 in Germany and US$ 45,653 in the UK.)
I do find it tiresome when the partially informed comment on something they know half about on the internet. (GDP per capita in 2014, according to the World Bank, was US$ 47,590 in Germany and US$ 45,653 in the UK.)
I live and have lived both countries for years and know them both intimately. Britain has strengths and advantages and some do have a better quality of life than their German counterparts but I can assure you that the quality of life in Germany for the average person is far higher than that of the UK.
Scoobman said:
Zod said:
I do find it tiresome when people put down the UK like this. It is more likely that such an outsider would think that, given the war ended 70 years ago it is not entirely surprising that living standards are close to identical in the UK and Germany.
(GDP per capita in 2014, according to the World Bank, was US$ 47,590 in Germany and US$ 45,653 in the UK.)
I do find it tiresome when the partially informed comment on something they know half about on the internet. (GDP per capita in 2014, according to the World Bank, was US$ 47,590 in Germany and US$ 45,653 in the UK.)
I live and have lived both countries for years and know them both intimately. Britain has strengths and advantages and some do have a better quality of life than their German counterparts but I can assure you that the quality of life in Germany for the average person is far higher than that of the UK.
You chose the wrong person to try to patronise. I too have lived in Germany. I lived there in the 1990s and later in the 2000s and you are talking bks. Quality of life for the average person is very similar in both countries. I have also lived in France. The same goes for France.Edited by Zod on Thursday 2nd July 18:56
Scoobman said:
So your starting comment ``I find it tiresome´´ is not patronising?
Ok
I too think you are talking bks.
You think I am talking bks
So I guess we agree to disagree.
You made the claim that quality of life is higher in Germany, despite equivalent GDP per capita levels. Try to justify your claim.Ok
I too think you are talking b
ks.You think I am talking b
ksSo I guess we agree to disagree.
Edited by Scoobman on Thursday 2nd July 20:04
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff