|
axelord posted:To Free the Baltic countries we would need to take out Russian AA, Radar and Air units. Making a first strike nuclear attack on Russia easier. Maybe that's why Russia wouldn't be so dumb as to invade a NATO state to begin with. The odds that NATO is actually bluffing is pretty low. They would have little to gain and a lot to lose by doing so. Russia is not going to invade a NATO country. Period.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Russia would have to take out AA, Radar and Air units in the Baltics if they are going to outright invade. Surely they wouldn't dare do that if that's the same as opening NATO countries to nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
axelord posted:Honestly yes, but this is more because the American debate about Russia has been more how we need to talk tough and that's all we need to do. There hasn't been any discussion about the actual cost to defend Eastern Europe at all. Publicly threatening nuclear war would be seen as a very provocative statement by Russia and may lead to escalation because Russia's whole government is built upon Russia Stronk mythology and the people would expect some sort of answer to such a threat. I understand what you're frustrated about, but military strategy is generally not consulted with the public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Friendly reminder that this is not the thread for Clancy chat about Russia waging war with NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You know, nuclear warheads generally come in missiles now, not bombers. In war it's hard enough to know exactly what your own forces are doing let alone know exactly what your enemy is doing. In the Cold War we almost had nuclear war set off because a flock of birds. With missiles flying at both sides people dying how is anyone not going to see the worst intentions in their enemies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Friendly reminder that this is not the thread for Clancy chat about Russia waging war with NATO. You've been posting here since the beginning, you know we have to have this chat once every six months or so. It's the way of the world friend, no sense fighting against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:You've been posting here since the beginning, you know we have to have this chat once every six months or so. It's the way of the world friend, no sense fighting against it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
axelord posted:To Free the Baltic countries we would need to take out Russian AA, Radar and Air units. Making a first strike nuclear attack on Russia easier. None of that makes a first strike on Russia easier. It's not 1956, we don't use bombers. The stuff they have that tracks and attempts to defend against long distance missiles isn't used for invading countries. Wow it's almost like Russia shouldn't go around invading NATO countries then, huh? It's a lot easier to not get nuclear striked when you don't go picking fights with an alliance of nuclear nations. Dude you've got some extremely weird ideas about how, well, everything related to war works. axelord posted:In war it's hard enough to know exactly what your own forces are doing let alone know exactly what your enemy is doing. In the Cold War we almost had nuclear war set off because a flock of birds. With missiles flying at both sides people dying how is anyone not going to see the worst intentions in their enemies? Uh, the Russians would have just invaded 3 countries for no reason. How are they not literally having the worst intentions, in that scenario?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
It's hard not to touch the Clancy chat poop when we just had a weekend of NATO waving their dicks at Russia. It's more like a big game of Eastern Europe Chicken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
axelord posted:In war it's hard enough to know exactly what your own forces are doing let alone know exactly what your enemy is doing. In the Cold War we almost had nuclear war set off because a flock of birds. With missiles flying at both sides people dying how is anyone not going to see the worst intentions in their enemies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's totally irrelevant to your idiotic point. Destroying Russian conventional forces operating in the Baltic region does nothing to make a first strike on Russia easier, because none of that poo poo can defend against nukes in the first place. Nuclear warheads don't just fall gently from the sky, they speed across it at 20 times the speed of sound. I thought we had anti missle defense poo poo(i am sure the mainland US does) not sure about europe. I assume NATO would win a conventional war against Russia if it came down to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I thought we had anti missle defense poo poo(i am sure the mainland US does) not sure about europe. I assume NATO would win a conventional war against Russia if it came down to it. The US has a few interceptors in Guam that might be able to shoot down an ICBM. If it flies over the Pacific. Aside from that it's all been geared toward shorter range/slower missiles like the ones used by Iran and North Korea. The Russians could lob ICBMs right over the proposed ABM site in Poland at the US (not that they would - those go over the pole) and the interceptors couldn't catch them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I thought we had anti missle defense poo poo(i am sure the mainland US does) not sure about europe. I assume NATO would win a conventional war against Russia if it came down to it. Missile interceptors are real security theater.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I thought we had anti missle defense poo poo(i am sure the mainland US does) not sure about europe. I assume NATO would win a conventional war against Russia if it came down to it. Anti-ballistic defenses in Europe would be unable to defend Europe. THey were planned to defend North America. The buffer zone required for the defensive missiles to intercept the target is just too large for the launch base to be situated anywhere close to the target of the incoming warheads. Also they don't really work well enough to save anybody against thousands of warheads launched simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Uh, no, NATO is being very clear. NATO is probably being the clearest it has been in 25-30 years as to what it's purpose is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:It's hard not to touch the Clancy chat poop when we just had a weekend of NATO waving their dicks at Russia. It's more like a big game of Eastern Europe Chicken. Russia has been waving its dick at NATO for years now, with all the positioning of troops, Ukraine invasions, Crimea, military parades, failed tank unveilings etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Russia has been waving its dick at NATO for years now, with all the positioning of troops, Ukraine invasions, Crimea, military parades, failed tank unveilings etc. But if we defend ourselves against invasion Russia might become confused and roast the world in nuclear hellfire 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Anti-ballistic defenses in Europe would be unable to defend Europe. THey were planned to defend North America. The buffer zone required for the defensive missiles to intercept the target is just too large for the launch base to be situated anywhere close to the target of the incoming warheads. Missile interceptors don't work at all at the moment. Maybe they would be able to stop a few warheads, but in a nuclear exchange between the NATO and Russia their effect would be moot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Can someone please post a marker when nerdgazm clancychat is over? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:It's hard not to touch the Clancy chat poop when we just had a weekend of NATO waving their dicks at Russia. It's more like a big game of Eastern Europe Chicken. "we have put 4 thousand men in a border that comprises almost all of eastern europe" is a gigantic dick wave, yeah
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
A Pale Horse posted:Yeah, they just broke the constitution by refusing to publish the binding opinion of the Constitutional Tribunal, paralyzed said tribunal completely, politicized the civil services, turned the public media into a propaganda organ that would make the Russians blush (now with censoring the President of the United States), routinely conduct their business in the middle of the night when the public is asleep and force through legislation without even the pretense of giving a poo poo what anyone else has to say about it and recently passed a sweeping "anti-terrorist" law that gives the government full and complete access to all communications transmitted within the republic of Poland without any judicial oversight or need for warrants. Not to mention they politicized the prosecutors office by subordinating it to the Ministry of Justice and are attempting to do the same to the judiciary. I mean what the gently caress is wrong with your head? These aren't just warning signs, they're huge flashing loving red warning signs in 50 meter letters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
How do you say PiS in Polish? Is it like piizzzzzz? Or more like piss? Why would you give your party a name that sounds so similar to piss?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Why would you give your party a name that sounds so similar to piss?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:How do you say PiS in Polish? Is it like piizzzzzz? Or more like piss? Why would you give your party a name that sounds so similar to piss? Phonetically it's supposed to sound more like "peace".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:Missile interceptors don't work at all at the moment. Maybe they would be able to stop a few warheads, but in a nuclear exchange between the NATO and Russia their effect would be moot. Basically, there is no way to shoot down their missile by the time they get to orbit, the Russian Federation is simply way too vast. The only thing we can do is try to shoot down the missile in space MIRV warheads "rain" over a target. However, the issue is that hitting a missile with a missile is hard enough as it is (and it is debatable if we can really do this reliably), it gets even harder when the Russians can add as many decoy as they can fit on a missile. There is basically no way for us to separate decoys from active warheads, and they would ultimately give us so many targets that trying to stop them any meaningful number of them is hopeless. Basically, all missile defense adds up to is that we hope to catch a could real warheads before they get to their target but ultimately there is no way to destroy even a fraction of them. Missile defense really isn't worth the money and it is highly debatable why we were (and now are) putting launch sites in Eastern Europe, even if it is just to "stick it to the Russians." Also, the it doesn't really cost the Russians that much to re-design their warheads with more decoys (at least compared to what we are spending). Furthermore, the Russians have a point that launch sites are valid targets even if they are fairly useless in the grand calculus of nuclear war. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Maybe that's why Russia wouldn't be so dumb as to invade a NATO state to begin with. The odds that NATO is actually bluffing is pretty low. They would have little to gain and a lot to lose by doing so. A lot of those prior reports of regarding the ease of which the Russian Army invading the Baltics also mentioned that Putin thinking he could get away with it after Georgia and Ukraine because the West is squeamish about getting into a nuclear war and that a conventional or hybrid invasion of the Baltic countries would be successful because NATO wouldn't drop that hammer and just deploy more sanctions. And if NATO did launch a counterinvasion, then Russia could threaten to deploy nukes. With a few NATO battalions being moved into the Baltics, Russia can't pull off something like the little green men in Crimea without major repercussions. Warbadger posted:The US has a few interceptors in Guam that might be able to shoot down an ICBM. If it flies over the Pacific. Aside from that it's all been geared toward shorter range/slower missiles like the ones used by Iran and North Korea. The Russians could lob ICBMs right over the proposed ABM site in Poland at the US (not that they would - those go over the pole) and the interceptors couldn't catch them. Kind of wrong. Not ICBMs but medium- and short-range ballistic missiles, like what a lot of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces is made up of, and cruise missiles is the stuff that Aegis Ballsitic Missile Defense (which is what is what has been put into operation in Romania and being proposed for Poland) as well as THAAD (as well as the Israeli Arrow, which shares a lot of tech with THAAD) are made and tested to take out. Since the only country that fields short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads is Russia, it's less about degrading their nuclear deterrent and more about neutralizing their first strike capability. Ardennes posted:Basically, there is no way to shoot down their missile by the time they get to orbit, the Russian Federation is simply way too vast. The only thing we can do is try to shoot down the missile in space MIRV warheads "rain" over a target. However, the issue is that hitting a missile with a missile is hard enough as it is (and it is debatable if we can really do this reliably), it gets even harder when the Russians can add as many decoy as they can fit on a missile. There is basically no way for us to separate decoys from active warheads, and they would ultimately give us so many targets that trying to stop them any meaningful number of them is hopeless. The current goal of Ground-Based Mid-Course Defense is not to hit the warheads during the re-entry phase, but hit them right after their rockets burn out, since there's more time to track, make a decision, and launch an intercept. The Standard missiles are exoatmospheric. They've been used to knock out rogue satellites. The flight ceiling of the Block II is something like 1500km, higher than the apogee of an ICBM's trajectory. And don't think America is the only one whose doing this, Israel's incorporating this into the Arrow 3 and China is also has it's own mid-course missile defense. Ardennes posted:Basically, all missile defense adds up to is that we hope to catch a could real warheads before they get to their target but ultimately there is no way to destroy even a fraction of them. Missile defense really isn't worth the money and it is highly debatable why we were (and now are) putting launch sites in Eastern Europe, even if it is just to "stick it to the Russians." Also, the it doesn't really cost the Russians that much to re-design their warheads with more decoys (at least compared to what we are spending). TBF, Russia only has less than 300 ICBM launch vehicles, a third of which are mobile launchers. They do have quite a few tactical medium and short-range launchers, like a 100 Iskanders that can be fitted with nuclear warheads. But, you're wrong about redesigning warheads to fit more decoys. It's not cheap, especially with the budget getting slashed due to falling oil prices and sanctions. The Russians are already doing that with stuff like the Bulava and the Sarmat and the Rubezh, but have trouble getting them to work properly, production issues, overspending, and the like. Supposedly, they're to enter the field this year, but it's more like 2020 or so. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Kind of wrong. Not ICBMs but medium- and short-range ballistic missiles, like what a lot of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces is made up of, and cruise missiles is the stuff that Aegis Ballsitic Missile Defense (which is what is what has been put into operation in Romania and being proposed for Poland) as well as THAAD (as well as the Israeli Arrow, which shares a lot of tech with THAAD) are made and tested to take out. Since the only country that fields short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads is Russia, it's less about degrading their nuclear deterrent and more about neutralizing their first strike capability. The SM-3 isn't shooting down cruise missiles, nor would it be capable of shooting down anything launched out of Russia at the vast majority of Europe due to being way the hell down in Romania (which happens to be between Iran and Europe, shocker!). THAAD could do those things, but then it's a much smaller and less ballistically impressive rocket and isn't shooting down MRBMs or even SRBMs unless they're landing in or over the battery's relatively small umbrella. Which is entirely by design because it's supposed to protect specific locations from attack, so until Europe is bristling with THAAD sites, good luck with that. None of them are shooting down ICBMs and if we're talking Russia launching a nuclear first strike on NATO you'd better believe those are going to be involved. That's without considering the tiny numbers of interceptors, Russian missiles incorporating ABM countermeasures and decoys of various kinds, and that Russia could pop off hundreds of near-identical conventional missiles to mask nuclear armed missiles in such a situation. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Able Archer is just this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:Able Archer is just this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:
Yup quote:TBF, Russia only has less than 300 ICBM launch vehicles, a third of which are mobile launchers. They do have quite a few tactical medium and short-range launchers, like a 100 Iskanders that can be fitted with nuclear warheads. The Russians have a higher number of warheads though, which means the missiles that get through (almost of all of them) would wreck a similar amount of damage. It doesn't effect MAD. quote:But, you're wrong about redesigning warheads to fit more decoys. It's not cheap, especially with the budget getting slashed due to falling oil prices and sanctions. The Russians are already doing that with stuff like the Bulava and the Sarmat and the Rubezh, but have trouble getting them to work properly, production issues, overspending, and the like. Supposedly, they're to enter the field this year, but it's more like 2020 or so. It is still cheaper than the tens of billions we spent on missile defense system, and 2020 is adequate timing. I mean if you want to talk about production issues and overspending starting looking in Boeing's direction. That said, the Russians may have spent a bigger portion of their economy, but to be honest it is rather nebulous. More less, the entire enterprise was a Cold-War era boondoggle that meant the Russians had to spend some money re-designing missiles and made some aerospace companies very happy. (Also, Western sanctions never really affected the Russian economy much in a post-analysis. If anything self-inflicted sanctions had more of an effect and generally those were mostly imposed autarky.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Nuclearchat seems pointless, I don't think anyone's interested in nuclear war. There's no grand ideological struggle here. IMO Russia's clearly developed a doctrine of deniability and limited commitments whose goal is to present the UN and NATO with a fait accompli not worth destabilizing relations over. They don't seem to have any intention of rolling tank divisions through anywhere. The forward commitments in the Baltic signify that NATO will not stand for the LGM tactics in NATO signatories. Really not sure what message it's intended to send to Finland though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
I think Putin wants to strengthen Nato by invading countries and giving neighboring countries in general reasons to demand a stronger Nato.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:I think Putin wants to strengthen Nato by invading countries and giving neighboring countries in general reasons to demand a stronger Nato. Putin is a NATO agent just like our own Brown Moses. Brown Moses is Putin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Putin really is NATO's best advocate for expansion. When he was recently visiting Finland a reporter asked him about how some Finns feel like Russia is driving Finland towards NATO, pointing out that support for NATO here has been pretty low but now it's a relevant question again. Putin brushes it off with a I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT and makes some vague threats of consequences if Finland were to seek NATO membership. Boom, a few more people are convinced NATO is the right way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
That's probably the point, the falling out with NATO and the Ukraine crisis massively increased Putin's popularity at home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Open source software is required now for all Bulgarian government computers. And forget Eastern Poland, have you considered moving to Transylvania? Yes, that Transylvania! Prince Charles of Great Britain did! Best nature, fastest internet connection speed in the EU, surprisingly very few vampires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Open source software is required now for all Bulgarian government computers. That's just what the vampires would say to get you to come there. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Really not sure what message it's intended to send to Finland though. "Don't try to join NATO" or rather "Don't do anything". Putin was pretty friendly a week ago or so when he came here for a day, he wants to see the status quo preserved which is no NATO presence in Finland. I don't think it's a trap or anything, the current situation just is reasonably good for all parties involved. I don't know what he would do if we actually submitted an application to join
Fabulous Knight fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Romania wants the English to move to Romania it seems. Other perks include over 50% of their young adults speak English and they have really good food and clean, safe streets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:"Don't try to join NATO" or rather "Don't do anything". Putin was pretty friendly a week ago or so when he came here for a day, he wants to see the status quo preserved which is no NATO presence in Finland. I don't think it's a trap or anything, the current situation just is reasonably good for all parties involved. Until Putin decides he wants Finlands incredibly valuable bogs and the legions of weapons grade mosquitoes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 13:27
|
|