|
Latin script is apparently incomprehensible to them anyway. Else writing "Murmansk" twice on this sign would be unnecessary:
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:Soviet war plans for Scandinavia were essentially to just send a whole load of nukes to major cities and military installations and ignore it. Where do you have this from? My literature from the era has the army believing the likely scenario would be an attack from the sea, where artillery strikes, strikes from attack helicopters and air assaults on specific targets would be followed by a mechanized naval invasion force establishing a beachhead near a sizable port. Things would be more complicated now with the use of irregulars, information warfare and cyberwarfare if Ukraine is any guide, but I think something like the above, or attacks on infrastructure is still a potential danger. I very much doubt Russia would use nuclear arms as this would no doubt pull other parties in no matter if there is an alliance or not. In any case, while Russia might not be the power it was during its soviet days, they would still roll us easily. thotsky fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Where do you have this from? My literature from the era has the army believing the likely scenario would be an attack from the sea, where artillery strikes, strikes from attack helicopters and air assaults on specific targets would be followed by a mechanized naval invasion force establishing a beachhead near a sizable port. I'm mostly thinking of stuff like that wargame scenario that was revealed by Poland after the wall fell, which involved copious use of nuclear weapons in an invasion of Germany also striking Denmark (and I think Sweden) for good measure seemingly to make reinforcement from that area more difficult, don't remember off the top of my head if Norway also was included in this. I've read some old (Norwegian) military manuals that discuss Soviet doctrine, goals and equipment, meant to be used by ordinary soldiers. Sounds like what you're saying. I'll admit I might be talking out of my rear end, but I don't really think launching an invasion of Norway would have been a really high priority for the Soviet Union, and if they did need to strike at us there is no reason to not just use nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
One of my major concerns with Rødt is definitely the NATO thing. I'm no expert on the ins and outs of large international alliances and the military politics involved but I feel a hell of a lot safer with us in NATO even if it is mostly useless and an overt military invasion from Russia is basically never going to happen anyway. One of the articles I read on it a few weeks ago pivoted pretty quick from dismissing Russia as a threat to bloviating on how plucky Norwegian guerillas could vanquish a US invasion which was a pretty funny read but seemed loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I believe NATO makes us safer. I don't think there's a very credible threat. I would rather feel a little bit less safe than contribute to the horrible imperialistic tool that is NATO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I believe NATO makes us safer. I don't think there's a very credible threat. I would rather feel a little bit less safe than contribute to the horrible imperialistic tool that is NATO. Could you expand on your point? As I said I'm no expert and I always appreciate input from others especially on issues that I'm ignorant on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Could you expand on your point? As I said I'm no expert and I always appreciate input from others especially on issues that I'm ignorant on. I'm not an expert either. In fact, I know very little on the first part of my statement. I don't think it's controversial to say that NATO has been used as a tool to project western power into the middle east though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
I am aware that NATO itself had no role in planning or carrying out the Iraq war, which I view as the most egregious example of an unjust war in very recent times, although NATO members obviously did participate. Not saying I essentially disagree (NATO is after all comprised and occasionally led by nations that have a history of lovely imperialist wars), but that it's a topic where it's probably best to take a closer look at the particulars before drawing a definite conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
NATO is the best thing since sliced bread. Strongmen like Erdogan and Putin would just roll their neighbors without it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:NATO is the best thing since sliced bread. Strongmen like Erdogan and Putin would just roll their neighbors without it. And that. There is absolutely some crazy poo poo happening in the neighborhood (relatively speaking) and it's safety in numbers time imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Shoulda gotten nukes while it was hot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:NATO is the best thing since sliced bread. Strongmen like Erdogan and Putin would just roll their neighbors without it. You do realize that Erdogan is leading a country that's in NATO, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You do realize that Erdogan is leading a country that's in NATO, right? Call me stupid but I was of the impression that if Erdogan continued to Erdogan, Turkey is on its way out of the alliance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I'm mostly thinking of stuff like that wargame scenario that was revealed by Poland after the wall fell, which involved copious use of nuclear weapons in an invasion of Germany also striking Denmark (and I think Sweden) for good measure seemingly to make reinforcement from that area more difficult, don't remember off the top of my head if Norway also was included in this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Call me stupid but I was of the impression that if Erdogan continued to Erdogan, Turkey is on its way out of the alliance? Turkey will have to kick the US out of the country for NATO to leave. The US took the Cuban missile crisis on the chin for a chance at Turkey, and it will take Erdogan with a stride. It's one of those diamond-grade strategic locations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
In the best of worlds, we could all just go gently caress NATO, gently caress CIS and have our own Nordic deterrent. From the glorious fortress of the Socialist Workers Democratic Republic of the Roof of the World we could all just give both Russia and the US the finger untill they come up with some decent policy and seek closer cooperation with the rest of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:32
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
I don't completely understand the Nato=safety argument for Norway in particular. Norwegian geography is wildly advantageous against a Russian ground invasion. Nato doesn't protect from nukes and Nato installations are in fact what attracts them. While Nato definitely does protect from naval assaults, naval assaults are hazardous business that can be prepared against, and Russia doesn't have inexhaustible Baltic sea resources as it has ground forces. And in the case that Russia were to attack Norway through the rest of Finnoscandia, Nato would act whether you liked it or not, because Russia winning would hurt Nato's strategic position too much. Nato makes more sense as preparation for Germany to go full Hitler again or for Sweden to regain its old imperial ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
It depends, I think Russia could be able to occupy Norway before NATO could even organize a response. And since no one wants a world war, they might consider other options than military intervention. Just look at Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
The difference is that Ukraine has a long, porous border with Russia which makes it easy for them to intervene and Russia also has enough local support in the eastern parts to set up puppet regimes in order to maintain at least some kind of deniability. Neither of these factors is present in Norway. The geography means that they'd have to invade and resupply by sea and/or air, and any invasion has to be done openly. For these reasons it's hard to see Norway as a likely target.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
I think Latvia and Lithuania are in line before Norway. And that will be the true test for NATO. Will NATO decide that it's worth risking a nuclear exchange with Russia over the baltic states? If they don't, then NATO is just a paper tiger. If they do, welp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Retarded Goatee posted:In the best of worlds, we could all just go gently caress NATO, gently caress CIS and have our own Nordic deterrent. From the glorious fortress of the Socialist Workers Democratic Republic of the Roof of the World we could all just give both Russia and the US the finger untill they come up with some decent policy and seek closer cooperation with the rest of Europe. I mean, yeah. In a perfect world, a Nordic-centric defence alliance would probably be a good idea. We're pretty isolated up here, but a defence alliance that specialized in fighting in our local conditions could both be militarily beneficial from a strategic and tactical point of view, economically beneficial (homogenizing equipment by producing most if not all of it locally and financing our own R&D), and politically beneficial. Then this alliance would be powerful enough to on its own negotiate a deal with NATO, but be mainly self-reliant. It would be useful for projecting strength towards Russia, particularly for when they start encroaching on northern/arctic territories and the Baltic sea without having to drag the entirety of NATO into posturing with us, which at this point seems less and less effective. It would also free us from having to participate in military operations on foreign soil. Additionally, it would open the door for a common Nordic border policy stronger and more effective than Schengen, and would allow for the possibility of an economic union that could negotiate with the EU (or what remains of it) as a block of countries. We'd of course lack protection from the rest of NATO unless we could wrangle that concession somehow. We'd lack a nuclear deterrent, which depending on who you ask is or isn't a good thing. It makes sense, I suppose. But will it ever happen? I sincerely doubt it. A shame, really, I'd love for a Nordic union to become a reality, the possibilty of living and working in Denmark or Iceland for a time (I know a lot of people do this now, but it'd be easier for everyone). In reality though, right-wingers will tear down our welfare states and we'll be no better than the rest of the world, drifting apart as nations. Shame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I mean, yeah. In a perfect world, a Nordic-centric defence alliance would probably be a good idea. We're pretty isolated up here, but a defence alliance that specialized in fighting in our local conditions could both be militarily beneficial from a strategic and tactical point of view, economically beneficial (homogenizing equipment by producing most if not all of it locally and financing our own R&D), and politically beneficial. Then this alliance would be powerful enough to on its own negotiate a deal with NATO, but be mainly self-reliant. This would be much easier done by Sweden and Finland just straight up joining NATO and a general increase in military coordination, equipment, trainkng and joint commands of the nordic countries within the frameworl of existing NATO-cooperation. Norway and Denmark leaving NATO and then drawing up am entirely new military alliance with Sweden (and Finland, don't know why you would want or need Iceland). A Nordic union though is only something arrogant Swedes think anyone else wants. e: wants, not needs Randarkman fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
I would vastly prefer a nordic union to the EU myself (from finland).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:A Nordic union though is only something arrogant Swedes think anyone else wants. Pretty much yeah. Sweden tried to get a Nordic defence union going after WWII, but our neighbours were kind of reluctant to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Our neighbors are very correctly calling that any Nordic cooperation would before long turn into the Sweden show regardless of how honest intentions were starting out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Sweden's rap sheet in defense pacts is kinda bad. Looking specifically at Sweden bailing on finland totally in the winter war
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Sweden's rap sheet in defense pacts is kinda bad. Could you kindly explain how it's possible to bail on a pact that didn't actually exist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
It's not long ago that Norway gained its independence from Sweden anyway, and scandinavism used to be a thing. I wouldn't mind a Nordic union at all.
Grevling fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Could you kindly explain how it's possible to bail on a pact that didn't actually exist? Fair, there was no actual pact but rather agreements like ålandsplanen which weren't honored in full.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Grevling posted:It's not long ago that Norway gained its independence from Sweden anyway, and scandinavism used to be a thing. I wouldn't mind a Nordic union at all. And you want to shackle us right back to that corpse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Soviet plans for Denmark included an invasion by Polish forces too, after a light nuking of linchpin NATO installations and Copenhagen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Hahahaha at what point do they expect NATO to just go fuckit-let's-glass-all-of-Russia? Because that point is 100% before they nuke a major eu metropole. Said plans involved nuking a lot more places than just Copenhagen. France and the UK seem to have been excluded, being nuclear powers, for whatever reason. e: Actually the targets in Denmark in the specific wargame (seven days to the Rhine) were Roskilde and Esbjerg. Vienna was also to be destroyed, because gently caress Austria I guess. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:And you want to shackle us right back to that corpse? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
uncop posted:I don't completely understand the Nato=safety argument for Norway in particular. Norwegian geography is wildly advantageous against a Russian ground invasion. Nato doesn't protect from nukes and Nato installations are in fact what attracts them. While Nato definitely does protect from naval assaults, naval assaults are hazardous business that can be prepared against, and Russia doesn't have inexhaustible Baltic sea resources as it has ground forces. And in the case that Russia were to attack Norway through the rest of Finnoscandia, Nato would act whether you liked it or not, because Russia winning would hurt Nato's strategic position too much. Wild Horses posted:Sweden's rap sheet in defense pacts is kinda bad. Randarkman posted:Said plans involved nuking a lot more places than just Copenhagen. France and the UK seem to have been excluded, being nuclear powers, for whatever reason.   evil_bunnY posted:Hahahaha at what point do they expect NATO to just go fuckit-let's-glass-all-of-Russia? Because that point is 100% before they nuke a major eu metropole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Had Sweden done so, it might very well have been able to leverage that into a Swedish-led Scandinavian Union This doesn't sound like a positive thing to me 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
TheRat posted:This doesn't sound like a positive thing to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much Sweden and/or Norway would have tipped the balance against the combined forces of Prussia and the Austrian Empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:I'm not sure how much Sweden and/or Norway would have tipped the balance against the combined forces of Prussia and the Austrian Empire. Of course, as we all know, Sweden had long since lost its backbone and begun the downslide into national oblivion which characterizes the country today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Both France and Britain were sympathetic to the Danish position, and Austria wasn't super enthusiastic about the war, presumably because Austria realized Prussia was making a real play for dominance in Germany. Actually, that might have partly have been part of the equation for France and Britain too. Had the war dragged on, a negotiated peace would not have been out of the question, which would have served the two-fold purpose of making it clear that Denmark couldn't stand on its own, and showing who its natural ally was. Thanks for the info; I've gotta admit most of my knowledge from the Schleswig wars comes from skimming Wikipedia articles while playing Victoria 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 18:06
|
|