Modern wars

[Agiel]

Russia about to supply Iran with modern AA

 

Sort of why the A2/AD dilemma and the "AirSea Battle" concept has taken primacy in today's military:

 

http://youtu.be/5Pu_PKpEhqU

 

 

Why should the US have all the nukes in the world but not Iran? 

 

I don't think the US should have them either, for both moral and practical reasons (practical ones being that nuclear weapons are sure destructive, but everything they do *is* destructive, and by that very nature are extremely inflexible weapons). General Chuck Horner, lead planner of Operation Desert Storm agrees:

 

 

 

“The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all.... I just don’t think nuclear weapons are usable… I’m not saying that we military disarm. I’m saying that I have a nuclear weapons, and you’re North Korea and you have a nuclear weapon. You can use yours. I can’t use mine. What am I going to use it on? What are nuclear weapons good for? Busting cities. What president of the United States is going to take out Pyongyang? I want to go to zero, and I’ll tell you why: If we and the Russians can go to zero nuclear weapons, then think what that does for us in our efforts to counter the new war… Think how intolerant we will be of nations that are developing nuclear weapons if we have none. Think of the high moral ground we secure by having none… It’s kind of hard for us to say to North Korea, ‘You are terrible people, you’re developing a nuclear weapons,’ when we have oh, 8,000"

Edited February 23, 2015 by Agiel

[Guard Dog]

Wow this thread is old. You guys have been fighting this modern war for almost 2 years. 

[obyknven]

Meanwhile...

 

Shia militia (bro for Iran) kick  off NATO troops from Yemen.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/21/yemens-western-backed-president-flees-house-arrest-in-sanaa

 

Ukrainian troops use NATO tactics in Debaltsevo and this lead to epic disaster.

 

 

 

part of their methodical brochures even don't translated from English language. 

 

 

 

NATO play in Hogwarts   

http://www.thelocal.de/20150217/germans-troops-tote-broomsticks-at-nato-war-games

 

but all these failure don't caused by saint NATO.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Ukraine/article1522268.ece

 

Just interested how many times yet these buffoons must be beaten until they stop imagine yourself as best warriors in the world.

[Rostere]

I don't think the US should have them either, for both moral and practical reasons (practical ones being that nuclear weapons are sure destructive, but everything they do *is* destructive, and by that very nature are extremely inflexible weapons). General Chuck Horner, lead planner of Operation Desert Storm agrees:

 

“The nuclear weapon is obsolete. I want to get rid of them all.... I just don’t think nuclear weapons are usable… I’m not saying that we military disarm. I’m saying that I have a nuclear weapons, and you’re North Korea and you have a nuclear weapon. You can use yours. I can’t use mine. What am I going to use it on? What are nuclear weapons good for? Busting cities. What president of the United States is going to take out Pyongyang? I want to go to zero, and I’ll tell you why: If we and the Russians can go to zero nuclear weapons, then think what that does for us in our efforts to counter the new war… Think how intolerant we will be of nations that are developing nuclear weapons if we have none. Think of the high moral ground we secure by having none… It’s kind of hard for us to say to North Korea, ‘You are terrible people, you’re developing a nuclear weapons,’ when we have oh, 8,000"

 

 

This is an interesting argument, although there is also one to be given from the other side.

 

If three great powers have nukes and are capable of utterly destroying each other's civilian population, we find ourselves in a "race for peace". If two of three countries declare war on each other, the remaining country will have hegemony over what is left of the world. So the one who abstains from fighting will be the winner. The winning move is not to play.

 

It's a long time since WW1 now, where countries would enter war simple out of a vague lust for glory and nationalist sentiment (Germany). Like all scientific advancements, nuclear weapons takes war closer to it's logical conclusion. If two people of equal ability fight, the winner who will dictate the terms of peace is the third party who did not participate. Before, people misled by nationalism could think things like "our boys are braver, they will best these cowards on the battlefield!" and go to war - I bet nobody today thinks "our nukes are better, I bet theirs will malfunction" and presses the button.

 

But of course that only applies to the most powerful countries. If a small country which wouldn't be a contestant for global power gets nukes (North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa...), it wouldn't have a positive effect on the balance of terror preventing WW3, but only increase the risk of an accident. This is also in line with the reasoning that Iran should better not have nukes, because then Saudi Arabia will be forced to have their own to be up to par.

[Barothmuk]

It's a long time since WW1 now, where countries would enter war simple out of a vague lust for glory and nationalist sentiment (Germany).

It's strange (although not surprising) how often I see WWI; the war that killed 15,000,000+ people, the war that caused the collapse of 4 major European powers, and the war that led to an explosion of revolutionary fervour that completely reshaped the global landscape, reduced to simply being a consequence of vague and outdated notions of glory & nationalism (or worse simply because of a series of treaty obligations after an assassination).

 

In reality it was an imperialist war between two blocs hoping to redivide a divided world (i.e. the repartition of colonies, spheres of influence and spheres of influence for the investment of capital) in a way that satisfied their own ruling few at home.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Malcador]

Since nuclear weapons have been used defensively for the past 70 years they're simply nothing else than means for self protection and balance. Of course the US on its crusade for world domination despises the idea of non-US compliant countries being able to have some form of passive defense. As for nuclear weaponry getting into the wrong hands, I think we've already crossed that point a long time ago.

Well wrong hands are those belonging to people who don't care about large scale retribution - think stuff like ISIS or what have you. Things have to get pretty widespread for that to be a serious risk though.

[Agiel]

This is an interesting argument, although there is also one to be given from the other side.

 

If three great powers have nukes and are capable of utterly destroying each other's civilian population, we find ourselves in a "race for peace". If two of three countries declare war on each other, the remaining country will have hegemony over what is left of the world. So the one who abstains from fighting will be the winner. The winning move is not to play.

 

It's a long time since WW1 now, where countries would enter war simple out of a vague lust for glory and nationalist sentiment (Germany). Like all scientific advancements, nuclear weapons takes war closer to it's logical conclusion. If two people of equal ability fight, the winner who will dictate the terms of peace is the third party who did not participate. Before, people misled by nationalism could think things like "our boys are braver, they will best these cowards on the battlefield!" and go to war - I bet nobody today thinks "our nukes are better, I bet theirs will malfunction" and presses the button.

 

But of course that only applies to the most powerful countries. If a small country which wouldn't be a contestant for global power gets nukes (North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa...), it wouldn't have a positive effect on the balance of terror preventing WW3, but only increase the risk of an accident. This is also in line with the reasoning that Iran should better not have nukes, because then Saudi Arabia will be forced to have their own to be up to par.

 

 

Fascinating piece you might be interested in from Pavel Podvig, perhaps one of the great Jedi Masters of strategic arms and strategy, in light of the recent "Bear Runs" into Europe:

 

 

 

The nuclear dimension of the [ukrainian] crisis is even more important. Although it may seem intuitively clear that it would take nuclear weapons to confront a belligerent nuclear-armed power, one cannot help but notice that so far only Russia has benefited from the fact that the danger of nuclear escalation, however small, was always present in the background. The situation would be quite different if there were a strong international norm against bringing nuclear weapons into a dispute in Europe (and not just in Europe, but that is a subject for another column). Of course, such a norm is difficult to establish and impossible to enforce, but that does not mean that it is not a worthwhile goal. The Kremlin’s current confidence in its coercive power rests in no small part on the notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate role in conflict management—and on the seemingly widespread acceptance of this role. Taking nuclear weapons out of Europe, literally as well as symbolically, would erode this power probably more than anything else.

[JadedWolf]

Wow this thread is old.

 

Yes, I remember well when they started this thread, and they were discussing the advantages of a glaive as opposed to a billhook. Sigh. Good times.

[Agiel]

What can I say? The fun for me starts at 500 knots and 9 Gs

[Rostere]

It's strange (although not surprising) how often I see WWI; the war that killed 15,000,000+ people, the war that caused the collapse of 4 major European powers, and the war that led to an explosion of revolutionary fervour that completely reshaped the global landscape, reduced to simply being a consequence of vague and outdated notions of glory & nationalism (or worse simply because of a series of treaty obligations after an assassination).

In reality it was an imperialist war between two blocs hoping to redivide a divided world (i.e. the repartition of colonies, spheres of influence and spheres of influence for the investment of capital) in a way that satisfied their own ruling few at home.

 

But that is exactly what it was. I don't see how anything you write contradict anything I have said. I have not said that WW1 was not important. I have only said that the causes of the war were deeply connected to the chauvinistic attitudes of a few autocrats, and to a far lesser degree, their population.

 

AH wanted to expand into Serbia (petty colonialism), and Germany wanted to "secure their place in the sun". It is a fact that Germany throughout the war never had any clearly stated war goals.

 

Either you can make the case that the leaders of Germany and AH were extremely ill-informed (I think we can be 100% that no cost and risk analysis was made - there was far to little to win for any of the aggressors), or their motivation was for personal and irrational reasons (this was pretty much before any meaningful democracy). I maintain the latter.

[Zoraptor]

Can't really agree with that. Of all the belligerents the only two that entered the war 'reluctantly' were Britain, who would have found some other excuse to enter to protect the status quo even had Belgium not been invaded as that had been their doctrine for literally centuries plus were genuinely rather scared about the new German navy challenging them; and more genuinely reluctantly the US. Certainly the French and British attitudes were as chauvinist as anything the CP had, indeed the British and French were pretty conclusively (per Sykes Picot) still in their "White Man's Burden" phase- they were, especially Britain, just peak powers rather than ailing or aspiring ones.

 

Most of the belligerents had no real war goals either. Britain and Russia were (ostensibly at least) protecting 'allies' in Belgium and Serbia rather than wanting anything themselves, Turkey had some rather vague notion of making themselves relevant again, the US had a very vague punish the Hun aim and Italy sold themselves to the highest bidder. Of all the main belligerents the only ones with somewhat clearly stated aims were France- despite being again ostensibly dragged in only via alliance to Russia- who wanted Elsass Lothringen back and A-H. The rest were very vague containment/ decontainment type stuff. Because the allies won people tend to think they had solid aims because they were able to dictate terms and take Germany's colonies, divide up the ME etc. Had the CP won we would almost certainly say the same thing about them nicking French and British colonies though, they certainly, if temporarily, dictated terms and achieved what might be classed as real aims wrt to Russia.

 

It wasn't really personal and irrational reasons that kicked things off- Princep was certainly connected with the Serbian state and what he did was the equivalent of... assassinating Joe Biden, I guess. Were Biden assassinated by someone with equivalent connections to, say, Iran's intelligence infrastructure it would not personal/ irrational for the US to respond militarily and while not all the people would agree I would bet anything that the vast majority of politicians of any ilk would even if they hated Biden previous.

 

WW1 was actually very much like the equivalent that happens in Victoria 2 quite often, war kicks off as a minor scuffle like the 'War of Austro Hungarian Honour' and becomes the Great War, you then add a bunch of completely ad hoc war goals and apply them if you win.

[Rostere]

Can't really agree with that. Of all the belligerents the only two that entered the war 'reluctantly' were Britain, who would have found some other excuse to enter to protect the status quo even had Belgium not been invaded as that had been their doctrine for literally centuries plus were genuinely rather scared about the new German navy challenging them; and more genuinely reluctantly the US. Certainly the French and British attitudes were as chauvinist as anything the CP had, indeed the British and French were pretty conclusively (per Sykes Picot) still in their "White Man's Burden" phase- they were, especially Britain, just peak powers rather than ailing or aspiring ones.

 

Most of the belligerents had no real war goals either. Britain and Russia were (ostensibly at least) protecting 'allies' in Belgium and Serbia rather than wanting anything themselves, Turkey had some rather vague notion of making themselves relevant again, the US had a very vague punish the Hun aim and Italy sold themselves to the highest bidder. Of all the main belligerents the only ones with somewhat clearly stated aims were France- despite being again ostensibly dragged in only via alliance to Russia- who wanted Elsass Lothringen back and A-H. The rest were very vague containment/ decontainment type stuff. Because the allies won people tend to think they had solid aims because they were able to dictate terms and take Germany's colonies, divide up the ME etc. Had the CP won we would almost certainly say the same thing about them nicking French and British colonies though, they certainly, if temporarily, dictated terms and achieved what might be classed as real aims wrt to Russia.

 

The British had won the naval arms race against Germany decisively, and it had pretty much petered out in 1912 from the British side at least.

 

 

It wasn't really personal and irrational reasons that kicked things off- Princep was certainly connected with the Serbian state and what he did was the equivalent of... assassinating Joe Biden, I guess. Were Biden assassinated by someone with equivalent connections to, say, Iran's intelligence infrastructure it would not personal/ irrational for the US to respond militarily and while not all the people would agree I would bet anything that the vast majority of politicians of any ilk would even if they hated Biden previous.

 

WW1 was actually very much like the equivalent that happens in Victoria 2 quite often, war kicks off as a minor scuffle like the 'War of Austro Hungarian Honour' and becomes the Great War, you then add a bunch of completely ad hoc war goals and apply them if you win.

 

The political establishment in AH had been planning to invade Serbia since 1906. Princip just effectively handed them a CB on a silver plate. I wouldn't think of that as a cause to the war, other than in a purely technical sense.

 

Let's take a moment to reflect on what went wrong and what could have been.

 

Since the Treaty of Berlin abolishing Ottoman hegemony over the Balkans, Russia had secretly given AH free reins to do what they wanted in Bosnia, which was at this point administrated by AH although not de jure a part of the Empire. This was of course contrary to the official story of "pan-Slavic" sentiments. When AH finally annexed Bosnia in 1908 (against the wishes of most Bosnian Muslims and Serbs) Russia's official support was bought for AH support for opening the Straits of Bosphorus for Russian navy vessels, a significant deal which was trumpeted in Russian diplomatic circles. However, the UK effectively vetoed this and quickly the story became that a gullible Russia had sold the "Slavic" Bosnia to AH for nothing.

 

The guilty Russian negotiator in question started selling the version that he had been "tricked by a dirty Jew" (that is, the AH negotiator) in response to which AH released previous correspondence which showed that Russia had previously unofficially given their OK for them to do whatever with Bosnia. This was a huge, huge moment of humiliation for the Russian leadership which after this point broke their previously good relations with AH and swore to avenge this insult by actually pushing a pan-Slavic agenda in the Balkans. Russian support for Serbia in a war against AH would previously have been very uncertain, and even during the outbreak of WW1 Russia initially only partially mobilized and was drawn into war when Germany declared war on them (Russia did not declare war on AH after they had declared war on Serbia as you might believe). In other words, because of previous diplomatic insults Russia felt the need to at least mobilize in order to show their disapproval and not lose their pan-Slav credentials in a warmongering game of chicken.

 

The successor to the AH throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, stated that Serbia was a worthless scrap of land with "nothing of value except for possibly a few plum trees". He also advocated a tripartite division of power between Slavs, Austrians and Hungarians in order to stop Slavic irredentism (and minimize Hungarian power), and increasing ties to Russia to balance the reliance on Germany. He thought that increasing equality was the best way to preserve stability. These views held no power in Vienna at the time, where hawks like von Hötzendorf had access to the ear of the Emperor Franz Josef, who was completely estranged from his son. The chauvinists at this time wanted to invade Serbia for no good reason other than that they were "uppity" (a threat to the regional prestige of AH) and that they saw an independent South Slavic country as a dangerous example to their own Slavic population - which was in significant parts acquired by the occupation of Bosnia to begin with . So there's AH pushing a colonialist, long-term irrational anti-Slav agenda (against the better judgement of the person whose assassination was used (indirectly) as a CB - how ironic).

 

Wilhelm II in Germany (another very erratic and irrational leader) was already in 1912 supportive of an eventual war by AH against Serbia. Note what was said during this meeting. The point where the German Kaiser actually decides to give his unconditional support to an AH invasion of Serbia only came after the British had said that they would not tolerate exactly that, whereupon he hours later calls a meeting to prepare for war. At this point there is disagreement among his advisors and Wilhelm agrees to postpone the war.

 

 

Wilhelm [was] furious, lamenting that in the 'Germanic struggle for existence' the British, blinded by envy and inferiority feelings, join the Slavs and their Romanic accessories [France].

 

A textbook example of irrational nationalist warmongering, when more people lining up against you makes you MORE inclined to launch a war, even though the cost/benefit calculus has just worsened!

 

So now you understand why I think the war was caused in large part by vain ****fighting among chauvinist hotheads and not by informed decisions made by calm minds reflecting the self-interest of their nations. I guess the British reason for entering the war (keeping the status quo so that Germany would not become too strong) is kind of rational, though.

[Zoraptor]

Nah, it may be rational but it's certainly still chauvinist. The British didn't do it for anyone else's benefit except their own, they didn't give a crap about the Serbs (or Belgians), they did it to preserve the status quo in which they were top dog. After all, the British didn't threaten war on A-H over Bosnia's annexation any more than Russia did, for all that they were theoretically similar situations.

 

As for the rest, you've made the decision that the war was due to German/ Austrian 'chauvinism' and disregard anything else. So what if A-H had plans to attack Serbia, many countries have plans to attack others and advocates for such attacks. They were given the perfect excuse, and the declaration of war was on the face of it reasonable in context and under the circumstances- the heir had been assassinated and with support from members of the Serb governmental structures. As I said, if Iran assassinated Joe Biden then sure, we can say that the US obviously had plans in the broad sense to attack Iran beforehand, but the reason would be the assassination and not the plans themselves- and labelling that attack as unjustified or chauvinist would be unfair even if it ultimately resulted in some sort of US/ Russia/ China free for all.

[Namutree]

 

As I said, if Iran assassinated Joe Biden then sure, we can say that the US obviously had plans in the broad sense to attack Iran beforehand, but the reason would be the assassination and not the plans themselves- and labelling that attack as unjustified or chauvinist would be unfair even if it ultimately resulted in some sort of US/ Russia/ China free for all.

I'd like to see them try and get past Joe Biden's mighty shotgun.

[Rostere]

As for the rest, you've made the decision that the war was due to German/ Austrian 'chauvinism' and disregard anything else. So what if A-H had plans to attack Serbia, many countries have plans to attack others and advocates for such attacks.

 

Now you're generalizing too much. US, Russia and China planning to defend against each other is sensible military planning, to keep the balance of power. Russia planning to invade and occupy Georgia or US planning to invade and occupy Lebanon is not about keeping the peace and being sensible, it is about chauvinistic imperialist warmongering which must be condemned. Same with AH planning to invade and occupy Serbia in this case.

 

As I said, if Iran assassinated Joe Biden then sure, we can say that the US obviously had plans in the broad sense to attack Iran beforehand, but the reason would be the assassination and not the plans themselves - and labeling that attack as unjustified or chauvinist would be unfair even if it ultimately resulted in some sort of US/ Russia/ China free for all.

 

Actually, the AH invasion of Serbia is somewhat similar to the US invasion of Afghanistan. US were in talks to extradite Bin Laden (who was told by the Taliban to lay off terrorism but was still tolerated), but then decided to attack anyway, because the main goal is just plain to make war in the ME (remember how the people inside Bush II wanted to attack Iraq first... ). It was certainly unjustified in the sense that the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan did not approve of nor organize 9/11. However they were very lazy in distancing themselves from Bin Laden, tolerating him when he was merely an inciter of low-level terrorism.

 

The official story of the JFK assassination has it that he was shot by an American Communist. Still, the US did not declare war on the SU or Cuba. Why is that, do you think? The truth is that people are replaceable, and one "celebrity" getting killed is never enough reason to start a war - if you don't want a war to begin with, in case an assassination plot might only be a façade for chauvinism.

 

They were given the perfect excuse, and the declaration of war was on the face of it reasonable in context and under the circumstances - the heir had been assassinated and with support from members of the Serb governmental structures.

 

No, no, no. They had no idea Princip & Co had support from rogue individuals in the highest levels of Serbian government until much later. The Serbian government, which officially did not want to disturb peace and order, even sent a diplomat to warn AH in June 1914 that the assassination was about to take place. Although later it was uncovered that diplomat might have been a supporter of the conspiracy himself and chosen his words such that AH did not act upon this information.

 

The war was declared due to Serbia's failure to follow a subsequent ultimatum given by AH. It was worded deliberately so that the Serbians would not be able to accept it, however they did express their intention to do so on every point except the one saying that AH would be able to send their own investigators to Serbia. This was of course unacceptable, because Serbia's government was at the time in the middle of a delicate power struggle between supporters of foreign terror operations and those who prioritized peace with AH, with the latter only barely holding the upper hand and the former pretty much controlling the military. It was well known by Serbia's government that the Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence was the organizer of the assassination. If AH had been allowed to investigate, they would have uncovered this, and then there would without a doubt be war.

 

If anything, the July crisis which immediately preceded the war reflected how the sensible parts of the Serbian government had failed to do away with internal chauvinistic elements supporting terrorism abroad. In the end they had painted themselves into a corner, and their refusal to allow AH to participate in an investigation inside Serbia finally gave them their CB.

[JadedWolf]

Making it out as if Wilhelm II was really the brain behind Germany's involvement in WW 1 is giving the man too much credit. The man was living in a fantasy world where war was happy happy fun time, sure, but the real power lay with the Oberste Heeresleitung. Wilhelm's addition, to spice the whole thing up, was to bungle up diplomacy at every chance he got.

 

I would even, tongue in cheek, put forward the proposition that had Wilhelm II not existed, then WW 1 would still have happened, but the Germans might have actually won.

 

 

 

 

 

Now. To Amerongen!

 

 

 

[Agiel]

The current deployment in the Gulf region of two carrier strike groups (CSG): A U.S. Navy one with the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) USS Carl Vinson a French Navy (Marine Nationale) one with CVN Charles de Gaulle is the occasion for the two allied navies to test, implement and improve their interoperability while on theatre and while actively engaged in combat missions.

https://youtu.be/qOIhKtvWQYU

 

The US Navy repaid the favour by hosting carrier qualifications for French Rafale Ms aboard the Carl Vinson as well.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Agiel

[ManifestedISO]

I don't know, but it was pretty exciting to see a big amphibious assault ship sail into the harbor, today. It came all the way from the south-west horizon, past Point Loma, around North Island, passing by downtown toward Naval Base San Diego. I thought it was a full-on presidential-class carrier at first, but it appears to have been the USS America, LHA-6. 

[Agiel]

Speaking of CVs, looks like that Chinese homegrown one is coming along:

 

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/08/those-chinese-aircraft-carrier-pics-what-we-know-what-we-can-guess-and-what-we-cant/68114/

[obyknven]

Syrians shot down Murican drone. Yep, even middle-eastern countries laugh about Murican air forces.

 

http://imgur.com/a/xpjNH

 

Meanwhile Russia transfer moar of 9K720 Iskander nukes in Kalinigrad oblast during last exercises.  In case of war all Europ can be nuked within a minutes, and no defense exist against this weapon. It's Russian response to concentration of NATO troops near of  Russian borders in last times - in Baltic states and in Poland.

[Agiel]

Kind of the beauty of remote piloted vehicles is that the military that employs them will hardly care if they are shot down. No pilot was killed, they primarily use OTS equipment so no particularly sensitive technologies can be retrieved from them, and most of all, they're very cheap. The loss of a $4 million UAV (which mind you since it has an engine from a lawnmower and no ECM or LO properties is only slightly harder to shoot down than a blimp) is a drop in the bucket for the USAF, which is more than you could say about the ~$25 million Syrian Su-24 shot down by that IDF MIM-104 Patriot a few months back.

 

 

 

Unmanned aerial vehicles were designed to avoid human casualties by removing the pilot from the theater of operations. A weapons system that is not only technologically advanced so that longer and farther missions are possible, but also entirely politically expendable has been created. The political risk that comes with specific missions has become so limited that there are now few constraints on the decision to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, either for intelligence gathering or to conduct strikes. The risk of being drawn into a wider conflict through unforeseen incidents that could come with the deployment of surveillance aircraft has effectively been put to bed by the dawn of the drone.

 

-George Friedman of Stratfor

 

As for SS-26es in Kaliningrad, I believe Pavel Podvig's quote is worth repeating:

 

 

 

Although it may seem intuitively clear that it would take nuclear weapons to confront a belligerent nuclear-armed power, one cannot help but notice that so far only Russia has benefited from the fact that the danger of nuclear escalation, however small, was always present in the background. The situation would be quite different if there were a strong international norm against bringing nuclear weapons into a dispute in Europe (and not just in Europe, but that is a subject for another column). Of course, such a norm is difficult to establish and impossible to enforce, but that does not mean that it is not a worthwhile goal. The Kremlin’s current confidence in its coercive power rests in no small part on the notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate role in conflict management—and on the seemingly widespread acceptance of this role. Taking nuclear weapons out of Europe, literally as well as symbolically, would erode this power probably more than anything else.

 

What to do about Russian Belligerence

Edited March 19, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

 

 

Although it may seem intuitively clear that it would take nuclear weapons to confront a belligerent nuclear-armed power, one cannot help but notice that so far only Russia has benefited from the fact that the danger of nuclear escalation, however small, was always present in the background. The situation would be quite different if there were a strong international norm against bringing nuclear weapons into a dispute in Europe (and not just in Europe, but that is a subject for another column). Of course, such a norm is difficult to establish and impossible to enforce, but that does not mean that it is not a worthwhile goal. The Kremlin’s current confidence in its coercive power rests in no small part on the notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate role in conflict management—and on the seemingly widespread acceptance of this role. Taking nuclear weapons out of Europe, literally as well as symbolically, would erode this power probably more than anything else.

 

What to do about Russian Belligerence

 

lol. People don't believe in possibility of WW2 by same way in 30s. Blah-blah war is can't be because we so unprepared to this.

 

Meanwhile Russia have absolute superiority in tactical nukes and planned use this weapon in any conventional conflict. Western butthurt in style "this is unfair, small Russian army must fight against NATO hordes only by weak handguns" can't stop Russia to do it. 

 

Other news.

 

 

Russia plans to build a fleet of supersonic military transport aircraft with an unprecedented payload of 220 tons capable of deploying a full-fledged armored army to anywhere in the world in seven hours, Expert Online reported Thursday.

A fleet of 80 such aircraft, dubbed PAK TA, will be built by 2024 and will be capable of transferring 400 Armata heavy missile tanks or 900 light armored vehicles with ammunition to the American continent or Australia in 7-8 hours, according to the media outlet, which cited a military source who attended a closed meeting of the Military-Industrial Commission in Moscow.

Anime "The Venus Wars " detected

http://myanimelist.net/anime/544/Venus_Wars

[Agiel]

If you're willing to put the human race at stake on the assumption that either

 

a.) The other superpowers would play by the same rules, especially so if fallout happens to fall on countries that have nothing to do with whatever quarrel Russia happens to find itself involved in

 

b.) Russia could keep a nuclear war "limited" once a coalition force arrayed against them begins taking out "counterforce" (military) targets necessary to wage it, leaving Russia with only more survivable and less accurate weapons (thus are only good for one thing, "countervalue targets") at their disposal

 

Then I'm afraid that your head, in the words of General William Smith, "left the world of reality."

 

"The only winning move is not to play."

Edited March 20, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

If you're willing to put the human race at stake on the assumption that either

 

a.) The other superpowers would play by the same rules, especially so if fallout happens to fall on countries that have nothing to do with whatever quarrel Russia happens to find itself involved in

 

b.) Russia could keep a nuclear war "limited" once a coalition force arrayed against them begins taking out "counterforce" (military) targets necessary to wage it, leaving Russia with only more survivable and less accurate weapons (thus are only good for one thing, "countervalue targets") at their disposal

 

Then I'm afraid that your head, in the words of General William Smith, "left the world of reality."

 

"The only winning move is not to play."

Your problem - you don't understand difference between strategical and tactical nukes (although Westlings almost don't have tactical nukes). Using of tactical nukes not threaten US and not cause fallout. It's just like conventional weapon but with extremely superior firepower - single canon can annihilate entire armies, or SAM can shotdown hordes of NATO warplanes by single launch. Actually NATO even cant detect tactical launches until hit of target. Obviously such weapon cause so much butthurt to NATO "this is unfair, let's ban tactical nukes ". 

[obyknven]

Denmark transformed yourself into target for Russian nukes and feel butthurt now. 

 

http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE7573125/Ruslands-ambassadør-Danske-skibe-kan-blive-mål-for-russisk-atomangreb/

 

 

Ruslands ambassadør: Danske skibe kan blive mål for russisk atomangreb

Danmark bliver advaret mod at gå med i et amerikansk missilforsvar. Udenrigsminister Martin Lidegaard ®: »Det er uacceptabelt«.

p.S. Why Westlings so laughable? Firstly they make hostile actions against Russia, but when Russia respond to this they begin loudly cry: "It's not fair! We innocent, Russia has no right to punish us!".