Modern wars

[213374U]

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 ".

I think he understands it well enough. In fact, it seems it's you who doesn't understand the danger of nuclear escalation, the reason why succumbing to the temptation to fire a few itty-bitty tactical nukes at an enemy force with equivalent nuclear capabilities when things turn against you, has a very high chance of resulting in all-out nuclear warfare.

 

With the end of the Cold War and the unlikelihood of seeing massed Soviet tank armies rolling over the Rhine, deployment of tactical nukes in Europe makes very little sense beyond saber rattling.

 

Yep, us westlings are scared... of somebody doing something monumentally stupid. There is no defeating stupidity, you know.

Edited March 21, 2015 by 213374U

[obyknven]

 

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 ".

I think he understands it well enough. In fact, it seems it's you who doesn't understand the danger of nuclear escalation, the reason why succumbing to the temptation to fire a few itty-bitty tactical nukes at an enemy force with equivalent nuclear capabilities when things turn against you, has a very high chance of resulting in all-out nuclear warfare.

 

With the end of the Cold War and the unlikelihood of seeing massed Soviet tank armies rolling over the Rhine, deployment of tactical nukes in Europe makes very little sense beyond saber rattling.

 

Yep, us westlings are scared... of somebody doing something monumentally stupid. There is no defeating stupidity, you know.

 

you just don't understand.  For profanes all nukes are same, but in reality only mass launches of Intercontinental ballistic missile can cause Global nuclear war. In all other cases Murica (as any other country in world) pretend be blind and not interfere in such conflicts ( even if Russia raep entire EU ).

[Rostere]

But what are you going to use tactical nukes for when your adversary has already used strategical nukes on you? I don't understand, it seems pointless.

 

Same with those giant flying piñatas - has zero use in warfare between two advanced nations. Might be useful if Russia wants to deploy their troops for Iraq-style interventions though.

[obyknven]

But what are you going to use tactical nukes for when your adversary has already used strategical nukes on you? I don't understand, it seems pointless.

 

Our adversary don't will use this.  Some reverse situation for best understanding. 

 

Imagine situation when Murica begin war against Latin  America and even nuke such friends of Russia as Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.  Do you think Russia really begin global  nuclear war in this case? ... or just say - it's not my business and continue own happy life?

Same situation in Europe. Yes Russia can't nuke Murican territory without bad consequences... but Russia can nuke EU in same time. And all European countries who place Murican weapons for war against Russia on own territory really are suicidal idiots. In case of war nobody to save them.

[Zoraptor]

I think he understands it well enough. In fact, it seems it's you who doesn't understand the danger of nuclear escalation, the reason why succumbing to the temptation to fire a few itty-bitty tactical nukes at an enemy force with equivalent nuclear capabilities when things turn against you, has a very high chance of resulting in all-out nuclear warfare.

 

 

Meh, it's deterrence. In order to deter- as opposed to bluff- you have to actually be willing to use the deterrence and make it obvious that you will do so. That is all that this sort of redeployment and Putin putting nukes on alert over Crimea are meant to do, make it obvious that nukes are on the table so some moron on the other side doesn't decide that they aren't, really. After all, the west's military planners and especially their more hawkish politicians have not always been on the best terms with reality over the past decade or so.

 

Whether Russia has good reason to think NATO will invade or whatever is largely irrelevant, Russia has basically one big card to deal and that is the ability to reduce all those shiny, technologically superior equipment and fine, well trained, handsome and generally awesome NATO troops to greasy smears and melted slag if they're ever used against her. If NATO ever goes after Russia it will be an existential threat and nukes will be used, nothing surer, because ultimately that's what you have nukes for. At that point whether it escalates further is moot, the mistake has already been made.

[Agiel]

The assumption that you can control a nuclear war is pure fantasy. From the moment the first nuclear weapons are released on the battlefield, you open Pandora's Box, and you don't know what's coming out. But one thing you can count on is that there will be a very high probability of early and steep escalation into the strategic exchange that nobody wants, so you musn't use the things.

 

...

 

In my mind the ultimate obscenity is all-out nuclear war. And anything that tends towards it is something which makes me very uneasy, and in this connection I'm very uneasy about any tendency to talk now in terms of a limited nuclear war; a "winnable nuclear war". In the mistaken belief, as I believe it to be, that once you start it, you can stop it before it goes the whole way. I don't believe you can.

 

-General Sir John Hackett, former NATO Commander, BAOR, NORTHAG

 

Keep in mind that he said this back when the conventional balance in Europe was decidedly in the Warsaw Pact's favour and when the NATO powers had "strategic superiority" over the Soviet Union.

 

And Herman Kahn's "Ladder of Escalation":

 

 

The last rung was the origin of the term "Wargasm".

 

All I know is if the news has verifiable reports of shots fired between any superpower and Russia, I'm picking up my parents and taking them for a "short vacation" to Ukiah ("Yes, mom, that's a real place.")

 

Re: Land Invasion of Russia

 

There was an old joke in the Soviet Union in the time of the Sino-Soviet Split:

 

Q: What are the two languages citizens of the Soviet Union should learn?

 

A: Hebrew and Chinese. Hebrew for those who are leaving, and Chinese for those who are staying.

 

In other words, an invasion of Russia is far more likely to come from the _other direction_, as only China has the economic fortitude matching the US on top of the logistical acumen to wage a war between great powers (as opposed to the US, China is _right there_). The theater is sparsely populated (with some ethnicities probably being more amiable to a Chinese presence), so they don't have to invest nearly as much into subjecting the local populace to their will, and as a result of technology transfers with the West and the other Asian powers, are set to gain qualitative superiority on top of their quantitative superiority over the Russians.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

Ukrainian "Top Gear". Brittish Saxon vs Soviet BRDM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9MsyHtKwZ4

 

  Why Greatest Britts deliver this crap to Ukraine?

[Gorgon]

Well it's not tracked and it probably weighs a ton and has run-flat tires, why would you expect it to be any good off road. 

[Woldan]

To be fair the BRDM revved the engine right before climbing the hill and it sounds like a never ending fart. It looks much better though, the Saxon looks like a painted shoe box with wheels attached to it. 

Edited March 22, 2015 by Woldan

[obyknven]

To be fair the BRDM revved the engine right before climbing the hill and it sounds like a never ending fart. It looks much better though, the Saxon looks like a painted shoe box with wheels attached to it. 

Old rusty overweighted (by extra armor) Ukrainian BRDM, with almost dead engine (without proper maintenance) make quite good performance for own condition.

[obyknven]

Russians buy secret Norwegian submarine base.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/secret-submarine-base-norway-accidentally-handed-russians-314989.html

 

http://olavsvern.no/en/

[obyknven]

 

In present time we can state about total failure of Murican style of warfare.  Let's consider a last events during Ukrainian civil war.  All military operations  of Junta forces has been planned in Pentagon, this is obvious because so many non-typical elements for Soviet school of warfare (but very typical for Murican shool of warfare) has been detected.

 

1. Aerial war( WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraq war, Yugoslavian war, war in Afghanistan). Total failure, Rebels have a perfect SAM defense and shot down all Ukrainian warplanes/helicopters yet during summer battles.

2. Using of drones (Iraq war, Yugoslavian war, war in Afghanistan)). Again fail, Rebels hack or shot down them.

3. Deep raids by armored forces  on tight front  (Somalia, Iraq war, Afghanistan war)). Fail, all these raids has been ended by surroundings and exterminatus of raiders.

4. Terror bombings/shootings of civilians (WW2 - destroying  of many German and all Japanese civilian sites, Korean war - destroying of all North-Korean civilian sites, Vietnamese, Iraq, Yugoslavian wars and war in Afghanistan  ). Fail. Russians from this only become much bloodthirsty and transforms into Sparta-style militarized society, beginning of Blood feud. 

5. Bribing of politicians/generals for leading of troops into ambushes and/or surrender (Iraq war, Yugoslavian war, war in Afghanistan).  Fail. Rebels have effective counterintelligence services, and ruthlessly exterminate/ remove from power any traitors. Russians don't surrender.

 

Murican style of warfare just don't working.

[Agiel]

3. Deep raids by armored forces  on tight front  (Somalia, Iraq war, Afghanistan war)). Fail, all these raids has been ended by surroundings and exterminatus of raiders.

 

 

If by Somalia you mean the Battle of Mogadishu, that was primarily fought with air-mobile infantry dropped into the heart of enemy territory (JSOC commanders had their reservations conducting the operation in broad daylight when the Habr Gidr militiamen were hopped up on Khat, but believed the opportunity was too much to pass up). The only actual armoured incursion was by a joint force of 10th Mountain Division and Malaysian troops under the UN Mandate sent to retrieve the Rangers and Delta Operators, of which the actual convoy suffered only one casualty. An extremely impressive feat considering how disastrously the _other_ time armoured forces were deployed into an urban environment in the 90s went.

 

And airpower has come a long way since Vietnam, in both technology and doctrine. Take for instance the B-2 raids over Belgrade where with the advent of GPS guided ordinance a sortie with a similar target set to Operation El Dorado Canyon comprising of nearly 50 aircraft (much more than that when counting support craft like tankers, AWACS, and EA-6 Prowler jamming support) was accomplished with a mere three bombers.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

Leopard 1 Armata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE

 

Kurganetz-25

[obyknven]

[obyknven]

Murican soldier in Poland. Poles yet can't stop to obey and arrival of of foreign masters make them  so happy .  

Why Murican so fat, he looks like pair of Poles! How such hippopotamus can run and do other things what soldiers must do during fight?!

[Agiel]

Idle observations of "Armata":

 

-The Remote Weapons System and the crew re-located to the hull of the tank perhaps solves the biggest Achilles Heel of previous Russian/Soviet tanks, that of spontaneous human combustion. However, it remains to be seen if it will prove reliable enough to not simply add substantially to the per-unit cost and crippling its overall effectiveness. Indications seem to point to the tank's armaments being non-functional, and will continue to be until several months of additional overhaul and testing.

 

-Tank-Net has done an overlay of the existing T-72 over the profile image of the "T-14" based on the size of the roadwheel for the T-72:

We're talking about a tank that approaches the mass of contemporary MBTs like the M1A2 SEP (~65 tonnes) and the Type 99 (almost 60 tonnes) vs the almost 48 tonnes of the T-90A. Generally, the Russians have preferred lighter, smaller tanks because it required a less powerful, less complicated engine in order to match the power-to-weight ratios of larger western tank. and the engine is usually the biggest driver of costs for an individual tank.

 

If there was any truth to the claim it uses a hybrid, multifuel engine, then it would seem almost as if that the Russians have chosen the most deliberately expensive way of building a tank, which doesn't bode well for a country that is the midst of a huge recession. The effects of it are already being seen; recently the Russian MOD has slashed its order of the PAK-FA from ~55 to 12. If any of Russia's programs of ultra-modern systems ever bear fruit, then it's likely the biggest beneficiary of these programs will continue to be India (as it has been the case for the past ~25 years).

[Malcador]

Somalis probably ran out of RPGs. That and the rescuers were shooting anything that moved if I recall (probably wasted a lot of innocent folk)

[Rostere]

 

But what are you going to use tactical nukes for when your adversary has already used strategical nukes on you? I don't understand, it seems pointless.

Our adversary don't will use this.  Some reverse situation for best understanding. 

 

It's really not about whether or not specifically the US will use nukes, it's about whether any side will do so.

 

In this case, the answer is a clear "yes" if any of the parts are rational actors. It is always going to be in your interest to strike first, and the longer you delay, the higher the likelihood is that your adversary strikes first.

 

 

Imagine situation when Murica begin war against Latin  America and even nuke such friends of Russia as Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.  Do you think Russia really begin global  nuclear war in this case? ... or just say - it's not my business and continue own happy life?

 

It is unthinkable that Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela would join a Russian war against NATO. That is why they are just friends and not anything more. In fact, I don't know if there is any nation which would join Russia in a war against any other major nation. In this case, we are lacking comparisons in the modern era. Better examples would be an American intervention in, say, Romania during the Cold War. That would probably elicit the same reaction as if Russia were to invade a NATO country in Europe. That is, global nuclear war.

 

 

Same situation in Europe. Yes Russia can't nuke Murican territory without bad consequences... but Russia can nuke EU in same time. And all European countries who place Murican weapons for war against Russia on own territory really are suicidal idiots. In case of war nobody to save them.

 

I don't understand. During the Cold War, every major population center was targeted for nukes. Although we have left behind the inevitable feeling of war, a lot of people have completely forgot what nuclear war is all about. The numbers have changed, but the fundamental calculus has not. In the case of a nuclear war, all population centers are targeted for nuclear annihilation - from Cold War plans we have seen that it makes no difference if you have 0 or 100 nukes in an area as long as it has strategic assets (people, industry, power generation...). You nuke people to cause strategic damage, not just because you're upset that they store weapons there. Both sides have more than enough nukes to not be picky about what they bomb. You can't threaten someone with something you've been doing all along.

 

Are you saying that Russia would attack a NATO country, but not at the same time start a global nuclear war? That's really stupid, because it allows for NATO to have the first strike. Putin could as well pull down his pants and bend forward in front of Obama. Having the first strike is hugely important, which is one of the reasons why an early warning system is the most important technology in modern armies, apart from the nukes themselves of course. It's absurd talking about "suicidal idiots" since everyone will be suicidal in case of a war like this. NATO nations who have nukes are just as targeted for annihilation as Russia which has nukes, yet that does not stop Russia from developing nukes, right?

[Zoraptor]

That is why you have the distinction between 'tactical' nukes and 'strategic' nukes though. Tactical nukes are for tactical aims not strategic ones, same as there was a difference between tactical bombing in WW2 vs strategic bombing of cities and industry.

 

Russia won't start a war with the intention of using nukes in it, they aren't going to attack NATO. But in a war with NATO in which they come under any genuine threat they will use tactical nukes to achieve tactical aims, because otherwise they'll lose. Does that make escalation likely? Yeah, but then so does the invasion, and you can rest assured (heh) that both sides have multiple redundant systems to deal with a strategic first strike by the other, the US won't hoodwink the Russians that way nor will the Russians v/v.

 

Stating that nukes will be used explicitly has an explicit deterrent effect, otherwise, given NATO's history of aggression some McCainesque loon will decide that they won't really do it if we just bomb St Basil's or only assassinate Putin or something, everything will turn out fine; trust them, they know what they're doing. Nope, the result from that is exactly what trusting Sledge Hammer to know what he's doing would get you, a jolly red/ yellow mushroom cloud.

 

Ultimately, if you only have nukes for deterrent value and state- or allow it to be accepted- that they won't really be used then they won't actually deter- because people think you won't use them. Tactical nukes are an escalation certainly and asking for more which is why you need to again have an explicit warning that they will be used, but they are less an escalation than turning the east/ west coasts of the US into glass instead, though that remains an option.

[Tort]

Modern wars are waged through PR and legal means, even more than before. Like the UN where the generally assembly and many communities has been overrun by repressive regimes that violate human rights, so they can silence criticism, using it as a political platform.

 

So For example, beside the usual use of the Non-Aligned Movement, we have countries that hung rape victims being appointed to women's rights commission and those who evade IAEA and ignore weapons embargo's become chairs of disarmament.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Tort

[Tort]

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."

It's really not about whether or not specifically the US will use nukes, it's about whether any side will do so.

 

In this case, the answer is a clear "yes" if any of the parts are rational actors. It is always going to be in your interest to strike first, and the longer you delay, the higher the likelihood is that your adversary strikes first.

On a little off note. I'd like to add that even though the only winning move is not to play, the rational thing is to "think the unthinkable", because history showed that the unthinkable usually isn't impossible. And i dread how much more volatile such situation will become if we add more "rational" actors, who base their decisions on even more limited information, or with convictions that everyone will fall inline with their game plan.

 

Ultimately, if you only have nukes for deterrent value and state- or allow it to be accepted- that they won't really be used then they won't actually deter- because people think you won't use them. Tactical nukes are an escalation certainly and asking for more which is why you need to again have an explicit warning that they will be used, but they are less an escalation than turning the east/ west coasts of the US into glass instead, though that remains an option.

On the other hand, waving the nuclear stick, is exactly the opposite of what someone who is looking to deescalate the situation does. And the purpose isn't reinforcing MAD deterrence, but to political to bully small actors in your sphere of influence, where already have the upper hand in terms of conventional means.

 

Also a little nitpick concerning tactical nukes, their use doesn't necessarily necessities nuclear escalation (only a political fallout). iirc USA has used at least one conventional bomb in Iraq which was in the order of magnitude of tactical nuke. Obviously it is really about how use it, if you blow up a city, nuclear or not, no one will be picky about semantics.

[Walsingham]

The thing about doing the unthinkable is that it is perfectly possible to do things without thinking.

 

Anyone recall predicting the widespread employment of chemical weapons in Syria, a decade ago?

[Luj1]

America should be smart and avoid any nuclear conflict with Russia. America may need hundreds of nuclear warheads to devastate Russian territory, if not more, Russia holding one 6th of world's land surface. Russians on the other hand, need just two warheads. One for Yellowstone and one for San Andreas. Nature and geology will take care of what's left of America.

[Agiel]

If you took that claim at all seriously, please see Lucy Van Pelt, PhD. Psychiatric Help, $.05