Modern wars

[Agiel]

Changing tracks, something I found quite moving:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/asia/retired-japanese-fighter-pilot-sees-an-old-danger-on-the-horizon.html?_r=0

[Luj1]

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

 

 

I have no idea what claim are you talking about. I say this as a geologist and it's true. Yellowstone's caldera and its magmatic chamber are unstable as hell, likewise an eventual eruption would induce long-lasting nuclear winter over roughly three quarters of the States (initially) if not more, and an ash zone of equal size whereas ash thickness would be anywhere from 5mm to few meters. It'd be a natural disaster of historical proportion. That can easily be induced artificially with a calibrated nuclear strike (doesn't have to be of great magnitude either) whereas US needs to commit a lot more resources to logistics for a nuclear operation against the Russian Federation and a lot more targets, surface covered, etc. while Russia only needs to hit 1 target and its game over, that's all I'm saying. But maybe you're just an ardent lover of everything 'murica, so Ill leave it at that and go play some PoE.

[ShadySands]

Yeah, no

 

That "theory" has been making the rounds the past couple of days and I was wondering if anyone would bring it up here

 

I was this close to actually biting and writing a serious response too. I must be drunk.

[Luj1]

No idea what you on about, and what 'theory'. You must be drunk, da.

[Agiel]

 

 I say this as a geologist and it's true.

 

 

I suppose your lab partner was Lex Luthor, then?

[ManifestedISO]

Please can I be the mook to re-post the clip, please, please, for Otisburg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk

[Rostere]

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.

 

I don't think my point came across. That is exactly what I was referring to. A strategic weapon is a better deterrent, because it cannot be used for tactical purposes. The use of tactical weapons hints at conventional warfare taking place. If you are preparing seriously for conventional warfare against a major nuclear power (of which there are two in the world by my arbitrary definition), that means you're delusional, either thinking that you can negate the damage done by strategic nukes or that the other part won't use them.

 

So the fact that a major nuclear power chooses to invest heavily in tactical weaponry during a period of confrontation with another major nuclear power is very worrisome. Luckily, it's probably a general trend which has nothing to do with the current climate of confrontation. But it leaves one wondering if Putin has lost his marbles. If I were Belarus or Kazakstan I would be scared ****less right now.

 

Russia won't start a war with the intention of using nukes in it, they aren't going to attack NATO.

 

This is what we must strive for by building up strategic deterrence (and Russia doing so to their taste also of course).

 

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.

 

Both sides must be clear they will not hesitate a global nuclear war, or else the other part will see it as a weak moment and strike, trying to grab small pieces of the cake. Putin has been good at this but Obama should be better IMO.

 

Seeing what they choose to spend their money on, I'm more worried about what Russia is up to. Their early warning satellites are currently down, and the big spending programs concern typically tactical stuff such as the big transport planes we've seen. That's not something you invest in for modern total war. That is what you would invest in if you want to make interventions in third-world countries. Putin is (for some inexplicable reason) looking at the US for inspiration in building capability to interfere GWB-style around the world. I would be laughing my ass off to this if it did not hint at increased instability.

 

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.

 

Threatening with tactical nukes is a very bad development because as I've said, it can be used in wars to occupy countries, while strategic weapons can only be used to wipe things of the face of the Earth, which leaves nothing in terms of tax revenue, industry and human capital. It's better if both sides threaten each other with strategic weapons (instead of tactical weapons) because at that level we can be 100% game theory predicts both sides will be losers. In a total nuclear war between NATO and Russia, China would be the unequivocal winner. Since it's also best to escalate to a full nuclear war first (assuming an attack by the other side) we can be sure that no side would want to initiate any type of war, nuclear or otherwise, provided they are sane.

 

Going further here, the more likely it looks that US and Russia is heading for a confrontation, the better it is for China to emphasize their neutrality, which in turn further emphasizes the incentives to stay the **** away from a nuclear war. Strategic nuclear deterrence in a multi-polar world is a very neat system which tend toward a peaceful balance.

[Agiel]

A distinction should also be made between "counterforce" targets (i.e. ICBM silo fields, ballistic missile submarine berths, bomber airfields, command bunkers, etc.) and "countervalue" targets (political and civilian targets). The latter was usually targeted by submarines since with airburst detonations accuracy wasn't much of a factor (on top of significant overkill allowances to offset the chances of malfunctions, interceptions, and "misses"; the very last SIOP of the Cold War era had called for more than 200 warheads in Moscow city limits alone). The former is (or was due to a combination of START and the advent of more accurate SLBMs like Trident and Bulava) targeted with land-based systems like the LGM-118 Peacekeeper and the SS-18 Satan since they were generally more accurate. And because those targets were "military" in nature, it was believed that the conflict could be kept "limited" based on the assumption the other side would sportingly play by the same rules (to the point that NATO had developed a doctrine for that purpose colloquially known as Bravo Romeo Delta; Blunt, Retard, Disrupt). Thus according to game theorists whereas MAD made the line between peace and war thick, counterforce targeting had the potential to make it far less opaque.

 

We would be wise to remember that both the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command had trained for "military" targets in the run-up to the Second World War.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Agiel

[kgambit]

Yeah, no

 

That "theory" has been making the rounds the past couple of days and I was wondering if anyone would bring it up here

 

I was this close to actually biting and writing a serious response too. I must be drunk.

 

Pass the bottle .......      ......  and the popcorn

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR42eHbKUCs

Edited April 5, 2015 by kgambit

[213374U]

Changing tracks, something I found quite moving:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/asia/retired-japanese-fighter-pilot-sees-an-old-danger-on-the-horizon.html?_r=0

 

I see where you're coming from, but to me it's more scary than moving:

 

 

“I am 54, and I have never heard what happened in the war,” said Takashi Katsuyama, a hair salon owner, who like many in the audience said he was not taught about the war in school. “Japan needs to hear these real-life experiences now more than ever.”

 

And this is in a country that was nuked, twice.

 

Thing is, the mother****ers writing and approving school history textbooks know full well that neither them, nor their sons will directly experience the horrors of war.

 

In the same vein: https://twitter.com/crusoes/status/582825298686791680

[Malcador]

Nothing I've not read before, not really moving. Not being taught about the war honestly though is a surprise, though thinking about that does explain some things.

[obyknven]

Bang goes the no claims! Royal Navy nuclear submarine suffers £500,000 damage after 'hitting floating ice' while tracking Russian vessels.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025839/Royal-Navy-nuclear-submarine-suffers-500-000-damage-hitting-floating-ice-tracking-Russian-vessels.html

 

Half million pound will be most off my life problems solved.

 

£500,000!? Il buff that right out and give the whole thing a polish and a lock of paint for £150

 

I think the MOD need to sack their estimators and recruit some new ones. Half a million? You're having a laugh.

[Zoraptor]

The use of tactical weapons hints at conventional warfare taking place [..] If you are preparing seriously for conventional warfare against a major nuclear power (of which there are two in the world by my arbitrary definition), that means you're delusional [..] So the fact that a major nuclear power chooses to invest heavily in tactical weaponry during a period of confrontation with another major nuclear power is very worrisome. 

 

It's not worrisome at all, or at least no more so than any nuclear weapon is worrisome. Tactical nukes are designed to negate/ promote tactical advantages. NATO has that tactical advantage as they have more troops and more equipment, and having flipped Ukraine they're now not far from most of the major Russian population centres. Tactical nukes make it clear that that is only a qualified advantage, as they'll be reduced to radioactive gunge if used. It's an intermediate deterrent, midway between 'my conventional army and airforce, missiles etc will asterisk you up!' and 'I will reduce your country to a plane of glass with my multi megaton multi warhead nukes!'. They're all deterrents, it's just the scale that changes. If that's particularly worrisome you'll have grey hair by thirty.

 

As for delusional... well, Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, McCain etc. Not exactly rational clear thinking actors, lots of handwaving "we'll do this and that, bish bash bosh, awsumness results!" with less than awesome results. Asterisk Cheney wanted to bomb Russian troops when Georgia attacked them, and he was only the second most powerful man (yeah yeah) in the US. Bit more difficult to advocate that sort of interference and escalation when it's explicitly known that whichever base the aircraft launched from will be radioactive goo two hours later, so there is no escalation and no "we didn't think they'd really do it/ we didn't think it would get out of hand" moment later.

 

And finally and to reiterate, it was NATO doctrine during the Cold War to use tactical nukes on WP concentrations if it became necessary, because at that time WP conventional forces outnumbered NATO ones. It's just that now the situation is reversed. Whichever side is conventionally weaker will use tactical nukes in a serious confrontation, it's inevitable and in the end it's what you have nukes for. A deterrent no one thinks you'll use is not a deterrent.

[obyknven]

Murican military pilots piss in pants... again.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-fighter-jet-nearly-collides-with-u-s-spy-jet-over-europe/

 

Russian Fighter Jet Nearly Collides with U.S. Spy Jet Over Europe

 

“On the morning of April 7th, a U.S. RC-135U flying a routine route in international airspace was intercepted by a Russian Su-27 Flanker in an unsafe and unprofessional manner,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen M. Lainez.

“The United States is raising this incident with Russia in the appropriate diplomatic and official channels,” she said in a statement.

A defense official said the Russian fighter jet flew within 20 feet of the unarmed reconnaissance jet in what the official called a “reckless” encounter that endangered the lives of the RC-135 crew.

[Agiel]

You gotta figure at some point this is going to end in disaster if the Russians keep rolling the dice. There is a lethal precedent for Russian aircraft buzzing American assets (see the Tu-16 Badger that stalled and cartwheeled into the Norwegian Sea whilst making low passes on the USS Essex).

 

[cirdanx]

You gotta figure at some point this is going to end in disaster if the Russians keep rolling the dice. There is a lethal precedent for Russian aircraft buzzing American assets (see the Tu-16 Badger that stalled and cartwheeled into the Norwegian Sea whilst making low passes on the USS Essex).

 

 

This video is 7 years old..And what do you mean by russian rolling the dice? You mean NATO and US encircling them after promising 20+ years they wont do it? Yet still followed their imperialsitc politic?

 

Lets also note that Russias air planes always abit to internatial law. We can´t exactly say the same about the US however let´s not forget this recent accident which brings it to a point: http://fortruss.blogspot.co.at/2015/04/russian-senator-about-air-force.html

 

 

 

Murican military pilots piss in pants... again.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-fighter-jet-nearly-collides-with-u-s-spy-jet-over-europe/

 

Russian Fighter Jet Nearly Collides with U.S. Spy Jet Over Europe

 

“On the morning of April 7th, a U.S. RC-135U flying a routine route in international airspace was intercepted by a Russian Su-27 Flanker in an unsafe and unprofessional manner,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen M. Lainez.

 

“The United States is raising this incident with Russia in the appropriate diplomatic and official channels,” she said in a statement.

 

A defense official said the Russian fighter jet flew within 20 feet of the unarmed reconnaissance jet in what the official called a “reckless” encounter that endangered the lives of the RC-135 crew.

 

As they said it, Russia is a baltic state, the US is NOT one.

[Agiel]

I would hardly call a largely de-militarised Europe and at most 3 forward deployed brigade-sized American maneuver elements (and only one at the moment anywhere east of the Elbe, and to call them "maneuver" forces is a bit generous, they're Stryker BCTs for feth's sake) an "encirclement". If anything, with the Germans recent re-activation of 100 Leo 2A5s and the Dutch reversing their decision to retire their entire fleet of tanks, Russia's recent sabre-rattling is looking more like self-fulfilling prophecy by the day.

 

Poland, the Baltics, et al came knocking on NATO's door because history has given them good reason to fear Russia. Perhaps if Putin had something to offer to them other than intimidation, gas dependency, and dashcam videos of horribly irresponsible driving they'd all cast a more favourable eye towards Russia.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Agiel

[Zoraptor]

You gotta figure at some point this is going to end in disaster if the Russians keep rolling the dice.

 

Funny, isn't it. British respond to Russian plane in international airspace with no transponder, grossly irresponsible from the russians, brave heroes risk their lives intercepting those marauders. US plane gets intercepted, grossly irresponsible from the Russians, er, intercepting our brave heroes and, uh, risking their lives.

 

These things have already ended in disaster for the US as well, per the Hainan Island incident. Yet they still keep rolling the dice. It's almost like everyone does it to everyone else but we'd kind of like to still be morally superior about it anyway.

[Agiel]

And if you can name one incident in which an American naval vessel or aircraft has behaved as brashly towards the Russian AGIs  that have been keeping busy off American coastlines since the end of the Cold War, I'm all ears.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Agiel

[kgambit]

And if you can name one incident in which an American naval vessel or aircraft has behaved as brashly towards the Russian AGIs  that have been keeping busy off American coastlines since the end of the Cold War, I'm all ears.

 

Give it up Agiel.  Having a discussion when someone sees the following two incidents as identical is ridiculous:

 

1) A US RC-135W recon plane flying in international airspace (even the Russians admit that) with transponders ON and is intercepted in international airspace and then buzzed by an Su-27 (the Su-27 flew to ~20 feet of the RC-135W - which is just asterisking irresponsible and incredibly asterisking stupid btw and the same sort of BS flying that caused the Hainan Island Incident).

 

(Transponder code: AE01D5 Registration: 64-14849 Callsign: TELEX97)

 

As opposed to this:

 

2) A pair of Russian Backfire bombers with transponders OFF and cross from international airspace and violating US (or UK) airspace.  They are then intercepted and escorted out of the area with the interceptors flying a safe distance.  (and the video tape proves it)   In fact, the Russians routinely fly with transponders off - the most recent incident occurring with an intercept by Swedish fighters over the Blatic or an incident in December when a Russian Backfire nearly collided with a commercial jet.

 

FWIW, the Hainan Island incident arose from a dispute as to EXACTLY what constituted International Airspace around the island.  The US and multiple nations do not agree with the Chinese assessment as to where the boundary exists and the US was following International Norms and not the more restrictive Chinese claims.  In any case, the EP-3 was flying with transponders on and the Chinese pilot, Lt Cdr Wang (who had a history of too close for comfort flybys on previous occasions, including one caught on camera where he is holding a sign with his email addy clearly visible) clipped the wing  of the US EP-3.   Wang ejected but his body was never recovered.  (It was surmised he ejected UNDER the EP-3 and was blown in the underbelly of the plane.  After the incident, Chinese monitoring of US recon flights continued but no similarly stupid close encounters have since been repeated. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by kgambit

[Malcador]

Well they are, some plane creeping around another's borders. Same kind of chest puffing, like Western ships in the Black Sea. A Canadian one was buzzed and our Brave Heroes stood firm!

[Zoraptor]

1) A US RC-135W recon plane flying in international airspace (even the Russians admit that) with transponders ON

 

Hey, I was just going by what the cited article said- that the RC135 was an 'unidentified radar contact', ie transponder off. Of course it was the Russians saying that, but I was also careful to read the article for any claims/ statements that the transponder was on, and there were none. That came later via a tweet it seems. I'll happily accept that the transponder actually was on, though there's also confirmation it was actually heading for Russian airspace and the 'harassment' stopped when it broke off from that approach. In any case, we have pretty conclusive proof that it isn't only Russia toodling around other countries' near airspace, which was the implication every time this has happened the reverse way.

 

As for the Hainan Island incident I have no doubt the fault was primarily with the Chinese pilot, but so what, really. A situation in which the US plane had actually crashed would have been better for the US, assuming the crew survived, as it wouldn't have resulted in Chinese tech teams swarming all over a spy plane.

 

A pair of Russian Backfire bombers [..] cross from international airspace and violating US (or UK) airspace.

 

Well now, if we're going to nitpick...

 

This didn't happen*, at least not for the incidents that have been mentioned here, and back through 2014- though it certainly has happened fairly regularly around the Baltics.

 

You appear to be confusing UK controlled airspace (airspace run by UK ATC AKA UK flight identification region; when flying in the North Sea any plane is 'violating' either British or Norwegian 'airspace' under this definition though...) with British sovereign airspace, and self declared ADI Zones with sovereign airspace as well given the reference to the US where only an ADIZ was 'violated'- and if we count those the word limit on a forum post would be breached by the Saikoku/ Daioshu ADIZ alone. Also it would make China's self declared Hainan Island restrictions fair and mean the US spy plane was intruding as well. It's understandable that you're confused, as the media has tended towards hysteria in their reporting and has regularly used weasel words like incorrectly describing intrusions into '[countries] airspace' when they mean ATC areas even when quoting officials saying no actual intrusion occurred.

 

*Heh, says that the RAF planes escorted them from "around 1,000 ft away", illustrated by a picture** where the Typhoon is clearly far, far closer than 1000'. Good thing we've got video to prove how safe they are though, and don't have to rely on stills.

** albeit actually from Sept 2014, nevertheless, plenty of pictures of NATO fighters very close to Russian aircraft are available.

[obyknven]

Russian submarine what cause a epic witch-hunt in Sweden has been deanoned  - IRL this "submarine" is a ordinary civilian boat. 

 

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/forsvaret-om-bilden-det-ar-ingen-ubat/

[Rostere]

Russian submarine what cause a epic witch-hunt in Sweden has been deanoned  - IRL this "submarine" is a ordinary civilian boat. 

 

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/forsvaret-om-bilden-det-ar-ingen-ubat/

 

You should take care to read the article more thoroughly. It simply says that this particular photo has been confirmed by the Defense Ministry as depicting a civilian boat, after extensive analysis by their best experts in the field.

 

Also keep in mind that this photo was taken a week after the Defense Ministry claims that a foreign submarine was sighted in the Stockholm archipelago.

[Agiel]

April marks the 60th anniversary of the first flight of the venerable C-130 Hercules (which unlike other aircraft of that era, still remains in production). A moment of zen to reflect on that history:

 

 

The Navy pilots who accomplished that feat had apparently painted on the side of the aircraft "LOOK MA, NO HOOK". Though the prospect of the Hercules being used for transport of personnel and UNREP for aircraft carriers was eventually dropped in favour of the purpose-built carrier capable C-2 Greyhound (the same basic airframe was used for the E-2 Hawkeye series of AWACS), the pilots nonetheless received the Distinguished Flying Cross for this achievement.

 

Here's to another 60 years of flying.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Agiel