If NATO was just the USA, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany and Japan and that would be enough to stop even China, Iran, N Korea and Russia from ever considering going to war against any one of us.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
If NATO was just the USA, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany and Japan and that would be enough to stop even China, Iran, N Korea and Russia from ever considering going to war against any one of us.
Site Sponsor
And how many of those troops from the UK and Germany would be islamists escaping Syria?Originally Posted by elephant
Trust them much?
Member
NATO didn't win it's war. Russia is quietly rebuilding it's power in Europe and else where in the globe, the only thing besides NATO that could stop them is internal unrest, economic collapse or maybe Conflict with the Chinese. If you take NATO off the board , you'll see Russia pulling a Gerasimov Maneuver or a straight up Georgian invasion with near impunity as you will be unable to build a European Coalition with enough combat power to deter or defeat them.
However, A big issue is the veracity of information. Their is a lot of conflicting reports on Russia's capabilities and intent. For example, In 2009 the Russians started a reorganization program that shrank their military and started to rebuild it into what some called a "Garrison Model" with forces "centralized " into a smaller number of larger bases in key areas. Additionally, the Russian Military exercise program was allegedly around Counter Terrorism/Counter Insurgent (Chechnya) (Zapad 2017) whereas the US program shifted from COIN to Force on Force as early as 2011ish. Yet, as a counterpoint to the draw down and garrison model, we have reports of expanding their military foot print in the artic.
Last edited by cd228; 11-18-17 at 07:29.
Senior Member
RE: air component
Does anyone recall the Libya mission? NATO components, for the most part sans the US, initiated the Air campaign. They ran out of ordinance by the end of the first week. Then the US stepped in.
I don't care how good or how many aircraft you have. Without bombs and bullets, they are useless. Like a million man army with no rifles.
Senior Member
Some of the references cited about NATO decline date back to 2008 time frame.
We can still argue about NATO resolve and effectiveness, but force composition and readiness has changed dramatically since then.
The US has an additional Brigade and a half there on a semi-permanent basis sent back at the tail end of Obama years. One being a heavy Brigade. This in addition to pre-positioned armor on standby.
NATO now maintains a very large number of ongoing multinational Brigade size exercises, but composed of battalion sized elements from any given country to get around treaty issues dating from the Soviet era.
Much more joint Nordic, Baltic, and Balkan countries in the exercises now.
And certain countries have significantly improved their strength and readiness. (Poland being the obvious, but not sole, example)
None of this is secret, DOD and NATO advertise this very publicly.
Could Russia still do something stupid? Sure, but they are not likely to because there's not a big Advantage for them to do so. And a lot of disadvantages.
It Russia wanted to drive to Tallinn as mentioned, NATO could not initially stop them. But they would engage US forces in the process, and then the rest of NATO, and ultimately they would lose or have to go nuclear. Which also has it's price.
They would have a hard time taking and controlling the Metro areas initially due to dug in infantry with pretty decent anti-armor capability. Which then buys time for the heavy stuff to get into play.
Is it possible and a risk? Absolutely. But it's also a mitigated one. But ultimately you have to ask what would Russia gain and what would they lose? The Baltics and Balkans are not the Crimean Peninsula. Big difference.
Senior Member
Russia has a huge military for being roughly half of the population of the US, but regardless, the Russian military is roughly 1,025,887 active duty with about 2,000,000 reserves and a lot are women-which doesn't make a difference but still. The US has about 1,500,000 active duty personnel and about 800,000 reserves. Russia has a little over 3 million armed soldiers, almost 1 million more than the US. However, the US has naval supremacy along with air supremacy. Russia has quite a few submarines but lacks the surface ships to engage in a naval conflict with the US or NATO. The problem with that is Russia would not really need a Navy to start a conflict in Europe or Soviet bloc countries. So if we are talking a full scale land war with Russia, Russia has the upper hand. To deter Russia or to intervene in an armed conflict with Russia would be a logistic nightmare for the US, we have bases in the region but not the man power nor the hardware necessary. Luckily the US has a missile defense system already in place in and around eastern Europe. And we know just from the war in Syria that the US has the ability to take out a air base with just 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a distance of 600 miles. Also, we know that Turkey was able to shoot down (2) Russian Su-22's over the Turkish border using older f-16's. And the "freedom fighters" who, I guess are on our side in Syria are able to destroy common Russian tanks using a TOW missile system from upwards of 1 mile away- at night and in limited visibility. So I'm going to say that the US made hardware is still superior to Russian hardware. In Desert Storm the US lost over 100 aircraft to SCUD missiles and I will guess that there anti aircraft missile systems are top notch. And whos to say who is on Russias side? Iran? China? N Korea? But unless the US is willing to go full WW3 in a war with Russia and pull out everything we have and go full Nagasaki on them, a war with Russia would not be a good war.
Site Sponsor
The Russians used to have a very different set of rules when it came to the use of Chemical weapons. I believe the Authority to "First Strike" with Chemical Weapons went as low as a Brigade Commander.
I have no doubt that when faced with annihilation in the Fulda Gap we would have been in a chemical weapon soup bowl inside of an hour, maybe an hour and a half. In that case I would guess the immediate retaliatory strike would have been nuclear.
That was a pretty balls out face off between the Super Powers. The Russians might well have had a shot during Carters Administration, I simply don't think he would have had the balls to retaliate and we were weak as a sick kitten militarily then.
I spent a decade within 25K's of the border during the 80's, I got forced to PCS back to the States and two weeks later the wall fell.
Senior Member
Minor quibble, but the Russian navy would have to contest the Baltic Sea and North Sea all the way to at least Hamburg. Otherwise, resupply and troop movements would be pretty easy. Those are pretty difficult areas for submarines to be effective with the concentration of ASW capabilities that would be used. They simply don't have enough newer submarines to contest it effectively. The bulk of their attack sub fleet is made up of Oscar, Kilo, and Victor subs from the 70s and 80s.
Their air force also has only roughly 400 Gen 3+ fighters. That's hardly a match for what NATO can bring to the fight just in terms of Eurofighters, F-16s, and soon F-35s. The S400 SAM could complicate things, but no one's seen it in action. Plus, forward air bases like those in Kaliningrad would be a target-rich environment for cruise missiles.
Last edited by sundance435; 11-20-17 at 08:57.
Senior Member
....and the Pacific
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...s-a-war-coming
I can more than understand about NK but why does everyone want to flex on Russia?
Why do we keep putting bases next to them?
They aren't Communist, I doubt they really have the power to influence our elections, and we have sanctioned them so much that it is pointless and yet people still buy their guns and oil.
They have their upsets in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia.
But...we kinda do the same thing.
It won't be like Stratego where peer level forces meet their match on the Fulda Gap in some grand tank battle where guys charge with fixed bayonets.
Nukes will get dropped.
We probably wont ever be friends but why do these people want another Cold War?
There are adults now who were born well after the wall fell and the red flag came down.
There was a time when a Special Report shut everybody in a room up.
Red China is Communist as hot shit on a frypan and I can go there today with no visa to eat noodles and chill
Russian Federation is sorta capitalist but requires visas and red tape.
Why do people want another global boogeyman?
We face the same threats, have the same enemies, and we get caught up in humbuggery and the Red Scare.
Like I'm genuinely curious. Are people that thirsty for a PC "bad guy" that they will manufacture one?
And these hippie college kids wear Che shirts and wave soviet flags but yet think we should got to war with Russia.
It seems like a big sham to justify presence in places that only want our money.
Wake the f*ck up, Samurai
Senior Member
If you read half the articles on Realclearpolitics.com, we are about to engage in war against either China or Russia. Those articles have been going on for 20 years now. Honestly, I just can't see it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks