World War III?
Re: World War III?
Proof that the Soviet military were too incompetent ?
The conventional forces of NATO were ridiculous low .Survival depended on the US nuclear umbrella,so was the then current opinion .After 1957 the nuclear umbrella disappeared,but still the Soviets did not attack .
The reasons were
1 An attack was not necessary
2 the Soviets had not the power to occupy the conquered territories .They were already losing their grip on the satellite states .
3 The results of a successful attack would be very bad ,politically,but also economically :the Soviet economy would collaps .The USSR was depending on trade with the West .
And if the economy would collaps, the regime would collaps .
The conventional forces of NATO were ridiculous low .Survival depended on the US nuclear umbrella,so was the then current opinion .After 1957 the nuclear umbrella disappeared,but still the Soviets did not attack .
The reasons were
1 An attack was not necessary
2 the Soviets had not the power to occupy the conquered territories .They were already losing their grip on the satellite states .
3 The results of a successful attack would be very bad ,politically,but also economically :the Soviet economy would collaps .The USSR was depending on trade with the West .
And if the economy would collaps, the regime would collaps .
Re: World War III?
That's my only comforting thought- that Putin is not truly insane like Hitler. I've listened to many of his interviews and he doesn't seem to be patently psychotic. I do know he has to be squirming over the thought of a face-saving exit strategy, but this in itself represents a fait accompli.Aida1 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 08:55Clearly your sick fantasy borne of frustration. Even Putin is not mad as that. He has scaled down his ambitions as soon as the initial objective failed.Cult Icon wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 04:04Russia has not played hard ball with its air force yet or abandoned "brother war"- Operation Ukrainie Freedom. Small tactical nuclear weapons comes after. Russia at max has only killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians. They have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons.
It has rarely deployed strategic bombers to drop large bombs, outside of special situations, like Mariupol. They have not employed much chemical and biological warfare either, mainly using a lot of thermobarbaric munitions and at times, phosphorous. The Russian air force in the main is restricted to fighters and helicopters.
The obvious first step to escalation is to drop FOAB's on top of Kyiv's government quarter and kill everybody.
Re: World War III?
The nuclear umbrella never disappeared.ljadw wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 10:20Proof that the Soviet military were too incompetent ?
The conventional forces of NATO were ridiculous low .Survival depended on the US nuclear umbrella,so was the then current opinion .After 1957 the nuclear umbrella disappeared,but still the Soviets did not attack .
The reasons were
1 An attack was not necessary
2 the Soviets had not the power to occupy the conquered territories .They were already losing their grip on the satellite states .
3 The results of a successful attack would be very bad ,politically,but also economically :the Soviet economy would collaps .The USSR was depending on trade with the West .
And if the economy would collaps, the regime would collaps .
Re: World War III?
1. The "nuclear umbrella" is a myth. It never existed and never will. Ending human civilization is no "umbrella", but a doomsday scenario for our species.
2. A cursory analysis of this reveals the nature of the threat.
3. The threats, by Medvedev, in particular, are an exercise in futility and an attempt to wage a war with words only.
4. Clausewitz theorized that "war is an extension of political policy". How does destroying the human race accomplish any policy at all? For what purpose would Putin pursue an apocalyptic policy?
2. A cursory analysis of this reveals the nature of the threat.
3. The threats, by Medvedev, in particular, are an exercise in futility and an attempt to wage a war with words only.
4. Clausewitz theorized that "war is an extension of political policy". How does destroying the human race accomplish any policy at all? For what purpose would Putin pursue an apocalyptic policy?
Re: World War III?
It certainly did exist because an opponent must take into account the possibility that the other side would use some type of nuclear weapon if the existence of the country is at stake. The NATO threat to potentially use tactical nuclear weapons if the conventional war with the Warsaw pact went completely wrong had to be taken into account when considering an agression.mezsat2 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 12:161. The "nuclear umbrella" is a myth. It never existed and never will. Ending human civilization is no "umbrella", but a doomsday scenario for our species.
2. A cursory analysis of this reveals the nature of the threat.
3. The threats, by Medvedev, in particular, are an exercise in futility and an attempt to wage a war with words only.
4. Clausewitz theorized that "war is an extension of political policy". How does destroying the human race accomplish any policy at all? For what purpose would Putin pursue an apocalyptic policy?
Re: World War III?
Russia will first use strategic bombing before nuclear weapons. It was more rational for them to do that in the first weeks of the war, once the coup de main failed then risk their ground force.
A longer-term bombing campaign, like the US/Coalition bombing of Iraq.
A longer-term bombing campaign, like the US/Coalition bombing of Iraq.
Re: World War III?
It seems to me a lot of missiles were fired into the Ukraine. You seem to have missed those. Anyway, Russia is not able to do what the coalition did against Iraq.Cult Icon wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 19:44Russia will first use strategic bombing before nuclear weapons. It was more rational for them to do that in the first weeks of the war, once the coup de main failed then risk their ground force.
A longer-term bombing campaign, like the US/Coalition bombing of Iraq.
Re: World War III?
SU-34 dropping FAB-500 bombs
-
- Member
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 22:18
- Location: GA
Re: World War III?
RU has no SEAD doctrine or capability and has shown immense hesitation to commit airframes too far over UKR space. Not sure how the RU airforce is going to get a plane over Kiev to drop iron bombs.Cult Icon wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 04:04Russia has not played hard ball with its air force yet or abandoned "brother war"- Operation Ukrainie Freedom. Small tactical nuclear weapons comes after. Russia at max has only killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians. They have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons.
It has rarely deployed strategic bombers to drop large bombs, outside of special situations, like Mariupol. They have not employed much chemical and biological warfare either, mainly using a lot of thermobarbaric munitions and at times, phosphorous. The Russian air force in the main is restricted to fighters and helicopters.
The obvious first step to escalation is to drop FOAB's on top of Kyiv's government quarter and kill everybody.
Mad Dog
Re: World War III?
US had til the launch of the Sputnik a nuclear monopoly: they could destroy the USSR and Europe ,while the Soviets could not attack US cities because they had no ICBMs and no bombers who could attack DC,etc,and return . Thus a conventional Soviet attack in Europe was not possible .mezsat2 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 12:161. The "nuclear umbrella" is a myth. It never existed and never will. Ending human civilization is no "umbrella", but a doomsday scenario for our species.
2. A cursory analysis of this reveals the nature of the threat.
3. The threats, by Medvedev, in particular, are an exercise in futility and an attempt to wage a war with words only.
4. Clausewitz theorized that "war is an extension of political policy". How does destroying the human race accomplish any policy at all? For what purpose would Putin pursue an apocalyptic policy?
This was the nuclear umbrella .
All this changed with the Sputnik,because the launching of the Sputnik meant that the Soviets had now the means to build ICBMs .
Re: World War III?
Simplistic and ignores a lot.ljadw wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022, 07:00US had til the launch of the Sputnik a nuclear monopoly: they could destroy the USSR and Europe ,while the Soviets could not attack US cities because they had no ICBMs and no bombers who could attack DC,etc,and return . Thus a conventional Soviet attack in Europe was not possible .mezsat2 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 12:161. The "nuclear umbrella" is a myth. It never existed and never will. Ending human civilization is no "umbrella", but a doomsday scenario for our species.
2. A cursory analysis of this reveals the nature of the threat.
3. The threats, by Medvedev, in particular, are an exercise in futility and an attempt to wage a war with words only.
4. Clausewitz theorized that "war is an extension of political policy". How does destroying the human race accomplish any policy at all? For what purpose would Putin pursue an apocalyptic policy?
This was the nuclear umbrella .
All this changed with the Sputnik,because the launching of the Sputnik meant that the Soviets had now the means to build ICBMs .
Re: World War III?
He is blind to that.Tom Peters wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022, 04:36RU has no SEAD doctrine or capability and has shown immense hesitation to commit airframes too far over UKR space. Not sure how the RU airforce is going to get a plane over Kiev to drop iron bombs.Cult Icon wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 04:04Russia has not played hard ball with its air force yet or abandoned "brother war"- Operation Ukrainie Freedom. Small tactical nuclear weapons comes after. Russia at max has only killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians. They have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons.
It has rarely deployed strategic bombers to drop large bombs, outside of special situations, like Mariupol. They have not employed much chemical and biological warfare either, mainly using a lot of thermobarbaric munitions and at times, phosphorous. The Russian air force in the main is restricted to fighters and helicopters.
The obvious first step to escalation is to drop FOAB's on top of Kyiv's government quarter and kill everybody.
Mad Dog
Re: World War III?
The Tu-4 possessed sufficient range to attack Chicago or Los Angeles on a one-way mission since 1949.ljadw wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022, 07:00US had til the launch of the Sputnik a nuclear monopoly: they could destroy the USSR and Europe ,while the Soviets could not attack US cities because they had no ICBMs and no bombers who could attack DC,etc,and return . Thus a conventional Soviet attack in Europe was not possible .
This was the nuclear umbrella .
All this changed with the Sputnik,because the launching of the Sputnik meant that the Soviets had now the means to build ICBMs .
The Tu-95 Bear was available since 1952.
The R-13 SLBM was available since 1959.
Re: World War III?
In June 2020, Putin signed a decree—the Basic Principles of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence—that specifies two conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons.
“The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies…”
“and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat”
Re: World War III?
The last is more or less the same as NATO strategy.wm wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022, 19:29In June 2020, Putin signed a decree—the Basic Principles of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Domain of Nuclear Deterrence—that specifies two conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons.
“The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies…”
“and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat”