A New Munich?

[sunday]

I think that Holomodor was worse than Chernobyl.

[CValdor]

On 2/28/2022 at 3:36 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

No. Because for all Hitlers power, he never destroyed a single European City (well, other than perhaps Warsaw, and as we saw it spectacularly revived inside 2 decades).

Putin could destroy all European cities in the first half hour. We keep ignoring his nuclear capacity, and after the status 2 alert he just put them on, we really shouldnt. Its probably the only part of the Russian Armed Forces that works properly.

I dont know if discussing Evil is really helpful. All I know is a story Putin himself told, and ive told it before so I apologise if it bores anyone.

Putin is in his teens and at Judo practice. He offers to give his coach a ride. So they are driving down the road, and Putin sees a truck carrying hay. So without thinking, he drives alongside, to run his hand through the hay. And nearly crashes head on into a car coming the other way. 'I dont know know why I did it', Putin said. 'The hay felt so soft...'

And that is the man at the helm of the Russian nuclear forces. Feel safe?

Yes, I don't think Putin is an insane mandman who wakes up evilly planning destruction. I believe he is a calculating, brutal and cunning man who wants power and not to rule over a wasteland.

[CValdor]

On 2/28/2022 at 1:24 PM, glenn239 said:

You apparently took the Blue pill.  Got one for me too? 

If I understand you correctly, Putin is weak in any war with NATO except for the one that would actually happen.  Good to know.   Here's another theory.  In 1914 the Schlieffen Plan triggered AUTOMATICALLY with Russian mobilization, like a clock ticking down.  From what I gather of Russian nuclear doctrine, it could be the case that NATO calling Article 5 will automatically trigger a nuclear response, that Putin (like the German Chancellor in 1914) would have to intervene to prevent the clock from winding down.

 

Stop withe the Poland and 1914 references. If any of what you believe is true, then Putin wants destruction even worse than anything Hitler planned, because Hitler did not plan for Germany to burn like it did, that was a consequence of his incompetence. There is no scenario involving nuclear weapons that Putin doesn't believe will end with Moscow as a nuclear wasteland.

 

You are not redpilled, you are blackpilled.

[CValdor]

There is no way Russia loses to Ukraine, it was always a numbers game. Despite the ukranians heroic efforts, and the groznian shambles of the Eben Emael neotsarists wannabes, there in no way Javelins or Stingers will stop what is coming down on Kiev. Worst case scenario is that the city does not surrender and it gets the Raqqa treatment, even then the Europeans will be too impotent and the Americans too unwilling to intervene.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, CValdor said:

Yes, I don't think Putin is an insane mandman who wakes up evilly planning destruction. I believe he is a calculating, brutal and cunning man who wants power and not to rule over a wasteland.

I dont think he embarked on this to destroy Ukraine. OTOH, do the mental shift. If you badly want something that you cant get, and you have the mentality of a pentulant child, what do you do? You destroy it of course, to prove a point.  He is already doing it in Kharkiv as we speak.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, bojan said:

Lol.

Oh, there was local scientists im sure. But who developed Nuclear power program in the USSR? The senior partner, Russian's. Whom exported it to Ukraine? Russians. Whom was the guy whom made the decision to hold a parade in Kyiv whilst the nuclear disaster was in full swing? Mikhail Gorbachev, a Russian.

There is a reason why Ukraine departed the Soviet Union, and its not because they found Ukrainians primarily at fault.

[sunday]

5 hours ago, CValdor said:

Yes, I don't think Putin is an insane mandman who wakes up evilly planning destruction. I believe he is a calculating, brutal and cunning man who wants power and not to rule over a wasteland.

Perhaps one could consider Putin as a current day Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

[Ssnake]

Yeah, and Monty Burns is like Oskar Schindler.

[sunday]

I do not see Mr. Burns as a Nazi.

[Rick]

22 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

This is beyond stupid, Rick, which "potential Red Army advance" ocurred that "Europe" didn't stop? you are saying that Europeans failed to stop an invasion that didn't happen? 

My meaning is accurate, and understandable, even if the words describing it are slightly less so. Regardless of what I believe, N.A.T.O. stopped any potential invasion by the Soviet Union, so it's all academic that which follows. As I have repeated ad infintim  (and some would say ad nausem), N.A.T.O. had the ability to stop a potential Red Army invasion by itself from about, probably the 1970's to definitely the 1980's.  It chose not to so. This lack of will by Europe was made up for by the U.S.

Throughout my posts on this subject, the lack of will by Europe to solve Europe's problems that Europe created in the 20th century required the, IMO, unnecessary involvement of the U.S.  Of this there is no doubt.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Yeah, and Monty Burns is like Oskar Schindler.

Well, he is sort of right, since good old Mustafa was a pretty nasty fuck himself, especially during WW1 , immediate aftermath and Greco-Turkish war. Far from Enver Pasha level of savagery, but even more far from a "mild reformer" he is usually held as.

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by bojan

[RETAC21]

49 minutes ago, Rick said:

My meaning is accurate, and understandable, even if the words describing it are slightly less so. Regardless of what I believe, N.A.T.O. stopped any potential invasion by the Soviet Union, so it's all academic that which follows. As I have repeated ad infintim  (and some would say ad nausem), N.A.T.O. had the ability to stop a potential Red Army invasion by itself from about, probably the 1970's to definitely the 1980's.  It chose not to so. This lack of will by Europe was made up for by the U.S.

Throughout my posts on this subject, the lack of will by Europe to solve Europe's problems that Europe created in the 20th century required the, IMO, unnecessary involvement of the U.S.  Of this there is no doubt.

You are so incorrect, but since this is a faith item for you, off you go.

[R011]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

I do not see Mr. Burns as a Nazi.

They both made shells for the Nazis, but Burns' worked, dammit!

Edited March 2, 2022 by R011

[Rick]

23 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

You still miss the point, I am not saying that the US contribution wasn't welcomed, but this narrative of the US manning the battlements while Europeans complained and did nothing it's completely false, then and now.

It is human nature not to complain when someone else is helping footing the bill. 

As has been pointed out by Banshee multiple times, the US position in NATO had costs, but above all, it had benefits that surpased those costs substantially, since the US could concentrate on other places (read: Vietnam) without having to worry about Europe. The US also leveraged this position for economical advantage, Boeing would still be a minor aircraft manufacturer but for the B-52/B-707 which crowded out European alternatives.

As I stated previously, the U.S. should not have involved itself in Vietnam. After all, why should the U.S. think it can do better than the French in this regard?

Again, if the Communists were a European problem  how do you explain China? and how did the US solve THAT problem on behalf of the Europeans? If the Communists were a problem in 1920, how did the US SOLVE that problem on behalf of the Europeans?

The sole Communist power that really affected Europe was the Red Army. Europe had the ability, not the will to do so, hence it required, unnecessarily imo, the U.S. 

But let's leave the past and move forward to the XXI Century: So which European country invaded Iraq and created the current mess in the Middle East?

A N.A.T.O. country was attacked and the rest of N.A.T.O. is required to respond. It was a surprise that is was the U.S. that was attacked by M.E. terrorist and not Germany by the Soviet Union as everyone thought it would be.  

It was Europe that left Afgahnistan with undue haste? No, that was Biden. Elections have consequences. 

Is it Europe the one making warlike noises in Ukraine at the same time they pulled out all their forces from the Black Sea? Have no idea what you are talking about.

No, these are messes created, managed, and left behind by the US, in its self appointed role as World Police, which now come home to roost when others apply the same principles previously applied by the US.

Hhmmm, messes created on the international scene by the U.S.?  I believe most would agree the U.S. became a "world power" member around the early part of the 20th century. Let's see the messes the U.S. "created, managed, and left behind."

World War One. Created by Europe with ramifications that continue on to this day in varying degrees and upon who you ask. Required the U.S. to help resolve it. To what extant is up to who you ask. 

Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. Created by Europe with negative ramifications that continue on to this day. As a side note, I consider all three of these the family of evil, just different family members. Though to be honest, it is impossible not for these to have occurred somewhere, they just all three happened to originate and grow in Europe during the 20 year truce between W.W.1 and W.W.2.

World War Two. Created by Europe, which required great assistance from the U.S. to help resolve. Though to be fair, it was Communist Russia that did much to defeat Nazi Germany. 

Post W.W.2. This appears to be your main complaint. If the U.S. was the "worlds policeman" then who was the "worlds criminal?" I would say Communism. Who has done the most to diminish this criminal? The U.S. Where has Communism really taken hold of and survived. Only two that I know of, the former Soviet Union and China. And at it's heart what is Communism; governmental control of everything, ie, power over everyone as much as possible. And, very unfortunately and with much sadness, this secular stench of Communism was mostly filtered by the heart of what was the U.S., the power and respect and the responsibility of the individual with the moral foundation of Christianity. 
 

If there's a nation that is leaving its allies and associates in the dust today, that's the United States of America, and blaming others for their failings on top. Vietnam could be seen as a curiosity, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine are a trend. If the US taxpayer wants to save of defence, so be it, but then don't complain when the US becomes irrelevant, like it was in 1796.

So, what are these "messes" created and maintained by the U.S.? Afghanistan? Hardly a blimp on the world's radar. The U.S. will just be another invader that left that country, soon to be forgotten except in a chapter in a history book. 

The Middle East?  It wasn't the U.S. that set up the borders of some of the more powerful countries of this area. However, it has been the U.S. that has been, overall, Israel's best supporter. It was the U.S. that brokered a treaty between Egypt and Israel. It was the U.S. that killed one tyrant, suffered  a terrorist attack, led a response to it with the very much appreciated assistance of mainly Europe, and to this day has yet to suffer another attack like it. Another side note, to the rest of the world, do not launch a sneak attack on the U.S.

If you wish to cast a blame on the U.S., make it the rise of secular liberalism that has infected and is destroying my once great and noble country!

 

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, bojan said:

Well, he is sort of right, since good old Mustafa was a pretty nasty fuck himself, especially during WW1 , immediate aftermath and Greco-Turkish war. Far from Enver Pasha level of savagery, but even more far from a "mild reformer" he is usually held as.

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html

 

Moderation is not something one finds often in a Turk leader, but Kemal did manage to bring some unity and stability to Turkey. Kurds excepted, and that was not a good thing in my book.

I was thinking more about leaders that manage to bring back a little from the ruins of a great power. The 1990s were ghastly for most of the Russian population. Great demographic decline included. I am as anti-Communist as you could find, but I am not anti-Russian, nor anti- any group of people on the basis of them belonging to a race, nation, or whatever.

Yeltsin was a quite suboptimal leader for the Russian population, Putin is somewhat better, and he may be trying to create a new Russian middle class. I am not sure he would be able to do so.

[Rick]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:29 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

The fact remains, the US may have had the largest share, but it was dwarfed by the Europeans in total defending Europe. Many of the slated National Guard formations would have been of little use other than in setting up the graves detail.Today Im reading the US has 5 heavy brigades it can sent to Europe max. Stack that up against the 4 Divisions that Poland has, without including any of the other European powers.

This Trump mania of 'America has carried Europe for years' completely ignores how both Europes nuclear powers went Nuclear without any assistance from America at all. So much for carrying Europe. And how many European weapons projects did American Armament firms lobby to end? Even as late as Meteor, they were going to the US President to lobby the British prime minister to cancel Meteor and buy Amraam. That isnt carrying Europe, its trying to turn Europe into client states.

Look Rick, you are nice guy in many ways. But you ask for people to explain it to you, we patiently explain it, then you assert that no is isnt true because Trump seemingly told you otherwise. Its very hard to take this seriously for anyone whom sent 5 minutes studying the cold war or the modern defence of Europe.

The main point of the discussion Sunday and I are having is mainly centered on the (large) degree of assistance the U.S. gave the rest of N.A.T.O. in countering the Red Army. Sunday is stating is was needed and I'm stating it was not. You yourself stated in an earlier post Europe can not get its act together regarding the Soviet Union. To a lesser degree in our discussion is my point on how many 20th century world problems were created in Europe and because of European lack of will, poured out and over into the rest of the world. 

Let me give you a witty :0 analogy. Our discussion is being played only on a football field and yours are wandering around the stadium, the parking lot, and some of it into the neighboring bars with much the same effect. My pointing out the more informed contributions of this Grate Site on military matters is to fill out the frame work my arguments concerning said matters. 

The "Trump mania" regarding N.A.T.O. is not that "America has carried Europe" N.A.T.O., it is that N.A.T.O. has not carried it's "fair share" of the burden. Perhaps a fine point, but an important one non the less.  This has not very much to do with Soviet nukes vs British and French nukes which by themselves could have ruined the old Soviet Union. 

As far as individual weapons systems of each country and their procurement,  I leave that to  the better informed members to post. I will say that it is not the weapon chosen to do battle against the Red Army, it was the will to counter the leadership of the Soviet Union, a will that required the leadership of the U.S., and imo, unneeded if the Europe chose to do so, which they did not even though they could have.  

[Rick]

15 hours ago, Ken Estes said:

Actually, as early as the 13th Century Russia or Muskovy was considered by England to be an increasingly worrisome power for the future as it increased in size and population.

Did not know this. I'm not at all doubting you, do you have a source(s) of this?

Thank you.

[sunday]

22 minutes ago, Rick said:

The main point of the discussion Sunday and I are having is mainly centered on the (large) degree of assistance the U.S. gave the rest of N.A.T.O. in countering the Red Army. Sunday is stating is was needed and I'm stating it was not. You yourself stated in an earlier post Europe can not get its act together regarding the Soviet Union. To a lesser degree in our discussion is my point on how many 20th century world problems were created in Europe and because of European lack of will, poured out and over into the rest of the world. 

(...)

Rick, you are not discussing with me on that matter!

[Ssnake]

The main advantage that the Soviet Union back then and the US and Russia today have is that there's a unified chain of command that bundles political and military power.

Europe has the economical power necessary to finance military containment of Russia on the material level. Of that there can be no doubt. However, Europe being what it is, can't have a unified command structure. This is where it falls apart. That, and the fact that the US did not want other nations to build their own nuclear deterrence after France and Britain got theirs, so it negotiated protecting the rest of Europe under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for the non-proliferation treaty.

Also, it's pretty clear that - in a strictly hypothetical post-NPT world - as long every European nation builds its own nuclear capacity that is fundamentally incapable of a second strike capacity, the nuclear deterrence is incomplete. Every European nation would need to build up a nuclear second strike capability in order to remain credible as a threat against nuclear-backed Russian coercion.

You are, therefore, advocating a European nuclear arms capacity that would rival at least Russia's arsenal, and in sum probably exceed that of the US. I'm not sure if you are aware of the implications of what you're writing? Is that really the world that you want to live in?

[glenn239]

10 hours ago, CValdor said:

There is no scenario involving nuclear weapons that Putin doesn't believe will end with Moscow as a nuclear wasteland.

I don't care what you think Putin thinks. 

The only way Moscow would be destroyed is if New York, Washington, London, or Paris are destroyed.  I doubt Putin intends do to that.  

Russia covers 1/8th of the surface of the Earth.  To find and kill him in a tactical nuclear environment in which satellites are non-functional is a very difficult task.  It took NATO years to find and kill Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi in combat theatres only a tiny fraction the size of Russia. 

In terms of the merits to using NATO airpower to control Ukrainian airspace, it will require massive logistics inputs along key port and rail junctions at maybe 6 to 12 large air bases in Poland and/or Rumania to operate hundreds of aircraft for the SEAD mission.  Since the key nodes are these few air bases, that's where the tactical nuclear strikes will occur.  NATO will nuke 6-12 Russian bases in reply, but the Russian air force has a huge air base network and can disperse beforehand.  The NATO operation will collapse on the spot, and it's quite possible that the host countries, (Poland, Romania), will veto any further use of their territory for military ops after the first exchange.

Western markets will collapse in panic as soon as the nukes bark.  There are certain indications of fragility in our economies right now, this type of stampede could trigger a major crisis worse than 2008/2009.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by glenn239

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The main advantage that the Soviet Union back then and the US and Russia today have is that there's a unified chain of command that bundles political and military power.

Europe has the economical power necessary to finance military containment of Russia on the material level. Of that there can be no doubt. However, Europe being what it is, can't have a unified command structure. This is where it falls apart. That, and the fact that the US did not want other nations to build their own nuclear deterrence after France and Britain got theirs, so it negotiated protecting the rest of Europe under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for the non-proliferation treaty.

Also, it's pretty clear that - in a strictly hypothetical post-NPT world - as long every European nation builds its own nuclear capacity that is fundamentally incapable of a second strike capacity, the nuclear deterrence is incomplete. Every European nation would need to build up a nuclear second strike capability in order to remain credible as a threat against nuclear-backed Russian coercion.

You are, therefore, advocating a European nuclear arms capacity that would rival at least Russia's arsenal, and in sum probably exceed that of the US. I'm not sure if you are aware of the implications of what you're writing? Is that really the world that you want to live in?

You can have deterrence at a fraction if you forego a counterforce structure and instead do countervalue (ie targetting just cities until the population drops below a certain value).

Further, thanks to weapon design advances, this force can be deployed in existing platforms or made mobile, using stealth cruise missiles. 

If you want to go full craze, then Status-6 Poseidon is the answer, not vs Russia, but vs other nuclear powers I could name. But if you really want to go full retard on the cheap, suitcase nukes would work just as well. They can be pre-deployed in selected locations (ie rent an office under a shadow corporation) and wait for Der Tag.

I think the point is clear that proliferation to ease the US taxpayer burden, as Rick seems to believe, it's just a very bad idea.

[CValdor]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I don't care what you think Putin thinks. 

The only way Moscow would be destroyed is if New York, Washington, London, or Paris are destroyed.  I doubt Putin intends do to that.  

Russia covers 1/8th of the surface of the Earth.  To find and kill him in a tactical nuclear environment in which satellites are non-functional is a very difficult task.  It took NATO years to find and kill Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi in combat theatres only a tiny fraction the size of Russia. 

In terms of the merits to using NATO airpower to control Ukrainian airspace, it will require massive logistics inputs along key port and rail junctions at maybe 6 to 12 large air bases in Poland and/or Rumania to operate hundreds of aircraft for the SEAD mission.  Since the key nodes are these few air bases, that's where the tactical nuclear strikes will occur.  NATO will nuke 6-12 Russian bases in reply, but the Russian air force has a huge air base network and can disperse beforehand.  The NATO operation will collapse on the spot, and it's quite possible that the host countries, (Poland, Romania), will veto any further use of their territory for military ops after the first exchange.

Western markets will collapse in panic as soon as the nukes bark.  There are certain indications of fragility in our economies right now, this type of stampede could trigger a major crisis worse than 2008/2009.

 

 

That is a lot of words to say you think a tactical nuke to kill the president of Russia is a workable and logical plan.

Edited March 2, 2022 by CValdor
sp

[RichTO90]

It astonishes me to see that someone apparently believes the worst outcome of a nuclear exchange would be to have world markets tank and economies collapse. 😘

[Stuart Galbraith]

Look on the bright side, its gets us right back on track as far as the climate change target.👍

[Rick]

20 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The main advantage that the Soviet Union back then and the US and Russia today have is that there's a unified chain of command that bundles political and military power.

Good point and to be honest, one I have not thought about.

 

Europe has the economical power necessary to finance military containment of Russia on the material level. Of that there can be no doubt.

Thank you.

However, Europe being what it is, can't have a unified command structure. This is where it falls apart.

 Thus my repeated points of Europe lacking the will. I personally find this surprising in that Europe has a history of defense treaties among themselves. Again, just my opinion, but the U.S. and the rest of N.A.T.O. needed to gradually replace U.S. forces with European ones beginning no later than the 1960's with U.S. forces out of Europe by the 1970's, a possible exception being "tactical" nukes. 

That, and the fact that the US did not want other nations to build their own nuclear deterrence after France and Britain got theirs, so it negotiated protecting the rest of Europe under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for the non-proliferation treaty.

Also, it's pretty clear that - in a strictly hypothetical post-NPT world - as long every European nation builds its own nuclear capacity that is fundamentally incapable of a second strike capacity, the nuclear deterrence is incomplete. Every European nation would need to build up a nuclear second strike capability in order to remain credible as a threat against nuclear-backed Russian coercion. You are, therefore, advocating a European nuclear arms capacity that would rival at least Russia's arsenal, and in sum probably exceed that of the US.

I would say that as long as N.A.T.O. is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, there would be no need for Europe to develop nukes. Britain and France did so, but that does not change the relationship between the U.S. and the rest of N.A.T.O. 

I'm not sure if you are aware of the implications of what you're writing? Is that really the world that you want to live in?

What I am writing is that U.S. forces where not needed in N.A.T.O. from about the early 1970's onward with the possible exception of "tactical" nukes due to Europe having the means to counter the Soviet Union, just not the will.

I also never shared this fear of the Soviet Union and N.A.T.O. having a nuclear war for two main reasons. Whatever ideological differences that exists between  Moscow and N.A.T.O., both had enough competent civilian and military leadership to know what the results of a nuclear war would be, most likely the end of civilization.

Second, and probably not often thought of, is the Book of Revelation. Many things that will occur have not happen yet. A change in the world will eventually come, not just via a Soviet vs N.A.T.O. nuclear exchange. 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Rick