NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

[Martineleca]

More like he should hope to God it doesn't, his dirty tricks in the western Balkans are being tolerated by the powers that be for now, but won't be in the case of total war breaking out and him potentially trying to take advantage of the chaos to stirr up trouble in NATO's rear.

[glenn239]

16 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

More like he should hope to God it doesn't, his dirty tricks in the western Balkans are being tolerated by the powers that be for now, but won't be in the case of total war breaking out and him potentially trying to take advantage of the chaos to stirr up trouble in NATO's rear.

Hungary and Turkey, are questionable partners in NATO, and Serbia occupies a spot where communications to Rumania could become difficult.  The whole thing looks like it could turn into a pain in the ass.  In terms of your threat to bomb Serbia back into the stone age, my guess would be that if Sino-American relations are good that might be possible.  If they are bad, then I doubt the NATO neighbours of Serbia needed for air bases will be in a rush to play that game.

[Perun]

[Martineleca]

9 hours ago, Perun said:

Not sure about the US B-61 bombs, but aren't the French tactical nuclear missiles always on standby?

[Stuart Galbraith]

The British nuclear deterrent is theoretically dual hatted to NATO. Those are the terms the Americans supplied us with Polaris and Trident.  So yes, some are already on alert.

He is probably more likely talking about keeping American B61's  hung on aircraft on QRA, which presumably includes German aircraft. Yes children, the good old days of nuclear QRA are here again!

[Mike1158]

What with global warming, we could always do with some more sunshine.  Even instant.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

What with global warming, we could always do with some more sunshine.  Even instant.

It was precisely the constant vigilance of thousands atomic weapons of all sizes that could unleash hell on earth that dissuaded the Soviets from trying their luck, presently what's left of that deterrent appears lacking in the face of the Chinese and Russian nuclear buildup that must be answered by the West with both nuclear and conventional rearmament on a similar scale.

Edited June 18, 2024 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

What with global warming, we could always do with some more sunshine.  Even instant.

Well its one way to kick start British Summer Time I suppose....

[Martineleca]

On 6/17/2024 at 8:10 PM, glenn239 said:

In terms of your threat to bomb Serbia back into the stone age, my guess would be that if Sino-American relations are good that might be possible.  If they are bad, then I doubt the NATO neighbours of Serbia needed for air bases will be in a rush to play that game.

I don't see the point in bombing Serbia, it just needs to be made strategically insignificant which considering it's landlocked would be fairly easy to do. Shutting down the Serb border crossings to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia for just a few months would reduce much of the clearly organized violence there by 90%. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by Martineleca

[bojan]

On 6/17/2024 at 6:46 PM, Martineleca said:

More like he should hope to God it doesn't, his dirty tricks in the western Balkans are being tolerated by the powers that be for now, but won't be in the case of total war breaking out and him potentially trying to take advantage of the chaos to stirr up trouble in NATO's rear.

You suck his coolaid as well as his voters.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

You suck his coolaid as well as his voters.

He is in a very difficult position, I don't believe he wants things in the Western Balkans to flare up any more than they already have, but he also has radicals within his own government that he has to appease. If he suspends covert and sometimes as in Pristina no so covert operations in neighbouring states the security apparatus in his country that is wholly beholden to the Kremlin will simply have him removed, the situation is startlingly similar to events leading up to WW1.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

...If he suspends covert and sometimes as in Pristina no so covert operations in neighbouring states...

Which neighboring states?

[ink]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

He is in a very difficult position, I don't believe he wants things in the Western Balkans to flare up any more than they already have, but he also has radicals within his own government that he has to appease. If he suspends covert and sometimes as in Pristina no so covert operations in neighbouring states the security apparatus in his country that is wholly beholden to the Kremlin will simply have him removed, the situation is startlingly similar to events leading up to WW1.

My friend, please stick to subjects you know something about.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Martineleca said:

I don't see the point in bombing Serbia, it just needs to be made strategically insignificant which considering it's landlocked would be fairly easy to do. Shutting down the Serb border crossings to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia for just a few months would reduce much of the clearly organized violence there by 90%. 

Sounds feasible.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Which neighboring states?

Pretty much all that aren't members of NATO, even if some of them host allied troops like KFOR those mostly guard against outbreaks of fighting between militias and leave the lower level stuff to local authorities, you've heard of the Banjska attack yes?

[bojan]

59 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

...Banjska attack...

Conflict among two groups of weapon smugglers that have previously worked together.

Edited June 19, 2024 by bojan

[Martineleca]

10 hours ago, bojan said:

Conflict among two groups of weapon smugglers that have previously worked together.

They had access to some serious military hardware including APCs, we're not talking about Africa or South America here, it's difficult to imagine how such equipment could have been accumulated without some level of state assistance. Shows how all governments in that region just aren't doing enough to stifle such illegal activities...

Edited June 20, 2024 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 6/18/2024 at 6:51 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well its one way to kick start British Summer Time I suppose....

I wonder if the total number of B-61 bombs in NATO's nuclear sharing scheme will increase if Poland, Czechia and Romania are added. Currently a hundred are available in five countries, that may have to increase to at least two hundred, Sweden is also a likely future candidate.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I cant see Sweden picking them up. They are only just coming to terms with not being a neutral, hanging B61's on their Gripens is probably a bit much to expect.

I wouldnt put them past hosting nuclear capable assets thought. After all during the cold war they did build recovery bases for American and British nuclear bombers.

[Ssnake]

I think the US manufacturers are in no hurry to certify any non-US plane for the delivery of B61s. They made that much clear shortly before Putin kicked off the current war, and as a consequence Germany ordered F-35 which was a quite contentious issue before. So, whethere Swedes want or would tolerate the Gripen as a delivery platform is pretty much irrelevant for at least the next ten years.

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I think the US manufacturers are in no hurry to certify any non-US plane for the delivery of B61s. They made that much clear shortly before Putin kicked off the current war, and as a consequence Germany ordered F-35 which was a quite contentious issue before. So, whethere Swedes want or would tolerate the Gripen as a delivery platform is pretty much irrelevant for at least the next ten years.

It's possible they'd purchase a squadron of either F-16s or F-35s to fulfill the nuclear role like Germany did, Sweden may have just ended hundreds years of neutrality, but the swiftness of their inclusion in NATO reveals a healthy enthusiasm to participate in all areas of defense. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its just a lot easier all round to invite in a squadron of Americans or Germans, and let them do the mission.

Im not sure I really understand the Swedish political opinion on this. Ive read that quite a few still arent that keen at fastening the NATO colours to the mast. if thats the case, it strikes me that its a lot easier to not rock the boat, and pass on any nuclear forces in the country at all. After all, Norway and Denmark presumably wouldnt have much trouble, and its near enough to Sweden to cover it if necessary.

What would be most interesting for me is what Finland does. Their F18's presumably are theoretically capable of carrying B61's, or would be if they are upgraded to a PAL. Whether they are interested in doing that is again, something ive not read any public discussion about.  But having a nuclear capable neighbour within strike range of St Petersburg is surely going to readjust a lot of Russian assumptions about the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and for that reason is certainly worth considering.

IMHO, what is really lacking is not tactical nuclear capable aircraft, which I think are a bit passe these days. Whats really needed is tactical nuclear missiles like Lance, and intermediate range like Pershing. Good luck with getting those developed.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Perun]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its just a lot easier all round to invite in a squadron of Americans or Germans, and let them do the mission.

Im not sure I really understand the Swedish political opinion on this. Ive read that quite a few still arent that keen at fastening the NATO colours to the mast. if thats the case, it strikes me that its a lot easier to not rock the boat, and pass on any nuclear forces in the country at all. After all, Norway and Denmark presumably wouldnt have much trouble, and its near enough to Sweden to cover it if necessary.

What would be most interesting for me is what Finland does. Their F18's presumably are theoretically capable of carrying B61's, or would be if they are upgraded to a PAL. Whether they are interested in doing that is again, something ive not read any public discussion about.  But having a nuclear capable neighbour within strike range of St Petersburg is surely going to readjust a lot of Russian assumptions about the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and for that reason is certainly worth considering.

IMHO, what is really lacking is not tactical nuclear capable aircraft, which I think are a bit passe these days. Whats really needed is tactical nuclear missiles like Lance, and intermediate range like Pershing. Good luck with getting those developed.

Why would finland be any diferent then the rest of NATO members and NATO N bomb sharing

[Perun]

NATO Countries Hold Talks to Deploy More Nuclear Weapons

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34446