6 ms·

-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Balti

by lb1lf 7y ago

-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea. The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.

erdos4d 7y ago
The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
- kryptiskt 7y ago
  There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
  - erdos4d 7y ago
    Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
    - Talanes 7y ago
      Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
- csomar 7y ago
  Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  The lobbying of nukes by the Russians would result 100% in an first strike attack by the US. Once they have shown that they are willing to use the nukes the only logical tactic is to try to cut the head off quickly. Right now the odds are on the US could destroy a good percent of the Russian nukes before they receive the order to launch as the US have a better accuracy and quicker launch time. If you wait then you are waiting for them to launch first which means even when you have time to response you have lost. This is the real world math that results in a less screwed outcome (for some meaning of screwed).
  - mongol 7y ago
    Considering that scenario today, it would be president Trump who would make that call, thus I don't think so. I can not even imagine what he would do in such a situation but I don't think he would strike Russia.
- stefanfisk 7y ago
  Nuking Malmö is equivalent to nuking Copenhagen, and after that NATO is in the game.
m0zg 7y ago
Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.

by lb1lf 7y ago

erdos4d 7y ago

The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.

kryptiskt 7y ago
There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
- erdos4d 7y ago
  Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
  - Talanes 7y ago
    Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
lb1lf 7y ago
-As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
csomar 7y ago
Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
The lobbying of nukes by the Russians would result 100% in an first strike attack by the US. Once they have shown that they are willing to use the nukes the only logical tactic is to try to cut the head off quickly. Right now the odds are on the US could destroy a good percent of the Russian nukes before they receive the order to launch as the US have a better accuracy and quicker launch time. If you wait then you are waiting for them to launch first which means even when you have time to response you have lost. This is the real world math that results in a less screwed outcome (for some meaning of screwed).
- mongol 7y ago
  Considering that scenario today, it would be president Trump who would make that call, thus I don't think so. I can not even imagine what he would do in such a situation but I don't think he would strike Russia.
stefanfisk 7y ago
Nuking Malmö is equivalent to nuking Copenhagen, and after that NATO is in the game.

m0zg 7y ago

Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.

NicoJuicy 7y ago
It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
avianlyric 7y ago
I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
jcranmer 7y ago
This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.