3 ms·

Since the cold war, it was always understood that it would be OTAN that would have to resort to nuclear weapons to halt a mythical soviet attack on western euro

Since the cold war, it was always understood that it would be OTAN that would have to resort to nuclear weapons to halt a mythical soviet attack on western europe. There's no conceivable scenario the United States could sustain the logistic chains to engage in a sustained land war in Europe against the soviets in the cold war, and now even less so. Given the preponderance of artillery of the Russians, I really doubt the current numbers from the delusional british about their losses in Ukrain, but supposing Russia would incur 250 deaths year to subdue Estonia is beyond the realms of the most fantastic political sciences major military fantasy. The United States fought for 20 years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban regime with the Taliban at the cost of more than 2 trillion dollars. Even nominal success like Desert Storm were not the military triumph it seems as besides Saddam's army being a poor excuse of a military force, widespread bribing was used to guarantee several Iraq's military units would not fight. Hitler employed 111 divisions on the Barbarossa plan, with the known results. The US has currently 5 divisions equivalent in state of readiness plus some other ten that would take take time. Any serious american operation against Russia in Eastern Europe would thus necessitate a draft in far bigger proportions than the Vietnam's era Draft, in a population that is way less jingoistic than the boomers eager to prove they were up to the heroic acts of the silent generation that overcome the Axis in the battlefield. A lot of american industrial production has been downsized and sizable parts of it depend on global supply chains. While american weaponry are technologically impressive, most of it was designed by the most byzantine and politicized proccess you could imagine with the goal of guaranteeing politicians votes in their turfs and to maximize returns for the Military Industry shareholders. American weaponry is maintainance intensive, have low availability and depend on optimal conditions to be operated and mantained. They also depend on robust ISR. All things that a smart enemy with hypersonic weapons and space capabilities would make sure to deny on the first day. The idea that the United States could prevail in a direct lan war against Russia or a naval conflict against China is a fantasy.

nradov 2y ago
There is a straightforward way to win a naval conflict against China, which is basically a repeat of the strategy used with great success against Japan in WWII. Use mines and submarines to cut off their fossil fuel, food, and fertilizer imports. Starve them to death. Chinese leaders are aware of this vulnerability, and are working hard to reduce dependence on foreign energy as well as building a blue water navy that can protect their sea lines of communication. But progress has been slow. As for Russia, their internal economy is very weak and they have far less industrial capacity than the old USSR. The only way they are able to financially sustain the invasion of Ukraine is through huge fossil fuel exports. Those exports pass through a limited set of choke points including pipelines, refineries, tank farms, and ports which are impossible to defend and can be wrecked with stand-off weapons. Some of your criticisms of overly complex US weapons systems are valid, but our cruise missiles are proven to work reliably.
- NoOn3 2y ago
  It doesn't make much sense to be measured by classical armies if all these countries unfortunately have nuclear weapons and can use them in case of a critical situation. And that's the scariest part. :( It's better to find a middle ground in negotiations somehow.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    Yes, actually, that's my point. Escalation is inevitable should a real war start. And it will be the United States that will have to resort to nuclear weapons to avoid a defeat. It will work, and you could probably even say thereafter that the US won the war. But, it will be a pyrric victory.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Sounds good. Everyone loves negotiations when they get what they want. Do you think those negotiations will result in China and Russia ceasing their attempts to seize territory from our allies? If not then we might have to take other measures. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we seem to be on a long-term collision course for fundamental geopolitical reasons that will extend beyond the current US presidential administration.
    - NoOn3 2y ago
      Maybe I'm biased because I'm Russian. But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries, Russia already has a very large territory. Ukraine is a different story, there really are a lot of people there who used to live in the same country with Russia(USSR) and speak only Russian language and really sympathize Russia. I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid. As I wrote earlier NATO currently has more troops and equipment than Russia.
      - nradov 2y ago
        The current Russian leader sees the collapse of the USSR as a "tragedy". And since 1990 they they have invaded Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine (after repeatedly promising that they wouldn't). That looks like a pattern. I understand why Russia is doing it to create defensible strategic depth due to lack of natural geographic barriers around their population centers. But that doesn't make it right, and regardless of moral issues Russian expansionism is certainly contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies. Who will be the next victim, perhaps Estonia? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-collapse-demise-historical-russia-2021-12-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-colla... I bear no ill will towards Russian people but while the current malign leadership remains in power we should use all means short of war to contain, undermine, impoverish, and generally humiliate the country. Grind them into the dust until they can no longer present a credible threat. But that's just my opinion.

nradov 2y ago

There is a straightforward way to win a naval conflict against China, which is basically a repeat of the strategy used with great success against Japan in WWII. Use mines and submarines to cut off their fossil fuel, food, and fertilizer imports. Starve them to death. Chinese leaders are aware of this vulnerability, and are working hard to reduce dependence on foreign energy as well as building a blue water navy that can protect their sea lines of communication. But progress has been slow. As for Russia, their internal economy is very weak and they have far less industrial capacity than the old USSR. The only way they are able to financially sustain the invasion of Ukraine is through huge fossil fuel exports. Those exports pass through a limited set of choke points including pipelines, refineries, tank farms, and ports which are impossible to defend and can be wrecked with stand-off weapons. Some of your criticisms of overly complex US weapons systems are valid, but our cruise missiles are proven to work reliably.

NoOn3 2y ago
It doesn't make much sense to be measured by classical armies if all these countries unfortunately have nuclear weapons and can use them in case of a critical situation. And that's the scariest part. :( It's better to find a middle ground in negotiations somehow.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Yes, actually, that's my point. Escalation is inevitable should a real war start. And it will be the United States that will have to resort to nuclear weapons to avoid a defeat. It will work, and you could probably even say thereafter that the US won the war. But, it will be a pyrric victory.
- nradov 2y ago
  Sounds good. Everyone loves negotiations when they get what they want. Do you think those negotiations will result in China and Russia ceasing their attempts to seize territory from our allies? If not then we might have to take other measures. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we seem to be on a long-term collision course for fundamental geopolitical reasons that will extend beyond the current US presidential administration.
  - NoOn3 2y ago
    Maybe I'm biased because I'm Russian. But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries, Russia already has a very large territory. Ukraine is a different story, there really are a lot of people there who used to live in the same country with Russia(USSR) and speak only Russian language and really sympathize Russia. I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid. As I wrote earlier NATO currently has more troops and equipment than Russia.
    - nradov 2y ago
      The current Russian leader sees the collapse of the USSR as a "tragedy". And since 1990 they they have invaded Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine (after repeatedly promising that they wouldn't). That looks like a pattern. I understand why Russia is doing it to create defensible strategic depth due to lack of natural geographic barriers around their population centers. But that doesn't make it right, and regardless of moral issues Russian expansionism is certainly contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies. Who will be the next victim, perhaps Estonia? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-collapse-demise-historical-russia-2021-12-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-colla... I bear no ill will towards Russian people but while the current malign leadership remains in power we should use all means short of war to contain, undermine, impoverish, and generally humiliate the country. Grind them into the dust until they can no longer present a credible threat. But that's just my opinion.