A USA ally

[sgrig]

If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation went to war, then neither side would use nuclear weapons. Neither side is that stupid. That argument is moot.

Russia specifically says in its military doctrine, that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack. This would always be the last resort option, and no-one would know at which point the nerves would snap. Because of this uncertainty, NATO would never attack Russia (unless of course Russia itself launches a Cold War style armoured attack through the Fulda gap, but this is of course impossible nowadays).

 

[GoodGame]

Bottom line: Bush isn't going to stick his neck out here, especially with his party's political chances being a little iffy, even though some CFCers seem to think he is a compulsive, moronic warhawk. The Dems would totally harp on a brand new war being started by the Bush-republicans. Result: Dems in power and the USA kind of isolationist.

Possibly if the there was a mass act in the West, the USA would act likewise. Otherwise no reason for the US to stick it's neck out if the bulk of her allies won't.

EDIT: according to CNN there now has been a unified call for international mediation. Putin responded to Bush by comparing the situation to Iraq.

 

[Traitorfish]

If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation went to war, then neither side would use nuclear weapons. Neither side is that stupid. That argument is moot.

If two major international forces could go to war over a pseudo-nation with a population that couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, then their stupidity is damn near limitless...

 

[Zarn]

Russia specifically says in its military doctrine, that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack. This would always be the last resort option, and no-one would know at which point the nerves would snap. Because of this uncertainty, NATO would never attack Russia (unless of course Russia itself launches a Cold War style armoured attack through the Fulda gap, but this is of course impossible nowadays).

Military Doctrine is tough talk.

If two major international forces could go to war over a pseudo-nation with a population that couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, then their stupidity is damn near limitless...

One is only a national force.

Also, if Scotland was under attack, you would be singing a different tune.

 

[JohnRM]

The right thing to do here is a very delicate matter. We cannot risk nuclear war for any one nation.

 

[Zarn]

The right thing to do here is a very delicate matter. We cannot risk nuclear war for any one nation.

Seriously, why would Russia use nukes?

We do not even need to invade.

 

[red_elk]

Seriously, why would Russia use nukes?

We do not even need to invade.

If you will not invade, Russia will not use nukes.

 

[Naval Power]

Just get Charlie Wilson to start another war, he beat the Soviets once he can beat their lesser selves again!

 

[Dubzilla8]

I swear, according to the people outside of the United States, this country is screwed no matter what it does. We get crap if we don't protect Georgia. We get crap if we do protect Georgia. They wonder why the "typical American" thinks their country is such an important factor in world politics. Sometimes I wonder why we just don't let the rest burn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc78yPv_ztM

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I swear, according to the people outside of the United States, this country is screwed no matter what it does. We get crap if we don't protect Georgia. We get crap if we do protect Georgia.

Yep yep yep. And I'm just not going to watch your video because I already agree with you.

 

[Zarn]

If you will not invade, Russia will not use nukes.

I doubt Russia would use them anyway.

I was talking about fighting it out in Georgia from a stragetic point of view. Fighting in Georgia would not be an invasion. If Russia does invade NATO countries (taking the war further than Georgia), Russia would have trouble controlling/ occupying them, especially since NATO's more powerful countries do not have to defend their own turf so much. They would be able to aid other ones.

I know you wouldn't agree with the given condition of needing to go to war with Russia. I'm not asking for that.

 

[Holycannoli]

Hey at least Russia has the balls to go out there and take what they want. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do kinda have to admire a country that tries to further it's own interests.

Now at the same time, why are we sitting back letting one of our supposed allies be overrun by our former enemy who we still have uneasy relations with today? Why are we jeopardizing the pipelines? This is a helluva sticky situation. We really are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[SirLamphead]

I doubt Russia would use them anyway.

Don't be so sure. If a country is on it's knees and about to be destroyed nukes would be launched. If Bush would threaten Iraq with a nuke (Which he did) then Putin would surely USE nukes if we were about to whoop them.

I think the strategy of just putting troops in Georgia is a much better option than a full scale invasion (find the man-power).

 

[Zarn]

The thing is that Russia would not want its population decimated by a non-conventional counter-attack. There are no 70 virgins or whatever waiting for them.

 

[SirLamphead]

The thing is that Russia would not want its population decimated by a non-conventional counter-attack. There are no 70 virgins or whatever waiting for them.

Nor are there for anyone else (by the way its 72 not 70). Also I don't think the US or any other European coutry would want its populatiopn decimated by non-conventianal meens. Seeing as Russia is second (some say first) in nuclear stockpiles.

 

[red_elk]

I doubt Russia would use them anyway.

I was talking about fighting it out in Georgia from a stragetic point of view. Fighting in Georgia would not be an invasion. If Russia does invade NATO countries (taking the war further than Georgia), Russia would have trouble controlling/ occupying them, especially since NATO's more powerful countries do not have to defend their own turf so much. They would be able to aid other ones.

I know you wouldn't agree with the given condition of needing to go to war with Russia. I'm not asking for that.

You really don't understand what you are talking about. Any attack of USA to Russia (as vice versa) would lead to quick escalation to full-scale war at all war theaters. To "beat out" big group of troops you will need to use combined forces, air support, at least comparable group of ground forces. And Russia will respond with all means it has, probably excluding strategic nuclear forces at first. But what USA will do if one of their carrier group would be destroyed by anti-ship missiles? This all would quickly grow to full-scale response.

 

[Dubzilla8]

Don't be so sure. If a country is on it's knees and about to be destroyed nukes would be launched. If Bush would threaten Iraq with a nuke (Which he did) then Putin would surely USE nukes if we were about to whoop them.

I think the strategy of just putting troops in Georgia is a much better option than a full scale invasion (find the man-power).

I would be absolutely THRILLED to see ANY evidence of this statement WHATSOEVER.

 

[Zarn]

You really don't understand what you are talking about. Any attack of USA to Russia (as vice versa) would lead to quick escalation to full-scale war at all war theaters. To "beat out" big group of troops you will need to use combined forces, air support, at least comparable group of ground forces. And Russia will respond with all means it has, probably excluding strategic nuclear forces at first. But what USA will do if one of their carrier group would be destroyed by anti-ship missiles? This all would quickly grow to full-scale response.

That would really be up to your country. They know that if they throw everything conventional into it, NATO would win.

Not to mention China being angered over Russia's attempt to dismantle the balance of power, attacking some of their economic partners...

The same goes for India.

 

[SirLamphead]

You really don't understand what you are talking about. Any attack of USA to Russia (as vice versa) would lead to quick escalation to full-scale war at all war theaters. To "beat out" big group of troops you will need to use combined forces, air support, at least comparable group of ground forces. And Russia will respond with all means it has, probably excluding strategic nuclear forces at first. But what USA will do if one of their carrier group would be destroyed by anti-ship missiles? This all would quickly grow to full-scale response.

And you don't understand desperation. You really think Russia would sit back, let the EU and US take over it's land and resources and not launch a nuke? Give me a break Mr. Know-it-all.

I would be absolutely THRILLED to see ANY evidence of this statement WHATSOEVER.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RAM212A.html

Against Iran:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...-nuclear-strike/2006/04/19/1145344155565.html

 

[red_elk]

That would really be up to your country. They know that if they throw everthing conventional into it, NATO would win.

Depends on what would be goal. In reality, USA could use ballistic missiles first, facing big casualties, as attacker.

If they will bomb from, say, air bases in Europe, and Russia will not have anything to respond (e.g. fighters, SAM systems are destroyed), of course tactical nukes would be used against air bases. That's the goal of nuclear weapons - to prevent situations, described by you.